Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

Posted on by

No. that’s absolutely not true. I’ve been working on gun issues for the last 14 years, since I’ve been in Congress. This is something I’m passionate about, as much as they are passionate about say their Second Amendment rights.

We’re not dealing about guns here. We’re dealing about a piece of equipment that goes to the gun. I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen. They will be available to our military. They will be available to our police officers.

Carolyn McCarthy
January 11, 2011
McCarthy To Propose Ban On High-Capacity Ammo
In response to the question, “What would you say to gun rights supporters who may be listening to you and feeling that you’re politicizing this rather extreme tragedy to push the bill that you’re describing?”
[Notice that she doesn’t answer the question other than, “No. That’s absolutely not true.” No evidence, no logic, just vigorous assertion.

Further notice that she apparently thinks “weapons of mass destruction” should be available to police officers. Or she is lying when she says, “large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction”. And/or she has crap for brains.

And of course the headline writer thinks there is such a thing as “High-Capacity Ammo”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris W. Cox

Posted on by

It’s been nine long years since the anti-gun leadership in the Wisconsin Senate denied state residents their basic right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

…

The days of government-mandated victims in the Badger State need to end.

Chris W. Cox
April 17, 2011
Chris W. Cox: Wisconsin should join free America
[Well… at least more free America. We still have a lot of work to do before I would declare America “free”. But certainly getting rid of government-mandated victims would be a good start.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Barkley

Posted on by

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:



‘Article–


1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.


2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’


Mike Barkley
Candidate for Congress
April 17, 2011
Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[As if natural law can be “repealed”.


He also ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and said Bill of Rights was a requirement for the agreement to enter into the Union. Hence if the 2nd Amendment were to be “repealed” would that mean that the states are no longer bound by the agreement to be a part of the union?


Of course he ignores the little problem of the majority of the people in this country support the existence of the 2nd Amendment. And finally he seems clueless that there are many states that would consider such an act sufficient grounds to have another civil war.


This is just a reminder that there are people out there that explicitly say they do want to destroy the 2nd Amendment.—Joe]

Quote of the day—askwhynot

Posted on by

The only thing a gun is good for is taking it out of the hand of the idiot owner and knocking some sense into him/her.

askwhynot
April 14, 2011 at 12:32PM
Comment to Ohio Senate passes bill allowing concealed weapons in bars and restaurants.
[Such a narrow mind in so many ways.—Joe]

That does not compute

Posted on by

Yesterday I received an email from Josh Horwitz at Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

Recognize VA Tech Anniversary by Saying “NO GUNS ON CAMPUS!”

As many of you know, April 16 will mark the fourth anniversary of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. This weekend will be a time for survivors to remember their lost loved ones and pay tribute to their lives, and for America to reflect on the causes and meaning behind this horrific tragedy.

While the Virginia Tech families have emerged as some of the strongest proponents of tougher gun control laws, the gun lobby has exploited the massacre to push extreme legislation that would force colleges and universities to allowing the carrying of loaded firearms on their campuses.  Such NRA-drafted bills are now being considered in 18 different states.

Today, Friday, April 15, the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus is recognizing the fourth anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings by conducting a National Call-In Day.

Please call your governor today and ask him/her to oppose guns on campus legislation in your state. If you are in a state with no pending guns on campus legislation, please call and ask your governor to oppose any future attempts to force colleges and universities to allows guns on campus. To find the phone number for your governor, just click here.

Thank you in advance for participating in this important action. If we are to build a safer future for our children, keeping guns out of the classroom is a must.

What Horwitz doesn’t say is that Virginia Tech had rules against guns on campus and it didn’t stop the shooter. There were also laws against murder which didn’t stop the shooter either. The only thing that would have stopped the shooter was another person with a gun. This was, in fact, the response of the police dispatch when they got the call about an active shooter on campus. They sent people with guns to confront the shooter. But they took a few minutes to arrive and of course they were much too late to stop the carnage.

Yet Horwitz want to “build a safer future” by ensuring that all campuses have the same policy in place that enable the shooter at Virginia Tech to be “successful”. Had Virginia Tech not had such a policy and the shooting took place it would almost make sense (there would still have been the law against murder in force) for his call to action. But that wasn’t the case. He is advocating for the proliferation of a policy proven to fail and uses an instance of failure as a reason for a call to action. Huh?

I shouldn’t be surprised. Again (and again just today!) the anti-gun people demonstrate they have nothing but crap for brains.

Living in a cave for the last three years

Posted on by

With the good guys marching down the field like this it is understandable that Brady Center Senior Attorney Daniel Vice (what a wonderful name for a gun banner, it ranks right up there with anti-gun researcher professor Bogus ) would have been living in a cave for the last three years. But surely even from the deepest, darkest, rat infested hole that Mr. Vice could have found he would have heard about the McDonald case before he spoke to the local radio station:

Vice says more than 350 lawsuits have been filed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment allows an individual to possess a gun in his or her home for self-defense.

Vice says none of the previous suits has been successful because courts don’t want guns going to dangerous people.

Of course it could be that it was not through ignorance but willful misrepresentation that particular bit of untruth was uttered. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time people with the Brady’s lied about something.

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America’s home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-enabling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

…

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate.

Charles Krauthammer
April 5, 1996
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet
Originally in The Washington Post on April 5 1996. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996.
[See also another QOTD extracted from this article.—Joe]

You’re doing it wrong and you’re lying

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign has a new video and web site about “assault clips” (yes, I put the “nofollow” tag on that link). In addition to the obvious ignorant use of the words “assault” and “clip” the shooter has a  very poor grip on the gun. His left thumb is in danger of needing a bandage and/or stitches. And his left index finger is doing nothing.

Furthermore the narrator and text of the website talk of 32 shots in 16 seconds. But I only count 16 (or maybe 17) shots in 4 seconds. And of course the claim is that “A magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing. Killing a lot of people–fast.” Is totally bogus.

In the following video I shot 17 rounds in 7.5 seconds including a magazine reload and a malfunction clearance. I then go on to shoot a total of 36 rounds in 16.02 seconds—still with 10 rounds in my magazines.

If one were to accept the Brady Campaign claim that “a magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing” then 10 round magazines must be only good for killing a lot of people fast too. Hence, I must inevitably must conclude one of three things about the magazines in my guns which hold more 10 or more rounds:

  1. I have killed many thousands of people with the 60,000 or so rounds I have fired through these guns and no one has noticed—including myself.
  2. The magazines have continuously malfunctioned to the point of being useless for their intended purpose.
  3. The Brady Campaign is lying.

The use of Occam’s Razor should reveal the correct answer.

Quote of the day—President Obama

Posted on by

I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.

President Obama
March 30, 2011
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
[This was a comment to Sarah Brady as she remembers it. I don’t know if this was accurately related and a serious comment or a platitude from an expert politician. Certainly Obama has the background to qualify this as extremely serious but actions speak louder than words and from the Brady Campaign viewpoint his actions have been minimal at best.

He and his administration deserves to be watched very, very closely.

H/T to Dave Hardy.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Martin

Posted on by

We are disappointed the legislature focused on this issue when there are bigger issues like assault weapons, and universal background checks at gun shows,

Michael Martin
Washington Ceasefire member
March 29, 2011
State Senate approves use of gun ‘silencers’
[That’s just the way we like for Washington Ceasefire members to be, “Disappointed”.

I wonder what Martin did when he found out Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law today? Sobbing uncontrollably works for me too.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chiefjaybob

Posted on by

At one point after your quote the female judge tries– for about the sixth or seventh time– to remind the city’s attorney that the injury is not the travel to a gun range but the complete ban on their existence, and she states, “The City requires this as a component of ownership but prohibits a citizen from getting that training without leaving the city. How do they even think that’s rational?” She obviously doesn’t speak to gun-grabbers much. Rationality has nothing to do with the argument!

Chiefjaybob
April 10, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—City of Chicago Attorney.
[Agreed. Those of us on “the front line” for years are used to it but you could tell the judge was getting increasingly frustrated with the guy. And the attorney would repeatedly say things like (paraphrasing) , “We have the power to regulate, such as zoning, so this ban is just a simple exercise of our power to regulate.” This would tick the judge off even more. I think the judge was nearly to the point she would have slapped him and walked off had it been a one-on-one private discussion.

If I had been doing the questioning I would have asked him since the city had the power to regulate and zone did the city also claim the power to ban all mosques, synagogues, and churches within the city? Just as theists regularly attend their place of worship a gun range is where gun owners go to exercise their “religion”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—City of Chicago Attorney

Posted on by

Where people are known to gather with guns can be attractive to criminals.

City of Chicago Attorney
April 4, 2011
Starting at about 29:15 in the recording of the oral arguments.
[I couldn’t quite figure out what the attorney’s name was perhaps it was “Feldman”. But that doesn’t matter as much as he represented Chicago and that he and probably others that wrote the Chicago brief had never been to a gun range yet proclaimed they knew enough to justify banning them in the city.

I question the factual basis of the above assertion and even if it were conceded as a fact that would not be sufficient grounds to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Using the same logic as above they could also ban parking lots because they can attract car thieves, grade schools because they can attract child molesters, and banks because they can attract robbers. I view the statement above just as bigoted as saying places where people with dark skin loiter attracts an illegal drug trade hence those kind of people are not allowed to loiter on public streets.

It was very pleasant to hear the attorney get slapped around pretty hard by two of the judges.

H/T to Sebastian and David Hardy.—Joe]

The scarlet sticker

Posted on by

In Kentucky:

Grinnell said he expected to have to leave his weapon with security officers when he went into the Capitol. But when he told one of the officers that he was carrying a concealed weapon, Grinnell said they simply recorded his concealed-carry permit information and gave him a red sticker to wear, signifying he had a gun.

I would view such a sticker as a sign that says, “Shoot Me First!”

Pathetic

Posted on by

As David Hardy says, “Brady Campaign might as well surrender…”

Just look at the number of views of their YouTube videos. Videos they posted 10 hours ago have received four, six, and nine views. For videos that have been posted for a week they have an average of 107 views.

That isn’t even a “friends and family” viewing rate. Maybe they don’t have any friends, just family.

Quote of the day—Suzanne Verge

Posted on by

I’m very concerned about the open carry movement. It seems to be expanding.

Suzanne Verge
Of the Los Angeles chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
April 6, 2011
LA City Council support ban on openly carrying guns
[Open carry as a political protest in California is the social equivalent of a gay pride march in front of Fred Phelps church. The immediate benefits are questionable and you shouldn’t expect to make many friends in the process.

In terms of firearms Suzanne Verge is the equivalent of a minor official in Phelps’ church and as shown above responds in an analogous manner.—Joe]

Lists

Posted on by

Robb and Barron have posts on government lists. For some reason the only thing I could think of to add was this quote.

Quote of the day—Michael Marks

Posted on by

Madigan is just another unqualified hack politician driving a short-sighted special-interest agenda against all reality and fiscal responsibility. This idea will waste money we don’t have and empower criminals to more confidently pick out the helpless and defenseless. If you are a gun-owner in Illinois you should be affronted, perhaps even ticked off. If you not a permit holder in Illinois, you should be terrified. Lisa Madigan is putting your name and your home on the menu.

Michael Marks
Director of Communication-Fifty Caliber Institute
April 7, 2011 Newsletter
Regarding Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, wanting to release the names of gun owners to the public.
[The entire concept of creating lists of gun owners and making the list available to the public is no different than doing the same with homosexuals, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims. We are not sexual predators and we don’t appreciate being treated like them.—Joe]

Quote of the day–William P. Hoar

Posted on by

The President says he believes in the Second Amendment, which one supposes is gracious of him, but in his op-ed he also snidely refers to the beliefs of those who are concerned with Second Amendment liberty as being engaged in “wedge issues and stale political debates.”

The crimes on January 8 were the killing of six people and the wounding of 13 others. The response should not be — as is usually the case with gun restrictions — for the federal government to target law-abiding Americans.

William P. Hoar
April 5, 2011
Gun Controllers Don’t Want to Waste Tucson Tragedy
[I would like to also point out that if the President really thinks the Second Amendment is a “stale political debate” then he can stop bringing up gun control and tell the Brady Campaign and their ilk he is not interested in talking to them.—Joe]

Sororities raise money for Brady Campaign

Posted on by

How ironic. All that effort spent raising money for an organization that wants them helpless on their own campuses:

Theta Chi wasted no time coming back from Spring Break by throwing their 2nd annual War of the Roses Week. The week-long philanthropy event raised over $2,100 to support the Brady Campaign, which is an organization designed to prevent gun violence.

If they didn’t want to have guns then don’t buy them. But don’t give money to an organization that works to remove other peoples right to choose—including my daughters and nieces.

Maybe I can encourage the young women in my family going to college to work on a fund raiser for the Second Amendment Foundation.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If it weren’t so deadly serious I would find it quite amusing that anti-gun activists get all bent out of shape and claim they feel threatened when millions of people peaceably carry concealed firearms in public every day. Yet they advocate passing laws that would mandate those same peaceable people give up their defensive tools at the point of a policeman’s gun and claim we are the ones threatening violence.