Quote of the day—Lyle

Something we should all understand, and the sooner the better; the anti WANTS to be stopped. Believe it. Just like the errant little child, testing his parents’ strengths and weaknesses by misbehaving, the leftist is testing you, wanting more than anything to find the good, principled, rock solid father figure that he never had, so he’ll be loved and corrected like he never has been. Every time you cave or compromise like a shitty, girlish, drunken Republican on anything, the leftist is disgusted with you, and will ramp up the volume and rattle the cage even harder. It’s a search, you see, for even one good, principled individual.

Lyle
November 21, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii
[It is true that our anti-freedom opponents have a nearly unending demand for the government to force us to do things. So why not give them what they want by government forcing freedom upon them?—Joe]

It’s all in the interpretation

We often pick on authoritarians for being hypocrites and liars, which of course they are, that is, in the big picture or from the standpoint of principles. We must be careful though in interpreting their words. When Obama said this a while back, he was being perfectly honest and consistent;

“The biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I am president of the United States of America.” — Senator Barak Obama, March 31, 2008

I say he was laying his intentions right out in the open, for all to see. T-ball. George Bush was trying to bring more and more power into the executive, and Obama intended to reverse that by instead doing it himself.

You just have to understand it from their perspective as competing, or fellow, authoritarians. One professional boxer may very well intend to beat the snot out of another professional boxer, but that does NOT mean he’s opposed to boxing. Look at it this from the perspective of rival gangs;

“The biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with The Eastside Gang trying to exercise more and more power in this town, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I become Leader of the West Side Gang.”

It’s not that the prospective leader of The Westside Gang is saying he’s anti-gang, is it? But the inattentive, or the wishful thinker, may see it that way if he chooses. Our prospective gang leader’s fellow gangsters on both sides of town know exactly what he’s saying, though the words are chosen to appeal to a broader audience consisting of largely distracted and de-moralized victims of gang intimidation.

Likewise, in W.W. II in Europe there were three competing gangs: Italian Fascists, German National Socialists and Russian communists. Then, American Democratic Socialist (or progressive communist, i.e. Progressive) FDR got the U.S. into the fray. It was not at all a war of opposing ideologies, but one of competing authoritarian systems and separate gang interests competing for turf. Same goes for Democrats and Republicans, on a “good” day. On a bad day (which is more common now) they all work together against their common enemies, which are reason, human dignity, independence, justice and liberty.

Understand all of that and the whole world makes a lot more sense, and you’ll rarely if ever be left wondering what the hell just happened.

Hat tip; Tam

Quote of the day—John Feinblatt

Our electoral strategy this year is driven by our plans to keep passing better laws that will prevent gun violence state by state, whether we’re doing it through legislation or doing it through the ballot.

John Feinblatt
President of Everytown
November 11, 2014
Gun Control Groups Eye More State Ballot Initiatives After Victory In Washington State
[Feinblatt is apparently unconcerned that what he is doing and wants to do is in violation of the Second Amendment as well as having been proven to be of zero effect in preventing violent crime. If the backgrounds were of value in reducing violent crime we would have seen the statistics in their advertisements here in Washington State. Where’s the data from the other states which passed “universal background checks” Mr.Feinblatt? That’s right, there is nothing you want the general public to see.

The crowd he associates with is unconcerned with the facts. They know it’s the only way they can win. The article is just another example of this. It has numerous errors such as claiming I-591 “would have loosened gun laws”. This is completely false.

I hope the day will soon come when we can generate some concern in Feinblatt and his ilk with felony charges for their criminal acts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Christopher Cantwell

You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us “Love it or leave it!” or “Move to Somalia!” like I don’t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.

Christopher Cantwell
April 8, 2014
Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You
[H/T to Say Uncle.—Joe]

This is what they think of us

From Alexis Clark:

B1s3IDFCUAANuLC

She describes herself as “Pleasantly Opinionated.”

If she thinks calling people who live in a certain area names like that is “pleasantly opinionated” you shouldn’t be surprised that she got the labels on her map mixed up.

Update: The Tweet and the picture were deleted a few hours after I posted this.

Quote of the day—TS

Democracy allows for criminal code to be passed this way? Not to mention the very abhorrent idea that 51% of the people can lock up the other 49% if they want via ballot initiative.

TS
November 6, 2014
Comment to More on the I-594 Loss
[Direct democracy also allows 50+% to impose oppressive taxes on the 50-% as well. This is why we have the concepts of enumerated powers and inalienable rights written into our constitutions.

The I-594 people do not recognize these concepts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hank B Reardon

Just wait for the next initiative and you all will be shooting those nerf guns.

Hank B Reardon
November 5, 2014
Comment to Editorial: Voters stand ground on gun control in passing I-594 over I-591
[The irony of his handle aside, our opponents know what their objective is and occasionally let it slip.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

I-594 election night at CCRKBA

Barb and I visited the election watch party at CCRKBA last night. Here are some pictures:

SeattleTimesI-591_2024953219_thumb
Anette Wachter, CCRKBA staff (?), Boyd, Barron, and Janelle via the Seattle Times.

WP_20141104_002Adjusted_thumb[1]
My version of nearly the same thing as above. We are not happy with what we see.

SeattleTimesI-591_142791_YesGuns_1328__thumb
Mr. Completely, Anette, Alan Gottlieb, Janelle, Barron, via the Seattle Times.

More than anything I was struck by the event was in the offices of CCKBA which could only hold a few dozen people. At a similar event for I-676 in 1997 they rented a event hall and hundreds of people showed up. This time we probably had almost as many media people as we did supporters. This time I knew nearly all the non-media people attending.

In many ways I-594 was identical to I-676. They both required paperwork and state involvement for simple, innocent, ordinary transfers of firearms. Both had deceptive and innocent sounding titles (“Mandatory background checks” versus “Mandatory safety training”). In both cases law enforcement were opposed. Yet we didn’t get the traction to come even close to defeating it.

I had lunch with Ry today and discussed why this might have happened. Our conclusions were twofold:

  1. In 1997 we were outraged with the 1994 “assault weapon” ban and the follow-on attempts in congress to push us into extinction as well as similar efforts in the states. Today we have a lot more confidence the courts will protect us. We didn’t have our backs to the wall and in a win or die fight.
  2. This time most people, at some level, recognized it was a loosing battle and it wasn’t worth the effort. I know this was a significant component of my mindset. I had a lot of other things going on in my mind that took a higher priority. I was finishing up my divorce (and follow-on skirmishes), I had time sensitive Boomershoot 2015 details to attend to, and I had a relatively new relationship with Barb that was a lot more pleasant to focus on than something I knew was almost a certain loss.

But how, beyond a simple gut feel, did I know it was certain loss?

A year or two after I-676 went down in defeat I had lunch with Alan Gottlieb. He told me our opponents were planning a new initiative. This was an initiative mandating universal background checks. CCRKBA had done their homework and tried many different concepts in presenting our opposition to such a thing. They did focus group studies with various sound bites and slogans. Nothing worked. It appeared inevitable we would lose such a battle. He didn’t signal this to anyone but close insiders. Publically he pointed out how we had bloodied their noses in the I-676 battle and how the people were on our side and claimed we could do it again if we needed to. But behind the scenes we were scared. Very scared. We had no hope of winning the battle if they attacked again.

I don’t know for certain why our opponents didn’t come back at us then but I’m glad they didn’t. As terrible as the passage of I-594 was yesterday it would have been much worse 10 or 15 years ago, before D.C. v. Heller. Today we have a decent hope of court protection. Then it would have been “a good first step” toward the massive restrictions they are so eager to inflict upon our specific enumerated rights that we could have today been in a situation like California or even Chicago is now.

I can imagine an alternate universe where a different history exists. In this alternate history our opponents were not quite so demoralized and/or timid and attacked us again a few years before the 2008 Heller decision and changed the course of gun rights in this country with a win in Washington state. With a model playbook for our opponents to impose their tyranny in most states, chill the exercise of our rights, we then lost mindshare, and we lost Heller. And then we lost it all.

We still have a lot territory to recover but with the Heller and other decisions behind us we are in a much stronger position to win it back. Let’s work toward making sure we still win the long battle even with this setback today. We must choose the fights and not let our opponents choose them for us. When we attack at their weak spots they must expend resources they could better use attacking our weak spots. For us I-594 was a defensive battle against our weakest point. We lost. We need to keep attacking their weak spots even if every attempt does not result in a win.

In Washington State we had been winning the defensive battle against background checks in the legislature and occasionally making successful offensive plays for many years. That sort of avoiding defeat, one year at at time, is incrementally less costly than winning an initiative measure but it is far less influential. Winning the initiative would have been more permanent. It probably would have silenced that issue for a dozen years in Washington State and perhaps have discouraged the billionaires from spending money in other states. But it also is an opportunity for us.

But some our most dramatic and long lasting wins have been in the courts. Shutting down the “collective rights” argument in the Heller decision resonates today and probably will continue for decades. If we can win this issue in the courts it will be more permanent and have greater benefit to people in other states being attacked. And because of the 10 to 15 year delay in taking this issue to court we have a lot stronger hand to play than we did then.

Support SAF and their “goal of winning firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.” If not them then some other pro-rights group with a history of accomplishment.

Tools and ideas

Although there are still lots of votes to count no one I know has any realistic hope the outcome is going to change on I-591 or I-594 in Washington state. Washington State gun owners got stomped on pretty hard last night.

What our opponents don’t seem to realize is that both the Second Amendment and the Washington State Constitution protect the very right they are intent upon infringing. If it were a law infringing upon the right to free speech or freedom of religion nearly everyone would get it. Requiring a background check before someone can loan you their religious book and another when you give it back is ridiculous and would clearly be unconstitutional. It would create an incredible chilling effect upon the legitimate exercise of a natural and legal right by the threat of a legal sanction.

Somehow our opponents don’t or can’t understand this. I’ve had people tell me, “It’s not the same.” “Books don’t kill people!”, they say.

Wrong.

Ideas are far more dangerous than tools. The Communist Manifesto, Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, and many religious books enabled the murders of over 100 million in the 20th century and millions more in the previous centuries. And I’m betting many millions more in this century will be murdered because the exercise of these rights propagates and enables very dangerous ideas. Yet we still recognize that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are more important that the dark side of infringing upon these natural rights.

Books, speech, and firearms are all the tools of ideas. Those ideas can been evil or they can be good. The tool is amoral and can be used for good or evil. Restrictions on a tool used for good enables evil. It doesn’t matter which of these tools you restrict. You enable evil because you disable the expression of the good more than the expression of evil.

This concept is very clear in the context of the First Amendment. But somehow the general population has a delusion that the right to keep and bear arms is different. The correction of their delusion can’t be accomplished in a sentence or two on a ballot initiative so now we have to attempt correcting it in the courts. The courts aren’t as influenced by sound bites as the general public but delusions can be deadly in their persistence even in courts of law.

Update: As I was reminded of in the comments by Windy Wilson there is a somewhat famous U.S. Supreme Court case that says:

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Which, as Windy points out:

This is tremendously close to the concept articulated by the head of the NRA, that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The connections between the First and Second Amendment are easy to make and very strong.

Genetic predisposition

This is interesting but I want more confirmation before I buy into it:

Scientists say they can predict “with 95 percent accuracy where you’ll fall on the liberal-conservative spectrum by showing you just one picture” and then studying how your brain responds to the image. Furthermore, studies show that political orientation may be as inheritance-based as height.

I know many people who have changed their politically orientation and I’m pretty sure they didn’t change their genetics.

H/T to Les F. on Facebook.

Principles

Frequently we will see anti-gun people claim the NRA looks after the “corporate interests” of the gun manufactures. This is despite the fact the manufactures aren’t members of the NRA and have their own lobbying organization that represents them. This is despite the fact that the NRA has about five million individual members. They don’t just don’t seem to understand that there are principles we hold dear and give time and money to the NRA to advocate for those principles.

This belief extends to the politicians that support the Second Amendment. The anti-gun people believe it must be money that motivates politicians. This Brady Campaign video makes that belief more clear than I could ever do with words:

While I don’t have a lot of respect for politicians in general I do believe many of the supporters of Second Amendment understand the principles involved and are comfortable taking a principled stand.

The Brady Campaign and their supporters? If you speak of principles to them they will get a confused look on their face and think you are speaking in some sort of code words. Code words that surely must mean “money.”

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

That desire to get two people fighting and then hide is a very deeply imbued urge. It is borne of an attempt to make something which stimulates the leftist’s amygdala stimulate their enemy’s amygdala, combined with sheer cowardice making direct confrontation not an option. As with every other leftist tactic, the goal is an outcome which would terrify the leftist, were positions reversed, namely manly men coming to kill them.

From simple social out-grouping, to calling cops to a store in such a way that they might shoot a conservative, to out-right swatting, to deploying various other government agencies to harass and intimidate conservatives, leftists have a burning, innate desire to get K-strategists fighting each other, especially as things get crazy. It is not a coincidence and it is not an accident – it is a long-evolved strategy, and we should all expect to see a lot more of it in the next two decades. The obvious solution is to not fall for it, and instead focus on the leftist themselves as the source of the problem. Very quickly leftists would abandon that strategy.

Anonymous Conservative
October 14, 2014
Amygdalae in the News
[If you want to understand the psychology of our political opponents and strategies for defeating them and just as important how they attempt to defeat us, you must read Anonymous Conservative’s work. He has a book, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans, which is sometimes available free on Kindle.

One of the more important insights I have gotten from reading him is that, in general, the police are our natural friends. They enforce the rule of law and only enforce the whims of some ruler because the ruler had the authority to make law. Our state and federal constitutions, being higher law than those that would be our unconstrained rulers, gives them authority and license to oppose those rules. See, for example, the opposition to many of the gun laws such as in New York, Colorado, and in Washington State (I-594). At some level our political opponents recognize this and attempt to get us to fight each other, to the death.

Recognizing this we can adopt a much better strategy of encouraging and supporting the police to respect our guaranteed rights and deal with those that would infringe upon our rights in an appropriate manner.—Joe]

What’s about to happen in Washington State?

Barron was the guest on the 2AToday podcast that came out yesterday. The title is “What’s about to happen in Washington State?” – with Barron Barnett of The Minuteman blog. Barron’s blog post on the topic is here. Barron did well but the OCD engineer in me was annoyed when he said the 18 page I-594 was 17 pages. Then my teeth clenched when he later said it was 16 pages. But that isn’t really important.

What’s important is that a great number of innocent, everyday transfers of guns for educational, training, and recreational use will become crimes if I-594 passes. And the latest poll indicates it has a big lead. But polls can be wrong. As someone pointed out the latest poll was of registered voters, not likely voters.

When we fought against I-676 back in 1997 it had an even greater lead in the pre-election surveys and yet it went down in flames 71 to 29 (Barron also got the numbers wrong for that one too, he said 70 to 20, my OCD issues are probably the reason I don’t have many friends).

If you are one of the good guys in Washington State who votes for freedom please get your ballot in the mail on time. If we can win this even though Bloomberg, Gates, Ballmer, Allen, and a few millionaires are bankrolling the forces of evil it will strongly discourage them from trying again. After defeating I-676 back in ‘97 we have had almost nothing but improvement in our gun laws since then. Defeat this issue here and maybe we will have another 15 or 20 years of successes.

Another psychology example

Yesterday I posted about how our political opponents use insults because they know insults are effective on themselves even when the insults are totally baseless. The Obama administration calling Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu “chickenshit” is an example that is making world news. Anonymous Conservative does the analysis:

So why launch such an attack? If you are intimately familiar with the psychology, you’ll immediately see that this was an amygdala hijack directed at Netanyahu. Like many such attempts by narcissists, it was predicated on an understanding of human psychology that arose from the narcissist’s self examination of themselves, and thus it assumes the narcissist’s malady is ever-present in everyone.

It make me think about how things must be unraveling inside the White House now that Dear Leader and his entire entourage are being criticized by leftists afraid of seeing the Obama administration’s failures reflect back badly upon the movement. Groups of narcissists can become amygdala echo chambers. One get’s hijacked and tries to relieve the strain by hijacking two others himself. Like nuclear fission, it can create a very unpleasant environment.

Similar conclusions are probably valid when our anti-freedom opponents spew crude insults at us.

University of Idaho advocating crimes against gun owners

Via ammoland; University of Idaho “Executive Director for Public Safety and Security” (nod nod, wink wink), Matt Dorschel, has openly advocated abusing the 911 system to harass peaceable gun owners, potentially leading to another “SWATting” of an innocent person.

Intentional misuse of the 911 system is one crime, and this jackass (and anyone who takes his advice) is also committing a federal crime, violating 18 USC 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”.

This warrants calls and letters to the Latah County Sheriff’s department, the U. of I. president, your ID State Representatives, and to the Governor’s office. The Moscow, ID Police Department contracts with the University of Idaho for campus security, to the tune of around a million dollars, or so I was told, which in this tiny town is a HUGE pile of cash. There’s a major conflict of interest there, and I wouldn’t bother with the city PD for that reason. We have a criminal in our midst, and we’re paying the son of a bitch.

Someone inside the U. of I. I.T. system needs to get hold of Dorschel’s e-mails and other communications before his “hard drive fails”. Pronto!

Hat Tip; Info Wars

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

The GPU (secret police) exposed von Meck, and he was shot: His objective had been to wear out rails and roadbeds, freight cars and locomotives, so as to leave the Republic without railroads in case of foreign military intervention!

When, not long afterward, the new People’s Commissar of Railroads, Comrade Kaganovich, ordered that average loads should be increased, and even doubled and tripled them (and for this discovery received the Order of Lenin along with others of our leaders) the malicious engineers who protested became know as limiters.

They raised the outcry that this was too much, and would result in the breakdown of the rolling stock, and they were rightly shot for their lack of faith in the possibilities of socialist transport.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) page 45.
[I was talking about this with son James last night so I thought I would post it too. Basically the lesson is that progressives have a burning desire to eliminate those that point out reality to them. Some of the most visible battles in our country today are the battle over Obamacare and the right to keep and bear arms. They refuse to recognize the realities of economics and human nature and are willing to have us imprisoned and/or killed when we attempt to explain reality to them.

But it is much more widespread than those. Look at the war against Islamic terrorism. Progressives insisted that we are to blame for our conflict despite the very clear words from the terrorists themselves that they will only be peaceful after all people have submitted to Sharia Law. Or look at how they insisted that stand your ground laws were a factor in the George Zimmerman case. Progressives have beliefs which contradict reality and if they have the power they become very dangerous when reality is forced upon them.

The constant conflict between reality and their beliefs is why the book Nineteen Eighty Four resonates so strongly. It brings to light the inherent conflict of the struggle we are facing. It is a battle between reality and their ever changing beliefs.

They insist that if we would acquiesce to their demands of a complete gun ban or a completely “free” government run health care system the world would be a better place. And they call us obstructionist because we insist what they demand cannot succeed. Today they call us obstructionists instead of limiters. I sometimes wonder if that is deliberate because some of them know the Soviet baggage associated with the word “limiters”.

I don’t wonder what they would do to those that insist upon maintaining a close connection to reality. If only they had the political power to deal with us as they wished our fate would be clear. That path has made countless history books of the most unpleasant nature.—Joe]

A Southerner Repents

Fred’s confession.
Good point, and if I may be so bold, it is right along the lines of what Cliven Bundy tried to say, but stumbled in his inability to articulate and was then pounced upon by all sides. Thomas Sowell said it too, as have many others who never got accused of racism for it.

The truth is a hot-button issue. You have to know what you’re doing when speaking it. It’s not for everyone. Fred can handle it fine.

Quote of the day—Raúl Ilargi Meijer

The inequality that matters most is not wealth, but power.

Power buys wealth infinitely faster than wealth buys power.

Raúl Ilargi Meijer
October 18, 2014
Wealth Inequality Is Not A Problem, It’s A Symptom
[Those that seem to be most concerned with inequality of wealth advocate for giving more power to political elites. Which, of course, makes the symptoms even worse.

I do wish I could escape to Galt’s Gulch.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Liberals are not designed to flourish under any conditions but free resource availability, and no danger or exposure to reality. Limit resources or add some dangerous reality, and they will begin to drop like flies.

Anonymous Conservative
October 7, 2014
Ebola, Natural Selection, and Facilitating a K-Shift to Conservatism to Save Lives
[I think this is overlooking that fact that liberals (Progressives) seek and hold on to power. In a time of limited resources or dangerous reality they are likely to use that power to take resources through unlawful means. “The good of the many outweigh the rights of the few”, will be the essence of their justification.

I suspect it will only be in a state of partial or full government collapse that his predictions will become dominant. But the interesting thing is that history has shown us that government collapse can occur remarkably rapid.—Joe]