Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

20 February 2013

Gun Control: Well, The Trouble With Our Gun-Grabbing 'Friends' Is Not That They Are Ignorant, But That They Know So Much That Isn’t So.

“50% of homicides are guns. Low hanging fruit. 70% of suicides as well.”

So, you think that banning guns will lower the suicide rate, eh?

OK, then explain this:

Japan has some of the most draconian gun control laws on the planet. In 1958, the country passed the following law:

“No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.”

Japanese suicide rate: 21.9 per 100,000 persons (2009).

In 2009, there were 32,845 suicides in Japan, which had a population of 127,078,679.

US suicide rate: 12.0 per 100,000 persons (2009)

In 2009, there were 36,909 suicides in the US, which had a population of 306,770,000.

So, what are the preferred methods of suicide in Japan?

Jumping in front of trains, leaping off high places, hanging, self-cutting, and overdosing on medication.

I guess Japan needs to ban trains, high places, rope/belts/sheets/etc, knives, and medication.

"Suicide won't stop, it just gets harder. Murder won't stop, it just gets harder. We call that Logic."

- Banjo Bob, the gun-grabber

Evidently, it isn't too hard in Japan WHERE ALL GUNS ARE BANNED.

Our population is 2.41 times that of Japan; yet, we only had 4,064 more suicides in 2009 (the last year of numbers for Japan).

Gee, I guess we can look forward to 88,951 suicides every year. Yeah, let's be just like Japan!!!

PS: You keep using that word "logic," but I do not believe it means what you think it means.

"Japan has a tradition of suicide and we don't. Educate yourself."
 - Banjo Bob, the gun-grabber

1. Belarus:  73.6 suicides per 100,000 people

2. Lithuania:  63.7 suicides per 100,000 people

3. Russian Federation:  63.4 suicides per 100,000 people

4. Sri Lanka:  61.4 suicides per 100,000 people

5. Kazakhstan:  55.2 suicides per 100,000 people

6. Hungary:  53.5 suicides per 100,000 people

7. Japan:  49.5 suicides per 100,000 people

8. Ukraine:  47.9 suicides per 100,000 people

9. Guyana:  45.4 suicides per 100,000 people

10. South Korea:  43.7 suicides per 100,000 people

Their gun control laws:

BELARUS: The regulation of guns in Belarus is categorised as restrictive. Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited. Only licenced gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition. Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Belarus are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting. An applicant for a firearm licence in Belarus must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental and domestic violence records.

LITHUANIA:  Much stronger gun laws than the US.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: No handguns, no full-auto, shotguns and rifles available, but you need a licence to buy and keep them.

SRI LANKA: Full registration and only licenced gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition. All guns and ammo must be marked and is tracked. Firearm and ammunition imports are limited by transfer control law.

KAZAKHSTAN:  Civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms.  Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited.  Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.  An applicant for a firearm licence in Kazakhstan must pass background checks which consider medical (including mental) and criminal records.  All licences must be renewed every 5 years. 

HUNGARY:  Civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, firearms disguised as other objects, and armour-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition.  Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and semi-automatic assault weapons are permitted only with special authorisation. 

JAPAN:  ALL guns are prohibited.   Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licencing procedure.  Without a licence, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands. 

UKRAINE:  Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence.  Carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is allowed, subject to a valid permit.  Applicants for a gun owner’s licence are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security.  An applicant for a firearm licence in Ukraine must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental and domestic violence records.  A record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm must be retained in an official register. 

GUYANA:  Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited.  Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and semi-automatic assault weapons are permitted under licence.   Only licenced owners can possess any type of gun.  Applicants for a gun owner’s licence are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security; pass background checks which consider criminal and mental records; are permitted to possess 1 firearm per person; and, are permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition. 

SOUTH KOREA:  The regulation of guns in South Korea is categorised as restrictive.  Private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence, except for collection.  Only licenced gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.  They must prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, personal protection, security; pass background checks which consider criminal and mental records; and must register the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm with an official register. 

ALL 10 of the countries with the highest suicide rates have much more restrictive gun laws than the US.

"You can't carry in every state.  Not in Utah, kid."


Do you EVER research a subject before you opine?  Utah is a SHALL ISSUE state.

In 2011, there were:

4 UNRESTRICTED: Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont.

37 SHALL Issue: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

8 MAY Issue: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

1 NO Issue: Illinois. (Illinois' ban has just been struck down a Federal appellate court.) 

"The Second amendment only allows people to own guns, not to carry them."

- BanjoBob


You're so cute.  Let's hear from the Supreme Court on whether the Second Amendment allows individuals to carry or only own, 'K?

"If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”)...Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The phrase "carries a firearm" in the firearms chapter of the Federal Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1), is to be "broadly interpreted to encompass not only when a suspect is carrying a firearm on his person but also when the firearm is in either the trunk or locked glove compartment of the vehicle the suspect is driving," Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998).

“[S]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person,'" Justice Ginsburg in Muscarello.
So, your "own not carry" assertion is wrong. 100%. 

 "If guns could stop rapes, then we wouldn't have any."

- BanjoBob

If rape whistles, urination, bloody tampons, vomiting, judo, the buddy system, ballpoint pens worked, then 25% of college women wouldn't report that they have been sexually assaulted...primarily, on campuses, which are gun-free zones.

UK (England and Scotland only) estimated forcible rapes:  78,000 in a population of 56,075,912

US estimated forcible rapes:   83,425 in a population of 311,591,917

Source:  FBI's annual report, Crime in the United States, 2011, & the UK Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Office for National Statistics.

Guess which country has adopted the "Just lay back, spread your legs, and take one for the gun control team" model?

"Depends on the victim. There really is such a thing as asking for it you know.  Also, not all rapes are rape-rapes.  NOW know it all too well. It screws there dogma up good." 

 - Banjo Bob, who says it's okay for rapists to blame their victims

If Whoopi Goldberg and Todd Akin ever had a baby, Banjo Bob would be it.


"The tyranny nonsense is a product of paranoid delusions of radicals on either side depending on who’s in charge, significantly more expressed on the right though.  With the systems we have in place it just can not happen."

- Banjo Bob

That's what many of the colonists said about guns and King George III.

That's what freemen said after the Civil War.

That's what many Jews said in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

That's what people in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Cuba said in the 20th century and they are still saying it in North Korea, China and Cuba.

That's what many people said in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

That's what people said in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere and still do. 

That's what business owners and others said in Los Angeles before the Rodney King riots.

That's what people in New Orleans said before Hurricane Katrina.

Do you remember a leftist named Larry Johnson, who worked at the CIA. 3 months before the original 9/11, he wrote an op-ed piece for the NY Times.

(h/t Del)

It was called “The Declining Terrorist Threat.”

"Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. 


Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.”

Did your toy shovel come with a booklet?  If so, please see the chapter called "The Rule of Holes." 

"The founders never imagined 'assault weapons.'  The second amendment only permits the guns that were in existence when it was written, like muskets."

- BanjoBob

From District of Columbia v Heller:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation.  This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else."

"The second amendment only applies to state militias and we don't even have those any more."

 - Banjo Bob

Let's return to the Supreme Court:

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons, who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community,” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990).

"The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." 

"Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset," District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

So, you're wrong....AGAIN.

 "White people want their guns so that they can oppress minorities."

- Banjo BBBoob

From Justice Thomas’ concurrence in McDonald v Chicago:

“When read against this backdrop, the civil rights legislation adopted by the 39th Congress in 1866 further sup-ports this view. Between passing the Thirteenth Amendment—which outlawed slavery alone—and the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed two significant pieces of legislation. The first was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided that “all persons born in the United States” were “citizens of the United States” and that “such citizens, of every race and color, . . . shall have the same right” to, among other things, “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Ch. 31, §1, 14 Stat. 27.

Both proponents and opponents of this Act described it as providing the “privileges” of citizenship to freedmen, and defined those privileges to include constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. See 39th Cong. Globe 474 (remarks of Sen. Trumbull) (stating that the “the late slaveholding States” had enacted laws “depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen,” including “prohibit[ing] any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms” and stating that “[t]he purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations”); id., at 1266–1267 (remarks of Rep. Raymond) (opposing the Act, but recognizing that to“[m]ake a colored man a citizen of the United States ”would guarantee to him, inter alia, “a defined status . . . a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms”).

Another example of public understanding comes from United States Attorney Daniel Corbin’s statement in an 1871 Ku Klux Klan prosecution. Corbin cited Barron and declared:

“[T]he fourteenth amendment changes all that theory, and lays the same restriction upon the States that be-fore lay upon the Congress of the United States—that, as Congress heretofore could not interfere with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, now, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, the State cannot interfere with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the fourteenth amendment, under ‘privileges and immunities.’” Proceedings in the Ku Klux Trials at Columbia, S. C., in the United States Circuit Court, November Term, 1871, p. 147 (1872).

This evidence plainly shows that the ratifying public understood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Chief Justice Henry Lumpkin’s decision for the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), illustrates this view. In assessing state power to regulate firearm possession, Lumpkin wrote that he was “aware that it has been decided, that [the Second Amendment], like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States.” Id., at 250. But he still considered the right to keep and bear arms as “an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government,” and thus found the States bound to honor it. Ibid. Other state courts adopted similar positions with respect to the right to keep and bear arms and other enumerated rights.  Some courts even suggested that the protections in the Bill of Rights were legally enforceable against the States, Barron notwithstanding.   A prominent treatise of the era took the same position. W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 124–125 (2d ed. 1829) (reprint 2009) (arguing that certain of the first eight Amendments “appl[y] to the state legislatures” because those Amendments “form parts of the declared rights of the people, of which neither the state powers nor those of the Union can ever deprive them”); id., at 125−126 (describing the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” as “a restraint on both” Congress and the States); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 34) (describing Rawle’s treatise as “influential”). Certain abolitionist leaders adhered to this view as well. Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men ‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 98 (1860).

Please read the entirety of Justice Thomas' concurrence.  It is his finest hour and you are in desperate need of an education.

I leave you with Otis McDonald:


"Like the millions of law abiding gun owners in America, I am a peace loving person. I OWN FIREARMS SO THAT I CAN DEFEND MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, SHOULD THAT NEED ARISE. While I sincerely hope that I am never in the position of having to fire a gun in self defense, I rest easier at night knowing that I could stop an armed robber, racist attacker, terrorist, or home invader if the need arose. I also rest easier knowing that my wife could stop a rapist or murderer, rather than becoming a victim. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT GUN CONTROL LAWS DON’T STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS, AND INSTEAD ONLY DISARM THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, MAKING THEM EASIER TARGETS FOR THE CRIMINALS. Nor is it justifiable to deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self defense, just because criminals misuse guns, just as criminals misuse other tools...GIVEN THOSE FACTS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY FELLOW LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO DO NOT YET OWN A GUN TO DO THE FOLLOWING: GO SHOOTING FOR THE FIRST TIME, CHOOSE THE PROPER GUN FOR SELF DEFENSE, PURCHASE THAT GUN, STORE THE GUN IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER, AND BECOME PROFICIENT AT SAFELY USING THAT GUN. NEXT, JOIN THE NRA TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN FOR SELF DEFENSE. DOING SO MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE ONE DAY, AND CAN ALSO BENEFIT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE."

- Otis McDonald, former sharecropper, veteran, retired maintenance engineer, patriot, plaintiff in the landmark case Chicago v McDonald...and an African-American

"Assault weapons like the AR-15 are responsible for nearly all of the gun massacres."

- Banjo BBBob

To get an idea how ingrained this whole fraud about the AR-15 is, look at the places he cited and the weapons used:

Assault rifles were not used in the following:

1. Blacksburg: A .22-calibre Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun, and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.

2. Columbine: A 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action, Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine, shotgun, a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun.

3. Austin: A 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a .35 calibre pump rifle, a .30 calibre carbine, Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a 9mm Luger pistol, Smith & Wesson M19, .357 Magnum revolver, and a Galesi-Brescia .25-calibre pistol.

4. Tucson: A 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol.

5. Iowa City: A .38-calibre revolver.

6. Jonesboro: Two semi-automatic rifles, one bolt-action rifle and four handguns.

7. Chardon: A .22 calibre handgun

8. Red Lake: A .22 calibre pistol, .40 calibre Glock 23 pistol and a Remington 870 12 gauge pump-action shotgun

9. Springfield: A Ruger 10/22

10. Fullerton: A .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle.

11. Nickle Mines: A Springfield XD 9 mm handgun, a Browning BPS 12 gauge pump-action shotgun, and a Ruger M77 .30-06 bolt action rifle.

12. Sikh temple: A Springfield XD(M) semi-automatic pistol.

13. Kent State: Garand M1

“Assault weapons”/”assault rifle” – along with other weapons in some cases – used in:

1. Aurora: A a tear gas grenade, a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, and 2 Glock .22 handguns.

2. Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton: A Type 56 semi-automatic rifle and Taurus PT92 9mm pistol.

3. San Diego McDonalds: An Uzi carbine, a Browning HP, and a 12-gauge Winchester 1200.

4. Clackamas: An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

5. Newtown: An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

For all of this focus on the AR-15, undoubtedly driven by politicians and the media, the gun was used in only THREE of the incidents mass shootings:

1. Clackamas: A Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle

2. Newtown: A Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle

3.  Aurora:   A Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle

As a further aside, Jonesboro, Columbine, and Springfield happened when the last AWB was in effect.


No comments: