For once I can actually thank the Gun Guys for doing something useful. They pointed me at this video. Nice. Thanks Gun Guys.
Of course they call it ridiculous. But hey, what do you expect from him?
I still have the sneaking suspicion this guy is working for our side and collecting money from the bad guys. Nice gig if you can get it and aren’t encumbered by little things like morals and principles.
Reader Rob pointed these out to me.
Setting aside the ones that appeal to my sick sense of humor and the one that would piss off my vegetarian daughter I think the pro-choice one is my favorite.
It’s just ludicrous to allow guns in schools under any circumstances. There are regular common-sense gun owners who overwhelmingly want the local school board to at least be able to make their own decision on this at the local level. Most of the parents I talked to had no idea, and they were horrified when they found out it was possible to bring a gun to school. . . . Johnny’s parents don’t want his first-grade teachers packing heat.
Ginny Burdick
Oregon State Senator
D-Portland
September 11, 2007
Teacher demands to carry gun in school
[Oh really? ANY circumstances? How about when some nut case or (redundancy alert) religious fanatic is shooting up the school? Should the cops leave their guns at the station when they come out to put a stop to it? If no, then why shouldn’t the teachers put a stop to it even sooner? And how about this teacher who has a nut case ex-husband? If she is a teacher then she doesn’t deserve to be able to defend herself? And it’s particularly noteworthy that she appeals to “common-sense”–because there is no factual data to support her conclusions. If she lived in the deep south 40 years ago she would be appealing to the “common-sense” laws prohibiting blacks to use the same water fountain with whites. It’s typical that she claims she is an advocate for “gun safety legislation”. I’ll bet she has never taught or even attended a gun safety class yet wants to legislate on the issue. In conclusion, not everyone is a bigot or has mental problems like Ms. Burdick. Some people want teachers to be able to protect themselves and their students. That is the real “common-sense” which should be adhered to.–Joe]
I knew Ms. Ringler was stopping by for a visit every once in a while. I had some time tonight to explore in greater detail her visits. I put the results in an Excel spreadsheet to easier share it with you: RobynRinglerVisits.xls (36 KB)
When I wrote my Sympathy for Robyn Ringler post I actually knew a little more than I let on. I knew that she had seen my post where I called her and her ilk bigots. I also knew she was visiting Kevin’s blog at least occasionally too (it’s all in the spreadsheet).
After my “sympathy” post she came by to read it less than 36 hours later (as well as visiting Uncle after he poked her with a stick). Ride Fast had his hope realized in less than 19 hours.
Bigots really don’t like to be made fun of. Frequently part of the reason they are bigots is because they are unsure of themselves and feel threatened. They need to bring someone else down in order to make themselves feel powerful. This may particularly apply to anti-gun bigots because we already scare them just because we own guns. As explained by my formerly liberal friend Mike:
Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.
But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)
Pointing out their total lack of factual knowledge on the subject has got to be very painful for them. For them to think of us as knuckle-draggers and then have their intellectual lunch handed to them probably will do nothing to change their minds. But what it does do in this new democracy is make them back off the topic. I believe that having them avoid the topic is the best we can hope for. When they have such a poor self-esteem and they have taken a very public stance on the issue it is simply beyond their ability to admit they are wrong. You wouldn’t expect a Klansman to admit they were wrong would you?
The best you can hope for is for them to back down. So let’s take our victory over this bigot and continue on to the next one. Conversions are too difficult, just intellectually shame them into silence and mock them as we roll on past.
Ms. Ringler, if you stop by again to read this there is something I want you to know and understand. From Clayton Cramer:
Still, her announcement that she was going to stop allowing comments doesn’t particularly upset or surprise me–this is a common response of gun control advocates, who soon discover that we knuckle-dragging Neanderthals don’t just outnumber them, but we’re smarter than they are–way smarter.
That and if you ever change your mind about guns and gun ownership I’ll give you free NRA Certified training, a free position at Boomershoot, and I’ll never bring up your ugly past again.
Shooter groups, like the Sporting Shooters Association, who want to break our gun laws; take away gun registration; take away limits on hand guns; are in my opinion the most anti-social and dangerous type of groups that Australia has recently seen outside of course of certain criminal drug-related gangs.
John Crook
Gun Control Australia’s president
http://ssaasa.org.au/alerts2.htm
[Just so you know what they really think of you.–Joe]
Handguns should be banned because they can kill quickly and from a long distance giving victims little chance to escape. If they use knives or any other weapon then the victims can escape.
We should be tightening our borders to ensure no one can bring any guns across the border and maybe lobby the Americans for a gun ban (too bad Americans to believe in this) or else energy exports are reduced.
rewrite the safe schools act to determine which disipline method is needed on a case-by-case basis (i.e instead of expulsion, we should try mental health programs)
Some police presence near schools can be helpful but can’t be everywhere at once.
I DONT WANT TO SEE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REMARK.
September 9, 2007
Comment in response to Gun ban needed, not school metal detectors: McGuinty
[signed] “Vote NDP in the next federal/provincial election from Toronto, Canada”
[Heavy sigh. See also yesterday’s QOTD. Keep in mind this article was, in part, about a high school student who was fatally stabbed. Apparently victims can’t always escape. Or else it is a nuance available only to the liberal mind which, of course, escapes a red-necked, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal like me. I suppose it could be that someone is mocking McGuinty but I can’t quite convince myself that is the case.–Joe]
Does it ever strike you as odd that some of our servants demand that they have a monopoly on certain types of weapons?
I keep thinking that they must have either forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.
I have been in contact with Alice (Catherine has taken over) at Firecracker Films in the context of Boomershoot. My family is not that good of a match because Alice Catherine wants children aged 12 and under. Does the following apply to you? This is your chance to make a difference in the British view of firearms.
Let’s ban handguns in Ontario. Let’s ban handguns across the country. Let’s declare war against handguns.
Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Liberal Leader
September 12, 2007
Gun ban needed, not school metal detectors: McGuinty
Responding to concerns after a student had been stabbed to death at a Toronto High School.
[Via Phil. Many of the comments to the article are just as nonsensical. These people have mental problems.–Joe]
The anti-freedom bigots have pushed things so far that people don’t have a clue of where “the middle” is. Example:
What the two sides don’t acknowledge is that reasonable people can oppose civilian ownership of machine guns or .50-caliber rifles so powerful they must be shot using a tripod while still supporting hunting and owning guns for self-defense. Americans can support background checks on guns sold everywhere – not just by licensed dealers – without putting gun companies out of business. The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.
The name-calling and breath-holding have made us all forget that a middle ground is possible.
I have long had a hot-button about people that want to be in “the middle” and those who create the perception of “the middle”. People, in general, don’t want to be considered extremists or even a short distance from what they perceive as “the center”. Most people are comfortable only when they are with the majority and when the perception of “the center” moves they tend to move with it. “Wimps” doesn’t begin to express my disgust for people like this who decline and/or refuse to think for themselves.
That aside as a inalterable trait of human nature we now must deal with it and perhaps use it to our advantage.
Perception of “the center” is created in at least three ways:
The anti-freedom bigots label the NRA as “an extremist” organization and claim they are advocates for “reasonable measures”. Check and check on points one and two. The NRA has, in essence, abandoned class three devices and agreed with the NICS background check. Check on point three. This makes it difficult for us to make progress in repealing oppressive gun laws due to the majority of people who believe “the middle” is somewhere close to the current state of our laws.
This “middle ground” mentality and the desire to stake out a more “extreme position” was an additional motivating factor for me to create Boomershoot. By being an advocate for long range precision rifles and recreational explosives I enable others to feel more comfortable with less “extreme” positions. I push as an “extreme” advocate for freedom to make it more comfortable for others to move in my direction.
But what is really missing in the debate is an identification of where the real extremes are.
Obviously one extreme is a complete ban on firearm ownership with a death penalty for even the slightest infraction for possession of a firearm or any component of a firearm or, plans, documents, or materials with the intent to make a firearm or component of a firearm.
So what is the other extreme?
The anti-freedom bigots would have us believe it’s allowing people to carry concealed firearms or teaching children or young adults how to shoot. But with only a small amount of thought most people will realize this isn’t all that extreme. It’s just that that position has been labeled as extreme.
How about the GOA who claim they are a “no-compromise gun lobby” and who want our gun rights back? Surely they are staking out the extremist position, right?
Wrong. Very, very wrong.
Part of the other extremist position would be where firearms ownership, training, practice, and continuous (24 by 7 with no exceptions) possession of a loaded firearm is mandatory for everyone. The other part of this extremist position would be when government funds are used to accomplish those goals and it’s a death penalty offense for anyone who attempted to avoid or change these requirements.
With those definitions of extremism the “the middle ground” should be pretty clear–“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Not infringed in the slightest. No law that places any restriction or ownership requirement on anyone. That is the true “middle ground”.
There are so many ways to game this technology, that’s the difficulty. This is not ready for prime time.
Rick Keene
September 11, 2007
Assemblyman, R-Chico.
Handgun stamping bill sent to governor–Spent shell casings would be imprinted
[Yup. Advocates of this are either exceedingly simple minded and/or just want to increase the difficultly of gun ownership.–Joe]
My “triangle of death” post was one of the most linked to posts I have ever made. Now, via Uncle, we find out you can buy your own Triangle of Death clothing, cups, and stickers.
It was amazing seeing something that was used for so much violence, hurt and destruction, to watch its power being taken away. This really hits so close to home.
Melanie C. Brandon
Fashion statement for gun control Designer Melanie C. Brandon has made jewelry from a machine gun and pistols seized in Phila. and melted down.
[Her tag-line: “With each piece made, another gun is taken off the street.” It must be like some sort of primitive religion that believes spirits inhabit inanimate objects. The “power” is in the gun. Maybe an exorcism ritual would just as well. Or if it’s not evil spirits inhabiting the gun then maybe it’s the shape of the piece of metal. Do wearing crosses or some other shape of metal ward off evil spirits? Maybe putting smiley faces on the guns would make them acceptable. Whatever it is, it’s not about the facts of gun ownership.–Joe]
There has been quite a bit of talk about Ms. Ringler, the anti-rights activist, recently:
Mostly because of the Enough is Enough post by Ringler. If it is really true as she reports, “I’ve been told I should be dead and how my death should take place.” then I have some sympathy for her on that one point. If not directly, then almost for certain indirectly, I contributed to her feelings being hurt after being called a bigot.
I debated with myself how to write this post which is part of why I am so behind the curve on the topic. I considered doing an Alex St. John type “apology” (read the book) which resulted in his immediate termination of employment at Microsoft (he knew it would and IIRC cleaned out his desk before pushing the “Send” button on the apology email). I finally decided that there was a better approach.
First a taste of the Alex St. John approach–Ms. Ringler, I’m sorry. I forgot to mention you are a felon as well as a bigot.
In one sense I really don’t like hurting other people’s feelings–especially children and women. I feel empathy for them and I’m certain others that we might like to have on our side will feel empathy toward them as well. But how much sympathy should one have for those that don’t want “colored people” eating in the same restaurant as “white folk” or drinking from the same drinking fountain, or are not allowed access to the public swimming pool because “they would have to drain and clean the pool after the blacks had used it”?
How much sympathy do you feel for a KKK or Aryan Nation type person that gets ostracized in their community for their bigotry and leaves town? Or the bully at school that finally gets caught in the act and is disciplined? Ms. Ringler, of course, does not think of herself as a bigot. I’m certain she thinks of herself as just looking out for what is best for everyone. But the KKK think the same things about themselves. Ringler hasn’t said she wants us dead or living our lives as slaves. And I’m certain she hasn’t put a pillow case over her head and burned crosses in the yards of anyone’s home. She is much more refined than that. She just wants the government to put us in jail for exercising a right constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed (refer to numerous state constitutions if she whines that the Federal Constitution doesn’t really say that–many state constitutions are not in the least bit ambiguous). She wouldn’t want to get her own hands dirty dealing with scum like us.
This last point may be why she is turning off the comments. As one person commented maybe she doesn’t want to be associated with people like me in any way.
What we have here, in the case of Ringler, is her experiencing what I call the proper state of mind for defending the RKBA. We are just “gun niggers” in her mind and she has just realized we are going to stand up to her and Ringler is feeling the same pain as the old man in the book Negros with Guns who said (page 10):
God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!
To Ms. Ringler I say, again, I’m sorry if you received death threats or people said you should be dead. That was entirely inappropriate. The law provides for the death penalty for your type of crime only if it results in the death, kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. I don’t believe you made it that far in your conspiracy against the rights of others and hence I believe the worst punishment that should be dealt to you is a fine and perhaps a few years in prison. But you don’t have any of my sympathy for having your feelings hurt. As Xavier said, “……….Oh good grief. Grow up.“
Looking up Alan’s web page for my previous post I took a look at his blog for the first time in quite a while. Not because it rarely deserves my attention but because his stuff is frequently long and I postpone reading it “until I have more time” and then that just never happens. But this post thrills me. A sample:
Gun Owners Without Borders is a proposal for a new international human rights organization.
Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes a bond between individual human beings whose right to live is challenged by their governments or other forces.
Gun Owners Without Borders supports an inalienable right of people to resist any attempts to exterminate them, regardless of the source or justification for the attempted extermination.
Current United Nations policies do not prevent genocide and democide, because a nation’s sovereignty logically comes first. Internal policies are a nation’s own business. This holds true whether the rulers are elected, appointed, inherited or in charge through force of arms.
Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes that this is perfectly understandable and a normal state of affairs under the nation-state system.
Communist China, for example, could shoot its citizens who are drug addicts, or for political reasons, or to harvest organs or to turn babies over for adoption (and they do). The U.N. and others might object, or not, but it’s not within their realm to stop such abuse. Nor could they, as a practical matter, if they were of a mind to.
Gun Owners Without Borders therefore understands it falls only to individual persons to defend their own right to their own lives if they can, even if such defense would be viewed as illegal or criminal acts by the ruling parties. Under the doctrine of state sovereignty, anyone who shoots back at an agent of the government is by definition typically an “outlaw.”
If you ever think we have the gun-rights situation in the U.S. under control and you are looking for a more challenging political environment I’m sure there will be enough work available on this planet for a generation or ten of gun-rights activists.
Uncle reports they can’t help it. It’s just a condition. Jed read the report and took away that people “become deaf to arguments of reason”.
I think it’s a fascinating insight into the human mind. And my take is different from both Uncle and Jed. My take is that we need to carefully word things to avoid reinforcing the very lies the anti-gun bigots are trying to convince people of. This is very closely related to something Alan Korwin shared via email over seven years ago. Here is just a sample of Alan’s brilliant, ahead of his time, insight:
Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROLIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRYIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPONIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINESIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS
I finally stopped procrastinating and made our travel and hotel reservations for the Rendezvous. I’ll get our registration in to Mr. Completely later today.
We are flying in so that means even if the range would allow “Joe’s special recipe” for reactive targets I’d be blocked by the TSA from bringing my chemistry set.
Barb and I will arrive in Reno on Thursday morning and leave Sunday evening. I’m hoping to see the same participants as last year as well a bunch of new ones. Will you be there?
But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words — even just 27 words — mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a “living” Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right — a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.
Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other ‘Rights’ May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[And, as was recently reported and commented on in various places, Johnson was correct in his prediction–it was appealed.–Joe]
The Brady Bunch has a link to this video about “microstamping” on their website. They ignore obvious and important points of their critics such as:
One must assume they believe in some sort of supernatural capabilities for this technology that defies the laws of physics and human nature as we know it. But regardless of all the reasons why this scheme could never work the big thing that I noticed while watching this video was the background music–the theme from The X-Files.
If your organization was concerned with reducing violence you would assume you claim victory when violence was reduced after expending your energy to accomplish some task. But that’s not the way it works with the Violence Policy Center. They claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced:
The sharp drop in gun dealers is one of the most important—and little noticed—victories in the effort to reduce firearms violence in America. Fewer gun dealers reduces the potential number of sources for high-volume illegal gun trafficking.
I’m pleased to note they report Idaho still has more gun dealers than gas stations however:
America Once Had More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations, Now Only Five States Do: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming.
As a reminder, it was their buddy former President Bill Clinton and fellow criminals in the legislative bodies obtained an dramatic increase in the price of a Type 1 Federal Firearms License (FFL). This drove hundreds of thousands of dealers out of business and gave the VPC their “victory”.
If the VPC is going to claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced instead of when the rate of violence crime is reduced they really should be called the “Victimization Proliferation Conspiracy”.