Category Archives: Gun Rights

First and Second Amendment should be off the table

Posted on by

As you may know Pima Country Sheriff Clarence Dupnik claims Rush Limbaugh bears some responsibility for the shooting in Tucson this weekend:



The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information,” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today. “[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”


Limbaugh today railed against the media and Dupnik for trying to draw a link between the heated political climate and the shooting rampage, calling the sheriff a “fool.” But Dupnik stood by his assertions.


Others claim the sheriff bears the responsibility for not providing proper security for the Congresswoman:



If he would have done his job, maybe this doesn’t happen,” Republican state Rep. Jack Harper said in an interview Monday. “Sheriff Dupnik did not provide for the security of a U.S. congresswoman.


Here is what one of my “shooting buddies” said to Sheriff Dupnik:



From: Joe Durnbaugh
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:39 PM
Subject: Sheriff Dupnik


Here is the email I sent to the Pima County Sheriff yesterday (hope I don’t get on some watch list):
 
Dear Sheriff Dupnik,
I am a retired law enforcement officer, and I cannot understand how your public comments, as a law enforcement professional, contribute anything to civil discourse. If anything, your vitriolic and partisan comments do nothing but aggravate the political polarity in this country. You, sir, are an embarrassment to law enforcement. You should learn to shut your pie hole and keep your idiotic opinions to yourself. Please, do the residents of your county a favor and retire at the earliest opportunity!
 
Joe Durnbaugh


All the data is not in yet but it looks as if politics were essentially unrelated to the shooting. The political left appears to have jumped the gun (or Planck Time) and assigned blame prior to having facts supporting their preconceived notions.


I’ll have to think on this some more but it may be this shooting incident will bring into the spotlight a much more difficult question to answer than issues related to the First and Second Amendment. The issue is mental health. The simple answer is a mental health test for gun ownership.


But if someone isn’t mentally competent to possess a firearm are they any more competent to possess a can of gasoline and a book of matches? Here, here, and here are some attempts and successes at using gasoline for mass murders.


Or how about sharp objects? The Sharon Tate murders or Lizzie Borden probably will continue to have as much or more notoriety that the assassination attempt of Representative Giffords.


Attacks on the Bill of Rights should stay off the table but there may be some opportunity for “violence prevention” if a national discussion ensues over mental health.


Clayton Cramer brought this very topic up in April of 2009. Perhaps a discussion on the topic will find a way to reduce the risks without restricting our rights.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

This should be an interesting scholarly work. I’m not convinced that demonization of weapons has ever had so much to do with the weapons themselves, so much as hatred and fear of the types of people that elites believe carry them. In the past, it was hatred and fear of racial or ethnic minorities. We’ve advanced much as a civilization since then, however, and reserve that hate and fear now for cousin humping rednecks.

Sebastian
January 5, 2011
History of Gun Demonization
[You don’t believe Sebastian has nailed it? Check out my collection of gun cartoons and get back to me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

Members of Congress are now the latest victims held hostage by America’s gun culture. Congress should act immediately to reinstate an effective ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines and move quickly to pass an effective assault weapons ban.

Josh Sugarmann
January 8, 2011
Congress Must Rein in Gun Industry in Response to Giffords Assassination Attempt
[Had the attacker been thinking clearly (there are strong hints of mental illness) there are more effective ways to kill that many people in close proximity if you don’t have good firearms skills. Use a bucket of gasoline and a cigarette lighter. What would Sugarmann and friends say then? It wouldn’t be “Ban gasoline!” or “Ban cigarette lighters!”

But it really doesn’t matter what Sugarmann says in regards to gun control and particularly in regards to “assault weapons”. Even if the courts haven’t explicitly said that the types of guns specified in the 1994 Federal “Assault Weapon” are now Constitutionally protected via being in “common use.” And that is so ironic because it was because of the ban that they became so popular.

What does matter in regards to the future of gun control in the immediate future is what Rep. Gabrielle Giffords says when she recovers. If she comes out of this exceedingly anti-gun we will be fighting legislative battles for at least several months if not years. If she says guns are not the issue the individual bears the responsibility then the gun control crowd will have their flame almost completely extinguished.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



The more accurate answer to the question is, “Respect for fundamental rights.” But that’s a topic the liberals want to repress.

Quote of the day—American Mercenary

Posted on by

Joan, you are on the board of directors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership. You really need to start getting your facts straight before you marginalize even more Americans. Because, you DON’T have the public on your side, the NRA doesn’t issue us talking points, and your organization is in the hole for the exact amount of your President’s salary.

American Mercenary
January 7, 2010
Dumb but motivated
[Although at a cursor glance it appears she is (extraordinarily) dumb I beg to disagree. She is the defining case of Peterson Syndrome. Other than that AM has her pegged correctly.

But if it were something I could do without feeling ethically soiled I would encourage her to continue doing exactly what she is doing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jdberger

Posted on by

There are no Marquess of Queensbury rules in this fight.

All is fair.

Our objective is the complete and utter destruction of the Brady Campaign or, at the very least, total marginalization. Let them mutter with the Klan, TacMars people and the Flat Earthers.

They need to be nullified as a political force, forever.

jdberger
January 7, 2010
Comment in the thread “Brady Campaign Seeks Field Organizer”.
[This is overstated just a little bit. Stepping outside the law would be a bad thing but the goal is right on.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Winston Churchill

Posted on by

I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified, thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

Winston Churchill
[Currently my main purpose outside family life is the destruction of gun regulations and my life is much simplified. I may not find much else in common with homosexuals, homophobes, or Christian Fundamentalists but I embrace their efforts to defeat gun control in the courts, the legislature, and our culture. To do otherwise would be to weaken our position and perhaps even enable the defeat our cause.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Horace Walpole

Posted on by

Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.

Horace Walpole
[I have this quote as being from Racine. Others credit Jean de La Bruyère. But most source credit Walpole. Yet, I cannot find it in a search that is supposedly all of his works.

In any case this reminds me of certain anti-gun people. And the real tragedy is that when they get enough power they force their feeling based belief system on those that think.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris

Posted on by

Joan may be living in the world of Jim Crow — it is an essential part of her worldview, I suppose, due to the need to keep guns away from “those people”.

Chris
January 2, 2011
Quote of the Day
[Chris is of course referring to Joan Peterson, member of the board of directors of the Brady Campaign.—Joe]

Why we oppose reporting multiple sales

Posted on by

I’ve recently read some people who wonder what the problem is with the reporting of multiple sales of gun (most recently in the news is talk about long guns–which is illegal).

It’s the same problem as with “one gun a month” and other schemes. The only way this can be enforced is if there is gun registration. Sure, an individual retailing could keep records of their customers and do a search for the last 5/30 days. Even looking past the chilling effect of having a time limit before you were enabled to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms the problem to effectively enforce such a limit there would have to be a central list of the last time everyone purchased a gun to prevent someone from going to the gun store across the street, state, or country (yes, dual residents can purchase guns in two or states) to purchase another one before the “proper” time had expired.

Gun registration (and probably gun owner) registration is unlikely to pass muster in the courts and it certainly won’t pass muster with a very large percentage of the gun owning population. Just look at what happened in Canada with their gun registration—Then crank the dial on that reaction to about “12”.

Where Great Britain used to be

Posted on by

Same planet different world, mass insanity, or Peterson Syndrome gone airborne?

From the Gun Control Network Children licenced to carry guns on our streets:

We call for children currently licenced to hold any firearms to be immediately jailed for a minimum of 10 years. This will act as a deterent to anyone who wishes to commit murder.

Actually, it’s just sarcasm. But it’s not that far off from some of the real anti-gun advocate positions.

They also advocate the banning of the organization Arm Britain.com (see the top left corner of their blog page). “Reasoned discourse” backed up by the force of government!

Quote of the day—ciggy

Posted on by

Great, so now all of the insecure, paranoid folk with inferiority complexes can live out their fantasies of carrying a lethal weapon around for no particular reason, endangering the rest of the population.

ciggy
December 30, 2010
Comment to Gun law changes coming.
This is in regard to Iowa becoming a “Shall Issue” state on Monday.
[This may come as a surprise to “ciggy” but n***ers are allowed eat at the same restaurants and use the same water fountains as white folk too. It turns out that doesn’t “endanger the rest of the population” either.

Ignorance and bigotry is not a valid excuse to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Cleveland Ohio slapped down

Posted on by

Nice:

The Supreme Court of Ohio Wednesday rejected Cleveland’s attempt to retain its own gun control laws.

In a 5-2 majority opinion, the Justices upheld a 2006 state law that says only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.

The Jim Crow like anti-gun owner laws continue to fall.

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

Drive-by shootings are just one symptom of the increasing lethality of firearms available to the general public. State and federal policies should focus on limiting the caliber and capacity of firearms marketed to the general public.

Violence Policy Center
July 2010
Drive-By America
[It’s statements like these that cause me to just shake my head. From the premise to the conclusion it simply doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like they know all the words but can’t form a logical thought with them. For example:

  • What is the justification for the claim “of the increasing lethality of firearms available to the general public”? Shotguns and their ancestor the blunderbuss are probably the most lethal weapon available for individual use and they have been around for hundreds of years.
  • How are drive-by shootings a symptom of increased lethality? I’m not sure I can even imagine a dataset that would make sense of that statement.
  • Even if they were constitutional how would laws limiting the caliber and capacity of firearms marketed to the general public affect drive-by shootings? One person in the back seat of a car with two double-barreled shotguns loaded with buckshot could put 35+ pieces of high speed lead into the air in a remarkably short period of time. In countries that have repressive gun laws double barreled shotguns have always been the last to be banned. I can’t imagine this country would have a significant difference in the order in which such attempts would be made.

It reminds me of a conversation I once tired to follow. Things just weren’t making sense to me and I stopped them and pointed out that the most recent statement was completely at odds with previous statements which weren’t exactly clear to me either. I was told, “Oh Joe, it doesn’t have to make sense. We are just talking.” That was when I decided find a comfortable chair in a corner and take a nap until it was time to go home.

If the VPC weren’t trying to influence government policy they too could be ignored. As it is they need to be ridiculed and driven into political extinction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—TiredofOurGovernment

Posted on by

Just ban all guns. Except police. If you have a gun get the death penalty. So either your a cop or a criminal. Guns are stupid. A real man will protect himself with his fist like we were born to do. A big fat Wussy will use a gun because he is a chicken-s&*t that has to kill someone to get his point across.

TiredofOurGovernment
December 22, 2010
Comment to Gun Control Now!!!
[It’s possible this is sarcasm. For the moment I am assuming it is not.

“TiredofOurGovernment” has no respect for fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Hence he or she is advocating for a new type of government more like that of a police state. One has to wonder if someone who wants such a government why they don’t just move to a country that has laws more like those they advocate. I keep concluding they don’t really understand what they are advocating. The death penalty for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms has a high correlation with the death penalty for the exercise of other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and religion.—Joe]

VPC gets a lump of coal

Posted on by

This warms my heart on a cold Christmas Eve. The VPC has raised $0, has 0 Donors, and 0 Promotors for their cause.


[If that page disappears here is a back-up snapshot.]

Quote of the day—Treborleeks

Posted on by

Please lawmakers, take away all my rights. I will be safe, then and only then. Your kind and benevolent actions are the only way I make it through the day. Your laws are always just and your wisdom shines above all others.

Feed me, clothe me, shelter me, amen.

Treborleeks
March 11, 2009
Comment to Gun control now!!!
[Slaves need to be properly cared for. And of course slaves should never be allowed to own firearms. That is the conclusion I keep coming back to when I read and listen to the advocates of gun control and other “liberal” political philosophies.—Joe]

Senate rejects ATF nominee Andrew Traver?

Posted on by

I’m not entirely sure what this means but it sounds like Andrew Traver won’t even be debated as a potential head of the ATF until we have our new Senate seated:

The Senate did not vote on whether to confirm Andrew Traver as the next leader of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this Congress, sending his nomination back to the White House on Wednesday.

I think this means we will have a more gun friendly Senate to review Traver’s background with the Klan Joyce Foundation.

Update: John Richardson examines the issue in detail.

Quote of the day—Paul Helmke

Posted on by

More guns mean more gun violence, sometimes intentional or sometimes accidental.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
December 22, 2010
Palm Beach County plans to lift ban on guns in parks
[There are so many things to say about this I don’t really have the time to fully fisk this one sentence. But I’ll get you started and you can continue the work.

He says this as if “gun violence” were necessarily a bad thing. This is not true. For example if the “gun violence” stopped or prevented a violent rape then I consider that a good thing. Perhaps Mr. Helmke’s organization should be advertise themselves as being advocates of rapists and other violent felons. It would be more honest.

Let play the word substitution game by substituting one constitutionally protected noun for another:

  • More n**gers mean more n**ger violence, sometimes intentional or sometimes accidental.
  • More Jews means more Jewish control of the banks, sometimes lawfully or sometimes via their cabal.
  • More homosexuals means more sodomy, sometimes intentional or sometimes accidental.
  • More mixed race marriages means more black men having sex with white women, sometimes consensual or sometimes via rape.

Helmke should go find a more ethical job like selling cattle prods to police officers, representing a cigarette company, or selling sheets and pillow cases to Klansmen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—General Nuisance

Posted on by

His dress as a 20’s Chicago Gangster is probably for a Halloween party so I suspect strongly the gun is a toy.  You can’t see the muzzle in this view, but if it is a toy the muzzle would be molded from an orange colored plastic.

You guys on the left should be flattered.  D’cruz is dressed like some of your president’s strongest supporters, gangsters and Chicago thugs.

General Nuisance
December 21, 2010
Comment in the thread NRA…What Were They Thinking?
[This reminds me of a comment many years ago by Alan Gottleib, “We have sometimes joked that because of the high number of criminals in his district Chuck Schumer was just voting to protect his constituents.”—Joe]