Category Archives: Gun Rights

Judge rules against guns in campus apartments

Posted on by

Via daughter Xenia and Idaho gun lobbyist Mike Brown (who says, “Time for plan ‘B’”) we find that, pretty much as expected, the University of Idaho gets to keep banning guns on campus:

A state judge ruled Thursday in favor of the University of Idaho in a lawsuit challenging the school’s restrictions on keeping firearms in on-campus housing.

The ruling was handed down by 2nd District Judge John Stegner in a case brought by second-year law student Aaron Tribble. He filed his lawsuit in January, claiming that the university’s ban on firearms at his on-campus apartment infringed on his constitutional rights.

The university bans firearms on campus, but students are allowed to store and check out their guns at a police substation on the Moscow campus.

University attorneys said that Tribble agreed to waive certain rights when he entered into an agreement to live on campus — an argument that the judge agreed with, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News reported (http://bit.ly/szuuZ4 ). The judge wrote the state Board of Regents has a right to regulate and maintain a safe environment on campus.

Mike and I have had many long talks about this lawsuit and the issue of guns on Idaho campuses. While the lawsuit was with the best of intentions it probably wasn’t the best way to approach the problem. Mike thinks we have a much better chance fixing this problem going through the legislature. We came close last year but there are highly charged emotional issues that need to be carefully addressed. We will be trying again this year. Part of the plan may include a private Boomershoot party for the legislators.

It’s a small world.

In addition to this being in the town where I have my Idaho home, everyone in our immediate family and many in our extended family went to college here. Daughter Kim still attends and will graduate in June. When in grade school Kim was good friends with one of Judge Stegner’s daughters. Stegner was the judge on the one trial I where I was on a jury. If Tribble appeals it probably will go before appeals court Judge Karen Lansing. Karen is my cousin. When growing up we lived 0.75 miles apart and she used to read me books when I was very little. The hillside where all the long range targets for Boomershoot are placed is owned by Karen’s brother.

Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

Posted on by

It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for confiscation throughout America.

David B. Kopel
December 2, 2011
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution
[Kopel is referring to incidents in 1775 but the words could have just as easily applied to the late 20th Century.

The people of Massachusetts went to war against their government because of gun control in 1775 yet Massachusetts politicians lead the way for gun controllers of present day. I keep thinking they should be charged with treason but I doubt I could get much traction with that meme.—Joe]

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

Posted on by

I just finished reading David Kopel’s paper How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution. I found it fascinating. It was like an exciting short story but with lots of footnotes.

There is a lot of great material in it and my QOTD for tomorrow will come from it.

What follow are some of the highlights.

In 1777 when British victory seemed likely Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” It included the following:

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .

Imagine how different things would be today had the British won. Kopel convincingly presents the case (Patrick Henry’s speech of March 23, 1775 is just a hint) that the American citizens knew this was coming and was a significant, if not major, motivation for rebellion.

I especially like this (page 32):

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76, or on District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, both of which hold that, while sporting uses such as hunting are part of the Second Amendment, the “core” and “central component” of the Second Amendment is self-defense.

And this (page 32):

Laws which aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution. Sometimes, legislative history will frankly reveal that the purpose of an anti-gun law was to discourage gun ownership in general, or that the law was based on hostility to gun ownership. This is the case for New York City’s pistol licensing fees. Everywhere in New York State, the fee for the issuance or renewal of a handgun permit is $10 (plus a separate $95 fee for a fingerprint check for first-time applications). But in New York City, the fee is over $340, payable every three years. The explicitly stated purpose of allowing the New York City government to charge extra fees was to discourage handgun ownership in the City.

In Alameda County, California, the five-person County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property at the behest of a Supervisor who complained that her previous efforts to ban gun shows had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution.” She explained that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.” Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban because the other supervisors who voted for the ordinance might have had legitimate motives.

He concludes with:

Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the 21st century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.

On the shoulders of giants

Posted on by

As I have said before, public servants who advocate gun control must have forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.

I now read in David Kopel’s new paper, How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution (via Say Uncle):

The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.

ATF is allowing more people to have guns

Posted on by

This is good news from the ATF:

Since 1998, the Gun Control Act (GCA) has prohibited certain nonimmigrant aliens from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition that have a connection to interstate commerce.

…

Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, (OLC) has informed ATF that its interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by section 922(g)(5)(B) is overly broad. That is, OLC determined that the prohibition contained in section 922(g)(5)(B) does not extend to all nonimmigrant aliens present in the United States, but only extends to aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Some nonimmigrant aliens, including most Canadian visitors, as well as aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver program, are allowed to be present in the United States without a nonimmigrant visa. Those aliens, and others who are lawfully in the country without a visa, are not within the scope of the GCA prohibition. This interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by section 922(g)(5)(B) extends to the scope of transfers of firearms by sellers (including Federal firearms licensees) under 922(d)(5)(B).

The way I read this is that more visitors to our country will soon be able to legally purchase and use firearms while they are here. This will mean they can defend themselves as well as participate in the shooting sports. This is a good thing for spreading freedom around the world. Plus it’s probably going to make anti-gun people cry.

When even the ATF makes anti-gun people unhappy you just have to smile and think maybe things still might turn out okay.

Deliberate misinformation from the media

Posted on by

The Guardian (U.K.) is either living in the past, is willfully ignoring the evidence and news, or is engaged in deliberate misinformation. I have to conclude the later because of the extreme anti-gun bias of people in the U.K.) and the following evidence:

“The United States is the easiest and the cheapest place for drug traffickers to get their firearms, and as long as we are the easiest and cheapest place for the cartels to get their firearms there’ll continue to be gun trafficking,” said J Dewey Webb, the special agent in charge of pursuing weapons traffickers in Texas at the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

…

87% of firearms seized by Mexico over the previous five years were traced to the US. Texas was the single largest source. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, told Congress last month that of 94,000 weapons captured from drug traffickers by the Mexican authorities, over 64,000 originated in the US.

Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center, is quoted extensively. No pro-gun organizations were quoted.

And, of course, the reason all this gun trafficking occurs is because of the evils of capitalism:

“Why does this arms business continue?” Calderon said in June. “I say it openly: it’s because of the profit which the US arms industry makes.”

“Reasoned discourse” has of course been implemented. No comments are allowed.

If this isn’t enough to convince you they are engaged in deliberate misinformation watch the video in the article. From the music to the images of bullet holes, piles of drugs and money, and text they chose they make it very clear they believe the gun laws of the U.S. are evil.

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

The Department of Justice used Operation Fast and Furious to manufacture gun crimes, and then used those crimes to argue for more gun restrictions. If this sounds eerily like the cliche of a mob protection racket to you, you’re right on the money. This is racketeering, and those DOJ officials responsible needs to face a criminal trial under RICO statues.

Bob Owens
December 7, 2011
ATF used Fast and Furious to argue for new gun control measures
[Further mob like in their behavior was that gun dealers had the threat of ATF retribution hanging over their heads if they didn’t go along with the ATF mandated behavior they believed to be wrong and endangered innocent life.

When is the special prosecutor going to be appointed to clean up this mess?—Joe]

Anti-gun politician gets his prison sentence

Posted on by

It’s not for the crimes he committed against gun owners but 14 years in prison will keep him off the streets long enough and probably out political office forever such that Rod Blagojevich will never trouble us again. Read about his sentence and crimes here, here, and here.

I first heard about Blagojevich from a friend who was a gun-rights activist in Chicago. Some of the stories were astounding. The corruption and abuse of power that comes out of that political cesspool makes it very clear why they don’t want citizens to own firearms. People that willing to causally abuse the power of government for personal gain know the subjects of their abuse will entertain thoughts of ending their reigns of terror via lead poisoning.

Here is an open letter to Blagojevich my friend wrote when Blagojevich was in Congress.

Good-bye and good riddance to Rod Blagojevich. He is just one more anti-gun politician in prison where they belong. There are many more on my list.

CBS is confirming gun owner fears of the ATF

Posted on by

Via Say Uncle we have CBS reports that what we feared of the ATF was actually true:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.”

…

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

…

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”

The ATF secretly told gun dealers to approve sales the dealers would have refused because of suspicions the gun would end up in the hands of bad guys. The dealers repeatedly asked for reassurance from the ATF and received it. The ATF then used these sales from gun dealers as justification for illegal regulations against those same gun dealers.

It’s as if the ATF really believed it was in their job description to, as one bigot expressed it, “to make it harder for people to get guns.”

The ATF should no more make it difficult for people to get guns than there should be a government agency that makes it more difficult for people to purchase religious materials, publish newspapers, or get a fair trial.

That the ATF apparently sees it’s mission as such is justification to, if not abolish it, at least severely cut their budget and prosecute the people responsible for this atrocious abuse of power.

This is how we will know we have won

Posted on by

We will know we have won when you read essentially the same story but with “gays and lesbians” replaced “gun owners”:

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world.

In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

“Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct,” Mrs. Clinton said at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, “but in fact they are one and the same.”

Of course it’s a rare situation when I think we should be giving foreign aid but there is still “the stick” even if you have a policy of not giving out “carrots”.

Holder shouldn’t be asked to resign

Posted on by

The evidence is sketchy in places and testimony is changing in the Fast and Furious scandal so we don’t yet know for certain what happened. But many people, including 52 members of the House and two senators, are calling for the resignation or firing of Holder and even indictment ATF officials.

There is one nagging piece of evidence that I haven’t been hearing requests for that should, and I think must, be demanded by the investigating committees. Was operation Fast and Furious what President Obama was referring to when he said, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”? If it wasn’t then what was he referring to?

Based upon the “guns in Mexico” mantra the ATF implemented a regulation requiring some firearms dealers to report multiple sales of some rifles in direct violation of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A)):

…dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.

The following hypothesis is thus fully supported by all the evidence I have seen:

The administration deliberately enabled and in some cases delivered firearms to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to justify subversion of U.S. law with illegal regulations imposed upon U.S. gun dealers and owners.

If this was the intent of Fast and Furious then it would appear the entire chain of command from President Obama on down knew and were responsible for the results. This isn’t resignation material.

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If Fast and Furious was “under the radar” gun control and resulted in the deaths of not just a Border Patrol agent but hundreds of Mexicans then it would appear to me that the administration doesn’t just have the shame of resignation hanging over them. They have the specter of a death sentence starting at them. The investigating committee should use that as a bargaining chip to get their full cooperation. Once all the facts have surfaced the culprits should be given a fair trial and appropriate sentences.

Violation of civil rights under the color of law must be taken very seriously. Inalienable civil rights of the individual are one of the key difference between our supposed form of government and that of a totalitarian government. If the U.S. Attorney General and/or the President of the United States were and/or are treating their positions as if this is a totalitarian society they need to be subject to extremely severe sanctions to not only to punish them for their crimes but as a deterrent for future aspiring tyrants at both the national and local level.

Quote of the day—Joe Walsh

Posted on by

I challenge you to debate the Second Amendment in my district in front of real Americans in the heartland, not Washington D.C. insiders. Unless, of course, you have no interest in hearing what real Americans have to say.

Joe Walsh
U.S. Representative from Illinois
December 2, 2011
Letter to Dennis Henigan, Acting President, The Brady Campaign.
[Henigan wants to have the debate in D.C.. Walsh says it should be in his Congressional district.

Henigan didn’t care what the U.S. Constitution said about guns so of course he has no interest in what real Americans have to say about guns. People are even less relevant than the Constitution to his type. Plus being outnumbered 100:1 by a bunch of gun owners would probably require too many layers of Depends.

Sebastian has more thoughts on the debate about the (no) debate.—Joe]

Defensive Gun Use… maybe

Posted on by

Via email.

Discuss.

Subject: DGU or not?
From: An Anonymous friend of mine
Date: Mon, Dec 05, 2011 12:32 am
To: Joe Huffman

was wondering if you’d mind posting this (sourcing it as “from an anonymous friend of mine”) for people to think about and comment on. It happened to me just a few days ago. I’m not entirely sure what all I think about it, just yet.

<><><>

DGU
Defensive Gun Use… maybe

Sometimes when a person uses a gun in self defense, it’s obvious: clear threats are made, shots are fired, blood is drawn, legal issues considered with lawyers, and much paperwork is filed.

Sometimes, it’s not so clear-cut. Case in point:

I was out for a walk in the woods, on a public trail that was foot, bike, and horse only. It is clearly marked as such, with obvious “No motorcycles” symbols. I was about a mile from the (empty) parking lot when I heard the sound of motorcycles coming from up ahead. I saw two young men in hoodies (late teens or early twenties) coming down the path on mini-bikes (very small motorcycles) and around the “S” curves in the trail. I had my DSLR, so I took pictures of them as they came by – it was not very discreet, and they obligingly flipped me off as they went by and around the next corner. I kept walking. I heard the mini-bikes continue along, and then stop and idle, then turn around and started coming back my way.

I looked to see if there was anyplace I could jump off the trail to let them go on by (I didn’t want a confrontation if I didn’t have to have one), jogged a few yards forward and ducked off to the side and hunkered down. I heard the bikes stop back up the trail a piece, and one rider said to the other, “Did you see him jump off right there?”

I figured there was no benefit in keeping down at that point, so I stepped back over to the edge of the trail (I was up a slight embankment), and looked at them. I vaguely recognized one of them – likely a former student. They were back down the trail about 15 yards or a little more, stopped, and looking at me. They asked, aggressively and feeding on one another’s comments and attitude, things like, “Why did you take our pictures, are you weird or something?!”

I replied “I take pictures of a lot of things out here. Mushrooms, birds. And people breaking the law; the trail is clearly posted ‘no motorcycles’.” And I took another few pictures, causing them to promptly attempt to conceal their faces with their hands, but neither of us moved toward the other.

They argued with me a bit, saying they didn’t see any signs, I should delete the pictures, etc. I said I’d walk the trail and if I saw any damage, or vandalism, or heard reports of problems later, then I’d show the photos to the appropriate authorities; if not, then no harm no foul no report. One of them started to get off his bike, saying belligerently, “I guess I’m going to have to fuck up your camera!”

I didn’t change my stance, sweep my coat back, flash a pistol grip, or do anything cinematic. I just stared straight at them, shook my head slightly, and said quietly, but clearly and confidently, “Nah, you don’t want to do that, because then I’d have to defend myself, and that could get… messy.” Not threatening or taunting, not challenging or belittling, not meek or desperate, just confident and not intimidated in the least. In my mind I was thinking about the Glock with a full magazine on my hip, and the fact that I had plenty of distance / time to draw (15 to 20 yards), a great backstop, no innocent bystanders, recent range-time, and good terrain advantage (they’d be running up a somewhat muddy trail, then have to climb a two-foot embankment and go another few steps). I was thinking they were much younger, and outnumbered me, I’d been to the PT recently for my hand, he’d made a clear verbal threat, and running away was clearly not an option with them on mini-bikes, so the legal side was solid. If these two insisted that things had to go all to shit, his day WAS going to be a lot worse than mine.

They suddenly appeared to have a situational epiphany. The lead guy sat back down on the bike, and his body language and tone changed dramatically and instantly, becoming much more easygoing and polite, saying “we didn’t know it was off limits, we didn’t come in the normal way, it’s not like we are out doing drugs, we are just trying to having fun in the outdoors, we’ll turn them off if we pass any horses, please don’t turn us in,” etc. I said again, if I didn’t see any problems on the trail, and heard no reports of problems or vandalism, then I saw no reason to file paperwork, and it would be best if they continued on their way, and I’d continue on mine.

I turned around, and headed on down the trail, listening carefully. I heard them start back up and motor off the other way, slowly. On my way back, I passed their tracks in the mud; they were clearly driving slowly and carefully, as there was no splash or anything torn up anywhere from their tires. I got back to my car, and drove home without any further incident. (Ironically, reviewing the pictures later I noted that far and away the best pictures I got were after they came back to harass me and stopped, and most of the ones I took on their first pass by me would be almost completely useless in trying to identify them (low light means slow shutter speed, and fast moving bikes in a telephoto lens meant out of focus)).

The weirdest part of my recollection is the emotional part. I felt utterly calm. No sweats, no accelerated heart rate or breathing. Just a quick series of mental checklist flashing by – can I avoid them by ducking off to the side somewhere? Then, Can I de-escalate verbally? Well, that’s out, so document the scene and then What’s the physical situation: terrain, backstop, distance, footing, how will I draw from concealment? What’s their mental state, how would I describe how they are acting (body language) and their tone, what specific words did they use? What’s the legal situation? – they came back acting like they knew they did something wrong and knew I’d photographed them and they made verbal threat (intent), two of them apparently in decent shape (ability), all alone in the woods with an empty parking lot at the trailhead (opportunity). It was odd. Not dream-like or anything, just very…clear. Or something.

Was that confrontation a Defensive Gun Usage? I don’t know. I didn’t display or draw or fire or even say I was armed and able to defend myself. I know taking the pictures was the proper thing to do. I don’t think they were unusually psychotic or evil or out searching for victims. But I’m not sure that I’d have been (or acted) nearly as confident in my stance without a gun on my hip, currently having a flakey shoulder and tweaked hand. It may be that they were all bluster, and anything stronger than abject submission would have stopped them. It may be that I could have said the same thing, and had the same effect, knowing I had a Spyderco Delica in my pocket, and some martial arts experience. It may be that the punk just suddenly realized he was being all sorts of stupid, and a possible ticket was much less of a problem than an assault and battery charge.

Maybe. But maybe not.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Modified slightly from what Crotalus said almost three years ago…

If anti-gun people think guns are penis substitutes then that must mean they wish to be castrated.

Having grown up on a farm I have some experience with this task. I’m willing to donate a few hours of my time to servicing these needs for the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. If they would coordinate their schedules such that I would only have to make one trip to D.C. we could get this taken care of by Christmas. Think of this as an example of my willingness to work together with my political opponents and compromise on common sense solutions.

Quote of the day–edgeninja

Posted on by

I was just reading a NYT op-ed about the insane, irrational paranoia of gun nuts during Obama’s presidency­. These people are just itching for any reason to go on a mass shooting spree. Most of them probably have really small penises too.

edgeninja
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s Markley’s Law Monday!

I was going through the comments on this Huffington Post article and finding the commenters were generating QOTD material faster than I could harvest it. There are going to be Markley’s Law QOTDs every Monday for several weeks along with “Crap for Brains” and “Why are Liberals so Violent” QOTD material for quite some time.—Joe]

Drop it, or I’ll shoot you

Posted on by

Ry and Aaron W. both sent me email on this:

Tim Patterson has no doubts he would have pulled the trigger.

He’s glad he didn’t have to.

But when a woman is being attacked by a man with a knife, Patterson says he’ll do what must be done.

“If he had not stopped what he was doing,” he says, his voice fading. “He came very close to dying. Really, really close.”

..

A man had a woman’s head pulled back with one hand, and a knife to her throat with the other.

Patterson didn’t hesitate.

He drew his Kimber 1911 .45 with a six-shot clip.

“Drop it, or I’ll shoot you,” he shouted.

The assailant, wearing a hoodie that covered his face, glanced up. He immediately let go of the woman, dropped the knife, raised his arms in the air and fled.

There are some other tidbits that are of possible interest.

Tim Patterson was one of the people Ry tried to get to do the catering for Boomershoot earlier this year. It was just too far (Patterson is in Coeur d’Alene which is probably about a three hour drive with his “The Big Yellow mobile kitchen”) for the number of people we have at Boomershoot.

Patterson has a blog for The Big Yellow Trailer.

The Coeur d’Alene police “is in process of pulling together a public presentation to honor his bravery”.

One of the comments to the story is from an old friend of Patterson’s:

Well Done Tim. I remember when you used to sing a parody of “Don’t mess around with tim” driving around GG in the Mustang II in the mid 70’s and I guess that is still true. Proud to have known you.

For those who don’t “get it”:

he’d been cut ‘n ’bout a hundred places/ and he’d been shot in a couple more

…

You don’t mess around with Slim.

Quote of the day—Excelsior

Posted on by

This is never going to end until we make it illegal to own firearms. Until then, thousands of innocent people will die every year. So this country has a choice – either give up the deadly weapons or admit the selfish desire to pack heat is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those deaths. There is no other way around it – you own a gun, you’re part of the problem. Period.

Excelsior
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[[sarcasm] And the abuse of recreational drugs and alcohol is never going to end until we make it illegal to own them either. [/sarcasm]

I’m always surprised that people who make claims like this were smart enough to assemble a sentence that was intelligible. They could not possibly have given their views more than a second or two of thought. Of course the last two sentences demonstrate they think proof by vigorous assertion is valid too.

It’s pure crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous

Posted on by

NJ is in the dark ages trying to eliminate violent crime with bloodletting, that is the blood of crime victims, disarmed by their state’s archaic gun control laws and forced to face violent criminals on the streets that do not obey those laws with nothing more than a cell phone in one hand and a prayer in the other.

Anonymous
November 28, 2011
Comment to Amick: Gun laws in the Garden State
[It’s an imperfect analogy because there are some diseases that are treated by bloodletting. There appear to be no benefits to restrictions on restricting access to handheld weapons. Hence NJ restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is more harmful than bloodletting.

However Anonymous is completely correct about NJ being in the dark ages where when dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his own peril. This is analogous to the 13th Amendment guaranteeing there is no slavery but saying black skinned people venture there at their own peril. It’s time, as before, to send in the U.S. Marshals and National Guard to set these bigots straight.—Joe]

They actually believe it

Posted on by

I have been poking around some more in the anti-gun section of the term paper warehouse I reported on a few days ago and continue to be amazed at the total lack of quality in writing and reasoning. This one really did it for me though:

carrying a gun will push him to commit a crime which he has never been intended.

Carrying a gun will “push” a person to commit a crime?

This is frequently hinted at in the anti-gun rhetoric but I don’t believe I have ever heard it explicitly articulated. I always figured that they knew it was so absurd they would never say it directly. Surely they were smart enough to know that if they did they would be mocked and laughed into oblivion. Apparently this person wasn’t that smart and/or they actually believe it.

I have to wonder about the mechanism of this “push”. Is it some sort of mind control? Or is it a “flesh magnet” that pulls their hand to the gun and then causes it to squeeze the trigger? Can we measure the magnitude of the “push”? Would that “push” be proportional to the area or mass of the possessor? Does the force extend to nearby people as well? Is it inversely proportional to the distance or the square of the distance? And does wearing a government uniform provide immunity from this “push” for the possessor of the gun?

But there is another option which should be considered. It could be that the author has crap for brains and just doesn’t have a clue as what they are writing about.

Peterson Syndrome example

Posted on by

This is from Canada:

Karen Vanscoy’s 14-year-old daughter was shot and killed in 1996 by an acquaintance using a stolen gun.

“The proposed weakening of our gun laws will make it easier for those at risk of committing acts of violence either towards themselves or others to acquire guns,” said Vanscoy.

She is complaining about the possible elimination of the long gun registry. How in the world does she think the Canadian long gun registry would have prevented the murder of her daughter?

It’s Peterson Syndrome. She is incapable of logical thinking.

And of course the writer (an “independent journalist covering social justice events”) doesn’t give any time to the violated natural rights of firearms owners.