While I agree with the sentiment “Because F*$k you!” when asked something along the lines of “Why do you need X?” where X is a firearm, ammo, book, religion, speech, encryption, or any other freedom I think there may be a more productive answer.
I think my answer would be:
That is a totally inappropriate question. The proper questions are:
Where does the government get the power for infringing upon this right?
What justification does the government have for infringing upon this right?
Where is the evidence that this infringement will be a net benefit?
Make them prove their case. It’s not up to us to prove ours.
Interesting slant. Basically, the guy claims that the Sikh religion require him to be able to defend himself and his family against criminal attack and injustice, and the CA assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban violates that religious requirement.
For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today’s gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare.
There’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.
[Why yes! They do, in fact, reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights. Never mind that the sign on the level of commitment is negative.
This really gets my blood pumping. They must think we all have crap for brains.
If there was ever a more blatant example of doublespeak I am not aware of it. While arbeit macht frei was far more sinister it was not nearly so transparent to observers on their first viewing.
This example is like the kid with his or her face and hands covered in cake frosting insisting they didn’t eat the cake. I wish Carney and those he is attempting to cover for could be spanked and sent to their room (prison cell) for the next 10 years.—Joe]
Concerning non-violence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.
Malcolm X March 12, 1964
[For the record and to keep people from getting themselves caught with a misquotation please beware that I have seen this misquoted and falsely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. as “It is criminal to not teach a man to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”—Joe]
If you can make it difficult at that moment when they are serious about taking their lives, you get that chance to intervene.
Robert Gebbia Executive director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. March 21, 2013 New Colorado gun control law could help prevent suicides [This was while referring to the requirement that there be background checks for all firearm transfers.
Governor Hickenlooper came in a close second for QOTD in the same article with:
However many homicides we have each year with handguns, we have about 20 percent more suicides. That number drops significantly when you have universal background checks.”
Citation needed.
If that were actually true then it would be parroted by every anti-gun person in every debate. It hasn’t been. I attribute the statement to Hickenlooper doing what politicians do, which is making up stuff to fit their agenda.
But let’s look at Gebbia’s statement and indirectly show why Hickenlooper statement is almost for certain false.
The only way Gebbia’s statement makes sense is if all of the following are true:
A significant number of suicides are committed by people with a gun.
Those people only had possession or access to a single gun.
That gun was obtained via a private transfer.
The private transfer occurred in the previous few hours or at most days.
The FFL doing the background check also does a mental health evaluation at the same time.
The FFL has some sort of authority to intervene and turn them over to mental health professions before they pursue an alternate suicide method.
Will FFL’s be required to have suicide detection training? Or will the ATF just add another check box on the 4473?
My hypothesis is that neither will happen. All that is going to happen already has. And that is that Robert Gebbia just demonstrated he has crap for brains.—Joe]
Biden also suggested that [Newtown school shooter] might have been killed sooner had he had to spend more time reloading.
“Think about Newtown,” Biden said. “Think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had he had to reload three times as many times as he did.”
The transcript of that speech doesn’t report anything about Biden saying the shooter was killed by police so Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake may be solely responsible for that sentence. In the transcript Biden does claim the police responded in two and a half minutes. That is probably false unless you want to claim one or more cars having started to move in the direction of the school qualifies as “responded.”
The shooter killed himself at least 10 minutes after beginning his attack. Some reports have it as police arriving 20 minutes after the attack started. I have also used this number but recent reports indicate it was significantly less that that. Biden is either purposely ignorant and/or stupid if he thinks what he said is true. And even if it was true two and a half minutes is enough time to fire a lot more than 152 rounds even with 10 round magazines.
Reloading an AR-15 takes a bit longer than it does for my STI Eagle but I got 40 rounds on target in 16.8 seconds which included three reloads and clearing a malfunction:
Extrapolating to 152 rounds and you get 63.8 seconds for trigger time and magazine changes. When shooting dozens of passive “targets” the thing that takes the most time is the target transition and acquisition. This includes moving to a new position to view the next target and getting an appropriate sight picture. It’s not the trigger or reload time which can frequently be done in parallel with the target transition and acquisition.
Even if the police did arrive two and half minutes after receiving the first call the number of magazines required simply doesn’t matter. Many of the magazines he used were dropped after firing only 15 of the 30 rounds they contained. If he had been required to use 15 magazines instead of the approximately 10 that would have only added another, at most, 15 seconds. And that assumes he wasn’t doing something else at the time he made the magazine changes such as moving to a new shooting location. If he was doing the magazine changes in parallel with moving it could be that it would have made zero difference in time.
I can only conclude Biden’s brain cell is still lonely and/or he is deliberately attempting to deceive the public.
The time for partisanship is over; now is the time for action. And that’s why the NRA is requesting the assistance of the ACLU.
The Sandy Hook tragedy, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora “Batman” shooting, the Tucson shooting – all of the killers had something in common: They were all mentally unstable young men who were prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs.
The only thing I disagree with is that speech would change the gun control debate. For most politicians and many activists their gun control agenda isn’t about saving lives. That isn’t even debatable anymore. It’s about control, money, and security theater.
Addressing the extremely difficult problem of how to appropriately deal with mental illness isn’t something that lends itself to simple, even if false, answers and sound bites. Politicians don’t get elected by getting people to think about complex issues. They get elected by offering simplistic “solutions” to distressing emotional events and/or situations.
Don’t expect pigs to fly and don’t expect politicians to advocate people thinking.
By now, many of you have heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s announcement yesterday regarding the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Senator Reid announced that the Assault Weapons Ban will not be part of the base gun violence prevention bill he brings to the Senate floor next month.
The reaction from gun violence prevention advocates was fierce and immediate; many felt betrayed. The press quickly reported that “the Assault Weapons Ban is dead in the Senate.”
The press is wrong.
There’s no doubt that Senator Reid’s statement could have been more sensitive and thoughtful. But it’s important to understand the procedural hurdles he is contemplating. If there is a filibuster by Republicans, Senator Reid will need 60 votes to bring a gun violence prevention bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He is weighing whether he can get those 60 votes in a package bill if the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is included. His estimation is that it is better to leave the AWB out of the bill he brings to the floor, so that he can break a filibuster and get it there in the first place. Once it’s on the floor, Senator Reid has been clear that he will allow Senator Feinstein to introduce the AWB as an amendment to the bill. This strategy would ensure that all the important pieces of the Senate Judiciary Committe’s package (universal background checks, anti-gun trafficking penalties, and the Assault Weapons Ban) actually get votes, as opposed to none of them.
And let’s remember what the sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said on January 27th of this year: “There will be a package put together. If assault weapons is left out of the package…I’ve been assured by the majority leader I will be able to do it as an amendment on the floor, which is the way I did it in 1993. So, that doesn’t particularly bother me.”
And it shouldn’t bother us either.
Let’s all stay focused and get the up or down votes on the Senate floor that gun violence victims and survivors so richly deserve. Please continue to call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote YES on universal background checks, the assault weapons ban, and tougher criminal penalties for straw buyers and gun traffickers.
Thank you as always for your support!
Sincerely,
Josh Horwitz
Executive Director
Barb S. and I used to say, “I’ll believe it when the check clears the bank.”
In regards to anti-gun legislation being dead: I’ll believe it when the perpetrators are convicted. Until then we need to be on guard because it isn’t and won’t be over for a long time.
The State of New York has resorted to a “turn in your neighbor” program, for enforcement. Knowing that people will not willingly comply, the state has resorted to a tried and true tactic of turning the citizens upon each other to aggrandize the power of the state.
Does this strike a responsive historical cord, in anyone???
We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases.
What gun owners did to politicians in 1994 over the AWS should happen to the legislators and governors of states that even attempted to implement these repressive laws. Then they should be considered politically untouchable and used as examples to others for the rest of their lives as if they were Grand Wizards of the KKK.—Joe]
What investigators found was a chilling spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained [his] obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders.
But it wasn’t just a spreadsheet. It was a score sheet.
Someone that dedicated and reasonably intelligent cannot be stopped short of an extremely repressive police state. Attempting to legislate preventive measures for someone like that is insane in any society and should be criminal in a free society.
What can, and should, be legislatively done is to enable and strengthen the defense of the potential victims.
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying … that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 … establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
Senator Orrin Hatch In a 1982 Senate Report [Senator Hatch said this over 20 years before I tried to say essentially the same thing with Just One Question.—Joe]
For the past several years we at the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance have been working to get more reciprocity for Idaho concealed weapons licenses. This year we were able to get a bill printed- House Bill 192 which establishes a new tier of concealed weapons licensing- the Enhanced Concealed Weapons License (ECWL). This bill has been tailored to meet the requirements of those states which recognize at least some other states licenses, but which currently do not recognize the current Idaho CWL such as Washington and Nevada. The new ECWL is completely optional and requires training equivalent to NRA Personal Protection, including live fire and qualified legal instruction on firearms law and the use of deadly force by private citizens, thereby allowing much improved recognition by other states.
Although the new ECWL will have no affect on the current license, thus leaving it available, the ECWL will have the same in-state benefits as the current license and will not require the current license as a prerequisite. This is an exciting development for those of us who want to carry in other states and have had to get out-of-state licenses to get the coverage we need. We are already working with officials in other states to recognize the new Idaho enhanced license when it goes into effect on July 1. We hope to have enough states recognize the new license so that an Idaho resident will be able to carry in up to 40 states.
We have heard nothing but positive comments on House Bill 192. The most common response has been, “Why didn’t Idaho do this years ago?” Believe me we have been trying.
Despite passing unanimously in the House, H192 is in trouble in the Senate. Senator Lee Heider of Twin Falls attempted to send the bill to the amending order on Friday. With two weeks left in the session this would have killed the bill!
H192 needs your help: please contact your Senator and ask them to vote for H192 when it comes to the floor this week. If you live in Twin Falls (District 24) please contact Senator Lee Heider and ask him why he wants to kill the enhanced bill. Do not believe anyone who tells you that they just want to “amend” the bill– anything other than a “Yes” vote is a vote to kill enhanced licensing. See you on the range,
Mike Brown Executive Director/General Counsel Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance
P.S. To learn more about IDSSA or to make a donation to help us continue our work for you in Idaho, please visit www.IdahoSSA.org
According to Mr. Schindler’s wife Maria, when Schindler decided to liberate his Jewish workers, he handed them all semiautomatic weapons so they could fight the Nazis.
In today’s politically correct Hollywood, Steven Spielberg probably would have ruined his chances for an Oscar by telling the whole story about Oskar Schindler’s devotion to freedom.
We think it’s a civil right that deserves a single uniform standard across the state. No matter whether you’re from Decatur, or from Chicago or from Moline to Lansing, it’s a fundamental right.
Todd Vandermyde February 22, 2013 Heated testimony at hearing on state’s concealed carry law See this and much, much more at Video Weekend, Part II: Todd Vandermyde. [I found it enlightening that no matter how many times and how many ways Vandermyde explained this the legislators, most, if not all of them lawyers, questioning him couldn’t seem to get it. They would even say, “We respect the Second Amendment” then in the next breath say they had an obligation to deny that right to the people they were representing in the interests of protecting them.
Vandermyde would ask questions like, “Well then do you think you should let the police search people without a warrant? Or should the police be able to ignore their Fifth Amendment rights?” Apparently these people could not understand the point he was making.
These people are bigots and should be treated as such. They, as Federal judges have said, are thumbing their noses at the U.S. Constitution, the Federal judges, and the rights of the people they supposedly represent. This is no different that the people in the deep south that abused the rights of people of color 50 years ago and I would not feel the slightest bit of sympathy for them if the Feds used similar methods to enforce their rulings upon them. Send in the National Guard to protect a parade of individuals openly carrying guns down the main streets of Chicago and Federal Marshalls arresting any city or state government employee that attempted to interfere with people peaceably exercising their right to bear arms in public.—Joe]
The Wild West was never as wild as many communities in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, (and on and on) are.
Geoffrey Canada Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence [I haven’t looked up the actual numbers but I suspect his statement is true as long as you don’t regard the Hollywood Western as the definition of “Wild West”. In which case we have a good comeback for those anti-gun people who claim we don’t need guns anymore because “the Wild West doesn’t exist anymore.”
I finished this book recently and need to review/fisk it. I believe Canada has some excellent insights, is a good person, is making a positive difference in the lives of countless people, and came to his anti-gun views honestly. But I think his conclusions about guns are incorrect and misguided.—Joe]
Or; Action, Reaction, Synthesis
Or; Thesis, Antitheses, Synthesis
Or; “I’m not sure that it means what you think it means.”
Refusing to sell to government entities that attack the second amendment is fairly popular, it certainly has made good press, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but I’m not sure people are thinking things through.
Oskar Schindler was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party, and he had extensive business dealings with the Nazis. Just keep that in mind.
Let’s say we all refuse to sell to any government entity that even infringes (literally; “touches around the fringes”) on second amendment rights. That would be all of them. Just keep that in mind; we are talking ONLY about degrees of violation when we say that New York or Chicago is bad and OUR jurisdiction is…what…a bit less egregious? Or does your state and local .gov commit zero infringements? So we all refuse to sell to any government entities. What will be their obvious reaction, for 100% sure and for certain? Taxpayer funded, government owned munitions factories of course, with union workers, full benefits and a retirement plan, and now they are, one way or another, competing with the private industry. Good luck with that. OR, you know all it takes is for one individual company to sell to your worst violators, they will become the next General Electric, i.e. a pet company for the tyrants, funneling their profits via multiple channels into the Democrat Party. They’ll arrange it that way just for that purpose. It’s what Progressives do.
Trying to argue abstract concepts like right and wrong or constitutionality with most Americans is a waste of time. Few believe in right or wrong, and fewer still have any conception of the Constitution as a contract between the generations.
Clayton E. Cramer January 18, 2013 Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic. [I can’t say that I disagree. But to agree with him sucks me into depression and despair. If right and wrong are beyond most Americans then are not also facts and fallacies, truth and falsity beyond them as well? Unfortunately I have substantial data to back up that claim.
See also Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1). A case can be made, as Rand does, that what Cramer states as fact can be explained by the lack of sound philosophy being taught to our children for the last 50 or more years.—Joe]
