Via sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141:
She also has this to say:
I am a woman
You do not get to say what I can and can NOT do with my bodyI bet your happy to tell women to just pee to not get raped
only Rapists and their facilitators support #GunControlNow
The next step is to ask what is the impact on public health and public safety when guns are easier to carry. In a situation where you have a fight, do they contribute to the escalation and make it more lethal?
Ali Rowhani-Rahbar
The number of US adults carrying a loaded handgun every day doubled to an estimated 6 million in just 4 years
[That is the question if you believe all lives are equally important. That is, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Adam Lanza, and others of their ilk have lives just as important as their victims.
A more relevant question is, “Where does government get the moral, legal, and philosophical authority to restrict people from using the best tools available to defend themselves?”
Or if you want to strictly practical, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer is, of course, no.—Joe]
The idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.
Joe Biden
President of the United States
November 24, 2022
Remarks by President Biden After Visiting With Local Firefighters
[Enjoy your trial.—Joe]
The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defense is secured, and must be admitted. It is an exceeding destructive weapon. It is difficult to defend against it, by any degree of bravery, or any amount of skill. The gun or pistol may miss its aim, and when discharged, its dangerous character is lost, or diminished at least. The sword may be parried. With these weapons men fight for the sake of the combat, to satisfy the laws of honor, not necessarily with the intention to kill, or with a certainty of killing, when the intention exists. The bowie-knife differs from these in its device and design; it is the instrument of almost certain death. He who carries such a weapon, for lawful defense, as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the rights of others, considering the frailties of human nature, than if he carried a less dangerous weapon. Now, is the legislature powerless to protect the rights of others thus the more endangered, by superinducing caution against yielding to such frailties? May the state not say, through its law, to the citizen, “this right which you exercise, is very liable to be dangerous to the rights of others, you must school your mind to forbear the abuse of your right, by yielding to sudden passion; to secure this necessary schooling of your mind, an increased penalty must be affixed to the abuse of this right, so dangerous to others.”
John Gregg
Texas Appeals Court Judge
1859
John Cockrum v. The State Page 402
[Via The legal history of bans on firearms and Bowie knives before 1900 by David Kopel.
I found this take on the use of large knives versus guns very interesting. There are several facets to this, but the following is the most intriguing. Those who would restrict access to guns would increase the use of weapons the courts have found to be more deadly.—Joe]
Perez-Gallan had a restraining order issued against him, in which case federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm.
Counts ruled that the federal government’s disarming of Perez-Gallan did not sufficiently consider the historical context of domestic abuse law when revoking his Second Amendment rights. In September, the same judge ruled that it’s unconstitutional to disarm somebody who has been indicted but hasn’t been convicted yet.
William Melhado
November 14, 2022
Federal judge in Texas rules that disarming those under protective orders violates their Second Amendment rights
[Nice!
It is long past time which the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms was recognized as a first class right instead of an embarrassing dog turd on the bottom of someone’s shoe.
I would think there are some due process issues involved as well.—Joe]
Ladies and gentlemen of the 97 Percent panel, thank you for letting me participate in the conference today as a representative of the gun community. I appreciate and endorse your stated mission of reducing gun deaths in America by conducting original research to identify common ground, to change the conversation around gun safety to include gun owners, and to leverage technology to make our communities safer. All of these goals are goals that the gun community shares with you.
But I must tell you something very important.
I have never heard a more delusional, more dishonest stream of bad faith bullshit as I have just heard. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
Handwaving Freakoutery
November 18, 2022
Ninety Seven Percent: Epistemic status: gun policy fiction based on that embarrassingly awful 97% zoom call yesterday
[Good fiction humor based on a lot of facts.—Joe]
Oregon faces a crisis in its criminal justice system because the leftists elements in Salem have refused to hold criminal[s] accountable for their behavior. Banning large capacity magazines will only turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Assuming that restricting magazines to 10 rounds will make you safe is one of the most ignorant statements ever made.
Jason Pollock
Jefferson County Sheriff
November 15, 2022
Oregon sheriffs won’t enforce new gun law: ‘Infringes on Second Amendment’
[Politicians need to be prosecuted over this crap. They implement “catch and release” policies for criminal. They defund the police. Then they pass blatantly unconstitutional laws to make it difficult or impossible to purchase effective self-defense tools. It cannot get much clearer. These people are evil and/or insane.
By telling them, “I hope you enjoy your trial.” I am advocating on their behalf. This is because if they aren’t prosecuted, they risk angry mobs with tar, feathers, pitchforks, and short ropes on tall trees.—Joe]
Daughter Kim and I had a meeting with ATF inspectors yesterday regarding the renewal of our license to manufacture high explosives.
We were just chatting about various changes and one of the inspectors said 4473s now have to be retained forever. The ATF website still says just 20 years. But that page hasn’t been updated since June of 2018.
I asked if congress changed the law or it was a regulation change by the ATF. She said, “I think it was just a regulation change.”
Looking at the law I think I see what they did:
(b) Firearms Transaction Record. Licensees shall retain each Form 4473 until business or licensed activity is discontinued, either on paper, or in an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises readily accessible for inspection under this part. Paper forms over 20 years of age may be stored at a separate warehouse, which shall be considered part of the business premises for this purpose and subject to inspection under this part.
The law only references 20 years in the context of an alternate storage location. But, technically, says they must be kept forever. Apparently the ATF regulations originally just said, “Never mind what the law says, after 20 years no one cares.”
My guess is someone in the current administration decided anything to increase the hassle factor on gun dealers, even it there was no net benefit to society, was a good thing.
This hits harder than it would have had it happened in some distant city, I drove through Moscow on Monday night on my way to Boomershoot territory. I graduated from the University of Idaho as did my ex-wife, one of her sisters, and her mother. My brother and his three children all attended the U of I. My three children, my father, and numerous cousins and high school friends attended the U of I as well. I owned a home and lived in Moscow, at least part time, from about 1990 to 2012. One of my daughters and my ex still live less than 20 minutes away.
It got even more disturbing with this:
Fry said investigators believe two other roommates were home during the attack, but they were “not injured.” When asked if they had been involved in a hostage situation, Fry said no. He did not speculate on why the crime was not reported until noon when uninjured, living people remained in the home, and, to protect the “integrity of the investigation,” would not confirm if the surviving roommates were the ones who called 911. Fry did say that the roommates were still at the house when police arrived.
“We don’t know why that call came in at noon and not in the middle of the night. … We’re investigating everything still to try to pull all the pieces together,” Fry said.
I found out about the murders via a text message from Mike B. Mike played a big role in getting “campus carry” through the Idaho legislature. It didn’t help these students but it might give a number of students comfort and safety in the coming weeks.
One has to wonder… Since this is getting so much attention, and the murderer(s) have got away with something like a nine or ten hour head start on the police, if there will be copycats. Knives are almost completely silent, never need to be reloaded, unrestricted sales, no serial numbers, easy to make, found in every home, etc..
If the murders had been with a gun it would have been called a “mass shooting” and more calls for gun control would have been in the headlines before the bodies were cold. So what will the gun control advocates have to say if “mass stabbing” becomes a trend here? “Common sense knife control”?
What I will say about the potential for copycats is, “People, show any copycats why you don’t bring a knife to gunfight.”
Historically, piecemeal public-service ads have trod cautiously so as not to alienate a core constituency—gun owners themselves, some 30 percent of Americans. They’ve employed inconsistent strategies, sometimes urging gun owners to “lock it up,” other times decrying feeble government regulation. Mixed messages threaten to undercut the impact of these PSAs, and soft targets can make for mealymouthed calls to action. Thoughtful, measured arguments aren’t always the right fit for this medium, which usually requires a villain, like a Big Tobacco. “For us, that starts and stops with the NRA,” Sam Shepherd, the global executive creative director of Leo Burnett, told me.
Mac Schwerin
November 11, 2022
The Ad Industry’s Plan to Fix America’s Gun Crisis
[Interesting stuff in this article. It’s a look into the smartest minds of the enemy.
This at least partially explains the long time blame on the gun manufactures who “care more about profits than children’s lives.” The slogan writers know they need a villain and they have been trying out the NRA and the manufactures.
For some reason criminals as villains are not acceptable. Is it because criminal are their natural ally in the fight against private gun ownership? If the criminals did not exist there would not be a publicly defendable need to restrict gun ownership.—Joe]
Guys who carry guns are overcompensating for a lot of things. Without them, they feel inadequate in a lot of ways.
JHN @JHNTruthTeller
Tweeted on July 17, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
We have SCOTUS decisions, the moral high ground, and real world data to back us up.
They have childish insults.
Via a tweet from In Chains@InChainsInJail.—Joe]
I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered. They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.
Ned Lamont
Governor of Connecticut
Lamont suggests making over ‘grandfathered’ assault weapons illegal. Over 80,000 exist in CT
[From the same article:
… weapons that were legally kept in Connecticut between 1994 and 2013 — when the ban was expanded to include at least 100 additional models — and allowed owners to register those guns with the state, but not to sell or transfer them to anyone except for a licensed gun dealer or family member.
Registration is only good for one thing and that is confiscation.
I hope he enjoys his trial.—Joe]
Sadly, this is close to being correct:
Asking and pleading has not worked.
Tell them something different. I’m going with, “Please continue. I’m collecting evidence for your trial.”
I love admissions like this.
The good “doctor” was trying to argue that the Democrat Party isn’t coming for peaceful United States citizens’ firearms… by pointing out that the Democrat Party is, in fact, coming for those firearms.
In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on November 9, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet:
Lol. We are coming after your AKs and ARs. But not the others. I’ll be forever keeping my shotgun, my rifle, and my handguns.
The mind of those on the political left is so “interesting”. This is just like yesterday when we had the brainiac tell us, “Other than murder, violent crime is not up.”
Think about it! It’s all consistent..They spout contradictive nonsense which demonstrates they cannot detect simple logical errors. This explains why they (excluding the willfully evil) cannot understand, despite mountains of evidence, their leftist policies are economic suicide and catastrophic for individual rights.
They simply don’t have the mental processing capability to detect logic errors. It is like a variation of Peterson Syndrome. They are missing a thought process than the rest of us take for granted that nearly everyone has.
Fascinating!—Joe]
Just like we warned politicians after the Bruen decision, fall in line, or we will force you to. We are excited to see Kathy Hochul finally served a plate of humble pie, and we are fully prepared to continue the fight should she again attempt to disarm the citizens of her state at a time when her party’s policies are only escalating the danger that everyday citizens face.
Erich Pratt
Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America
November 7, 2022
GOA DEFEATS NY “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” IN FEDERAL COURT
[See also:
This is happening a little faster than I expected.
I’m anxiously awaiting some decisions on the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans. The bans on 18 to 20 year-old gun ownership sales should show up about the same time. After that it is on to suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and, eventually, full autos. What a glorious time to be a gun rights activist!—Joe
I don’t think you’ll find any precedent in U.S. history in which a citizen has to go through so many hoops to exercise Constitutional rights. This is the first of its kind and, if it passes, it will wind up in court.
Leonard Williamson
Oregon trial attorney who specializes in firearms law
October 31, 2022
Opponents Setting Out Unintended Consequences of Oregon’s Gun Control Measure
[Via email from Rolf.
I almost welcome this sort of crap. The more outrageous the restrictions on our specific enumerated rights the easier it is to establish precedence and create a slippery slope in the correct direction.
Also, when the time comes, it will make it easier to get convictions.—Joe]
Via JPFO | Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership @JPFO_2A:
After Ruby Ridge, Waco, and many other lesser known incidents, I cannot immediately think of any reason to oppose this proposal.
Saul Cornell, who is a professor of history when he is not writing for Slate, is engaged in intellectual dishonesty. He claims, as I note below, that a 1964 study of firearms lethality says something that it does not say (and, indeed, that it could not say, given its date of publication) in the course of trying to make modern sporting rifles sound scary for cheap propaganda purposes. Saul Cornell knows that this is false, and I know that he knows this is false, because I have told him, and he has acknowledged the fact in emails to me. But the claim remains unretracted. Retracting the claim would mean admitting that the source he cites not only does not say what he says it says about AR-style rifles, but that it in fact does not say anything about those rifles at all.
Honest mistakes happen all the time in journalism. This is not one of those. This is a fabrication.
Kevin D. Williamson
May 25, 2022
A Little More Saul Cornell
[Gun control supporters lie. It is part of their culture. It has always been this way. It will always be that way. Without lies they have no hope of winning a public debate.
If you have the time to read it there is far more information and justification for the case of deliberate lies by Cornell.
Respond appropriately.—Joe]
