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]
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”.
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!
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]
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.
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:
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]
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]
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.]
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]
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.
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:
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]
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]
I hope one day to tell “boogeyman” stories to my grandkids about how the Brady Campaign will come back and take their guns if they don’t adhere to the 3 (4) basic rules of gun safety.
IrishPirate
December 20, 2010
Brady’s going broke, telling same old lies
[Let’s make this a reality as soon as possible. It probably won’t be all that long before I have grandkids.—Joe]
And the “occassional freak” who does something like Dunblane is ACTUALLY LESS of a PROBLEM WITH A GUN than without one !
Without a gun, the Dunblane thing could have been done ‘better and more effectively’ with 2 cans of petrol – one poured round the outside of the building first, to prevent people leaving, then one inside to burn them out – it would kill everyone. (As Bomber Command how to kill thousands of people and the answer is fire, not shrapnel)
But we don’t ban petrol – we cart millions of gallons of the stuff through our city streets every day.
We SHOULD make guns a lot more accessible to the general public – as in Switzerland where EVERY adult male has an automatic assault rifle, no less.
john_u
December 12, 2010
WRONG – WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ARMED !
[I find it encouraging this and a number of other pro-gun comments are showing up in a U.K media outlet. Gun rights is not completely dead over there.
I have sometimes considered analyzing crimes committed using firearms and showing there was a “better” way to have committed the crime without a firearm. The mass killings are the easiest to demonstrate this. And as john_u suggests fire is one of the better ways. Driving a vehicle through crowds of people and causing structures to fail are also “good” methods.
I have not done so for two reasons. 1) I’m hesitant to give people ideas on effective mass murder. And 2) There aren’t that many mass murders to analyze.—Joe]
O.
Joan Peterson
Brady Campaign Board Member
December 16, 2010
Response to the question, “How few murders have to be committed with firearms before the push for new, more restrictive laws ends?”
[Thanks to Bob S. and others for setting her up for and catching this.
I presume she meant “zero” rather than “Oh” but I’ll give her a pass on that. I remember when some typewriters didn’t have the digits ‘1’ and ‘0’ because you were supposed to use a lower case ‘L’ and a capital ‘o’ for them. I will not give her a pass on the intent.
Zero is not possible as long as people and guns exist. No matter how lives are saved with guns, not matter how successful “gun violence prevention” programs are, no matter how many court rules there are that the right to keep in bear arms is a specific enumerated right, this Brady Campaign Board member will demand evermore restrictions on that right.
What she is saying is that guns are somehow different than other tools used to commit murders. If she were to advocate for a position like this in regard to sticks, stones, fists, or feet she would be hauled off to the loony bin. But somehow with a constitutionally protected right at issue there exists an organization that makes her a board member.
The whole lot of them are essentially politically extinct at the Federal level because more and more people are getting a clue as to just how disconnected from reality these people are. We just need to drive them into extinction at the state and local level.—Joe]
Via John Richardson we find the anti-gun bigots attempted to do one of their usual tricks of twisting the facts. This time it was in the Chicago “assault weapon” ban and they got caught:
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Appellate Court defense of the county gun ban (Wilson, et. al. v. Cook County, et. al.) got off to a bad start when briefs filed by the county before the First District Appellate Court were found to contain factual errors. More specifically, these factual errors included the misquoting of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago cases. (The ISRA was a Plaintiff in McDonald). When these errors were brought to light by the plaintiffs, the county hastily filed a motion to withdraw the erroneous briefs in favor of amended versions. Presently, the plaintiffs in the case have moved to strike the amended briefs as the amendments do not remedy the ramifications of the misquotes contained in the original set of briefs. In fact the County may have used their own “errors” to further violate the Court’s rules and to additional arguments and bolster existing arguments in their amended brief.
“We find it interesting that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office would blame ‘electronic errors’ for the tainting of its briefs with misquotes,” commented ISRA spokesman, Richard Pearson. “This situation is made all the more curious given that the misquotes would fundamentally alter the intent of two landmark Supreme Court decisions – D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In the county’s briefs, the two high court decisions are erroneously quoted as addressing ‘common handguns’ whereas the decisions, as written, do not contain the phrase ‘common handguns.’ There is a clear difference when one addresses handguns versus ‘common’ handguns in that the latter would drastically reduce the types of firearms whose ownership is protected under the Second Amendment.”
“If I were a cynic,” continued Pearson, “I’d suggest that these ‘electronic errors’ were just poorly executed attempts by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office to re-write the Heller and McDonald decisions more to Mayor Daley’s liking.”
How can anyone not see the bigotry in these actions? How is this any different than the way the politicians of 50 to 70 years ago in the deep south kept the blacks repressed? They have been shown to be in violation of the highest law of the land and yet they continue to resist conforming to it “dragging their feet” and lying every step of the way.
At what point are we going to finally send in the U.S. Marshalls and National Guard to arrest these bigots and/or force them into compliance?
In a somewhat related post see Sebastian’s post where he asks, “How long before the gig is up, and even the die hards realize it?” I think the U.S. Marshalls arresting the politicians enforcing unconstitional laws would pretty much cause even the most dimwitted to get realize the exit light was glowing.
The constitution is too long.
It should have started with “Fuck you!” and ended with “Fuck you!” In the middle it should have said, “Provide for the common defense.”
The 1st Amendment should read, “Congress will make no law” and we are done.
Jim G.
December 14, 2010
[I had lunch with Jim. Instead of the usual gun control issues we were talking about the TSA and health care. This wasn’t even the portion of the conversation where the water I was drinking spurted out my nose.
Jim has some strong Libertarian leanings.—Joe]
In Washington State it is legal to carry a pistol openly (or, with a license, concealed). But an apparently brain dead lawmaker (Representative Appleton) wants to make it illegal to carry a knife with a blade greater than 3.5 inches long.
This is entirely consistent with the Seattle ordinance that prohibits public carry of Airsoft guns and slingshots while real firearms are allowed.
I guess this could be considered the legislative command “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” but I somehow don’t think that is what she had in mind.
Unlike section 12031, the District of Columbia law did not contain, and the Supreme Court declined to infer, an exception for self-defense. Id. The Heller Court did not reach the question of whether the law would have been constitutional had there been an exception for self-defense. See id. As a consequence, the Court declines to assume that section 12031 places an unlawful burden on the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Irma E. Gonzalez
December 10, 2010
United States District Court Southern District of California
Case 09CV2371-IEG (BGS), Order (1) Denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment
Page 8, lines 18-22.
[Sebastian also has a post on the topic as does John Richardson.
I’m reminded of Aesop’s fable of the fox and the grapes—with a twist.
The Brady Campaign is quite pleased with this order because it says concealed carry is not a guaranteed right. But what they don’t mention is that the reason given by the judge that it doesn’t infringe is that an exemption exists for open carry. While the courts don’t always rule consistently this does imply that some sort of public carry is believed to constitutionally protected. Hence the Brady Campaign may be crowing about how sweet the grapes are because concealed carry restrictions are upheld while open carry becomes a guaranteed right beyond their reach.—Joe]
Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well then get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem!
Justice Stephen Breyer
December 13, 2010
Via John Richardson.
[See also the posts by Sebastian, Alan, Weerd Beard, and Say Uncle.
At what point does this right becomes infringed in Breyer opinion? What if there was only one city in the country that allowed the possession and use of a pistol in public. Suppose that one city was Barrow Alaska (300 miles NORTH of the artic circle) and that was only when there was a polar bear watch in effect (yes, they have polar bears roaming the streets sometimes). Is there still “no problem”?
As pointed out in comments to the above posts (note that Snowflakes in Hell is down and will be for at least a few more hours) this statement by Breyer can be shown to be irrational and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights by transforming the restricted object to be something other than a gun such as:
Here are some of my contributions to that meme:
—Joe]