Category Archives: Quote of the Day

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates. Even more striking, the discussions that Appellant and amici use are not relevant to the case before the court.

Evidence provided in this brief shows that for at least concealed handgun permit holders, one of the classes of plaintiffs in this case, are demonstratively law-abiding, and that it is unlikely that waiting periods or background checks for additional gun purchases could lower crime rates.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This is about California having 10-day waiting periods for people purchasing a gun even though they already have one or more existing guns and/or a concealed weapons permit.

You might be interested in reading the whole brief but it can be paraphrased as:

Kamala D. Harris and the supporters of this law must be living in an alternate universe. Not only don’t they have any data to support their half-baked ideas, they aren’t even talking about the topic at hand, and they misconstrue the data they do offer.

And if we were talking about what they want to talk about, which we are not and never were discussing, here is the data which destroys their view and proves they have at best a tenuous grasp on reality.

Lee and Lott were much more polite in their choice of words but that is what they said.—Joe]

Quote of the day—©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon

Posted on by

@goodgreg42 @andreajmarkley @wallsofthecity All I know is that gunowners have tiny cocks. That’s why they spend their life cowering in fear.

©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon
Tweeted on January 16, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children

Posted on by

#GunOwners cry about their #SecondAmendment rights but they don’t give a shit about the fact that thousands of innocent people are killed each year by their sinister death machines. It is time for us to do away with private gun ownership entirely. The only people who feel the need to own guns are paranoid, mentally ill people. If you own a gun, you are a terrible human being and if you own a firearm and you have children you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. A child who is raised in homes with firearms is 43% more likely to die of a gun shot wound. It should be considered abuse to keep firearms in a home with children and the state really should step in and take them into custody. Every gun owner in America is a potential #MassShooter, it’s only a matter of time before the snap and start spraying innocent children.

Repeal2A

Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children
Posted on Facebook June 11, 2015
[Via a Facebook post from Sean Sorrentino.

This is what they think of you.

There is speculation this is the work of a troll. But it’s consistent with other anti-gun people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Scott

Posted on by

We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.

This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.

Andrew Scott
June 12, 2015
Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim
[Scott is correct. But there is more.

When they say “…maybe it will help” I don’t think the politicians believe it anymore than I do. I think they have some other reason for infringing upon this specific enumerated right. And I think they need to be asked, “What’s the real reason you are doing this?” And their response, whether it be silence, excuses, feigned insult, whatever, needs recorded and remembered.

Then, when the time comes, that response should be used as evidence at their trial. The evidence that they knew they were lying and doing something wrong at the time they were doing it will demonstrate premeditation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Onion

Posted on by

Saying there were no other options remaining and that continued intervention would only prolong the nation’s suffering, experts concluded Tuesday that the best course of action is to keep the United States as comfortable as possible until the end.

According to those familiar with its condition, the country’s long, painful decline over the past several decades has made it clear that the most compassionate choice at this juncture is to do whatever is possible to ensure America is at ease during its last moments.

The Onion
Experts Say Best Option Now Is Keeping Nation As Comfortable As Possible Till End
[I’ve been listening to By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. I’m about half way through I now and one of the things that really stood out was essentially what The Onion says in their humor piece. It’s probably not possible to restore the U.S. to it’s original state of liberty. It has to have its government completely destroyed and then rebuilt.

The examples Murray, the author, gives are post WWII Germany and Japan. They were forced into unconditional surrender and then rebuilt. Within a few decades they were in better shape than the victors such as Great Britain and France. No mention was made of Italy but they did not unconditionally surrender as did the other axis powers so I suppose it is reasonable to exclude it from comparison.

Currently I’m listening to Murray talk about civil disobedience of stupid regulations. He better have something better than that to get us back to a state of liberty. And unconditional surrender to another nation would not appear to be a promising option either.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Randy Barnett

Posted on by

If all this evidence of original meaning is not enough to persuade you, then you are simply not persuadable by evidence.

Randy Barnett
June 5, 2015
More evidence that the “judicial power” included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
[Via a Tweet from Alan Gura who says, “Slaaaaaam dunk.”

Barnett’s article is about the power of the judiciary, in general, to declare laws “null and void”. Some people are apparently questioning this and Barnett supplies “Slaaaaaam dunk” evidence showing they are wrong.

The quote above was in reference to those people but it is also applicable to people who advocate for infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cody Fenwick.

Posted on by

It’s time we start thinking a little more boldly and demanding much more. We should consider abolishing private gun ownership.

…

We don’t need an alternative to guns, we just need people to realize that guns aren’t needed.

Cody Fenwick
June 7, 2015
Let’s Talk About Abolishing Gun Ownership
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Any efforts along these lines will be significantly less successfully than prohibition of recreational alcohol and other drugs. And those were total disasters. I am certain an attempt in “abolishing private gun ownership” will be an even greater disaster.

Why?

Because I and millions more will refuse to give them up.

In the spirit of full disclosure I’ll share that I’m going to the range this week to practice. Then this weekend I’m going to a match to see who can hit five head sized objects the fastest. I think I can draw and hit all of five of them in four to five seconds. Or if they are close enough I can do it in under three seconds.

I can hit a man-sized target on my first shot from 957 yards away.

I also make explosives.

Your move Mr. Fenwick.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tamara K. @TamSlick

Posted on by

When liberal democracies collapse, someone comes along who promises to make the trains run on time if we load the right people into them.

Tamara K. @TamSlick
Tweeted and posted on her blog June 6, 2015
[It’s so chilling because it’s mostly true.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rowan‏@therowanlee

Posted on by

@ItsRobbAllen @DennisWalkerJr Nah, this has nothing to do with racism or sexism – just blowhard rednecks and their penis replacements.

Rowan‏@therowanlee
Tweeted on June 2, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via Robb Allen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

Posted on by

If you want to know where social Marxism (collectivism) is headed, this is it: the labeling of individualistic philosophies as dangerous thought crimes and tribal communities as time bombs waiting to explode in the face of the wider global village. They desperately hope to conquer the world by dictating not only national boundaries and civil liberties, but the very moral code by which society and individuals function. They wish to bypass natural law with fear, fear that the collective will find you abhorrent and barbaric if you do not believe exactly as they believe. Individualism will one day be the new misogyny.

Think of it this way: If an undoubtedly forgettable movie like “Furious 7″ can’t even portray a fictional step away from the abyss of collectivist cultism without a prophecy of doom from Reuters, then is anyone really safe from these lunatics?

Brandon Smith
May 13, 2015
Collectivists Hate Individuality, Tribalism And ‘Fast And Furious 7′?
[No one is ever completely safe from any lunatic. Even a completely sane person might make a careless mistake and run over you in a crosswalk.

But Smith was asking a rhetorical question after painting what appears to be pretty accurate picture of the collectivist cult mentality. A clear statement of the problem is the first step in solving the problem and Smith appears to have done a good job in this regard.—Joe]

Quote of the day—F. A. Hayek

Posted on by

There can be little doubt that man owes some of his greatest suc­cesses in the past to the fact that he has not been able to control so­cial life. His continued advance may well depend on his deliber­ately refraining from exercising controls which are now in his power. In the past, the spontane­ous forces of growth, however much restricted, could usually still assert themselves against the or­ganized coercion of the state. With the technological means of control now at the disposal of government, it is not certain that such assertion is still possible; at any rate, it may soon become impossible. We are not far from the point where the deliberately organized forces of society may destroy those spon­taneous forces which have made advance possible.

F. A. Hayek
October 1, 1960
The Case for Freedom
[The size and scope of our government has penetrated to depth in our society far beyond what Hayek could have reasonably foreseen in 1960. The banning of certain toilets, shower heads, and light bulbs is just the tip of the iceberg. The use of “eminent domain” to take your property and give it to another, the banning of larger than average soft drinks, and the banning of firearm accessories are just the tip of the same iceberg. The thousands of pages of law and regulations churned out each year are just the tip of the same iceberg.

Our vehicles license plates are scanned by police cars as they drive by, our cell phone positions are tracked, our phone call metadata is stored for use against us, the IRS has been weaponized and is used against political opponents, and drone are ready and able to drop a bomb on your location if the administration believes you to be a threat to national security.

It is easy to argue that “the deliberately organized forces of society” will destroy, or essentially has destroyed, the spontaneous forces of which Hayek speaks. Furthermore it is not farfetched to claim the only viable option at this point is to protect yourself and those close to you as best you can and prepare to rebuild from the ruins of the coming collapse.

I hope we can learn from what I fear is a lesson of staggering magnitude. Then, if the time comes, we must rebuild upon a foundation of solid political and economic philosophical principles. The works of Hayek are almost certainly part of that foundation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Varad Mehta

Posted on by

The solution to violence is supposedly to lay down arms and swear a truce. But when one side’s arms drip with ink and the other’s drip with blood there is no peace to be had. “We will stop drawing cartoons” and “we will stop killing you” are incommensurate concessions.

Those who think they are equal, that the pen is mightier than the sword because the sword only wounds the body while the pen wounds something greater because intangible—the soul of society or some ineffable value like justice or safety or dignity—will always implore us to let the wookie win because they take the enemy at his word. But safety of this kind is not really safety because its maintenance is not in our hands but theirs.

Varad Mehta
June 4, 2015
Don’t Let The Wookiee Win
[Via a Tweet from Gay Cynic.

Those who demand others to refrain from the exercise of their right to free speech because of the threats from violent criminals should think about the lessons they are teaching. What they teach is that others should become violent criminals to get their way as well.

What I find most perplexing is that those who insist we submit to the demands of these criminals are those least able to deliver violence should their lessons be taken to heart. Hence they are attempting to create a world where they would be the first to become slaves to those able to deliver violence.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

CCW permit holders are so law-abiding that they compare favorably even to police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, during the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 there was an average of 703 crimes committed by police per year, with 113 involving firearms violations.6 With about 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees in 2006,7 that translates into about 102 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers. Of course, this compares very favorably to the U.S. population as a whole over those years, with 3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people – a crime rate that was 37 times higher than that for police.

But concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than that. Between October 1, 1987 and April 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,793 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders – a mere eighth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a fifth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit. The data are similar in 24 other states.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This makes it extremely clear that if you are concerned about private citizens legally carrying guns in public then there are a limited number of nonexclusive conclusions that can be arrived at regarding your concerns. Which of the following best describes you?

  1. You are far more concerned about the police carrying guns.
  2. You are not concerned about people legally carrying guns committing a crime with them. Instead you are concerned about those people using them lawfully. If you are a rational person we must conclude you are a violent and/or evil person afraid of being legally shot.
  3. You were ignorant about the crime rates of people who legally carry guns and will now cease advocating in support of more restrictive laws regarding the carry of firearms in public.
  4. You have crap for brains and don’t care what the data is.

Other options exist but they appear to be variations of the themes I have already enumerated. Or did I miss some?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

Posted on by

More than nonlawyers would expect, the justices are fair-weather textualists, demanding strict adherence to congressional language when it suits them and inferring hidden implications when that’s more convenient.

Paul Barrett
June 1, 2015
What the Abercrombie Bias Case Might Mean for Obamacare
[Not only more than what we expect but far more than what we can tolerate.

When they are inconsistent we don’t know what the “law” is at the time you make your life choices. Can you really call it “law” when it depends on the whim of someone in a black robe a thousand miles and years removed from the scene and time of the “crime”? In order for the law to be just it must be knowable at the time you make your choices.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

Hoplophobia continues to take a huge toll on the nation, distorts the political climate, and costs lives as innocent people are disarmed or subarmed (inadequately armed due to infringing laws) to help salve the irrational fears of its sufferers. The White House had no comment.

Alan Korwin
May 31, 2015
Medical Hope for Hoplophobia Sufferers
[Of course they had no comment. As with all people with personality disorders they don’t think there is anything wrong with them. And if something goes wrong they cannot see that they made any contribution to the problem.

In addition to consideration of a test for voters I think consideration should be giving to tests for public servants. Hoplophobia sufferers would be immediately disqualified.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jesse Hattabaugh ‏@arkanciscan

Posted on by

@wallsofthecity Well whip out your dick then chief and let’s get some data

Jesse Hattabaugh ‏@arkanciscan
Tweeted on January 17, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Goodman

Posted on by

Ban all guns…. our country shouldn’t have guns… Guns free country.

Chris Goodman
May 30, 2015
Comment to Administration preps new gun regulations
[There is a difference between a ban on guns and having a gun free country. But people like this don’t have the mental processes to think it through even when you explain it to them with everyday examples.

But the one thing to remember about this is that you should never let someone get away with telling you than no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Admiral John Geary

Posted on by

We always look at it backwards, don’t we?

…

People are always talking about demanding more and better performance from elected officials. But when you get right down to it, shouldn’t a democracy demand more and better performance from the citizen who vote?

Admiral John Geary
The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Leviathan by Jack Campbell.
[He’s got a point.

One would think there being stringent requirements before you were allowed to vote would be the best approach. But that method was abused in times past and probably will not be a viable option for quite some time, if ever. The next best thing would seem to be educating the voters and discouraging uneducated citizens from voting. But then the side that encourages uneducated voters to vote for them wins.

I’m at a loss as to how best to solve the problem.

As a side note, I have really enjoyed Campbell’s Lost Fleet series. I love the space battles which take into account relativistic effects, momentum, and large fleets with sub formations. He does a good job on psychology of different people too.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Conor Higgins

Posted on by

There you have it, serfs! The right for the government to regulate the personal carrying of weapons is set forth in 14th century English law and therefore has the force of our own laws over our own people in the 21st century.

How can we refute this unassailable position?

The truth is that it cannot be done; these laws cannot be overturned, revoked or defeated.

The laws, as set forth by our English forebears, in the days of our most honored and revered King Edward III, by nature of their age, govern us still today.

Now that this argument and the force of 14th century English law have been enacted in the colonies, it is only fitting that we adopt other, more pressing laws into our society. Starting now, under order of King Henry VIII, the Church of East England shall be established, with the president of the United States seated at its most high position of responsibility.

He will have the power to appoint bishops and use treasury money to build churches. On a minor note, Catholics, Jews and other heretics will be given the choice of burning to death or conversion.

The position of president shall be replaced with the title of royal governor, and any and all elections of government officials will be abolished, with appointments being made by the current monarch of Great Britain and her royal appointee in the colonies. Long may they reign.

Conor Higgins
May 26, 2015
14th Century English gun law rules in 21st Century America
[Higgins is mocking the amicus brief filed on behalf of San Diego by Everytown For Gun Safety in the case of Peruta v. San Diego.

It would be even more funny if I didn’t think President Obama would go for it if given the chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bryce M. Towsley

Posted on by

Don’t get hung up on your gear. You need guns that are reliable and fit well, but that’s it. The next cool rail-mounted gadget will not make you a better shooter. Instead, take that money and buy more ammo for practice. The guy who has burned enough powder so he can hit the target fastest is the guy that will win the match, not the guy who dragged his gun through the gadget catalog.

…

If you practice with bad habits, you will shoot with bad habits. To learn correct technique, take a class from a professional. But if you don’t have the time and money for that, attend some local matches and learn from the top guys there.

Bryce M. Towsley
July 8, 2013
9 Shooting Tips for Better Long-Range Accuracy
[I can’t emphasis this enough. I started out shooting pistol matches with a Ruger P89. I took classes, practiced a couple times a week, and improved enough that I was occasionally winning the local USPSA matches.

On the Microsoft Gun Club email list other people were discussing which $1000 to $2000 gun would be best for the local pistol league match. I came in near the top in those leagues with my $300 Ruger. It wasn’t until I was certain the Ruger was “holding me back” and I had put 30K rounds through it that I decided to upgrade to a better pistol. I immediately saw about an improvement in my match results and dominated in the league matches.

I remember one time after doing quite a bit better than another league shooter he said something to the effect that it was the guns we were shooting that made the difference. He was shooting a compact Glock and I was shooting my STI Eagle. I offered to trade guns and reshoot the course of fire. He agreed. He did about the same as before and I did slightly worse. I still beat him by a significant margin.

The “meatware” is far more important than the hardware in almost all shooting matches. This is particularly important true in pistol matches.

In rifle matches there is a bigger difference in the hardware capabilities at long ranges. While you aren’t going to be making 1000 yard shots on USPSA targets with an SKS I’ll bet on Monte Milanuk (who coaches at Boomershoot each year) with a Savage Model 12 F-T/R chambered in .308 over someone who has invested more money than time into long range shooting.—Joe]