IMHO, best defense against sexism in tech is to be a badass woman. Prove every archaic stereotype irrefutably wrong and set great examples.
snipe ツ (@snipeyhead)
Tweeted on February 23, 2013
[Being a “badass” woman with a gun could be a great part of that.—Joe]
I think it is probably much simpler. Some antis are at ease lying through their teeth about an “assault weapon” being full auto, they’ll lump suicides together with homicides to try to inflate statistics, they’ll lie about what the laws currently are, they’ll lie about the our motivations, they’ll lie about the effects gun control will have, etc…
That they include ad hominen attacks in their repertoire is no surprise. They do it for the same reason they lie : because it often works.
milquetoast
February 23, 2012
Comment to An explanation for Markley’s Law.
[While I can believe, nay I know, this is true for some of them I think more commonly the reason is they have found themselves cornered. In their desperation they think themselves clever to make a jab at their opponent’s expense. It changes the subject and can put their opponent on the defensive.
Still, the bottom line is the same. It often works.—Joe]
The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.
“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”
“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”
In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”
“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”
The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.
This is a stepping stone to slap down California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., Maryland, and others that have “May Issue” permitting for carry. It may even enable nationwide Constitutional Carry.
Bloomberg/MAIG, the Brady Campaign, and other anti-freedom groups may soon have very little legislative action available for them to consider.
Anyone who thinks the anti-tyranny function of the Second Amendment is completely irrelevant today should also spend some time considering the historical experience of black Americans. At least until quite recently, one of the chief purposes of many gun control laws was to help secure the political subordination of the black population. That goal was successfully achieved for a long time, but it might not have been so easy if blacks had enjoyed the same right of access to firearms that the white population reserved for itself.
Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D.
June 2002
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[Also highly recommended reading is The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer and:
See also several QOTDs by the author of the book.—Joe]
Every once in a while they admit what they really want:
Nowhere is the defeatist liberal approach to American politics more evident than in the post-Newtown campaign for gun control. Liberals are rushing to repeat, like a devout incantation, hand on one’s heart, that “we believe in the Second Amendment” — in an “individual’s right to own a gun.” Half of the legal and moral battle is lost right there and then.
…
the right to own guns is a communitarian right, not an individualized one.
…
A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns). Collectors can keep their guns as long as they remove the firing pin or fill the barrel with cement. Gun sports can be allowed — in closed shooting ranges. And hunters can be allowed to have long guns (if they pass background checks) with no scopes, which are not sporting. But, these exceptions aside, liberals should call for a gun-free nation
That individual/collective argument was settled before it was proposed and the Heller decision just confirmed it. This guy, a “true liberal” in his not so humble opinion, has no regard for the constitution or court rulings.
A true liberal is one who wants everyone disarmed? Got it. That can and will be used at their trials.
If you think pepper spray will stop an attack then shouldn’t it also make it impossible to drive a car after being sprayed?
At approximately 6:18 p.m. two women in their 50′s were traveling in a car that was stopped at a red light northbound on Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Way South at South Graham Street. Two unknown male suspects approached the victims’ vehicle and assaulted both women with pepper spray in an attempt to steal their car. The victim driver ran the red light in order to escape, which was successful.
If a middle-aged woman is hosed down with pepper spray and has the presence of mind, will power, and pain tolerance to drive away and call the police then someone intent on doing harm to you can probably continue the attack. Pepper spray will reduce functionality but it will not put healthy adults out of commission.
Giving an attacker the universal hand signal for “LIE DOWN” may still be required even if you carry pepper spray and should be available if needed.
When liberals take self defense classes is it just a class full of people pissing themselves and vomiting?
John Yowan (@Yowan)
Tweeted on February 20, 2013
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via email from Mike B. (AlphaMike in Idaho) who reports his wife thought it was good reading. I agree. We have a possible explanation of the mindset of anti-gun males:
He’s scared of the thing. That’s understandable–so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don’t have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.
A man does. He has to say things like “One Taniqua Hall is one too many,” as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle’s gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.
He often accuses men with guns of “compensating for something.” The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren’t intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can’t touch a gun, he doesn’t want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he’ll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
There is a lot more. Good stuff.
Biden may actually be giving good advice to his audience. Double barrel shotguns are simpler than an AR-15. So simple that given enough time and an instruction video even anti-gun Democrats could probably fire off a shot or two.
His advice is entirely consistent with Security Theater advocated by most government types. He is suggesting people “Do Something” and they will feel better even if it accomplishes nothing that helps your situation.
Or instead of being onto something he could just be on something. Was he in Colorado testing out the local herbs when he shared his stupid thoughts with us?
Via email from Willi S.:
Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.
Willi doesn’t know the originator and a quick search revealed it’s been around for a while with no good attribution.
And on a more serious note don’t ever forget this one from Steve Levitt:
Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of mankind.
Linoge, You and Joe are too strong for me. By that I mean a great compliment. Your knowledge of the subject is too great for me to compete with. I’ve said this to Kevin a while back. Yet, as prolix and fact-laden as you guys are, I don’t find the argument convincing. I honestly read what you write, but I cannot answer your first question about what it would take to convince me.
mikeb302000
Comment on February 15, 2010 to Direct confrontation with the Brady Campaign
[mikeb302000 is one of the few anti-gun bloggers in existence. He used to frequently comment on here on my blog. I was one of the few bloggers that didn’t ban him.
He also doesn’t know how to determine truth from falsity.
A response such as his is fairly common when I debate this face to face. Those that remain stuck to their fallacious beliefs cannot tell me what it would take to change their beliefs and furthermore cannot tell me how they determine truth from falsity. That should be very telling.—Joe]
Do NOT be deluded into thinking that this push for gun control is about CRIME control. It isn’t, it’s about removing the guns from ALL of the society so as to make way for an uncontested dictatorship.
The only thing we can’t know yet is how benevolent the dictatorship might or might not be. In other words, will our enslavement be easy or harsh.
Also, do not be deluded that we aren’t already in the fight. The line between us being considered as dissidents exercising our rights and the putative dictatorship considering us insurgents is but a line in the sand, and the blowing wind will soon cover that line.
Rivrdog
February 17, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Nicholas James Johnson
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Is there a way to substitute a different compensation item instead of guns for insecure young and middle-aged men? #guncontrol #alexjones
Tom Tatum
Tweeted on January 8, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.
I will concede there is a possibility he is talking about a different type of compensation such as lack of confidence, muscle mass, or some such thing. But still he apparently cannot believe there are valid reasons to own a firearm and must substitute a straw man. This is typical of liberals.—Joe]
Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.
Nicholas James Johnson
Fordham University School of Law
December 1, 2008
Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem
[H/T to eriko in the comment to this post.
Just reading the abstract is scary eye-opening. Here are just a couple sentences:
the temptation is to view Heller as the central obstacle to effective gun control. This is a mistake born of our failure to confront the incoherence of pre-Heller supply-side controls. This article elaborates the supply-side ideal as the foundation of our most ambitious gun control proposals, explains the remainder problem and the defiance impulse as both cultural and physical phenomena that block supply-side rules, and evaluates a series of familiar gun-control proposals in the context of these structural barriers in order to identify which can work and which cannot.
Some of our opponents are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. Not all of them are the almost useful idiots like MikeB302000 and Japete.—Joe]
If the Obama regime wants to “buy” our guns, it had better be prepared to pay in blood.
Kurt Hofmann
February 14, 2013
NIJ memo shows new gun laws can only ‘work’ with registration, confiscation
[H/T to David Hardy.
The memo referred to, and marked up by, presumably, the NRA is extremely revealing. It is mandatory reading for insight into the Obama administration. They know the laws they propose are and will be ineffective. They aren’t stupid. They aren’t ignorant. They are evil.
Update: This NRA video should have been part of the original post:
—Joe]
When I first glanced at this tweet on my phone I read it wrong:
ATF St. Paul: Federal Jury Convicts Coon Rapids Man of Shipping Firearms to Liberia go.usa.gov/4e2H
— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) February 15, 2013
I read “Liberia” as “Liberals”.
It was either the old eyes or wistful thinking.
Via email from Mike B. (AlphaMike in Idaho, not the other one) I received a link to this episode of Freakonomics: How to think about guns.
It starts out with a different question about mass murders than the media and most politicians, “Why are there so few?” With 300+ million people in the U.S. and a similar number of guns (not to mention many other ways of being able to commit mayhem and murder) why is it so “far out on the tail” that these incidents occur? Think about that. Typically it is about two mass murders (4+ people killed) a year with guns. Out of 300 million people? Only one out of 150 million people per year go nuts enough to kill a bunch of people? That’s pretty amazing if you think about it.
Notable quotes:
The recommended book is available via Amazon:
It is next in my queue after I finish The Android’s Dream (son James thinks it is awesome and I’m liking it a lot).
Via email from Carl H. on the gun email list at work:
You can listen to the full version of the song here or buy it from Amazon.
There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in one of the most violent societies that history has ever created. I’m not committed to non-violence in any way.
Bernardine Dohrn
In the 2002 documentary film The Weather Underground. Get the movie from Amazon here.
[From the Wikipedia entry:
Dohrn with ten other SDS members associated with the RYM issued, on June 18, 1969, a sixteen-thousand-word manifesto entitled, “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows” in New Left Notes.
…
The manifesto stated that “the goal [of revolution] is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.”
Leftists know their agenda can only be implemented with violence. Government is violence and the threat of violence. They wish to use government to create their utopia. To advocate non-violence and have a leftist philosophy is a contradiction. To allow people not of the government to have the means to resist government is to allow their idyllic future to be denied.
The murdering, anti-gun, pro-leftist, ex-cop, from Los Angeles who was killed this week is just one in a long line of his type.—Joe]
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. This is an obstacle in enabling “common sense gang laws”. If New York treated the First Amendment like they do the Second Amendment then anti-gang legislation would include the following:
No new social organizations having more than seven members would be legal. Existing organizations of eight to ten members would be still be legal but no more than seven members could be in the same room at any one time. Existing organizations of greater than ten member would have the option of moving out of state or turning themselves into the police for Soylent Green feedstock.