The open carry crowd. Their guns have more bullets in them than they have IQ points. They consistently demonstrate that they need a gun to walk out into public places. Frightened, scared and cowardly they parade their failings for all to see. What’s next? Open carry their penises to prove they have one?
I-84
June 17, 2014
Comment to Gun-control, open-carry supporters stage dueling demonstrations one week after Reynolds shooting
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
The fastest way to lower crime rates is to get rid of guns.
Stanley Bonk
September 4, 2014
Comment to Moms’ Group Calls Out Kroger’s Gun Policy In Unprecedented New Ad Campaign
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Bonk needs to compare crime rates inside and outside the formally gun banning regimes of Chicago and Washington D.C. But I expect facts are outside his area of experience.—Joe]
If judges can pontificate on questions of firearms engineering, then I can write legal decisions legalizing the possession of fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenades by the unorganized militia (ie, us). That’s fair, isn’t it?
Scott Connors
September 4, 2014
Comment to Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering
[Yes. It is fair.
It’s also just as likely to be faulty as the judge’s engineering efforts. This, of course, was his point.
What the judge and other “smart gun” advocates apparently don’t or can’t understand is that engineering against an intelligent adversary is dramatically different and more difficult than engineering devices to reduce the probability of accidents or the mitigate the effects of such an accident.
Turn signals and brake lights reduce the chance of accidents. Seatbelts mitigate the effects of accidents. There has been little need to significantly improve the technology of these in the last 50 years.
The technology of antitheft devices has seen dramatic improvement in the last 50 years. This is because in the case of the theft of a car the engineer has an intelligent adversary working against them. Both the thief and engineer attempting to protect the car innovate nearly constantly.
And even that analogy is weak because:
If you are going to pontificate on “Smart Guns” you should get the advice of an engineer with experience in security.—Joe]
Who else wishes Pres Obama would force through gun control before he leaves?
I wish he would force it trough like he has done other things. The NRA has the cons/tea partiers worshipping them like Christ and the entire country wants more, strict, comprehensive gun control at a rate of 94% support. I think this would be an amazing humanitarian move by him and a gift he could give the children of this country.
harrington
September 4, 2014
Yahoo! Answers
[This fails on so many levels it’s difficult to even address.
“Force through gun control”? Apparently this person doesn’t have a clue about the U.S. Constitution or more likely just doesn’t care. They want a king or dictator not a constitutional republic.
The constitutionalists and Tea Parties worship guns? The entire country, 94%, wants strict comprehensive gun control? Citation needed.
Humanitarian move and gift? Forcing people to be defenseless is not humanitarian. It’s not a gift if it wasn’t something you owned to begin with.
Hasn’t this guy heard? Gun control kills kids! Here’s the story in comic book form so maybe he can understand.—Joe]
Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.
The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.
…
Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.
Same for the Nazis.
And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.
They must be hunted down and killed.
Robert J. Avrech
September 3, 2014
How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
[Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.
The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]
Guns have been part of my life since the day I was born. I mean that literally. My father pushed the barrel of a tiny .22 into my mother’s vagina, I grabbed on, and he pulled me out. I was ushered into this world holding my first gun.
From there, I was nursed with a gun, my parents would put baby formula inside barrels of various guns and have me suck it out for nourishment. Sometimes they’d cut the formula with some gun oil, so it’d go down easier. I’d often fall asleep in my crib, a colt 45 nestled in in my mouth, dreaming of guns.
Samuel Priest
August 28, 2014
A Reasonable, Level-Headed Gun Enthusiast Suggests Small Gun Control Changes
[H/T to Bob S. who says, “Marlarkey and then some.”
The two paragraphs above are the least offensive. It goes downhill from there. He thinks of himself as a comic but I couldn’t find anything funny in his entire post. I think he has crap for brains. That he lives in Chicago probably explains the rest.—Joe]
Nor would it be different if “mothers” were suddenly put in charge. I feel vicarious resentment of that claim because if I were a man with children, I’d really like to know just what in the hell makes Sally Field think women love their children more than men do. Human nature is what it is, and we will fight over shit until we go extinct. Even if the best mother EVER was Queen of the Planet, someone somewhere would still need to have their ass kicked, and she’d have to send somebody’s child to do it.
Rachel Lucas
September 17, 2007
If mothers ruled the world, there’d be no goddamn….lots of things
[H/T to Erik Onstott for the Facebook comment.
Continuing the almost theme from last week. It gives us more clarity on the issue.—Joe]
Fools, yourself included, who think their metal penises require public display?
Have issues of inadequacy.
jw1
July 2, 2014
Comment to Big Win For Gun Control Groups: Target Bans Guns In Its Stores
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!–Joe]
There is NO LEGITIMATE REASON to open carry in any Target Store anywhere at anytime. Anyone doing so should be arrested and slapped into handcuffs for disturbing the peace–or better yet–indecent exposure. If enough people insisted on that, these malevolent dolts might keep their substitute penises in their pants and away from children, the elderly, and decent people everywhere. Enough! You whip your penis–substitute or real–in a public shopping area, you go to jail, like the lowlife you are.
bwakfat
July 3, 2014
Comment to Big Win For Gun Control Groups: Target Bans Guns In Its Stores
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!–Joe]
The ‘gun rights’ advocates are on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of history. Societies that take away all but true hunting rifles have proven the point of those who say that hand guns and anything that approaches an automatic weapon are inherently dangerous and should be banned. Making the case for self-defense when a person’s handgun is many times more likely to kill someone that person knows than protect him/her from a felon is like making the case for creationism by citing the Bible. Those who opposed gay rights are learning their lesson. Those who opposed the decriminalization of marijuana are learning their lesson. And we’re coming for the guns. They are absolutely correct. WE ARE COMING FOR THEIR GUNS.
Ira F.
May 26, 2014
Comment to Senate Democrat Calls For Bringing Back Gun Control Bills
[Aside from the obvious disconnects from the facts Ira is another example to use when someone tries to tell you the lie, “No one wants to take your guns.”—Joe]
There’s an article of faith on the left that the world would be a kinder, more humane place if it were run by women. Based on the leftist women I knew, the world they ruled would be a place you’d navigate by the mountains of skulls.
Rick McGinnis
August 29, 2014
Comment to Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[There is some evidence to support this hypotheses. For example the Weather Underground had many women it.
On a more personal note an admitted Marxist woman I used know was also heavily involved in the ecology movement. To the best of my knowledge she didn’t actually do it but she didn’t see problem in spiking trees even though it presented a life threatening danger to loggers and sawmill employees.
Another way to look at this is the differences in the behavior of females versus males of most mammals. The female is a much more vicious defender of their young than the male. Could those who view a strong government of their making as a “child” and transfer that same instinct of a vicious defense to defending their political creations?
And how about women who are strong advocates for gun control? Does this hypothesized trait explain why anti-gun women are so violent?—Joe]
An Israeli sniper once confided to me an IDF counter-terrorist doctrine called: “Shoot the women first.” Because the female terrorist will rarely surrender, preferring an apocalyptic ending.
Robert J. Avrech
August 28, 2014
Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[In Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three) he talked about something related. During a slave camp rebellion the rebels positioned women rebels on the front lines with the men. This, he said, was because not only were the women just as willing to fight but also the men were braver and fought harder when a woman was present.
I wonder about U.S. law enforcement sniper doctrine. There is the Ruby Ridge incident to consider. Vicki Weaver was known to be the leader of the family. Even though she was holding a baby in her arms and not an immediate threat to anyone she was shot in the head by the FBI sniper.
This may have implications in future confrontations.—Joe]
The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us ad our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.
Malcolm Wallop
Speech
March 8, 1997
1997 Conservative Political action Conference
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC.
[Via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.
Agreed, it is not an honest mistake. However, I’m not convinced that, in most cases, it is a deliberate act to enslave us or even increase our dependence upon the state. I believe that many of these people have various degrees of mental illness. Their own lives and thoughts are chaotic and they, probably unconsciously, seek out outside control/guidance. They view freedom as risky, unpredictable, and uncontrolled. They want the comforts of a strong, gentle, loving mother not realizing that government cannot be a mother substitute. As George Washington said:
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
In times mostly past many of these people got their comfort and strong guidance from the church. That authority, when it reaches the level of a theocracy, has its own extreme hazards. The U.S. Constitutional principle of separation of church and state neutralized that particular threat in this country. But today many people have a faith based belief in the power of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and all loving government. This results in all the hazards of a theocracy because, for all intents and purposes, theirs is a religion based upon the worship of government.
For individuals to say they want the power, via the right to keep and bear arms, to defend against the government is akin to saying you want to challenge the gods. This is an unthinkable heresy to them and they want you punished.—Joe]
An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn how to handle them deserve only to be treated as slaves.
Vladimir Lenin
Via Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three)
[The natural extension of this is, “Those who do not possess arms and know how to handle them are at risk of becoming slaves.”
That is how many oppressors view those they oppress. If they cannot overthrow or defend against their oppressors then they deserve to be oppressed. It’s the natural order of things.
These people have different principles than I. In their world view there are no natural rights. There is only power. And as Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
These are the same people who say the Bill of Rights grants us rights. It does not. It guarantees them. This concept is apparently too subtle or too alien for some people. If you attempt to have a discussion with such a person you will end up talking past each other. It is better to get this point settled before moving on to other issues. If they cannot accept this fundamental principle then simply move on. There is nothing more for you to discuss with them.—Joe]
One cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms without actually possessing a firearm… The purchased firearm cannot be used by the purchaser for any purpose for at least 10 days. Also, in some cases, due to additional costs and disruptions to schedules, the 10 day waiting period may cause individuals to forego the opportunity to purchase a firearm, and thereby forego the exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the 10-day waiting period burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Anthony W. Ishii
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
August 22, 2014
JEFF SILVESTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California, and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants CASE NO. 1:11-CV-2137 AWI SAB
[As I said in email to the gun alias at work and as Say Uncle said, “A right delayed is a right denied.”
As near as I can tell the “A right delayed…” quote is the original work of Martin Luther King Jr., in a different, but just as valid, context.—Joe]
@mtracey @PDPJ @michaelarria such tiny little penises, those cops in #ferguson with their toys. #playinggrownup
David Quilty
Tweeted on August 19, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to JoethefatmanTM.–Joe]
Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.
William Saletan
August 24, 2014
Rethinking Gun Control Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.
[It’s a fairly decent article but I think he was stretching for something clever to say for those last two sentences. You don’t embrace the facts because they “surprise you”. You embrace the facts because that is reality. To reject the facts is to reject reality.—Joe]
You see folks, gun control absolutely does work. Gun control laws turn those who may have been strong and independent citizens into weak and subservient members of the collective. Gun control laws give legal standing to the notion that the armed state is superior to the disarmed populace. In the end that was the unspoken goal of gun control all along.
Paul Markel
August 21, 2014
Gun Control Works
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
But fond though I am of order and quiet, it’s costly and difficult to keep when purchased by the blood of brutes and fools — a well-run police state is quiet and orderly but it’s not free.
Roberta X
August 20, 2014
Frikkin’ Ferguson
[I’m probably in the 90th percentile of the people who have a fondness for order and quiet. But you’ll find me in about the 99th percentile of the people with a fondness for freedom. Hence people attempting to implement a police state are at high risk of me generating disorder and non-quiet as I oppose them.—Joe]
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.
Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:
Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.
The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.
Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]