I came across this graphic. I thought it interesting. I think their intent was to say gun control causes crime, but my first blush read isn’t that it’s saying gun control causes crime, but that other social changes that cause crime tend to lead to gun control, and then repeal of those stupid laws are usually caused by other social changes that, in concert with liberalized gun laws, tend to push crime back down.![Ayj53JB[1]](https://blog.joehuffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ayj53JB1.jpg)
Got the pic at http://i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg , just FYI.
The US District Court of Appeals for Northern District of Illinois struck down Chicago’s gun ban. Legalese here, or a plain English analysis here. They said:
The ban covers federally licensed firearms dealers; even validly licensed dealers cannot sell firearms in Chicago. The ban covers gifts amongst family members; only through inheritance can someone transfer a firearm to a family member. Chicago does all this in the name of reducing gun violence. That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens. The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm,although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.
@tl671 @jbiros @linoge_wotc @know_one999 @tdubb Well, clinging to phallic symbols to feel like a man SHOULD be a want, not a “need”, but ok.
John Manley (@johnironmanley)
Tweeted on May 30, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
The two new moves on gun control are further proof that President Barack Obama will continue to go ahead with any and all possible moves on guns. It also signals that, for the foreseeable future in Congress, any new measures on gun control are dead.
Brett LoGiurato
January 3, 2013
Obama’s Two New Moves On Guns Are Further Proof That Gun Control In Congress Is Dead
[This is true at the Federal level. They had their last stand and they lost.
But it is not true at the state level.
Here in Washington we have two gun control initiatives coming up this year. One is pro-gun and the other is anti-gun. My guess is that the good guys will win but the wider the margin the better the long term results. If we really stomp on them again like the 71%-29% victory with I-676 in 1997 we can essentially remove the current crop of anti-gun people in this state from the political map. Washington Ceasefire, the anti-gun group behind I-676, has not been a political force since their massive loss. Remember, we win because they screw up. They pushed for an assault weapon ban after Newtown which motivated the gun rights people. Then when they backed down we had the political momentum to stop everything they had on their wish list and silence them at the Federal level for the foreseeable future.
Other than defeat gun control politically what you can do is to defeat it culturally. Take someone to the range. New shooters, people that used to shoot but not recently, participate in or start a league, and get people to participate in IPDA, USPSA, Steel Challenge, or Boomershoot. The more regular shooters we have the less likely the anti-gun people are to get votes or even get traction in the media. Besides, as @LittlKit says, “It’s just fun!”
—Joe]
What if every public venue had a remote transmitter on its premises which sent a signal to the safety lock locking the trigger making any gun within its protected zone unable to be fired? What if any attempt to tamper with the lock or interrupt a signal from a transmitter resulted in automatically locking the trigger, which then could only be unlocked by a bonded gunsmith?
…
[W]e already have this technology. All that remains is a serious commitment and collaboration among government leaders, gun manufacturers. the NRA and concerned citizens.
Charles Santagati
January 2, 2014
Letter: Remote locks could provide gun control
[I don’t know how Santagati crosses back and forth between his reality and the one I am familiar with but I suspect it involves not taking his medications in a timely manner. He has no idea what he is talking about.
The stupid and ignorance is so rampant in his blatherings that I’ll only hit the high points of the ones that might not be obvious to casual observers.
This is part of why we win. The other side thinks they are so smart and so clever when in fact many of them really are this stupid, ignorant and/or delusional.—Joe]
Just as a governor of an engine maintains the speed of the engine at a particular speed setting, government, in the most general sense, is a means of keeping things consistent and predictable.
Some examples of a consistent and predictable government:
This consistency and predictability promotes the general welfare to such a great extent that it is probably impossible to accurately forecast and it can only be crudely measured under extraordinary circumstances.
This difficulty in measurement works both ways. Just as it is difficult to know how much benefit there is to consistent and predictable government it is also difficult to know how much disadvantage there is to inconsistent and unpredictable government. Politicians use this to their great advantage by giving favor to special interest groups and individuals.
But regardless of the difficulty of measurement we know, without any doubt, that inconsistent and unpredictability is the exact opposite of government in the most general sense. It is bad government. It does not create “social justice”. It cannot be considered “doing the right thing even if it is unlawful.” It means people do not have a stable environment. It creates uncertainty and risk that ripples through our entire society. It encourages, nay, requires, people to seek special treatment from the political elite to protect themselves and to punish enemies and competitors.
Yet it is happening now. It is happening in our country.
There were contracts and bankruptcy laws that cover the situation where a corporation has expenses and debts that exceed their capacity to pay. Yet these laws were ignored when certain “to big to fail” corporations actually did fail. The U.S. government bailed out GM using money allocated for other uses. This misallocation of money was done under both the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not within their authority to make such changes in the laws.
It is against the law to sell or transfer firearms to people with felony criminal records. Yet the ATF demanded that many gun stores do exactly that in operation “Fast and Furious”. The publically stated reason was to “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders.” But they did nothing more than “hope”, if that, on the tracking part of the operation. Many observers concluded the real reason for the operation was to aid in the creation of new, and probably unconstitutional, gun laws in the U.S. It was not within the authority granted to the ATF by Congress to arm violent criminals nor to enable crime for the purposes of creating new laws which violate the rights of innocent people.
We have laws that specifically state that purchases of multiple long guns do not require any special reporting as is required for handguns (18 USC 923(g)(3)(A)). Yet in some states the ATF requires the same special reporting for long guns just as it does for handguns. The ATF is a law enforcement agency. It does not have the authority to make laws. For them to do this is no different than for some local sheriff to create a 9:00 PM curfew for all dark skinned people or a registry of homosexuals. It is not within their authority to make such changes in the laws.
We have a law that says all health insurance plans must conform to certain minimum standards of coverage. Yet President Obama, without changing the law, told insurance companies they could continue selling the banned policies. It is not within his authority to make such changes in the laws.
The IRS was used as a tool to harass political enemies. It is not within their authority to use the tax system to oppress innocent people.
The NSA captures almost all Internet traffic and stores it, apparently indefinitely. This includes all email and your most personal financial and medical information. They do this in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We have laws that specifically forbid the violation of, or even conspiracy to violate, civil rights (18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242). Yet individuals and governments routinely violate these laws without consequence.
We do not have the rule of law in this country. We have the rule of people who imagine themselves philosopher kings with all the corresponding hazards.
This JFK quote keeps running through my head:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
A peaceful “revolution” involves changing the laws and replacing public servants. But nearly all the servants seem to believe they are the masters and laws are ignored with impunity. So, if JFK was correct, doesn’t that mean violent revolution is inevitable? And doesn’t it also mean that those in political power made it so?
There are parallels between the firearm bans and registration requirements enacted by the Weimar Republic and those proposed by President Obama. Only law-abiding persons obeyed those laws. Weimar authorities warned that the lists of gun owners must not fall into the hands of “radical elements.” The lists fell right into the hands of the Nazis when they assumed power. Gun owner data can be misused by the government today just as it did in the IRS scandal, and it can be hacked for nefarious purposes.
Stephen Halbrook
Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”
[If were one to use the set of people being spied up by the government as the ‘Enemies of the State’ then it would appear our government has a lot of enemies. That would explain why so many people in government want us disarmed. We are their enemies.
And in addition to that provided in Halbrook’s book there is a substantial quantity of data to support the assertion that we must not allow ourselves to be disarmed.—Joe]
Gun-control advocates, and their friends in Congress and state legislatures, must admit to themselves that the fixes they propose are mainly symbolic. There is a striking timidity to the gun-control movement. America is awash in guns — about 300 million are now in private hands. Mainstream, incremental, gun control measures, if enacted, would not reduce the number of guns in society, and they would only work at the margins of the problem. In other words, laws that would have prohibited the Newtown killer’s mother from acquiring her weapons would have been more helpful.
Jeffrey Goldberg
December 20, 2013
Jeffrey Goldberg: Why Newtown didn’t change America
[If you read his entire post you will discover Goldberg has a good understanding of the gun politics. The only thing he messes up above where he expresses his belief that “laws that would have prohibited the Newtown killer’s mother from acquiring her weapons would have been more helpful”.
He apparently does not understand a couple of things. It’s too bad because that understand is critical to his reaching the correct conclusion. Those items are:
I applaud Goldberg’s call to gun control advocates to recognize they are mainly symbolic and do not advocate for practical benefits. But he still needs addition education and, contrary to the gun control advocates, I think he is rational and honest enough to learn.—Joe]
Advocacy organizations can play an important role in any public debate regardless of their size. But the trick is to figure out who you’re really talking to and whether or not they will listen to what you have to say. If Moms wants to have a real impact on the argument over guns, why don’t they talk to gun owners and stop wasting their energy on convincing people who don’t need to be convinced? And you don’t talk to gun people by throwing up a website or a Facebook page and ‘invite’ them to post a comment or engage in a chat. Maybe that strategy works when you’re selling a product, but it’s rank arrogance to confuse marketing a product with marketing an idea.
Mike Weisser
December 29, 2013
The Confrontational Gun Control Strategy That Just Might Work
[The anti-gun people have an incredible amount of arrogance. And ignorance. And profound disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
Don’t expect them to ever understand why they do and should loose the battle they are fighting. They have mental problems and even as they are swept into the dustbin of history by the legislatures and the courts they will still believe they are right. Their mindset does not, and will never, have a significant difference from that of the KKK of the last century. We are the “gun n***ers” of the 21st Century and they want us “put in our place”.—Joe]
The only reason men want a gun in their pocket it because their penis doesn’t work, be a man not a weak excuse for one
Paul @hairymodelwanaB
Tweeted on May 17, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
And what does Paul think the reason a woman would want a gun in their pocket I wonder. Penis envy?
Occam’s Razor would suggest self-defense is the better answer.—Joe]
While at Wade’s yesterday Barb overheard someone asking about purchasing a suppressor. After we left I gave her more details about the process.
Her comment was, “That’s a soul sucking experience.”
Yup. You have to have your soul sucked in order to exercise a specific enumerated right. This isn’t the way this country is supposed to be run.
The Brady Campaign meeting is the CSGV meeting is the Moms Demand [something] meeting. Hand the microphone to the next person, and you’ve got the next meeting.
Archer
December 13, 2013
Comment to Small goals from small minds.
[There is a lot of truth to that.—Joe]
Barb spent soon time in Idaho with me this week. Dad wanted her to see how much better the room in basement was since she was there the last time. After Dad showed off the improvements I saw something in the gun cabinet I wanted to show her.
It was the old Winchester 32-20 that had hung on the wall of my bedroom for many years as I grew up. It had belonged to my grandfather and my Great Uncle Walt (Grandpa Huffman’s brother) had shot his first coyote with it when he was 10 years old.
Under some of the more repressive laws in this country it is banned as being an assault rifle because it has a capacity of greater 10 rounds. But as it was originally used it was a great gun for kids because of it’s light weight, relatively low cost to shoot, and light recoil.
@Rivers513 handguns kill more than the assault murder guns. I’m going after them all #GunSense
Unarmed Barista (@GunzAreBad)
Tweeted on December 16, 2013
[Yeah. Tell me again that, “No one wants to take your guns.”
This may be a troll account so this may not be as good as example as I thought it was.—Joe]
Nothing more disgusting than a female gun nut.
“Guest”
June 2013
Comment to Children and Guns: The Fear and the Reality
[You disgust them and they want to take your means of self defense away. It sounds to me like someone is channeling the KKK.—Joe]
I hope that CNN and Fox News and ABC and all of the news outlets broadcast live feeds from the destruction of the guns once they are criminalized. We’ll have trash compactors reducing the guns to pieces of unrecognizable metal. The death-worshipping guns nuts will be watching TV, tears streaming down their cheeks, shrieking “OUR GUNS! OUR GUNS!” Their children will ask them what time supper is, and they will backhand them across the face and shout “DON’T TALK BACK TO ME! THEY’RE DESTROYING OUR GUNS!”
Anonymous Reader
July 26, 2001
Comment to The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[This is what they think about people who exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Merry Christmas.—Joe]
From Reason comes a report of a study about An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates. Their conclusion, unexpectedly of course, is that assault weapon bans don’t do squat, and limiting the legal ownership and carry of guns for self defense (or, presumably, other purposes) increases crime rates. I’m sure we are all shocked that enforcing and encouraging defensive passivity and defenselessness encourages criminals, but there you have it.
Interestingly, and not surprisingly coming from The Left, he is advocating capital punishment for possessing a philosophy rather than committing an act. Looking at history, that appears to be a constant.
That said philosophy is supported by, and adheres to, centuries of documented, established rights, which in turn is supported by the natural laws of this particular planet, is irrelevant to him; it is the philosophy he considers so dangerous.
This is certainly a real stretch – for the moment, anyway – but at what level does such a threat constitute basis for justifiable defensive action? For now it’s just talk; I suspect as political power waxes and wanes it may not always be.
Predator
December 19, 2013
Referring to This is what they think of you
[To answer the question, it depends upon what your definition of “justifiable defensive action” is.
I consider defensive training, stocking up on ammo, and keeping my home location difficult to find “defensive action” and more than justified by the current enumerable threats to my philosophy, person, and family. If you are talking about using deadly force as the “justifiable defensive action” then the answer is when the threat is eminent and of a nature that it would result in death or permanent injury to an innocent person.
Other than that I have nothing to add.—Joe]
@UnitedLiberals It’s what Ben Franklin would of wanted. #NRAdicklesswonders
rich roberts @boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!—Joe]
Watching Aborn’s attempt to define fear of gun bans as paranoid while arguing in favor of gun bans makes me disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders.
Clayton Cramer
December 17, 2013
Not Trying to Ban Guns – Except When We Are
[H/T to Say Uncle.
The problem is they have mental problems. They literally cannot see they contributed to the situation.
I have a lot of experience dealing with this sort of “thinking”. Stacy, my counselor for dealing with this sort of thing, explained this was one of the symptoms of personality disorders. The essence of the explanation applicable in this context is as follows:
If you tell a normal person their actions contributed to a particular situation or result and suggest changing their behavior might result in a better outcome they will respond with something like, “I think I understand, I will try your suggestion next time.” The person with a personality disorder cannot see they contributed to the situation in any way. They never did anything wrong and will refuse to change their behavior.
There is no point in trying to have a logical discussion with these type of people. Your only productive recourse is to “set boundaries”, tell them you will not tolerate their irrational behavior, and then enforce those boundaries. As difficult as this is in interpersonal relationships it’s even more difficult when these people have political power, the power of government force, over you. This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It is the last ditch resort to enforcing boundaries.
Further complicating the issue is that when you enforce those boundaries “the crazy” may get far, far worse. They can and will do extremely destructive things. In interpersonal relationships this is one the paths by which people get murdered by their abusive spouse.
Gun owners have a lot in common with abused spouses and should be aware things can very rapidly get much much worse.—Joe]
