Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

It is true that D.C.’s gun laws are, to some extent, undercut by weaker gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions, particularly Virginia. But that is hardly the fault of D.C.’s gun laws.

What we’re talking about here is possession of a lethal weapon. The fact that D.C. criminals have to import their guns from other jurisdictions demonstrates that D.C.’s strict gun laws actually work.

Dennis Henigan
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
July 11, 2011
MPD Says D.C. Gun Laws Have No Impact On City Crime
[What he says is true only if by “work” he means the intent of the law is to make it difficult to exercise your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. If the intent is to reduce violent crime then the gun laws clearly do not work. But then almost everyone knows Henigan intent is not to increase public safety when he advocates for more restrictive gun laws.

See also this QOTD where Half-Truth Henigan says it is difficult to sort out whether high gun ownership rates cause violent crime.

As I have said before, I want to know the real reason why they continue to advocate for restrictions on guns. I want them asked that question every time they open their mouth.—Joe]

End of the road for the Bradys

I was looking at one of the photo albums at the Brady Campaign Facebook page and found this:

BradySponsoredByHoustonGunForum

Notice (click to get a larger version if needed) that in the bottom right corner the ad displayed is for the Houston Gun Forum.

When Sarah and Jim Brady look like this and they have gun forums advertising on their pictures you have to know the end of their road is near. It is time to slap a “do not resuscitate” sign on their door and put their organization in hospice care.

Thanks

As the anti-gun organizations implode and fade into nothingness I’m expanded Boomershoot production facilities.

Today the BoomershootBabe (daughter Kim) and Barron will be unloading materials for the Mecca for long range shooters. Thanks guys. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there to help. I’m 350 miles away working on improving the entry software for Boomershoot 2012.

Give it up

As reported by Linoge, Say Uncle, and Sebastian the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence let their domain registration lapse.

It’s time for these guys to give it up. In any other business when times get really rough and the market for your product is shrinking there is a lot of consolidation and some organizations just close up shop. I’ve been there and done that and so have a lot of other people I know. There comes a time when there just aren’t enough people buying your product and you need to move on. How many buggy whip manufactures are there in existence today?

Remember the Bell Campaign? The “Million Mom March” took over that. Then the MMM merged with the Brady Campaign. Now the Brady Campaign race horse is about ready for the glue factory.

The CSGV? They were long past their prime before their senility went public. It’s time for them to give it up. If they think they must continue to sell their unwanted product they should go talk to the Brady Campaign and see if they have any job openings. Maybe the Brady’s still have a horse or two that will respond to the CSGV buggy whip.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

First the NRA’s leadership murdered its parents. Now it’s eating its children. The extremist positions staked out by the NRA’s leadership are taking their toll in dollars and cents. It is clear that even the NRA’s own members can’t stomach the leadership’s extremist anti-public safety, anti-law enforcement rhetoric and actions.

Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center
March 19, 1997
National Rifle Association Has Been “Technically Insolvent For Several Years” New Internal Document Reveals
[And 14 years later how do the balance sheets and membership numbers of the NRA and the VPC look now? I guess Sugarmann was wrong—as is nearly always the case.—Joe]

No guns for Negros

This is a JPFO video via Full-Scale Tactics:

The JPFO almost always puts out good stuff.

Quote of the day—John Lott

This case can almost be viewed as if the Obama administration wanted to increase the number of American guns used in crimes in Mexico.

The timing of the “Gunwalker” case is even more troubling since the program got going at about the same time that the Obama administration was trying to claim (falsely) that American guns were showing up in a significant number of Mexican crime scenes.

Is it possible that the Obama administration pushed this program to help gin up more support for gun control in the United States?

John Lott
July 8, 2011
|he Puzzle of ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ — When Will Team Obama Come Clean About Failed Gun Program?
[Is it possible? Of course. The people in this administration are the most anti-gun set of people in the history of our country. But they could also be classified as some of the most incompetent.

I’m still undecided on whether “Gunwalker” was a method to justify support for more gun control or massive incompetence. If it wasn’t intended to justify more gun control then it was a mighty strange coincidence that we had all the “Mexican gunrunner” noise for years at the same time. Can we determine which came first? If Gunwalker started before the “OMG drug cartels have guns” meme started then I’m convinced it was a deliberate attempt to advance gun control. But if the other way around it’s still possible but less likely.

In any case I fully support the Mexicans request that we extradite the ATF, FBI, DOJ, DEA, and any other (BoomershootWife is hoping Obama was involved) criminals to Mexico for trial there on one condition. That condition is that once they get a fair trail and have served their sentences they must ship the bodies back so we can mount their heads on poles on the Whitehouse lawn as a reminder and a warning for others.—Joe]

I thought he already was sidelined

Brady Campaign President, for another two days, Paul Helmke says:

Despite many successes, our work is not done. I will take some time off after helping Brady make the transition to new leadership, but I will never be on the sidelines.

As near as I can tell he has been on the sidelines for quite some time now and his only success was keeping his $250K/year job until his contract ran out. His organization is the equivalent of a 30 year-old lame nag watching the races from the pasture. They were unable to get a single Federal law passed without the support of the NRA during Helmke’s tenure. During that same time we had the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions go our way in direct opposition to the Brady briefs and now only one state does not allow some sort of concealed carry. Helmke and company have fought concealed carry for decades and now the fate of that battle has been completely sealed. All we have left to do is clean up all the horse manure the likes of Helmke has left for gun owners to step in.

So what will Helmke do now? On the gun control front the only direction he can go is down and out. After riding the Brady Campaign into the ground I can’t imagine MAIG being interested in him. The VPC and CSGV don’t have the money and are so far on the sidelines that they need a deep space telescope to see the action.

I think the only thing Helmke is good for now is to be shipped off to the glue factory.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago. Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.

Alan Gottlieb
SAF Executive Vice President
July 7, 2011
SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
[They are winning and winning big. Don’t let money be a bottleneck for SAF. Donate and help them win everywhere and every time.

I’m a Life (Defenders Club) member and donate addition money monthly. And remember that donations to SAF are tax deductible.—Joe]

In the endzone

Sebastian defined what he calls “our opponent’s endzone” in regards to Second Amendment activism as, “Basically, they no longer have any real relevance in the public debate.”


We might be there because if this poll is correct it should mean that we can “score at will”:



A poll unveiled Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports offers a glimpse into the mind of American voters. The poll found a majority of Americans like the National Rifle Association (NRA) but have a harsher view of the National Education Association (NEA).


The poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA — with 29 percent holding a very favorable view of the organization which defends the Second Amendment and promotes gun safety; 41 percent of those surveyed view the NRA as unfavorable. The poll found a partisan divide, with 80 percent of Republicans seeing the NRA in a favorable light, 63 percent of Democrats viewing it as unfavorable. A majority of independents — 53 percent — hold the NRA in favorable regard.


Defenders of the Second Amendment could cheer another part of the poll, which found that 56 percent of those surveyed oppose stricter gun control, while only 36 percent back harsher restrictions on the right to carry arms.


I find it telling that no mention of any anti-gun organization is made. When 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA what percentage could possibly have a favorable view of the Brady Campaign? And what percentage has even heard of the Violence Policy Center or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence?


If we can keep their coffers full SAF can run play (today–SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN) after play (yesterday–SAF WINS INJUNCTION V. CHICAGO GUN RANGE BAN) with our undefeated superstar Alan Gura. The more we run up the score with these court victories while the opposition is in disarray the better off we will be in the long run.

Quote of the day—Shootin’ Buddy

Rocks in the Great Smoky Mountains are smarter than Paul Helmke. He is the dumbest man in the history of Indiana politics (and that is quite the accomplishment because of the heavy competition here).

Shootin’ Buddy
July 7, 2011
Comment to the post Clueless.
[I’m sure there is a great deal of truth in this statement but I’m more in alignment with Lyle on this one.—Joe]

Knowledge has limits, ignorance does not

The anti-gun people are sometimes their own worst enemy. Even the title, Gun Control: A Long Over Due Argument Still Unresolved, displays Robert Waddell’s profound ignorance. Here is more:



For all the gun enthusiasts who get the Second Amendment wrong by ignoring “a well regulated militia…” portion of the amendment thinking that all Americans have the right to bear arms and that anyone can get a gun without a waiting period or a back ground check or who can just buy a clip that was intended for hunting, maybe hunting people, which is what Congresswoman Giffords’s assailant was aiming for.



Ridiculous, but seriously for the gun enthusiasts, the framers of the Constitution never intended that Americans arm themselves to the teeth. In fact, any group that hides behind the barrel of a gun and the skirts of the Bible must have a deep sense of inadequacy. A gun after all is a powerful phallic symbol.



Vehemently up holding the right to bear arms, without thought, rhyme or reason kills Democracy every time someone steps up to defend this particular right. Isn’t it the right of the people to be safe from harm?


The Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald that, essentially, all Americans do have the right to bear arms.


The “clip” used in the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford would not be claimed by the manufacture or any gun owner that I know as being particularly well suited for hunting.


I doubt Waddell has bothered to read any of the framers thoughts on the utility of possessing firearms. Or else it is a deliberate lie when he makes claims about their intent. Waddell also demonstrates the validity of Markley’s Law.


“Without thought, rhyme or reason”? Even if you were to ignore the Supreme Court extremely well thought out and reasoned ruling my bookshelf alone would keep Waddell busy reading full time for several months.


He is apparently ignorant of the fact that we do not live in a democracy and that arms in the hands of the individual defend against our right to vote being taken away.


And finally he exposes his most profound ignorance by asking if there isn’t a right to be safe from harm. The answer is an empathic, “No!”. You, and society, have a right to seek justice from those that inflicted harm. But you don’t have a right to be safe from harm. There are very strict laws and sound reasoning behind prohibitions against prior restraint and it is time ignoramuses such as Waddell, Brady Campaign supporters and others to become familiar with the legal barriers to prior restraint because that’s what is coming down the tracks like a freight train. “Prevention of gun violence” is going to get squished like a bug under this locomotive.

Quote of the day–Ilana Rovner

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits.

The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate, indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the City must come to terms with that reality. Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that right.

Ilana Rovner
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[The entire ruling could be summed up as telling the city and the lower court that they reversed, “You suck and we hate you.” It’s pretty brutal. As a hint, Rovner, above, was the more sympathetic of the judges. While concurring that the preliminary injunction should be issued against the city she didn’t go quite as far as Kanne and Sykes did.

It was a pleasure to read. There was agreement with so many things we have been saying for decades. That the anti-gun people have dismissed these arguments almost without discussion and to now have a court rule with us is an extreme pleasure. Most importantly they explicitly and repeatedly use the First Amendment as an analog to the Second Amendment. I will not restrain from saying, “We and many others told you so!”

See also Sebastian’s post on the topic.

As a side note which may have some relevance, while an infant Rovner and her mother immigrated to the U.S. from Latvia to escape Nazism.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Summitt

You’re violent, primitive, procrustean, and mentally ill, for the most part, and I want a psychological test administered before any of you are allowed a deadly weapon, which I predict would disarm over half of you.


Mike Summitt
July 4, 2011 on Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook Wall.
[It’s an attempt to dehumanizing gun owners. It’s a lot like what the white supremacists say about people of color. It’s totally without factual support and more accurately could be described as projection on his part.


It’s one of the prerequisites to genocide but don’t let that bother you. Liberals aren’t all violent all the time.


Via a reTweet by SebastianSH of GunFreeZone about their blog post.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Brian Malte

What Ohio wants to do is totally different from what we’re seeing elsewhere. It definitely goes a lot further than other states. I would say it goes further also by including sports stadiums, which is a very radical idea.

Brian Malte
Director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
June 18, 2011
Ohio Set to Allow Concealed Guns in Bars, Restaurants
[It’s only “radical” if they don’t look past the end of their noses. Idaho, and I believe Washington, have not had any laws against it for decades and perhaps “forever”. There isn’t a problem with it. It’s time to stop discriminating against people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.


He should, and probably does know better. I have to conclude that this is just another lie from the Brady Campaign.–Joe]

Helmke is incoherent

Paul Helmke does not know what he is talking about:

Congress allows dealers to destroy criminal background check records after 24 hours, preventing the ATF from learning how well shops are following the Brady background checks requirements.

Dealers don’t have background check records. The FBI does. The dealers aren’t “allowed” to destroy the records, the FBI is required to. The rest of the sentence becomes nonsensical with the corrections applied.

But that doesn’t matter because I can’t even make even sense of some of the things the Brady Campaign (soon to be ex-) President says when there aren’t any factual corrections to be made:

It is time for Washington’s politicians to look out for average people who do not deserve to have unethical gun dealers – and the gun lobby that shields them — pushing illegal guns into their neighborhoods.

Which guns are illegal? Guns the spontaneously disassemble by the time you fire your 100th round? Guns that go full auto and don’t stop when you release the trigger?

And how does a gun dealer push them into a neighborhood? Does this mean the dealer pulls up in your cul-de-sac and pushes a pallet of guns without serial numbers out of his truck onto the pavement? No gun dealer does that—that’s more like something our government would do.

Quote of the day—Tommy_G

I think it’s time to take guns out of the hands of the government. They have proved to be far too irresponsible too and should not be allowed to handle them. Time to return guns to the people, who are more responsible and know better how to use them.

Tommy_G
June 30, 2011
Comment to Dems to spin Fast & Furious probe into gun-control rally
[Certainly there is sufficient evidence to support this assertion. But I don’t think we need to go that far just yet.

[sarcasm]We just need some common sense gun regulations for them. Any government employee that is allowed to possess a firearm while on the job should be licensed with strict training requirements. All government guns should be registered. All ammunition use should be documented. All of these records must be put online and be publically available.[/sarcasm]

I’m currently listening to the Audible.com version of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (not recommended if graphic violence bothers you, some of it brought tears). The millions murdered by the police (with some help by the military) with guns is more than sufficient reason to be nearly serious about making a police officer with a gun a “shoot on sight” offense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Walsh

Illinois is really important nationally. The country needs one state people can look to and see it’s still doing the right thing.

Mark Walsh
June 29, 2011
Director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Ill. likely to see fierce battle over gun control
[And if they were the last state in the union that still had legalized slavery, Jim Crow laws, or outlawed alcohol what would be the response?

Nationally both Illinois gun laws and anti-gun organizations are a disgrace and nearly irrelevant. It’s time to shame them into the dustbin of history.—Joe]

Quote of the day—kiplingsburdens

Schumer is a criminal put in power by russian mobsters and israeli criminals. What better way to further the interests of criminals than to see that those they prey upon are absolutely defenseless?

What better way to condition a population into victim-hood and perpetual oppression than to have them used to being perpetual victims without any ability to defend themselves?

kiplingsburdens
June 25, 2011
Comment to Do We Need Gun Control?
[I don’t know about the “Russian mobster and Israeli criminals” but something similar has been at least joked about in regards to Chuck Schumer for many years. And it is claimed the original intent of the Sullivan Act, a New York State gun control law, was to protect criminals.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dalai Lama

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

Dalai Lama
May 15, 2001
Dalai Lama urges students to shape world
[And what if your government outlaws the reasonable action of possessing and/or carrying a gun? Doesn’t that mean the government is “unreasonable”?—Joe]