This is not a negotiation with the NRA. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
October 14, 2015
Gun control group bashing Sanders, Chafee
[H/T Thirdpower.
And what is the typical way of dealing with terrorists?
This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They want you in prison or dead for defending and/or exercising a constitutionally protected right.—Joe]
Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.
The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.
Thomas Sowell
October 14, 2014
SOWELL: The ‘gun control’ farce
[As usual, Sowell expresses things succinctly and powerfully. Nearly every paragraph in this article is worthy of being QOTD here.
What Sowell doesn’t say, no surprise since it’s out of scope for his article, is that increased gun ownership increases the distribution of hard facts to the population at large. And since hard facts are detrimental to the objectives of the anti-gun crowd anything they do which increases gun ownership in either the short term or long term decreases the odds of them achieving their goals. Hence when politicians start talk about restricting gun ownership, and gun sales dramatically increase, they are indirectly their own worst enemy.
Instead of doing “battle” with those who advocate on social media for the restriction of our right to keep and bear arms maybe we should thank them for increasing gun sales and exposing more people to the hard facts of gun ownership.—Joe]
No one wants to touch the legitimate hunter. But we’ve got to protect society from nuts with guns.
Bay Area Official
1967
[Via Friday A/V Club: What the Gun Debate Looked Like in 1967.
After nearly 50 years of increasingly strict laws, now with some of the most repressive gu laws in the nation, the words they use are nearly the same. California has banned the most commonly sold rifles, used by hunters, sold in the U.S. and yet they never stop pushing for more.
It stops here. It stops now. And we are reversing the trend.—Joe]
If it does get to the point that “Constitutional Carry” is the law in all 50 states, we will still have to be vigilant, the forces of slavery never rest.
Windy Wilson
October 12, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Richard Beary
[I have nothing to add.Joe]
@TitoJazavac they definitely don’t make dicks grow
@Karlmm3 @nicky0472 @ShengLong111 @ArmedLimey @Paul197 @KentAtwater @EdCarman @JimJlr2
Dell Grifith @D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on March 22, 2015
In response to, “guns don’t stop crime or make people smart.”
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
One has to wonder if he ran the experiment and was disappointed in the results. But I’m pretty sure that he (or she) isn’t interested in experiments, data, and analysis. Childish insults appear to be the epitome of their accomplishments.—Joe]
Talking about firearms now is like talking about race. These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it.
Richard Beary
Chief of police for the University of Central Florida
President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
October 9, 2015
Gun Debate Divides Nation’s Police Officers, Too
[Also of interest from the same article:
Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.
“And now you’ve really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly,” she says. “That’s been a major shift.”
She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn’t cause a big increase in shootings.
Back in the 90s there were discussions about whether the concealed carry permits were something we should push for or not. The argument boiled down to “The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit”. If we concede that we have to ask permission to carry a gun they can, at some later time, deny us that permission. The only principled thing to do is to push for “Vermont carry”.
Had we gone the “principled” versus practical route my guess is we would be in a much worse situation than now. Now we have concealed carry in all states and are making progress toward constitutional carry in a significant number of states. We made progress because we were able to change the culture. We were able to change the culture at the national level because we were able to show we could be trusted with guns in public in states that were gun friendly.
I despise politics because principals and rules (such as the constitution) simply don’t matter. But politics is how laws are changed and politics are the art of the practical and the possible. And that is the path to victory. You do whatever works to get closer to your goal. You get acceptance from the culture. Then you do it again to get another step closer to your goal.—Joe]
Please really think about guns and what they do. They KILL and that is all they do. Also the right to bear arms is for a militia and does not include Automatic weapons.
Joeann Edmonds-Matthew
October 5, 2015
In response to this comment to Oregon Shooter’s Mom Is A Paranoid Gun-Hoarder Who Taught Her Unstable Son To Love Guns
[This is what they think of guns and the right to keep and bear arms. It is total crap for brains on full display. And they want us to “really think”?—Joe]
All the Britons dye their bodies with woad, which produces a blue colour, and this give them a more terrifying appearance in battle. They wear their hair long, and shave the whole of their bodies except the head and the upper lip. Wives are shared between groups of ten or twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons; but the offspring of these unions are counted as the children of the man with whom a particular woman cohabitated first.
Polybius
About 140 B.C.
As told by Winston Churchill in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain
[I’m not certain I believe this. I mean, why would all the people shave their entire bodies except the head and upper lip? That’s a lot of shaving.
Interesting about the group marriage thing though.
—Joe]
Inherently, any firearm can be used for either offensive or defensive purposes. The performance capabilities that cause many firearms to be adopted by the military also make them a preferred choice among the American people. The inextricably intertwined history of parallel use by both the military and civilians necessarily means a firearm’s military heritage cannot foreclose its civilian use.
BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Here was another trading centre, to which high civic rank had been accorded. A like total slaughter and obliteration was inflicted. “No less”, according to Tacitus, “than seventy thousand citizens and allies were slain” in these three cities. “For the barbarians would have no capturing, no selling, nor any kind of traffic usual in war; they would have nothing but killing, by sword, cross, gibbet, or fire.” These grim words show us an inexpiable war like that waged between Carthage and her revolted mercenaries two centuries before. Some high modern authorities think these numbers are exaggerated; but there is no reason why London should not have contained thirty or forty thousand inhabitants, and Cochester and St Albans between them about an equal number. If the butcheries in the countryside are added the estimate of Tacitus may well stand. This is probably the most horrible episode which our Island has known. We see the crude and corrupt beginnings of a higher civilisation blotted out by the ferocious uprising of the native tribes. Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land the live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.
Winston Churchill
1956
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain
[People like to believe the human race has been “civilized” for some time and mass killings and incredible cruelty are an aberration or an artifact of a particular race or religion. I don’t see it that way. I see “civilization” as a thin veneer which barely contains the true nature of people. I’ve heard people claim the atrocities of the 20th century with many tens of millions of murdered by their government will not happen again because “we have learned better”. I call B.S. on that.
Here we have Winston Churchill claiming, “It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.”
This should serve as a stern warning to those who would invade a land and the natives who would aid the invaders. I’m not sure where I read it, it might have been The Good Earth, but it went something to the effect of “If you kill a man’s father he will hate you. If you take his land he will kill you.”
Invaders from whatever distant land, be it another continent or the out of touch politicians in Washington D.C. who view the property of others as plunder should study history. They should not count upon the permanence of the good nature of a society when they plunder their property. There is a threshold beyond which the thin veneer of “civilization” is removed and a terrible, bloodthirsty, barbarian emerges.—Joe]
I really wish someone would start seriously wondering why having private, for-profit companies running – and ruining – the lives of millions is a good thing.
At the very least, there should be serious limits put on their role in society, because at this point, they own us all.
enlightenment
October 1, 2015
Comment to Experian says 15M have info stolen in hack of T-Mobile data
[“enlightenment” thinks serious thought should be given to eliminating private, for profit, companies? I presume that the functions performed by private companies for everything from the food supply and health care to banking, communication, manufacturing, and transportation should all by done by the all powerful, benevolent government, right?
I don’t think there has been any other political system than that which I suspect “enlightenment” desires which has been more thoroughly tested or found to have inflicted more evil upon society. In the 20th century alone there were hundreds of millions of people murdered trying to make such systems work.
People such as “enlightenment” cannot possible have a mind that functions in any sort of way that I think of as normal. The overwhelming evidence of the errors of their thinking can only mean they have total crap for brains. That such people exist, in apparently large numbers, means the right to keep and bear arms is just a critical to the security of the free state today as it was 200+ years ago..—Joe]
One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.
Vladimir Lenin
Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union
[To remove guns from the hands of private citizens is to make them easier to control. Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.—Joe]
Make semi-automatic weapons illegal. The Second Amendment crowd can keep the muskets that our forefathers were carrying when they came up with right to bear arms.
Put a ban on high-capacity magazines. It won’t prevent drive-by shootings but it will create a pause if you have to reload after six shots.
Bryn Mickle
October 1, 2015
More billboards won’t fix Flint’s violence problem — gun control will
[Mickle should read the Heller decision before he proclaims what “The Second Amendment crowd” can and cannot do.
Don’t every let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
If the far right is willing to shut down the government because they don’t get a tax cut for the rich, then our people should have the same resolve and threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get a real gun control law to stop killing of their innocents.
Andrew Cuomo
New York State Governor
September 26, 2015
Gov. Andrew Cuomo Tells Democrats to Shut Down Government Until They Get Gun Control
[He wants people to shut down the Federal Government in an attempt to get what he wants?
Don’t make any promises you aren’t willing to keep!
A less active Federal government is what we want! Shutting it down means no Federal gun law enforcement during the down time. If the NICS system is shutdown then just about anyone can get a gun without a background check (with a three day wait).
These people have never been known for the rationality and this is just another example.—Joe]
Our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are essential measures of gun control—this time, gun control directed against the government. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedoms of speech or press. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedom of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Indirectly, the Second Amendment also operates to limit the government’s use of its guns to abridge freedom in general. This is because, in our system of checks and balances, an armed citizenry constitutes a check on the possibility of the government becoming tyrannical and attempting to use its power to threaten the citizens’ lives and property. It should be understood as protecting a balance between the power remaining in the hands of the people and the power they have delegated to their government. Indeed, the language of the Second Amendment—“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—should be understood in this way.
George Reisman
September 25, 2015
Gun Control: Controlling the Government’s Guns Part 1
[I have nothing to add other than to say, “Read the whole thing.”—Joe]
We hope that we are spearheading a movement to expose these egregious and unconstitutional laws for what they really are. They are an attack on our civil liberties. With these laws in place ordinary citizens are effectively barred by the exorbitant cost from bringing any civil action against sellers of firearms and ammunition.
Lonnie and Sandy Phillips
September 25, 2015
We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer
[They believe the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is an attack on their civil liberties and is unconstitutional?
I only have a small inkling of they pain and suffering they are going through with the loss of their daughter. They have a tremendous amount of sympathy from me in regards to having their daughter murdered. But I’m not going to remain quiet when they go all crap for brains on us and confuse, in essence, up from down, black from white, and right from wrong.
They should be seeking the services of a grief counselor and not attempting to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
@PC_Banned_Humor Ok, you need it as phallus replacement @ZeitgeistGhost
Berlincopa @Berlincopa
Tweeted on February 23, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from LowRider @PC_Banned_Humor.—Joe]
Canada should really ease the laws about guns so that more people can have them and eventually kill each other with them.
LWYRUP
April 14, 2015
Comment to Supreme Court strikes down mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession
[Why are anti-gun people so violent?
Oh yeah! Now I remember. It’s because it’s in their nature.—Joe]
Hillary could become the 1st Woman POTUS serving from INSIDE a federal prison … The DNC can still get her elected.
esquire2
August 30, 2015
Comment to Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
[I had to think about this for a bit.
Hmm… That’s probably true. Not particularly likely. But I think it is possible.
More likely is that there is more than enough evidence available such that the general public know it would convict any ordinary citizen and keep them in prison for a long time. But Ms. Clinton will get a pass because the law only applies to the little people. She then gets elected while laughing off the felony charges.
Even more likely is that she isn’t elected and nothing happens in regards to all the crimes she has committed.—Joe]
Now, society has the right and obligation to insist that each of us does not interfere with the rights of others. But rights are different from preferences. You have the right not to be injured personally or financially by anyone. BUT you do not have the right not to have your feelings hurt since you and you alone can determine what hurts your feelings.
You do not have the right to live in a risk free society where everyone else adjusts their rights to suit you.
You do not have the right to live in a society where everyone agrees with you and nothing you see or hear offends your tender sensibilities.
Your rights end where mine began.
Averett Jones
September 24, 2015
Gun Control vs. People Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]