Bullets are cheap – be generous – give them plenty.
John Krupa III
[See also this elaboration by Greg Hamilton.
This was in the context of self-defense and does not apply to all shooting situations. The most successful Boomershoot participants, for example, seem to expend far few rounds than the least successful.—Joe]
I’ve been cleared hot to spend some money for the enjoyment of Boomershoot attendees; in one case, you’ll see something this year: a different fireball! I’ll probably spend a couple hundred or so making this year’s fireball much more interesting. The smart money will be on standing back; I’m either going to fail spectacularly (spectators set alight, tents engulfed in flames), fail miserably (spend a bunch of money and have another sucky fireball), or succeed spectacularly (spectators almost set alight, tents almost engulfed in flames).
Ry Jones
April 24, 2011
In which money is turned into smoke, dust, blood
[The smart money is to tell Ry to keep the fireball further from the shooting line. I’m thinking maybe 30+ yards this time. The 2007 “flaming sticks falling from the sky” event was at 18 yards.—Joe]
Homicide rates correlate with gun ownership, too. States with higher ownership rates and less gun control have lower Black homicide rates. States with the most gun control have lower White homicide rates. You could say that the Brady Campaign is racist and the data would support your point.
Howard Nemerov
April 2, 2011
UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban
[I wouldn’t say the Brady Campaign is racist even if a quirk in the data lends support to that hypothesis. They have a very strong parallel to racist beliefs with the object of their irrational hate and fear being gun owners and even the inanimate object called a gun. I believe they will ultimately reach the social status of the KKK but it will probably take another generation or so to get there.—Joe]
Anybody that is a “gun rights activist” is by definition, an idiot.
Olivia Booth
April 14 at 4:25pm
Comment to Gun Rights Activist Calls VA Tech Shooting Survivor a Coward
[For a bunch of idiots all the gun rights activists I know do pretty well for themselves.—Joe]
When we practice the privileges granted to us by our governing documents, in this case, the Bill of Rights and bearing arms, we enter into an implicit agreement with the Union to recognize and act according to the State’s rules and regulations for the use and ownership of arms. And as we agree to those rules, so does the government agree to act responsibly on behalf of our collective well-being.
In this manner, our relationship with our nation mirrors our relationship with our parents; both our parents and our nation raise us; both provide for our welfare; both teach us values and ethics; both act on our behalf for our well-being. And thus should we regard our nation; as a parental figure to be a moral example, an ideal to respect and to obey. For, if the dynamics of our relationship with our parents are mirrored functionally by the dynamics of our relationship with our country, so too should the convictions and loyalties that characterize the former persist in the latter.
Kevin Lelonek
April 12, 2011
Taking a shot at gun control
[Overall the opinion piece is benign toward the 2nd Amendment but Lelonek doesn’t even begin to get the concept of liberty.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant privileges. It guarantees rights. The only granting is that of certain enumerated powers to the government. The government is not a parent. The government is not an ideal. It is a necessary evil. The government is not to be obeyed by the people. The government must obey the people. The people must respect the laws which fall within the enumerated powers of the government.
Remember what Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington said about government.—Joe]
Sometimes you have to die for something I believe in.
A liberal
Gun Control explained
April 18, 2011
By Battlefield315
Funny stuff.
Via email from Jason.—Joe]
No. that’s absolutely not true. I’ve been working on gun issues for the last 14 years, since I’ve been in Congress. This is something I’m passionate about, as much as they are passionate about say their Second Amendment rights.
We’re not dealing about guns here. We’re dealing about a piece of equipment that goes to the gun. I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen. They will be available to our military. They will be available to our police officers.
Carolyn McCarthy
January 11, 2011
McCarthy To Propose Ban On High-Capacity Ammo
In response to the question, “What would you say to gun rights supporters who may be listening to you and feeling that you’re politicizing this rather extreme tragedy to push the bill that you’re describing?”
[Notice that she doesn’t answer the question other than, “No. That’s absolutely not true.” No evidence, no logic, just vigorous assertion.
Further notice that she apparently thinks “weapons of mass destruction” should be available to police officers. Or she is lying when she says, “large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction”. And/or she has crap for brains.
And of course the headline writer thinks there is such a thing as “High-Capacity Ammo”.—Joe]
It’s been nine long years since the anti-gun leadership in the Wisconsin Senate denied state residents their basic right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
…
The days of government-mandated victims in the Badger State need to end.
Chris W. Cox
April 17, 2011
Chris W. Cox: Wisconsin should join free America
[Well… at least more free America. We still have a lot of work to do before I would declare America “free”. But certainly getting rid of government-mandated victims would be a good start.—Joe]
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.
2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’
Mike Barkley
Candidate for Congress
April 17, 2011
Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[As if natural law can be “repealed”.
He also ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and said Bill of Rights was a requirement for the agreement to enter into the Union. Hence if the 2nd Amendment were to be “repealed” would that mean that the states are no longer bound by the agreement to be a part of the union?
Of course he ignores the little problem of the majority of the people in this country support the existence of the 2nd Amendment. And finally he seems clueless that there are many states that would consider such an act sufficient grounds to have another civil war.
This is just a reminder that there are people out there that explicitly say they do want to destroy the 2nd Amendment.—Joe]
The only thing a gun is good for is taking it out of the hand of the idiot owner and knocking some sense into him/her.
askwhynot
April 14, 2011 at 12:32PM
Comment to Ohio Senate passes bill allowing concealed weapons in bars and restaurants.
[Such a narrow mind in so many ways.—Joe]
The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America’s home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-enabling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.
…
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate.
Charles Krauthammer
April 5, 1996
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet
Originally in The Washington Post on April 5 1996. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996.
[See also another QOTD extracted from this article.—Joe]
Inflation is taxation without legislation.
Milton Friedman
[I was reminded of this by David and it being April 15th.—Joe]
I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.
President Obama
March 30, 2011
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
[This was a comment to Sarah Brady as she remembers it. I don’t know if this was accurately related and a serious comment or a platitude from an expert politician. Certainly Obama has the background to qualify this as extremely serious but actions speak louder than words and from the Brady Campaign viewpoint his actions have been minimal at best.
He and his administration deserves to be watched very, very closely.
H/T to Dave Hardy.—Joe]
America’s foreign policy is like a large friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.
Arnold Toynbee
[Toynbee died in 1975 but I see no recent evidence sufficient to correct that observation.—Joe]
Shoot as fast as you can hit, but no faster.
John Farnam
[This is attributed to Farnam in a gun email list I subscribe to. I have been unable to verify it but it is consistent with other things I have heard attributed to him.
This is good advice for most gun games and in nearly all instance of self-defense.—Joe]
We are disappointed the legislature focused on this issue when there are bigger issues like assault weapons, and universal background checks at gun shows,
Michael Martin
Washington Ceasefire member
March 29, 2011
State Senate approves use of gun ‘silencers’
[That’s just the way we like for Washington Ceasefire members to be, “Disappointed”.
I wonder what Martin did when he found out Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law today? Sobbing uncontrollably works for me too.—Joe]
At one point after your quote the female judge tries– for about the sixth or seventh time– to remind the city’s attorney that the injury is not the travel to a gun range but the complete ban on their existence, and she states, “The City requires this as a component of ownership but prohibits a citizen from getting that training without leaving the city. How do they even think that’s rational?” She obviously doesn’t speak to gun-grabbers much. Rationality has nothing to do with the argument!
Chiefjaybob
April 10, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—City of Chicago Attorney.
[Agreed. Those of us on “the front line” for years are used to it but you could tell the judge was getting increasingly frustrated with the guy. And the attorney would repeatedly say things like (paraphrasing) , “We have the power to regulate, such as zoning, so this ban is just a simple exercise of our power to regulate.” This would tick the judge off even more. I think the judge was nearly to the point she would have slapped him and walked off had it been a one-on-one private discussion.
If I had been doing the questioning I would have asked him since the city had the power to regulate and zone did the city also claim the power to ban all mosques, synagogues, and churches within the city? Just as theists regularly attend their place of worship a gun range is where gun owners go to exercise their “religion”.—Joe]
Where people are known to gather with guns can be attractive to criminals.
City of Chicago Attorney
April 4, 2011
Starting at about 29:15 in the recording of the oral arguments.
[I couldn’t quite figure out what the attorney’s name was perhaps it was “Feldman”. But that doesn’t matter as much as he represented Chicago and that he and probably others that wrote the Chicago brief had never been to a gun range yet proclaimed they knew enough to justify banning them in the city.
I question the factual basis of the above assertion and even if it were conceded as a fact that would not be sufficient grounds to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Using the same logic as above they could also ban parking lots because they can attract car thieves, grade schools because they can attract child molesters, and banks because they can attract robbers. I view the statement above just as bigoted as saying places where people with dark skin loiter attracts an illegal drug trade hence those kind of people are not allowed to loiter on public streets.
It was very pleasant to hear the attorney get slapped around pretty hard by two of the judges.
H/T to Sebastian and David Hardy.—Joe]
I’m very concerned about the open carry movement. It seems to be expanding.
Suzanne Verge
Of the Los Angeles chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
April 6, 2011
LA City Council support ban on openly carrying guns
[Open carry as a political protest in California is the social equivalent of a gay pride march in front of Fred Phelps church. The immediate benefits are questionable and you shouldn’t expect to make many friends in the process.
In terms of firearms Suzanne Verge is the equivalent of a minor official in Phelps’ church and as shown above responds in an analogous manner.—Joe]
Madigan is just another unqualified hack politician driving a short-sighted special-interest agenda against all reality and fiscal responsibility. This idea will waste money we don’t have and empower criminals to more confidently pick out the helpless and defenseless. If you are a gun-owner in Illinois you should be affronted, perhaps even ticked off. If you not a permit holder in Illinois, you should be terrified. Lisa Madigan is putting your name and your home on the menu.
Michael Marks
Director of Communication-Fifty Caliber Institute
April 7, 2011 Newsletter
Regarding Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, wanting to release the names of gun owners to the public.
[The entire concept of creating lists of gun owners and making the list available to the public is no different than doing the same with homosexuals, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims. We are not sexual predators and we don’t appreciate being treated like them.—Joe]