I’ve always pictured a gun ban looking like this in the United States.
It would be so great. No more violence. Just peace and trees.
Ann
February 19, 2018
Comment of February 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM.
[Delusions are often functional. In this case, however, it’s just a delusion.—Joe]
She’s worked out stuff with Mom’s Demand Action to make sure that she can support their goals without supporting the organization openly.
Rob Mills
Deputy Regional Field Director, Claire McCaskill Campaign
[H/T to David Hardy.
Claire McCaskill is a U.S. Senator for Missouri.
Project Veritas bring us the video which conclusively shows this Democrat and her staff are being deliberately deceptive in an attempt to violate the rights of hundreds of millions of people.—Joe]
“And please don’t respond. I detest when men who don’t read Design Mom come here and lecture this community of incredibly smart, well-educated women.”
You want to advocate that tens of millions of Americans be made in to felons to be hunted by police, but you object to any of those people you would make into felons merely typing a reply to your advocacy of their demise?
That doesn’t sound smart, and it doesn’t sound well-educated.
How did the United States take land from the Native Americans? Part of it was by taking their guns first.
How did the Germans push the Jews in to the ghettos? Partly by taking their guns first.
How did the Turks exterminate so many Armenians? They took the Armenians’ guns first.
How did Mao kill tens of millions? Pol Pot? Stalin?
The history of gun confiscation is the history of marginalized groups being exterminated by the majority.
Just because you yourself have no such desire has no effect on what the people you give this power to will do.
To see just what a bad idea taking all the guns away is, let’s change out the groups you want to make defenseless, and see how it sounds:
No African Americans should be allowed to own guns.
No women should be allowed to own guns.
No single moms should be allowed to own guns.
No Jews should be allowed to own guns.
No LGBTQ+ people should be allowed to own guns.
Pretty ugly, right?
I hope you aren’t advocating that a gay person isn’t allowed to defend themselves from gay bashing.
Brian Keith
October 15, 2018
Via Email.
[The quote from Design Mom can be found in the comment of February 19, 2018 at 12:33 pm here.
Noticed the condescension and the attempt at “reasoned discourse”. Typical.—Joe]
Now, the days of gun ownership are numbered. We are going to vote to take your guns. All of them.
…
I always love these circular arguments of “what about ..” This is exactly why I support a ban. Of course we can’t solve this when there is no logic or intellectual component to the debate. So there is only one possible solution: take all the guns.
Gabrielle Blair
February 18, 2018
It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.
Eric Swalwell
U.S. Representative from California
May 3, 2018
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
We should criminally prosecute those who attempt to deprive us of our rights.—Joe]
If you want to keep guns out of it he [sic] hands of loons, vote for I-1639.
25cents
October 9, 2018
Comment to Washington’s I-1639 would implement some of the nation’s most stringent gun-control laws
[This is what they think of you.
Also of note is that from reading their comment it is clear they overestimated their worth when they chose a name.—Joe]
Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives.
Dave Holmes
May 18, 2018
Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
I’d also like to point out he doesn’t want to reason with us. He wants us to run for our lives until we die.—Joe]
The federal government has established you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. It seems to me absurd that you can be 18 years old and purchase a group of firearms that, when used in crimes, contribute to 135% more injuries and 37% more deaths.
Stephen Paolini
Campaign Manager at I-1693
Lawsuits to ballot: Washington set for gun control vote
[Fact: In 2017 Washington had one murder attributed to the use of a rifle, 75 to the use of handguns, 36 to the use of a knife or cutting instrument, and 18 to hands, fists, feet, etc. This fact is from the 2017 FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Technically, Paolini may actually be correct. Notice the “when used in crimes” phrase. The thing is, it’s extremely rare for this class of guns to be used in crimes. Paolini is deliberately being extremely deceptive. It is an integral part of the anti-gun culture.—Joe]
Rape is a big fucking deal in Conservative land. It is literally “the most horrific and obscene act imaginable.”
I’d rather you thought me a murderer than believed me a rapist. Ordinary people can imagine circumstances where they’d kill someone, and might have some sympathy for me if they thought I murdered someone.
…
There are literally zero circumstances where raping someone is a good idea. There’s just no justification for it. Even attempted rape puts you outside the tribe. It makes you a non-person. It makes you fair game for anyone to kill on sight.
“Why’d you shoot that guy 27 times in the face and pelvis?”
“Because he raped my sister and that was all the ammo I brought.”
“Oh, ok.”
That’s how rapists are viewed in Conservative land.
So when the Left starts shooting their mouths off about “Rape Culture,” we get bent out shape. When they conflate ordinary boorish behavior with rape, we lose our minds. Because branding a man a rapist is literally telling the rest of the world that he needs killing.
Yet they feel totally ok about deploying the “he’s a rapist!” charge with nothing in the way of evidence, and can’t understand why a decent man, who is married to a woman, who has daughters, who coaches a girls basketball team, might find it incredibly upsetting. They painted a target on his back. They told the world there is no crime he wouldn’t stoop to. They invited the world to kill him. They encouraged him to kill himself.
Sean D Sorrentino
Posted on Facebook October 3, 2018
[This directly relates to what Luke O’Neil thinks is “a good joke”.—Joe]
On Sunday morning Ariel Dumas, a writer for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, apologized for a good joke. Writing on Twitter, she explained that the experience of the Kavanaugh nomination had been hard for the country and for her personally.
…
It is uncertain if Dumas was forced to make a statement by her employers at CBS, or if she volunteered the apology on her own, but one thing that is 100 percent crystal clear is that she never should have found herself in the position in the first place. The joke she posted on Saturday—”Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”—was the latest target of the bad faith destruction machine of the right.
…
It’s another cruel irony that would no doubt also be lost on the humorless scolds on the right that it’s Dumas whose life they are now attempting to ruin. Soon after the joke was published, the wheels of the vexation and spite apparatus on the right who maintain constant vigilance for such alleged missteps from the “liberal media” went to work, broadcasting it far and wide as evidence of the sickness of the left.
Luke O’Neil
October 8, 2018
‘Late Show’ Writer Ariel Dumas Under Fire for Obvious ‘Joke’ About Brett Kavanaugh
[This is from someone of the same political party which just a month ago went ballistic when a political opponent used the phrase “monkey up”.
To think that it was “a good joke” that someone with a previously excellent personal reputation was publicly and repeatedly accused heinous crimes, which could not be supported, is evil.
Of course he also thinks Kathy Griffin holding up a realistic severed head of President Trump was good joke.
Hence it should come at no surprise he says this about people who exercise their right to keep and bear arms:
Almost anyone of any stature in media who dabbles in political humor has found themselves in this scenario by now. I’ve had a number of phony campaigns attempted against me at outlets I’ve written for over the years after comments I’ve made about gamers and gun fetishists were amplified in bad faith.
In addition to being evil, as Mike Cernovich tweeted, he is also lacking in self awareness.—Joe[
Serious question, if I punched McConnell in the face with, let’s say a huge dildo, until his face broke open and the fucking sentient turd working him from inside spilled out, how much prison time am I looking at? I’m willing to go up to 100 years.
Elizabeth Weitz @ebethisawesome
Tweeted on October 6, 2018
[Upon reading this my first thought was, “That will come up at your trial.”
Why are progressives so violent? Oh, now I remember. See also here.—Joe]
WACOPS believe that Initiative 1639 contains provision that are in clear violation of both state and federal individual constitutional rights, which, as law enforcement, officers, WACOPS members are sworn to uphold. In addition to the constitutional issues, this 30-page initiative, if passed, would impose significant restrictions on a citizen’s ability to possess and access commonly owned firearms for lawful self-defense. The measure is complicated and confusing, and we don’t believe it will result in good public policy or improved public safety.
Teresa Taylor
Executive Director Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs
Email to National Rifle Association of America
October 1, 2018
[H/T to NRA-ILA for the above quote and this image:
Vote NO on I-1639.—Joe]
Initiative 1639 is being promoted as a public safety measure; those actually working law enforcement know that IT WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP A SINGLE CRIME. This initiative has nothing to do with “assault weapons” and is directed only at our good citizens who already pass multiple background checks before owning a firearm.
The Washington State Law Enforcement Association (WSLEFIA) opposes Initiative 1639. I-1639 harms law enforcement officers and all citizens of Washington.
…
The WSLEFIA finds that I-1639 is an attack on civil rights and is an attempt to marginalize all firearm owners, including law enforcement officers. I-1639 will impair public safety, embolden criminals and impose burdensome restrictions on our most law-abiding citizens.
Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association
[H/T to NRA-ILA for link to WSLEFIA and this image:
WSLEFIA also says:
I-1639 creates a new crime of “Community Endangerment” and there is NO law enforcement exemption. If a law enforcement officer should fail to secure either a personal or duty firearm as prescribed by I-1639 then that officer may be subject to felony criminal charges. Even a department-issued firearm must be secured with a trigger lock or in “secure storage.” The trunk of a patrol car is not specified as secure storage.
I-1639 requires a 10 day wait for law enforcement officers who wish to buy a semiautomatic rifle, whether for personal or duty purposes. There is no exemption for either a commissioned officer or a Concealed Pistol License.
I-1639 requires that law enforcement officers attend a “safety” training class before purchasing any semiauto rifle. There is no exemption for law enforcement commissioned personnel and no recognition of either department or BLEA academy training.
I-1639 would require that a law enforcement officer who sells a semiauto rifle to another officer go to a firearm dealer and pay fees. The purchasing officer must wait 10 days, pass additional background checks, and show proof of “safety” training.
I-1639 targets law-abiding citizens–not criminals–by creating a new law that would make the innocent victim subject to CRIMINAL charges if his firearm is accessed by a prohibited person. The ugliness of shaming and blaming the victim of a crime should never be made law. I-1639 ignores the criminals while attacking the victims of theft.
Law enforcement officers will be made to investigate the victims of crime rather than pursuing the perpetrators of crimes.
I-1639 falsely demonizes all semiautomatic sporting rifles as “assault rifles”–the rifles they wish to deny to the public are the most common sporting and hunting firearms–the type of firearms LEAST likely to be used in crimes–this fact is supported by both FBI and Washington State crime statistics.
Youth rifles, plinkers, collector firearms, hunting and self-defense rifles–if they are semiautomatic, I-1639 will re-classify them as “assault rifles.”
I-1639 strips adults under age 21 of their right to self-defense. Law-abiding young adults will no longer be able to possess any modern defensive firearm, neither handgun nor rifle.
I-1639 attacks our safest and best-trained firearm users–licensed and safety trained hunters–by prohibiting the use of modern sporting rifles by those age 18-20.
I-1639 would unlawfully seize semiauto rifles already owned by those under age 21 by prohibiting any possession or use of these rifles at target ranges and for hunting.
I-1639 creates both a literacy test and the equivalent of a poll tax–they call it a fee–to exercise a right guaranteed by both State and Federal Constitutions. You wouldn’t accept this for voting or any other right and neither have the courts.
I-1639 delays the LAWFUL purchase of a rifle by 10 days–even after all background checks are passed! A right delayed is a right denied.
I-1639 impairs a citizen’s defense their home by requiring that the most effective defensive firearms be locked and inaccessible by the homeowner.
I-1639 creates an unnecessary, costly and ill-considered requirement for government-mandated training that is already adequately addressed by Washington Arms Collectors-provided training, National Rifle Association safety instructors, WDFW Hunter Safety training and private clubs and ranges.
I-1639 creates yet another huge unfunded bureaucracy that will only duplicate the background checks already Federally required. Don’t be fooled–the background check system already exists and all semiauto rifle buyers already are required to pass background checks.
I-1639 will prohibit legitimate sales of rifles to fully background checked and Federally-approved purchasers from other states, thus harming all State and Federally licensed firearm dealers.
I-1639 will not stop a single crime or shooting. Criminals are not subject to any of the requirements; only law-abiding citizens go through background checks and they already do so.
I-1639 wrongly burdens our most law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
Vote NO on I-1639.—Joe]
Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people. In fact, it only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless in the face of miscreants and sociopaths. Failure to see this is a sign of untreated hoplophobia.
One way of fighting this, untested at the current time, is creed discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate based upon creed. Though creed is often viewed in a religious context, it is also equally valid in a socio-political context. The fierce attachment with which many Americans cling to their right to arms is indeed a creed, dating back to Colonial times. Singling citizens out for special legal action is creed discrimination and illegal under civil-rights statutes. Where are the creative and ambitious civil-rights attorneys looking to break new ground and make a name for themselves…
Alan Korwin
Infringement is Constitutionally Banned
September 22, 2018
[Interesting idea. It’s worth a try. Toss it into the same lawsuit with the 2nd Amendment claim.
But if the courts won’t recognize the 2nd Amendment then why would one anyone think they would recognize your gun-owner creed?—Joe]
Because I think the meaning of the text of the Constitution should remain the same until it is properly changed by amendment, and that judges have a constitutional duty to invalidate laws that conflict with that meaning, I believe the President’s choice of Brett Kavanaugh—who is otherwise highly qualified—should be confirmed. If Democrats disagree they should specify the approach they think is better.
If their “judicial philosophy” is that a judge should simply reach all the outcomes that a progressive Democrat would like the Supreme Court to reach, they should candidly say so. If they believe that the precedents they like—like Roe v. Wade—are sacrosanct, but those they detest—like Citizens United—are to be discarded, they should identify how we know which precedents are binding and which are not.
Failing that, they too should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
Randy Barnett
The Case for Kavanaugh
October 1, 2018
[I agree.
H/T to David Hardy.—Joe]
McDermott says if the state legislature is not going to pass stricter gun safety measures on its own it needs to get out of the way of cities and counties that want to do it on their own by repealing the state preemption law.
If that happens, the county’s gun safety action plan calls for immediately moving on to enact stricter gun laws, such as banning semi-automatic, high velocity weapons, banning high capacity magazines, raising the age to buy all guns to 21, establishing a waiting period, and requiring a firearm safety course in order to buy a gun.
The council voted through the controversial gun storage initiative on Monday afternoon by a 6-3 margin, with the three other initiatives passing unanimously.
Hanna Scott
October 2, 2018
King County Council approves wide-scoping Gun Safety Action Plan
[This is King County Washington which includes Seattle and many of the surrounding cities.
It appears to me that our best hope, and almost only hope, is to get a friendly SCOTUS. This crap has to stop.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
There is absolutely nothing an accused person can present that would actually be considered exculpatory. Meanwhile, any and all evidence just reinforces the accuser’s trauma and truthfulness.
Ashe Schow
5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic
[Salem “witches”, the satanic panic of the 1980’s and 90’s, and others are discussed in the article.
It’s not a scholarly article but it’s good enough that you can see some common patterns that would have a low chance of false positives when broadly applied.
When Prophecy Fails also applies in many ways. Read my short synopsis of the book to get the gist of it.
The political left had a firmly believed prophecy that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. When that failed they made a series of new prophecies involving the evils of a President Trump administration and prophesized all the more fervently. One of the more memorable was the prediction by Nobel Economics Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on election night:
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
All the predictions about the various investigations of President Trump and his advisors will result in his impeachment have repeatedly been proven false. But evidence cannot convince them. These people are in a state of hysteria.
As long as the Five Conditions are met they will continue to remain in their irrational state and increase the passion with every prediction that is proved false:
Their numbers are growing smaller and while a good sign for the long term the short term consequences of the increased passion means there is also increased potential for violence.—Joe]
Young me reading history…”How did evil, tyrannical regimes exist like this within the last 100 years?”
Me in 2018 watching Democrats operate…”Oh.”
Cyberzen @JDBonnar
Tweeted on September 30, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Staunch conservatives who reported feeling highly anxious after the Pulse shooting were more likely than less anxious conservatives to favor gun laws by around 40 percentage points. Highly anxious conservatives were 20 percentage points more likely than low-anxiety conservatives to think the government can prevent shootings. Liberals, on the other hand, were already likely to support gun control and to believe that the government could be effective in preventing shootings, so anxiety was less likely to change their beliefs.
Overall, the University of Kansas researchers conclude, anxiety leads to “a marked decline in ideological division.” In other words: post-shooting anxiety seemed to close the gap between liberal and conservative beliefs on gun regulation.
It’s not clear how long this effect would last after the initial shooting, but it suggests that the days immediately following a shooting might be the time people feel most compelled to act on gun legislation.
Jane C. Hu
September 21, 2018
The best time to talk about gun control is right after a shooting
[The study paper is here.
I find this very telling.
Hu regards achieving a particular end is more important than means. She is advocating people take advantage of people in a highly emotional state rather than let cooler heads and time arrive at a more reasoned plan.
This is evil and it should be treated as such.—Joe]
Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]