Quote of the day—David W.

Wait so, he requires you to have the guns, so he can shove them up YOUR ass?

He’s not going to bring his own guns or else he would say “I’ll shove my gun up your ass”.

So basically he is threatening someone, with guns, and the threat is to shove said guns up the gun owners ass…

Me thinks he is infinity fries short of a happy meal…

David W.
February 26, 2013
Comment to Another threat
[Barb L. and I were discussing, laughing, and shaking our heads at this very thing at the same time David W. was leaving his comment.

I was talking to AlphaMike about this nutcase as well. He said, “Obviously he has never met you or he would not have made any threats.”—Joe]

Another threat

Today at 1408 I received another threating phone call. It sounded like the same guy as last time but it was from a different phone number.

The first time the phone number was 619-646-7526, this time it was 630-489-9064.

The call went very close to this:

Joe: Hello?
Caller: Is this Joe Huffman?
Joe: Yes.
Caller: Do you have any guns?
Joe: Who is this?
Caller: Do you have any guns?
Joe: Who is this?
Caller: I said, “Do you have any guns?”
Joe: And I’m asking who am I talking to.
Caller: You better own some guns because if you mess with me I’m going to f*&^king shove them up your ass.
Joe: <hangs up>

As Ry has said before, “Ah, the voice of reason.”

Or as Officer Dill said, “He is clearly irrational.”

This is the same number that was a “no answer” from an Illinois exchange at 8:26 AM the day after the threatening text messages.

I’ve received several “no answer” calls in the last few days but until now I wasn’t certain they were connected. Now I know that at least some of them are.

I also have to wonder if the brute force attack attempting to log into this blog this morning was related. I may have a way of answering this question.

Update: Apparently he followed up with a bogus ad on Craig’s List.
Update 2: I got the ad taken down.

Graphics Campaign

A reader sent these to me in regards to the anti-gun owner laws being proposed in Colorado.

candlesCo_dems_bloomberg
exum_hatefields_jail2
hickenlooper_magban5joe-salazar
john_morse-warulibarri_pen

I like the first one best.

This particular reader did not want even a hint of credit being given to them for fear they could lose their job. It sounds to me like someone has a boss that has a problem with diversity.

Quote of the day—Nuclear Unicorn

But let us assume, for the moment, that gun control advocates are correct in their descriptions of gun rights advocates with monikers of “paranoid” and nuts”.

Why would the gun control advocates, who are presumably unarmed, willing to antagonize heavily-armed paranoid nuts who are on guard against gun seizures?

What do they do for an encore? Take ventriloquist lessons and hang out in rooms filled with schizophrenics holding sharp objects?

Nuclear Unicorn
February 2, 2011
A thread at the Democratic Underground.
[H/T to Cargosquid who sent me the link via email.

As Nuclear Unicorn further elaborates, “It’s either a really dumb plan of action or a wildly gross mischaracterization of the pro-rights side.”

But that’s only if you are thinking rationally. With most anti-gun people suffering from Peterson Syndrome rational thought is an empty phrase.—Joe]

Equal Gun Rights

Great video from The Second Amendment Foundation:

See more and sign the petition here.

Letter to my representative

“Regarding the gun issue (and all issues really); We who advocate liberty are getting tired of reacting to the Left’s latest outrages. Shouldn’t they be forced to react to our “outrages”? In that spirit, I call for a bill removing all firearm restrictions on the state level, and for ordering all state and local law enforcement to prevent any federal gun law enforcement in the state. In other words, uphold and protect the constitution you’re all sworn to uphold and protect.

How’s THAT for an “outrage”? Let’s see the leftists go nuts trying to pick that one apart, and get them to feel lucky if WE only get half of OUR way this time through.

See how this works?.

Sincerely,
[Me]”

Not that it’ll have a whelk’s chance in a supernova of doing any good. We’re dealing with Republicans after all. But it has to be said, if for no other reason than to be able to say we told them so, to give them a chance to do the right thing while they still have a chance.

Random thought of the day

Saying the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep a firearm but not bear it outside your home or a gun range is like saying the First Amendment guarantees the right to purchase any book you want but not to read it.

Quote of the day—Sealabian

I suspect that for this fellow, his guns are compensation for a miniscule “endowment”.

Sealabian
January 10, 2013
Comment to Tactical Response CEO Threatens To ‘Start Killing People’ Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO)
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day–snipe ツ

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]

Quote of the day—milquetoast

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 right to bear arms

SAF just announced:

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.

Third Power has comments too.

Quote of the day—Nelson Lund

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]

What they really want

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.

Pepper spray effectiveness

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.

Quote of the day—John Yowan

An explanation for Markley’s Law

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 be onto something

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?

More on gun "buybacks"

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.

Quote of the day—mikeb302000

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]

Quote of the day—Rivrdog

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]