Mike the Gun Guy and Amanda Gailey are getting loads of attention from the NRA these days. I no longer post at the MikeB blog as well, which means most of my activities are on social media: where I am very active.
And very effective.
So, fuck the Bollocks Circle Jerk–they don’t really test their bullshit and probably should change their name to that (Bollocks Circle Jerk) just for honesty’s sake. Bollocks my dog probably has been in more courtrooms than he has.
I’ve been saying all along that the pro-gun side is based on science fiction (literally). “An armed society is a polite society” comes from Robert Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon”. If you are unaware, this is a novel where duels may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted that is attributed as a custom that keeps order and politeness.
We have seen where the other arguments are based on misquotations and fake history. I’ve long wanted to rip apart the revisionist history of the Second Amendment, but I now know that someone else will do that for me using the material I have provided.
But, that was one of the purposes of this blog.
I won’t even bother with John Lott and the Bullshit serious overestimate of DGUs. Where the fuck are the heroes with guns when the daily mass shootings happen?
People carrying weapons in public is not a right (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Robertson v. Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897) at 282 , and DC V Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)). Heller mentions Rawle, which says:
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
The ultimate argument against open carry and guns everywhere are the Colorado Springs 911 calls relating to the mass shooting.Open carry comment at 2:49 of first call.
Do you know how bizarre your gun free zone arguments sound when a 911 operator gives a mass shooter a pass because he had a right to walk around with a gun?
The funny thing is you people don’t realise how stupid you sound with your silly arguments that are so obviously false: especially if one is willing to make the effort to fact check them.
Anyway, It’s time that the debate began to be based on facts, not bullshit. Congress needs to repeal the research ban on gun violence (come on, people, can’t you admit that your bullshit doesn’t survive scrutiny?). 
Additionally, it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission. Here is Justice Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:
“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”
The Second Amendment was obsolete when it was written. Joseph Story pointed that out in 1833:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The problem is that the protection intended is no longer needed.
And trying to somehow “modernise” it has met with resounding failure.
This is a matter of public safety, not something that should be a subject for political machinations, which is the real perversion of the Second Amendment.
Anyway, I am being the resource I want to be and people I respect pay attention to what I say. The ultimate thing is that the facts are getting out despite the attempts to silence us.
As for Mike the Gun Guy and Amanda Gailey, they couldn’t give a shit about your opinions either. In fact, they have been laughing at you.
And I also don’t value your opinions.
I wish more people would ignore you.
 “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons”–Robertson v. Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897) at 282
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
 yeah. yeah. I know you want to barrage me with your bullshit, but that’s all asked and answered. Besides, I’m not out to persuade you of anything–I already know you are someone who doesn’t think. If you really want to have a response from me, go read this. It’s generic, but it makes the point.
 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§1890 (1833). See also, Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I, Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth, PART I Of the Expence of Defence particularly v.1.26-7.
Excellent article on how firearms technology enables mass killing which takes it beyond the “cosmetic features” talk. I strongly suggest that anyone involved in this issue read this article.
The Physics Of Mass Killing.
One trivial criticism the P228 comes with a 13 round magazine, but accepts larger.
Take an old movie serial, add a new voice over by the Firesign Theatre and you have some very funny stuff. In this case, the gun loon’s nightmare: Big Brother’s henchmen come for the last handgun on earth.
“To think people used to sleep with these things under their pillows.”
Prof. Simon Chapman’s Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control – Australia’s last gun massacre is now a free E-book and available at the following link:
I strongly suggest that anyone who is involved in the US gun violence/gun control movement read this book. Australia’s political climate surrounding this issue at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre was eerily similar to that of the US, yet the Australians were able to cut through the non-sense and enact serious and effective gun control laws.
This is a valuable lesson for people who want to see similar laws in the US.
This book is really about the workings of the media, the use of lobbying, and the skills of advocacy. So pick a day when you are tired of dealing with the aftermath of ignored public health issues and read this ripping yarn, arm yourself with the tools it offers, and be ready to go into battle.
And there is yet another mass shooting in the US. ‘Seven killed’ in Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting!
Maybe gun control won’t stop mass killings, but not having gun control definitely doesn’t stop them! In fact, looking at the past 230 odd years of the US being an indepndent country, we have seen that it is a highly violent and blood thirsty country.
WhoWhatWhy has an interesting piece about mass shootings:
One of the most striking things about shooting incidents in America…is how common they are. Another striking thing is how often the media fails to note the previous point, or to explore what that means—or what might be done about it.
Late last night, a gunman walked into a movie theater in a Denver suburb, killed 12 and injured 50. Two days earlier a gunman opened fire outside a bar in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in an incident in which at least 17 were hurt. These were not really so exceptional. Every year, about 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence, and every week, people calmly enter our schools, our workplaces, our leisure gathering spots and open fire on innocent bystanders.
Whenever we tweet or post about these, often the only people we hear from are those who say we need more guns not less. “If I had been there with my gun….” The problem, of course, is the public at large is being asked to arm everyone and trust that, while the rest of us cower, “the right people” will quickly dispatch “the wrong people” in the modern equivalent of the Shootout at the OK Corral. No mention of whether the teacher is supposed to be armed…when a nut walks into a preschool and starts firing away.
Given that there have been 125 Mass Killings since Columbine, you think some serious solutions would be mentioned, yet it seems that there is the consistent response of inaction, or worse, the loosening of restrictions which make it easier for these incidents to happen.
Unfortunately, a realistic discussion of this aspect of US life never happens while the bodycount keeps rising. Instead, we keep hearing that the US needs more guns, but that is the cause of the problem.
This is a graphic of the gear that, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter had on him during his shooting spree:
This graphic can be found at: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/25/graphic-james-holmes-was-a-man-with-a-plan/
If you consider that at least three of the last big mass shooting incidents were done by someone who bought his gun LEGALLY (Virginia Tech’s Seung-Hui Cho, Tucson’s Jared Laughner, and Aurora’s James Holmes), you would think that some alarms would be going off in people’s heads in the US. Yet, the usual reaction of “oh, there’s nothing that can be done about this sort of thing” is once again to be heard.
Sure, there will be some people talking about actually doing something about firearms, but it will once again go quiet once all the outrage dies out. That is quite a difference from how these incidents are handled in other parts of the world–especially one’s that share a heritage with the US. Hugerford saw a tightening of UK gun laws, Dunblane led to pretty much all handguns being taken from private possession in the UK, And The Port Arthur incident saw Australia’s gun laws tighten up intensely in less than a year. But, the US averages 20 mass shootings a year. The Brady Campaign has a tally of these since 2005.
Mother Jones has an interactive map of mass shootings in the US since 1982. Some estimate the figure to have been 125 Mass Killings since Columbine: I don’tthink the number is that low. Mother Jones found that out of the 132 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and high-powered handguns. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to massacre students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. Mother Jones also found that half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (11 and 17, respectively); the other 28 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Only one of the killers was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.)
Of course, that is a limited guide to mass shootings since very few people have an accurate grasp on how much firearms harm society, and that’s the way the gun lobby would like it. Like the climate denial crowd, they want to flood the marketplace of ideas with shit science. The fact that the NRA is so terrified of correct and accurate numbers being collected that they obstruct any legislative attempt to do so is as clear a red flag that they know an informed public will not follow, support or agree with them as you could ask for as an indicator of a serious problem. But, like climate change, the truth is out there (I give a pitch for this blog) if one is willing to sift through an internet filled with loads of bullshit.
Fact is, the carnage has been going on at least since the 1978, but probably much longer, yet no one wants to do anything about it. There is too much fantasy out there about people being able to outshoot the gunman, which is total crap in this case since they would have had to do it through a haze of tear gas. Unfortunately, it is the fantasy which will win out in all this as it always has seemed to have done in recent years.
But, as the graphic says: “By looking closely at Holmes’ ammunition and equipment, it becomes clear the attack at the movie theatre could have been much worse.” The question is when will it be so bad that people in the US will finally feel some outrage at the carnage happening around them and say enough?