Quote of the day—Viscount Halifax

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.

Viscount Halifax
Referring Winston Churchill’s speech in the movie The Darkest Hour.
[For Valentine’s Day Barb and went to this movie (she chose it). It is a very good movie.

Mobilize the English language and send it into battle. This what gun owners need to do. It is either that or face our own darkest hour and/or a bloody war.

I have often thought something like that is what I was doing. I try look at things, change the point of view, and articulate a vision which makes obvious we have the high moral high ground, we should always attack, and we must always make our enemies defend.

But I had never articulated it even one tenth as clearly and succinctly as Halifax did in the movie. The movie inspired me. Henceforth, I will make better use of words. If these words are properly crafted into powerful weapons of war we can win the battles needed to defeat the forces of evil in this country and avoid a war of bullets and blood.—Joe]

Overheard at work

Boss Lady: I used to run explosives through the TSA.

My ears went up and I listened in as she was telling a co-worker about going through the TSA a few days ago. It turns out that she used to work for Homeland Security and one of her jobs was to test the TSA. This time she wasn’t working for Homeland Security and her pre-check card had just expired (it was her birthday). The people at SeaTac TSA remembered her.

She got “special treatment” even without the pre-check card. It just wasn’t the kind of “special” she was expecting.

Exercise of rights at a minimum

This is very telling:

Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.

What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:

  • Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
  • Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
  • Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
  • Keep people of color from voting at a minimum

There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.

Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
The Art of the Rifle Page 1.
[A “monarch of all he surveys” must cause a tremendous amount of anger in the authoritarian and collectivist. The possession of, and skill to use, a rifle makes an individual something much more than a peasant to be controlled. It gives them an opportunity to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property, and to have a say in their own destiny. This is part of Why Boomershoot.

Furthermore, the existence of Boomershoot gives people justification to acquire a rifle and skills to realize “the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?

                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count




   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%






   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%






   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%






   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%






   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%


                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642


6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count



   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%





   clip_image004[6]   95.7%





   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642

7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count





   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%









   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%









   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%





                                                                                                            answered question              14,642


11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?









   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%









   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%









   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%





                                                                                                                    answered question



19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?







Yes, without question and without further









only law enforcement officers should carry



   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%









   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%





                                                                                                                    answered question


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether


   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%



Casualties would likely have been reduced


   clip_image004[6]     80.0%



There would have been no difference in outcome


   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%



An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives


   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%



Unsure or prefer not to answer


   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%



                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count


Very Favorable



   clip_image002                                           48.8%






   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%






   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%






Very unfavorable



   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%









   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%



                                                                                                          answered question              14,349


15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count


Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort



   clip_image012                                         44.9%






Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction



   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%



Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation



   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%



Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation



   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%









   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%





                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.

Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

We don’t need any opinion from the ATF to tell us what “shall not be infringed” means. It means, among other things, there should be no ATF.  We don’t have a Bureau of Speech and Thought Control because that would be as unconstitutional as the ATF. Every day that agency exists is another day the federal government violates the Constitution.

Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus Gun Owners of American
December 29, 2017
Gun Owners of America: Stop Funding the ATF and They’ll Leave Our Bump Stocks Alone
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

A handful of effective assassinations a year would make the Ruling Class aware that the ultimate democratizer is death, and that the constituents they claim to represent expect results, or preferably, inaction, to endless blather followed by pointless regulation and jackbootery.

Michael Z. Williamson
December 26, 2017
Why America Needs More Violence
[I prefer trials, but one of the more persuasive counter arguments is that those of the Ruling Class are not going to subject themselves to a trial when they know everyone is guilty.—Joe]

Quote of the day—DebateChallenge

If you care about saving lives than you should crack down on cigarettes. Cigarettes cause about 480,000 deaths per year, there are far more deaths by cigarettes than there are deaths by guns. And of those 480,000 deaths, about 41,000 of them are from secondhand smoke. So just secondhand smoke alone causes about as much, if not more, deaths than guns.

December 17, 2017
Comment to Should Hawaii become the model for nationwide gun-control?
[Good point. One could debate the numbers of deaths correctly attributed to secondhand smoke, but those who are anti-gun (control freaks) tend to be the same type of people who want to claim secondhand smoke is a serious threat as well.

While I think one can make a freedom/liberty case for unrestricted recreation drugs for consenting adults, including tobacco and alcohol, they aren’t a specific enumerated right and the push back against restrictions would have less constitutional standing.

So, when someone want to ban guns (such as “assault weapons”) “for the children” you can point out that if they really wanted to “save the children” they should be an advocate for banning tobacco instead of guns. They would have a much higher potential pay off with less constitutional resistance.

We all know it’s not about saving lives and if you point out their misdirected concerns they will come up with some rationalization to remain fixated on guns. But you can hammer them with their lack of logic and make it clear to everyone “in the room” the motivation for this person is not “saving lives”. It’s about control of people who would own guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Walder

When your proposals never would have stopped the massacre that inspired the proposal, it makes it very clear that the proposals are not made in good faith. As we’ve seen, the problem lies not with the private sale exception, but with the fact that the NICS checks are not particularly effective. Fix that before you start passing unenforceable laws that require drug dealers to run background checks on other drug dealers.

Jonathan Walder
December 14, 2017
[“Fix that”? I don’t think it is fixable. Well, maybe getting rid of NICS and spending the money on something more productive might be considered a “fix”.

Prosecuting violent criminals would seem to be a good alternative.—Joe]

Quote of the day—C.S. Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C.S. Lewis
God in the Dock
[See also this more recent and on topic interpretation.

This is the essence of most of those who demands we give up our guns. Don’t ever forget they think of us as infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals and they demand to control us. For our own good.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gary North

When Deng Xiaoping inaugurated an agricultural reform in 1979 which relied heavily on private ownership, he launched the most impressive period of economic growth that any large country has ever experienced. But that ended socialist economic planning. When, on December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev announced that the Soviet Union was going out of business, that ended the lure of socialism among the intellectuals. They had always clung to socialism because they expected that their class would exercise power in a socialist regime. When it became clear that the Soviet Union was too feeble to impose its will on the Russian masses, that was the end of their infatuation with Communism and socialism. It was always about power. It was never about the logic of socialism.

So, in this month, the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution in Russia, we can rejoice in the fact that socialism is dead. From a theoretical standpoint, it was never alive. It was a corpse from day one. It was sustained by rhetoric, not logic.

Gary North
October 12, 2017
Why Socialism Is Dead
[Just because it is, and always was, dead doesn’t mean that there aren’t large numbers of people worshiping it and demanding, upon the pain of death to non believers, that others worship it as well. The Second Amendment helps guarantee you can exercise your First Amendment right to freedom of, or from, religion.—Joe]

When will this boil over?

Alien, in the comments to today’s QOTD asks :

I’m curious … at what point do you think this boils over into real activity which must be accommodated?

For all practical purposes we know the answer to this.

In September 1994 with a Democrat controlled congress, senate, and presidency they passed the “Assault Weapon Ban”. Even though they knew it would do little or nothing for public safety it was important for reasons they “dare not enunciate”. There was much rejoicing and they almost immediately boldly announced the next step and began to push their bill (actual bill is here for safekeeping) which had actually been written months earlier.

It included “arsenal” licensing, licensing of all handgun buyers, registration of all handguns, oppressive taxes on handguns and ammunition, maximum magazine capacity of six rounds, and more.

David Kopel explained the handgun licensing scheme:

Every handgun buyer would be required to obtain a state handgun license. The license would be good for no more than two years. No-one could obtain a license without passing a state-controlled “safety” course. The fees for the license and the safety course would have no limits. The fees could be set far in excess of the state cost of providing the license and the course; instead, the fees could a source of general revenue.

Nothing would prevent licensing authorities from taking months or years to issue a license. And nothing would prevent the authorities from making the “safety” test so rigorous that almost no-one except an expert shooter could pass.

That an applicant had been shooting handguns for 50 years, or was an NRA certified safety instructor, or a proficient competitive target shooter would not exempt him from the requirement to pay for the government “safety” class.

Every handgun transfer (including one’s adult son an old revolver) would be subject to these restrictions. In addition, every handgun transferred would have to be registered by make and serial number.

Of course the point of the registration was for the confiscation which was to follow (see Pete Shields, chair of Handgun Control International—now The Brady Campaign, in 1976).

An “arsenal” was 20 “guns” or 1000 rounds of ammunition. But a “gun” was defined as any part of the gun, such as a magazine, spare springs, and screws. So your handgun with three magazines, two spare recoil springs, two spare magazine springs, and the original set of grip panels would count as 10 “guns”. Your two bricks of .22 ammo, alone, would require an “arsenal” license. An arsenal license would require:

a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Her home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

So, the answer to the question is, it “boils over into real activity” the instant they have the political power.

Quote of the day—Alcibiades Anon

Sociopaths will inherit the earth.  We are built for the chaos to come.  We are built to benefit and thrive in this new land of opportunity.  We must begin to raise our brothers and sisters through the ranks and teach them to function.  The Trickster’s Path can help those that need to find their way.  There are other sources, other ways.  We must find the way forward.  We must be placed to take the power that is ours by right.  The flies have ruined our world, ruined our societies.  It is time a new people take dominance.

We must be the guiding light, and iron rod.  Many of us are in positions of power already, we must unite under our own flag.  Emotions and fear have ruled this world for too long already.  It is time for the hyper-rational to take their turn.  In the chaos that will come we must lead.  We must be the spiders placing ourselves in the darkness for our prey.  We must spin our webs, and make our plans.  If we wish to truly dance in the ashes of “civilization” we must be ready.

Alcibiades Anon
July 5, 2017
We Must Prepare for the Chaos and Violence to come
[Be careful what you wish for. This applies to empaths, sociopaths, conservatives, progressives, libertarians, everyone. There are many political factions and none appear to have a majority of power. If the rule of law breaks down too far then who and what emerges from the ashes may be something quite different than you imagined, or even could have, imagined.—Joe]


The political left tends to call anyone who disagrees with them lunatics. As Lyle points out, in some cases it’s about perception. When I’m in a mellow mood I give them a pass on being stupid, ignorant and/or evil. Maybe they just can’t see things from my point of view.

Then there cases like this (via a Tweet from Michael Z Williamson) regarding protestors who are blocking railroad tracks in Olympia Washington:

“There is reason to suspect that the blockade protesters are neither interested in negotiating nor in an amicable resolution that would result in removing the blockade without force.”

A protester who signed in with the name Franz spoke during the meeting’s public comment period, and read the protesters’ list of demands.

The demands, also sent to The Olympian in a press release, are for:

▪ The Port of Olympia to cease all fossil fuel and military infrastructure shipments.

▪ Democratic control of the Port of Olympia by the community as a whole.

▪ A just transition for port and rail workers to good, green jobs, and for the economy of Thurston County as a whole to transition to a cooperative, fair and sustainable economy.

Franz asked the City Council not to order another violent attack on protesters, referencing police involvement in removing last year’s blockade.

Reed Wing also spoke during public comment. He pulled a fluorescent green hat over his face and identified himself as a Martian sent to Earth to speak out in favor of the blockade.

“I come from the representative of the United Federation of Mars, an ecological and utopian society where we have abolished fossil fuels, police, and the exploitation of one Martian by another,” Wing said.

I think “Reed Wing” is deliberately misdirecting people from his actual origin. The available evidence indicates he is actually from Luna.

When the political left calls their opponents lunatics it’s a textbook case of projection.

Quote of the day—David Kopel

Germany in 1900 was one of the most tolerant places in the world for Jews; in any country, things can change a lot in a few decades.

Not every nation that adopts the latter policy ends up with genocide. Yet the historical record is clear that mass disarmament of citizens can be the gateway to millions of deaths by mass shooting.

David Kopel
November 9, 2017
Mass shootings in gun-free nations
[See also, Hitler’s Willing Executioners and Death by “Gun Control”: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.—Joe]

Happy International Men’s Day!

As a happy non-feminist, I wish everyone a merry International Men’s Day!

Men: You’re not disposable. Your voices matter. Your lives matter.

Here’s a suggested documentary, to celebrate the day: The Red Pill: A Feminist’s Journey into the Men’s Rights Movement.

Buy/rent/stream details are here.

National Coalition for Men

Frame of reference

On Twitter:

Donald Arant‏ @darant3 Replying to @NRATV @MrColionNoir

More poisonous gun rhetoric and PROPAGANDA! Since you brought up the idea of the evolution of guns…let’s allow all Americans the right to own tanks?

Many other people pointed out that it is entirely legal to own tanks. Expensive, but legal. I thought I could help in a different way. His frame of reference is totally messed up.

So this was my reply:

I think I see the problem here. You believe the government LETS people do things. It’s the other way around. The U.S. Constitution, written by “We the people”, granted the government certain powers. It didn’t grant them powers to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

He has probably been stuck in his alternate reality for so long that I’m not sure he will be able to comprehend things as they really are. But, it was worth a shot.