Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Imagine thinking “encouraging minorities to build their own firearms in order to defend themselves” is a “fascist” position to take.

These people are insane.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on September 13, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet by coderedamerica.com@coderedamerica

Replying to @RICECUTTA0 @OleGelo5 and @POTUS

@FBI @FBIWFO here is a great thread to follow especially with people like @SamuelWhittemo3 involved. Nothing spells fascist like a maga follower pretending to be a christian and promoting ghost guns.

Words mean things and there are dictionaries which can be referenced determine those meanings when you are unsure. But some people see words meaning whatever suits their purpose as the time. Others see them as just sounds they make which give them some sort of satisfaction.

My first awareness of this was in conversations I attempted to follow with a particular family. Read my comments at that link!

This family trait was a source of considerable bafflement and some amusement to me. But things didn’t really “click” for me until, as I reported in the linked post, I was told my inability to resolve a contradiction in what someone had said was unimportant:

Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.

They were just making sounds at each other. It was sort of like humming to a baby to help it go to sleep.

Casual conversation is one thing. Legal definitions is another. My first recollection of having frustrations with this was in “assault weapon” ban of ‘94. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to these people? The issue was brought into clarity when I realized it was, at least sometimes, deliberate deception using the definition of words.

Other examples:

See also, Speech Is Not Violence by John Stossel.

And redefining, or perhaps more accurate in many cases “undefining”, words applies to people who job depends upon the precise meaning of words.

As much clarity as I discovered on my own since my first awareness 30 or 40 years ago, this is not a new thing. Greater minds than mine made the practice far more clear pointed out the dangers. Lewis Carroll is one such example in his book Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Circling back to the QOTD by In Chains above is something my daughter Jaime asked of me a few days ago:

Please look up the definition of “fascism” in your old timey dictionary*.

Here is the result:

Fascism The principles or methods of the Fascisti—Fascist, I. A member of the Fascisti. II. Of or pertaining to the Fascisti.

Fascisti … The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following, which regarded the government as criminally negligent in failing to deal with these disturbances, and took measure on its own account, often violent ones, to combat them, and which developed into a powerful party obtaining political control of the country in Oct., 1922, under its founder and leader, Benito Mussolini, as prime minister; hence, the members of a similar society or party elsewhere.

This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism. But the violence component does not appear to have manifested itself.

So, is In Chains correct when he says, “These people are insane.”? Perhaps. I’m nearly certain some people redefining or undefining words have mental issues. Others, perhaps most, wish to be the master.


* “Old timey dictionary” means the unabridged The New Century Dictionary Copyright 1946, 1944, 1942, 1938, 1936,1934, 1933, 1931, 1929, 1927.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

The New York Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul are making a mockery of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June, which struck down the state’s onerous ‘proper cause’ requirement in June. While they’re playing politics, the rights of law-abiding New York citizens are being cavalierly trampled. We cannot allow that to happen just so anti-gunners in Albany can play games with the constitution, just to see whether they can get away with it.

The fact that New York’s new regulatory scheme essentially prohibits lawful carry in most public places is outrageous. The state is being too clever by half, and we’re confident that the federal courts, with the recent guidance from the Supreme Court on Second Amendment jurisprudence, will bring a quick end to this nonsense.

Alan M. Gottlieb
September 13, 2022
SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S NEW GUN CONTROL SCHEME
[It is no surprise (read the comments here) to us that the authoritarians cling to authority or that SAF, the FPC, and others will have work to do for many years. But we are making progress.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William English

Consistent with other recent survey research, the survey finds an overall rate of adult firearm ownership of 31.9%, suggesting that in excess of 81.4 million Americans aged 18 and over own firearms. The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner’s home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of thirty (3.2%) occurred at work.

William English
May 13, 2022
2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned
[Via a chain of links starting from Tom Gresham @Guntalk.

Of course, the ownership rate is probably higher because all the usual reasons. But the defensive use rates for those who admit to gun ownership is what interests me.

Read the rest of the abstract too. The demographics and the type of firearms (nearly 25 million AR-15 owners) may interest you.—Joe]

Make this work both ways

Via Chet, Richard, and other sources.

Interesting development. It’s another attempt at an end run around the 2nd Amendment:

Credit Card Code to Track Gun Sales Approved by Standards Group:

“I’m pleased that the ISO voted to advance a key step to prevent the next tragedy,” Lander said in a news release. “American Express, Mastercard, Visa and other credit card companies now have a responsibility to implement the new merchant category code, so that financial institutions can do their part to flag suspicious activity and save lives.”

Guns bought through credit cards in the US will now be trackable:

Credit card purchases of firearms in the US can now be tracked and purchases deemed suspicious can even be shared with law enforcement, according to a new measure approved by an organization that sets parameters for business transactions.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) voted in favor of creating a merchant code for firearms stores, according to Reuters.

Visa To Categorize Sales At Gun Stores In Win For Gun Control Advocates:

Visa’s decision will allow banks to make decisions with enhanced information on whether they will allow purchases at gun shops on their cards.

Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to start categorizing sales from gun shops:

Visa’s adoption is significant as the largest payment network, and with Mastercard and AmeEx, will likely put pressure on the banks as the card issuers to adopt the standard as well. Visa acts as a middleman between merchants and banks, and it will be up to banks to decide whether they will allow sales at gun stores to happen on their issued cards.

There were some attempts at balanced reporting. ABC and NBC had identical articles which included this:

Gun rights advocates argue that tracking sales at gun stores would unfairly target legal gun purchases, since merchant codes just track the type of merchant where the credit or debit card is used, not the actual items purchased. A sale of a gun safe, worth thousands of dollars and an item considered part of responsible gun ownership, could be seen as a just a large purchase at a gun shop.

“The (industry’s) decision to create a firearm specific code is nothing more than a capitulation to anti-gun politicians and activists bent on eroding the rights of law-abiding Americans one transaction at a time,” said Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

Credit card firms to code gun, ammunition purchases, making them easier to track:

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, on Wednesday morning, also tweeted in support of an MCC.

“Together we can help stop gun trafficking & keep New Yorkers safe,” she posted.

Opponents of the measure included the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In a statement to The Center Square, Mark Oliva, the organization’s managing director for public affairs, slammed the move, saying the creation of the code was “flawed on its premise. Those who believe it will help law enforcement do not provide details on what should be considered suspicious purchases.”

“This decision chills the free exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights and does nothing to assist law enforcement with crime prevention or holding criminals accountable,” he said. “The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics consistently shows in their own reporting that 90% of felons convicted of their crimes involving a firearm admit they illegally obtain those guns through theft or trading on the black market. Attaching codes specific to firearm and ammunition purchases casts a dark pall by gun control advocates who are only interested in disarming lawful gun owners.”

I have three takeaways:

  1. Continue using cash whenever I can (online is still going to be a card).
  2. Encourage others to use cash.
  3. Publicize and advocate boycotts for banks that refuse to let their cards be used for the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

Make this work both ways. They want to use it to cast a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected right. We can use it to out the enemies of the constitution and freedom. And by using cash you enable others to avoid paying our oppressors more tax money.

Update: This is a good article on the topic which includes more from the civil rights viewpoint.

Quote of the day—Ida B. Wells

Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky, and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched.

Ida B. Wells
1892
Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases
[Via Jacob Sullman. A New Study Suggests That Black Southerners’ Access to Firearms Reduced Lynchings: The analysis reinforces the historical case for armed self-defense in response to racist violence.

A lesson for all ages and all people. You don’t have to shoot all of them. If you can take just one of them with you then we, as a group will win. There are always far fewer thugs than the total number of victims.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Yerachmiel HaLevi

I am a pro gun Israeli American & this is how & why I can justify gun ownership

Answer1

Answer4

Answer3

Answer2

Answer5

Yerachmiel HaLevi
August 26, 2022
Answer to this question on Quora:

Can a pro-gun American justify their nation’s gun laws to a Brit who believes that a gun-less society is safer?

[Runner-up answer by Peter Cress:

Nah. We already justified private gun ownership to the British back in 1776.

I would like to point out that beliefs are not facts. Anti-gun people appear to be divided into three categories:

  1. Those that are ignorant of the facts.
  2. Those that cannot be influenced by facts.
  3. Those that know the facts and want guns banned for reasons of evil
    intent.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Crazy? No. This is evil.

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras:

Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the day—Brandon Soderman

You will increasingly see the gun prohibitionists now attempt to utilize the private sector to chill the Second Amendment since they can’t use governmental power to do so.

Over the next year when magazine bans and AWBs are struck down in the courts under the THT test you will witness a push to shame gun manufactures (we’ve seen a taste of that in congress), push shippers to refuse to ship firearms and accessories that democrats want to ban but can’t, and push the banking system to make gun purchases are difficult as possible.

The battle will now be shifting from the court system to the court of public opinion, it’s all they have left. We’re on the offensive now and they know it. Don’t take this as a sign of weakness on our side, but as a sign of their desperation as they get pushed back into the hole they crawled out of for another generation.

They’re desperate, take this sign for what it is and hold on tight. You’re about to witness a lash out like you’ve never seen.

Brandon Soderman
Facebook comment on September 7, 2022
[I think this is more than plausible.

We live in interesting times. Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Colion Noir @MrColionNoir

NY Governor Says Her Rights As Governor Trumps Constitutional Rights To Conceal Carry

Does this sound like a woman who is worried about the safety of her citizens or a TYRANT who is afraid to lose power over its citizens?

Colion Noir @MrColionNoir
Tweeted on September 3, 2022
[Hint: This is a rhetorical question.—Joe]

Banking rights?

Over the years we have seen banks close the accounts of gun stores simply because they sold a constitutionally protected item. This was wrong and the U.S. Senate telling them to back off probably helped.

I’ll grant that you might have to squint a little to see it but this is an analogous situation with the 1st Amendment:

Over the weekend, Rolling Stone broke the news that half a dozen of the bank’s clients had their banking accounts with Wells Fargo canceled with no previous warning. What do they have in common? Each has previously or is currently working in the adult entertainment industry. Some performers have held accounts with the bank for 25 years or more.

I’m a bit torn on this topic. Should a company (and/or an individual) be forced by law to do business with someone?

There is the wedding cake case for possible insight. There I was inclined to side with cake makers freedom of religion claim over the same sex couple wanting a wedding cake.

In the gun maker/distributor/seller and the adult entertainers banking cases I’m having a tougher time siding with the businesses. Sure, the Feds don’t have constitutional authority (like that has ever stopped them) to tell the banks they must do business with someone. Unless, of course, there is a “banking right” hidden in the constitution someplace. But the individual states could legislate such requirements.

Aside from the legal authority there are other issues. If a business can discriminate on the basis of occupation (assuming the risk is equivalent for the favored and disfavored occupations) then why can’t they discriminate on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, etc.? Perhaps, from a philosophical viewpoint, should they be allowed this freedom. But I’m not comfortable with that conclusion either.

Thoughts?

Quote of the day—Carmine Sabia @CarmineSabia

Joe Biden used MAGA the way other dictators have used people of certain races and religions. It was pure evil. The president of the United States declared war on half the nation in an attempt to hang on to power.

Carmine Sabia @CarmineSabia
Tweeted on September 2, 2022
[I’m so glad we were able to elect someone who could unite us again inside of the previous guy who was so divisive.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rob Picheta

Across England and Wales, knife-related crime is at its highest level since 2011, with the year ending March 2018 having seen a 16% increase from the previous 12 months, the Office of National Statistics says.

The issue has also received international attention, in part due to US President Donald Trump’s comment in May that an unnamed London hospital was like a “war zone,” with “blood all over the floors” due to knife crime. Trump did not provide detail or evidence for his assertion.

Rob Picheta
November 6, 2018
UK children have highest risk of being stabbed on way home from school, study finds
[I find this interesting in multiple ways.

  • Picheta laments the high level of “knife-related crime”, yet a couple paragraphs latter suggests that Trump made an unfounded assertion. Is Picheta’s memory span that short?
  • “Knife crime”. They have banned almost all guns and many knives. Carrying a knife in public, with a very few exceptions, is illegal there. Perhaps they should consider criminal control rather than inanimate object control.
  • It is further support for Just one question.

See also Knife Control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Letitia James

Responsible gun control measures save lives and any attempts by the gun lobby to tear down New York’s sensible gun control laws will be met with fierce defense of the law,

Letitia James
August 31, 2022
New York to enact new gun restrictions in response to supreme court decision
[I read this and hear the echoes of politicians responding to the 1865 passage of the 13th Amendment with the Jim Crow laws.

It probably will take at least a full generation before hey will lose the power and prestige they know belongs to them and their ilk. But eventually we will laugh at them as they are marginalized, finally lose their grip on power, and are occasionally prosecuted as the lash out with violence at their frustration of losing so much.—Joe]

They must need more gun control

The Seattle area,via their dominance of state politics, pushed a bunch of gun control down our throats in the last ten years. They promised us less “gun crime” for the tax on gun sales (Seattle only) the extended waiting periods, the standard capacity magazine bans, the training requirements for semi-auto rifles, and the banning of sales to people under the age of 21.

You would think with all those “gun safety” laws Seattle would be much safer now than it was ten years ago. Some people don’t see it that way:

A good August is when nothing happens. But this one has been more like the devil’s month, as some call it in South America.

During a time that, one hoped, was going to mark some summer recovery from the social dislocations of the pandemic, Seattle is instead continuing to slide backward — dangerously so in the areas of street crime and drugs.

Seattle has seen 11 homicides this month — making this the deadliest single month in the city as far back as the police’s crime dashboard has records (to 2008). The previous high for any month was nine homicides, and for any August before this one, six.

They must need still more gun control and defunding of the police.*

If that is their response then you know it’s not about “safety” or prevention of “gun crime”. It means they are delusional and/or it is about the control of ordinary people and/or the destruction of our society.


* Sarcasm.

Quote of the day—Max Weisman

Advertisements on public transit should not subliminally advocate for the purchase of firearms.

Max Weisman
August 29, 2022
Advertising dollars are powerful—When it comes to gun violence prevention, Philadelphia’s ads can do better.
[This tyrant want-to-be openly states his intent to infringe upon the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment.

I could see a better case being made that firearms related advertisements are public service announcements and should receive discounts.

At least it is nice to have his crimes documented. I hope he enjoys his trial.—Joe]

Progress

Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.*

A federal judge has struck down a Texas law preventing individuals aged 18 to 20 years from carrying handguns in public, in the first major court ruling on Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which brought the lawsuit here, hailed the new court ruling.

This doesn’t directly matter much to me or my children but my grandchildren may benefit from this in another decade or two.


* It was the Second Amendment Foundation which originally claimed the mission statement after the McDonald decision. But more recently it appears the FPC has been racking up the greater score. It is a target rich environment so there is room for many players to score points.

Quote of the day—Aidan Johnston

It proves what GOA has been saying for decades, which is that the origin of gun control is racist.

Gun laws come from a majority trying to suppress or dominate or control a minority, whether it be a minority of Catholics in early America, or a minority of Native Americans when there’s colonials trying to take over the continent.

Aidan Johnston
Gun Owners of America director of federal affairs
August 23, 2022
New York Trying To Resurrect Racist Laws To Restrict Gun Ownership
[New York City’s Sullivan act of 1911, restricting purchase and carry, was openly known to be racist and celebrated by the NY Times for this:

The first person convicted under the law was an Italian immigrant named Marino Rossi who was traveling to a job interview and carrying a revolver for fear of the Black Hand. At sentencing the judge declared: “It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.” Prior to Marino’s arrest, others had been arrested under the new law but were released without charges. Whether this was part of the law’s intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant and anti-Italian rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged Italian and immigrant criminal element. The police department who granted the licenses could easily discriminate against “undesirable” elements. Days before the law took effect The New York Times published an article saying “Low-browed foreigners bargained for weapons of every description and gloated over their good fortune in hearing of the drop in the gun market before it was too late”. After Rossi’s conviction The New York Times called this “warning to the Italian community” both “timely and exemplary”.

And, as can be expected today, Sullivan, the creator of this racist anti-gun law, was a Democrat.

Today’s Democrats are invoking even earlier laws which prohibited native Americans and Catholics from exercising their rights to keep and bear arms as justification for modern day infringements.

They have no shame. I hope they enjoy their trials.—Joe]

A good start

U.S. Judge Throws Out Texas Gun Ban For Young Adults After Supreme Court Ruling:

A federal judge in Texas threw out the state’s ban on people between 18 and 20 years old from carrying handguns on Thursday in what appears to be the first major judicial decision since a landmark ruling on weapons rights by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.

The challenge to the Texas statute that bans young adults not in active military service from having handguns in public was filed in 2021 by the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-owners’ rights group.

I (with my employer matching component) donate over $1,000/year to Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation. These donations are tax deductible.

There are other cases triggered by the Bruen decision working their way through the courts. The most important being the challenges to “assault weapons” and magazine sizes. I expect these will take several months if not years to actually bear results that make a difference. But getting the ban on 18 year-old people from carrying guns is a good start.

Mugme Street news

Just another day on Mugme Street:

Suspect in fatal downtown Seattle attack pleads not guilty

A Seattle police officer was driving east on Pike Street around 3 p.m. on the day of the attack and heard a man yelling for help, the charges say. As she approached Third Avenue, she saw a man, later identified as Fulk, raise a metal bar over his head and strike Peterman twice in the back of the head, say the charges.

Fulk delivered a third blow to Peterman’s temple after Peterman had fallen unresponsive to the ground on the southwest corner, charging papers say. The officer noted in her police report that Peterman was unarmed and used a walker to ambulate, the charges say.

Though Fulk attempted to walk away, he was quickly arrested at the scene, according to the charges. It is unknown whether the two men knew each other.

“The defendant admitted to officers that he was trying to kill the victim, and while acknowledging the victim was the first that he attacked in this manner, [he] made it clear this victim would not be his last,” Senior Deputy Prosecutor Gretchen Holmgren wrote in the charges.

This happened at 3:00 PM on a Tuesday afternoon. It was not on a Saturday night after the bars were closing and decent people were at home safe in their beds.

I used to work in the Century Square building which has one corner on Third and Pike. Of course you know it was against policy to have a firearm on company property. The policy was the for the safety of everyone.

SCOTUS doesn’t represent public opinion

Opinion | The Supreme Court is Now Operating Outside of American Public Opinion – POLITICO:

The guardrails that kept the Court close to public opinion are failing. Even though Democratic candidates have won a majority of the two-party vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, six out of the court’s nine current justices were appointed by Republican presidents. This resulting majority is strong and reliably conservative, and our data shows that it appears to be settling into a position that reliably corresponds to Republican Party preferences — and is to the right of the vast majority of Americans.

They say this as if it were a bad thing.

If you were think about this a little bit you might come to the conclusion that they don’t really understand that the courts are not supposed to represent public opinion. Their job is to represent the law. The U.S. Constitution being the highest law of the land is the primary reference for all their rulings. For example, if a majority, or even a super majority of the public were of the opinion that people should be able to sell their children/white males/Asian females/whoever into a lifetime of slavery SCOTUS has the legal requirement to, and should have the backbone to, firmly say, “No.”

Perhaps they just need things explained to them. Right?

No. That is not the reality of the political landscape. Many do understand that SCOTUS is acting correctly when the uphold the constitution. The political left is now explicitly saying the quiet part out loud:

In a New York Times essay, law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale are calling for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from Constitutionalism.” In order to accomplish this dubious objective, they call for shifting from the “Pack the Court” to “Pack the States.” The attack on “constitutionalism” is chilling but these professors are not the first to lash out at our Constitution as the scourge of social justice.

The New York Times column called for citizens to view the Constitution as the real enemy and to push to “radically alter the basic rules of the game.” The attack on our Constitution has become something of an article of faith for the far left in recent years.

Recently, Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks drew accolades for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” after declaring that Americans are “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.

CBS recently featured Boston University Professor Ibram X. Kendi, who proclaimed that the Second Amendment was little more than “the right to enslave.”

MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal has called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should ideally just dump it. Mystal, who also writes for Above the Law, previously stated that White, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it.”

Doerfler and Moyn make the same case with a twist in seeking to pack the states. They insist that “The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Rather than recognize that this document has produced the longest standing and most stable democratic system in history, professors denounced it as a “some centuries-old text” because it stands as a barrier to their social and political agenda. The problem, they suggest, is that many liberals still believe in constitutionalism as opposed to raw majority power.

Prepare and respond appropriately.