Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Michael Ignatieff

Posted on by

No one can be serious about public safety unless they are serious about gun control. That’s an essential element in any balanced approach to public safety, which is a concern to people in the Lower Mainland and Canadians from coast to coast.

Michael Ignatieff
Canadian Liberal leader
April 26, 2011
[Interesting that he says that it’s an “essential element.” And the evidence for that is where? He might as well be saying “ni**er/Jew/Muslim/homosexual control is an essential element of  public safety”. I’m nearly certain it would be easier to find data to support my version than his. Yet even if the evidence supported such claims the answer in any case must be not only, “No,” but “Hell no!”—Joe]

Quote of the day—meus_ovatio

Posted on by

I don’t think Mr. Huffman is capable, much less trustworthy, of “protecting innocent life”.

meus_ovatio
April 26, 2011
Comment to Democracy vs Totalitarianism: Hiding Godwin in the closet.
[It’s odd how people who have never met me or my family think they are qualified to make such sweeping statements with such certainty. But it shouldn’t be surprising. There are large numbers of people that find facts and reason obstacles to their belief systems. This is just one more example.—Joe]

Evidence of declining gun ownership

Posted on by

The VPC says gun ownership is at the lowest point since 1985. I guess that explains why Wal-Mart is discontinuing gun sales at more stores:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is quietly bringing back rifles, shotguns and ammunition to hundreds of U.S. stores as the hurting retail giant seeks to reinvigorate its one-stop shopping appeal and attract more male customers.

The world’s largest retailer stopped selling hunting rifles and bullets at all but a third of its U.S. stores five years ago, citing diminishing sales. It is now restoring them to hundreds of locations, bringing the total to nearly half of its more than 3,600 U.S. namesake stores…

Oh. Sorry. I got that wrong. Wal-Mart is bring gun sales back to stores it discontinued several years ago. Maybe the VPC is wrong too.

Quote of the day—sandwichwarrior

Posted on by

Mr. Huffman is what many liberals would charitably call a Right-wing-militia nut. He is sufficiently infamous that a certain member of this community has linked to news articles about him and others as proof of a nascent right-wing terrorist movement.

sandwichwarrior
April 26, 2011
Democracy vs Totalitarianism: Hiding Godwin in the closet.
[There are more howlers in the comments. I’ll post another tomorrow.—Joe]

Are there any homosexuals in your home?

Posted on by

Telephone surveys are a valuable method of obtaining data. Sometimes they are the only means by which data on a particular topic can be gathered. But there are times when they can give you very bad data.

Suppose you did a phone survey asking if there were any fugitives from justice living at your house. My guess is the data obtained would differ considerably from the actual value.

Suppose you did a phone survey asking if you had expensive jewelry. Probably to a lesser extent but still my guess is the answers given will not be accurate.

Furthermore my hypothesis is the differences from reality to the two questions above would be be fairly constant over time. If you asked about fugitives living at your home my guess is that you might get 1 out of 100 to admit a fugitive was living there when there was one and that would not change much from 25 years ago to today.

Now suppose you did a survey on how many homosexuals live in your home. If you did the survey in the 1950s my guess is the report of a “none” when in fact there was one or more would be very high. But if the survey were done today the false reporting would be much lower.

Surveys on gun ownership suffer from similar problems. There is a threat of oppressive regulation and confiscation in some jurisdictions and there is the threat of theft by non government actors as well. Gun owners have a vested interest in not giving accurate data to some random person calling up on the phone.

Hence, I am skeptical of the latest survey on gun ownership. The huge increase in gun sales during late 2008 and 2009 was do to fear of heavy restriction. This climate of fear would have been motivation to falsely report to survey takers.

Note that this is not a VPC survey but just a VPC interpretation of a survey. Had it been a VPC survey additional motivation for error introduction could have been present as well. The VPC conclusions are almost for certainly flawed. If they were correct then Brady Campaign and VPC “membership” would be up and the NRA membership would be down. But this is not the case. I don’t think we can determine what the true gun ownership numbers are but I’m nearly certain it is much higher than that reported in the survey.

As Sebastian said to the Brady Campaign, “Keep telling yourselves that.”

Quote of the day—John Krupa III

Posted on by

Bullets are cheap – be generous – give them plenty.

John Krupa III
[See also this elaboration by Greg Hamilton.

This was in the context of self-defense and does not apply to all shooting situations. The most successful Boomershoot participants, for example, seem to expend far few rounds than the least successful.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Howard Nemerov

Posted on by

Homicide rates correlate with gun ownership, too. States with higher ownership rates and less gun control have lower Black homicide rates. States with the most gun control have lower White homicide rates. You could say that the Brady Campaign is racist and the data would support your point.

Howard Nemerov
April 2, 2011
UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban
[I wouldn’t say the Brady Campaign is racist even if a quirk in the data lends support to that hypothesis. They have a very strong parallel to racist beliefs with the object of their irrational hate and fear being gun owners and even the inanimate object called a gun. I believe they will ultimately reach the social status of the KKK but it will probably take another generation or so to get there.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Olivia Booth

Posted on by

Anybody that is a “gun rights activist” is by definition, an idiot.

Olivia Booth
April 14 at 4:25pm
Comment to Gun Rights Activist Calls VA Tech Shooting Survivor a Coward
[For a bunch of idiots all the gun rights activists I know do pretty well for themselves.—Joe]

It’s all about feelings

Posted on by

Just as we have been saying for decades the anti-gun movement (is it still a movement when they have been constipated for several years?) doesn’t have the data so they go with what they have—feelings:

I believe the open carry movement is very intimidating,” said Suzanne Verge of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I think as a citizen I should be able to go along Colorado Boulevard and shop where I want to shop and not have to worry about running into somebody with a loaded weapon.”

I believe anti-gun activists are a threat to a free society. I think as a citizen I should be able to spend my time more productively than fighting them on a daily basis. And I want to have enough money in the bank that I never have to work again even if I were to buy all the ammo, guns, and explosives I wanted to shoot.

Just because someone wants something is not justification for the government to attempt providing it.

Update: John Richardson has things to say about Verge too.

Quote of the day—Kevin Lelonek

Posted on by

When we practice the privileges granted to us by our governing documents, in this case, the Bill of Rights and bearing arms, we enter into an implicit agreement with the Union to recognize and act according to the State’s rules and regulations for the use and ownership of arms. And as we agree to those rules, so does the government agree to act responsibly on behalf of our collective well-being.

In this manner, our relationship with our nation mirrors our relationship with our parents; both our parents and our nation raise us; both provide for our welfare; both teach us values and ethics; both act on our behalf for our well-being. And thus should we regard our nation; as a parental figure to be a moral example, an ideal to respect and to obey. For, if the dynamics of our relationship with our parents are mirrored functionally by the dynamics of our relationship with our country, so too should the convictions and loyalties that characterize the former persist in the latter.

Kevin Lelonek
April 12, 2011
Taking a shot at gun control
[Overall the opinion piece is benign toward the 2nd Amendment but Lelonek doesn’t even begin to get the concept of liberty.

The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant privileges. It guarantees rights. The only granting is that of certain enumerated powers to the government. The government is not a parent. The government is not an ideal. It is a necessary evil. The government is not to be obeyed by the people. The government must obey the people. The people must respect the laws which fall within the enumerated powers of the government.

Remember what Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington said about government.—Joe]

Quote of the day—A liberal

Posted on by

Sometimes you have to die for something I believe in.

A liberal
Gun Control explained
April 18, 2011
By Battlefield315

Funny stuff.

Via email from Jason.—Joe]

Typical

Posted on by

It seems that every time the NRA comes to town the bigots come out of the woodwork:

Though gun sales to females increased significantly in recent years, Piendl said, “Sales to women remain the largest untapped growth market in the industry.”

The industry is unlikely to successfully tap that market until it conquers the pesky preconceived notions that likely turn off many females to the idea of gun ownership. Women likely won’t consider packing pistols if they are concerned that:

— Spending several hundred dollars on a serviceable handgun might leave them without enough money to get the full treatment at that next visit to the day spa.

— Carrying a gun in a small purse would leave less room for more important items, such as lipstick or compact.

— The baggy clothing required to successfully conceal most holsters would make them appear frumpy.

— Gunpowder residue might stain the new Karen Scott blouse they just bought at Macy’s.

— The gunpowder smell when the weapon is fired could totally overwhelm the Chanel they’re wearing.

— Most firearm accessories come only in one boring color: black.

— Target practice earplugs simply aren’t sexy.

This isn’t the first time Eric Heyl has expressed his disdain for gun owners.

Breda and Bitter also have some choice words for him.

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.