Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Brianna @BriannaWu #EnjoyYourTrial

Posted on by

I had an opportunity to fire a fully automatic M16 assault rifle today under professional instruction. This is the same weapon US Armed Forces use. The experience made me feel even more strongly there is no reason for a civilian to have access to this weapon, or one like it.

For starters, growing up in the South, I took an NRA safety class as a teenager. I spent many an afternoon as a kid in target practice. But this assault rifle is a different beast. It would take A MINIMUM of 30-40 hours of professional instruction to learn to operate safely.

It shoots a 5.56 mm bullet. You can feel the wind of it firing three feet behind the shooter. The gun is very difficult to control. I’ve seen these fired thousands of times in games and movies. In real life you understand the devastation even being grazed would cause.

Brianna @BriannaWu
Candidate for US House of Representatives in MA District 8 for 2020.

Brianna Wu

Tweeted (and here and here) on February 26, 2019
[She feels strongly. Apparently she is also an extremely slow learner because the first set of Boomershoot 101 students did just fine with only a few hours of instruction and practice.

There are no strong feelings or imaginary excess wind exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1.—Joe]

#EnjoyYourTrial

Posted on by

The anti-gun people have a narrative of “gun safety”. We know, as do they, they have never encouraged people to take a gun safety class or learn about guns. Ignorance and deliberate deception is all part of their game plan.

They insist background checks are “common sense” and save lives. They don’t save lives and are a deception for the real objectives:

  • Creating lists of gun owners
  • Delaying the exercise of a specific enumerated right
  • Increasing the costs (time and money) of exercising our rights

They insist we don’t need a particular type of gun or accessory and we end up trying to convince them we do need it. It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. They should be the ones attempting to convince us there is a “compelling governmental interest,” and have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest (strict scrutiny). Until they can do that the proposed law does not pass constitutional muster and they are attempting to infringe upon our rights. The default position is the proposed law is invalid until they can conclusively demonstrate they have met the requirements.

As it is we are playing defense and losing in public opinion.

It would seem to me that we need an easy narrative of our own. It must be something that tweets and sound bites well. It must put them on the defensive. We must gain the initiative in social media and when we contact our political representatives.

I discussed this with Brian K. and we came up with:

These can be used in a variety of ways:

Think women shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns without a man’s permission? #EnjoyYourTrial (Aimed at may-issue states.)

Send teens to war but don’t let them own handguns? #EnjoyYourTrial

Disarm peaceful African Americans because they live in the wrong state? #EnjoyYourTrial.

Deny me the right to defend my family because of my skin color? #EnjoyYourTrial

You are trying to ban guns in common use protected by the Heller decision. #EnjoyYourTrial

A right delayed is a right denied. #EnjoyYourTrial

You are demanding people ask permission for a guaranteed right. #EnjoyYourTrial

Background checks don’t save lives (https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/) and infringe our rights. #EnjoyYourTrial

Gun control is prior restraint of specific enumerated right and is illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial

“Red flag” laws are prior restraint and are illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial

What you are doing is illegal. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. #EnjoyYourTrial

In each invocation you can include http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 (for private citizens) and/or http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 (for politicians, law enforcement, and other government employees).

Yes, I know it’s not 100% correct in every context. But the point is to gain the initiative and put them on the defensive. I think this has a chance of doing that.

Quote of the day—Thales

Posted on by

If a Rightist is going to have a problem with you, the odds are he’s going to punch you in the face. Or follow you into a bathroom and beat you down. The Right is much more fond of directness. Does anybody really think, say, a redneck is going to dump bleach on you and run away? Do you think he cares about the symbolism of a noose, or that he’s going to go out of his way to wear a certain hat – so as to make the right fashion statement during the attack? No. If he has a problem, he’s going to get in your face, probably punch it repeatedly, and walk away when he feels his point has been made.

In this the Left betrays how little they understand us. For even their hoaxes seem like bad parodies to us. It’s what a Leftist would do, only reversed in ideological polarity. It’s not what a Rightist would do. They don’t get us. Their rank-and-file doesn’t have any clue who they are dealing with anymore. Even the Media is too stuck on Leftism to understand anymore. There was a time, perhaps, when wiser Leftists would have thought “well, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like them… maybe we should check into this a little more.”

That time has passed.

This is profoundly dangerous to us all. Because, not knowing us, they cannot understand where the limits are. They’ve been butting up near our maximum levels of tolerance for some time now. Sooner or later, one of them is going to exceed that boundary because he doesn’t even know it’s there, anymore.

Thales
February 22, 2019
Leftist Hoaxes: A Failure to Understand the Right
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

A risky truth

Posted on by

Via a tweet from UR a Smart Ass, Carl‏ @cleflore23:

MenGunLawsSex

However much truth is in this statement I suspect this is good way to drive your odds of having sex asymptotically close to zero.

Quote of the day—Maj Toure @MAJTOURE

Posted on by

Currently, folks can be locked up for feeding homeless, stashing rain water, growing plants, recording public servants and owning guns. What a time to be alive.

Maj Toure @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on February 22, 2019
[Look on the bright side. There is lots of opportunity for improvement because there is so much low hanging fruit.

Or is that, “Fruits that should be hanged”?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Colion Noir

Posted on by


But then, progress to what? Progress to Hell?

Colion Noir
At 23:20 in Seattle: The Utopian Lie | NOIR S7E8
[Via email from Stephanie.

I knew there was a big homeless issue. Until the weather got cold late last fall there was a guy you lived on a bench in Bellevue next to the street which I drove by on the way to work. In downtown Seattle you can see tents next to parking areas on the streets. But I didn’t realize there were piles of used needles on some streets and schools had to pick up needles from the sports fields before they could use the fields.

Government officials are enabling these things (watch the video). Someone in the area dies from illegal drug use every 36 hours. And the politicians want to demonstrate their hatred, prejudice, and bigotry of gun owners who are among the most law abiding and productive members of society. Screw that. We aren’t a problem. But if they keep it up, we could be. And the police are likely to look the other way when we ignore the politicians stupid and hateful laws.

The video is a bit long and is mostly about heroin use with a little bit of gun rights stuff mixed in. But the points that really stuck with me is that Seattle city officials:

  1. Have a set of beliefs which they they cannot or will not reconcile with reality. And/or:
  2. Are deliberately attempting to destroy society.

My guess is that “progress to hell” isn’t the intent they discuss even when they talk among themselves. But they do know that is where they are headed. They are almost certainly suffering from their own addiction. An addiction to power and an addiction to a failed belief system and it’s difficult to kick their habits. And as one of the people in the video points out, 95% of junkies cannot get cleaned up until they hit bottom. And politicians are a long way from hitting bottom. They will die of old age while still a junkie.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ozzie Knezovich

Posted on by

This is an individual who wants to ban guns — except he wants to kill people.

Ozzie Knezovich
Spokane Sheriff
February 21, 2019
Washington Man Arrested For Allegedly Vowing Sheriffs Who Oppose Gun Control Law ‘Will Be Shot. By Me.’
[Well, of course. As Lyle pointed out a few days ago when the question “Why are anti-gun activists so violent?” came up again:

When you turn that question around and ask it the other way (Why are the violent so opposed to honest people being armed?) then it pretty well answers itself.

That an obviously violent person thinks it is so vitally important that the guns of common people must have their guns taken away is one of the best reasons possible to hold on to your guns and prepare to use them.

Here is a picture of the thug:

jaydinledfordmugshot

Be on your guard. He may not remain in jail long enough to cure him of his violent and Marxist ways.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Russell Shafer

Posted on by

I have an issue with having to go to a dealership and do a background check before you can even trade a gun or sell a gun to your brother or your best friend. That’s my concern, that’s infringing upon our second amendment rights.

Russell Shafer
Quay County Sheriff
February 20, 2019
‘Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties’ Declared in New Mexico
[I like this trend (see also the map here).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

Finding and arresting the armed criminals, that’s what makes you safer. That’s what we all seek, or should. Keep the dangerous, the repeat offenders, the people who have guns by the millions who should not have them — isn’t that what you want?

Spending all this money and police effort and computer power to find and write down the name of every innocent citizen who goes out and buys or transfers a gun — what does that do but make people who don’t understand feel good?

Americans buy and transfer tens of millions of guns all the time, all of it legal, none of it connected with crime. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Bernie, Hillary, the solid block of knowing (and unwitting) Democrats in both houses of Congress, they want to control THAT. That’s what their H.R. 8 background checks are aimed at. Checks have nothing to do with making us safe and controlling crime and danger. Their leadership is 100% aware of this.

Alan Korwin
February 15, 2019
Background Checks Are…Wrong
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matt Shea

Posted on by

The problem is I am not going to sit in a state that is going to try to take away our firearms, either by regulation, by cost or by confiscation, are you? So if they try to do that the only solution left is the 51st state. A lot of people say, ‘Why do you want to do that?’ It would better represent downtown Seattle’s values and our values in Eastern Washington if we split. They would stop calling us the welfare freeloaders, as one publication said. They would stop calling us names, we’re the ignorant hicks. Have your socialist values in downtown Seattle. It’s awesome. Go and do that do that experiment, but let us live free.

Matt Shea
Washington State representative
February 15, 2019
Supporters of forming 51st State of Liberty gather at capitol rotunda
[As Richard said yesterday:

Absolutely right about CW2. I have never experienced it, thank God, but have studied it enough to know I want no part of it. Trouble it takes only one side to start it. That is why I want a civil divorce before it is too late.

Sounds like a plan. Make it so.—Joe]

It has to be said

Posted on by

Most of the information you obtain from the mainstream media on guns has to do with the adverse effects of the ownership and use. What follows is a glimmer of light in a very dark landscape–Any Study Of ‘Gun Violence’ Should Include How Guns Save Lives:

But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.

The first principle is:

* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

…

A second key principle in judging gun violence research:

* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.

…

Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:

* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

The first principle should be obvious but it is extremely rare this is brought up in the media.

The second principle is obvious to most people when you point out. And you have to point it out to most people. And in the case of the anti-gun people you have to really “rub their noses in it” before they will even acknowledge your mention of it.

The third principle is will probably take some convincing to a most people and it is an extremely rare anti-gun people who acknowledges you even bringing this point up.

Regardless of the difficult it getting acceptance, and even acknowledgement, these things have to be said whenever someone wants to talk about gun policies.

Quote of the day—Dean Rieck

Posted on by

This ban was completely unjustified and a great concern for gun owners.

…

These bans are not about public safety. They are merely political theater and an excuse for City Councils to ‘virtue signal’ for publicity and personal aggrandizement.

Dean Rieck
Buckeye Firearms Foundation executive director
February 11, 2019
Buckeye Firearms Foundation Wins Legal Battle Against Cincinnati over Bump Stock Ban
[I’m close to giving up with the legislative arena in Washington State. We are getting some traction in the courts and I suspect that with the anti-gun hysteria sweeping the nation our best chance to stop it is in the courts. The law is on our side and many judges have a little better connection to reality through the written law than do the legislators and the executive branch.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Old 1811

Posted on by

I’m probably the only commenter here who has arrested and convicted a genocidal mass murderer. During my investigation, I interviewed witnesses in two countries, and their statements still disturb my sleep fifteen years later. (Quick example: A witness was being chased by the murderer, and only escaped because the murderer stopped to shoot a baby.)

So whenever I read about a new barbarity, it dredges up unwanted memories that I can only try to dispel through sick humor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

I remember reading somewhere about judging and being judged. Or maybe not.

Old 1811
February 13, 2019
Comment to Quote of the day—Benedict Rogers
[Yeah, I’d bet he is the only commenter with those credentials here. Those experiences are rather rare.

Old 1811, thank you for what you did. Are there things you can share which will help others avoid enabling more mass murderers? Any advice on any related topics?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nancy Pelosi

Posted on by

If the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with much different values can present to the American people.

…

You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today—the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.

Nancy Pelosi
U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives
February 14, 2019
Pelosi Warns GOP: Dem POTUS Could Declare Emergency for Gun Control
[Hell must have frozen over. I agree with Nancy Pelosi on something.

Allowing the anyone to have too much power is a very dangerous thing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Smith & Wesson

Posted on by

AOBC’s customer base of knowledgeable, law-abiding firearms purchasers views criminal acts solely as the responsibility of the criminal actor, and does not blame manufacturers of firearms, including Smith & Wesson, for criminal behavior. Actions which seek the approval of non-customers or anti-gun groups would not only be futile, they would damage AOBC’s business and reputation.

Smith & Wesson
February 8, 2019
Smith & Wesson Spurns ‘Smart Guns’ Despite Pressure from Investors
[There was a time when people were saying “Smith & Wesson must die.” And there was a significant chance that might have come about because of the backlash against their misbehavior.

Apparent they learned their lesson this time.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Lambert

Posted on by

The problem with socialism is that you can vote your way into it but you need to shoot your way out of it.

Larry Lambert
January 30, 2019
Threat Assessment
[Via Oleg:

socialism_problem_2221web

It’s not the only problem, but it certainly is a significant one.—Joe]

Washington AG responds to sanctuary sheriffs

Posted on by

The Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, sent an open letter to Washington’s sheriffs and police chiefs refusing to enforce Initiative 1639.

The response is not as bad as I was afraid it might be. He didn’t say he was going try to prosecute them or anything. The worst he said was:

I am deeply concerned that the failure of local law enforcement to perform Initiative 1639’s background check requirement will jeopardize public safety in our state by allowing the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles to dangerous individuals not lawfully allowed to own a gun.  State law provides immunity to local law enforcement officers who run these checks “in good faith.” However, in the event a police chief or sheriff refuses to perform the background check required by Initiative 1639, they could be held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm. In short, the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.

I find it very telling that he doesn’t address the possibility of liability if someone is denied their right to keep and bear arms is harmed because they were unable to defend themselves.

Near the end of the letter he attempted to peg the irony meter:

Under Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” As public officers, our duty is to abide by the will of the people we serve, and implement and enforce the laws they adopt.

He acknowledges the purpose of the constitution is to protect the rights of the people then he claims it is the duty of public officers to infringe upon the right of the people.to keep and bear arms.

Analogies to marijuana and immigration law enforcement are misplaced. This is not a situation where the
federal government is trying to force the state to enforce federal laws.

So… is he saying that it would be acceptable if they were to refuse to enforce Federal gun laws?

He might have been inspired to write the letter because of this map:

51648759_2248972718754894_8468932744657764352_n

I’m keeping a copy of Ferguson’s letter in multiple places for use as evidence at his trial.

Quote of the day—Amy Sherman

Posted on by

Hastings said, “In 2018, we endured a school shooting nearly once a week.”

He arrived at that figure by looking at the 24 school shootings documented by Education Week and dividing that into a 180-day school year. (If we applied the same math to a calendar year, it would work out to half that amount.)

A statement about the number of school shootings warrants an explanation of what types of shootings were included. The Education Week database includes any K-12 shooting on a school property during school or a school event that resulted in injury or death. That means it includes both indiscriminate mass shootings as well as other types of incidents such as fights in a parking lot after a football game or an accidental shooting.

Hastings’ statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details about the database he cited. We rate this statement Half True.

Amy Sherman
February 11, 2019
Was there one school shooting a week in 2018, as a Florida lawmaker said?
[That’s being very generous to Hastings. It was a deliberate exaggeration to push a political agenda to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

They lie. It’s part of their culture.—Joe]

They want you dead

Posted on by

Spokane County Sheriff responds to death threats:

The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office said it checked the Facebook account with the name that the caller provided and found a comment referencing Republicans stating, “i am going to kill every single one of them.”

Investigators said they found more posts referencing I-1639 that stated, “sheriffs that are non compliant will be shot. by me.” and “Ozzie Knezovich is gonna get a bullet in his skull.”

After all, it’s just common sense, right?

They want you dead. Don’t ever forget that. Don’t ever give up your guns.

Quote of the day—Rep. Steve Scalise

Posted on by

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday on new gun control legislation Democrats plan to push on the American people. The top Republican on the committee, Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked committee Democrats if I could testify about this legislation in an appropriate setting to offer another perspective as both a survivor of a shooting attack and strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights. But the Democrats said no. While liberals may try to silence conservative voices, I will not be silenced. The American people deserve to hear all perspectives.

Rep. Steve Scalise
February 6, 2019
Rep. Steve Scalise: Democrats don’t want you to hear what I have to say about guns and the Second Amendment
[Socialists cannot tolerate the truth and must repress opposing points of view. Particularly when that point of view involves individual liberty. Socialism is about coercion. And an armed society is able to resist coercion and hence the view of people like Representative Scalise must be repressed.—Joe]