I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
Paul Joslin
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place.
David Smalley
June 25, 2016
Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Smalley quotes Mother Jones as his definitive source of information. This magazine article claims have been refuted countless times. Here and here and here are a few examples.—Joe]
Sadly, as in the case of this robot, and the broader struggle for freedom, there will always be those who will feel an uncontrollable urge to destroy anyone and anything which seeks to plot its own course.
It would be funny if one day, in the battle for freedom, it was libertarians and artificial intelligences working together to destroy a government of leftist rabbits.
Anonymous Conservative
June 25, 2016
What Is Libertarianism? Perhaps A Rebellion Against Obstacles
[While it certainly seems to be true that there will always be those who cannot tolerate freedom I don’t see the humor in the circumstances he describes. And while some governments require destruction before they can be replaced with something which respected human rights I’m not entirely comfortable with “destroying a government” just because it’s leftist. Reforming it and limiting it such that it is compatible with freedom, sure, but probably doesn’t require destruction. Nation states without a functional government are not particularly hospitable to peaceable, productive, human activities.—Joe]
Once again, we have a high profile shooting, and once again, the hysteria is out in force.
Let’s start with some facts: If you don’t shoot, or have only occasionally shot on a range, then your opinion on how useful an armed respondent would be is garbage. If you don’t drive a car, you aren’t qualified to tell professional drivers what they should have done in an accident.
Seriously, shut up, you’re an idiot.
Michael Z. Williamson
June 15, 2016
After An Attack: Understanding the Fear
[He continues with an enumeration and examination of the possible outcomes. It’s a very clear and logical analysis which demonstrates there is significant chance of a big upside and very little, if any, chance of a downside to people having guns to defend themselves in a mass shooting situation.—Joe]
Either you match a dispersed threat with a dispersed capability to respond, or you lose…
Harry Schell
June 16, 2016
Comment to Decentralized response to decentralized threat.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If our politicians had half a brain, combined, they’d STOP going after guns . . .
. . . and start going after munition. Regulating the amount and tracking of ammunition sold, across the country, would be a neat little step. Heck, perscritions get only so many pills. Why not cap Ammo? And if we force all shell casings to be stamped, even the home brew folks (which even the NRA said accounts for a small percentage) would be accountable. Get ranges and back yard nuts to police their brass and turn in casings to get new ones, voila, environmentally responsible AND a built in tracking.
windowlickers
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[Simple solutions from simple minds. And total crap for brains or else a troll.
“…force all shell casings to be stamped…”? With what? And then what? And people ignore you? And then what? And what about the billions of “unstamped rounds” already in private possession?
This person has to be a troll, right?—Joe]
Making good people helpless will not make bad people harmless.
TisReality
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!
Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.
Dudley Gibson
June 26, 2016
READER’S OPINION: Assault weapons, the NRA and ‘cowardly’ Republican Congress caused massacre
[The most popular type of firearm in the U.S. apparently doesn’t qualify as being “in common use”, and therefore protected as per the Heller decision, in this “Constitutional Scholar’s” opinion.
“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?
This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]
@Duck_Hunter7 because you need guns to feel safe. Probably have a small penis too if you really want the truth.
Kanova @kanova
Tweeted on January 1, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from @Duck_Hunter7.
It’s good to know they still don’t know the first thing about us.—Joe]
I’m a free speech extremist. I believe the government has absolutely no business regulating or censoring speech. Of course, commercially popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s only unpopular—racist, sexist and vulgar—speech that requires it.
…
Why is this basic freedom important? Because whomever decides what speech is hateful or distasteful, ultimately becomes the arbiter of our discourse. Then we’re all at the mercy of ever-morphing taboos, mores and, yes, political correctness.
And just for clarity’s sake: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee immunity from the repercussions of speech. Your boss firing you for tweeting something off-color doesn’t make you a First Amendment martyr—it makes you unemployed. Also, my telling you to shut up isn’t infringing on your freedoms. My telling you to shut up is also my right. It’s the government telling you to shut up that’s infringing on your freedoms.
Tina Dupuy
July 29, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s Stand Against Religious Freedom
[I’m with her on this. And I extend this rational in regards to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment as well.
Only when the rights of others are infringed should the government step in. People inciting a riot, or falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the classic examples of unprotected speech. There is no excuse for preventing the speech. This is called “a chilling effect” on speech and is unconstitutional. And so it is with preventing “gun violence”. Only when someone is actually put in danger of illegal injury (to their person or property) is it valid for the government to take action.—Joe]
If it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.
I wouldn’t want them to have it. Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.
[The reporter pointed out the armed U.S. Capitol Police inside the building, just a few feet away from the congressman, Rangel laughed and responded:]
Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.
Charlie Rangel
Congressman (D-N.Y.)
June 21, 2016
Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’ — However, Congress ‘Deserves’ and ‘Needs’ to Be Protected by Them
[I’ve seen this referenced several places but I think it was Paul Koning who sent me the first email.
It’s just amazing to me the level of hypocrisy some people are capable of. The hypocritical people I know in real life are like toddlers compared to world class athletes in their prime like Congressman Rangel.—Joe]
Most would agree — as do I — that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.
Nicki Stallard
June 22, 2016
The L.G.B.T. Case for Guns
[Via email from Jaime.
Virtually identical, via email from Stephanie, is this:
Most would agree – as do I – that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when someone attacks you, they volunteer for you to hurt them. When my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.
Nicki Stallard
June 20, 2016
The Pink Pistols: We’re Here, We’re Geared, Get Used To It!
I have nothing to add to either quote.—Joe]
We do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
…
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.
Scott Adams
June 22, 2016
Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA
[I’ve seen various numbers but they range from 65% to 75% of prison inmates are Democrats. And, of course, my readers will know that nearly all mass murderers are Democrats/progressives/Socialist/Communists.
One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
A modification to Adam’s claim is that Democrats want to control (and failing that, kill) those who oppose them. And removing the means of defense against that is their true motive.
Regardless of the motivation, molṑn labé.—Joe]
I started writing about such instances of “lying for justice” 20 years ago, and it has only gotten worse.
I don’t think people appreciate how pernicious and widespread this crowdsourced totalitarianism really is. Routine lies in the service of left-wing narratives are justified in the name of “larger truths,” while actual truth-telling in the other direction is denounced as hate speech or “triggering.”
Jonah Goldberg
June 10, 2016
Liberals go to extremes to start a dialogue.
[H/T Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots.
We need to stand up to these lying totalitarians. Confront them, shame them, and tell them they can either tell the truth or be publically disgraced.—Joe]
It’s horrific that such weapons exist.
Elizabeth May
Leader of Canada’s Green Party referring to AR-15s, the most popular rifle in the United States.
June 16, 2016
Canadian gun enthusiasts and their truly bad timing
[Don’t ever let any get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
@awebbiz You know what they say about the guy with the big barrel!*
* – He got the tiny wee-wee.
Steve Chudomelka @Chugglebutte
Tweeted on January 1, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from @Duck_Hunter7.
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have childish insults.—Joe]
It’s alternately terrifying and fascinating to watch a president who’s far angrier with the American Midwest than the Islamic Middle East.
Ed Driscoll
June 17, 2016
BECAUSE HE’D RATHER DISARM AMERICA THAN ISIS
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
No person that participates in terrorism should be allowed to acquire or possess firearms. And no one that is provably planning to commit a crime or heinous act like the tragedy in Orlando, Florida should be free to walk our streets. Terrorists and violent criminals should be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned — or immediately deported, if they are in the United States by permission.
However, if a person is free enough to walk our streets, they should not be denied fundamental human rights due to their potentially erroneous presence on secret government lists.
Someone who is dangerous enough to be denied access to firearms because of alleged ties to terrorism should be arrested and prosecuted, not simply turned away at the gun store counter. As we’ve seen throughout history, people committed to doing evil will find an alternative means to carrying out a deadly attack.
Brandon Combs
Firearms Policy Coalition President
June 16, 2016
ALERT: Congress Is Secretly Trying To Steal Your Gun Rights[I don’t see what’s secret about it. It seems blatant to me. But I agree with the rest of it.—Joe]
Yeah, Congress. Grow a pair. Like King George did.
Bugei
June 16, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Andy Cohen @Andy
[Washington D.C. treats U.S. citizens as subjects rather than its employer so the comment is quite apropos. What will perplex so many people is the response from those who recognize that being treated like subjects is unacceptable behavior and refuse to tolerate this behavior from their public servants.—Joe]