We don’t need cops or a military then
You’ll do the work for free with your little penis extension
Ronald (@RB_Scott_80)
Tweeted on February 1, 2022
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
Yes, it’s from almost two years ago. I’m catching up on the backlog of Markley’s Law examples for the next few weeks.
We are much too promiscuous with guns in this country, with the spread of proliferation of guns in the country. Something needs to be done to stop it,
Hank Johnson
U.S. Representative from Georgia (D)
December 8, 2023
Rep. Hank Johnson reintroduces House gun control legislation
There they go again, conflating guns with sex and disease.
They just can’t help it, can they?
I guess when all you have are insults against legal, moral, and practical considerations you go with what you have and hope for the best.
I hope to see him enjoy his trial someday..
Guns are like books. Possession, use, and purchase is a specific enumerated right. You should be able to be purchase them anyway, anytime, anywhere, from anyone.
This overreach is both shocking and unconstitutional.
…
This proposed rule seeks to require a license of every individual who sells a firearm for anything the Bureau sees as a profit to include currency, exchange of another firearm, or a service. Despite the proposed rule regulating conduct that implicates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, the proposed rule does not at any point reference the term “Second Amendment.” This omission demonstrates that there was no attempt by the Bureau to comply with the Constitution.
State of Kansas; Office of the Attorney General of Kansas
December 7, 2023
Comment Letter to ATF 88 Fed Reg 61993 Filed
The entire letter is very strongly worded. I found it rather entertaining.
I’m proud to say that the Idaho Attorney General also signed the letter.
I just wish the AGs of the state had the power to prosecute anyone who contributed to this attempt at infringement of our rights.
When the war started, we knew that we were right when we said that every [person] that has a weapon can save a life. We need to enable as many people as possible to carry a weapon.
My policy within the office was to permit as many people as possible to get a weapon. Within a short period of time, we are [now] giving up to 3,000 approvals a day.
…
I will add more volunteers, more people in national service, because a weapon saves lives.
…
I call on the left: Stop crying, stop making a political campaign out of policy that saves the lives of people.
Ben Gvir
December 4, 2023
260,000 firearm permits sought since Oct. 7, after Ben Gvir’s push to arm civilians
It is a good start. But there should not be any permits required, it should be just as easy to buy and carry a gun as it is to buy and carry a book, rock, or stick. One step at a time.
I find it interesting that the political left in Israel, as in the U.S., is against private gun ownership. It’s always about control of the everyday person by the want to be rulers.
Almost half of Democrats are gun owners and over half believe gun ownership is necessary. It is one of the greatest disconnects of either party with their membership. While Democrats have found a winning issue on abortion in recent elections, it represents a growing separation on one of the other key issues in this election. President Biden has pursued some of the most aggressively anti-gun policies of any president.
Jonathan Turley
November 22, 2023
New Polling Shows a Majority of American Households Own Guns and Support Gun Rights
Nice. But the politicians need to feel the pain for infringing upon the specific enumerated rights. A good case can be made that the politicians respecting our rights are unable to get enough votes to overcome the margin of fraud.
Still, if things ever get too oppressive it is better to have more gun owners than fewer.
I was thinking that Russians would now know that is what Ukrainians are capable of.
Let them sit at home and be afraid.
Vyacheslav Kovalskiy
December 4, 2023
Ukrainian Sniper Breaks Cover to Claim World-Record Hit of More Than 2 Miles
Via email from pkoning.
Yes, there was more than a little luck involved. But he and his spotter made a lot of their own luck too. Awesome shooting.
Also from the article:
Kovalskiy’s shot hit around 12,470 feet, around a third longer than the Golden Gate Bridge. That distance would break a record of 11,600 feet set in 2017 by a member of the Canadian Special Forces in Iraq.
The 58-year-old former businessman’s journey to martial mythology started just before day break on Nov. 18, when he and his spotter, a partner who calculates distance, wind speed and other variables, set up positions across the river from a Russian military base in the Kherson region of east Ukraine.
…
Kovalskiy and his spotter wonder why there is so much skepticism about a shot of this distance when targets, albeit stationary, have been achieved at these lengths several times in competitions such as the King of Two Miles in the U.S.
The two men are no ordinary snipers. Kovalskiy has been winning long-distance shooting competitions in Europe and North America for decades and first met his spotter at such competitions in Ukraine.
One has to wonder if things get a little on the sparkly side of normal in this country if the competition shooters will be among the first to be rounded up and sent to the gulags.
Prepare and respond appropriately.
If you look at the Founding era dictionaries SCOTUS in Heller used to define the 2A terms, and then you look at the definition of “to infringe” in those same dictionaries… the phrase means “to hinder or destroy.” Given that definition of “to infringe” from Samuel Johnson/Noah Webster (both founding era lexicographers, i.e., dictionary makers), ask yourself this….. does restricting or banning the ability to acquire an “arm” constitute something that would “hinder” the “right to keep and bear arms”? Obviously yes because any restrictions on the ability to ACQUIRE AN ARM necessarily HINDERS our ability to keep and bear arms. Thus, restrictions, bans or limitations on the right to acquire arms (ghost gun rules, home-made gun rules, waiting periods, etc.), are an hindrance and thus constitute an INFRINGEMENT
Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar on X
December 2, 2023
Words mean things. Those who ignore or warp the meanings of words disable the means to accurately communicate with other. This can be through negligence, ignorance, or evil intent.
Prepare and respond appropriately.
People have noticed that you ammosexuals are compensating. It’s not their fault for noticing.
Happy Warrior @PaulWDrake
Tweeted on November 16, 2023
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
This is the same person who has nothing but a laughter GIF in response to a reasonable observation:
“They’re losing” pic.twitter.com/Aq1BJEmvxe
— Happy Warrior (@PaulWDrake) November 16, 2023
They have childish insults, more insults, and nothing but insults.
British opinions on gun control stopped being relevant in 1776.
Louis vil LeGun @LouisvilleGun
Profile on X as of 2023
Good point.
This looks like some good material.
VIa Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras
FREE HB-1143/I-1639 FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING PROGRAM
With passage of HB1143/i-1639, Washington residents are now required to take a safety training class covering 8 specific topics before purchasing or transferring any firearm. This course is designed to address each of those 8 topics covered under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW9.41.090).
Imagine requiring training which must be renewed every few years before you are allowed to assemble in public, go to church, read a book or newspaper, exercise your right to remain silent, or a trial by jury. Hope the proponents of this law see their day in court and enjoy their trial.
At least there is free training available.
If people could “hold the line” I think a better approach would have been to make sure there was no training available and challenge the law on that basis. But that would be a really big “if” and lots of people would have been denied their rights while it was going through the courts.
Wednesday’s arguments focused primarily on this first theory: that adjudicating securities fraud before an administrative law judge violates the right to a trial by a jury. This right arises from the Seventh Amendment, which provides a jury trial in some civil cases. Current Supreme Court precedent breaks it down like this: When the U.S. government seeks to enforce a congressional statute that prohibits or punishes wrongdoing, it is enforcing “public rights.” And these enforcements don’t implicate the Seventh Amendment. That means they can be brought within an agency, before administrative law judges, who are shielded from removal by the commission. As Kagan put it on Wednesday, quoting major precedent, the Seventh Amendment “is no bar to the creation of new rights or to their enforcement outside the regular courts of law.”
This system is the only plausible way that the executive branch can carry out the duties assigned to it by Congress. Federal agencies rely on administrative adjudication to penalize polluters, scammers, abusive employers, crooked banks, and a whole range of unsavory parties. Obviously, these agencies can’t send anyone to prison, and their procedures must comply with due process. Their goal is to catch countless cases that would otherwise slip through the cracks—often because the harm involved applies to the public at large, or to potential harms that haven’t yet caused an injury. If the government had to bring these cases in federal court, the judiciary would be overwhelmed, its docket flooded with disputes that it lacks the time or resources to resolve by trial.
Mark Joseph Stern
November 29, 2023
The Supreme Court Has Figured Out How to Gut a Bunch of Crucial Federal Laws at Once
Emphasis added.
To refresh your memory on the 7th Amendment:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by Jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a Jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I’m not a lawyer, but the only exemptions to a jury trial granted by the 7th Amendment is if the value must be less than or equal to $20 or the controversy is not a suit at common law. “At common law” appears to mean “cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law”. Article III protects the right to a trial by jury for all criminal cases.
So what are these regulations that Stern is so upset about? Are they criminal or are they civil? It would appear to be criminal cases to me. They are violations of laws created by congress, right?
So, it would appear to me that the only exemption Stern can hang his hat on when he claims the 7th Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial are those trials which involve less than or equal to $20.
Of course he doesn’t try to explain why these regulations are exempt. He just rants about how it is not practical to allow the defendants to have their right to a trial by jury. In other words, inconvenient constitutionally guaranteed rights must be ignored..
I suspect this mindset is common in those opposed to the 2nd Amendment as well.
Perhaps he would revise his option at his own trial.
Within the Civil Rights Division is the Special Litigation Section, which investigates civil rights abuse by state and local police, as well as those responsible for operating jails, prisons and mental health institutions. It is a federal mechanism that could easily investigate ATF. The agency needs to answer for its creation of an illegal gun registry and the civil rights abuse of numerous Federal Firearm Licensees, as well as actual crimes committed by overzealous agents. It would be a powerful tool since the Special Litigation Section has never lost a case.
Lee Williams
November 17, 2023
How to Fix Damage Done to 2nd Amendment by Joe Biden
Williams is on the right track but hasn’t taken it far enough. Admittedly, he does say his list of things is just a starting point. However, I just want to get things right out in the open.
I believe the civil rights violations will continue until the politicians that advocate for these infringements suffer some consequences. Let them enjoy a few trials, heavy fines, and time in prison. The rights violations will continue until something like this is a serious threat.
No sane and thinking person would trust any government, let alone the US government.
Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)
Tweeted on March 12, 2022
But today’s communists know this time they will do it right.
One of the major problems is that power attracts the worst sort of person.
Just keep saying no until you run out of ammunition.
In spite of the men who hate us, we won’t be intimidated in our fight to keep our families safe. These threats, while unhinged and hateful, are proof that the gun violence prevention movement is winning.
Shannon Watts
February 1, 2022
Research Shows Gun Violence and Misogyny Are Closely Linked. It’s Time to Make Sure Abusers Can’t Buy Guns
Winning? Perhaps she should read some court rulings to remedy her ignorance or if ignorance isn’t her real problem then just stop lying.
Just cuz you assholes want to make doing the right thing difficult, doesn’t mean you’re right. Your little dick syndrome is killing random ppl.. how macho – pathetic imbeciles
Alex (@MattyV303)
Tweeted on October 27, 2023
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
I find it very telling that Alex has a nothing but a string of insults for people standing up for a specific enumerated right.
Protecting the civil rights of everyone does mean we are right.
We could reduce gun crimes by 75% just by banning Democrats from owning them. And since both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of disarming Democrats, I think we have a path forward.
Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
Tweeted on February 4, 2022
Interesting hypothesis. There is some merit in this. But there is a huge difference between banning something and preventing access.
And more importantly, as long as you regard Democrats as humans, which I do, they have a specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms just as much as anyone else.
All criminals start off as non-criminals. But if they do break the law in respect to gun use they THEN become criminals. So even non-criminals can be a problem. You should know this!
Paige Kristinson (@SquirlyGirll)
Tweeted on December 11, 2022
This is what they think of you. You are a pre-criminal and “can be a problem”.
The real problem is people like her who have no respect for civil rights. Perhaps she should consider the consequence of people like her being treated as civil rights infringers before they have actually infringed upon the civil rights of others.
- ‘Why do you need a gun?’
Imagine asking someone, “Why do you need freedom of speech?” Owning a gun in the United States is a constitutional right, not a “need.” People have various reasons for owning firearms, from self-defense to hunting and sport shooting. Questioning the “need” implies you know better than they do when it comes to their personal choices or safety concerns. A tad condescending, don’t you think?- ‘You must be paranoid.’
Paranoia? Really? Owning a gun doesn’t mean someone is donning a tinfoil hat and waiting for the sky to fall. For many, it’s about personal safety, the safety of loved ones, or even the enjoyment of shooting as a sport. Labeling someone as paranoid for exercising a constitutional right is a bit of a stretch.- ‘Guns are the problem.’
Ah, the reductionist argument that blames an inanimate object for the complexities of human behavior and societal issues. Gun violence is a serious matter but boiling it down to “guns are the problem” ignores the multifaceted factors like mental health, socio-economic conditions, and more. It’s not as black and white as some would like to believe.- ‘Gun-free zones work.’
Cute idea, except for the pesky detail that many public shootings occur in designated gun-free zones. The concept ignores the fact that those bent on doing harm are not likely to be deterred by a sign on the door.- ‘The Second Amendment is outdated.’
The notion that any part of the Constitution is “outdated” opens a can of worms. Are other rights outdated too? The Second Amendment exists for multiple reasons, and its modern applicability is still a topic of fervent debate. Dismissing it as “outdated” is dismissive of that ongoing conversation.- ‘You’re compensating for something.’
Oh, the classic Freudian jab. This cliché suggests that owning a gun is a form of overcompensation for personal inadequacies. It’s a cheap shot (pun intended) that does nothing to further a constructive conversation about gun ownership or gun control.- ‘You must be a Republican.’
Ah, yes, because only Republicans appreciate constitutional rights? Gun ownership exists across the political spectrum, and assuming otherwise only serves to perpetuate divisions and stereotypes.- ‘Only the police should have guns.’
Entrusting an entire society’s safety solely to the police assumes an infallibility that no institution possesses. It also ignores the importance some place on personal freedom and self-defense.- ‘It’s too easy to get a gun.’
Before making this sweeping statement, perhaps consider the background checks, waiting periods, and federal and state laws that exist. “Easy” is a relative term and assumes that current laws aren’t stringent or effective.- ‘Assault weapon bans work.’
Defining “assault weapon” is notoriously tricky, and evidence on the effectiveness of bans is mixed. Saying they “work” is a one-size-fits-all statement that ignores the complexities of the issue.- ‘Only criminals have guns.’
If this were true, we’d have a country full of criminals. Millions of law-abiding Americans own guns for a variety of legitimate purposes. Conflating legal gun ownership with criminal activity is not just inaccurate; it’s disrespectful to a large part of the population.- ‘You shouldn’t have a gun if you have kids.’
This one assumes that gun owners are inherently irresponsible when it comes to storage and safety. Many gun owners who are parents take extra precautions to ensure their firearms are stored safely, away from their children. Just like you’d childproof your home for other hazards, the same goes for firearms.- ‘You must be a gun nut.’
For some reason, an interest in firearms gets stigmatized as an obsession or a sign of paranoia. Let’s remember that owning a gun doesn’t necessarily make someone a “gun nut” any more than owning a car makes someone a “car nut.” People own guns for various reasons: sport, hunting, and self-defense, among others. Labeling someone as a “gun nut” simply for owning a gun is a dismissive way to avoid more nuanced conversations about individual rights and responsibilities.- ‘Guns kill people.’
This is the “IT argument” that gets rolled out in every gun debate. While it’s true that firearms can be used to harm others, placing the blame solely on the inanimate object oversimplifies a complex issue. Most legal gun owners would point out that a gun, like a car or a knife, is a tool; it requires a human to operate it. They argue that the focus should be on responsible ownership and usage, rather than demonizing the object itself. This phrase can shut down meaningful dialogue about issues like gun safety, mental health, and responsible ownership.- ‘You’re part of the problem.’
The ol’ blame game—a classic! By declaring a legal gun owner as “part of the problem,” you’re not just tossing a Molotov cocktail into a nuanced debate; you’re also casually ignoring the fact that many gun owners are fervent advocates for responsible gun use and safety measures. Way to lump everyone together! This kind of accusatory tone isn’t just an over-simplification; it’s a conversation ender. If the goal is to alienate someone rather than discuss the complexities of gun ownership and societal issues, then bravo, mission accomplished!Casey Lee
November 7, 2023
15 things you should never say to a legal gun owner
This set of statements was suggested to me by Microsoft Start (the default startup page with the Edge browser). I am rather impressed with it. It frequently suggests interesting articles about selecting a gun or a change in guns laws. I used to have Google News as my startup landing page. I never saw articles which portrayed gun owners as reasonable people or gun ownership as a civil right.
I suspect Microsoft created an algorithm to show me things I have expressed an interest in and just let it do it’s thing.
I suspect Google puts their thumb on the scales of what they believe is appropriate for people to read and think.
I have long considered Google to be evil. Nothing has changed to suggest I should change my mind.
There is one thing they left out:
There are reasonable means to mitigate all of these.