@linoge_wotc keep telling yourself that. #NRAdicklesswonders
rich roberts @boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!
This was in response to:
Linoge @linoge_wotc
I see your mind is fabricating delusions for you to comfort yourself in. Good, considering #guncontrol‘s history of failure. @boris3324
—Joe]
A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children’s right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children’s lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.
Anonymous
Comment to Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]
There is, however, one measure sure to gain monumental benefits in the short run. It is politically nearly impossible to take, otherwise low-cost and very effective.
…
What is needed is domestic disarmament. This is the policy of practically all other Western democracies, from Canada to Britain to Germany, from France to Scandinavia. Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands and, ultimately, from much of the police force.
The Responsive Communitarian Platform
November 18, 1991
THE CASE FOR DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT
[From the dark ages of gun ownership.
Low cost? The cost would be incalculable.
Effective? At what? The only thing I can see it being effective at is mobilizing people to “recall” (one way or another) all the politicians foolish enough to support it.—Joe]
Banning all guns is necessary but NOT sufficient in light of the increasing violence in our society.
Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 15, 2012
Banning Guns Is Necessary But Not Sufficient
[The Rabbi should check his numbers on the “increasing violence”. Then he should talk to the good folks at JPFO.—Joe]
When Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.
Ed Koch
Former New York City Mayor
January 13, 2013
Ex-NYC mayor: Ban all guns
[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.—Joe]
The headline is “Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman’s home.” The text of the article says, “police found five guns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition in the house.”
“Large ammo stash”?
When I buy either components for reloading ammo or completed ammo I consider 100 “sample size”. When reloading, unless I’m doing load development, the smallest batch of anything is 100.
100 rounds isn’t enough for an ordinary morning pistol match. When at a match I carry close to that many (typically about 85) rounds in the magazines on my belt. I could easily burn through that in a two minutes of practice. A single ammo can holds about 1000 rounds of .40 S&W and I have several cans in my gun room. A year ago I bought 4000 rounds of .22 LR (yeah, great timing!) which I could probably have stored in my coat pockets.
If I’m down to 100 units of any type of ammo I consider that “out” and time to restock.
Ignorance or bias by the reporter? Ignorance and bias?
As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong!
Richard C Suquer
November 7, 2001
Ban All Guns Now!
[I could almost believe this post was satire but not quite. Here are some more choice quotes from the same post:
It all goes back to an obscure centuries-old document called the “Constitution of the United States of America.”
…
Many right-wing members of today’s United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Absurd? Perhaps. But uneducated people in our society (such as members of Congress) can still be fooled into believing this absurdity.
…
Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.
However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person’s breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man’s life? The answer is: you can’t.
In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.
…
Imagine the typical day of the white male hunter:
The hunter gets up early, before daybreak. While shaving, he cuts his face. He tastes the blood and it is good. His desire for the prey has become sexual.
Later that morning, the hunter enters the forest with his phallic firearm, and stalks the great horned beast. He sees one innocently drinking water from a stream, and raises his phallus-gun to his shoulder. Pulling the trigger he releases his sperm-bullet into the innocent mammal. But rather than life, his sperm-bullet spreads death.
I have to conclude people like this have a mental illness.–Joe]
Thinking back to the dark ages of the ‘94 Assault Weapon ban today reminded me of some other things that upset me at the time. There were numerous court challenges to the law. One of the most frustrating things about the disposition of these cases were that the government would say, in essence, “We haven’t prosecuted anyone under this law so you don’t have standing to challenge it.” I recall (but cannot find a quote) Attorney General Janet “Butcher of Waco” Reno saying that they had no intent of enforcing the law either. Hence the courts dismissed the challenges. Here is one such case.
My interpretation of it was that this they knew they would lose in court and were deliberately preventing us from proving they had overstepped their Constitutional limits.
Over at Sebastian’s he talks about the distortion of the language by the anti-gun people. In specific the attempt to change the meaning of the phrase “well regulated militia” from “well functioning” to “government regulated”. And how it upset him when he found out about it:
I went through most of the Clinton years not understanding how the Assault Weapons Ban was even remotely constitutional, and wondering why nothing was done about it. When I found out, I became angry.
It was just a few minutes ago when I was having lunch with Barb L. I told her about Speaker of the House Tom Foley losing his seat over the AWB. At about that same time she was a Washington State lobbyist and generally pretty plugged into Washington State politics. But she didn’t understand how he lost his seat.
I explained it was because of the AWB and there were two things that really, really pissed us off above and beyond the ban itself.
One was they called the ban “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”. It’s a firearms use protection act that bans guns? They lie. It’s what they do. They can’t help themselves.
And the other was that Foley kept the voting open for several minutes after the stated voting period had expired. The bill failed but by keeping the voting open they got people to change their votes until they had enough for passage. He then closed the voting. The video of him doing that was incredible propaganda for the pro-gun side during his election that fall. Foley became the first sitting Speaker of the House to lose his bid for re-election since Galusha Grow in 1862.
If the gun owners his district in Eastern Washington could have gotten away with it I’m sure you could have sold thousands of tickets to use a horse whip on him.
Russian political commentators seem to have a better handle on some aspects of U.S. politics and human psychology in general than do U.S. commentators:
Who is stronger, the gun lobby or the president? The answer is – of course, the gun lobby.
…
Obama came up with his gun violence reduction plan after last year’s mass shooting drama in a Connecticut primary school. Immediately, gun sales shot up. Leading US firearms manufacturers – Ruger, Smith&Wesson, and Remignton – reported a 40-50 sales increase. So, Obama virtually did his opponents from the National Rifle Association (NRA) a big favor, said Valery Garbuzov, deputy head of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies in Moscow.
“Whenever people learn that there might soon be a shortage of some goods or other, they rush to buy things they would never have bought under usual circumstances. That same with guns. Obama’s plan triggered an adverse reaction. I think that it was a poorly calculated move,” he told the Voice of Russia.
My first gun was purchased because of President Clinton and the impending “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994. Numerous other people I know became gun owners for almost identical reasons. Obama is a better gun salesman than Clinton. We’ll be reaping the rewards from Obama’s efforts to ban guns for at least a decade.
Which U.S. political commentators are talking about this? Our opponents just keep urging the politicians to, indirectly, sell more guns. The more gun owners there are the more firmly entrenched the right to keep and bear arms becomes.
Via a Tweet from Linoge:
After you grasp the fact that this person regards gun owners as “murderers who hate children” think about what the next step is. What is the normal disposition of “murderers who hate children”?
My conclusion is that this person wants people who exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in prison or executed. And just what does someone like this think of people who defend Second Amendment? My speculation is they are hostile to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as well as the Second.
These are very, very dangerous people.
Update: Linoge emailed me more tweets from this person. Imagine if they were saying these things about blacks, Jews, or gays. It reinforces my conclusion that these are very dangerous people.
It’s a Markley’s Law Monday gun cartoon!
The real message of course is the same as if blacks, gays, women, or some other minority showed up to a “presidential event”. Gun owners are a minority and need to get out of the political closet and show their numbers. That this cartoonist thought it was appropriate to say something like this just shows what a prejudiced bigot he is.
Via an email from Weer’d Beard who sometimes follows Baldr Odinson.
I was wondering if you’re obsessed with guns because they make up for what your dick lacks you limp dick piece of shit
Nick Armer
Email to Connecticut Carry on May 9, 2013.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
The entire public discussion of gun control issues today is dominated today by terms created by the people who want to chip away at Americans Second Amendment rights. Anti-gun activists invented these phrases:
Not one of these terms actually means what President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and their allies mean to suggest by it. Rhetorical deception is the key component in the push for more gun control laws.
Emily Miller
2013
Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours
[In other words, they know they cannot win unless they use deception.
If you ignore the adrenaline dumps and the blood pressure spikes this is a very, very good book. It’s easy to read and very informative. Even though I have been involved in the fight for nearly 20 years I still learned things from it. Read it and encourage your friends to read it.—Joe]
After President Obama set the precedent with not enforcing the individual mandate and the discussion I had with Ry the other day I thought back to some of the other things he has done along the same line. The rule, in direct violation of Federal law, about reporting long guns sales to the ATF is one example. The selling of thousands of guns to people known to be ineligible to posses them who were delivering them to the Mexican drug cartels is another. And failure to prosecute officials in D.C., New Jersey, Chicago, and New York, etc. for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in general.
I was then anticipating the sweet, sweet pleasure of the screams of the anti-gunners at some time in the future. I was imagining that we get an extraordinarily very pro-gun president in office and, just like President Obama, he say you don’t have to pay a particular tax for the next year. The $200 transfer tax on suppressors, destructive devices, and machine guns would be at the top of the list. Form 4473’s are a burden, people affected don’t like them, so don’t worry about them. And, oh, by the way, we won’t be enforcing the NFA 34 registry or Hughes Amendment for the next year either.
At the end of the year, machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices would be so widespread they would be considered, “in common use” and therefore protected by even a strict reading of the Heller decision.
The tears of the anti-gun people would be so plentiful we would collect them, put them in empty pop cans and sell them as reactive targets. Life would be good.
Then I had another thought. Obama also is not punishing the IRS for oppression of organizations opposed to his political party. Nor has he done anything about the NSA spying on everyone. And now the judges being appointed don’t need the support of even a single person in the minority party of the Senate. What justification do I have for even having a wild fantasy about something like that? What justification do I have to imagine the socialists will ever lose control of the Whitehouse? Or after the next election even either house of Congress?
The reality is that I need to put more effort into Plan B.
My next shipment from Dillon Precision arrives on Monday:
Gun control advocates have offered capitulation couched as ‘reasonable demands’ for far too long. If the pro-gun lobby is going to resist any significant restriction on guns, then we should put on the table the very thing they fear most.
…
We need to start far more drastic measures if we are going to save our children and ourselves.
It is far past time to call for a total ban on guns.
Myrddin
December 14, 2012
Forget the assault weapons ban, it’s time to ban guns completely
[Myrddin has no sense of political, physical, or criminological reality.
With our enemies that out of touch it’s no wonder we are winning.—Joe]
In addition to being extremely ignorant about guns many anti-gun people have no clue about math:
Some U.S. cities have higher gun murder rates than entire countries.
I find it amazing someone can pack so much stupid into a single sentence.
First off “gun murders” are an extremely biased measure of crime. It presumes that murders by various method are independent of each other. They are not. Substitution of weapons are well known to criminologist who study these things. If it were possible to eliminating firearms from society the murder rate would not be reduced by an amount corresponding to the number “gun murders” prior to the flying unicorns carrying off with all firearms.
Furthermore, firearms are far more frequently used as defensive tools than as offensive weapons. Any law which hopes to decrease their use as an offensive tool must be carefully crafted and enforced such that it does not decrease the availability and use as a defensive tool more than it does as an offensive tool. To the best of my knowledge no such law has ever existed. Hence infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how insignificantly, actually runs a strong risk of contributing to increases violent crime.
Second, saying someplace has a higher rate of anything than entire country only demonstrates how stupid the person is. If someone lives alone and commits suicide that household has a 100% suicide rate. This is a higher rate than every city, county, and country on the planet. If Tom McKay, who wrote the article, thinks his statement is of any significance whatsoever beyond making scary sounding noises he truly has crap for brains.
Nobody needs to have a handgun in America.
Nobody needs to have guns in their home, period.
That should be the starting point for any discussion about gun control in our insanely murderous society.
Jack Lessenberry
December 19, 2012
Ban all guns, now. Nobody needs to have a handgun in America — period
[“Insanely murderous society?” Citation needed.
No Jack, there are couple of other starting points in the discussion. 1) The Bill of Rights guarantees the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And probably most importantly; 2) When the collections start are you going to be taking point? There will be lots of openings for that position. There will not be a lot of opportunities for retirement but you can count on getting your 15 minutes of fame early, as well as late, in your career.—Joe]
I’m glad the people of the 21st District support my efforts to get assault weapons off Maryland streets once and for all.
Jim Rosapepe
November 11, 2006
Maryland State Senator
Advocates for Assault Weapons Ban Sweep Close Contests in Maryland
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
One way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.
New York Times
September 24, 1975
The Gun Culture
[“Discourage” the gun culture?
I don’t think “discouragement” would be the response. The New York Times was, and still is, quite out of touch with reality.—Joe]