As is required by all gun control advocates the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has to lie to have any hope of making progress. Lying is part of the anti-gun culture.
Quote of the day—Grog
At this point in the political climate, it is my belief that talk and debate is and has been useless about this issue and others with regards to the Left.
I’m not telling others what to believe about guns, but my mind is made up and I have severe doubts as to my being assuaged at this point.
Grog
March 9, 2019
Comment to GUN CONTROL which had this as the entire post:
[I can see his point. But, being a ridiculous optimist, I still have hope the courts will settle the problem in a satisfactory manner and the bullets will be used for punching holes in paper rather than in people.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Ryan Fournier @RyanAFournier
By making good people helpless, you won’t make bad people harmless.
Ryan Fournier @RyanAFournier
Tweeted on March 9, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Tom Knighton
I think they don’t want these regulations properly enforced because if they were, they fear they’d have less justification to demand new gun laws.
Which is what their entire existence is about these days anyway.
Tom Knighton
March 7, 2019
Did USA Today Admit Gun Control Laws Not Enforced?
[I agree but there is more to it. True criminals are their allies. They don’t want their allies to be put in prison.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Steve Hebbe
As a law enforcement agency, our job is to uphold the law, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We are dedicated to ensuring a safe community and will be keeping a close eye on all proposed legislation.
Steve Hebbe
Farmington Police Chief
February 20, 2019
San Juan County sheriff concerned NM gun control bill could violate constitutional rights
[This is about parts of New Mexico. See also here.
What is it, maybe 75% of Washington state is 2nd Amendment sanctuary territory? Parts of Oregon are as well. Then there are nine states which have passed the Firearms Freedom Act.
It’s trivial to create analogies to free/slave states and sanctuaries in the early 1860. The Democrats are pushing, and passing, bills that I couldn’t have imagined they would try even a couple years ago. Nearly all semi-automatic guns are to banned?
They have become berserkers. My guess is that it is some sort of late stage Trump Derangement Syndrome. What happens if the courts slap them down? What happens if the courts support them? I hope they recover their senses before the only cure is a repeat of the 1860s, but The Fourth Turning keeps coming to mind.—Joe]
Point
I find it amusing people expect me to believe collecting taxes and administrating the redistribution of the remainder will somehow result in a more equitable situation. Either they are stupid or they think I can’t see that they are lying. In either case I see it as funny.
Quote of the day—5sdad
In all the talk about gun control …. I never hear them talk about taking guns away from criminals; just from law-abiding citizens.
5sdad
Forum post on February 20, 2019
[There are several reasons for this:
- Criminals are their natural allies. Violent crime makes people inclined to seek help from the government. This increases the power of politicians.
- Taking guns from people who are strongly inclined to follow the law is far less risky than taking them from violent criminals who require firearms in their “profession”.
- Control. The populous will be more docile without firearms. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Never give up your guns. The criminals who want them will respect you even less if you surrender to them.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Johnny (Joey) Jones @Johnny_Joey
I paid for my @NRA membership with my own blood as I got a free lifetime membership for being a Purple Heart recipient.
Also… come to think of it.. your security, free market economy and constitutional rights were paid for in blood as well.
Johnny (Joey) Jones @Johnny_Joey
Tweeted on March 5, 2019
[Thank you Joey Jones.—Joe]
Lack of trust
Tweeted by PYTHiasGHOST on March 4, 2019:
While true, there is more to it. Government in general cannot be trusted. And of course not all our fellow citizens can be trusted.
It is true that twice as many prison inmates identify as Democrats as all other political affiliations combined but it’s not close to 100%. And my impression is that ratio holds for convictions of politicians as well as common criminals. So while the meme above is substantially true it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Quote of the day—Call Me Donald @LoserInChief
I wish more gun owners did this. #ThinningTheHerd
Call Me Donald @LoserInChief
Tweeted on March 3, 2019 in response to Man out for a morning walk shoots himself in the penis, Indiana police say
[It is somewhat refreshing when the anti-gun people slip and admit what we have long known. That is, they regard people as cattle and think it a good thing when those they view as inferior or a threat to their “enlightened governance” are maimed or killed.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Donald Trump
We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous. Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.
Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.
Donald Trump
U.S. President
March 2, 2019
Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses
[While I applaud a push for free speech I wonder if this really should have been handled a different way. Could the next president sign an executive order requiring colleges and university to censor “hate speech” by anyone opposed to socialism?
I would think a better approach would be to prosecute university officials or individuals using existing laws. Wouldn’t 18 USC 241 and/or 242 be applicable? This would be particularly in the case on exhibit in the article (a kid was punched in the face). If something broader were needed then I think it should go through the legislative process.
Explain to me how I’m wrong on this.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Richard Hudson
It’s a shame that in their rush to “do something”– anything – Democrats have made this critical debate a partisan show. Last week, my Democrat colleagues rushed to pass two partisan pieces of legislation that would have done nothing to stop some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent memory. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Newtown. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Parkland. It would not have stopped Las Vegas, or Sutherland Springs, or San Bernardino or many other tragedies. But the proponents of gun control don’t want you to judge them based on outcomes; they want you to judge them based on intentions.
Richard Hudson
United States Representative for North Carolina
March 2, 2019
H.R. 8 won’t stop school shootings
[I thank Representative Hudson for standing up for our rights and pointing out the deliberate deception of many anti-gun people.
While I agree that what Hudson says in that last sentence is true for many people and it’s a relatively safe thing to say to avoid a lot of controversy it’s not entirely true.
I believe that some gun control proponents, particularly, but not exclusively the politicians, know the proposed gun legislation cannot make people safer and that is their intention. They want something that will fail to make people safer and, in fact prefer, that it will make people less safe. This gives the politician more power because it makes people more dependent upon government.
That said, the common person doesn’t realize they have been duped and believe the implied intention. I said “implied” because it is very rare that politician will come out and explicitly state that a law making access to guns more difficult will make people safer. They will say, “Its just common sense.” They will say, “No one should have these guns.” They will say, “80% of the people want background checks.” But they don’t say, “Criminologist predict this will reduce violent crime by 20%.” Or, “This will cut mass shootings deaths in half.” That they don’t make the claim that gun regulations will improve public safety strongly implies to me that they know it will not improve public safety.
I can give someone a temporary pass on not knowing something and making an overstated claim about their unproven hypothesis being true. But when they almost for certain know the truth and deliberately word things to deceive people that is an extremely strong indicator they are evil people. That these people deliberately deceive others to infringe a specific enumerated right make them criminals punishable by law.
I hope they enjoy their trials (http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2).—Joe
Quote of the day—The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act
(1 )(a) “Assault weapon” means any:
(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(i) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
…
(B) Semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act
Oregon, February 26, 2019
[There is a lot more but the above is all you need to know. Their intent is to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles and pistols.
This is despite the Heller decision which specifically protected a semi-auto pistol and almost explicitly protected rifles of the type targeted by this law. These people, such as Greg Wasson, are criminals. I hope they enjoy their trials: http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Brianna @BriannaWu #EnjoyYourTrial
I had an opportunity to fire a fully automatic M16 assault rifle today under professional instruction. This is the same weapon US Armed Forces use. The experience made me feel even more strongly there is no reason for a civilian to have access to this weapon, or one like it.
For starters, growing up in the South, I took an NRA safety class as a teenager. I spent many an afternoon as a kid in target practice. But this assault rifle is a different beast. It would take A MINIMUM of 30-40 hours of professional instruction to learn to operate safely.
It shoots a 5.56 mm bullet. You can feel the wind of it firing three feet behind the shooter. The gun is very difficult to control. I’ve seen these fired thousands of times in games and movies. In real life you understand the devastation even being grazed would cause.
Brianna @BriannaWu
Candidate for US House of Representatives in MA District 8 for 2020.
Tweeted (and here and here) on February 26, 2019
[She feels strongly. Apparently she is also an extremely slow learner because the first set of Boomershoot 101 students did just fine with only a few hours of instruction and practice.
There are no strong feelings or imaginary excess wind exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1.—Joe]
Pew! Pew! Pew! = Boom! Boom! Boom!
#EnjoyYourTrial
The anti-gun people have a narrative of “gun safety”. We know, as do they, they have never encouraged people to take a gun safety class or learn about guns. Ignorance and deliberate deception is all part of their game plan.
They insist background checks are “common sense” and save lives. They don’t save lives and are a deception for the real objectives:
- Creating lists of gun owners
- Delaying the exercise of a specific enumerated right
- Increasing the costs (time and money) of exercising our rights
They insist we don’t need a particular type of gun or accessory and we end up trying to convince them we do need it. It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. They should be the ones attempting to convince us there is a “compelling governmental interest,” and have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest (strict scrutiny). Until they can do that the proposed law does not pass constitutional muster and they are attempting to infringe upon our rights. The default position is the proposed law is invalid until they can conclusively demonstrate they have met the requirements.
As it is we are playing defense and losing in public opinion.
It would seem to me that we need an easy narrative of our own. It must be something that tweets and sound bites well. It must put them on the defensive. We must gain the initiative in social media and when we contact our political representatives.
I discussed this with Brian K. and we came up with:
- #EnjoyYourTrial
- http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 (18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights)
- http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 (18 USC 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law)
These can be used in a variety of ways:
Think women shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns without a man’s permission? #EnjoyYourTrial (Aimed at may-issue states.)
Send teens to war but don’t let them own handguns? #EnjoyYourTrial
Disarm peaceful African Americans because they live in the wrong state? #EnjoyYourTrial.
Deny me the right to defend my family because of my skin color? #EnjoyYourTrial
You are trying to ban guns in common use protected by the Heller decision. #EnjoyYourTrial
A right delayed is a right denied. #EnjoyYourTrial
You are demanding people ask permission for a guaranteed right. #EnjoyYourTrial
Background checks don’t save lives (https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/) and infringe our rights. #EnjoyYourTrial
Gun control is prior restraint of specific enumerated right and is illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial
“Red flag” laws are prior restraint and are illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial
What you are doing is illegal. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. #EnjoyYourTrial
In each invocation you can include http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 (for private citizens) and/or http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 (for politicians, law enforcement, and other government employees).
Yes, I know it’s not 100% correct in every context. But the point is to gain the initiative and put them on the defensive. I think this has a chance of doing that.
Quote of the day—Thales
If a Rightist is going to have a problem with you, the odds are he’s going to punch you in the face. Or follow you into a bathroom and beat you down. The Right is much more fond of directness. Does anybody really think, say, a redneck is going to dump bleach on you and run away? Do you think he cares about the symbolism of a noose, or that he’s going to go out of his way to wear a certain hat – so as to make the right fashion statement during the attack? No. If he has a problem, he’s going to get in your face, probably punch it repeatedly, and walk away when he feels his point has been made.
In this the Left betrays how little they understand us. For even their hoaxes seem like bad parodies to us. It’s what a Leftist would do, only reversed in ideological polarity. It’s not what a Rightist would do. They don’t get us. Their rank-and-file doesn’t have any clue who they are dealing with anymore. Even the Media is too stuck on Leftism to understand anymore. There was a time, perhaps, when wiser Leftists would have thought “well, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like them… maybe we should check into this a little more.”
That time has passed.
This is profoundly dangerous to us all. Because, not knowing us, they cannot understand where the limits are. They’ve been butting up near our maximum levels of tolerance for some time now. Sooner or later, one of them is going to exceed that boundary because he doesn’t even know it’s there, anymore.
Thales
February 22, 2019
Leftist Hoaxes: A Failure to Understand the Right
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Quote of the day—L. Neil Smith
I’m afraid they’re going to get crazier the more power they lose. Beware the wounded bear. By which I mean “let’s make them crazier.”
L. Neil Smith
From his website
[Sounds like a plan to me!—Joe]
Quote of the day—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?’
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
U.S. Representative (D-NY)
February 24, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change
[Via email from Lyle.
With such crap for brains one could make the case our country would be better off if her parents had not had children. But there is also the case to be made that we would not have such wonderful political entertainment and in-fighting in the Democrat Party if it weren’t for her.—Joe]
A risky truth
Via a tweet from UR a Smart Ass, Carl @cleflore23:
However much truth is in this statement I suspect this is good way to drive your odds of having sex asymptotically close to zero.