I propose the federal government put several plastic surgeons on the payroll and offer free unlimited penis enlargement in exchange for giving up these rediculous (sic) weapons.
Daniel Murphy
April 3, 2013
Comment to Debunking the Conservative Myth on “Assault Rifles”.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to Phil who sent me an email with the link.—Joe]
The police, as in every police state, would simply level their charges and lead the defendant to his blind-folded stance before the firing squad. During Randy Weaver’s trial, an agony for him that he endured for nearly three months, I found the minions of the law—the special agents of the FBI—to be men who proved themselves not only fully capable, but also utterly willing to manufacture evidence, to conceal crucial evidence and even change the rules that governed life and death if, in the prosecution of the accused, it seemed expedient to do so.
Gerry Spence
From Freedom To Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America
First St Martin’s Griffin Edition: May 1996
[The 1990’s were exceedingly dark days for gun owners. The shooting of Randy Weaver’s son and wife by Federal agents and then the trial of Weaver and Harris could be considered the turning point. The egregious behavior and arrogance of the Feds enraged gun owners and inspired thousands, if not millions, of people who had never owned guns to purchase them. The Weaver shooting took place less than 20 miles from where I lived at the time and I was among those that became a gun owner shortly thereafter.
This blog, Boomershoot, and a great number of significant events in my life were the result of what happened at Ruby Ridge.
That was over 20 years ago and many of the freedom activists I know don’t remember the events or that it even occurred. And many that do probably don’t understand the significance of that event in today’s fight for freedom. The Federal government learned some important lessons as a result of that incident and the response of the American people. The “militia movement” was part of that response and it was a real wake up call to the Feds.
But I’m not sure it was the lesson we wanted the Feds to learn. My impression is they learned it was too risky to begin using naked force to subjugate the people. They did not reverse course.
They grudgingly accepted we have at least some narrowly defined right to keep and bear arms but attacked our economic base, our privacy, and regulate the minutia of nearly every activity. The “assault weapon” bans, TSA and Obamacare are just the most obvious infringements of our freedom.
There are probably 10s of thousands of regulations which by themselves would be laughable and easily dismissed if it weren’t for the fact they are each tiny links in huge and heavy chains that enslave us through the daily sapping of our time and money to avoid committing numerous crimes each day. Ultimately these laws can, and probably will, be used to create the police state Spence warns us of. And it will all occur with firing only the occasional, and almost entirely ignored, shots.—Joe]
As I was unpacking at my new clock tower* Barb L. encouraged me to throw out old clothes. She told me, “A general rule is that if you haven’t worn it in over a year it’s time to let it go.”
I went to the closet and pulled out a sweatshirt. I told her, “I use a different rule than you. I bought this 40 years ago last month and I haven’t worn it in at least 20 years. I don’t plan on throwing it away.” She seemed to understand the new rule and there were no further discussions about it.
But then a while later she told me, “Okay. I’m going to take a picture of all your hats, gloves, and t-shirts. Then I’m going to post them on your blog and tell everyone to not give you any more.” “Why?”, I asked. She gave me a look that seemed like she was about to burst into some incredible snark but was exercising extraordinary restraint and said nothing. Women. You are supposed to “communicate” with them then they don’t talk even when you ask them questions. Whatever.
That was a couple days ago. Today I finished unpacking all my clothes and was thinking about what she had said. I decided I might be able to figure out what she was talking about if I spread the items out and took the picture myself. Here is a picture of some of my hats:
I think I understand now. She wants to be the one to give me new hats so I can express genuine pleasure at getting a new one rather than a duplicate of existing one.
* The view from the Clock Tower at my “neighbors” over two miles away through a 6X scope looks something like this:
The reason so many self-defense people believe it’s okay to shoot an attacker, after you add up the cold equations and come to the inevitable conclusion that someone is about to die, isn’t because we have flexible moral compasses. Nor do we study criminal violence because we secretly feel fascinated by evil. Not at all! The reason we accept using deadly force to defend the innocent is because we believe it’s actively good to save innocent lives, including your own. The reason we study past criminal events and try to understand how they happened is because we want to know how to save the lives of innocent people during future criminal events. The reason we learn the physical skills of self-defense is because we want to protect the lives of people we love. The key for each of these things is in the goal: saving innocent life.
…
Making the decision to save an innocent life is not a sin. It’s not a crime. It’s not an evil. It’s an active bit of good you can do in the world, saving an innocent life. And if the job of saving an innocent life is a good thing that may need to be done, it’s not wrong to learn how to do that. It’s not evil to prepare to save an innocent life as well and as safely as you can. It’s not bad to study how to save lives efficiently and competently. It’s not a sin to save a life whole-heartedly, with everything you’ve got. Those are actually all good things.
Kathy Jackson
October 4, 2013
It’s a Good Thing
[Thinking this through is important. The anti-gun people are either incapable or unwilling to do the intellectual effort required. That they attempt to force us to join them in their willful ignorance and/or mental incapacity should be, and is, a crime.—Joe]
The only way to go is complete, national disarmament. That way there is no chance that criminals could raid government storehouses, or that military weapons could make it to the hands of violent gangs. There would be no chance of corrupt government officials selling firearms to cartels or other organized crime groups. If we do not push complete disarmament by removing guns entirely from the situation and not just from the hands of civilians, then we are simply promoting the disarmament of the American people who would be left without means to defend themselves, while doing nothing about the very people that the 2nd Amendment afford them the right from which to protect themselves.
The only way to ensure that no guns fall into the hands of criminals, and to ensure the safety of Americas civilians, is to make sure that all guns are removed from the equation.
Because if disarmament does not take place on a national, state, and civilian level, and no one has guns, it is not “gun-control” it is “civilian control.”
Conor Higgins
October 3, 2013
A modest proposal: On gun control
[I read the entire article thinking there was a good chance this guy was serious. Only the last sentence gave me hope he was sane.
In this article he advocates complete disarmament. This includes the police and the military with naïve, half-baked, plans to collect all the guns and rationale for why neither the military nor law enforcement require firearms. I actually had to go looking for other stuff he has written to convince myself this was satire.
There are people out there that naïve and half-baked but Higgins isn’t one of them.—Joe]
Classic sort of Country Western style. Classic sort of story. Sort of funny.
Rodney Atkins was born in 1969, but didn’t really get into music professionally until 1997. He has a few albums and hits.
The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.
Daniel Greenfield
September 22, 2013
The Central Planning Solution to Evil
[H/T to Caleb.
I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I will not submit to a cabal who read George Orwell’s 1984 not as a terrifying warning, but as an instruction manual. Nor will I submit to the dictates of those who attempt to trample the right of free speech of others in the halls of government who are warning us about the looming tyranny. I refer to those sons of liberty who, as Camus wrote, “are not all legitimate or to be admired. Those who applaud it only when it justifies their privileges and shout nothing but censorship when it threatens them are not on our side.”
Matthew May
September 30, 2013
I Will Not Comply
[H/T Tyler Durden.
With the NSA listening to and recording every phone conversation, reading and storing every email message, the post office taking pictures of every envelope, and the government mandating the details of relationships (with insurance companies), police officers told to not wear their uniform and gun onto school campuses (H/T Ry), and people seriously advocating absolutely crazy stuff, how can we not think we are in a Orwellian dystopian universe? The Jews in 1939 Germany couldn’t really believe it was happening. It was crazy to believe people would do the things they were doing. It just couldn’t be real. But it was real. And it’s real now. Believe it.—Joe]
My bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind. It sets a penalty of $5,000 or 5 years in prison for people who violate it.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the Brady bill at this point. I understand this has to be a very carefully crafted rule in order to move forward. It is important to take the first step with the Brady bill. But the American people realize this is already too little, too late. They demand more.
Mr. Speaker, there are many bills that have been introduced by my colleagues which do go further. This bill, H.R. 3232, the Public Health and Safety Act, will solve the problem in the future of the proliferation of handguns. We must go forward and stop the carnage on our streets, and the Brady bill is a very important first step.
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Democrat
November 10, 1993
Congressional Record
[This was during the debate about the Brady Bill. They regarded it as a “first step”. There were plans then, and now, to go much further than merely background checks. The background checks is nothing but a ruse. Background checks to reduce criminal access to guns is crazy talk. It’s real goal is an attempt at backdoor registration. Confiscation is the ultimate goal.—Joe]
The Times did not help matters by illustrating its article with a large photo of a grieving mother accompanied by a prominently displayed quote: “There are no accidents. There are simply irresponsible, stubborn, cowardly adults unwilling to stand up against the gun lobby and those who support it.” In my view, this woman’s pain gives her a pass to say pretty much whatever she wants. Making her anger a central message of such a sizable journalistic undertaking, though, raises questions about whether gun-control backers are just as prone to invective and conspiracy talk as their least responsible foes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better.
Paul Barrett
September 30, 2013
Guns, Children and Accidents: Four Blunt Points
[Yes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better. But that would have near zero chance of resulting in more gun control. And the people at the New York Times almost certainly realize this. Therefore, it’s not going to happen anytime soon. They are so committed to more gun control it is an extremely difficult psychological burden to reverse course. They would rather tens of thousands would die and the rights of millions of people be infringed than risk having to admit they were wrong.
Draw your own conclusions about their moral character and capability for rational thought.—Joe]
My opinion on #GunControl.. Nothing says you’ve got a little ding-a-ling quite like needing to shoot a big gun and getting pleasure from it.
Dan Centofanti
Tweeted on January 7, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness… The Constitution doesn’t count!
John Silber
August 16, 1990
Former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts.
Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA.
[This was in the dark days of the 1990’s. Back then a lot of people believed that in 20 years anonymous private gun ownership would be illegal. And private gun ownership would be extinguished in another 20.
It didn’t turn out that way but it’s good to know what rules the enemy is playing by so we can all use the same rule book.
The Constitution doesn’t count? It would appear the 13th Amendment is off the table when dealing his type then.—Joe]
Hmmm… Another swing and a miss in the art department. I’m trying to find an artist / illustrator willing to get paid to do cover art, to create a picture that looks more or less the way I want it, rather than the way they like drawing spaceships. I’m looking to commission a piece because none of the “stock art” I’ve looked though looks like what I want, or even close enough to say “good enough” if you squint just right in poor lighting.
I can’t pay a lot, but I can pay. So, anyone out there know any friends, nephews, nieces, cousins, coworkers, or something that has some bit of talent and wants to draw some spaceships colliding in space, at least one of which looks like the ones in the book (not just any old random spaceship)?
Thanks to Paul, I’ve even got some images of Taj, so I don’t just have to explain what she looks like, but can show the artist.It should be, or at least CAN be, a pretty simple, clean image. No people. Smaller spaceships colliding with and splattering on Tajemnica, another of the smaller ships being “grabbed” by the glowing drive field. Background planetary and moon stuff optional. Comments here or over in www.thestarscameback.com, where I also have some graphics posted now.
Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.
Charles Krauthammer
April 8, 1996
Both Sides Blowing Smoke In Gun Debate
[This was nearly 20 years ago and some people still believe this. What they don’t seem to grasp is that totalitarian societies are much more likely to be disarmed than democracies. Either that or they yearn for a totalitarian society and wish to enable it.—Joe]
Not really about guns, but a cool title and an interesting song, particularly if you like blues.
Jack White a relative piker (born in’ 75) compared to most of the folks that have made the Friday gun-song list, but he’s got some talent. I always find it fascinating how many different types of voices can sound “good,” even when they are not really what I’d call smooth. His voice sounds pretty rough and strained to me, but still “good.” it is a bit like listening to the “Perhaps Love” duet between John Denver and Placido Domingo: Denver sounds great, until the professional tenner starts singing, and you realize how much difference there is in the “quality” of their voices.
Me? I sing in the (off)key of pirate, and hov no professional training or knowledge or particular skill, but I sort of know what I like when I hear it.
The atmosphere in congress right now, and Washington D.C. generally, is more favorable than it has been since 1966.
John M. Snyder
CCRKBA Public Affairs Director
September 27, 2003
Gun Rights Policy Conference, Morning Session 1
[The quote isn’t in the web page at the link, I pulled it from the recording I picked up at GRPC 2012.
While the quote is from 10 years ago today there is a good chance what he said is still true. Snyder has been part of the gun rights movement since the 1960’s. His perspective is very valuable.
For over 40 years many of the same people fought against the anti-gun forces. Many of the pro-gun organizations have been around for nearly that long and at least one, the NRA, has been around much, much longer. How many anti-gun people and organizations have been around for 40 or more years? I can’t think of any.
Perhaps that tells us something. Perhaps pro-rights people become more passionate and more dedicated the more they learn about the ideas and consequences of adopting policies advocated by our opposition. Or maybe it means our opposition become disillusioned as reality sinks in. Gun control creates victims. It does not prevent predators.—Joe]
Weird week. Got word Monday that one of my neighbors had died from cancer, as we had feared. He’d lost a lot of weight and his hair a few months ago. When we politely inquired about his health, he always said something dismissive like “getting by.” A very nice old Polish guy, always ready to lend a hand, the sort that moved to America because he was American at heart. Ran his own business out of his home, never a personal complaint, always thoughtful. The sort of guy that when the power to his house went out in the middle of winter for a week, he just shrugged and said it was like camping, but with a more comfortable bed. Continue reading
Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.
Daniel Greenfield
September 22, 2013
The Central Planning Solution to Evil
[H/T to Caleb.
Another way to think about it is that the political jurisdictions in this country that heavily restrict firearms and have high crime rates are in an awkward position between freedom and a centrally planned police state. You may be able to achieve low crime rates in a benevolent police state but run a high risk of poverty, political corruptions, gulags, reeducation camps, and genocide. Or, you can have the appearance of chaos, the uncertainties, and the insecurities of a free society.
The question is, “Which way will those states, and this country, teetering on the edge of a police state, trend toward in the next few years?—Joe]
We can test the hypothesis that Heller and McDonald played a substantial role in sapping the strength of the gun control movement by taking serious gun control off the table by looking to see whether the gun control movement had greater intensity before Heller and McDonald.
Mike Dorf
September 25, 2013
The Non-Paradoxical Role of the Supreme Court With Respect to Gun Control
[Dorf is law professor at Cornell. Even though he appears to have an anti-gun bias he has done a thoughtful and fair analysis of the political dynamics of gun control as well as the post the above quote was taken from.
I believe it was Sebastian who hypothesized after the Heller decision that people would stop supporting the anti-gun organizations because banning guns was off the table. Basically, if the end game wasn’t confiscation then what was the point? Dorf addresses that and arrives at essentially a softer version of the same conclusion.
What Dorf doesn’t address and perhaps doesn’t understand is that with the Heller decision gun rights supporters now see most existing gun control laws as infringing the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Viewed through the lens of the First Amendment, any law that has a chilling effect (in the legal sense) on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms should be struck down as unconstitutional. The outrage at having our rights violated motivates us and increases the intensity of gun rights people. Most hard core anti-gun people surely recognize at least some portion of this and are demoralized by it.—Joe]
Another example of a thief making a bad choice. Car thief drives a stolen car to the scene, accomplice / girlfriend with him. Tries to steal a truck. Owner of said truck confronts him. Guns were drawn, shots fired. Oh, did I mention the truck owner was a former marine? A story with a happy ending, because hits with a 9mm are a more convincing argument than misses with a .45.
UPDATE: Another story with more info. Looks like the former marine drew first in an attempt to stop the thief. Legally, that make his position more dicey. OTOH, the cops may look at the dead perp’s rap sheet, the rap sheet of of accomplice / girlfriend, and weigh it against a former marine with Iraq service and a valid CPL, and say “Who are we kidding? Good job, carry on.”