We could also tell the story of a 14 year old boy and his mother shot and killed with the father and an adult friend of the family seriously wounded. This was because an ATF paid informant convinced the father to shorten a shotgun barrel such that it was 1/8” too short to be in compliance with the law.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of stories which, while most are not as tragic, are still grave injustices.
Use firearms to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then disarm the populace. Keep a standing military to prevent foreign meddling.
spectacles_gaze
December 19, 2021
Reddit comment in r/socialism Thoughts on gun control.
[I think that says almost all you need to know about their views. It’s also consistent with other socialist/communist governments.
Prepare appropriately.—Joe]
We have too many high powered weapon. It’s not that hard. All guns are a potential problem in this country, but there’s too many out there to recall them now. However, high powered guns can be a start for tying to get a handle on the gun violence problem affecting America.
Kimberly Skipper @kdskipper
Tweeted on December 19, 2021
[If ignorance really is bliss then Ms. Skipper must be in a state of ecstasy.
If not, then instead of ignorance, perhaps it’s deliberate lies.—Joe]
The Second Amendment’s idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus on militias and “arms” degrades the concept of self-defense. The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death than to avoid it. Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety:
All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.
Mary Anne Franks
December 2021
REDO THE FIRST TWO AMENDMENTS
[This law professor simply has no concept of governments being the greatest threat and the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment as written.
Collectivists must collectivize.
The answer is, “No. Your move Ms. Franks.”—Joe]
Drawing inspiration from a controversial approach to outlawing most abortions in Texas, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday pledged to make it easier for private citizens to sue manufacturers or other citizens who sell assault rifles or parts for ghost guns in the Golden State.
His plan mirrors the authority enacted by lawmakers in Texas to ban most abortions.
Kat Schuster
December 12, 2021
Newsom Vows To Ban Assault Guns Using Texas Abortion Ban Tactics
[We knew it would happen.—Joe]
There’s just a lot of progressive buyer’s remorse right now.
Michael Shellenberger
December 16, 2021
Urban liberals rethink guns and policing amid crime spike on their doorstep
[But will this result in ‘progressive’ politicians being introduced to tar, feathers, and one-way tickets out of town on wooden rails? I’m inclined to go with public trials. But with the current administration in Washington that will not be happening so unless the supply chain for tar, feathers, and rails is broken the tar and feathers route is the most likely, while still extremely improbable.
Noting short of something of similar magnitude will allow us to recover the free exercise of our rights via a legislative path. I’m still betting on the courts.—Joe]
I’ve always been anti-gun. But I am right now in the process of getting myself shooting lessons because I now understand that there may be a need for me to know how to defend myself and my family. We’re living in fear.
Debbie Mizrahie
Beverly Hills
December 9, 2021
Beverly Hills residents arming themselves with guns in wake of violence
[Ms. Mizrahie, welcome to the right side of history!—Joe]
Like Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, they reside in a land of make-believe, and if you don’t play along with them they’ll hate you for challenging their fantasy. It’s hard enough to maintain character in a land of make-believe without people trying to ruin your entire imaginary world by rudely inserting images of reality. You’re a bully, even a destroyer of worlds (of Neverland), in their minds.
They know perfectly well that their world is imaginary but, like normal children playing, they enjoy living in that imaginary world. It’s a beautiful and wonderful place in which they are the heroes. Therefore they consider it cruel of anyone to ruin their game.
The signal, the proof, that they know their world is imaginary is that they get very emotional when you challenge the game. Because they’re putting creative effort into playing make-believe it hurts them to be reminded of reality. The emotion comes from your breaking down that which they’ve carefully and delicately built up in their imaginations. It’s as though they’ve painted a nice picture and they’re standing there enjoying it, and then you come along and mess it all up and kick over the easel. That makes you an ogre. They have to get rid of you or else the game, all of wonderful Neverland, and their place in it, is ruined altogether.
Lyle
Comment to Quote of the day—Rachel Sillcocks
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
No matter where you fall on the right to bear arms, there can be no dispute that gun locks, safe storage, and regulated access to weapons are basic tenets that benefit all of us. It took a veto from Gov. Tom Wolf to strike down the concealed-carry bill, which had already passed through the Pennsylvania legislature.
Priya Mammen
December 9, 2021
We need to embrace a public health mantra: ‘none of us, unless all of us’ | Expert Opinion
[I always marvel at how someone can contract themselves in adjacent sentences. In the first sentence she says “there can be no dispute”. In the second sentence she points out the Pennsylvania legislature and governor had a dispute about the public benefit of permitless carry.
What is going on here? Was the first sentence a deliberate lie and she forgot the details of the lie by the time she wrote the next sentence? Or does she regard people who disagree with her on this topic to be sub humans unworthy of having an opinion worth considering?
In any case, it is absolutely amazing!
And in this case she is touted as an “Expert”. How can someone so careless, and transparently so, with the truth lay claim to being an expert?
Furthermore, the by line claims:
Priya E. Mammen is an emergency physician and public health specialist. She is a fellow of the Lindy Institute of Urban Innovation and trustee of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.
Would you want someone as your physician who lies so easily and/or is incapable of detecting irrational thought patterns in herself?—Joe]
I knew California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York were nearly impossible to get CCW licenses in. Yeah, CA wasn’t bad if you live in the correct county. And New York would issue you a permit if you paid a lawyer enough money to make the appropriate bribe(s). I had not looked into the process of many of the others.
Not that I have a desire to visit let alone get a Delaware license (I’m covered by my Idaho and Utah licenses anyway) but things are pretty messed up there. It’s a six step process. This includes (highlighting added):
Step 2: Collect References
Delaware’s laws require you to produce five references. They must answer the questions on the Delaware concealed carry reference form. These are the main requirements for a reference to be valid:
Cannot be related to you.
Cannot live at the same address as you.
Must have known the person for at least a year.
Reference must reside in the same county.
Reference must be at least 18 years old.
It may strengthen your odds of approval if one or more of your references hold a distinguished title. For example, your application may be viewed more favorably if references from an attorney and a senator accompany it. Your references must declare why you want a permit, and they can simply state that you want it to protect yourself or your family. The reference form should state that you are seeking a Delaware concealed carry permit, are of legal age and are of good moral character.
Step 3: Publish Your Intention
Once you have your five references, you need to publish your intent.
…
The published notice of your intent to seek a permit should include your full name.
The notice should appear in a newspaper or publication that has a sizable reach in your zip code. For example, it is better to publish it in the main newspaper in your area than it is to publish it in a free circular that targets a niche audience. We recommend publishing in the News Journal because it is the main newspaper for all three counties,
References should include an attorney and a senator? Publish your intention in a wide coverage publication to get a license?
Wow! SCOTUS needs to slap this law down hard when they rule in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
It’s not about the fact that we are anti-police. It is about the fact that we do not allow weapons in our restaurant. We were uncomfortable, and we asked them to leave. It has nothing to do that they were officers. It has everything to do that they were carrying guns.
Rachel Sillcocks
December 4, 2021
San Francisco restaurant owner explains why police officers denied service
[This is what happens when people have messed up wiring in their brain and think inanimate objects are more indicative of behavior than the people in control of the objects. This is what they think of gun ownership. You magically become good or evil based on the existence or absence of certain types of inanimate objects in your possession. This is undeniable prejudice.
I can understand the impulse for non-discrimination legislation to protect gun owners access to public accommodations. I can also understand the impulse for police officers to be slow to respond.
They have since said they made a mistake and apologized. I’m sure the 1.0 average Yelp score had nothing to do with it.—Joe]
What part do you not understand that Human Rights, including the Right of Self Determination which Self Defense is integral, are not negotiable
sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141
Tweeted on December 4, 2021 in response to this tweet which is this meme:
[Yes, sacrebleu14 misunderstood.—Joe]
The liberals’ insistence that the law, the trial, and its outcome are tainted by racism is risible. But, to them, it has to be true because they have only two frames of reference, racism, and gun control. The accusation of racism was a major theme in the 2020 election and will be in the future — probably with less success — because that’s one of only two issues that the Democrats and the media care about.
Jed Babbin
November 21, 2021
Rittenhouse, Racism, and Gun Control
Dems don’t have too many cards left to play these days, just their two obsessions.
[The last sentence is overstating things a little bit. They also seem to care about increasing restrictions on carbon emissions, forced vaccinations, forced mask usage, and reduced restrictions on abortions.
But the sentiment of the first part of the quote resonates well with my understanding of the issue.—Joe]
Open carry is just dick pics forcibly pushed to all in range.
Captain Obvious @MondeBoeuf
Tweeted on November 16, 2021
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday it’s another science denier!
I find it odd someone has such an opinion of police officers. It must another one of those mental problems associated with anti-gun people.—Joe]
That’s horrible. Everyone over 21 can buy guns. That’s a loophole !!
Set the age at 99 years !!!
Gui @nerc0s_
Tweeted on November 27, 2021
[Just in case you weren’t sure… This is sarcasm.—Joe]
8 is when we exercise the second FLUENTLY. #BlackGunsMatter
Maj Toure @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on November 27, 2021
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If confronted by someone seeking to loot, destroy your business, or kill you, would you see your armed self as the best defense, or would you call 911, hoping the police will show up in time, if at all? Or would you be glad that a Kyle Rittenhouse is patrolling your streets like a neighborhood watchman, doing the job the police are unable, or reluctant to do?
Cal Thomas
November 27, 2021
Cal Thomas: The Rittenhouse verdict
[I think a bit more context is necessary to correctly answer these questions. I would be inclined to give the police a couple of free passes until it was clear they weren’t going to do their job. I would then reevaluate the situation.
There could be situations, much later in the timeline, where I would give people a pass for taking the action to the derelict and/or malicious politicians failing to do their job.—Joe]
I am not sure how liberals expected the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial to go. Anyone who had seen the videos of Rittenhouse’s interactions with the men who were chasing him, striking him and trying to kill him knew that he had a strong case of self-defense. But apparently the fact that Rittenhouse has a defense–and is so bold as to assert it!–came as a surprise to the Left.
John Hinderaker
November 12, 2021
RITTENHOUSE TRIAL BRINGS OUT THE CRAZY
[I don’t think it’s “surprise”. I think it’s indignation. It’s all about political currency. Violence is the political currency of the left. Non-leftists should stay in their lane and rely on the police. And since they had essentially neutered the police during this “summer of love” they expected, nay, they deserved an open field of operation. Someone dares to put out a fire they started? That is intolerable and must be punished. That Rittenhouse didn’t accept his well deserved beating was a gross violation of their expected rules of engagement. He had to guilty of something. He shouldn’t have even been there.—Joe]
By Frank Melloni:
How to Lie About Guns, New York Times Style
One of the easiest ways to lie and not get sued for libel is to simply do so through exclusion. The New York Times is famous for this and if you don’t know enough about guns they can make things sound pretty bad, just by leaving out a little bit of information. In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict we ought to brush up on the tactics of far-left media.
It starts with the headline and continues nearly non-stop with the lies:
A miscarriage of justice in Kenosha
The unimaginable has occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse, the admitted killer of two men and maimer of a third, has been acquitted on all counts.
It certainly was imaginable to me and millions of others. After the videos came out it was crystal clear to anyone who had a glimmer of knowledge about the use of lethal force in self defense. The author is a former federal prosecutor and cannot possibly claim ignorance of the law.
On Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse armed himself with a borrowed AR-15-style assault rifle loaded with full metal jacket armor-penetrating ammunition and marched into downtown Kenosha, Wis.
FMJ bullets are not “armor-penetrating”.
An AR-15 is the same kind of gun, in design and function, that our troops carry in the field. But Rittenhouse from the evidence had never undergone any training, military or otherwise, in the use and operation of the deadly weapon, which was illegally purchased and given to him by a friend.
It is not the same kind of gun and does not function the same as any rifle used by any military in at least the last 60 years.
As a (formerly) certified firearms instructor I can say with 100% certainty this was not the first time Rittenhouse had used a firearm. Some people, and I agree with this, say:
Based on the videos I’ve seen Rittenhouse is one of the best weapons handlers under pressure I’ve ever seen.
This was not an untrained person.
The gun was not illegal purchased. There was nothing illegal in any of the transfers of that firearm.
One shot might have qualified as self-defense, but four shots, it would appear, doth a murder make.
False. This was drilled into my General Defensive Handgun classmates and I back in ‘97:
If it ever becomes times to shoot someone, do they need to be shot a little? Or a lot? If that time comes you should shoot early and often — until the threat is over. If you shoot a “set”, such as a double tap, you may stop shooting too soon.
Zirin is a former attorney. Having watched the trial we can conclude his education must have been suitably refreshed. That he still claims such falsehoods is evidence of deliberate lies.
Although his second victim, Anthony Huber, was “armed” only with a skateboard, Rittenhouse claimed he shot him dead because he believed Huber was threatening his life.
Rittenhouse was on the ground and Huber hit him in the head with the skateboard. This is clearly lethal force. You are legally allowed, and I would say morally obligated, to defend innocent life using lethal force when confronted with lethal force by your attackers. Zirin learned this in the trial as well because he quoted the judge saying essentially the same thing. The only question here is, “What is the objective of these lies by Zirin?”
The trial was highlighted by emotional and illuminating testimony from Rittenhouse himself, who wept as he protested that he had acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Rosenbaum not once but four times. Rosenbaum had thrown a plastic bag at him and chased him.
Lying by omission. Zirin left out the part about Rosenbaum threating to kill him, then chasing him, and finally attempting to take Rittenhouse’s rifle.
I find it interesting and someone comforting that the poll taken at the end of the article shows I’m not the only one taking issue with this liar:
