Check your spreadsheet for errors

J. Wheeler says,

Gun control may not be enough to stop every senseless killing in this country, but a ban on assault weapons is immediate and it’s free…

Wheeler miscalculated.

What about the tens of millions of existing “assault weapons” in private hands? There are only three options that I can see with perhaps some minor variations:

  1. They are grandfathered and will exist for decades and hence any effect is not immediate.
  2. Taxpayers will be required to purchase them from the existing owners. This will cost billions even if the existing owners cooperated. And that is a very big if.
  3. Confiscation without compensation is unconstitutional in more than one way. And the cost… well, just let’s say the costs will be incalculable.

Quote of the day—Mark Morford

Guns are, socially and ethically, devastating. Worthless. They add nothing of positive, intrinsic value to a culture, a people, a country. They only diminish, destroy, display an awesome sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity.

Too much? Too far? Not really. I’m sure you already sense that all those cartoonish action movies, thuggish hip-hop songs, clunky old westerns, ultra-violent video games and the racks of high-caliber weaponry over at Cabela sporting goods and the local gun show – all of which we’ve been led to believe are so essential to our national identity – none of them offer anything of deep worth to the culture; no authentic masculinity, no real patriotism, no genuine power or strength or class. Heart, soul or integrity? Don’t be absurd.

It’s all a vulgar illusion, Hollywood glitter-bombing, manufactured mythology in service of shameless capitalism and a false, bloody American ideology that’s never served us well and only made us the ugly, violence-drunk stepchild of the civilized world. Don’t you already know?

Here is the truth: Guns are pain. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor, the devil disguised as an outrageously misinterpreted chunk of the Constitution that was never meant to suffer what the fat lords of the gun lobbies have made it suffer.

Mark Morford
December 18, 2012
Death to all guns
[H/T to Sean Y. for the email.

It would appear to me Mr. Morford has not read why the gun is civilization. Or perhaps could not comprehend it through his fog of hate.

The title doesn’t make sense. That is; unless you substitute “gun owners” for “guns”. It seems to work in the body of the rant as well. I’m pretty sure that is what he really meant.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

The only “need” discussion related to the Second Amendment should be regarding whether someone needs a government handout to purchase guns and ammo.

Important Statement from the National Rifle Association

From NRA-ILA via Twitter:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

Quote of the day—James Freeman Clarke

All the strength and force of man comes from his faith in things unseen. He who believes is strong; he who doubts is weak. Strong convictions precede great actions.

James Freeman Clarke
April 4, 1810 – June 8, 1888
[Clarke was an advocate of human rights. He was active in the abolition movement and the education of women.

Today the basic human right of self-defense is under attack. We have strong convictions but in some people they have been trampled so hard and so deep for so long that they have not been expressed. Now it is essential to find your voice, find your convictions, and stand up against a great evil that is attempting to destroy our right to keep and bear arms.

Don’t let that happen. Don’t let the last decade of progress be swept away because of one mentally ill young man and a million mental midgets who think yet another restriction on guns would have made any difference in the Newton, Connecticut tragedy.

We are better than this.—Joe]

Let’s have the conversations

The blood is still warm from one of the most tragic mass murders we have ever had in our country and now the anti-gun people really want to have a conversation. A few months ago I explained we had the conversation over the last 40 years and they lost. They apparently didn’t get the message so, okay, let’s have the conversations.

Instapundit has some suggestions but he is far, far too timid for me.

Say Uncle is a little closer in line with me but he is still too timid.

Here is my list conversations openers:

First conversation:
Civil rights attorneys and/or prosecutors should be lining up to confiscate the wealth of and/or send to prison the politicians and other government employees who created victim disarmament zones. These people enabled the murder of dozens of people, mostly children, by a single person. If a private citizen had enabled these murders they would be facing massive civil liability and probably criminal charges. Government employees should not be exempt. If we don’t have the prison space for all of them then turn the drug addicts, prostitutes, and other “criminals” who committed victimless crimes loose and make the room. These public servants stripped people of their rights to keep and bear arms and then put signs up advertising “Gun Free Zone”. It’s bad enough to enable cold blooded murder but to advertise the fact they enabled it and to be proud of it is seriously sick and criminal. This can and should be used as evidence against them at their trials.

Second conversation:
The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. This makes it the equivalent of the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police. The right to a lawyer is backed up by government payments for a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Health care isn’t in the bill of rights but we have politicians claiming it is a basic human right and the government should pay for your doctor if you cannot afford one. If people cannot afford a firearm and ammo to defend themselves the government should provide them.

Third conversation:
When people are advocating the murder of people peaceably exercising their rights the police should investigate and prosecute as appropriate. The First Amendment does not protect death threats or the advocating of murder. If these threats are not dealt with quickly and appropriately further blood is likely to be on the hands of government officials. This is no different than violent threats against people of color, homosexuals, or any other group. By ignoring them government officials are tacitly approving of them and should be held accountable for their failure to do their job.

Further conversations:
Our rights are not up for grabs, compromise, or debate. Such a discussion will not be part of any conversation. One of the reasons we have the Second Amendment is to make sure that such “conversations” are brief, vigorously resisted, and successfully concluded on the side of freedom. We don’t want to go there and the other side damn well doesn’t want to go there.

Quote of the day—Andy Barovick

@linoge_wotc All you & your bros-in-arms need is some therapy, so you’ll feel better about your penises & less reliant on loaded guns.

Andy Barovick
Tweeted on December 12, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]]

This is what they think about you

A selection from Twitchy Staff:

sam tarling@sammyswordfish

All NRA members should be shot!!!! I thank you, that’s one of my own !!

Bitter Old St. Nick@90sRememberer

Murder every NRA member

Elizabeth V@cochisev

Happy I live in Canada not USA. Land of handgun nuts.nra should be shot & put out of their misery. Not babies@school.

John Cobarruvias@BayAreaHouston

Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them? #PrayForNewton

I see no difference between this and the people who would call for the murder of all members of the NAACP after someone of color murdered a bunch of people. These people are the moral equivalent of the KKK and should be treated as such.

Update: More death threats and wishes for us and our families to be killed.

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

[A]nti-gun laws don’t reduce violence.

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.  Their repeated failures are what enable them to come back demanding more.

Brennan Bailey
December 14, 2012
[From the gun email list at work.

From listening to nearly all anti-gun politicians and most anti-freedom activists it’s very clear they know, or at least strongly suspect, the laws they demand to be passed will not increase public safety. They will say things like “We need to protect our children!”, not “This will make our children safer!”. Or “We should not have to fear gun violence!”, not “Restrictions on gun sales will make us safer!”

Read the CSGV media release on the Newtown Connecticut shooting. Read the Handgun Control Inc.’s Brady Campaign media releases on almost anything. They do not claim their defense of, and avocations for, more restrictions increase public safety. Even Dennis Henigan in his own book Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy admits that it is difficult to determine if gun control decreases violent crime.

It gun control cannot be shown to reduce violence yet people who know this continue to advocate for it then it would appear Bailey is completely justified in saying, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.” Whatever their motivation might be we know the motivation is not to reduce violence. And if their motivation is not to reduce violence we are completely justified in not only demanding the repeal of existing gun control laws but calling them out as evil scoundrels.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

The problem is, once they start smelling blood in the water, the sharks come out.

As gun owners, if we could just experience the grief and sorrow along with the rest of the country, instead of having it intruded upon by that impending feeling of doom about what the media, the politicians, and the people in society who don’t much care for civilian gun ownership are going to do to our lives, liberty and often times livelihood? If we could go through something like this without worrying how much we’re going to be the scapegoats?

Sebastian
December 14, 2012
From Hickenlooper Says “Time is Right” for Gun Control and Wouldn’t It Be Nice?
[I’m not quite as pessimistic as Sebastian is over the political fallout from the shooting in Connecticut. In part because it is my understanding that handguns were used rather than “evil black rifles”. Handguns are specifically called out as being protected in the Heller decision.

Still, he is correct. The sharks will smell blood and we will likely have to play some defense for a while. My expectation is that restrictions on magazine capacity will take point.

And those worries are not what we should be focusing on. We should be grieving and dealing with the emotional trauma.

Our political response probably should be focusing on getting rid of victim disarmament zones and pointing out what a dangerous failure the “gun free zones” experiment was and is. Perhaps now is the turning point where people can see gun control doesn’t work and it just cost the lives of some of the people we value the most.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Having a government agency to control and regulate firearms in light of the Second Amendment is like having a government agency to control and regulate people with black skin in light of the 13th Amendment.

This isn’t to say that the use of firearms should be unregulated. You still could, and should, be punished for causing harm to innocent people or the property of others regardless of the means by which you caused the harm.

Quote of the day—dlpartyka

Not to worry, The Gangs got their Federal Firearms Allotment without it being traced back to BATFE.

dlpartyka
November 30, 2012
Comment to More than 100 rifles, including ‘AK-style’ weapons, stolen from train car in metro Atlanta
[It’s funny because it could be true.—Joe]

Quote of the day—StillLooking

The only benefit to society of guns is population control.

StillLooking
November 24, 2012
Comment to Obama should now push for gun control
[Yes. I’m sure over population was of such concern the authors of the Bill of Rights made sure it was appropriately addressed.—Joe]

We were right again

Less than 10 days ago the Brady Campaign was saying:

Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.

Today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said:

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms  for self-defense, which is as important outside the  home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with  concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme  Court’s interpretation  of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the  decisions in the two cases before us…

This is huge! Carry of firearms outside the home has been declared to be a specific enumerated right by a Federal Court. Laws in Washington D.C., California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other jurisdictions are now target rich environments for lawsuits to strike down restrictions on a fundamental right.

The Brady Campaign is on the wrong side of history. Again.

Update: As pointed out by David Hardy this is a circuit split and it will almost for certain go to the Supreme Court for resolution.

Quote of the day—Nick (@WarriorBanker)

@revenant0202 My apologies to your wife! Is it impotence? Three inch penis? Or just pathetic? @linoge_wotc @moronwatch @nakedaxiom

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

This is the conversation the gun lobby wants you to be having.

Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign
November 2012
In response to the question, “Would you, at a moment when a stranger is shooting at you, prefer to have a gun, or not?”
[I find it very telling that Gross avoids the question. This is especially true because I recently finished listening to (and then purchased the hardcover version) Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception.

This is an excellent book. The title is a bit misleading because the book is about detecting deception which doesn’t necessarily mean lying. But “Spy the Deception” or even “Detect the Deception” just doesn’t have the “ring” to it that “Spy the Lie” does. Also of note is that the authors are former CIA officers.

Gross is being deceptive. He does not want to discuss the truth. In the famous words of Col. Nathan R. Jessup, Mr. Gross, “You can’t handle the truth!” And because Gross cannot handle the truth his organization is, and rightly so, doomed to the dustbin of history.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tom Mauser

People don’t trust government to do what’s right. They are very attracted to the idea of a nation of individuals, so they don’t think about what’s good for the collective.

Tom Mauser
Gun-control activist.
November 2012
The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
[It’s good to have him explicitly say it. Mauser (how ironic!) is opposed to a nation of individuals and individual rights. The collective is what is important.

Mauser is opposed to not just a specific enumerated right called out in the Bill of Rights, but the very foundation of this nation. He should move to a country more closely politically aligned with his views. I’m thinking North Korea would be appropriate. The United States Constitution clearly was designed for people totally different from him.—Joe]

What can we do about gun control?

What can we do about gun control?” is an open question on answers.yahoo.com.

Someone with the alias of Sal Paradise says:

Shoot gun owners with their own guns?

I find it difficult to interpret this any other way than this guy is advocating theft and murder of people exercising a specific enumerated right. Typical.

He must be a democrat. They have a very long history of opposition to civil rights:

DemocratsRepublicans

Quote of the day—Christopher Evans

It’s my first gun show. I’m trying to keep an open mind about the firearm fetishists who frequent these death markets.

Christopher Evans
November 14, 2012
The Plain Dealer
How to buy guns, cheap: Christopher Evans
[H/T to Robb.

Let’s just say I’m “skeptical” of his claim about trying to keep an open mind.—Joe]

Clarification from Alan Korwin

There have been several sites (here and here are just two examples and there are many others) posting an alarmist message with the title of “Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out” attributed to Alan Korwin.

It didn’t sound right to me so I sent an email to Alan asking if he had written it and if he had was it recent or sometime in the past. He replied to his email list and posted on his blog the following denial.

I’m reminded of something Winston Churchill said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Churchill, of course, said that before Al Gore invented the Internet so today it would be more like around the world 10,000 times instead of just halfway.

From Alan Korwin:

CLARIFICATION

I did not write this:

—-
Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.
 
Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.
—-

Where did that email come from?
A lot of people apparently got it before someone sent me a copy.
I’d like to write to whoever decided to create and circulate it.
I finally got it in this link from someone:

http://americannationalmilitia.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out

I did not write that inflammatory paragraph and its next sentence,
even though someone has attributed that to me.

HOWEVER:

I did indeed post, in January 2009, the huge list of guns to be banned that came with it — which I took directly from a Democrat’s proposed bill, HR 1022, in the 110th Congress. That list is accurate (as it appeared in the link above, and as it remains posted on my website), including the blanket powers to be granted to the Attorney General, amounting to an extraordinarily broad firearms ban.

[“Rifles (or copies or duplicates): M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91…” the list goes on at great length, including shotguns, handguns, gear, parts and much more, go to my website for the whole list]

That part is not invented. It was from Congress. In 2009.
To everyone who wrote to me asking for the source, there it is.

No one, including the Democrats, expected that to have a chance of passage at that time,
under President Bush. It simply showed what they wished for, and they introduced it into Congress.

It is horrifying from a gun-rights perspective.
Whoever used my name without my permission or knowledge was at least clever.

My original posting is here, including the list of guns to be banned, and you can read it:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm.
If you own a gun, chances are yours is included, because along with the specific lists,
are features guns have, like grips (you read that right), and anything the AG might decide to add.

The Brady Gun-Ban Strategy, issued at the same time at the beginning of Obama’s first term, is here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/BradyStrategy2009.htm
It did not circulate very far outside their own circles.
The lamestream media basically ignored it because it was so incendiary.

This is why the left was so disappointed with Obama’s performance:
he failed to act on their astounding rights-removal plans.
Their respect for the fundamental civil and human right to arms is lower than you can dream.

Now, as far as I’m aware, no one outside his inner circle has seen his current plans.

Saying “Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out” — and attributing that to me, is false.

I would sure like to know who did that.

But the list of guns was real, it was proposed in Congress almost four years ago.

Who knows what they’re planning now. Wait and see.
I doubt it will be good, if your rights mean anything.

As before, I’ll be watching, and will continue to post these things as I find them.

I read the bills, and describe them in plain English. I get other insider info.
It’s what I do. Get on my list on my home page —
http://www.gunlaws.com

I have the UN Arms Trade Treaty spelled out in my reports 113, 114 and 116, here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm
113- How treaties can trump the Constitution; 114- The UN treaty spelled out in plain English;
116- Mexico’s plan to use it against us, from our pro-rights Ambassador Donald Mahley.

Get on my list on my home page — http://www.gunlaws.com

Permission to circulate this memo gladly granted.

Alan.

P.S. If that doesn’t worry you enough, scroll down to this item on my New Stuff page:
GUN-RIGHTS LICENSING PLANNED,
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
also introduced into Congress, HR 45, at about the same time, the beginning of Obama’s term.
It would require a test to own a gun that no one could pass, plus biometric ID that doesn’t exist.
It also had no chance of passage, but shows how they were thinking. It got no co-sponsors,
was introduced by former Black Panther Bobby Rush, and what’s our Congress come to.