Quote of the day—Bill Whittle

And of all the promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a post-racial future. He and his progressive cohorts can never surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Ferguson is yet another example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage, creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters — that he and his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the dustbin of history of a healthy and racially healed nation.

Bill Whittle
August 20, 2014
[H/T to Kevin.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Organized thought of the day*

Regarding the “packing” of courts (with judges sympathetic to one’s cause), which has been in the news recently; our U.S. constitution, very specifically and strenuously, demands “court packing”. It demands that ALL judges, justices, politicians and law enforcement be committed to the American Founding Principles. It is designed specifically to be as“Unfair” as possible.

When we’re talking about “court packing” then, we must be very specific. Are we talking about packing the courts with people unwaveringly dedicated to liberty, or are we talking about packing courts with people who are open to the idea of coercion?

Historically, this country was already “done in” in that regard by the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration. By 1945 the destruction of America was generally embraced. By 1970 there was so little America left that hardly anyone remembered the difference. So this has been a long time coming, which is what Progressivism is all about.

*Poking fun at Joe’s recurring “Random thought of the day” post title (if one may have random thoughts, surely one might, potentially, on occasion, have organized ones).

Quote of the day—Rachel Lucas

Nor would it be different if “mothers” were suddenly put in charge.  I feel vicarious resentment of that claim because if I were a man with children, I’d really like to know just what in the hell makes Sally Field think women love their children more than men do.  Human nature is what it is, and we will fight over shit until we go extinct.  Even if the best mother EVER was Queen of the Planet, someone somewhere would still need to have their ass kicked, and she’d have to send somebody’s child to do it.

Rachel Lucas
September 17, 2007
If mothers ruled the world, there’d be no goddamn….lots of things
[H/T to Erik Onstott for the Facebook comment.

Continuing the almost theme from last week. It gives us more clarity on the issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rick McGinnis

There’s an article of faith on the left that the world would be a kinder, more humane place if it were run by women. Based on the leftist women I knew, the world they ruled would be a place you’d navigate by the mountains of skulls.

Rick McGinnis
August 29, 2014
Comment to Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[There is some evidence to support this hypotheses. For example the Weather Underground had many women it.

On a more personal note an admitted Marxist woman I used know was also heavily involved in the ecology movement. To the best of my knowledge she didn’t actually do it but she didn’t see problem in spiking trees even though it presented a life threatening danger to loggers and sawmill employees.

Another way to look at this is the differences in the behavior of females versus males of most mammals. The female is a much more vicious defender of their young than the male. Could those who view a strong government of their making as a “child” and transfer that same instinct of a vicious defense to defending their political creations?

And how about women who are strong advocates for gun control? Does this hypothesized trait explain why anti-gun women are so violent?—Joe]


From David Hardy in regards to how the FBI, in the Uniform Crime Report instructions, requires the local law enforcement define justified homicide in their own particular manner. Their definition significantly undercounts justified homicide as it is defined by conventional definitions:

The FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings “The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”

The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle — the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as “commission of a felony.”

The FBI explicitly states in the UCR Handbook:

Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

The coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, and court could unanimously agree it was a justified homicide and the FBI would still insist it not be included in the justified homicide stats.

I call that cheating.

Quote of the day—Malcolm Wallop

The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us ad our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.

Malcolm Wallop
March 8, 1997
1997 Conservative Political action Conference
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC.
[Via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.

Agreed, it is not an honest mistake. However, I’m not convinced that, in most cases, it is a deliberate act to enslave us or even increase our dependence upon the state. I believe that many of these people have various degrees of mental illness. Their own lives and thoughts are chaotic and they, probably unconsciously, seek out outside control/guidance. They view freedom as risky, unpredictable, and uncontrolled. They want the comforts of a strong, gentle, loving mother not realizing that government cannot be a mother substitute. As George Washington said:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

In times mostly past many of these people got their comfort and strong guidance from the church. That authority, when it reaches the level of a theocracy, has its own extreme hazards. The U.S. Constitutional principle of separation of church and state neutralized that particular threat in this country. But today many people have a faith based belief in the power of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and all loving government. This results in all the hazards of a theocracy because, for all intents and purposes, theirs is a religion based upon the worship of government.

For individuals to say they want the power, via the right to keep and bear arms, to defend against the government is akin to saying you want to challenge the gods. This is an unthinkable heresy to them and they want you punished.—Joe]

Refusing to enforce gun laws

Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.

That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.

Know which side your sheriff serves!

Calling it ‘Ignorance’ is being generous

I had thought it was well understood that one of the tactics of the anti rights movement has been to blur the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic firearms (the former being ultra-restricted and therefore ultra-expensive and prohibitive and the latter being widely available and affordable). Apparently I’ve been very wrong.

Coyness apparently remains one of the most successful ruses for the anti liberty movement, even today when we have so much information at our fingertips that ANYONE who cares enough to jiggle his fingers over a keyboard for a few seconds can learn just about anything that is known by anyone.

That proves that most of us in the pro-liberty camp still fail to understand what we’re up against.


It has been well-documented that anti-rights activists have spoken about, and organized efforts aimed at, confusing the issue of full verses semi auto, and yet we still would rather have fun pointing out the “stupidity” of people like Don Lemon. Well the joke’s on us, people.

More to the point though; if we were standing on principle, the distinction between full and semi wouldn’t matter. The Progressives have had most of us cowed for generations into accepting the NFA, and “defending” ourselves by accepting THEIR premise that, “Oh, well yeah– NO one wants machineguns ‘on the streets’! No-no-no-no!”

And so it’s an interesting play we’re in. The antis are using our own faults against us, by fooling people into making a distinction (which they’re trying to blur now) that only matters because they’ve been successful in fooling or intimidating us.

It’s the very definition of Progressivism. Get us comfortable with one outrage (in this case the NFA) and use that as a stepping stone to the next outrage (conflating semis with the already successfully demonized autos).

Far from calling Don Lemon an idiot or an ignoramus then, I’d say he’s pretty damned clever. So far he appears to have fooled 100% of the commenters on that Beck article.

MAIG bribery

To be more specific, Mayors Against Illegal Guns member Gordon Jenkins, a New York, Democratic Mayor, was arrested on bribery charges. Not just ““bribe receiving” but also “endangering the public health” and “intimidating a witness in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.”

A fine, upstanding bunch of folks those gun controllers mayor Bloomberg hangs with are.

Quote of the day—Doug Huffman

We were horrified, and rightly so, at Adolf Hitler’s solution to the problem. But we haven’t got a solution to the problem either.

Doug Huffman
August 16, 2014
[No. No any sort of mythical “Jewish problem.” The problem Doug was talking about was what to do with those people that are “unfit” to support themselves because they are too stupid, crazy, or lazy. In our society we are on track for an Idiocracy type “solution”.

Doug and I talked late into the night on this and other somewhat related topics.

The problem as I see it is that our ethics are appropriate for a tribe but they don’t scale to a population of a million people let along a population of 300+ million. When we see someone, children in particular, hungry or in need of care we help them even if they will never be able (or choose) to support themselves.

In a tribe of a 100 to 200 people everyone know everyone else and the peer pressure significantly reduces the freeloader problem. As soon as there is anonymity freeloaders become an essentially unsolvable problem. And with large numbers of people combined with a society in possession of advanced technology in the essentials of life it now becomes possible to support those that cannot support themselves as well as those who chose not support themselves.

And with that support of those who cannot and choose not to support themselves we end up, literally, breeding more of them. We are scared, perhaps even justifiably horrified, of the risks of the government assuming the power to mandate some people not be allowed to reproduce or to raise their children the way they see fit.

I see horrific outcomes in either of the two “solutions”.

There is at least one other potential solution. It is, as I see it, the least unpleasant of the available alternatives and as you might expect, the least likely path for our society to take.

That potential solution is for our Federal government to stay within it Constitutional bounds. If the individual states or counties or cities wanted to experiment with government welfare or “free healthcare” then those experiments could have run their course over the last 200+ years.

What I expect would have happened is with enough of these type of experiments being run that people would realize there are some people that we just have to let “nature take its course” with. We would have a lot fewer freeloaders. We would have a constant, but small, set of tragic cases of people that could not support themselves and could not convince family and/or friends to support them.

There would be heart wrenching cases and people would organize charities (Shriners, Elks Club, Eagles Club, Salvation Army, etc.). to help those for whom help was appropriate. The decision to help or “let nature take its course” would be done in more of a “tribe environment” for which our ethics were “designed” for.

I don’t see how our society can get from where we are now to the “least bad of the available options” without a lot of pain, suffering, and death. It’s like trying to solve a global optimization problem when the slopes of the sides of current local optimum are steep and high.

Nature is “going to take it’s course” with us. All of us. I’m certain many, perhaps even a large percentage of, people will survive the big “challenges” ahead. But I cannot predict if those challenges will send our descendants to the stone ages  or to a Star Trek universe. But one way or another this ethical problem will “resolve” itself if we don’t resolve it.

Nature is testing it’s own “solutions” right now. Ebola, economic instability, and even the immigration issue are in beta test now. They may not be released soon or even ever if people do the right thing. But if we don’t then full production of something awful is coming soon.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Media Matters and their leftist allies view this trend towards gun ownership in demographics that they once “owned” as a “gateway drug” towards classical liberalism, libertarian beliefs, or conservatism. They are fearful that if young liberals start following their peers into social shooting events at the new “guntry clubs” popping up around the nation, then the political shift towards anti-gun Marxism and socialism will not only be arrested, but reversed.

They know that firearm ownership is a gateway towards thinking as an individual and thinking more about individual rights, and this terrifies the anti-gun, collectivist left.

For them, fighting against the “new NRA” is more than fighting against gun ownership. It’s a fight for the very survival of a belief system that is starting to collapse under its own ponderous weight.

Bob Owens
August 6, 2014
Why the “New NRA” Terrifies the Political Left
[H/T to Sebastian.

While I believe it is true that gun ownership is a “gateway drug” toward classical liberalism I’m not sure the collectivist left is able to articulate their hatred that succinctly. I think it is more like, “Must hate because GUNS!”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

It’s a jungle, the consciousness of an orthodox Communist. It’s impossible-to make sense of it.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956. Page 347.
[And so it is with the progressives of today. They try to use a different name but they have the same crap for brains.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Peaceful gun owners should no more be punished for the acts of violent criminals than should present day progressives be punished for the acts of those that ran the gulags in the USSR. People who do not abuse theirs rights shall not have their rights infringed. That is the system of government we have.

Progressives advocate for collective rights and punishments. They should be careful what they ask for. Should they get their way they might not be happy paying the price for the tens of millions murdered in the pursuit of “progress” by their political brethren.

Quote of the day—GunFreeNJ

You gun loons are all the same, nothing but hot air….come elections, you’ll see that both the voters of CT will stand together with the voters of NJ, and come out on top, and finally be finished with people like you, and the NRA.

July 14, 2014
Comment to Conn. Gov. Molloy: Chris Christie missed chance to save lives
[And just how will the voters be “finished” with the “gun loons” and the NRA? Does that mean prisons? Reeducation camps? Death squads?

I would like to suggest that Mr. GunFreeNJ check his calculations again. There are five million NRA members and nearly 100 million gun owners in this country that consume several billion rounds of ammunition each year in practice. His plans to be “finished” with us could come with a very high price tag.—Joe]

Electronic Marques

Interesting idea. The US Constitution authorizes operations against pirates. Article 1,Section 8, Clause 10 “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

It also covers issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

Why not do the suddenly obvious and issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private corporations to go after international electronic pirates, foreign agents who are attacking our corporations and infrastructure electronically? Makes sense to me.

Quote of the day—Lothar

Anyone who objects to real background checks for ALL gun purchases is an IDIOT!

And, yes I own guns, and was a member of the NRA back in the 1950’s before it was taken over by survivalist unregulated white trash militia nuts.

July 7, 2014
Comment to Editorial: In competing gun measures — Yes, on I-594; No on I-591 Support universal background checks for all gun sales. Initiative 594 moves Washington ahead. Initiative 591 is on the ballot to inhibit progress.
[This is what they think of you. Don’t forget that. This is not “reasoned discourse” in the sense of polite company. These people regard you as a “white trash” idiot. And they think you need to be “regulated”. I know where this sort of contempt leads. I won’t be going there. It will be far better for everyone concerned if this initiative is soundly defeated at the polls.

I also find it “interesting” that the Seattle Times editorial board considers it “progress” to criminalize taking a new shooter to the range and letting them use my guns for a few minutes without a background check and transfer paperwork each time the gun changes hands. It also applies to my loaning a gun to friend for a few days even if the friend was in fear of her abusive ex carrying out his death threat. That’s “progress” from the “progressive” mindset.

This incredible burden on gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms is very similar to I-676 in 1997 (it required “a valid handgun safety license” instead of a background check) . We used that screw up against them in the campaign and defeated them (see also here). I would say these people just don’t learn, but to the best of my knowledge none of the high level people who were active in I-676 are involved in I-594. Many of our people are veterans of that fight.

But I’m nearly certain this fight will be tougher than the I-676 fight. We were able to outspend our I-676 opponents. This time Bloomberg can easily dump whatever it takes to outspend us. Our strengths will be tens of thousands of volunteers, the veteran leaders, and millions of gun owners who will come to the polls.

The last fight was nasty. Our people had yard signs stolen every night from their yards and signs on public property in the Seattle area had to be replaced every week. Even though this was against the law the anti-gun people openly encouraged people to removed them because they were “unsightly.” Cars with pro-gun bumper stickers were vandalized.

The anti-gun people lied to the media. The media nearly ignored our 3000 person rally and gave “equal coverage” to the four counter protesters. The media used video of our assembly line making materials for doorknob hangers with a voice over saying the anti-gun people were a grassroots organization.

This fight will be just as nasty. The quote above is just the tip of iceberg. Expect vandalism. Expect to be called terrible names and be accused of terrible things. These people do not regard you and I as worthy of politeness or respect. They want you “reeducated” or eliminated.

Remember the words of Charlton Heston, “It is evil, and we must defeat it.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Krupin

“The Gulag Archipelago” is not beach reading. (Although Solzhenitsyn’s searingly sarcastic style makes it anything but a dry collection of facts.) The evil that it obsessively documents is so dark that even reading about it is often difficult to bear. But anyone with pretentions of understanding the world we live in needs to go through it from first page to last.

But if you aren’t willing to make the effort, here’s the lesson boiled down for you: Totalitarianism doesn’t begin with a Stalin or a Hitler. It begins with *you*, on the day that you let a government become more powerful than the people it governs. Remember that or someday it might not be the Russians or the Jews or the Serbs that the men with guns come for. It just might be you…

Eric Krupin
June 13, 2001
Comment to Amazon’s listing of The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One).
[For many years I put off even considering these books because they were so massive. I couldn’t imagine the topic could be interesting enough to keep me going. I imagined it to be an exhaustingly long, dry, and difficult slog.

I was wrong. I was very wrong.

I’m not sure how Solzhenitsyn did it. I’m not sure I see it as “searingly sarcastic” although there is some of that. Maybe it’s that he didn’t do a chronological telling of his eight years in prison from his arrest, through interrogation, transport to the various prisons and labor camps and the conditions there. You get that in bits and pieces but you also get those same aspects from the perspective of numerous other survivors who were in different interrogation centers, on trains, and in different camps and prisons.

You learn about the economics of the slave labor. You learn how the edicts of production “norms” resulted in the falsification of records at the slave labor camp where raw materials were harvested (trees, clay for bricks, ore for metal, etc.), continuing through the transportation, storage and distribution facilities, and then finally having the nonexistent finished product “stolen” or “destroyed by weather”. At each stage the people responsible had strong incentives to continue the fraud and did.

The lies told for public relations were amazing. The canal built with hand labor in 30 months “without a single fatality”. There were 100,000 people who started on the project and there were 100,000 when they finished the project. Never mind the 250,000 replacements brought in during the course of the project.

Stalin wanted the canal built in 30 months and no one dared to fail in completing it on time. As in software on a tight schedule features were removed during the course of the project until they did meet the schedule. The canal was only 14 feet deep in places. Only the smallest of ships could traverse it and traffic was near zero when it was finished.

It is an amazing set of books and I agree with Krupin. Read them. And stop that from happening here.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads.

Michael Bloomberg
July 8, 2014
Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Afraid of the NRA
[The comment by Luvs2Brew addresses the facts better than anyone else I have seen so far:

First off the NRA did not initiate or even engage in these recalls until the very end. Many of us complained they were actually way late to the game. This was a grass roots recall by Coloradans who did not like the idea of our elected officials selling our rights out to out of state interests like Bloomberg.

Second, these recaps were not in rural areas where there were no roads. One was in Colorado Springs, home to the US Olympic Training Center, Cheyenne Mountain, the US Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. The other was in Pueblo which is just south of us on I-25. And yes we have roads, and airports and indoor plumbing. So Bloomberg is either completely out of touch, or just a flat out liar.

I’m going with “completely out of touch” and mind boggling arrogance by someone who is unable to stop himself from lying.—Joe]