Billy Johnson on Second Amendment Usage Requirements by Dan Zimmerman | Jan 22, 2014 | 45 comments facebook twitter linkedin email In which Billy declares himself and unflinching, unreasonable gun rights advocate. Step off, gun grabbers! comments BillC says: January 22, 2014 at 13:06 BOOM, truthbomb. Reply PeterK says: January 22, 2014 at 13:43 Ah yeah. 🙂 That’s literally exactly the kind of thing I would post. Reply John L. says: January 22, 2014 at 13:20 Billy who? Reply NYC2AZ says: January 22, 2014 at 13:29 He started a Youtube channel last year. Made some really good videos and had almost 30k followers in a month. About 4 -6 months later, the NRA picked him up as one of their commentators. Check out his stuff: http://www.youtube.com/user/AmidsTheNoise/videos Reply Jus Bill says: January 22, 2014 at 15:31 So who’s Billy Johnson? Reply Pascal says: January 22, 2014 at 15:56 Someone who believes in the 2nd amendment and the constitution. What more than that do you need? He has many smart, reasoned, logical arguments and many of us who support gun rights like him. colby says: January 22, 2014 at 17:08 I believe that he is also president of this company. Boxer Tactical http://www.boxertactical.com/ Reply anonymous says: January 22, 2014 at 13:27 If it’s OK to s**t all over the rights of law abiding gun owners, because there’s “only” 45 million or 50 million or 100 million of us, then why should I give a crap about gay rights, which the ACLU and Democrat Party e-mails I get tell me is one of the most pressing issues of our times? Wikipedia: The demographics of sexual orientation, or gender identity, in the United States have changed positively since the Stonewall riots in 1969, which marked the modern LGBT rights movement…According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.8% of American adults identify themselves either as lesbian or gay (1.70%), bisexual (1.80%), or transgender (0.30%); which would correspond to approximately 9 million of adult Americans as of the 2010 Census. Wikipedia: The demographics of sexual orientation are difficult to establish for a variety of reasons….Homophobic settings may mean that some LGBT people may not openly identify as such, and open identification of one’s true sexual orientation may depend on the status of LGBT rights in a given location. Sorry, gays. I was a supporter of gay marriage, but I’ve got my own problems to worry about now. And I don’t remember you standing up for my rights. Reply anonymous says: January 22, 2014 at 13:41 And don’t get me started on the rights of the “only” 11 million illegal aliens in this country, compared to 50 million to 100 million gun owners. From: Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Action Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 Subject: 95% of Americans Agree We are all greatly saddened by the tragedy of the Boston bombings, from the loss of life and physical injuries to the emotional toll it has taken on the nation. That’s why it’s so troubling that some people are trying to draw a link between the tragedy in Boston and the issue of immigration reform. I don’t remember the ACLU sending me an e-mail fretting that “it’s so troubling that some people are trying to draw a link between the tragedy in Boston and the issue of tax protestors and gun-owner rights advocates“, or “it’s so troubling that some people are trying to draw a link between the tragedy in Newton and the issue of private firearms ownership“. Make no mistake: the gun-owner control movement is about marginalizing and disenfranchising a group of people that Democrats don’t like, and turning us all into “prohibited persons”. Reply anonymous says: January 22, 2014 at 14:03 There are about “only” 1 million abortions per year in America, or 50 million total from 1970 – 2010. There are over 5 million gun sales per year (2010 and 2011) to over 10 million gun sales per year (2011 and 2012). And if the anti-gunners’ claim that 40% of sales are private transfers is correct, then those numbers are even higher. I’m all for unenumerated rights. But why are the same people who think that Roe v Wade is the foundation of the Constitution, who oppose any regulation of abortion clinics, are so willing to s**t over something that — unlike abortion — is explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. If abortion were as strictly regulated as guns, or even if abortion were as strictly regulated as it is in Europe, the ACLU and Democrats would be rioting in the streets. I no longer give a crap if every abortion clinic in this country is shut down. I’ve got my own problems to worry about now. Reply Sab says: January 22, 2014 at 15:34 I happen to be a homosexual, and a gun owner. I stand up and fight for the rights of all people, and that includes you. I’d appreciate it if you returned the favor, Anonymous. Reply Ralph says: January 22, 2014 at 15:41 +1 Reply H.R. says: January 22, 2014 at 15:43 I support gay rights, or anyone else’s rights, any time I can. But on election day, if it comes down to a choice between rights that directly apply to me and rights that don’t, I’m gonna vote the way I have to vote. I don’t always like it, but until we can get more people on the left to understand and embrace the RKBA, it is what it is. Reply Pascal says: January 22, 2014 at 16:04 I will support you Sab and other gays as well. I will even support the Gay Republican in NH Dan Innis who is running for a house seat. But, many of us, myself included, will not support someone simply because they are gay. If they are against our rights, especially our gun rights, then it really does matter who you are. I and many others really do not care if you are Black, White, Asian, Gay or whatever have you for a label these days, but you must also support gun rights. It really is that simple. Reply Sab says: January 22, 2014 at 16:29 “But, many of us, myself included, will not support someone simply because they are gay.” I support others and fight to protect their rights not because they are gay, or black, or a gun-owner. I support them because they are human. You can’t put conditions on basic human rights. anonymous says: January 22, 2014 at 16:44 At the same time that Colorado Democrats were s**ting all over my rights, I got this e-mail from one of my U.S. Senators: From: Michael Bennet Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 Subject: Historic Colorado just made history. Both the state Senate and House have passed civil unions and now the bill is on its way to Governor Hickenlooper’s desk for his signature! This is a great day for equality and anyone who believes that, gay or straight, all couples want to be together for the same reasons. They want to make lifetime commitments to love and care for each other. The civil unions bill will give all Colorado families the legal and economic protections needed to care for one another and it will help build stronger communities. How are gun owners supposed to react, being told that “this is a great day”, when they had just been marginalized and disenfranchised, after being demonized for the previous three months? Colorado’s gun-owner control bills were signed on March 20 2013, and the civil unions bill was signed a day later. The Democrats alienated a lot of people who may have supported gay rights, or at least adopted a tolerant “live and let live” attitude. Right or wrong, gay rights and gun-owner control will now be associated together in the minds of a lot of Colorado gun owners for a long, long time. And there’s a lot more gun owners than there are gays. As for myself, I was in favor of gay marriage, but I wasn’t an active proponent, so my words are cheap. A lot of gun-owners believed that Democrats had given up on gun-owner control, and thought that we could stop being single-issue voters in 2010 and 2012. I will never make that mistake again. Gun-owner control is intensely personal, since guns are tangible. I think that discrimination against gays is morally wrong, but it honestly doesn’t affect me. December 05, 2013: The Colorado attorney general originally filed the discrimination charge against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, for refusing on Christian tenets to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake in 2012. The ACLU intervened to represent Craig and Mullins. December 07, 2013: Just two days after the owner of a Lakewood, Colo. bakery appeared in court to defend himself against charges that he that he discriminated against a gay couple last July when he refused to bake a cake for their wedding, a civil judge found the owner guilty of unlawful discrimination. … “Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins told KDVR Friday. “We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.” While we’re told it’s wrong to discriminate against gays, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against CCW permit holders — an extremely law-abiding group — as though we engage in some unacceptable deviant activity. This dichotomy is not lost on us. And the Democrats are still working to expand their brand of bigotry to college campuses; a form of discrimination that they admit has nothing to do with crime control: Claire Levy (Democrat-Boulder): “I don’t know how on Earth they can draw a causal relationship. I make no assertion that this bill either increase or reduce violent crime. That is not the premise of the bill.” So what is it? Do corporations — including state actors like the University of Colorado — have the right to discriminate, or not? It’s not just the end result of gun-owner control, the actual bans, that pisses me off. I was at the committee hearings, and saw the hatred and hypocrisy and ignorance and stupidity that went into those bills. To say that I hate Republicans is an understatement. But the Democrats hate me even more; I get it. If I have to vote for somebody who preaches hatred and intolerance and will throw gays under the bus to get my rights back, I’ll do it. I won’t like it, but I’ll do it. Reply Matt in FL says: January 22, 2014 at 17:07 I’m trying to wrap my head around the Cakeshop case. How the hell can that be illegal? How can the court tell a private business who they must do business with? colby says: January 22, 2014 at 17:16 Perhaps it is because this cake shop falls into the same category as restaurants/food services which might have more strict rules on who they can and cannot deny service to. I don’t really know the specifics of that specific business but it is my sense that people cannot be as easily prevented from buying food even if that food is a custom cake. *shrug* Jus Bill says: January 22, 2014 at 18:38 What’s really interesting is that the cake shop in question was subsequently driven out of business by “liberal” Progressives’ hate-filled actions and threats. Quite tolerant. And no, I have not and will not discriminate. Live and let live. Michael says: January 23, 2014 at 05:46 Your sexual orientation is your business. Gay rights don’t exist as a standalone right. I believe your human rights are covered. Marriage is recognized by the State and Church as union between a man and woman in order to benefit offspring from that union which benefits society. Homosexuality is not conducive for procreation therefore society has no obligation to support it. It is wrong to hate you, but perfectly reasonable to ignore you. Reply anonymous says: January 23, 2014 at 10:38 Marriage is recognized by the State and Church as union between a man and woman in order to benefit offspring from that union which benefits society. Homosexuality is not conducive for procreation So should having children be a requirement for marriage? Should people not be allowed to get married until they have kids, or agree to have kids as a condition of their marriage license? Maybe coupples should be taxed until they have kids (“Obamakid”). Or have their marriage license revoked if they don’t have kids within x number of years. What about gay couples that adopt? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to the adopted children, and society at large, if they were allowed to marry? I think so. And why is having children considered a benefit to society today? There are already too many people. Why do we want more? Maybe society should be encouraging more homosexuality! Personally, I think the idea of sex with a man is so disgusting that I have no idea how women put up with it. But that’s all another topic that should be discussed at The Truth About Gays forum… A-Rod says: January 23, 2014 at 11:43 My wife and I had two miscarriages. Does that mean our marriage during those years is null and void? Having children was never a condition of our love or our marriage. Some people get married for love, some for money, and some for just because they do not want to be alone. Given all those varying reasons for marriage if two gay adults want to get married it is okay with me. dlj95118 says: January 22, 2014 at 13:27 …he always manages to boil an issue down to the bare facts. Clear and concise. Well done, Sir. Reply JeffR says: January 22, 2014 at 13:29 Wow! A Billy Johnson sighting. It’d be nice if he made videos more than 3 times per year. Reply dlj95118 says: January 22, 2014 at 13:33 +1 Reply BDub says: January 22, 2014 at 13:50 Quality of quantity. I’ll take it. Reply DB says: January 22, 2014 at 13:30 Billy is spot on. Spot on. Let me just one more tidbit – the data he attacks has an additional flaw that is common to many other areas of social data analysis. It relates to household data, and the explosion in divorce rates over the last three or so decades. This distorts everything. Here is how it distorts economics: Husband and wife, he makes $75,000, she’s a homemaker. $75k household income. They divorce, she gets a job making $25,000. Now we have two households making an average of $50k. Multiply this across tens of millions of divorces and you seriously bring down the “household income” numbers. Same with guns. Husband and wife own a gun. One household, one gun. They divorce. Now, we have two households, one gun. Moral of the story, household data across the decades is flawed. Reply Matt in FL says: January 22, 2014 at 15:39 Good stuff. Reply Marcus Aurelius says: January 23, 2014 at 04:27 Thomas Sowell had insight on this. When you see “household income” you know that the statistic in question is meaningless, because what constitutes a household changes with time. But per-capita numbers will always be useful because one person is always one person. Reply Ross says: January 22, 2014 at 13:44 Amen. Reply Accur81 says: January 22, 2014 at 14:01 From my dealings of roughly 10,000 enforcement stops, I’d agree that less than 1/2 of 1 % have committed violent crimes against another person. I’d also agree that those who commit those crimes – Lanza, Holmes, Hassan, etc. – get about 95% of the mainstream media coverage regarding gun ownership and “sensible” gun regulation. The media and the left are horrifically distorted, and their claims that I am unreasonable for using firearms in a responsible manner is a source of constant (and tragic) amusement. Reply Ralph says: January 22, 2014 at 15:43 10,000 enforcement stops Dude, that many fines could support an entire Third World nation for a month. Or California for seven seconds. Reply Center Fire Cody says: January 22, 2014 at 14:47 Billy is an awesome speaker and a great guy! Reply LegitimateSportsmen says: January 22, 2014 at 15:08 He makes mention of the number of firearms used in crimes. But the FBI DOES release that information, although they kind of obfuscate it. But a little math reveals the truth, and you can understand why an anti-gun administration would want to hide it: “There were an estimated 386.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012, a rate that remained virtually unchanged when compared to the 2011 estimated rate. Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.6 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2012. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.2 percent of violent crime offenses; rape accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults.” (because they do not have firearm use figures for forcible rape I will leave it out, it is a small percent anyway) 386.9 violent crimes per 100,000 Aggravated assaults 62.6% of 386.9 = 242.2 Robbery 29.2% of 386.9 = 113.0 Murder 1.2% of 386.9 = 4.6 Firearms used in: Aggravated assaults 21.8% of 242.2 = 52.8 Robbery 41.0% of 113.0 = 46.3 Murder 69.3% of 4.6 = 3.2 Add those three, 52.8 + 46.3 + 3.2 = 102.3. 26.4% of violent crime. 102.3 per 100,000 = .1023% That’s right, the RATE of violent crime in which a firearm is used in this country is one tenth of one percent. The RATE of firearms ownership in this country is reportedly 34%-43% (depending on which survey you trust). That means that there is anywhere from 332 to 420 TIMES as many law-abiding guns as guns used in crime. That is assuming a unique gun was used in each and every crime AND that the surveys are not under reporting firearms ownership. Reply Jus Bill says: January 22, 2014 at 15:36 You know that firearms ownership is under-reported. That’s the reason that the current administration is so terrified disdainful of gun ownership. Reply LegitimateSportsmen says: January 22, 2014 at 16:00 Indeed, but it is impossible to say by how much, so we kind of have to stick to what IS reported and put the *asterisk* noting that it is most likely under reported. Reply Tom in Oregon says: January 22, 2014 at 15:15 Great stuff. I’ll keep watching him and emailing links. Reply A-Rod says: January 22, 2014 at 15:30 Okay, watch me make math work- this is hypothetical numbers but it shows declining percentage. Say in 1975 there were 100,000 households with 43,000 reporting gun ownership. That 43%. Say in 1980 the numbers of households rose to 150,000 and the number of reported gun owners is 52,000. That’s 34.6%. Say in 1985 there are now 200,000 households and 62,000 gun owners. That’s 31%. In 1990 say there are 250,000 households with 75,000 reported gunowners. That’s 30%. Over the course of 25 years it does look like ownership is on the decline but that is just as a percentage. Over time there is a gradual increase of owners. New guns have to be made and sold, as does ammo, gear, tools, targets, etc. That means more jobs, more commerce, and more happy trigger people (but not necessarily trigger happy people). Reply Jon in CO says: January 22, 2014 at 15:52 Perfectly put sir. Well done. Reply Nigil says: January 22, 2014 at 18:35 I will take your hypothesis one step further. In 1973, there were 211,908,788 people living in 69.859 million households (3.03 persons/household). With a household firearms ownership rate of 43%, that gives of 30,039,370 ‘gun’ households. In 2012, there were 313,873,685 people living in 115,226,802 households (2.72 persons/household). Assuming the lower number of 34%, that gives 39,177,112 ‘gun’ households. Using the above numbers, we find growth amounts to the following percentages: Population, +48%; Households, +65%; Gun owning households, +30%; Individuals living in a household with a gun, +17%. What this means is not that ownership has ‘declined’, merely that is has not kept pace with general population growth. The number is further deceiving, as the growth in the number of households has outpaced population growth significantly, meaning that the same number of households represents less of a percentage of the total. Sources: http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-096.pdf http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Enjoy your truth snacks. Reply mirgc says: January 22, 2014 at 16:51 Good video. Could do with a little less background music. Reply Paul G. says: January 22, 2014 at 19:02 Assuming that the data is reliable (lol), why are they so determined to “do something”. If they are really correct, given enough time, the “problem” will take care of itself, right? Gun ownership will go the way of the buggy whip, if they aren’t fudging the data. Reply Soccerchainsaw says: January 23, 2014 at 12:32 It occurred to me that there’s another aspect of his line of reasoning. To what degree are the percentages of gun owners low because of decades of efforts to demonize (legally & socially) all things “gun”? So first you pass laws that cause fewer people to exercise this right and then claim that this is no longer a right because so few exercise it? Talk about stacking the deck! Reply anonymous says: January 23, 2014 at 17:19 Abortions per year: 1 million * Gays: 9 million ********* Illegal Aliens: 11 million *********** African-Americans: 42 million ****************************************** Gun Owners: 45 million (low estimate, give or take) ********************************************* Hispanic / Latinos: 48 million ********************************************** Gun Owners: 45 million to 80 million + (give or take, estimates vary widely) ********************************************+*********************************** Reply Andy E says: April 14, 2014 at 21:45 Would those figures be off? Given that most gun owners tend to own multiple guns. Be it rifles, shotguns, or handguns. I know of households of two people whose gun safes cannot contain all they own. One couple in particular who have maybe 30 plus. Are the numbers taking in functional war relics, unregistered or antiques? I’m betting there are more out there than any number dictated or guessed/estimated. Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.