Category Archives: Quote of the Day

Quote of the day–SayUncle

Posted on by

Not only should the president order the execution of the turkeys, he should kill both gobblers himself. With his bare hands, while wearing a loin cloth. He should then rise, his body glistening with sweat and blood, and take a bite out of its head and display it proudly to the American people.

SayUncle
November 22, 2005
My Platform
[While I strongly agree with the sentiment, and wouldn’t even mind the loincloth angle, I would be disappointed if he broke up a sweat or got blood on himself killing a turkey with his bare hands. In fact because the whole point of this it so show how manly he is to our enemies I’m thinking it should be a hog instead of a turkey. In which case if it was only bare hands I’d betting on the hog. So, I’d let him wimp out and him use a knife and/or a club. Now let the sweat and the blood glisten and our enemies cower.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael D. Barnes

Posted on by

Q: Mr. LaPierre claimed membership of the NRA was about 3.5 million. What is the combined membership of the Brady Center, particularly after joining forces with the Million Mom March?

A: We’re a lot smaller, unfortunately. We’re working to grow, we’re about a half million. We’ve started a new effort through the Internet to expand our outreach and we’re now up to over a quarter million new people, who are not members, but have logged on to sign, for example, our petition in support of renewing the federal ban on assault weapons. The NRA likes to brag about its millions of members and our information is that it has dwindled significantly. They were over four million about four, five years ago, they used the Clinton administration as a real boogeyman to build up their membership, but The New York Times and others have indicated that their finances have suffered significantly recently and their membership is probably more like 2.5 million, but that’s still a lot.

But there are 90 million gun owners in the United States. Only 3.5 million want the insurance and magazines and the various things you get for joining the NRA. When you look on our side and who supports us, for example, in the fight to renew the assault weapons ban, we’ve got over 300 organizations in the United States working with us: teachers, nurses, doctors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, religious organizations, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP. I’ll put our supporters in this cause up against the NRA any day of the week. We represent far, far more Americans, and the polling is very clear on that.

Michael D. Barnes
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 23, 2004
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
[It’s interesting to me that he quickly changes the subject when asked how many members they have. Did you notice that when he talks about NRA membership he jumps from four million to 2.5 million to 3.5 million. And if you want to talk finances the numbers I have show the NRA non-profit divisions solidly in the black and the Brady non-profit division running deficits. And the NRA Special Contribution Fund, Whittington Center alone has greater donations than the Brady non-profit (2005 numbers). If you look at the NRA Foundation numbers you will see their income is increasing and is nearly six times the Brady income which is falling. Add in all the donated money from other pro-gun organizations like The Second Amendment Foundation and you will find the Brady Bunch, by far the largest collection of anti-gun bigots, has income numbers on the order of one tenth that of the good guys. Barnes is just blowing smoke.

I bring this talk of membership numbers up because others have been talking about it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Kristopher Barrett

Posted on by

The NRA is the equivalent of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. If they don’t deal with the NRA, they will find out the hard way who the equivalents to Malcolm X are in the pro-rights movement.

Kristopher Barrett
November 19, 2007
[From the comments of this post. He was educating Michael D. Barnes, President of The Brady Bunch, who claimed the NRA was extreme.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Samantha Carter

Posted on by

You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.

Samantha Carter
A character in Stargate SG-1
Played by Amanda Tapping
[James and I just finished watching this series on DVD. It was good. Very good. We’re sorry it’s over. The ending could have been a little bit better. James was probably a little more disappointed than I. I thought it left things such that you could imagine how all the unresolved things would probably be figured out and that was okay. But James was a bit annoyed saying that it wasn’t that much different than the ending of any other episode. I figure it gives them possibilities for the movies.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael D. Barnes

Posted on by

The NRA is extreme. Their positions on gun policy are, as the police chief of Los Angeles William Bratton has said, “Sheer lunacy.” It is only a matter of time before the NRA either adjusts to the real world or loses its power. A modern democratic society has the right to self-defense and that’s exactly why the battle for sensible gun laws will ultimately be won by the reasonable voices in our society. We have the right to defend ourselves against madmen with assault weapons. We have the right to defend ourselves against unrestricted gun sales to criminals or terrorists. And we’re eventually going to win those rights.

Michael D. Barnes
June 23, 2004
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
 
[Interesting twist of the definition of ‘rights’. “And we’re going to obtain the ‘power'” would be the more appropriate words to use in this context. But that would bring about the defeat of his argument. And of course never once does he hint he has an appropriate answer to Just One Question.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And it’s our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Bruce Schneier
May 19, 2006
The Value of Privacy
[I don’t think very many people really get this. They make the trade of essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety and don’t realize they will end up with neither (yes, I’m corrupting Franklin’s quote a bit).–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dorothy L. Sayers

Posted on by

I always have a quotation for everything — it saves original thinking.

Dorothy L. Sayers

Quote of the day–Jay Dumas

Posted on by

Before gun control, about 800 Canadians were killed annually by firearms. After gun control, about 800 are killed annually by firearms. Simply put, gun control does not save lives. At the same time, about 2,500 die annually due to falls. Yes, the simple ladder kills more Canadians than firearms, but you don’t see politicians clamouring to register ladders.

This information was obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Ironically, this office in Ottawa is across the hall from the gun control bureau. If Ottawa’s actions were based on a sincere desire to save human life, then the $2 billion could have been better spent on safety training and health care — but unfortunately safety training and health care isn’t as glamorous as gun control.

Based on this, I must therefore conclude that politicians’ support for gun control is not based on a desire to save human life, but instead a cynical platform to obtain votes to stay in office.

Jay Dumas
Prince George
Thursday, 15 November 2007, 01:00 PST
Gun control shot down
[Another person answers Just One Question and comes up with the expected answer.–Joe]

Quote of the day–STI International

Posted on by

While we truly feel badly for the law abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the antigunners. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

STI International
Cessation of California Firearm Sales
[Via Uncle, Bitter, Sebastian, and Ninth Stage. It makes me proud that I own an STI gun. It’s on my hip, as is normal when I’m allowed to carry, as I write this. It is my carry gun and it is my competition gun. Thank you STI.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Judge Alex Kozinski

Posted on by

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet…and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths….When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; its using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms.

Judge Alex Kozinski
Silveira v. Lockyer
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
[Via Kevin.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Chris Summers

Posted on by

Guns can provide an intoxicating and almost pornographic attraction to young men who often feel powerless, according to academics in the field.

Chris Summers
November 12, 2007
Who carries guns and why?
BBC News
[The actual report is here. What is interesting to me is the report does not include the words “porn” or “intoxicating” in any form. Apparently Summers is just making stuff up.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Larry Elder

Posted on by

Government: If It Ain’t Broke, They’ll Break It

Larry Elder
November 8, 2007
From the article by that name.
[I really need to write up my “Just One Question” for big government advocates (see also this post and comments). This article will be one of the references.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Albert Einstein

Posted on by

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
[There are times when I’m very discouraged. There are times when it just doesn’t seem worth gnawing through your restraints to get up in the morning.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Archimedes

Posted on by

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes
[From some reason Kevin’s project reminded me of this.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Gun Guys

Posted on by

They haul out the tired mantra of “government intrusion on their rights.”

But those are just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy.

Gun Guys
November 8, 2007
Another Child Shot Accidentally as the Gun Lobby Selfishly Refuses to Help Protect Our Kids
[I’ll bet you didn’t know the Bill of Rights was just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy. I didn’t either. Maybe he thinks people with black skin should stay out of white restaurants, whites only swimming pools, and not use drinking fountains intended for whites. Does that mean black skinned people should understand that whites like the Gun Guys shouldn’t be exposed to using the same eating utensils that have been in the mouths of blacks. And swimming in the same water? Isn’t that real lack of empathy for whites? And I’m sure it was being selfish and a lack of empathy for the Aryans when the Allies went to war with Germany just because they were trying to implement a Final Solution for the Jewish Question in Europe.

It seems to me there are a large number of people that seem to believe, at some level, that Governments can’t intrude on rights–that it’s a logical impossibility. They seem to think that governments grant rights and hence if the law changes the right no longer exists. The truth of the matter is, of course, that rights exist irrespective of governments and governments can only infringe, guarantee, and/or protect rights. The Gun Guys mindset is but one example.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jonathan Swift

Posted on by

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift
[Governments that forget their true relationship with it’s citizens are on their way to enslaving their subjects.–Joe]

Quote of the day–“TJH”

Posted on by

I visualize a “gunextremist” as someone who shows up to the range with a NAA mini in .22 Short and a Phelps revolver in .45-70.

TJH
In comments November 4, 2007, 9:32 PM.
[This is particularly amusing because it was in response to an anti-gun bigot whining about pro freedom people changing the meaning of words and phrases the anti-gun people were using. “Gun control” becomes a slur, etc.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Edgar A. Suter MD

Posted on by

Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals will assist development of rational and effectual public policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that are better devoted to effectual solutions and realistic goals.

Edgar A. Suter MD
Guns in the Medical Literature — A Failure of Peer Review
[Emphasis in the original. I have used this argument (utopia isn’t an option) myself in a gun control debate against a communist. They didn’t really seem to get it. They wanted to keep trying just as they want to keep trying new variations of Marxism; “All we need is to have the right people in government.” I wish I had come back with, “Marxism and gun control was responsible for over 100 million dead last century. Do you want to donate your body to the next attempt at utopia?” –Joe]

Quote of the day–Petition on Deceptive Gun Advertising

Posted on by

These ads are unfair and deceptive because they suggest to the consumer that the purchase of a handgun is an effective means of providing for self- and family-protection without warning the consumer that the introduction of a handgun into the home actually places the home’s occupants at an increased risk of death by gun.

Petition on Deceptive Gun Advertising
Filed with FTC by Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, American Association of Suicidology, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions
[[sarcasm] Therefore, one should conclude, people at police stations and gun ranges are at extreme risk of “death by gun”. I wonder why the statistics don’t show that? [/sarcasm] What the anti-gun people don’t want to admit is that in the few “studies” that pretend to support their position correlation does not equal causation. And that most studies do not show the correlation they want to believe exists.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Brady Campaign

Posted on by

With a policy that tightly controls guns or bans them altogether, colleges and schools can ensure that the only people carrying guns are their security guards and the police. This is the way it has likely always been, and schools are safer because of it. For maximum safety and security, this is the way it should always be.

Brady Campaign
No Gun Left Behind
May 2007
[Evidence of these policies at work around the world are here and here. Some of the better known:

Maybe they are using a different definition of the word “ensure” than the one I am familiar with. Otherwise what they say makes no sense to me. But more likely they have mental problems and are unable to answer Just One Question.–Joe]