It’s like having a .60 caliber penis in your pants. Only you can kill a person with it.
Vic Frasier
June 21, 2009
Five Guns That Are Clearly Compensating for a Tiny Penis
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
And if he thinks .60 caliber is a large for a human penis then he needs some anatomy lessons as well as psychological help.—Joe]
New York state has enacted rational gun laws for one very simple reason: to protect everyone visiting, living, or working in New York.
Erin M. Duggan
January 21, 2012
Director of communications for the New York City district attorney’s office.
New York gun law triggers confusion, arrests for visitors
[“Rational”? What part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does Duggan have trouble understanding?
This is the same sort of person that would claim separate restaurants, drinking fountains and toilet facilities is “rational” too. I’m looking forward to the day when a Judge strikes those laws down and threatens the bigoted politicians, prosecuting attorneys, and police officers with arrest and jail time when they fail to obey in a timely manner.—Joe]
The Washington Post, notoriously anti-gun, published a book review written by Mark A. Keefe IV — editor in chief of American Rifleman. The book reviewed is Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun
It is a good book (my review is here). But in the Washington Post?
Wow!
Dear Lord: Please keep them that stupid until they disappear.
Amen.
Miguel
January 20, 2012
Comment to What That Flushing Sound Is…
[While carefully controlled experiments have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of pray I remain confident the stupidity of the Brady Campaign will continue for quite some time. Whether it will be sufficiently severe in depth and duration to cause them to disappear will require the experiment be run to completion.—Joe]
Gun control laws in the United States originated as a scheme for keeping blacks disarmed. By turning gun rights into privileges, granted at the discretion of local police chiefs and county sheriffs, whites could keep blacks from bearing arms while still in practice maintaining their own rights. The slope turned out to be slippery and, in all but eight states, whites lost their gun rights too. Finally in 1987 people of all races started to reclaim their gun rights through the “shall issue” movement, requiring police chiefs and county sheriffs to issue gun permits to all adult applicants who are not disqualified by history of crime or mental illness.
Alec Rawls
2002
Blacks and Guns
[Another one via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.
It’s the dirty little secret of gun control. And it’s just one more thing anti-gun people have in common with the KKK.—Joe]
When I read stories like this (via Sebastian) I can’t help but think of the story The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Gun control activists are like the two tailors who keep telling the media and politicians (the Emperor) something that obviously isn’t true. The people have finally stopped the pretense and are now laughing at those still attempting to maintain the pretense.
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 11, 1921
Stave v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 107 S.E. 222
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Mulivor sent me a free copy which I am enjoying immensely. I will be stealing more quotes from it in the coming weeks.—Joe]
We have passed the point, to be honest, where these folks deserve the dignity of being treated like reasonable adults. As they have plainly demonstrated, they are incapable of acting in such a manner.
Sebastian
January 16, 2012
The State of the Debate
[As I have said before, we do not have a common basis to even communicate with these people.
Their “political currency” is the tragedy of their victim “heroes”. Ours is the enabling of self reliance and determination. There is no common ground upon which to compromise or even talk.
There is very little to be gained by engaging them. Point out the absurdities of their claims on our own and public turf then let them fade away into the dustbin of history.—Joe]
The anti-gun people have expressed rage and claim we misunderstood and mocked them. The video Barron and I made was “the most offensive” of the responses (CSGV link is here). My impression is that this was because people in the video repeatedly said, “Candles don’t stop violence.” The anti-gun people said their candle-light stunt was to remember the victims; not to stop the violence.
But if you remember the Brady Campaign did say, “Imagine stopping a bullet before it kills a child. Impossible? Not with your help! All across America people are coming together to save lives from preventable gun violence. Will you join them, and the Brady Campaign, as we host a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of gun violence?”
Our message, as stated by daughter Kim in the video, was, “Your time would be better spent going to the range and practicing…”
For them to be surprised we would regard their publicity stunt strictly as a remembrance vigil is for them to say they were stupid or incredibly naive. They literally said, “…people are coming together to save lives from preventable gun violence…” But in the words of a famous gun blogger, “Gun control: What you do instead of something.” He, and others, have been saying this for years.
They should have known their claim to be “doing something” would be derided. Barron, Kim, and I just cranked it to 11.
It sounds like the shape of the weapon works like Viagra for gun owners.
CanadianGuy
January 6, 2012
Comment to RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
I cannot help to see Joan and every other “gun control” supporter like her as being roughly analogous to book burners, especially when viewed in the light of their infatuation with censorship and controlling the message. Not only do they want us defenseless and easy prey for criminals, they want us quiet, docile, controlled.
Linoge
January 15, 2012
tellin’ riddles in the dark
[There is lots of evidence to support this. Reasoned Discourse, telling us we should just sit back and shut up, and of course the violence and threats of violence from these people.
It’s as Weer’d Beard has said, “Anti-Freedom, not just Anti-gun!”—Joe]
As I understand it a person charged with a crime can plead legal insanity if at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to determine that what they were doing was illegal.
I keep wondering if the Joyce Foundation allows a plea of that type with the people who spend their money. Some of the things the anti-gun people have been saying and doing lately is just nuts.
Of course if the parallel to our legal system were to remain true they would still be required to spend time in a mental hospital and that isn’t going to happen. A more likely result is that once the Foundation money runs out they will get jobs in the ATF as gun experts.
The fatal shooting of Park Ranger Anderson was a bitter reminder of the human cost of appeasing the gun lobby – the Coburn Amendment passed two years ago legalizing loaded guns in national parks.
Dennis Henigan
January 11, 2012
Thousands Lit Candles Against The Darkness of Gun Violence
[Thirdpower already covered the lie about the numbers so I will ignore the lie in Henigan post title.
Let me get this straight… it was because it was legal to have loaded guns in national parks that Anderson was murdered? If that were true then doesn’t it follow that because it was illegal to have loaded guns at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech that those murders could not have occurred?
As was pointed out to me years ago by Rolf; If crime goes down after some gun law goes into effect the anti-gun people will claim it as proof we need even more strict laws. If the crime rate goes up after the law goes into effect then that is proof, to them, that stricter laws are needed.
As near as I can tell there are no facts that can be presented to anti-gun people like Henigan which will convince them any gun restriction should be repealed.
I must therefore conclude Henigan and his kind have crap for brains.
This is actually a good test to discover whether someone is worth your time to discuss the subject. Ask, “What would it take to change your mind? No matter how improbable, what data would convince you that some law restricting firearms should be repealed?” You will be surprised at how many people say there is nothing that will change their mind.
As you walk away suggest to such people that they look up the definition of “bigot” in the dictionary.—Joe]
Ubu52 (in the comments here) found a description of the course of fire for qualification standards at several different gun schools and law enforcement agencies (see also parts 2, 3 and 4).
Frequently the anti-gun people claim the police are “highly trained”. At my next opportunity I’m going to put the Lewiston Pistol Club through as much as the LAPD qualification (Ubu52 is particularly interested in these results) as is practical. It’s not entirely clear what target is being used so some additional effort will have to be given making sure we come close on that.
From looking at the course of fire my guess is that nearly everyone who attends the UPSPA matches can pass the Combat Qualification course of fire with flying colors. The bonus course will be tougher with only a few achieving “Distinguished Expert” level but many will achieve “Marksman” level.
If the results are that even C Class USPSA shooters can pass the LAPD Qualification course (which I believe they can) will that cause the anti-gun people to drop that line of argument against us? I doubt it.
But it will give us another opportunity to demonstrate the facts are not relevant to them.
Guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.
ColeenMonroe
Tweet on January 9, 2012
[I guess that is why the police, military, body guards, armored car drivers, and my daughter carry guns. That means she either is profoundly ignorant or hasn’t thought things through.
She also says she is a pacifist. That makes her a freeloader.—Joe]
These folks could have just sat back and shut up.
Joan Peterson
Board member of the Brady Campaign
January 9, 2011
Blog post in response to this video.
[Have the people on her side “just sat back and shut up” when people advocating for the Second Amendment have their public events? Nope. That is when they call the press and lay down on the sidewalk.
This is the attitude of those that demand infringement of your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms—they would like for you to voluntarily surrender your First Amendment rights as well.—Joe]
Today Aaron Tribble appealed his loss in the University of Idaho campus firearm possession case. The Notice of Appeal is here.
I really want this case to succeed but I worry that Tribble doesn’t have enough experience to do this and will loose due to some error on his part rather than the merits of his case. Such a loss would set a precedent that would be difficult to overcome.
I have read a few books on “The Rape of Nanking”:
I posted a little about them and the event here and here.
What I haven’t said is that when I read those books my mind was racing on how the civilian population could have better defended themselves. If I were able to go back in time and space and take whatever I could carry with me to that city it would be a backpack full of suppressed .22 LR pistols and several thousand rounds of ammo.
There probably would still have been thousands of Chinese who would have been gang raped and murdered but it wouldn’t have been hundreds of thousands and there would have been a lot of Japanese bodies floating down the rivers along with the Chinese.
A Girl and Her Gun posted about a woman from London who was in China when the Japanese invaded. This brought a flood of memories from reading those books. The well, so to speak, was primed so I guess it’s isn’t too surprising that my eyes filled up with tears as I got to the end of her post An Open Letter To The Anti-Gun Folks.
Here are the scores from the concealed carry match with the candles on Sunday:
Name Points Time Hit Factor
Joe H. 29 4.18 6.9378
Bob N. 26 4.73 5.4968
Roger W. 28 6.91 4.0521
Barron B. 26 6.44 4.0373
Don W. 14 4.02 3.4826
Richard I. 15 5.35 2.8037
Jodi H. 5 9.19 0.5441
Erik P. 0 7.57 0.0000
Adam M. 0 4.06 0.0000
Many of you already know this but I’ll explain again for those that are new to USPSA matches. The Hit Factor is the number of points scored, minus the penalties (such as misses), divided by the time it took to score those points. Each perfect hit (A-Zone) is worth five points. Less accurate shooting yields few points. This means there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy when trying to maximize your Hit Factor.
As you can see from the scores above I didn’t have the fastest time but because I scored near the maximum number of points (there were six shots so 30 points were the maximum) while still having a decent time I won that stage with the best Hit Factor.
Fellow video conspirator Barron (he has further comments on the scores) had a time near the bottom of the group yet with good hits came in above the middle.
The most important thing to note is that everyone got at least some solid hits on the bad guy and the maximum time used was 9.19 seconds. The Tucson shooter was shooting for about 16 seconds. Had any one of the people above been in a good position to engage him the shooting could have been stopped much sooner.
Nothing like a bunch of beer guzzling, uneducated hillbillies playing with deadly weapons to prove just how ridiculous the 2nd amendment is.
Jami Regs
January 9, 2012
Comment to a post by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence about our video.
[I can’t speak for everyone in the video but I know that daughter Kim has nearly completed her accounting degree, Barron has his BSEE, I have a BSEE and a MSEE, one of our shooting buddies is the chairman of the University Chemistry department, and I don’t even like beer.
There is nothing like an anti-gun person talking about something they know nothing about.—Joe]