Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

Posted on by

They espouse an insurrectionist, anti-democratic philosophy, and they have a lot of people on their board that, to put it lightly, you wouldn’t want in polite company.

Josh Horwitz
Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
May 3, 2013
NRA gathering proves a big draw amid gun-control debate
[I would like to suggest that Mr. Horwitz read the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically for insurrection in the case of tyranny and we do not have a democratic government. We have a republic.

And as far as polite company is concerned I would not spend time with the likes of Horwitz. I’ve spent time with several different board members of the NRA and I found them very pleasant.

At every opportunity Horwitz attempts to infringe up on my specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. I’ve spent nearly 20 years as a gun rights advocate and I am no more inclined to exchange pleasantries with him than I would if I were civil rights advocate in a mixed race marriage and he were the head of the KKK.—Joe]

Snoqualmie Falls

Posted on by

Barb L. and I went for a short drive and a hike today. The main attraction was Snoqualmie Falls:

The weather was warm and with snow still in the mountains the water flow was on the high side of normal.

IMG_4686

IMG_4716

And when we went on our hike I open carried. No one noticed or if they did they did not seem to care.

Quote of the day–John Lott

Posted on by

By the end of 2010, prosecutors had only 32 convictions or pleas agreements, and only 13 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.018% of the 71,010 initial denials.
…
These numbers are just one of the reason that no study by criminologists or economists has found that the Federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.

Of course, being falsely labeled as being ineligible to own a gun isn’t the only cost imposed on law-abiding Americans. Even those who aren’t prevented from buying a gun face delays in getting approved.

John Lott
June 13, 2011
The Problem with Brady Background Checks: Virtually all of those denied purchasing a gun are false positives
[Via David Hardy.

When advocates of background checks crow about the Brady checks stopping millions of gun sales realize they are celebrating the delay and/or denial of a specific enumerated right.–Joe]

Quote of the day—Forrest Sargente

Posted on by

I say we meet the democrats halfway on gun control by simply banning all democrats from owning guns. This way we also solve the problem of the mentally unstable and incompetent having access to firearms.

Forrest Sargente
April 30, 2013
Comment to Dems love guns. No, really. Stop laughing.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

I find it funny but I wouldn’t seriously advocate for the infringement of anyone’s specific enumerated rights. Even communists, socialists, or (I repeat myself) democrats.

Although the case could be made that people who self-identify as such are mentally unstable and/or incompetent that is the same argument used by the Soviet Union to send political dissidents to mental institutions. Hence, I think it’s history lesson we don’t need to repeat.—Joe]

Counterproductivity

Posted on by

The NRA sent out an alert today entitled, “Washington State Attorney General Takes Action Against Florida Gun Owners” encouraging members to contact the Washington Attorney General and ask him to rescind his decision to stop the recognition of Florida CCW licenses by Washington. The reason that Washington took this action is that Florida changed their statute to allow honorably discharged veterans under 21 to apply for a Florida license.

However anybody feels about mandatory CCW licensing, I think we can universally agree that this is a group that should be able to obtain a license to the extent that anyone is required to in order to carry. As a policy decision on the part of Washington I think that this is execrable- the problem with the alert (authored by Marion Hammer) is that it is barking up the wrong tree and maybe causing some collateral damage in the meantime.

I’ve been in contact with the person at the Washington AG’s office, who Ms. Hammer suggested contacting, regarding Washington recognition of the Idaho Enhanced CWL. This person was straightforward with me about Washington’s rules: if the other state complies with Washington’s statutory requirements then Washington will recognize; if not then it won’t.

These requirements are pretty simple as these things go: 1) you have to take Washington 2) you have to have an explicit mental health records check in your statute and 3) you can’t issue to people under 21. In this case Florida’s statute doesn’t meet requirement #3.

I don’t think there is any question that the current Washington Attorney General is not a fervent supporter of gun rights. But in this case he is just doing what he is supposed to be doing: applying the statute as written and not imposing his spin on it– if Florida has an issue it is with the Washington legislature.

Why am I concerned about this? Because I am working hard trying to get Washington (and other states) to recognize the new Idaho Enhanced license when it comes into existence on July 1 and I just want the Washington AG to apply their recognition law as written. Is it within his power to drag his feet over recognition?: Sure it is. Could he come up with some niggling reason why the Idaho statute isn’t in compliance with Washington’s: Sure he could. Has he done anything (yet) other than apply their law as written?: No he hasn’t.

I just don’t see how having gun owners across the country contact someone about something they don’t have the discretion to do anything about is going to encourage them to do the right thing– when it is in their power to do so.

Quote of the day—Harry Binswanger

Posted on by

Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make.

People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do.

Harry Binswanger
January 1, 2013
With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
[Or as Tam said:

Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.

A significant and unique component of western civilization is the concept of the individual apart from the tribe/village/collective. This gave us the greatest increase in our standard of living, wealth, and life expectancy in the shortest time the world has ever known. Yet many people want to revert back to a form of society more appropriate for stone age tribes that frequently, when applied to modern conditions, has resulted in brutal dictators, mass starvation, and death camps.

Even more interesting is that in the last 100 years the brutal dictators, mass starvation, and death camps only occurred in societies with gun control (see also Innocents Betrayed). So when the collectivists both insist we join their collective and that we give up our guns I think there are only two questions of, mostly incidental, interest in asking:

  1. Are they evil?
  2. Or are they “only” enablers of evil?

Regardless of whether you bother to ask the questions your response should be congruent with Tam’s.—Joe]

Quote of the day—RJHJ

Posted on by

Nothing is more insulting then being talked down too by someone who is ignorant about guns and dishonest about what they want to do with them.

RJHJ
April 24, 2013
Comment to Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument
[I’m not sure “insulting” is the word I would use. “Infuriating” is probably how I would describe it. A lawmaker who describes barrel shrouds as “the shoulder thing that goes up” or thinks that a magazine is consumed once the ammo in it has been fired has no business writing gun laws.

I take that back. They have no business writing laws of any type.

Would people tolerate a lawmaker who cannot distinguish a jacket cover from an index writing laws that ban books that use a “high-capacity font”?

Would people tolerate a lawmaker who cannot distinguish a reel from a lure writing laws banning “high-capacity fishing line”?

That is the equivalent of what we have had for decades in the case of our gun laws and it shows.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lefty (@LeftofLeftMA)

Posted on by

If you need one of these 158 weapons of war listed in #AWB2013 to go target shooting, you should really consider penis enlargement surgery.

Lefty (@LeftofLeftMA)
Tweeted on January 24, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bill Maher

Posted on by

I’m so sorry, but this is the problem with the gun debate — it is that it’s a constant center-right debate. There’s no left in this debate. Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said, which is the Second Amendment is bullshit. Why doesn’t anyone go at the core of it?

Bill Maher
April 2013
Starting at 2:20 in this video:

[No Bill. The left is bullshit.

And the core of “it” is Molon Labe.

H/T Tyler Durden in Guest Post: The Goal Is To Destroy All Constitutional Culture.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Phil

Posted on by

The hatred of folks who vote for civil rights will continue until “full progress” is reached. In other news, water is wet.

Phil
April 23, 2013
Here It Comes
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Winkler

Posted on by

Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.

Adam Winkler
Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
April 17, 2013
Who Killed Gun Control? The gun-control bill is dead. Why?
[No one has ever accused the gun control people of being too logical, smart, or internally consistent.

Even in Winkler’s own article there is some inconsistency. You would think that as a law professor he would know that the Heller decision says that weapons in common use are protected. Therefore when in the context of the “assault weapon ban” he says, “The courts have … approved of restrictions on assault rifles” you have to wonder if his brain is working right, because he also says the ban covered “the most popular rifle in America”.

[Shrug]

As near as I can tell “gun controller” is synonymous with “crap for brains” so what should I expect?

H/T to Thirdpower for the email.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hawk

Posted on by

I believe that comment sums up the gun grabbers pretty well… I’m from the city and I didn’t think.

Hawk
April 21, 2013
Comment to Schumer/Obama astroturf rally
[It’s not that they don’t think at all. It’s that they restrict their thinking to a very small domain that doesn’t include the potential benefits of gun ownership or the potential disadvantages of restricting gun ownership.—Joe]

Cold dead hands

Posted on by

I don’t much care for country music but this one is okay.

Via Don S. from the gun email list at work who says, “This made the hair on the back of my neck stand up and sent a chill down my spine!  So COOL!!”

Quote of the day—Dan

Posted on by

Bad people in power WILL NOT STOP. They will continue to do bad things to us until we stop them…. and stopping them will require the use of force. All other discussion on the matter is window dressing.

Dan
April 21, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Senator Charles Schumer
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Red Girl Red State

Posted on by

Nice! I like them and you can buy them:

RedGirlRedStateARRedGirlRedStateRifle

Subtitled “We have you outgunned and outnumbered.”

Via http://imustnotthinkbadthoughts.wordpress.com/

Quote of the day—Brian Lydon

Posted on by

Quote of the day—Senator Charles Schumer

Posted on by

We have foot soldiers everywhere answering the foot soldiers of the NRA and the gun owners of America, and I am telling you, we are going to win this fight a lot sooner than you think.

Senator Charles Schumer
April 20, 2013
Schumer Cheers On Gun Control Advocates In Midtown
[Dream on.

Our activists outnumber theirs 100 to 1. We have the facts on our side. We have the Bill of Rights on our side. And most importantly we have rational people on our side (compared to Joan Peterson and many others).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Waldman

Posted on by

The truth is that most of the people who threatened to filibuster the background check bill aren’t afraid of the NRA. They’re on its side. They don’t need to be intimidated or even persuaded.

Paul Waldman
April 19, 2013
Gun control fight just beginning
[I realize it is hard for the anti-gun people to comprehend but it’s the truth.

It’s not about the NRA making money from gun sales. It’s not about the NRA buying off politician. It’s not about the NRA threatening to oppose a politician that votes the wrong way. There is no Triangle of Death as they claim.

People actually believe that people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms and that it must not be infringed. The Bill of Rights says this. The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed this.

The facts actually support the claim that guns are used to save more innocent lives that they used to take innocent life.

These strongly held beliefs and facts are why there exist politicians on our side. This is why we are winning.

And, most importantly, this is why the anti-gun people are on the wrong side of history and will be swept aside as we push forward to reclaim our infringed rights.—Joe]

Tab clearing

Posted on by

I have a bunch of open tabs in my browser and I only have a few minutes before I’m leaving for 10 days to put on Boomershoot. I’ll have some time to make a few blog posts but I want to clear these up before I go.

It’s rare but sometimes they really do say the incredibly stupid things that we accuse them of:

Rep. Jackson Lee: ‘Don’t Condemn the Gangbangers’ – We Need Gun Legislation

Jackson Lee took the House floor on April 9 to argue in favor of increased gun control legislation, “Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws.”

“Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation.”

Jackson Lee continued by saying that current gun laws need to be enforced,  “I’m going to agree with my friends on the other side of the isle. Our Republican friends, let’s enforce the gun laws that we have – – who would run away from that. That’s a sensible proposition. Put a resolution on the floor of the House – – let’s enforce gun laws that we have.”

Yes. She said that. Blame the gun not the criminals.

Yes. She said that. Put a resolution on the floor to enforce existing laws.

Her babblings should qualify her for dementia medicine trials.

I could only see four out of the ten weapons being in the category “you won’t believe are legal”. And then only if you don’t understand the 2nd Amendment. They had to be desperate for content:

10 Weapons You Won’t Believe Are Legal

  1. Flame Thrower
  2. Miniguns
  3. Katana
  4. Cannon
  5. Crossbow
  6. Grenade Launchers
  7. Nunchucks
  8. Umbrella Sword
  9. Speargun
  10. Chain Whip

There has to be more to this than what I have had time to dig into.

Judge: lawsuits can proceed against theater owner in Colorado massacre

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to dismiss wrongful death and personal injury claims brought against a movie theater chain on behalf of victims of last summer’s mass shooting at a suburban Denver screening of the Batman film “The Dark Knight Rises.”

U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that Cinemark
USA, owner of the theater where 12 people were shot
dead, could potentially be found liable for damages under a
Colorado law that holds landowners responsible for activities on their property.

What? The best I could come up with for a plausible grounds for claiming the theater was responsible was if the plaintiffs believed they were disarmed and unable to protect themselves. And I think that is only about 10% chance of being the case.

Yes. Some people blamed the 2nd Amendment for the Boston bombing:

I once had a boss suggest that I was making so much money at time and a half on weekends that I shouldn’t fly back to Idaho to visit my family. I should just hire a hooker to give me blow jobs under the desk while I continued to write code. I laughed and went home for the weekend.

It turns out there might actually be a market for that sort of service:

Silicon Valley’s other entrepreneurs: Sex workers

In a quiet cafe outside San Francisco, “Josephine” — a local prostitute — arranges a collection of t-shirts across the table. They’re emblazoned with phrases like “Winter is Coming” and “Geeks Make Better Lovers.” She wears them in her online ads to catch the eye of the area’s well-off engineers and programmers.

“I’m trying to communicate to them that I understand a little bit what it’s like to be techy, nerdy, geeky,” she says. There’s another thing Josephine and her clients have in common: Like many of the techies she caters to, Josephine views herself as an entrepreneur.

You knew it was coming

Posted on by

Not one to let a crisis go to waste it is no surprise Frank Lautenberg is the first to come out with this:

As a result of Monday’s bombing in Boston, New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg will introduce legislation requiring background checks for the sale of explosive powder. Lautenberg is also filing the bill as an amendment to the gun legislation currently being debated on the Senate floor.

I don’t suppose Lautenberg, Schumer, et. al. would care but some of the more sane politicians might be interested to know that flour, coffee creamer, and many other powders can be made to explode as well.

But the biggest loser will probably be consumers of Tannerite. The proposed law would require a permit to mix explosives.

And since black powder has been made since the 7th Century the recipe composed of potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal is well known and the processes are very low tech. Precursor materials to make the potassium nitrate can be as common as urine. It is also in some toothpastes. Sulfur is a common element, is found in many fertilizers, as well as occurring naturally. And of course charcoal is easy to come by. The government can’t seem to significantly reduce the availability of recreational drugs or firearms, and you can be sure black powder is going to be available in the black market they create.

Lautenberg and company do not have public safety in mind. They have control in mind. The more laws there are the more control exists over the people. In this case Ayn Rand certainly knew what she was talking about.