Quote of the day—Marion Hammer

Every time you try to give people back their Second Amendment rights people go ballistic because you’re infringing on their turf. But they’re the ones infringing on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Marion Hammer
January 15, 2011
NRA’s lobbyist in Florida
From Florida’s solution to violence: MORE GUNS!!
[In the present context the people who “go ballistic” are a police chief and a prosecutor.

One should always be suspicious when government attempts to expand it’s powers. And one should be uncompromising when they desire to expand their powers at the expense of a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution.

If government officials complain when illegally obtained power is returned to the people to whom it belongs they should be given all the respect given to someone who complains when the stolen property they possessed is returned to it’s rightful owner.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Ry Jones

I doubt the people committing crimes in D.C. are reading the SCOTUS blog.


Ry Jones
January 15, 2011
[This was during a discussion of the falling crime rate in D.C.


I was skeptical that very much of the decline could be attributed to the Heller decision since so few people actually have been able to legally obtain firearms in D.C. since the decision. Ry was supporting my skepticism from a different angle.–Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

As household gun ownership has dropped dramatically since the early 1970s and America’s youth turn away from guns, the SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality to shore up its fading market and declining sales.

The SHOT Show will bring together hundreds of vendors – including Glock, a manufacturer of pistols used in multiple mass shootings, which markets its handguns as “pocket rockets” – and tens of thousands of attendees, as lawmakers in Congress are expected to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in last week’s mass shooting in Arizona. The show comes at a time that most of the major gun manufacturers are experiencing a significant decline in demand and falling sales.

Violence Policy Center
January 13, 2011
SHOT Show an Example of a Politically Powerful Industry Desperate to Hide Its Decline
[“Fading market and declining sales”? At first reading of this you might question what planet they are on since 2009 and 2010 were banner years in terms of gun sales.

If you read a little closer you might notice the sentence doesn’t even make sense. “SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality”? Where did that come from? By reading further you discover that apparently the presence of Glock is the key to reaching that conclusion.

Reading VPC material is like listening to the rantings of the mentally ill. At first it sort of makes sense but as you look closer you find the most basic assumptions are wrong and the conclusions reached don’t even follow from the flawed assumptions.

Is anyone proposing legislation for mental health tests prior to posting on the Internet? Not that I think it should be done but I could see a case being made for that with the VPC as one of the prime examples.—Joe]

Rules are for other people

I am firmly of the opinion there are far too many laws, regulations, and rules in this country. I suspect the world would be a better place if about 99% of them did not exist. I wouldn’t even be surprise if 50% of them could go away and no one would even notice they were gone. That said, I still obey nearly all of them I am aware of. I pay all my taxes. I try to stay within the speed limit and store my explosives as per the advice the ATF gives me.

I can’t tell you how many times Barb and I have grumbled to each other that we must be stupid for following the rules or for not trying to scam the system in some way. She sees so many people in her work at the hospital who get free medical care at taxpayer expense. Many are drug (I include alcohol an tobacco as drugs) addicts or just find ways to get on disability when they actually could be productive members of society. Many of them demand to stay longer in the hospital and be taken care of. They refuse to get out of bed or to do the exercises that would help them become strong enough to walk on their own. They even show up drunk and unable to stand well enough to do their therapy without hurting themselves or their therapist. Your, and my, tax dollars are paying for all of this. And of course they all are firm believers in a government that takes care of them. They are lefties.

They should either follow the letter and the spirit of the rules that give them a free ride or they should be removed from the welfare system.

It turns out it’s not just the “little people” that ignore the rules and get away with abusing the system. A case in point is Arianna Huffington:

Huffington refused to turn off her Blackberry just before takeoff from Washington D.C. on a flight bound for New York City.  Huffington continued to use the phone during and after take-off which greatly antagonized a nearby fellow passenger.   Huffington kept the phone on throughout the flight even though the passenger, Ellis Bellodof, repeatedly asked her to turn it off.  Eventually, the two “caused a disturbance” so loud that security was called immediately after the plane landed at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and both Huffington and Belledof were escorted off the plane for questioning.  Both were released without charges.

Now, I think the rule against using your cell phone on the plane is pretty stupid. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence cell phone usage interferes with the planes electronics. And all of the recent airplane travel I have been on required that I not just put my phone into “Airplane mode” but actually turn the phone off. The only valid reason for that final rule is to make enforcement by the flight attendants a little bit easier. It’s far easier to see that a phone is off (it isn’t being used) than to verify the phone is in “Airplane mode”.

Despite thinking the rule is stupid I just frown a little bit and I turn off my phone when first asked to so. But this upper crust lefty, Arianna Huffington, does not obey this rule. That pisses me off. The airlines should either get rid of the rule (preferred) or refuse her service on their planes.

But what I think the bigger lesson here is that there are a lot of people on the left who make rules for “other people” yet don’t follow the rules that are supposed to apply to them. Case in point, legislators that advocate for restrictions on firearms. The Second Amendment is a “rule” they refuse to acknowledge. At the Federal level the enumerated powers of the constitution is ignored. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said when asked where the constitution gave the Federal government the power to implement the takeover of health care? She said, “Are you serious?” That pisses me off.

They are rule makers. If they don’t obey the rules how can they expect others to obey them except at the point of a gun? Is that why they want to remove guns from the public? Because the only reason they will obey the rules that supposedly apply to them is at the point of a gun?

Legislators, of any political persuasion, that ignore the highest rule of the land should either change the rules, leave the service of this country, or be removed from service—preferably in chains.

Random thought of the day

I wonder what the response would be if you asked an advocate for a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds how they arrived at that number.

Is that some sort of optimal capacity for maximum public safety? If not then what is that number? If so then where is the data that demonstrates it is optimal?

A new toy!

I just left a comment on a new gun control blog. Here is my comment to their latest post:

Baldr, I question your goal, “My goal, and the goal of Gun Control in general, is to reduce gun violence…”

Had you said, “criminal violence” then I would be with you. But the way it is worded your goal could conceivably be completely achieved (zero injuries inflicted with a firearm) yet have a murder rate that is 100 times greater than what we have now.

That is why the “gun deaths” data you presented is of almost no interest to me. I didn’t dig into it to make certain but I suspect it includes “gun deaths” that were justifiable homicide by the police and private citizens protecting innocent life. It probably also includes suicides.

It is because of these issues there is Just One Question that needs to be answered before I can see any point in having a discussion about placing restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. That question is: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? If you can’t successfully answer that question affirmatively then I don’t see any point in having a discussion.

Got Glock?

The anti-gun people make the best gun salesmen and gun dealers are scrambling to take advantage of the unexpected demand created by the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy. Via email:

Victory Glock 21 27rd Magazines
Victory Glock 21 27rd Magazines

$19.95
Glock Magazines
Glock Factory Magazines

$19.95

Victory Glock .40 S&W  31rd Magazines
Victory Glock .40 S&W 31rd Magazines

Price: $12.00
Victory Glock 9mm 33rd Magazines
Victory Glock 9mm 33rd Magazines

$12.00

Quote of the day—Tamara K.

I wanna ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds! Because, you know, it’s only the 11th victim that bothers me…

Tamara K.
Via Twitter January 13, 2011.
[If someone doesn’t get the sarcasm they are beyond my help.—Joe]

Rights, needs, and wants

There is a common “mistake” advocates of anti-freedom legislation make. In many cases I doubt that is an actual mistake but more likely just a deceptive method of argument but I tend to give people a chance or two before coming down on them for deliberate deception.

They insist that “no one needs” X, Y, or Z and hence there is little or no downside to restricting or banning X, Y, and Z. Brady Campaign Board member Joan Peterson made this mistake (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here) in her most recent blog post.

I left a comment on her blog and reproduce it here because of the danger that it will fall victim to “Reasoned Discourse”:

Japete,

Your understanding of things is a little mixed up. It’s called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Because of this it is required that the government demonstrate that any gun law pass scrutiny. There are various levels of scrutiny and the level of protection the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is given is still somewhat ambiguous. But basically it is up to the advocates of a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that they need the law. It’s not up to the defenders of the right to demonstrate they need the freedom the constitution guarantees.

In other words it is not within the power of our government to “allow” the sale of products related to the right to keep and bear arms. The government must demonstrate they have both the authority and the need to restrict them.

Even if you can demonstrate the government has the authority you are going to be hard pressed to demonstrate the need to restrict standard capacity magazines. I have put together a little video to explain why such a restriction actually does harm with near zero potential for good: http://bit.ly/f2C8Vl.

And in case you haven’t heard anyone other than the NRA say something about 30 round magazines (and I don’t think they have said anything either), I think 30 round magazines are a good idea in some situations. I have several of them for some of my guns. And I have more magazines than I can easily count that are of capacity greater than 10.

If there weren’t a substantial number of people that thought that then there wouldn’t be a market for them and they would only exist as novelties, engineering prototypes, and museums of failed products. Since they are quite common there must be a large number of people that disagree with your desire to ban them.

I know, I know–Almost for certain I’m wasting my time attempting to deal rationally with the person who is the defining case of Peterson Syndrome. But it’s for the others that might be reading, right?

Update: She allowed the comment and responded:

No Joe, I am not at all mixed up. I believe what I wrote. Most in the public also believe it after this shooting especially. Your video only indicates to me that you must expect to be in some situation where you will need to fire off a lot of bullets in case you intend to shoot a lot of people. I very much doubt that you will need to do that in a situation of self defense. You are the one who is mixed up. Because I don’t agree with you does not make me mixed up. It just makes me someone with an opinion different from your own. It won’t do anything for the discussion, which you don’t want to have about this one, to call me mixed up or anyone else who disagrees with you. I will disagree and I won’t say you are mixed up again if you stop saying it about me. O.K.?

Okay. I give up—again. She simply cannot understand a train of thought that differs from her own. I tried to explain to her a simple portion of the constitution relating to enumerated powers and protected rights and she comes back with “I believe what I wrote”.

There is a reason why she is the defining example of Peterson Syndrome.

Relevance

About 20 hours ago I posted a video on YouTube in response to the Tucson shooting and those advocating a restriction on magazine capacity. Since then it has been viewed over 400 times. This is an average of slightly over 20 views per hour.

On January 10th, two days ago, the Brady Campaign posted “Brady President Paul Helmke’s thoughts on the Tucson Shooting” on YouTube. In the approximately 48 hours it has been up it has been viewed 51 times, one of those views being mine. This is an average view rate of slightly over one view per hour.

Do the math Paul. You are no longer relevant when I can get people to view my facts and opinions at a rate 20 times that of yours while advocating a position directly opposed to your agenda.

Quote of the day—Paul Helmke

What this shooting did is it showed how weak the gun laws are in this country. And the fact that this person apparently did everything legal until he pulled the trigger just shows how weak those gun laws are.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
January 12, 2011
Will Tucson Tragedy Shift Gun Control Debate?
[Wow!

Imagine having that criteria applied to other things:

  • The slanderer did everything legal right up to the point where she opened his mouth.
  • The assaulter did everything legal right up to the point where he struck his victim.
  • The speeder did everything legal right up to the point where she exceeded the speed limit.
  • The shoplifter did everything legal right up to the point where he walked out the door without paying for it.

The very name of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” tells you all you need to know to oppose them. They want to prevent “gun violence”. If they wanted to prevent slander or libel they would rightly be seen as wanting to infringe upon free speech. The same is true of their advocating for more restrictions on firearms. Their goal is, clearly, the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms, most people now recognize it, and the above quote shows they don’t even try to hide it.—Joe]

Reload time

Watch the video then decide.

Which is it? Ignorance or opposition to legitimate self-defense?

Now go ask those attempting to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same question.

First and Second Amendment should be off the table

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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]