Apparently Being Able to Defend Oneself...

...is "incredibly dangerous" to the gun ban er, control, um safety movement:

Gun-Control Exec Says Attempts to Sell Guns to Minorities, Women ‘Incredibly Dangerous’

How About "No." Does "No" Work for You?

So much for "nobody wants to take your guns."

Seems the New York Times, Paper of (making up the) Record, found it worthwhile to put an op-ed on its front page for the first time in forever.  The topic?  Banning "assault weapons" - oh, wait, I'm sorry - "End(ing) the Gun Epidemic in America."  Excerpt:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

As was the Brown Bess musket, the 1903 Springfield, and now the AR-15. Your point?

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Considering that our fellow citizens in Connecticut, New York and California won't even register them, I think your idea of banning them is a complete non-starter.

So, how does "NO" work for you?

HEAR, HEAR!

Nikki fisks.  Read the whole thing.

One Facet of The Other Side™

Why are anti-gun people so violent?


Seen on the Book of Face.

Still Playing at Quora.com

The question was asked,

How realistic is the average gun rights enthusiast about their ability to use their firearm for self-defense/ home protection without being a danger to themselves or bystanders?

I have a friend who is a gun enthusiast, and while he is otherwise intelligent (PhD), I simply don't trust his judgment or competence with a firearm. He is paranoid, can't read situations well, and is not particularly coordinated.

If I was present at bank robbery, I would feel *less* safe knowing he was armed.
Is this an unusual case?

I responded to one of the comments.

There was a response from an anonymous user.

Überpost!

Just not here.

Over at Quora.com a while back, someone posted the question "Why is the National Rifle Association so influential in American politics, and how did it become so?"  I answered.  You can read the whole thing and all the comments, but for the purposes of this post, just scroll down to the comment thread started by one Jason Lancaster.  I'm sure Billll will have something to say about it.

I have to admit, it's been fun.

I Don't Have the TIME It Would Take to Fisk This

Sweet BLEEDING Jeebus.  I thought "professional" "news" "media" had "layers of editors and fact-checkers."  Here's just the FIRST PARAGRAPH of a Guardian (UK) article.

A plan by President Barack Obama to close a loophole which allows Americans to buy weapons such as machine guns, grenades and sawn-off shotguns without undergoing background checks is set to be delayed, due to intense opposition from the NRA and other anti-gun-control activists.

And it goes on like that!

The mind boggles.

Read the comments, too.

(h/t to my favorite Merchant O'Death.)

If You Haven't Read It...

...pop over to Rummel's place and read his old essay Confessions of a Deathbeast.  It disappeared for a while, but I asked him about it, and he reposted.

One Person at the Navy Yard Probably Was Shot to Death with an AR-15...

Aaron Alexis.

See?  The AR-15 is the preferred weapon for "legally hunting humans."  "For sport," you understand. 

The shooter just has to be sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of a .gov paycheck.

And Then There Were None

Sorry I'm late.  It was the shock.

General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill

Now we just have to get those few "may issue" states to become "shall issue."

Quote of the Day - Glenn Reynolds Edition

What's up with this? It's not based on any concern with safety. Lego guns, cap guns, bubble guns, nibbled Pop Tarts, and fingers are no threat to safety. And the wild overreaction in these cases says there's more going on here than simple school discipline. As I said, who treats a 5-year-old this way? It smacks of fanaticism.

In fact, it seems like a kind of quasi-religious fanaticism. I think it's about the administrative class -- which runs the schools with as little input from parents as possible -- doing its best to exterminate the very idea of guns. It's some sort of wacky moral-purity crusade. If a few toddlers have to suffer along the way, that's tough. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

-- Fighting education fanatics

Quote of the Day - "Yes, Exactly" Edition

From the InstaProf:

Gun control is a culture-war effort to rub middle America’s nose in the fact that the world is run by its betters. Any actual improvement in public safety is of no concern at all.

Thomas Sowell - Voice of Reason

His latest piece is up at National Review Online, Gun-Control Ignorance.  An excerpt:

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun-control advocates.

Can I get an "AMEN!"?

And Then There Were None

Remember this map?


As of 2011, only one state outright denied its residents the ability to carry a firearm for self-protection. Eight other states remained MAY-issue (California among them), but Illinois remained the only state insistent that its citizens weren't responsible enough.

The Federal government has just reversed that.

Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory

SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

--

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

"Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner said.

Now we get to see what Illinois politicians consider "reasonable limitations."

Should be entertaining.

Global warming?  I think Hell is freezing solid.....

Magic Fairy Dust

On the masthead of this blog are four quotes, one of them by reader/blogger Moshe Ben David from a comment he left here that goes:

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.

Tam has a concrete example of this in her post The king's men.

Back-Door Gun Control

The Hill reports:

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some "reasonable" gun control measures.

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes(sic) and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The usual suspects. 

Call your congresscritters. Stomp on this one HARD.

Quote of the Day - Batman Edition

Our old friend James Kelly (much like Markadelphia) apparently just can't seem to stay away from TSM, and comments (without links) on my post Why. Then, apparently suspecting infiltration, suggests that I have been stalking him, and leaving anonymous comments at other sites.

Can you say "projection"? I knew you could.

But that's not the QotD. From that linked piece comes this picture, and this comment:

If you've actually seen the latest Batman film, you might want to note that (SPOILER ALERT!)



Catwoman blows Bane away with THE CANNON MOUNTED ON THE BATCYCLE - and suggests that Batman may need to rethink his "no guns" philosophy in the face of almost having his head blown off by Bane with a 12 gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun.

No, James, that wasn't me, but I'll certainly borrow it!  James' response?

Alternatively, he might want to persevere with the no guns philosophy to ensure that Bane doesn't have the 12 gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun in the first place.

And how would you go about ensuring that, I have to ask?  No, on second thought I don't even want to try following James down that particular rabbit hole.

And I find it interesting that, while Batman eschews personal firearms, he seems to have no problem with vehicle-mounted artillery.

Odd, that.

Still Winning

In Lewisville, Texas:

Family-friendly gun range offering birthday parties for kids

Eagle Gun Range will host birthday parties for kids

"One of the reasons we're doing this is, when I had my boys, I didn't have a place to take them and educate them about how to handle a gun safely," Prince explained. "I really want families to be able to take their kids here and teach their young shooters how to shoot safely."

Two rooms will be available for birthday parties.

"The age limit is eight years old. You have to be tall enough to get above the shooting table," Prince said. "They're not gonna be left unattended. Parents are gonna be one-on-one, or if there's not enough parents we'll have range safety officers here to show them how to do it safely."

Of course, panty-twisting is occurring:

But some see things in a different way. Dawn McMullan is a mom raising two sons in East Dallas, and she's done some gun control advocacy in the past.

"It makes me very nervous," she said. "I think eight-year-olds, developmentally, can't tell the difference between play and reality sometimes."

"And also to put it in a party or game atmosphere just seems to not respect a gun as much as we should respect guns," she said.

Still winning, though.  RTWT.  Opinions?

Principle #7, Mr. Cosby

Well, Bill Cosby has opined on the Trayvon Martin incident:

"We've got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch," said Mr. Cosby, whose remarks were the first he has made publicly about the case.

"Without a gun, I don't see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself," Mr. Cosby explained. "The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations.

"When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody," he said.

Yes, that's why the police carry them.

Let me refer once again to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing - specifically Principle #7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Mr. Zimmerman was doing his duty as he saw it. And he couldn't carry an entire cop around with him. IIRC, he did "call for backup." There's audio of the call, in fact.

Tam had it exactly correct:

An honest assessment would say that this is what we know:

1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.
2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.
3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.
4. ???
5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman busts a cap in Martin.

The entire case turns on what happened in the ???, but don't tell that to the media, the folks playing poker with a deck full of race cards, the victim disarmament crowd, or apparently the frickin' President of the United States of America.

Or Bill Cosby.

UPDATE: On a related note, whom did you mean to harm, to kill, Mr. Cosby?

Posted without Comment

Found at Walls of the City.  He found it at Gun Free Zone.  Somebody tell me the original source and I'll link to it.