Nothing more disgusting than a female gun nut.
“Guest”
June 2013
Comment to Children and Guns: The Fear and the Reality
[You disgust them and they want to take your means of self defense away. It sounds to me like someone is channeling the KKK.—Joe]
Nothing more disgusting than a female gun nut.
“Guest”
June 2013
Comment to Children and Guns: The Fear and the Reality
[You disgust them and they want to take your means of self defense away. It sounds to me like someone is channeling the KKK.—Joe]
I hope that CNN and Fox News and ABC and all of the news outlets broadcast live feeds from the destruction of the guns once they are criminalized. We’ll have trash compactors reducing the guns to pieces of unrecognizable metal. The death-worshipping guns nuts will be watching TV, tears streaming down their cheeks, shrieking “OUR GUNS! OUR GUNS!” Their children will ask them what time supper is, and they will backhand them across the face and shout “DON’T TALK BACK TO ME! THEY’RE DESTROYING OUR GUNS!”
Anonymous Reader
July 26, 2001
Comment to The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[This is what they think about people who exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Merry Christmas.—Joe]
Interestingly, and not surprisingly coming from The Left, he is advocating capital punishment for possessing a philosophy rather than committing an act. Looking at history, that appears to be a constant.
That said philosophy is supported by, and adheres to, centuries of documented, established rights, which in turn is supported by the natural laws of this particular planet, is irrelevant to him; it is the philosophy he considers so dangerous.
This is certainly a real stretch – for the moment, anyway – but at what level does such a threat constitute basis for justifiable defensive action? For now it’s just talk; I suspect as political power waxes and wanes it may not always be.
Predator
December 19, 2013
Referring to This is what they think of you
[To answer the question, it depends upon what your definition of “justifiable defensive action” is.
I consider defensive training, stocking up on ammo, and keeping my home location difficult to find “defensive action” and more than justified by the current enumerable threats to my philosophy, person, and family. If you are talking about using deadly force as the “justifiable defensive action” then the answer is when the threat is eminent and of a nature that it would result in death or permanent injury to an innocent person.
Other than that I have nothing to add.—Joe]
@UnitedLiberals It’s what Ben Franklin would of wanted. #NRAdicklesswonders
rich roberts @boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!—Joe]
Watching Aborn’s attempt to define fear of gun bans as paranoid while arguing in favor of gun bans makes me disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders.
Clayton Cramer
December 17, 2013
Not Trying to Ban Guns – Except When We Are
[H/T to Say Uncle.
The problem is they have mental problems. They literally cannot see they contributed to the situation.
I have a lot of experience dealing with this sort of “thinking”. Stacy, my counselor for dealing with this sort of thing, explained this was one of the symptoms of personality disorders. The essence of the explanation applicable in this context is as follows:
If you tell a normal person their actions contributed to a particular situation or result and suggest changing their behavior might result in a better outcome they will respond with something like, “I think I understand, I will try your suggestion next time.” The person with a personality disorder cannot see they contributed to the situation in any way. They never did anything wrong and will refuse to change their behavior.
There is no point in trying to have a logical discussion with these type of people. Your only productive recourse is to “set boundaries”, tell them you will not tolerate their irrational behavior, and then enforce those boundaries. As difficult as this is in interpersonal relationships it’s even more difficult when these people have political power, the power of government force, over you. This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It is the last ditch resort to enforcing boundaries.
Further complicating the issue is that when you enforce those boundaries “the crazy” may get far, far worse. They can and will do extremely destructive things. In interpersonal relationships this is one the paths by which people get murdered by their abusive spouse.
Gun owners have a lot in common with abused spouses and should be aware things can very rapidly get much much worse.—Joe]
The worse apples now being pushed by Obama don’t provide much money to offset the risks, and that’s even if insurers are able to keep pace with the ever-changing Obama position on what is good and what is bad for American insurance consumers. The possibility of systemic collapse in the New Year looks increasingly real.
Chris Stirewalt
December 20, 2013
How about them apples: ObamaCare rewritten again
[Yesterday my friendly neighborhood health insurance expert read part of King Obama new Obamacare decree to me. There was “a tone of voice” in the reading that made me think carefully about my response. I thought about it for a couple seconds and said, “What does that even mean?”
The response was sharp, “Exactly! I don’t even know. How can this possibly work?” I told them insurance companies should just forget about people actually enrolling and paying premiums. What they need to do is just have healthcare providers send the bills to them and they should just pay them. That will cut down on all the confusion, excess paperwork, and reduce costs just like Obamacare was originally intended.
I’m fortunate their sarcasm detector was fully operational and the exasperation was vented in a direction other than toward me.—Joe]
Like ever other civilized first world nation civilian ownership of guns needs to be banned in this country so we can enjoy the freedom from gun violence as they do.
Italian Rose
December 11, 2013
Comment to How gun control is losing, badly (in charts)
[You don’t have to squint very hard to imagine this is sarcasm. But given the context (the Washington Post) I don’t think it is.
And I would imagine our Rose also advocates banning recreational drugs, including alcohol, so we an be free from drug abuse. That worked out so well the last few times it was last tried.*—Joe]
*That last line is sarcasm.
Yet no good cop would assume that criminals register guns. Now we know that D.C. police don’t check the gun registry when on the way to a crime scene, and the reason for registration collapses.
Stephen Halbrook
December 11, 2013
Attorney for Dick Heller in “Heller II”.
MILLER: Dick Heller challenges D.C.’s gun registration scheme, files for quick ruling in Heller II
[H/T to Sebastian.
It’s abundantly clear the only reason for registration is to cast a chilling effect on the exercise of specific enumerated right and to aid in later confiscation. These people don’t just need to have their laws slapped down in the courts.These people should be prosecuted.—Joe]
We need a ban on assault weapons. We need to stop the flow of high magazine clips, like the ones used in Aurora and Newtown.
Sen. Ed Markey
December 16, 2013
Markey calls for assault weapons ban
[H/T to NRA News for the Tweet.
If it weren’t so common I would say it is ironic that someone so ignorant of firearms that they say something like “stop the flow of high magazine clips” thinks he knows enough about them to make firearm law. But I suspect ignorance of the subject matter and the desire to use force to impose your will on those that are not ignorant are highly correlated. Think of school bullies versus the nerds, the KKK versus people of color, and Anti-Semitists versus Jews.
Philosophically, Senator Markey has a lot of close and dangerous company throughout all known history. And this is why we need to protect our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is a last ditch safeguard to protect innocent people from ignorant bigots with power like Senator Markey.—Joe]
Yet another cowardly mass shooting committed by a left-wing neo-marxist shooter. The idea that we allow liberals access to firearms in this nation is truly frightening to me. Is having the IRS intimidating political enemies not enough for the left?
John Spero
December 14, 2013
Comment to Police in Colorado probe motives of dead high school gunman
[While a case could be made that keeping guns out of the hands of progressives/liberals/socialists/communists/but-I-repeat-myself would make society safer I think the reality would be different. Such a law would be no more effective than the laws prohibiting recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, from people. And that doesn’t even consider the principles involved such as equal rights, due process, and First Amendment issues.
The best that we can do is be armed and prepared to defend innocent life from these violent people.—Joe]
@linoge_wotc @RSheibal @scaruso5555 @Keith1911 On the plus side a gun in the home will most likely kill an occupant. #NRAdicklesswonders
rich roberts @boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge! Plus a bonus celebration of violence against gun owners.
This was in response to:
Ahh, the ignorance of #guncontrol #extremists. So very child-like. @boris3324 @RSheibal @scaruso5555 @Keith1911.
—Joe]
In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.
Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.
With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.
Barrett
February 20, 2013
Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty
[H/T to Paul Koning for his comment.
This is the firearms company Barrett.
I look forward to the day, perhaps in Nuremberg (PA), when said officials and their collaborators are brought to justice.—Joe]
I also declare that, like murder, crimes against the constitution have no statute of limitations (and never can, owing to the matter of conflicting interests involved). Those in the school system who smugly believe it’s smart or cute to strip away childrens’ rights for the sake of administrative convenience (or plain old sadistic pleasure) will someday face those former children in a jury box, possibly in a small town in Pennsylvania that will lend its name to the Nuremberg II tribunals.
L. Neil Smith
October 14, 2007
And Sow Salt on the Ruins
[It’s a really, really small town. But the sweetness of the name and the location, a little over 100 miles from Philadelphia, give it great weight in the venue selection.
H/T to Paul Koning in the comments.—Joe]
The end result of pushing through gun laws that people won’t obey is very predictable. You end up with a society in which people continue to own vast numbers of weapons regardless of the law. Connecticut may be on the way, sometime after the new year’s registration deadline, to turning itself into a replica of Germany, where up to 20 million unregistered firearms are held in addition to 7.2 million legal ones, or France, where as many as 17 million illegal guns overshadow 2.8 million legal ones.
If you bother to learn from history, it shouldn’t be a surprise that people stop caring whether they’re “not a law-abiding citizen” when they lose respect for the law and the people who inflict it on them.
J.D. Tuccille
December 3, 2013
Connecticut Shouldn’t Be Surprised That “Fewer People Than Expected Have Registered Weapons”
[H/T to Sebastian.
I expect the registration rate in Connecticut will be much lower than that in either Germany or France. And if you could get a police officer to talk to you about the “benefits” of the registration be prepared for a 10 minute profanity laced rant about how it makes their job more difficult. People that used to cooperate with police will now regard them as suspect and the enemy.—Joe]
@JoeHuffman @linoge_wotc that’s a backwards argument. I own guns to kill people with guns. *facepalm*
Keri L (@ikeriover)
December 11, 2013
In response to “Defense of innocent life is why I own guns.”
[Then why do the police have guns?
The lack of rational thought process in these type of people has me convinced they have a mental disorder. Further evidence is that this tweet of mine:
If you believe no one is trying to take away our rights then you aren’t paying attention: https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/.
Resulted in a response from her of:
if you believe that it’s OK to gun down little children… you both need your head checked.
I’m very familiar with this sort of thought “process”. Apparently they imagine, and truly believe, you said or wrote something other than what you did. There was a case where I went through an email line-by-line with a certain person and ultimately they agreed I didn’t say what they claimed I said. Then mere seconds later they again made the same false claim. Pointing out they just agreed I didn’t say that resulted in a claim that they didn’t mean it when they said it. I went through this process three times with the same result each time before I finally gave up in extreme frustration.
Mental problems. I’m completely convinced of it.—Joe]
If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.
Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2013
Random Thoughts
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The truth about the average American gun owner is that he is a slobbering fundamentalist alcoholic who would rather shoot you dead than shake your hand. These are people that would rather commit acts of terrorism against their homeland than work within the legal confines of the system to get their message out.
Anonymous Reader
July 26, 2001
The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[Imagine what they think “the government should do” about “the average American gun owner”.
These are very dangerous people.—Joe]
@linoge_wotc Keep projecting #NRAdicklesswonder
rich roberts @boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!
This was in response to:
It’s intriguing how fascinated
#guncontrol #extremists like @boris3324 are with other men’s genitalia. Not terribly polite, that.
—Joe]
We don’t live in a reasonable world. We live in a big government world.
John Stossel
2012
No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed
[I’m just finishing up this book. It’s a good book. For me there were lots of examples of how government screwed up things—all with the best of intentions. I knew in general that was the case but having more examples was nice. If you could get them to read the book the most benefit would be gained by politicians and progressive voters reading it. But if they could be convinced by facts and logic they probably wouldn’t be politicians and they certainly wouldn’t be progressives.—Joe]
Our politicians are unwilling to stand up to the terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association (NRA).
…
It is now time to overturn the Second Amendment, which no longer has any more validity than slavery or suppression of women’s rights, all supported by our founding fathers in our original Constitution.
We now live in the 21st century and need to become a “civilized” society. No one should be allowed to own a gun of any kind.
…
The time has come for all of the intelligent, sane citizens to demand an end to all guns in our society. It can be done when we have finally had enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children.
Dennis Levinson
December 26, 2012
Time to ban all guns
[I wonder what he thinks should be done with those non-intelligent, insane, supporters of the “terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association”. Jail perhaps? Or maybe psych wards? Progressives in the Soviet Union utilized psychiatric medical institutions to suppress political dissent. With his attitude toward gun owners it’s not hard to imagine he would think it appropriate.
I always find it baffling that people conflate some repugnant anti-rights government support for something, like slavery, with government recognition of a right like the right to keep and bear arms or freedom of speech. Do they think other people can’t tell the difference? Or are they so lacking in the understanding of principles that they cannot distinguish the difference?
I suspect in this case it’s a matter of lack of understanding. If he thinks all it would take is having “enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children” then that demonstrates he has no clue as to the issues involved. Gun in the hands of private citizens save lives. That includes the lives of innocent children. Gun Control Kills Kids! It doesn’t save them.
We have the right to defend innocent life with the best tools available and no government has the authority to disallow that.—Joe]