What is AgitProp?

It’s short for “agitation propaganda”, sure, but what does that mean?

For a good definition, this should be in textbooks.

All such assertions (in this case the assertion is “We’re jittery and dysfunctional, so we need more gun restrictions”) depend on one false premise, which says, in effect;

Human rights are subject to revision based on circumstance.

If that premise is true, then we should yield to the moment, we appease and give in. “There there, you can have what you want if you’ll only STOP CRYING…”

If the premise is false then we STAND for what we know is right, not for the moment but for all time. We prevent the emotion-driven from making mistakes harmful to themselves and others. We do them the favor of correcting them. It’s what adults do when confronted with irrational behavior.

You all know, even you leftists know, that the premise is a false one. Human rights are not altered by circumstance, statistics, emotions of the moment, nor by the way, are right affected by weather.

Rather than argue circumstances then, we must learn to reject the premise that rights are subject to circumstances, bring some very needed reason into play, assert rights, name their origin and stand up, faithfully and consistently to defend rights for all time. Do it for the children (to play on an authoritarian mind trick*).

Do it for future generations. Otherwise we fall down that rat hole wherein someone’s implanted, overwhelming emotions have the power, all by themselves, to force you to relinquish your rights and appease the sleaze. (Hey, that’s a slogan; “Relinquish Your Rights and Appease the Sleaze….”)

That’s the end game for the Dark Side, and it almost always works.

Will it work this time? How many of you, within a matter of hours or days, started, in your minds, bargaining away bump stocks, for example? Then one after another, like robots…”Bargain away bump stocks, bargain away bump stocks…” It was like a plague that spread via the airwaves, from coast to coast, in a matter of hours.

Who really needs a bump stock, after all, right? Not me, but that’s not the point.

At all.

Don’t participate in the insanity of the appeasement of the insane. That’s how they get you, and you even end up thinking yourself smarter for it. How deliciously evil is that? You’re smarter than those confounded “extremists”;
“Why, if it weren’t for them, this thing could be handled delicately and properly, and we could deal, and everyone would win…”
You’ve heard it all before. Eventually you’ll be saying it more and more.

Here’s an idea; the crazy people, no matter how frightened or offended they on the left act, no matter how they kick and scream and hold their collective breath until they turn blue, and no matter how they threaten or accuse, they aren’t your masters. They’re just sad, angry, confused people with nothing else to offer but more sadness, anger and confusion. Don’t feed the trolls.

Offer reason to the irrational. It’s the only possible way to help them. Don’t be that parent at the supermarket who’s giving in to the three-year-old just to make him SHUT UP. You idiots.

Who’s in control, the parent or the three-year-old? It can go either way, and you’ve all seen it.

Don’t pretend like their crazy assertions (“I’m so scared…we need a gun law to make me feel better– You bastards!”) have any validity, or guess what? You just put the crazy people in control, and you’d have to be crazy to do that. But you do it anyway, then you bitch and carry on about how the inmates are running the asylum. Well no shit Sherlock; you put them in charge.

It happens in your personal life. That’s where it starts. You start out walking on eggshells at home, or at school, and you end up walking on eggshells politically, then before you know it you’re trying to make other people walk on eggshells. Same causes, same effects. The Progressives know when they’ve got to you, just like a shark smells the chum-of-appeasement you’re throwing in the water, just like a dog knows when he has you upset.

AgitProp. That’s what it means. That which arouses emotion in you owns you.

*“Nothing is too good for the children”, we are told. Like most everything the left touches however, the definition of that phrase, when uttered by a leftist, is its own opposite. It means;

“Nothing is too bad for the children.”

For the left, rights deprivation isn’t too bad for the children. Abortion isn’t too bad for the children (except in the sense, “Too bad, children!”), nor is grabbing power from the People, nor graft, nor violating the constitution, nor are coercion and wholesale confiscation too bad for the children. None of the horrible things done by communist regimes, past or present, have been too bad for the children, and if that’s the case (and the left has always had love affairs with communist regimes), then truly, nothing is too bad for the children.

I thought you should know that. Carry on.

Quote of the day—Derek Hunter

Imagine there has been a horrible case of child abuse in your neighborhood. A large family with 10 children had parents who brutally beat their kids, and two died. In reacting to that horrendous news, there’s a knock at your door. It’s your mayor and police chief.

“I understand you have two children in this house. Is that correct?” the mayor asks.

“Yes, that’s true. Why?” you reply.

“We’re going to need to see them, to inspect them to make sure they haven’t been subjected to abuse by you,” the chief says.

“Wait, what? You’re not going to inspect my children,” you respond.

“We are going to. And we’re going to monitor your kids from here on out, stopping by periodically to check on them, inspect their bodies for bruises and have them talk to a psychologist to make sure they aren’t being emotionally abused either,” the chief shoots back.

“What the hell gives you the right to do that?” you ask.

“After the horrible abuse that took place a few blocks away, we decided that we had to insert ourselves into the lives of all parents to prevent that from happening ever again,” the mayor says. “So we’ve passed a new law that says we can curtail parental rights for the greater good. Now go get your children.”

Derek Hunter
October 5, 2017
After Las Vegas, Democrats Send In The Clowns
[The sad/scary part of this is this that public education is a significant step in this direction and there are policies which show we are on this path.—Joe]

The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy

This is an interesting study:

The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy

There have been dozens of high-profile mass shootings in recent decades. This paper presents three main findings about the impact of mass shootings on gun policy. First, mass shootings evoke large policy responses. A single mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting. Second, mass shootings account for a small portion of all gun deaths, but have an outsized influence relative to other homicides. Our estimates suggest that the per-death impact of mass shootings on bills introduced is about 80 times as large as the impact of individual gun homicides in non-mass shooting incidents. Third, when looking at enacted laws, the impact of mass shootings depends on the party in power. A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75% in states with Republican controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.

I found this difficult to believe. Didn’t the elementary school shooting in Stockton California enable passage of the “assault weapon” ban in California? Didn’t the Newton Connecticut school shooting result in more restrictive laws in New York, Connecticut and Colorado?

I didn’t duplicate their math but I read their process details fairly closely. It sounds like they did a good job of accounting for various factors and categorization of legislative action and every other variable I could think of (and some I didn’t think of).

The bottom line appears to be that those increasing of firearms restrictions due to the mass shooting events I think of are statistical noise. This is interesting and timely because one hypothesis of the most recent mass shooting in Las Vegas is as follows:

It has been said that ‘the medium is the message’.

In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:

This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius.

Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about ‘guns’ the horror of the act itself – an act to protest such acts – is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put.

Also note that nearly all mass shooters are inclined to be Democrats. Most are way around the bend nuts, but was part of their nuttiness that they were trying to convey their message that guns were too dangerous for private citizens to have “because look at what I did?” If so, then widespread knowledge that gun laws tend to be relaxed as a result of mass shootings may tend to reduce the frequency of mass shootings.

Quote of the day—David Brooks

So why are lawmakers responding to mass killings by loosening gun laws? The wrong answer is that the N.R.A. is this maliciously powerful force that controls legislators through campaign dollars. In fact, the N.R.A. spends a minuscule amount on campaign contributions compared with the vast oceans of dough washing through our politics.

The reality is that in some places people want these laws. It’s true that individual gun control measures, like banning bump stocks, have popular support, but, over all, the gun rights people are winning the hearts and minds of America. In 2000, according to a Pew survey, only 29 percent of Americans supported more gun rights and 67 percent supported more gun control. By 2016, 52 percent of Americans supported more gun rights and only 46 percent supported more control.

Today we need another grand synthesis that can move us beyond the current divide, a synthesis that is neither redneck nor hipster but draws from both worlds to create a new social vision. Progress on guns will be possible when the culture war subsides, but not before.

David Brooks
October 6, 2017
Guns and the Soul of America
[For a New York Times opinion piece I found this to be very insightful. His view on “progress on guns” is much different than mine but I believe his words to be correct even if his intended meaning is 180 degrees from mine. We need to win the culture war.

Even in Brooks opinion piece there is evidence this is about a culture war rather than about the facts of gun ownership related to public safety, constitutional law, or philosophy:

This gigantic shift in public opinion hasn’t come about because the facts support the gun rights position. The research doesn’t overwhelmingly support either side. Gun control proposals don’t seriously impinge freedom; on the other hand, there’s not much evidence that they would prevent many attacks.

Even though he knows the evidence doesn’t support his goal of “progress on guns” he thinks it should be done anyway. Why?

It’s about control. He want a culture controlled by a central committee. We want a culture of liberty. We have to win this war. We should only compromise if it takes us a small step closer when we find we can’t make a large step closer to our goals.

Take new shooters to the range. It works. I just found out a couple days ago that new shooters Kurt and Tracie recently bought their first gun.

Guns are a “gateway drug” to liberty. Get them hooked.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dana Milbank

Consider Title XV of the sportsmen’s bill, also known as the “Hearing Protection Act,” which makes it easier for gun owners to buy silencers for their weapons. The uninformed might suspect that silencers are used by people who want to fire weapons without being caught by cops or observed by witnesses. But more and more hunters are finding that conventional earplugs and muffs are not adequate for today’s weapons — for example, quail hunting with an M777 howitzer or grouse hunting with an FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher.

Dana Milbank
September 11, 2017
The NRA’s idea of recreation: Assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets and silencers
[One might guess Milbank is so out of touch with reality that he believes the right to keep and bear arms is about recreation. And one also has to wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” he doesn’t understand.

But, just as likely is that Milbank does have at least a passing grasp of reality and knows he can’t put up a valid argument so he just goes straight to mocking.

We can make most of the stuff Milbank is “concerned” about in our garages with cheap metal working equipment and a trip to the local hardware store. These changes in the law are a mere recognition of reality. The existing law did nothing to improve public safety and made life more hazardous for good and gentle people who just want to be left alone. But to be left alone is asking too much from authoritarians like Milbank. So, I won’t be asking. I’m telling.

Molṑn labé, Dana.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

It is the triumph of Western democracy that philosophies are allowed to exist and propagate even if they are ultimate evil. It is the failure of Western democracy that we support this to a fault, of allowing Communists to breathe air needed by human beings.

Then we can get back to killing National Socialists and regular Socialists as well, since their difference is only one of path, not destination.

Michael Z. Williamson
September 21, 2017
We Still Need To Kill Commies For Mommy, And For The Children.
[I’m going to need more ammo.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sir Robert Peel

Sir Robert Peel’s Principles of Law Enforcement 1829

  1. The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.
  4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.
  5. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.
  8. The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.
  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Sir Robert Peel
1829

[H/T Windy Wilson.

Kevin Baker has been a big proponent of Peel as well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Clooney

Don’t you think the next Democrat who runs should just run with a blue hat that says, ‘Make America Great Again?’

George Clooney
September 24, 2017
Hillary Clinton blames many things for her loss. George Clooney blames her ‘frustrating’ speeches.
[The political left just doesn’t get it. Perhaps they can’t.

Read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. This book was recommended to me by Mike B. (Idaho friend, firearms instructor, and lobbyist for gun owner rights). I was impressed with the book as was daughter Jaime. It explains a great deal of the frustration on every side of political and religious debates.—Joe]

Quote of the day—José Niño

There is one elephant in the room that is largely ignored in the discussion of crime in Latin America: the stringent gun-control laws present in these countries.

While the previously mentioned factors cannot simply be discounted, the lack of coverage on Latin American gun control policy is rather alarming.

Countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela feature some of the most draconian gun control policies in the region. With crime rates at already high levels, gun control simply makes matters worse for law-abiding citizens fearful of criminals.

José Niño
August 23, 2017
Gun Control Laws Have Failed Latin America
[There is no justification for the infringement of the natural right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald Radosh

Antifa members should read historians of Nazi Germany, like Laurie Marhoefer of the University of Washington, who writes that anti-fascist street fighters who greeted a Nazi rally with violence thought that they had won by disrupting a rally and fighting its speakers back in 1927. They sent a message that “Fascism was not welcome.” But instead, “events like the rally in Wedding [a Berlin district] helped the Nazis build a dictatorship.” The Reds got media attention, but it led to escalating street violence, all of which helped the Nazis, who painted themselves “as the victims of a pugnacious, lawless left.”

Leftist violence in the 1930s in Germany led many to support the Nazis in the hope they would put an end to the continuing street brawls and violence. Today, the antifa left may even help to get Donald Trump reelected in 2020.

Ronald Radosh
September 11, 2017
‘Emergency Brake’ Antifa Says It’s Fighting Fascists. It Just Might Be Helping to Re-Elect Donald Trump.
[The political left is violent by nature.

This prediction is consistent with what I have said before.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Turley

Bray and others have come to use the intellectual freedom of our universities to advance the most anti-intellectual movement in our history. They are destroying the very academic institutions that have protected their extreme views. Just as the father of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, said that “physicists have known sin,” the antifa movement is the sin of academia in abandoning our core values.

These protesters believe that history shows the dangers of free speech and the need to deny it to those who would misuse it. It is a familiar sentiment that “all the experience… accumulated through several decades teaches us… to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.” Those were the words of another early anti-fascist, China’s Communist Party leader Mao Zedong.

Jonathan Turley
August 29, 2017
The hypocrisy of antifa
[It’s not just the the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms that the political left want to destroy. One can pretty easily make the case that they want total control over a huge portion of your life. Speech, your money, your property, and even what you think. Orwell was correct when he wrote of “thoughtcrime.” I just wish the political left could be persuaded to view Nineteen Eighty-Four as a dystopian novel rather than a “how-to book”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Nammo

When you consider current trends in cultural norms and widely held beliefs, you will see that we are headed toward the end of the American experiment.

Dave Nammo
March 18, 2017
Socialism’s Rising Popularity Threatens America’s Future
[It’s clear we are headed for a financial collapse. And, assuming North Korea doesn’t set off a EMP enhanced nuke over our country, I can see a fairly gradual slide into something significantly different from what we have now. But I’m not sure socialism is the definitive result for the entire country.

Not all voting is done with ballots.—Joe]

Quote of the day—1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:


a. freedom of speech;
b. freedom of the press;
c. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
d. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.


These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR
CHAPTER X
Hammer & Sickle
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
[H/T Richard.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn might have questioned the efficacy of this article and others. See, for example, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One).

People today would be well served to question the efficacy of our constitution as well. The people of the Soviet Union “believed in the system” even when the NKVD was arresting 25% of entire towns. And even when tens of thousands of people “disappeared” in the middle of the night to never be heard from again.

Read our constitution and Bill of Rights and then look at our Federal Government. Then think about it. Then figure what you can and need to do to fix that. Then, do it.—Joe]

Curious about the political climate in Northern Idaho?

I received an email today from someone who is, “interested in potentially moving to rural Northern Idaho. However, I’ve heard conflicting descriptions of what the politics are like.”

I get a request something like this, maybe, once a year. I decided to make it a blog post so I don’t have to rewrite it every time.

It’s been several years since I actually lived there enough to consider it my actual residence but I do own property there, spend the weekend there about once a month, and I have many friends and relatives there. I still consider it “home” but that is more of an attitude and viewpoint thing rather than a physical sense. Also keep in mind that my experience is with mostly with North Central Idaho, some limited experience in Northern Idaho and does not apply to the state of Southern Idaho (there is a political, social, and geographical divide between the southern part of the state and the rest of the state).

The concern of my correspondent was:

…some people make it sound like if you let slip that you don’t hate Obama or whatever everyone will hate you. And I still have little experience with what the political landscape in the broader USA is actually like. It’s easy to dismiss my ultra-liberal family who see everything other than New York and San Francisco as a kind of a wasteland. Somebody who claims that “his clients would shoot him if he sold to someone who is OK with liberals” is rather scarier, even though I’m mostly interested in getting away from liberals.

Failure to hate Obama will cause everyone to hate you? I think is a totally unwarranted concern. While I think it would be possible to find a place where such people existed it would be very rare. I have progressive relatives there (and Dad was, for all intents and purposes, a pretty hard core socialist) who are annoying because they sometimes want “non-believers” to agree with them. The worst I have seen happen when someone expressed progressive beliefs is that people try to change the subject and, if that doesn’t work, they walk away from the conversation. Shoot someone for their political beliefs? No. They might offer to take them shooting or hunting or show them their stuffed elk head, knowing that it would tweak their progressive sensibilities, but there wouldn’t be any intent to injury anything more than their delicate psyche.

For the person that likes certain aspects of the progressive social culture but wants to escape the economic oppression you should consider Moscow Idaho. It is filled with “frustrated liberals”. It is a university town but they don’t have enough voting power in the state and have difficulty dominating at the county level. I lived in Moscow for many years and would sometimes attend “concerts in the park” and other cultural events and one of my favorite parts of it was seeing the “liberal tears”. They wanted those type of events to all be “free” so they would be “accessible to everyone”.

Even in a small logging/farming town like Orofino I see some of my old high school classmates whining on Facebook about how terrible the Republicans are and the worst that I can see happen to them is that no one seems to care what they think.

So, I would agree with the statement that, politically, it is a nice place for a “recovering liberal” who is tired of being crushed between San Francisco and LA.

The climate may be a different story. A lot of places, particularly the further north and the high elevation you go, will be cold in the winter. It can be brutally cold. On the farm a few miles and a couple thousand feet above Orofino during the winter of 1969/1970 it got down to -30 F for about a week with about six feet of snow in a single storm. The electricity and phones were out for a full week too. That was a record breaker and there hasn’t been a winter like that since. There was one winter, probably in the late 1990s, where it never got above 0 F for a month. That was rare too. But for someone from southern California that could be frighteningly extreme. If the cold weather isn’t something you want to experience then Lewiston may be better fit. It is considered “the banana belt” area of Idaho. It has the lowest elevation in the state and while the winters are usually pretty mild the summers can be brutally hot with temperatures frequently over 100 F. The humidity is fairly low but doesn’t really qualify as a “dry heat” like you get in the deserts of Arizona and Nevada. But it is far less oppressive than the Midwest or the east coast humidity.

Amazon has changed things some in regards to access to goods but it still may be a cultural shock to people growing up in or near a city. Where I grew up they have to drive a considerable distance (and it took even longer before the roads were paved) to get to grocery, hardware, and clothing stores. It might be an hour or more to a town with a shopping mall. Even now you could live in a small town and will need to drive 40 miles before you can get service on your cell phone. High speed Internet, if you can get it, could be 8 Mbps down and 4 Mbps up.

The last thing of considerable note to tell people who are “interested in potentially moving to rural Northern Idaho” from, say California, is something that I found very confusing starting on my first day of college. I was at the University of Idaho (Moscow) and several students from California, New Jersey, and New York (mostly wildlife and forestry majors) asked, “What is there to do around here?” I didn’t really understand the question and when I asked for clarification they would explain, “What do you do for to ‘get out” in the evenings or weekends?” “Well”, I would explain, “On the weekend in the summer you might go fishing, camping, or maybe boating if you had a boat. In the fall some people go hunting. In the winter we didn’t go out much except to feed the cows or work in the shop. And in the evenings I generally watch TV or read a book.” This pretty much left them speechless and it wasn’t because I had answered their question question satisfactorily. After I graduated and moved to the Seattle area I finally understood what they were incapable of explaining to me. While I still don’t have the strong need for the sort of stimulation they were asking about I think I know what they meant. Sorry, in many parts of Idaho you will experience extreme deprivation if that is what you need to get by.

I love Idaho, I wish I could live there all the time but I’m sort of addicted to my well paying job in the big city and I only get to visit “home”. But it’s not going to be for everyone. The more rural you get the more self reliant you need to be in both physical and social domains. And even though you feel oppressed by a state like California, it may take some getting used to or may not even be for you.

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

Contrary to the prevalent views of today’s alleged scholars, history is not an unintelligible chaos ruled by chance and whim—historical trends can be predicted, and changed—men are not helpless, blind, doomed creatures carried to destruction by incomprehensible forces beyond their control.

There is only one power that determines the course of history, just as it determines the course of every individual life: the power of man’s rational faculty—the power of ideas. If you know a man’s convictions, you can predict his actions. If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society, you can predict its course. But convictions and philosophy are matters open to man’s choice.

There is no fatalistic, predetermined historical necessity. Atlas Shrugged is not a prophecy of our unavoidable destruction, but a manifesto of our power to avoid it, if we choose to change our course.

It is the philosophy of the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis that has brought us to our present state and is carrying us toward a finale such as that of the society presented in Atlas Shrugged. It is only the philosophy of the reason-individualism-capitalism axis that can save us and carry us, instead, toward the Atlantis projected in the last two pages of my novel.

Ayn Rand
1966
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Is Atlas Shrugging? Pages 181 and 182
[It is trivial to see the dystopia Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged in the world around us. It is also trivial to see her utopian correction to that path is not being, and probably could never have been, followed.

I’m usually accused of being too, if not insanely, optimistic. And even looking through those rose colored glasses I only see a tiny hint of a mirage that might be a path to recovery without going through an extremely dark place and time. I fear we went speeding past our exit years, if not decades, ago and our economic and personal freedoms will suffer violent abuse without realistic hope of recovery without extreme suffering and great loss of life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Grizzled_Stranger

Of the more than 57,763 restrictive gun laws called gun controls we know of, not one has made anyone safer, or one has reduced crime, and not one has reduced the incidence of politically motivated murders. Given that not one gun control law has produced the promised results, to cut crime, make people safer, or reduce politically motivated murders, perhaps it would be well to examine just what these wonderful laws that were going to eliminate crime, guarantee safety for all, and stop murders such as the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually do.

Given the facts, and that the facts are easy to obtain, why are we having this demand for gun control, a law that has never delivered on advocates promises, why the demand to add to the longest consecutive string of failures in human history?

Grizzled_Stranger
August 31, 2017
Comment to A case for gun control
[Note: I corrected a few typos from the original.

Grizzled_Stranger is, almost for certain, asking a rhetorical question. As I have asked many times before, “Since we know gun control doesn’t make the general population safer, what is the real reason some people advocate for gun control?”

Most people these days know the answer. It’s about control, it’s not about public safety. Many people feel their own lives/minds are out of control and it makes them feel good if they can control something and/or someone, even it is other people and/or their property.

For others, they like the power of being able to control other people. People with guns are not nearly as easy to control as those without guns. These people have the same mindset as Vladimir Lenin.—Joe]

It’s the radiation, Stupid

They started with weightlessness as the reason, they did drop the R-word in the middle (can’t throw out all credibility), but only in passing, then reinforced the weightlessness meme again at the end.

I see it like this (because this is how it is); you can’t get the money if you aren’t offering the hope of something exciting (like a Mars colony) or something excitingly catastrophic (like the end of the world unless government has total control). Therefore you can’t come out and say that a Mars colony is a stupid idea because then you lose your funding.

In fact you’d have to live underground on Mars, or die of radiation. If you’re going to live underground, well, you can do that here on Earth much more easily and cheaply. AND…you don’t want to do that anyway, because living underground forever is boring, so forget the whole thing.

On second thought, no; I’m wrong about all of that so give me a hundred billion dollars and I’ll get you’re dumb ass to Mars. You’ll need to pay in advance.

Quote of the day—David B. Kopel

The Japanese Constitution, in stronger terms than its American counterpart, guarantees, social equality for women, creates a right to counsel, prohibits prolonged detention, outlaws courtroom use of confessions extracted under duress, and bars convictions based solely on confession. Today, every one of these provisions is routinely violated; action in accordance with those constitutional commands is the exception rather than the rule.

David B. Kopel
1992
The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy
[This reinforces a lesson I have learned many times in other domains and contexts. If you don’t have the means to enforce a contract the contract can and will be violated. The Japanese peasantry were long forbidden to own weapons. Any constitutional “guarantee” in such an environment is laughable. And even in our political environment only a tiny shadow of the constitutional limitations of government are enforced. But one can imagine how, with the right to keep and bear arms, it could be enforced and the limits to government restored.—Joe]

We have some hope

Dianne Feinstein made herself an enemy of gun owners for decades (see also here, here, here, here, here, and here). It has been clear she will never be voted out of office. She will only stop being a threat when she retires or dies. Now we have some hope it will happen relatively soon:

Feinstein — who at 84 is the oldest U.S. senator — also left politicos wondering whether she plans to run for reelection next year.

Although Feinstein was a motivator for me to create Boomershoot. So, I suppose she does have that going for her.