Changing the gun control debate is trivially easy.
…
Arrest and convict a few politicians and it would disappear in a matter of minutes. And finding a rights violating politician would be about as hard as finding a rock in Utah.
MTHead
April 22, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Trevor Burrus
[If we could only come up with a plan on how to get to the point where prosecutors start prosecuting and then execute that plan. That is not trivially easy.—Joe]
Not wearing a mask solely because the GOV says you should makes people look like petulant children and reinforces the idea (that many people have) that we NEED restrictions in place. Anyone preaching to not wear masks today that was advocating/defending masks at 2A Rallies a few months ago is revealing themselves as a contrarian, not an activist or objective advocate.
Rob Pincus
Facebook post on April 22, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
On the heels of a mass shooting rampage in Canada, a nation with some of the strictest gun laws in the hemisphere—laws the gun prohibition lobby would like this country to emulate, were it not for the pesky Second Amendment—Biden’s gun control agenda is unlikely to win any converts in the firearms community, and it will give U.S. gun owners plenty to think about as November draws closer.
Dave Workman
April 21, 2020
Biden Website Reveals Alarming Gun Control Agenda
[Workman leaves it a little bit ambiguous on a minor point. There is a difference between “plenty” of evidence to think about and the amount of time given to thought about Biden as President of the U.S.
Biden’s mental faculties have been degrading at an alarming rate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see live appearances halted before November to avoid the instances of him talking to lamp posts, nibbling on tree branches, and inviting children to rub the hair on his legs.
His gun control agenda is extremely problematic but knowing, should he become the President elect, he is likely to be unable to repeat the oath of office* by the end of January is going be of greater concern.—Joe]
* As if the oath has been of any importance to any of the presidents in the last 200 years.
After we come out of this pandemic, the stockpiling of food and water is likely to go up. There could be more anxiety about times when such essentials are unobtainable or difficult to get, and there will be an understanding that if that time occurs, there will be desperate people who might be dangerous. Protecting yourself and your loved ones might then be necessary. It could be better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Trevor Burrus
April 15, 2020
COVID-19 could change the gun control debate for a generation
[“Could”.
I suppose that true. And Justice Ginsberg could decide the 2nd Amendment means what it says. But that’s not the way to bet.
I see COVID-19 giving us a another 5% points in elections for maybe three to five years. That might be enough to get enough judges in the courts to make the difference between winning and losing. But it’s still a close call.
I’m still sending lots of money to SAF and FPC to keep those lawsuits going because the game is still a long, long way from being over.
H/T to Stranger for the pointer.—Joe]
Bring the pain. It’s the only way these people will learn.
Glenn Reynolds
April 18, 2020
[This is in regards to a lawsuit brought by a professor being fired for calling microaggressions handout ‘garbage’.
“Bringing the pain” is also required in our fight for the rights of gun owners. The anti-rights advocates and politicians need to feel the pain of infringing up the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
This is why I’ve been advocating they be prosecuted. 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 are possible means, and my preferred method, of delivering that pain. Prison sentences are for individuals as opposed to money paid by governments (taxpayers) to the victims of their oppression. In order for the pain to be effective it has to be brought to the individual responsible. As Reynolds says, “It’s the only way these people learn.”
The City of Chicago has paid SAF hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of civil suits.That’s a good start and has much better odds of success than demanding Federal prosecutors to bring charges against politicians.
I’m open to other suggestions.—Joe]
Modern sporting rifle, home defense rifle, everyday carry, or smallest dick East of the Mississippi?
Barry Schapiro, MD, FAAOS @bschapiroMD
Tweeted on January 21, 2020
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Adam Selene كافر @HoosierInfidel.
That the doctor employs childish insults against the exercise of a specific enumerated right upheld by numerous SCOTUS decisions tells you everything you need to know about his expertise in this domain and desire to have a meaningful discussion about the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
I was nearly finished with a 20 page paper (of sorts) on searching for bots in computer networks when I took a break and scanned the contents of my RSS feeds. This struck me as particularly timely and funny:
As I told my boss last week I was disappointed in the algorithms used in what is considered “state of the art” tools. I actually found a strong inverse correlation in the “scoring” of network traffic of highly suspicious traffic compared to clearly normal traffic. The higher scoring traffic should indicate high probability of the traffic being communication with a Command and Control Server (C2 Server) and lower scores with normal traffic. I easily found instances where just the opposite was true.
When I used synthesized data I could get the expected scoring results but real world data demands new detection algorithms. It looks to me like bot builders also do research. Existing algorithms appear to be essentially garbage.
If true, this explains a lot of things:
Via Milo Yiannopoulos @m.
Further analysis of the data is here.
I have questions about the validity of the above because I cannot find the original data. I did a “Poll Questions” search for “has a doctor or other healthcare provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition” on the Pew Research Center site without success.
I can find parts of Wave 64 referenced such as these:
This is the summary write up for public consumption of the survey results. But, I have not been able to find the question in the graphic despite searching for quite some time.
There is a Martian crater named after Robert Heinlein:
Via Amazon.
Heinlein books were a huge influence on who I am. In the last few of years I’ve been listening to the audible versions. I read the paper versions in the 1970’s and 1980’s and have many of the hardbacked books in my library.
This is believed to be the first pro-gun rights decision ever issued unanimously by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Evan Nappen
April 17, 2020
New Jersey Permit to Carry Handgun Granted after Supreme Court Remand
[I wouldn’t have been all that surprised if it had been the first pro-gun rights decision ever issued by any New Jersey court. That state is well beyond toxic to the rights of gun owners.
Regardless, YAYYYYYYYY!!!!
Progress, one lawsuit at a time.
Via The Zelman Partisans @TheZelmanPartisans.—Joe]
What bothers me the most about finger-lickers isn’t the fact that they’re possibly spreading an untold plethora of illnesses or disease to the rest of us. I think what bothers me the most is the absolute display of rudeness and inconsideration for others. It’s just one more sign that our society is becoming increasingly ill-mannered.
Finger-lickers actually present a real threat. According to the Centers for Disease Control, from 2008-2011, flu deaths in the U.S. averaged 53,435 per year. In contrast, during those same years, an average of 30,736 people died by firearms (19,029 of which were suicides and 245 “other”).
Since, over a period of four years, 22,699 more people died of the flu rather than guns, maybe it’s time that the federal government act to criminalize finger-licking? After all, if it saves just one life, don’t we have an obligation to try?
Wayne A. Bush
February 21, 2013
Finger Licking … Bad
[He’s got a point. This is particularly true with the higher death rate for COVID-19 infections.
But he is buying into the assumption that gun control is about reducing criminal and accidental deaths and injuries. A review of firearm law and results show such laws don’t make the general population safer.
Also, people get really weird in their thinking about contagious diseases. For example, there have been studies on how people would react to learning they unintentionally infected another person with an easily treated sexually transmitted disease versus unintentionally infecting someone with a flu and the other person died as a result. People are far more concerned/embarrassed/ashamed/whatever about the easily treated sexually transmitted disease than killing someone with the flu.
Criminalizing finger licking versus criminalizing gun ownership? I know what the choice of 90% of the population would be if they were required to chose one or the other.*—Joe]
* My choice would be to spit in the face of the person demanding I must chose one or the other. Then, I would shoot them.
The FGC-9 enables everyday people all around the world to build a 9mm semi-automatic firearm, from start to finish, using a 3D printer and commonly available, unregulated materials. It’s specifically designed to be accessible to folks with minimal gun building experience, and avoids using parts commonly or easily restricted by law in the US and Europe. Anyone can build it, and no one can stop it.
In case there was any doubt about the political ideology here, you should know that the ‘FGC’ in the ‘FGC-9’ stands for “fuck gun control”.
Lee Enfield
March 31, 2020
The FGC-9 Fulfills the Promise of 3D Printed Guns
[Things have come a long way:
It’s not going to make the anti-gun people give up the fight and become normal humans. They will, as is always the case, continue to lie and double down on their failing objectives.—Joe]
At a time when we need our federal government to put the interests and safety of its people first, the Trump Administration has once again put profits over people. The Administration has used broad interpretations of the federal Gun Control Act to suggest that FFLs conduct business at a drive-by or walk-up window, as if they were a McDonalds, or at a temporary table or booth, as if they were a lemonade stand, removing the protective influence that responsible gun dealers can have on stopping the proliferation of crime guns and on educating gun owners about the risks of guns and how to mitigate them.
Kris Brown
President of Brady United
April 10, 2020
Brady Condemns New ATF Guidance for Gun Stores, “Unsafe and Indulgent”
[Interesting. The things you learn every day.
I didn’t know McDonalds requires government forms to be filled out, IDs to be checked, and background checks completed before you can drive away with your Big Mac. It does make sense though. More people die from obesity and heart disease than from being murdered by someone with a gun. Are there one burger a month limits too? That would really help. It’s just common sense.
And on the lemonade stand thing, I didn’t know that there was some sort of “protective influence” that evaporated in the open air. Does that only come in a spray bottle? Can’t that be obtained in 50 gallon drums and distributed in a continuous mist?
But the part that I find most revealing is that Brown tells us the reason the Trump Administration released the guidelines was because of “profits”. It would appear that in Brown’s world “profits” is a bad word and if “profits” are involved the activity clearly should be shut down. That aside, the concept of gun ownership saving innocent lives as well as being a specific enumerated right isn’t a part of Brown’s knowledge base.
It’s that and/or lies and deception. Very telling.
I hope Brown enjoys her trial.—Joe]
While the pro-gun control group “Moms Demand Action” was able to review the bills with enough time to arrange a protest on the day they were introduced, Republicans such as myself were unaware of the bills’ contents. That’s the way the Democrats want it. These bills aren’t about saving lives; they aren’t about finding a balance. They’re about sending a subtle message to Coloradans: “Hell yes, we’re coming for your guns. It just might take a while.”
John Cooke
R-Greeley
Representing District 13 in the Colorado Senate.
April 8, 2020
‘Indeed, they are coming to take your guns’
[Lies and deception. That is how the anti-gun people operate. It is an essential part of their culture.
Respond appropriately.—Joe]
I forgot to mention that I opened up registration for Boomershoot 2021 yesterday. It’s already over half full because nearly all the people signed up for Boomershoot 2020 elected to move their entry to 2021 rather than take the refund I offered them when I canceled it. Get your entry in before it fills up completely.
Gun control regulations are an interesting thing. Public opinion in support of them tends to spike any time there is a major incident or a mass shooting of some sort. And if schools aren’t in session, if people aren’t having large meetings in churches and in shopping malls and concerts and all these other places, then we’re not having mass shootings.
Elizabeth Simas
Political science professor at the University of Houston
April 13, 2020
Gun Safety Groups Face Uphill Battle In Face Of COVID-19
[Interesting observation!
This reminds me of something I said over seven years ago (The necessity of an accurate problem statement):
What’s an orthogonal solution? In the case of the school shootings a solution to “ban guns” versus “good guys with guns” an orthogonal solution would be to “ban schools”. For example if children were to be taught online supervised by their parents or in much small groups there wouldn’t be such large groups of tempting, nearly helpless, targets.
….
In the case of school shootings examine the following problem statements, somewhat exaggerated to make the point:
- There are too many guns brought to schools.
- Good guys are prohibited from protecting themselves and our children at schools.
- An unacceptably high number of children at schools are being injured and killed by people with guns and other weapons.
Depending on the choice of problem statement the range of solutions are completely different. And there may be other problem statements beyond what I have enumerated above. Defining the problem correctly is frequently more difficult than finding solutions.
“Thanks” to the pandemic we may be approaching the orthogonal solution to school shootings I suggested years ago.—Joe]
The title claims “Ultimate in Old School Social Distancing”. While carrying a rifle down the sidewalk with an extended bayonet would grant you greater social distancing for a few minutes I expect the distance would be considerably shortened by the end of your walk as the police stopped by to have a chat with you.
Also, I expect an experienced Boomershooter could maintain something much closer to “ultimate” distancing than someone using a bayonet to keep the distance.
The majority’s decision resolves this appeal based on an issue no one has raised, decides the issue through misapplication of principles we have no reason to discuss, and remands the case to the circuit court for entry of an order that is clearly meritless and serves no purpose. Neither the parties nor the interests of justice will be served by this unexpected and pointless exercise.
Justice Lloyd Karmeier
April 2, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. VIVIAN CLAUDINE BROWN, Appellee.
[I’ve blog about this case before.
This case began almost three years ago when a rifle was found in Brown’s home and she did not possess, and had not applied for, a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID). The majority in this decision are extremely reluctant to declare the licensing of a specific enumerated right unconstitutional and have sent it back to the lower court.
Contrary to the minority decision quote above it does serve a purpose. It preserves an illegal requirement imposed by the state for several months perhaps even a year or more. It causes the wronged parties, gun rights organizations as well as the innocent victim Brown, to expend more resources getting this illegal law partially overturned. It blocks the further liberation of gun owners suffering under oppressive laws in Illinois should the FOID requirement fall. This, I believe, was the real purpose behind the decision by the majority.—Joe]
