Category Archives: Quote of the Day

Quote of the day–Michael Beard

Posted on by

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

…

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn’t anyone “gunning for the President”. The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It’s no different than if a black person had stepped into a “whites only” restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn’t have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

“Disturbing criminal histories”? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as “disturbed” as he wants to be and I don’t care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how “disturbed” he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That’s not “news”. And I have to say, it’s about fricking time.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Linoge

Posted on by

I think there are more than a few anti-rights advocates I will start referring to as “the woman with the earrings”.

Linoge
September 18, 2009
uncannily appropriate
[You must read the rest of the post for the context–unless you remember the woman with the earrings at the party in the book Atlas Shrugged.

There is a reason the sales of this book skyrocketed last year.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

This must be Greg Nickels’ desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry’s post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I’m doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we’re the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I’m reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

The power to do good is also the power to do harm.

Milton Friedman
[There is also a variation of this attributed to Barry Goldwater (probably false), Thomas Jefferson (probably false), and Gerald Ford (probably correct), “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Regardless of who should get the credit the idea is correct and people advocating for health care involvement by the government need to realize the terrible risk they are advocating we all take by giving the government control of our health. They can “give” but they can, and will, take it away as well.

Similar cases can be made for government involvement in weapons ownership, the banking industry, and just about anything the government was not given specific enumerated powers in the constitution.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Salvor Hardin

Posted on by

An atomic blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.

Salvor Hardin
[This is as true today as it was in the future. Something both tyrants and “Threepers” should keep in mind.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sebastian

Posted on by

The final topic we got into was what he thought the biggest threats to the Second Amendment were, and what we, as bloggers, could do about it.  His response was that he did not feel that the biggest threat to the Second Amendment came from groups like the Brady Campaign, VPC, or the now defunct Second Amendment Research Center run by Saul Cornell.  He believes the biggest threat to the Second Amendment comes from our own extremists and lunatics, and that the biggest way we could contribute as bloggers is in confronting that cancer within our community.

Sebastian
September 15, 2009
Mr. Gura Goes to Reno
[I think it is extremely telling that the Brady Campaign and VPC are not considered a significant threat. They are headed for the dustbins of history.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Gale

Posted on by

I think my line in the sand got washed away by the incoming tide.

But I will know where it is when nobody else remembers.

Michael Gale
September 14, 2009
Comment to Jeepers Threepers
[Yeah, it often feels that way.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dave Stancliff

Posted on by

I do ask for laws that would restrict sales of M-16s, AK 47s, or Uzi’s. I don’t care what anyone says, hunting with machine guns makes no sense. The only use for them, the use for which they were intended, is to kill people. Lots of people, real fast.

It’s no secret that automatic weapons are so easy to buy that American gun dealers supply the Mexican cartels with 90 percent of the weapons they use to terrorize people on both sides of the border.

Dave Stancliff
September 13, 2009
Let’s face it, no one will take the high road to gun control
[Actually, I think it is a secret–since only the anti-gun people believe it. The pro-gun people know they have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on an automatic weapons of any type if they can find one for sale.

He also implies hunting is the reason people want to own machine guns. None of people that I know who own machine guns claim that is the reason for ownership of them.

Also in the article is the suspicious claim that “About two billion bullets were made in America last year, bringing in about $7.5 billion”. This implies an average cost of about $3.25 per round. This is more than a little bit high.

This is all more evidence that the MSM (this guy is a “former newspaper editor and publisher”) does not care or is too lazy to know the facts.

Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com–Joe.]

Quote of the day–Thomas Paine

Posted on by

The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I recently finished “reading” (listening to it) this book. I was familiar with most of the material in it but what struck me was the debate between him and Edward Burke. Burke was defending a monarchical type of government and Paine argued people had “natural rights” that no government had authority to infringe. It was then that I realized just how revolutionary Paine’s ideas were and how important to Western society many of them are.

As the product description on Amazon says:

The Rights of Man written by legendary author Thomas Paine is widely considered to be one of the top 100 greatest books of all time. This great classic will surely attract a whole new generation of readers. For many, The Rights of Man is required reading for various courses and curriculums. And for others who simply enjoy reading timeless pieces of classic literature, this gem by Thomas Paine is highly recommended. Published by Classic House Books and beautifully produced, The Rights of Man would make an ideal gift and it should be a part of everyone’s personal library.

It’s not a particularly long book but it is a very important book.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Say Uncle

Posted on by

Hanging with Alan Gura. I’ll tell him you said ‘hi’.

Say Uncle
September 11, 2009
Cool
[If I were there (the Gun Blogger Rendezvous) I would say “Thank you!” After that I’d probably be tongue tied. What meaningful thing can you say to someone like that?–Joe]

Quote of the day–PC

Posted on by

The UK has really gone down the slippery slope and is exploring the deep end.

PC
August 27, 2009
Comment to Glass Control
[PC was referring to plans for beer glass restrictions but the same comment applies to British Scouts not being allowed to carry pocket knives.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

SO; rights protection, freedom, and liberty on one hand, and socialist theories and fantasies of utopia and power on the other, cannot co exist. One concept, as Ayn Rand put it, destroys the other. The problem we face is that the pro force crowd isn’t going to just sit idly while the pro rights movement takes hold. The problem is that there is a pro force movement. Which will it be then? Who wins? Or rather, does the pro rights philosophy win or do we all lose? To put it more succinctly; will the pro force movement lose, or will we all lose?

This is the real bitch of it all. The socialist movement is one that, at its core, wants to fuck things up that other people have built. That doesn’t take much to succeed. Hatred and chaos spread more easily than respect and order. Our ideal of liberty, with government as the protector of rights, is much more fragile. You can spend a lifetime building an estate, meticulously, piece by piece, lovingly assembled, ready to pass it on to your children, and one angry, jealous, socialist fuckwit, or some jihadist, or one of Obama’s communist revolutionary friends, can wipe it all out in a heartbeat. We will tend to lose by default.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 8, 2009
In the comments.
[Lyle has been hitting quite a few home runs in the comments recently. I wish he would make more blog posts.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dr. Garen Wintemute

Posted on by

It’s just as a matter of logic that private party sales are more likely to result in criminal use of firearms, but it’s an inference at this point.

Dr. Garen Wintemute
September 2, 2009
Gun Show Report Critical of Sales
[The article goes on to say, “But Wintemute defended his report saying it was not meant to be a scientific study. Instead, he said he wanted people to see what happens at gun shows to encourage a closer examination of gun policy.”

What the frak? It wasn’t a scientific study? Is that the way it was received in the other press coverage? I don’t think so. They latched onto it with all the glee of Crack addict deprived of their fix for a week given free access to the police evidence room.

Let’s translate his “logic” into something more recognizable for what it is:

It’s just as a matter of logic that ni**ers being allowed in public after dark is more likely to result in criminal activity, but it’s an inference at this point.

Even if the activity in question did result in a measurable increase in criminal activity the exercise of a specific enumerated right unencumbered by the chilling effect of constant government monitoring is the price that must be paid.

H/T to Dave Workman for finding the article and giving us his own take on it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

This goes beyond ironic to absurdist. The question is, what are they going to offer next? Tax holidays on coffins?

Josh Sugarmann
September 5, 2009
Louisiana holds a sales tax holiday for guns
[The state is not allowed to tax churches because the power to tax is the power to destroy and the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right. Why is the state allowed to tax guns and ammo to begin with?

What if there were 15% tax (there is a 11% Federal excise tax on guns and ammo plus the state sales tax) on the Torah and other religious books and the state dropped the sales tax on the books for a few days? What would the response be if Sugarmann then asked if there was going to be a week where it was legal for humans to be sacrificed for the blood to be used in ‘Purim’ pastries? The same sort of bigotry would be involved. It would only be a little more obvious.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sebastian

Posted on by

Much like what I was arguing in the post below about violent criminals not being ordinary people who just snap. But I think perhaps we can come together with the Brady Campaign and agree that there ought to be no baring of teeth at political demonstrations. Lest someone be too intimidated to speak out.

Sebastian
September 5, 2009
California Still Has Good Self-Defense Laws
This is referring to a President Obama supporter who bit off the finger of a protester and the Brady Campaign representatives who insist gun owners should leave their guns behind when they go to political events. Even though none of those gun owners have used their guns in an illegal manner.
[Of course the Brady Campaign isn’t going to “come together” on this. They want to single out gun owners for “special treatment”. Just as KKK members think blacks are deserving of special laws and treatment.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Mikeb302000

Posted on by

Joe Huffman, I don’t want to play that game. I didn’t want to on Kevin’s blog and I don’t want to here either.

Does that give you a major victory over me, that you can say I don’t know the difference between truth and falsity? Fine, go ahead.

You and all your friends can say that over and over again. It’s a perfect way of avoiding what I am saying, of pointing out what I am saying is wrong, of discussing the issues.

Go ahead, be my guest.

Or if you’d like you can educate all of us about the proper way of determining truth from falsity. It might be interesting to know what you and all your pro-gun friends know that the rest of us, poor liberals that we are, don’t.

Mikeb302000
September 5, 2009
Comment to Tamara K. on Dr. Wintemute
In response to “Again, Mikeb30200, how do you determine truth from falsity?” The reference to Kevin’s blog about the comments here.
[Being able to determine truth from falsity is a game? Wow! And all this time I thought it was the basis for rational thought and a requirement for membership in the human race.

The issue is that Mikeb302000 believes what he wants to believe regardless of the facts. He is unable or unwilling determine truth from falsity. That makes his assertions based on faith, defined as “Belief without or in spite of evidence to the contrary.” That makes his belief system a religion rather than anything approaching science. I don’t have a problem with faith based belief systems as long as they leave me alone. But once they attempt to use force (and government is certainly a form of force) to make me conform I have a big problem with it.

That he is obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices makes him a bigot.

Of course, I can’t help but have this nagging doubt that since he puts up such incredibly weak arguments that he is really on our side tossing out strawmen for us like clay pigeons in front of Tim Bradley.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Arthur Frommer

Posted on by

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

…

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech?

Arthur Frommer
August 19, 2009
Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now
[This is about people exercising a specific enumerated right in a time, place, and manner in which no one was hurt, no laws were broken, and only the bigots were alarmed.

Let’s translate that into something more recognizable for what it is:

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where ni**ers gather in groups on the sidewalks as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

…

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these monkeys attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of ni**ers is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that ni**ers should be at a public debate or speech?

Bigotry is an ugly thing.-Joe]

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

Mikeb, this is how I read your words; “Aren’t Jews often associated with societal corruption? Wouldn’t that be the thing a judge and jury have to consider? Isn’t that why Jews are prohibited from certain areas in the first place?”

There is no convincing people who have this sort of attitude, or at least it is extremely rare. Our best hope is to demonstrate to them that expressing their bigoted views is going to make them more and more unpopular. They acquired their bigotry through group think, repetition, and associations (the desire to ‘fit in’) and they’ll usually have to be pried away from their bigotry by the same mechanisms. Some will always hold on to their bigotry, but tend more and more to keep it to themselves. If that’s the best we can accomplish in some cases, so be it. I’d rather they respect human rights in all cases, but if that’s impossible, the next best thing is that they be afraid to act on their hatred.

Lyle @UltiMAK
September 1, 2009
Comment to 57 months for a victimless crime.
[I was going to say something similar in the comment thread but Lyle beat me to it and with better depth than I would have given to the troll.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

Remember, sheep have two speeds – Grazing and stampede.

Robb Allen
September 1, 2009
Having one’s cake and eating it too
[Grass eaters. We are surrounded by them so we have to be careful not to excessively frighten them and cause us to get run over in the stampede. That doesn’t mean we can’t use a little bit of fear to herd them in the proper direction though. In our society the tricky part is coordinating the herding and even finding a suitable direction to herd them.–Joe]