Category Archives: Quote of the Day

Quote of the day—K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD

Posted on by

Your children will be tormented every day of their adult life, because of the evil you spread. They will be called vicious names everywhere and will have to change their names because of the SHAME you brought upon them. This is just a fact.

K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD
Tweeted on June 11, 2018
[This was in response to the following Tweet from Dana Loesch‏ @DLoesch regarding the money the NRA received from Russia:

$2,500 over a three year period in expat dues and magazine subscriptions can totally buy an election but $145m paid to the Clinton Foundation after the Uranium One (and $500k for Bill’s speech) sale cannot, apparently. #AntiGunLogic #ButMuhRussia

This is what they think of you.

These people have mental health issues. Never believe that they can be bargained with. Never believe that you can have a rational discussion with someone like this. Never believe they wouldn’t celebrate the creation of death camps for gun owners.

And most importantly you should never register or willingly give up your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

Posted on by

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

In that one paragraph, Scalia kills any argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “pro-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.

Bob Cunningham
June 12, 2018
Why There Is No Constitutional Argument Against Gun Control
[Interesting.

Reality is extremely difficult thing to observe and you don’t have to go to the subatomic or cosmic scales to be convinced of that. Here, Cunningham and I can read the same exact words, written by an experienced writer, and arrive at completely different unambiguous conclusions.

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Brown

Posted on by

Frigus manus a mortuis

Don Brown
June 10, 2018
Comment to Group approves wording for proposed gun control measure in Oregon
[I suspected what this might mean, but I had to get it translated to make sure.

I’m not particularly fond of this sentiment in its original form but saying it in Latin gives it a bit of new life. I have been using a reversal of this phrase (see the third paragraph) for more than a decade now and think it is far more appropriate.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mr. Drew for 2018‏ @nofaith313

Posted on by

Jesus you really need to get over your little penis.

Mr. Drew for 2018‏ @nofaith313
Tweeted on June 9, 2018 in response to:

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

For some reason they always find ways to amaze me in their ability to change the subject into their obsession with penis size.—Joe[

Quote of the day—Oleg Volk

Posted on by

In going after rifles, prohibitionists are more concerned about politically significant firepower than they are about crime. The authoritarians aren’t comfortable with constituents who don’t need state services, however unwanted those “services” may be. This is why shotguns with short effective range remained legal in many countries where rifles were banned from private ownership.

Oleg Volk
February 26, 2018
Rifles as canaries in the coal mine.
[I interpret “politically significant firepower” as meaning significant firepower to affect the balance of power between the state and the people.

This is a profound point. By attacking the ownership of rifles, involved in a such a small portion of the violent crime, anti-gun people are admitting it is not crime they are interested in reducing. It must be something else which motivates this action. The obvious answer is they want people less able to resist a powerful government.

Let that sink in for a while and then take the appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

This is the final verdict. My fight is over.

Charles Krauthammer
June 8, 2018
A note to readers
[Krauthammer is no friend of gun owners. I’m glad he is out of our fight.

May his passing be as comfortable as is practical and may his family and friends have a chance to say their goodbyes and cherish their memories of him.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alex Yablon

Posted on by

If people own guns to defend themselves against situations like home invasions, they are likely to want them easily accessible and ready to shoot when the unthinkable happens. If the weapons are stored in a safe, separate from ammuntion [sic], that could be marginally more difficult.

Alex Yablon
June 4, 2018
A Gun Owner Explains Why He Leaves His Pistol Loaded and Unsecured
[“…marginally more difficult”?

When seconds matter your gun and ammunition are only minutes away from being useful.

Deliberate dismissive wording and/or crap for brains? You decide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

These networks don’t rely on government bureaucracies to coerce people.   They coerce bureaucracies.

Moreover, they are more effective than bureaucracies in the elements of power that matter.

They are capable of spying on more people than the East German secret police and they can stifle free speech without recourse to a gulag. 

They don’t have any need for state produced propaganda or the media to control the narrative.  They can produce a blinding blizzard of spin that can overwhelm official narratives.

John Robb
May 24, 2018
21st Century Authoritarianism
[There seems to be a fair amount of support for this hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bear

Posted on by

I plan to hunker down with several pounds of popcorn and defensive tools and enjoy “The Statist-Hunting Show.”

Bear
April 9, 2018
Remedial Practical Civics 100, Lesson 4: “A hunting we will go!”
[I wouldn’t argue with that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.

NRA-ILA
June 1, 2018
Bedrock American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism
[The take away I have from this is to not get discouraged. Keep up the fight. Wear your gun logo clothing in public. Keep taking new shooters to the range. Keep sending money to gun rights organizations. Keep sending letters to your legislators.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bond_543

Posted on by

good and evil denotes an ability to consciously choose.

guns cant be evil. its about as rational as saying rolling pins are promiscuous.

Bond_543
June 1, 2018
Forum post
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Lott

Posted on by

Gun control advocates are used to getting their way without having to address the stronger arguments made against their proposals. That doesn’t create a productive dialogue, and it doesn’t help us figure out what laws will actually save the most lives.

John Lott
June 1, 2018
Little evidence to support the efficacy of more gun control
[It is quite clear to me that a large number of gun control advocates aren’t interested in saving lives. They are interested in “poking a stick in gun owner’s eyes” and/or enabling criminals. These criminals vary from individuals to a tyrannical government). Hence, to address your arguments in terms of “saving lives” is totally missing the point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jenna Grayson

Posted on by

Deerfield residents have until June 13, when the ordinance goes into effect, to turn in their assault weapons and banned accessories to the village. Anyone found to have violated the ordinance will receive a daily fine between $250-$999 for each offense.

Jenna Grayson
June 1, 2018
How LHS Students Feel About the Deerfield Assault Weapon Ban
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Posted on by

Greater safety, according to the VRG, lies in insuring that criminals can count on finding easy victims. The law should help satisfy criminals need for easy victims by preventing the law-abiding from defending themselves with guns, so that criminals know that they can victimize us with as little violence as possible.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 104
[“VRG” is Violence Research Group at the University of Maryland. Snyder is referring to a study they published in March 1995. It was funded by the CDC and titled, “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effect Homicide in Three States.”

And, as Snyder points out, they start lying in the title. The study examines the homicide rates in five cities, in three different states.

As, is usual, anti-gun people find reasons to make violent criminals lives easier.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cheryl K. Chumley

Posted on by

Citizens of America have Second Amendment rights because they live and breathe — not because government officials have chosen to bestow them with such, as some sort of privilege.

We know this because our country was founded on the principle that our rights come from God, and that our government is only instituted among the people to secure those rights and protect them from infringement. Moreover, when our government begins to overstep its rightful bounds, and when the public servants who are hired by way of vote begin to trample those God-given rights and usher in an form of governance that is destructive of that idea, then it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that governing system and institute a new one.

That’s in our DNA; that’s our country’s guiding principle.

Cheryl K. Chumley
May 29, 2018
God-given, not government granted, guides 2nd Amendment
[It would appear we are constantly getting closer to the day when abolishing the existing governing system is a necessity. The proper way to do that would be through the state governments but it doesn’t seem the states are all that interested.—Joe]

Quote of the day—vash01

Posted on by

They don’t need to prepare . Just ban guns for civilians. Prevention is always better than control. No guns means no mass shootings. Why is it so hard to understand?

vash01
May 22, 2018
Comment to Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.
[vash01 skipped some important steps. For example, before banning guns it would be a requirement to eliminate the Second Amendment. And between banning guns for civilians and there being no guns. There are many others as well.

It appears “understanding” isn’t their greatest strength. In fact, it’s clear vash01 has crap for brains.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joe Douglas

Posted on by

Raising the age for purchasing guns, eliminating assault weapons and tightening screening for people wanting to purchase guns might be good things. But none of those measures would have prevented this incident. Unfortunately — sadly — we have developed a culture of violence, intolerance and a lack of restraint in personal behavior. Conflicts — on the highway, the internet or in the classroom — too often are addressed by violence or the threat of violence.

We need to find our way to a different approach to both our personal and to the world’s problems. We need a foreign policy in which military threat no longer is considered a reasonable option. In which we seek to understand the viewpoint of others and try to find ways to help rather than to simply expect acquiescence to our demands.

Joe Douglas
May 27, 2018
Letter to the editor: Culture of violence
[I am perplexed. Could this person really be this naïve? Or is it a case of crap for brains?

What if the viewpoint of others is, as it is in some cases, “Convert to our religion or die.”? Or “Give me all your money and maybe I won’t kill you.”? Or, “We are implementing the final solution to the Jewish problem.”?

Or how about in our everyday life? “Obey law or we will use as much violence as is needed to put you in jail and/or force you to pay a fine.”

Violence, or the threat of it, is an essential part of a modern civil society. Public shaming and ostracizing people may come close to working in a small tribe. But as the “community” gets larger it loses it’s effectiveness. Once there are population centers of 1000s or tens of thousands and some with millions of people violence is the thread by which the social fabric is created.

It is required that the individual be willing and able to enforce civility when the criminals, private, or government sponsored, make clear their intentions to violate the social fabric of civil society. This is why we have a government guarantee, for whatever that is worth, that our right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bud Salyer

Posted on by

There is no simple solution, primarily because we cannot agree on a cause and we cannot agree on a cure. One side blames it on guns, while the other blames it on mental health and other issues. If the availability of firearms is not the cause of gun violence, then crippling prohibitions of ownership of firearms is meaningless. If there is no practical means to identify and predict the actions of a potential homicidal maniac, enhanced background checks are unlikely to reduce the violence. The problem is immensely complex, and there are no simple answers.

Bud Salyer
May 25, 2018
Guest Column: The Gun Debate—Part I: Gun Control Laws
[While this doesn’t completely describe either side it’s a fair start.

He goes on to say something that has been rolling around in my head for a while:

Why should we believe that passing a law against possessing a firearm would result in a significant number of guns being taken off the street?

Actually, such a law might cause a large number of people to give up their guns. Those who are inclined to be law-abiding citizens might grit their teeth and take their guns down to the police station. However, no criminally-inclined individual is going to give up the tool by which he commits his crimes. Then, the only people possessing guns would be the criminals, who know that their intended victims are unlikely to be armed for self-defense.

The way I have been thinking about it is slight different but along the same path. My phrasing would be something like this:

Every incremental increase in the difficult of obtaining and/or use of firearms for self defense is also an incremental increase in the value of firearms and other weapons to the criminal who preys upon the innocent. The complete removal of firearms from those who would use them for the defense of innocent life makes the criminal with a gun immensely powerful. Those who would ban guns are seeking to disempower good people. They therefore will empower, and even create, a multitude of violent criminals.

All in all it is a good article explaining the complexity of the issue without taking a strong position on either side.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Posted on by

Liberal feminists pick and choose which types of violence against women are worthy of this studiously nonpartisan approach. For example, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honor violence seem not to be considered egregious enough to be taken up by the broader women’s movement. Instead, these barbaric violations of human rights don’t make it onto progressives’ radar. Rather, they’re excused or ignored by feminists because the perpetrators inflicting the violence tend to have brown skin.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 24, 2018
The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront
[I don’t think it is fear.

Progressive feminists also are very anti-gun. A woman who owns and knows how to shoot a gun has become empowered to such a level that in a physical confrontation she is virtually equal to thugs twice her size.

Here we have two very clear examples of where progressive feminists have deliberately made choices to increase the number and severity of the female victims. There can only be one conclusion. For whatever sick reason or messed up emotional decision making process they want more victims.

I think it is some sort of mental illness in which victimhood equates, in their sick minds, to status and/or power.

Give them the gateway drug to freedom, healthy minds, and true equality. Teach them to shoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Bachar

Posted on by

There are hundreds of studies by dozens of professional organizations—such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association—that seek a foolproof methodology for identifying people likely to commit violence, but no definitive method has been found. Therefore, the quest for a gun control law that would accomplish the reduction in firearm killings to near zero is delusional.

Clearly, the only way to reduce the number of firearm killings to zero is to abolish gun ownership.

My proposal for a humane, revised second amendment would read: “No person may own, keep or use a firearm. Only members of well-regulated law enforcement organizations and the military may bear, but not own, firearms.”

John Bachar
May 23, 2018
Rewriting the Second Amendment
[Yup, I can see that. The minute gun ownership is banned firearm killings would go to zero. It simply wouldn’t be possible for anyone to use their guns anymore.

[end sarcasm]

And this Einstein claims to be a mathematician. It’s possible is smart in some very narrow field but he clearly doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights, U.S. history, criminology, or psychology.

This guy has crap for brains.

If he had even a glimmer of understanding in those fields he would realize the rate of killings where guns were used would very quickly reach levels not seen since the Civil War.—Joe]