Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

In that one paragraph, Scalia kills any argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “pro-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.

Bob Cunningham
June 12, 2018
Why There Is No Constitutional Argument Against Gun Control

Reality is extremely difficult thing to observe and you don’t have to go to the subatomic or cosmic scales to be convinced of that. Here, Cunningham and I can read the same exact words, written by an experienced writer, and arrive at completely different unambiguous conclusions.

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jordan B. Peterson

If you can fight you generally don’t have to. When skillfully integrated, the ability to respond with aggression and violence decreases rather than increases the probability that actual aggression will become necessary. If you say “No!” early in the cycle of oppression and you mean what you say which means you state your refusal in no uncertain terms and stand behind it then the scope for oppression on the part of oppressor will remain properly bounded and limited. Forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence. People who refuse to muster appropriately self protective territorial responses are laid open to exploitation as much as those who genuinely can’t stand up for their own rights because of a more essential inability or a true imbalance in power.

Naïve, harmless people usually guide their perceptions and actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and certainly, the use) of force, physical or otherwise, is wrong. These axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent.

Jordan B. Peterson
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
[Daughter Jaime and I share an account on Audible and generally pick books that we are both interested in and then discuss them. This was one of the books she picked that, from the title, I wasn’t particularly interested in. Even after she said that this was a book that she was putting on a list for her son to read when he got older I just didn’t have any interest. But then, I ran out of books on my phone and decided to at least start it rather than immediately go searching for another book.

I am extremely pleased with what I found.

Among other things Peterson is a psychologist. In this book, what he tells us is how our minds work and how to make them work better.

What Peterson says in the quote above works on many scales on many topics. From the personal, to the political, to the international. The grand scope of this would not come as a surprise if you read the chapter. He tells us the knowledge in this quote was learned by animals 100 million years before the arrival of dinosaurs. It is an essential part of all animals today.

Extrapolating only the smallest amount you realize what he says is an argument for the right to keep and bear arms. It is instructive on how to retain our rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Chait

On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win. But among the country as a whole, the dynamic is very different.

Jonathan Chait
April 22, 2018
Democrats Have Great Female Presidential Candidates. They Need to Avoid the Victim Trap.
[The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations repeatedly make this error. Apparently they don’t seem to understand that when they use someone who was shot in a mass shooting as their spokesperson they are not presenting someone who is an authority on solutions regarding those type of events. The truth is they are being represented by someone who is an expert victim with no experience as a victor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stonekettle @Stonekettle

Here’s the thing America: we ARE coming for your guns.

You have nobody to blame but yourselves. You could have been reasonable. Instead, you’ve proven over and over that you’re NOT sane, you’re irresponsible, and you CAN’T be trusted with guns.

This is your fault.

Stonekettle @Stonekettle
Tweeted on March 24, 2018
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

I find it telling that he speaks as if America were something he is not part of. America is an enemy to be conquered.

Also providing great insight is this tweet from Jonathan who tells us:

Ignore that this veteran is /grossly/ violating his oath. Instead, consider the verbiage.

Doesn’t he sound like the /classic/ abuser? “Look what you made me do.” “Why did you make me do this?”

All the while, /he/ won’t be the one at the front of the stack. Typical bully.

All personality disorders share two things. One is that nothing is ever their fault. It is always the fault of the victim of their abuse What you see above is more crazy talk that is so typical of anti-gun people.

My counselor and books I have read on how to deal with these type of crazy people have told me the way to deal with them is as follows:

  1. Tell them their behavior is unacceptable.
  2. Tell them there will be consequences if they violate the behavior rules.
  3. If they violate the rules make certain they suffer the consequences.

As my counselor told me, “Live will not be peaceful, but it will be much better than if you just take the abuse.” It’s time to stop the abuse.—Joe]

Dress code or uniform?

I have a dress code that I think should be universal:

  1. You should wear appropriate clothing to protect you from the elements.
  2. You should wear sufficient clothing to protect you from getting arrested.

Actually, #2 is just a special case of #1, but some people need to think about it a some to realize that so I usually make it a different line item.

I am reminded of this because in the collection of memes Rolf sent me was this one:


Interesting comparison.

It certainly isn’t a “dress code”. But it could be some sort of attraction to that sort of uniform by people of the same personality type. I wonder if clothing preferences by different personality types have been researched.

I’ve heard that many women are sexually attracted to men in uniforms. I wonder if other strong correlations can be found as well and if that information could be useful in some way.

Quote of the day—Wraith

Leftism is, at its core, based upon the abject and unapologetic denial of observable reality.

They’re not just insane, they’re proudly insane. Point out their hypocrisy until Gabriel blows his horn, and it won’t affect them a bit. We’re dealing with people who have knowingly and willingly turned their backs on any form of logic and reason. The only reason they’re winning is that sane people haven’t stepped up and put them in the rubber room where they obviously belong.

April 11, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Alan Korwin
[I don’t think a “rubber room” is appropriate for all of them. Some belong in prison.

And there are alternatives which I believe will work with most of them. But it’s a time consuming process and requires some isolation.—Joe]

The crazy years

In one of Heinlein’s books, Methuselah’s Children, he briefly mentioned “the crazy years” (see also here and here for more on the topic) which lead to a breakdown of society. He wrote it in 1958 and was referring to a time of approximately the early 1970s. While the 1960s could be viewed as crazy in a lot of respects they can’t hold a candle to what we are going through now.

Via email from Rolf:


People who believe two contradictory things at the same time have serious mental problems. They are crazy.

Quote of the day—W.F.

The main reason pro-gun people and anti-gun people can’t talk to each other is that their respective rhetorics are based on two irreconcilable worldviews. The anti-gun people are essentially collectivist; the pro-gun people are essentially individualist.

Individualists have a pretty good understanding of the collectivist worldview. It isn’t difficult for most pro-gun people to perform a convincing imitation of the anti-gun argument. Anti-gun people, on the other hand, seem genuinely incapable of understanding pro-gun arguments, and end up arguing against strawmen tainted by their own collectivist ideology. This leads me to believe that collectivism is an intellectual crutch for those who can’t make sense of individualism.

Explaining Irreconcilable Worldviews Between Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun Activists
This has also been attributed to “Randy Caudie”. See for example here.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Resetting their mind with facts

Facts can matter to people:

We often see anti-gun people being immune to facts and running completely on emotions and beliefs that have no connection to reality. Here we see something different. Why?

I think When Prophecy Fails (see also my website about the book) gives us the answers. The following conditions are from the book. These are the conditions which must exist to create the condition for a “true believer” to “double down” and try to recruit more believers to their faulty belief system when confronted with disproof of their faulty belief system. All five of these conditions must exist in order for this to happen. Hence, if you can break just one of these conditions they will stop their journey down their delusional path:

  1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.
  2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.
  3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
  4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
    The first two of these conditions specify the circumstances that will make the belief resistant to change. The third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand, point to factors that would exert powerful pressure on a believer to discard his belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation.  We must therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.
  5. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

And this gives us the answer on how to change minds. We see it in the video above. They were not within their social support group. They are extremely social animals. We tend to be individualists. Anti-gun people tend to be herd animals. These people require social support. If you can isolate them, even for a very short time, and present facts then they are likely to break from their delusion.

Another thing that was important is these people read the facts out loud. They didn’t just hear someone tell them the facts. Visual is much better than audible. Having them saying the words is even better. That strikes much deeper than them skimming the words and saying they read it. It reaches the visual and auditory areas of their brains as well as the conscious thinking part of their brain (required for the translation from text to spoken words).

This was brilliant.

When your anti-gun friend or relative is separated from other anti-gun people hand them a piece of paper and ask them to read it out loud, “So we can talk about this together.”

The facts used in this video:

  • According to the CDC there were roughly 38,000 gun deaths in the 2016. 2/3 of them were suicides.
  • There are over 300,000,000 guns in the United States.
  • There are over 5x more murders by knives than rifles.
  • The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. But ranks 28th in gun murders.
  • That is a rate of about 2.97 deaths per 100,000 people.
  • Handguns are responsible for more than 80% of total mass shootings.
  • Between 1993 and 2003 gun ownership increased by 56% while gun violence decreased by nearly half.
  • Since 1950 nearly all mass public shootings have occurred in gun free zones.
  • From 2013 to 2015 the six states that banned open carry, experienced higher rates of police deaths.
  • 86.4% of 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs support concealed carry and are overwhelming against further gun control.
  • Those that have concealed carry permits, on average, commit less crime than police.
  • There is a clear correlation between higher firearm ownership and reducing police killings.
  • Switzerland with a population of about eight million and armed with an estimated two million guns in circulation and limited gun regulation Switzerland’s overall gun homicide rate is practically zero.
  • Gun ownership rate does not correlate with the homicide rate.

Principles are vital for the long term. But principles require the thinking part of the brain to be engaged. You cannot have a principled discussion with a mob chanting for your death. This is how you get their mind reset to a point where principles have a chance of reaching them.

Quote of the day—Sunny BoycottNRA ❤ @srfuzy

Why are we even giving her the time of day…@DLoesch is a female version of Hitler.. who knew in one Presidency term we’d have a male and female modern day HITLER


Sunny BoycottNRA ❤ @srfuzy
Tweeted on March 16th, 2018 and deleted by the morning of March 17th.
[You have to wonder… is it profound ignorance that enabled Sunny to concluded that HITLER is a generic insult like “pond scum” or “jerk”? Or do they live in some sort of delusional reality where Hitler didn’t confiscate firearms before sending “the deplorables” to the death camps?

In any case, two things are clear:

  1. It is very telling when they have insults and we have SCOTUS decisions
  2. Rule #3, SJWs always project.


This is what they think of you

From Scientific American:

Who is buying all these guns—and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.

I find it interesting that every person in my sample of gun owners fails to match the profile they give on almost every one of the negative characteristics they claim dominate. Some might match on one negative characteristic, and some on another, but none that I can think of match on more than one. I wonder how they obtained their sample and how many gun owners claimed to not be a gun owner and avoided participating with their study.

And, if someone claims this is justification for implementing gun control, this is an admission that gun control is sexist and racist.

In any case, this is what they think of you. Let them keep thinking this. It will be a bigger surprise for them when reality smacks them in the face.

Quote of the day—Gary Johnson

I always thought that honesty would rule the day. I always thought that integrity would rule the day. I always thought that telling the truth would rule the day. And it doesn’t.

Gary Johnson
2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate
February 2018
Gary Johnson: ‘I Always Thought Telling the Truth Would Rule the Day. And It Doesn’t.’
[After years of behaving as if this hypothesis were true I finally concluded that it was irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]

Quote of the day—thezman

The American Left was not caused by socialism or radical ideology. The causal relationship was the other way around. The hive-like behavior was a constant, a part of the American biology. When the socialist paradise collapsed, the Left switched to sexual and racial utopianism. That means when the current rage heads burn what’s left of society, only to not arrive at the promised land, they will find some new fantasy to embrace. The Hive is eternal.

March 7, 2018
The Eternal Hive
[Via email from Peter G.

One of my hypothesizes has been that the political left always needs something to hate. From before the U.S. Civil War until the 1960s the target was primarily their slaves, then the freed slaves, then capitalism and blacks in general. In the 1960s blacks were replaced by gun owners. As the collapse of the USSR and other socialist and communist political systems fell from grace whites and men were added and capitalism was deemphasized.

Z Man’s claim also appears to match my observations.

If Z Man is correct, one extrapolation indicates that the end is near and it won’t be pretty.—Joe]

Facts can be confusing

This post was inspired by a cartoon sent to me by Will S.


It was only in the last few thousand years that facts and logic began to have a toehold on our understanding of world around us. Even then rational thought would lose its footing and slide back down into the dark ages for a few hundred years at a time.

My hypothesis is that there is a reason for this. Reliance on facts and rational thought created an evolutionary advantage which allowed for the survival of a greater number of less fit people. These less fit, emotionally driven, people drag society down again.

The repeated rise and fall of reliance on rational thought is like a cleaning process. Each time the gene pool was cleaned it became a more biased toward rationality and human society became more advanced.

I had hoped that we need not go through another dark age but there are times when I fear we are nearing another downward slide. How else can you explain the continued infatuation with socialism? What other political system has experienced so many attempts and resulted in so many catastrophic failures? How else can you explain the masses of people who blame private ownership of firearms for the massacres of school children when government disarmed the adults, failed to prosecute the villain prior to his attack, and failed to come to the rescue even though they were close by? The government which failed at ever step of the way is now supposed to be tasked with the job of attacking those who held no responsibility for the creating the circumstance, or failing to stop the attack. This is not the result of a rational thought process. This is crazy talk and to me is a strong indicator that the slippery slope into another dark age is only a small misstep away.

Quote of the day—National Rifle Association

The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement.

Despite that, some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice. In time, these brands will be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve.

Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member.

National Rifle Association
February 24, 2018
NRA Statement on Corporate Partnerships
[I’m reminded of:

Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince

Either our opponents are so desperate for a “victory” of any type they are willing to throw “pebbles” at people with guns, and/or they are ignorant of human psychology, and/or they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ben Shapiro‏ @benshapiro

Only the government should have guns to protect us. We can’t expect government employees to confront armed criminals. Pick one.

Ben Shapiro‏ @benshapiro
Tweeted on February 23, 2018
[Shapiro has a logical response and expectation.

Unfortunately this is not how the minds of many people work. I have posted about the problem many times before. Many people do not have a process to determine truth from falsity (see also these posts). The truth depends upon how they feel. I have a lot of experience with dealing with people like this. I literally have decades of experience.

In regards to the first two sentence quoted above, the way their mind works is as follows: They have a feeling in regards to each sentence independent from the other. They both feel true to them. Therefore both sentences are true.

It used to be that I literally would be told that I should do two different things which were mutually exclusive. I would have to be at two places at the same time to accomplish them. When I would point this out they would get angry and say things like, “You always have to get your way!” Their feelings trumped the laws of physics. If you look into the characteristics of some personality disorders you will find that they create situations where their associates/family/friends/etc. “can’t win”. They will demand others adhere to their rules/requests/whatever but when you look at the requests you will discover it is impossible to comply with all of them. You will always be in a position to be found at fault and punished.

My counselor when dealing with these things in my personal life, Staci, told me there are two characteristics that are common to all personality disorders:

  1. The more close the relationship the more severe the symptoms. A spouse and their children will have a more difficult relationship than extended family which will be worse than co-workers which will be worse than with strangers. They can frequent “hold it together” while at work or dealing with strangers and still make life a living hell for their spouse and children.
  2. They will not, or perhaps more accurately cannot, admit they are to blame for anything. If you point out to a normal person they could have handled a situation differently and that would perhaps have resulted in a better outcome they can reflect on it, think it through, and accept they may have made some contribution to the poor outcome. The person with the personality disorder is unable to do this. Among other things this results in the “can’t win” requests. They may have made requests that are physically impossible to comply with. Yet, it is your fault the requests were not complied with.

Hence, I see a lot of evidence that many anti-gun people have mental health issues. Look around with just a hint of the correct filter and you can see it too.

They created “Gun Free Zones” around schools and over the years hundreds of children and teachers have been murdered. This is your fault. It is beyond their ability to recognize they contributed in any way.

They banned guns in Chicago/D.C./etc and have horrific murder rates committed with firearms inside those political jurisdictions. Just outside those jurisdictions such as in Indiana and Virginia, where guns are legal, the murder rate is much lower. We conclude the laws where the crime rate is lower should be emulated in the high crime areas. The anti-gun people conclude their gun control isn’t working because guns are available outside their gun free paradise—it is the fault of Indiana and Virginia “lax gun laws”. This is your fault. Again, it is beyond their ability to recognize they contributed in any way.

These people are “nuts” and we should not be trying to negotiate or compromise with them. They cannot determine truth from falsity in a manner normal people would recognize as valid.

As I was advised by Staci, life with these people will never be easy. If you can’t terminate the relationship then you will always have a “fiery relationship” with them. It is beyond their ability to think and behave in a normal manner. The best way you can deal with these people is to set limits and enforce them. You tell them, “If you behave in this manner we will not tolerate it. This is what we will do in response.” Then, if they misbehave anyway, you do what you said you would do. They have to have consequences for their misbehavior.

The most appropriate limits I have come up with are 18 USC 241 and 242. It’s long past time to enforce them.—Joe]

We were just talking about this at work

There are a three new people on my team at work. Two of them have a decade or more of experience in the field and one is in sort of an expanded intern program and is “drinking from a firehose” as she is coming up to speed. A week or two ago the newbie expressed some insecurities about her being able to contribute and one of the experienced guys reassured her and told her about “Imposter Syndrome” and said that he feels that and probably everyone does. Nearly everyone on the team jumped in to reassure the newbie that she is doing extremely well (she is) and had their own little stories about how they feel insecure about various aspects of their ability to do their job.

XKCD gives us another example:

Impostor Syndrome

Quote of the day—Aharon Grossman

Carrying makes you a sissy.

  • If somebody bumps you walking down the street while you are carrying, you show extra restraint and let it go.
  • If someone whistles at your girlfriend while you are carrying, you smile and shrug it off.
  • If two guys are in a scuffle and you are tempted to jump in to break it up, you don’t.
  • If somebody gets in your face about your inconsiderate parking, you use you best verbal judo to de-escalate the situation.
  • If things do get real hot, you’ll find yourself yelling, “I don’t want any trouble.” so that all the bystanders and their cellphone cameras can hear.

Aharon Grossman
January 18, 2018
Answering the question, “What should I know carrying a concealed firearm?
[Or, in other words, “An armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]