Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Mayors’ Summit on Illegal Guns

Posted on by

As Mayors, we are duty-bound to do everything in our power to protect our residents, especially our children, from harm and there is no greater threat to public safety than the threat of illegal guns.

Mayors’ Summit on Illegal Guns
April 25, 2006
[Interesting belief they have there. I guess they have never heard of “nuclear war.” Or that in the last century nearly 100 million people were killed by their own governments. But there doesn’t seem to be an organization called “Mayors Against Illegal Governments.”

Or if they want to just address deaths that occur at a fairly steady rate only in the US then how about these from the CDC for 2010:

  • Unintentional falls: 26,009
  • Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687
  • Unintentional poisoning deaths: 33,041

Each of those dwarfs “the threat of illegal guns”. Because even if you include deaths from suicide and legally justified shootings you end up with numbers on the order of 30,000 per year. The number of deaths that are inflicted by people illegally in possession of guns must be lower than the number of firearm homicides per year which is on the order of about 9,000 per year. Hence each of the accidental deaths listed above is greater by about a factor of 3 or greater. Thus these mayors are either deliberately lying, and/or are ignorant of the facts, and/or delusional.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Porter

Posted on by

The anti-gun forces tried to win the battle politically and we beat them. So what did they do? They go to the states. They try to push their legislation there. We beat them. So now they’re in the international arena at the U.N., and, with all due respect, we will beat them there as well.

James Porter
NRA President
June 20, 2013
New NRA President: Anti-gun Executive Orders ‘Ill-Advised’
[“Due respect”? There isn’t much response due to them. Don’t commit any crimes against them, be sensitive to those that have lost friends and family members to someone using a gun, and don’t moon them. I think pretty much is the extent of the respect they are due.

However, in the cases of Senators Feinstein and Schumer those guys don’t deserve nearly as much respect as your run of the mill anti-gun person. You can moon them if you want and still be giving them too much respect.—Joe]

Are you a proud gun owner?

Posted on by

Emily Miller is asking for pictures of ordinary people with their guns. It’s for a book.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

If Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns are willing to make a martyr of a terror suspect to push their agenda it raises questions about the legitimacy of their campaign to disarm America, one legislative step at a time. Next thing you know, they’ll be calling Osama bin Laden a victim of gun violence, too.

Alan Gottlieb
June 19, 2013
CCRKBA BLASTS BLOOMY BUS CAMPAIGN FOR CALLING BOMBER A ‘GUN VIOLENCE VICTIM’
[Using the legitimate deaths of criminals shot by both police and private citizens to inflate the numbers, to justify advocating more restrictions on gun owners, has been going on for at least 20 years. It probably has been going on “forever”. It’s just that I have only be aware of it for the last 20 years or so.

This tells you both how weak their case is and how morally bankrupt they are.—Joe]

Quote of the day—irish189

Posted on by

If this is what passes for winning in Washington these days, I have no idea what losing looks like anymore.

irish189
June 18, 2013
Comment to White House Officials Say They Are Winning Gun Control Debate, Will Again Push For New Laws
Obama-Biden
[I love that picture of V.P. Biden. Pouting like a three year-old characterizes the situation quite well.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Via Ms. Magazine‘s ‘My Month with a Gun’ Story Shooting Blanks?

lo

Nice snark but almost for certain this is mischaracterizing Yewman. She has a set of beliefs that are demonstrably wrong but I haven’t seen any evidence this is one of them.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

I don’t want to face being driven from my home by the likes of Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. No more two Americas. This has to end. We need to stop these people and ruthlessly crush them.

Sebastian
June 18, 2013
40 Round PMAGs
[This is what is required and, at least on the gun issue, there is a reasonable chance of success (for some values of “success”).

The bigger problem is that repression is much more than just guns. Currently it includes soft drinks, light bulbs, collecting rain water, how many gallons flushing your toilet requires. In another year it could include restrictions on owning gold and/or silver, TSA groping at train stations, and rationing of health care.

Although I’m a pretty optimistic person I’m essentially convinced (the Obama Care ruling on health care was the last straw) we are getting out of this without tremendous pain. The question is how to optimize the chances for my immediate family in the various scenarios.

I have have ancestors that go back to pre-revolutionary war (Barb L. even has Mayflower ancestors) and most steadily moved west in as the country opened up. They escaped the big cities with the corruption and repression associated with them. There isn’t much further we can move. Maybe Alaska could offer some respite but Alaska has to import a lot of goods which means they can’t really be self-supporting in many cases.

I fear collapse with the associated risk of a rise of a dictator is possible. Or would such a collapse follow the USSR model where the individual states regain power as the Feds go broke? Or would the Feds confiscate the wealth in such a way that it destroys the infrastructure as it goes down?

There are far too many “columns on the spreadsheet” to predict. I think what needs to be done is write up the plausible scenarios and plans for dealing with them. Prepping with food storage, “bug out locations”, and low level medical training until the economy recovers? Learn blacksmithing and soap making, acquire draft horses and horse powered farm implements and prepare for a return to technological world similar to 1900? What’s common to most scenarios? What’s likely and what is implausible?

The looters are destroying the country and, really, the world. The only question I see is how much will be left when they are stopped. The answer hinges on whether it is because they ran out of things and places to loot or is it because the producers finally stood up to them and said, “No. Stop. No further. Looters will be shot.”—Joe]

Thoughts on Heidi Yewman

Posted on by

This started out to be a comment in response to ubu52 who said:

Since this is only part one of a four part series, how do any of you know she didn’t get training?

The response grew and the links increased to the point I decided it really should be a post on it’s own.

At the time of the writing of the post being discussed she had no training. Perhaps she attended a class this last weekend and just hasn’t made a post about it yet. We’ll see what she says in her next post.

She is playing a very risky game. She is in “danger” of having her beliefs shattered. It is my guess that she had a set of beliefs totally at odds with reality.

In effect she was challenged by Wayne LaPierre:

Wayne LaPierre, told the country, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I wondered what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun. Finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more?

I decided to find out.

There are at least three ways to interpret this.

  1. She is doing this to further proselytize about the hazards of private gun ownership from a position of “greater expertise”.
  2. She is sincere in her claims and really wants to understand more about gun ownership and what it is like to carry a gun.
  3. She has doubts about her beliefs and is doing this to confirm, or possibly refute, them.

The first post, in what is planned as a four part series, clearly fits interpretation 1. That she is so certain she will not want the gun after a month is very telling of her predisposition.

But read the first page of this website. She was (and probably still is) firmly committed to a set of beliefs and has relevance to action (condition 1 from the website). She has taken actions that are difficult to undo. These include being on the board of directors for the Brady Campaign and writing a book advocating more restrictions on gun ownership (condition 2). Her beliefs are almost certainly sufficiently specific and refutable by real world evidence that given sufficient contact with the reality of gun owners and gun ownership condition 3 will be met.

There are at least two paths for the future of Yewman’s relationship with gun politics. We have some control over which path is taken. Conditions 4 and 5 from the website hold the key to which path she will take.

Condition 4 states that undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. Condition 5 states that if she has strong social support for her faulty beliefs, even in spite of and in fact because of, the disproving evidence then she will increase her anti-gun activities.

She admits she didn’t know what it feels like or means to own and carry a gun but she surely had some preconceived idea or she would not advocate against gun ownership. I believe those beliefs can only flourish in those that are ignorant, malicious, or mentally defective.

From reading her writings (this is not the first work of hers I have read) I’m nearly certain she is not mentally defective (on the other hand Joan Peterson clearly is). I also believe she has the best of intentions. She is not in the same category as those that advocated for gun control so people of color could not defend themselves from the KKK.

I believe ignorance is her only defect. But ignorant beliefs, absent mental defect, do not long survive contact with reality unless there is extensive social support for those beliefs.The more contact she has with the reality of gun owners and gun ownership the greater the chance she will have sympathy for our culture and the more likely she recognize the flaws in the gun control culture. The very fact that she is censuring sincere helpful comments must raise the intensity of her cognitive dissonance.

If we wish to divert her path to one which is not hostile to gun ownership then we should be doing two things. The first is we should give her undeniable disconfirmatory evidence that her beliefs are faulty. The second is we need to give her an alternate source of social support rather than her ignorant, malicious, and mentally defective fellow travelers. If we can do that then the chances are very high that she will discard the erroneous beliefs. If we don’t then she will be an even stronger advocate for restrictions on gun ownership.

Are we up for the task? Or will we blow it by attacking her every misstep and error thus confirming beliefs that gun owners are belligerent, rude, and angry people that cannot be trusted with sharp objects let alone guns?

Quote of the day—Don B. Kates

Posted on by

I’m much less effective than I might otherwise be because instinctively I distrust emotional argument and rely on evidence and reason. Which is to say, I am BORING.

Don B. Kates
May 21, 2013
Shutting Up Anti-Gun Hysterics
[It is irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]

Invitation to Heidi Yewman

Posted on by

Heidi Yewman is a board member of the Brady Campaign and the author of a book about “the impact of gun violence”, Beyond the Bullet. She recently bought a 9mm Glock and is carrying it daily now.

You can be pretty certain the intent is not benign in regards to the gun culture but I left a comment on her blog post welcoming her to the world of gun ownership. The comment is currently awaiting moderation so to protect against “Reasoned Discourse” I’m posting here as well:

Heidi, I’d like to welcome to the world of gun ownership. I’m sorry it’s so stressful for you. It doesn’t have to be. The culture you are familiar with regards gun ownership as dangerous and to a certain extent evil. Those of us in the gun culture know better.

Although I know your intention is to destroy our culture I want to thank you for visiting and would like to make the visit as pleasant as possible. Knowledge is good thing but can be hard to come by. This is especially true if your background has a strong bias.

I know good gun people not too far from where you live and even consider myself within range to welcome you and show you around. Let me know if you are interested in meeting our ambassadors. If your objective is to understand our culture then let us show you around and make your visit as safe and pleasant as possible.

Update: There are several other comments with timestamps after my comment that have made it through moderation now. Combined with other people reporting the same thing in the comments here we can now safely conclude the following:

Heidi Yewman, Brady Campaign Board Member, does not want free speech. And when she has the power she will enforce restrictions on it.

When allowed the power to do so Mayor Bloomberg didn’t just enforce and advocate strict gun laws. He created laws against “high capacity” soft drinks, and salty foods.

Anti-gun people are not just anti-gun. They are anti-freedom. And far too often they enable or implement genocidal regimes. All in the name of “common sense”, “for the children”, and “preventing gun violence” they are anti-life. Of course people like Yewman don’t realize this. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions but it is still a road to Hell.

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

Posted on by

Had the federal government prohibited bookstores from selling books to out-of-state residents, no court would hold that impacted readers lack standing to challenge such a law under the First Amendment. Barring access to the national market for books would directly inflict an injury-in-fact upon consumers. Federal courts are empowered to fully redress that injury. None of this is particularly difficult or controversial.

But substituting “handguns” for “books,” and “Second” for “First” Amendment, sometimes yields different results. The lower court held that criminal prohibitions of retail handgun sales do not directly impact frustrated consumers where the prohibitions are directed at sellers. The sellers’ compliance with the law in refusing to complete a prohibited transaction, and the prohibition’s impact on the market, are, as far as the lower court is concerned, merely the intervening voluntary decisions of third parties.

The decision below contradicts not only decades of firmly established precedent upholding consumer standing to challenge governmental interference in the marketplace. It squarely conflicts with recent Fifth and D.C. circuit decisions upholding consumer standing to challenge various applications of the same federal statute.

Left unchecked, the opinion below threatens to shut the courthouse door on a broad range of legitimate Article III cases and controversies. This Court’s review is warranted.

Alan Gura
May 28, 2013
MICHELLE LANE, AMANDA WELLING, MATTHEW WELLING, AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., v. ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit
[Gun laws in this country are really messed up. This is but one of many, many instances where the Second Amendment is treated like a violently abused person of color that most people want to ignore. People know it’s wrong. People know it’s going on. But almost no one wants to do anything about it and many people try to prevent others from doing the right thing.

This has to stop. Alan Gura and SAF are on the leading edge of bringing the bigots, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Miss Esther P. Codwalloper

Posted on by

Only ridiculous and hysterical people oppose gun registration, so far as I’ve seen.

There has been no sound argument against it presented.

Miss Esther P. Codwalloper
Comment to Gun control groups plan to try, try again
June 11, 2013
[I guess Miss Codwalloper hasn’t read the story of The Belgium Corporal. Or perhaps her case of cranial rectum inversion is so advanced she hasn’t heard how the IRS abused it’s powers. And she had to have totally missed out on the failed Canadian gun registry.

Then there is the little case of U.S. v. Haynes where it was ruled unconstitutional that convicted felons could be required to register their firearms.

I have to conclude Codwalloper has nothing but crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Cates

Posted on by

This demonstrates the biggest problem with Liberals isn’t KNOWING what the evidence shows. Instead, the problem is that their vested interest in a false vision compels Liberals to discount each and every fact that would destroy that vision.

Brian Cates
June 4, 2013
Why Evidence Doesn’t Matter to Liberals Enchanted by a Vision
[I’ve run into this sort of thing with numerous people. Many people simply cannot be reached with evidence.

I’ve literally had people tell me, “I don’t believe your facts.” That the facts were from the FBI UCR and there was no contrary evidence did not matter. He did not even have an interest is supplying “his facts”. He was just right and I was wrong. This was a college professor. That he was an admitted Marxist teaching in the school of business made me realize we did not have a common basis for communication. I’m pretty sure we don’t even share the same reality.

Some people have unshakable faith in things that are demonstrably false. When these type of people are encountered as individuals it can be a source of amusement, frustration, or make your job miserable. When these people are in positions of governmental power they burden you with stupid regulations, destroy economies, and commit genocide.

The Second Amendment was designed and put in place to protect us from Liberals enchanted by a vision.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Christopher Burg

Posted on by

@linoge_wotc @moms_no I’m only in the discussion for entertainment. People who say they oppose guns but want to use them by proxy amuse me.

Christopher Burg (@ComradeBurg)
Tweeted June 4, 2013
[I confess that I get a certain amount of amusement from it as well but it is mixed with a bit of concern. They frequently advocate ruthlessness be employed by their proxies in the application of those guns against me and other innocents.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joe Markley

Posted on by

I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves I think we have to acknowledge that we’re putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves.

Joe Markley
June 3, 2013
Conn. lawmakers revise gun control legislation
[Yes, but only if you are capable and willing to follow a logical train of thought. Many people are not.—Joe]

Do you believe in mermaids?

Posted on by

Today Barb L. and I went to Flaming Geyser State Park (Washington State). This was the “stomping grounds” of Ted Bundy and The Green River Killer. In fact the Green River runs right through the park:

Map picture

As we were entering the park I told Barb L. the story of when Barb S. her mom, and I came to the park about 30 years ago. Barb’s mom, Joy, used to tell the story of that visit. Some guy started talking to Barb and quickly left when Barb said that her husband was “just over there taking a nap”. Joy thought the guy was acting strange and she was very suspicious. She would point out that Barb S. looked a lot like the victims of Ted Bundy and her recollection of the guy at the park was consistent with Ted Bundy.

It was sort of a strange feeling as Barb L. and I pulled in and parked. There, just a couple hundred feet away, was “The Green River” so famous for all the women killed and dumped near or in it.

We shrugged off the feeling and found the trail to the flaming geyser. It’s not much. For a while when hole was drilled (coal exploration), back around 1900, the flame would be as high as five or six feet. Now it’s about five or six inches (see also the picture associated with this tweet):

IMG_6181Cropped2013

We found a geocache nearby. It was the first one I had looked for in a long time.

We then found the trail that went into the woods a couple hundred yards to the “bubbling geyser”. If you looked closely you could see bubbles coming up through the water. We hung around for a few minutes then some guy showed up on the trail above us with his dog and just stood there. I figured he was waiting for us to leave so I suggested we go because we really came for a hike, not to stand around and talk.

We hiked up the little hill to the trail where the guy and the dog were. The dog really wanted to approach us but the man had him on a leash and held him close. I slowly reached out my hand and let the dog sniff it. The guy started talking to us and told us a little about his dog. Then asked if we had been down the trail by the river to the Indian hieroglyphics. We told him no but that sounded interesting. He gave us directions then asked, “Do you believe in mermaids?” We smiled, and said no. He then started telling us stories about Indian paintings of people with big fins for feet and a hand coming out of fisherman’s nets and taking a swipe at the fisherman. “I believe”, he told us. As Barb and I started edging on down the trail he started talking about the UFOs (see also this tweet).

We strolled on down the trail in the direction of where the hieroglyphics might be. The guy and his dog passed us and disappeared on ahead. We found the trail near the river and followed it for a while in the proper direction until it petered out in thick brush and trees. We decided we weren’t so interested that we wanted to push through the brush. Then the voice of Mermaid Believer came to us, invisible through the brush ahead of us, “The river’s too high. You can’t get there easily now.”

Okay then. Time to head back out. We walked back toward the picnic area with Barb checking to make sure she had her knife with her. I told her, “And you know how to use my gun if need be and I’m not able to do so.”

We went back to the picnic area and there was Mermaid Believer again. He was a couple hundred feet away on the other side of the picnic area moving parallel to us. We went back to the car and I got out my telephoto lens and camera and managed to take just one picture of him before he ducked behind what we believe was his vehicle:

IMG_6197Cropped
That was interesting.

We found another trail and went on up the trail with Barb telling me “women raped and killed while hiking in the woods” stories from the knife class she took last weekend.

Our trail made a loop and we arrived back in the picnic area 20 or 30 minutes later. Mermaid Believer, his dog, and his pickup were gone.

I have just one question for you… “Do you believe in mermaids?”

Quote of the day—Harry Reid

Posted on by

Right now I think everyone should just calm down and understand that this isn’t brand new. It’s been going on for some seven years.

Harry Reid
U.S. Senate Majority Leader
June 6, 2013
Reid on reaction to furor over phone records: ‘Just calm down’
[If this was your spouse telling you to “calm down, this isn’t brand new…” that they had been fooling around with someone else for seven years would that make it okay?

Maybe that is an extreme example. Let’s try some others:

  • How about your accountant telling you they had been embezzling for seven years?
  • How about your lawyer telling you they had been working for your legal opponent for seven years and billing you for the time spent doing so?
  • How about your doctor giving you unnecessary prostate exams every three months for seven years, and charging you for it, because he enjoyed giving them?

Hmm… I’m thinking Senator Reid has a severe case of rectal cranium inversion. Too bad it not so debilitating that it necessitates immediate retirement and exile.

I also think it is very telling that in Paul Barrett Business Week article he restructured the quote in such a way that it changes the meaning. Barrett rephrases it as:

“Everybody should just calm down,” the Nevada Democrat said at a press conference in Washington. “It’s a program that’s worked to prevent not all terrorism, but certainly a vast majority of it.”

If that is the measure of success and such success is sufficient justification then one should not be surprised to soon see some “common sense” restrictions on the First Amendment. I expect Senator Reid and Mr. Barrett can surely agree our government needs to pass legislation for the following:

  • Background checks, ten day waiting periods, and proof of need before allowing anyone to own a Bible/Koran/Torah
  • Registration of all religious texts
  • Limiting the purchase of religious books to one per month
  • Ban all religious books containing more than 10,000 words

They should then give enforcement powers to the ATF and rename the organization Firearms, Alcohol, Religion, and Tobacco (FART).

It’s just common sense, for the children, to prevent terrorism.—Joe]

Compensating

Posted on by

Oleg takes a shot at those who invoke Markley’s Law. Here are my favorites:

compensating6356

compensating_0243web

Quote of the day—Tom

Posted on by

I would like to see the U.S. military raid every home of neighborhoods that have a high rate of gun violence. Sweep the area, bust down doors if people won’t let you in and rip the homes apart looking for illegal guns that have a potential to be used in crimes. if a thug commits a crime with an unregistered gun that results in death or injury to anyone, the penalty should be life in prison with no parole or the death penalty. Are you with me?

Tom
Rochester NY
June 1, 2013
Comment to New Jersey Pushes Gun Control
[Not just anti-gun but anti-rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tio Hardiman

Posted on by

I am Mr. Ceasefire and I got caught up in a situation and I am not here to point fingers and blame nobody. The verdict is still out. I can’t really speak about the case. Things happen for a reason and liberation comes in many forms.

Tio Hardiman
June 1, 2013
Bond set for CeaseFire head Tio Hardiman in domestic battery charge
[The organization “CeaseFire Illinois”, of which Hardiman is the director, changed their name to “Cure Violence” in September of 2012.

Some people have been calling the organization “Anti-Gun”. From what I have read about them, and I have sort of been following them for several years now, they aren’t really anti-gun. There is an undercurrent of anti-gun sentiment but I have not seen anything overt on their website although Hardiman himself has been quoted as advocating restrictions on guns. As near as I can tell they are a decent organization that attempts to prevent violence in a reasonable way. Yes, preventing violence is something that sends up warning flags for both Lyle and I (see also here and here). But these people are doing it by talking to potential perpetrators and victims when a violent situation is developing. I don’t have a problem with that.

The guy hasn’t been convicted of domestic violence yet, only accused. So I’m a little hesitant to say this anti-gun guy is a violent person. We have some strong clues and there is a strong correlation between anti-gun people and violent behavior but you should not apply statistics to an individual. So for now I’m going to glare at him and prepare to verbally lash out should the domestic battery charges turn out to be true.

Getting back to the quote. He appears to know English words but is unable to string them together in sentence in a way that make sense to me. Liberation comes from being arrested for domestic battery? But what do you expect from an anti-gunner?—Joe]