Quote of the day—Midnightstimepasser

Never ever, EVER give up your firearms. It’s the only thing standing between us and complete subjugation. Not Law Enforcement, not the Constitution, not some judge in a black robe, not the military.

I will give up my guns when the cops, military, government and criminals are disarmed. Until then, bugger off.

January 3, 2023
Comment to Ice-T on gun control and why he disagrees with it.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa)

[It is a very dark time for Canadian gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Yerachmiel HaLevi

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






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

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Damion @commiedamion

If your family “suffered under communism” that says a lot more about your family than it does about communism. Good people don’t suffer under communism – slavers and exploiters do.

Damion @commiedamion
Tweeted on August 19, 2022
[Wow! Just WOW!

Evil cannot flourish without believing it is doing good.

Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—N.S. Lyons

You are not in high school debate club anymore. You are a peasant in feudal Japan, and every day the Samurai get to denigrate, abuse, and rough up your kind as much as they want. But if you ever talk back to a samurai, let alone try to do a little roughing up of your own, you will be beheaded on the spot. And far from being punished for this, the samurai who does it will be praised for doing his duty, since uppity peasants are dangerous and immoral and need to be dealt with at once, before they threaten the established social hierarchy. That samurai is just protecting democracy the Shogunate. Pointing out the hierarchy of the social order as a peasant will be met only with a nod of approval: “yes, that is how it is, it’s good that now you finally understand.”

If you, Class B serf, do not enjoy this arrangement, your lamentations about hypocrisy will not change it, no matter how loud and shrill. Only taking back control of the levers of power and then using that power to strike the fear of accountability into the hearts of your ruling class will ever be able to do that.

N.S. Lyons
August 10, 2022
It’s not Hypocrisy, You’re Just Powerless — A quick Public Service Announcement for Class B
[“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” And, one must conclude, political power diminishes as your access to guns is infringed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kamala Harris

Because those weapons are available, and we have to stop allowing those weapons to be available to civilians living in communities of people who have a right to believe that they are not in a war zone.

Assault weapons were specifically and intentionally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly. It is a weapon of war. If you’ve ever looked at, if I may be so blunt, an autopsy photograph to see what it does to the human body. And the fact that we can’t get Congress to renew – it’s not like we’re pulling something out of our hat. We’ve done it before as a nation – to renew the assault weapons ban, is outrageous.

You can support the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment, but we should agree we should not have weapons of war on the streets of America.

Kamala Harris
July 10, 2022
VP Harris calls for ‘assault weapons ban’ on guns ‘intentionally designed to kill’ people
[“Assault weapons” use account for smaller percentage of the murders than those committed using bare hands and feet.

I see the greater wounding potential as a feature. That makes it a good defensive weapon.

The Second Amendment is about the protecting peoples right to defending themselves from a tyrannical government. Harris either doesn’t understand the Second Amendment, or more likely, understands and realizes the Second Amendment is an impediment to her goals.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns. Harris and Biden are both advocates for enabling tyranny. Don’t let them get their way.—Joe]

Unconstitutionally vague?

Why is this not considered unconstitutionally vague:

Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.

It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.

The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.

The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.

That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.

Or is it deliberately written this way so as to cast a chilling effect upon the specific enumerated right and cause us to spend money challenging them in court?

And what about retailers being sued for discrimination for failure to sell on the basis of race and/or sex? Or the woman visibility upset because of her stalker being denied and later injured when unable to defend herself?

These characters really need to be prosecuted.

This didn’t end well last time

Via an email from Rolf:

Left-Wing Minister Wants to Confiscate Guns Owned by Members of Right-Wing AfD

A left-wing interior minister in Germany has launched a plan to confiscate all firearms owned by members of the right-wing political party AfD.

Interior minister of the German state of Thuringia, Georg Maier, wants to withdraw gun licenses from Alternative for Germany members, a political party that holds 81 seats in the German parliament and 9 seats in the European parliament.

“Maier, who belongs to the Social Democrat Party (SPD), has tasked his employees with establishing a working group on “Weapons and Extremists” to move forward on the issue,” reports Remix News.

“They plan to create the “AG WaffEx,” which would be located at the state administration office and help local authorities “in the processing of relevant cases.”

The move would ostensibly target “right-wing extremists,” but that list includes AfD members, over 30,000 Germans, who would have “appropriate revocation procedures” initiated against them under the plan.

AfD members who are hunters or marksmen and legally own guns would have them confiscated by the state, with Maier citing the reason that the AfD in Thuringia is “proven to be right-wing extremist.”

See also pages 57 and 59 in  ”Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny:

§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:

3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and their offices as specified by the Fuhrer’s deputy;

§ 15

(1) Firearms acquisition permits or firearms carry permits are only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and only if a demonstration of need is set forth.

(2)  Issuance should not take place.

  1. to persons under 18 years of age;
  2. to persons under trusteeship and the mentally retarded;
  3. to Gypsies, or to persons who are itinerant like Gypsies;
  4. to persons under police supervision or known to have lost their civil rights, for the duration of police supervision or the loss of their civil rights
  5. to persons convicted of high treason, or against who facts are presented which give reason to suppose that they are actively subversive,
  6. to persons, who, on account of: deliberate attacks on life or health; public disorderly conduct or trespassing; resistance to government authority; an offense dangerous to the public or misdemeanors; for the punishable offense against property; a hunting or fishing offense legally punishable by more than two weeks imprisonment, if three years have not elapsed since the sentence was served. The punishment of imprisonment may stand as prescribed, be reduced, or commuted into a fine; in these case the three-year periods begins with the day on which imprisonment ends, or is reduced, or is converted into a fine. If this punishment is wholly or partly imposed after probation, the probation period should be added to the time period.

That was March 18, 1938. As an exercise for the reader, I’ll leave the determination of the details of what happened in the next few years to the Gypsies and others not favored by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Quote of the day—Brad Polumbo

While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.

In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.

Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.

Brad Polumbo
June 24, 2022
What Democrats get wrong about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Tyrant tool

Via Stephanie:

AI may be searching you for guns the next time you go out in public

When Peter George saw news of the racially motivated mass-shooting at the Tops supermarket in Buffalo last weekend, he had a thought he’s often had after such tragedies.

“Could our system have stopped it?” he said. “I don’t know. But I think we could democratize security so that someone planning on hurting people can’t easily go into an unsuspecting place.”

George is chief executive of Evolv Technology, an AI-based system meant to flag weapons, “democratizing security” so that weapons can be kept out of public places without elaborate checkpoints.

Evolv machines use “active sensing” — a light-emission technique that also underpins radar and lidar — to create images. Then it applies AI to examine them. Data scientists at the Waltham, Mass., company have created “signatures” (basically, visual blueprints) and trained the AI to compare them to the scanner images.

This tool is worse than useless. It will create opportunities for more murders. That is, unless you are a tyrant intent on disarming your subjects.

First off, the mass shooter will start shooting before they pass through the detector, taking out the guards before they even had a clue a threat was present. And, since there is a “funnel” for people going through the detector there will be a group of people ready for “harvesting” by the perp. It also will make it difficult or impossible for people to defend themselves where these systems are deployed.

Hence, if your threat model is a mass shooter, the device will actually make things worse rather than better. Many other threat models suffer similar degradation of public security.

The threat model that doesn’t degrade is the one where you want your subjects to be more dependent on you for security and to make it difficult for them to threaten your position of power. In that case this system will be a useful asset to disarm your subjects.

Quote of the day—Ethel Mertz @IloveEthal

I’ve been sitting here safely in a Blue state not understanding why my elected officials are still playing nice. I want to see the most strictest gun laws ever; insurance, lockboxes, home visits, 98% tax on ammo, limit on magazines.
If red states can go nuts so can blue

Ethel Mertz @IloveEthal
Tweeted May 3, 2022
[It is nice of her to admit the motivation for restrictive gun laws is to abuse people rather than to improve public safety. It is too bad for her that won’t play well with the courts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith

“Woke” is commie speak for “Communist But Scared To Say So After What We Did In The Twentieth Century”.

Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith
Tweeted on April 27, 2022
[It is a little more nuanced than that but it is close enough.

These are people that crave power and control. They find rationalizations to exercise control and gain power over everyone they can. “Racism”, “sexism”, “inequality”, “racial justice”, “climate justice”, “algorithmic justice”*, ad nauseum, are just the levers that mostly work in our current society.

And it is a thrill; it’s a high to them. There is no amount of power that will satiate their lust. They will crank the ratchet another click at every opportunity. This is why so many socialist and communist movements result in genocide.

Respond appropriately.—Joe]

* Via email from pkoning and various sources on twitter. See also:

Quote of the day—Ammal Hassan

Because it was fun? Because it was for sale? Because he just had to have it? The truth is, no one really knows.

Ammal Hassan
April 26, 2022
What The Hell Does Elon Want With Twitter Anyway?
[Really? Musk has repeatedly said it’s because Twitter has been hostile to free speech. He has literally said:

Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate

April 26, 2022

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

April 26, 2022

April 25, 2022

If our twitter bid succeeds, we will defeat the spam bots or die trying!

April 21, 2022

And authenticate all real humans

April 21, 2022

Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.

What should be done?

March 26, 2022

Despite all that, this bozo Hassan can’t imagine free speech being the real reason.

From reading some the comments to various threads about the buyout it is very clear that many people are vehemently opposed to free speech. They come close to predicting the end of the world if people are allowed to spread “disinformation, conspiracy theories, and hate speech.”

This is incredibly willful ignorance or, more likely in many cases, deliberate evil.

The “end of the world” is much more likely to occur if we don’t have free speech. The suppression of free speech is the mark of authoritarianism. It enables corruption, gulags, and genocide. This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It protects the 1st Amendment.—Joe]