Author Archives: Lyle

Gunwakler Guns Not ‘Allowed’

Posted on by

If you believe the BATFE merely “allowed” criminals to buy the guns,  you have to believe that there were regular, on-going attempts, by Mexican gangsters, to make huge purchases at U.S. gun stores, that these huge purchases were being regularly denied, and that the Mexican gangsters simply kept trying, failing, trying, failing, and then one day, all of a sudden, the gigantic sales start being approved, one and another and another, simply because our local dufi started pushing the green button instead of the red button.  And nothing else.

Sorry; I can’t believe it.  I say those purchases were engineered.  Someone had to be in contact with known criminals, asking them, or ordering them, to come here and make those purchases and take delivery down south.  Can we please stop using “allowed” or “let” when talking about this?  It defies logic.

Let’s also be very careful about getting indignant, saying in essence, “Allowing guns to be sold in the U.S. resulted in crime.”  No, Little Grasshopper.  Criminals result in crime (and the sons of bitches who work with them at our expense).  I cannot be convinced, in any case, that said criminals couldn’t have gotten, wouldn’t rather have gotten, their guns from any of multiple sources in their own country including U.S. government arms supplied ostensibly as aid, from other Central and South American countries, and from the black market.

Criminals and tyrants will always be armed.  The only question is whether the good guys will also be armed, and Gunwalker was an attempt to engineer a crisis so as to help answer this question in the negative.

From the Horse’s (Jihadist’s) Mouth

Posted on by

Here we go again I suppose.  I posted a few days ago that I wanted clarification of Ron Paul’s military and foreign policy.  No one offered any, but it sure provoked a storm of comments.  I asked in a comment on RP’s own web site, what he would suggest we do about small, rogue states that want to kill us, don’t yet have the means to do it, but are very active in working to attain the means and the allies to eventually kill us.  Not only did Ron Paul or his web site managers attempt an answer, none of his supporters offered any answers, AND there was an instant troll patrol mobilization that buried the discussion in an argument over the definition of Zion.

Strike One; No coherent position on his own web site.

Strike Two; No answers to a serious and level-headed series of questions.

Strike Three; He seems to have a troll patrol that can be dispatched on demand on short notice, to provide a smoke screen.  Whether they operate at his behest, or totally on their own, someone clearly sees a need to cover for Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas, or lack thereof.

The primary response I get from those willing to talk, i.e. not Ron Paul, is; “Pfffft!  That little fly spec is no threat!” followed by a litany of sins committed by the U.S.

As for the first part– the “pfffft” part, it doesn’t take a super power to do a lot of serious damage.  As for the second part– it’s hard to square with the first part, unless I translate it as, “we don’t deserve to survive” or “we don’t deserve to take action against any but the most cataclysmic of threats, because that would be meddling and meddling is evil”.  Without that translation, the litany-of-sins part of argument is nothing but a change of subject in that it does not address the question of what we should do about specific current threats, or future threats as they might emerge.

There are plenty of threats in the world, and a few that wander in from the outer solar system once in a while, but jihad seems to be a popular one for discussion.  I’ve heard quite a few words from the jihadist’s mouths before, and Joe, years ago, posted a list of demands from Bin Laden.  From what I’ve actually seen and heard, The Reasons for jihadists hating us center around the basics of our culture and not our foreign policies of the past or present, except for our support of Israel, which is only sometimes mentioned.  Whole jihadist diatribes exist that don’t mention it at all.  You will also remember that Israel was not created by the U.S. and that the Soviets, the Germans and more recently the Chinese, have had their long and sometimes brutal fingers in the Mid East, and THEY are not “The Great Satan”.  We are.  The facts, as I understand them then, do not support, do not even suggest other than in the most ethereal way, the idea that they hate us enough to want to wipe us off the map simply because of our meddling foreign policy.

This recent explanation, from an actual “Sharia Shall be the Law of the World” jihadist, is right along the lines of everything else I’ve heard;

Aside from railing against democracy, he goes on to unabashedly claim that sharia is his ultimate goal. Further showcasing his view that “rule by the people” is completely unacceptable, he continues with the following:

“once Allah’s law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.”

I’ve heard that many times– “The Koran, God’s law, is the only law.  Man-made laws have no place in the world.  Rule by the People is rule by Satan.  Stuff like that.  Very common theme. And from the same report;

Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them.

The Islamic state he’d like to see Egypt become is an equally concerning picture — a nation that would have no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims. And because tourists “drink alcohol and fornicate,” all of the sites that have made Egypt a popular destination for foreign vacationers. will be shut down. Art, dancing, singing and other exercises of talent and self-expression will also be prohibited.

We “Drink alcohol and fornicate”.  I believe Bin Laden said the same thing, along with demanding an end to trading money with interest.  Exercises of art and other forms of self-expression have also been mentioned before, by other radical Islamists.  That’s what I’m seeing, supposedly in their own words.  Now you could argue that all the translators and/or reporters, from any and all walks of life, are mistranslating and/or misreporting the messages, but I’ll have a very hard time believing that.  If that were the case, there’d be people here, who speak the language, raising a fit– “That’s not what he said…!“

So far as I can tell, Ron Paul says “no sanctions” while at the same time saying that we should “put (undefined) pressure” on certain, undefined, entities but absolutely avoid them by staying out of their business while the jihadists ally with Russia, China and Venezuela, etc. and we should totally mind our own business because anything else whatsoever is “Imperialist”.  That is, so far as I can tell.  I’ve given up on my attempt to get clarification from Ron Paul.  I now know I’ll never get it.  There’s something seriously f’d up with him, that people close to him want very much to hide.  I don’t know what it is, but I can smell its horrible stench wafting out through my monitor.

So.  Again.  Please.  Focus like a laser beam this time.  Forget our litany of past and present sins for the moment.  Forget Ron Paul.  That’s a different subject from “what should we do now that the house seems to be smoking?”  I don’t want a sermon on why I shouldn’t play with matches while the house seems to be on fire.  OK?  There are possibly some rather more important matters that need our immediate attention.  Or do you believe we should just forget the smoke and argue amongst ourselves until we see naked flames?  How high do the flames have to be then?  Should we be at all concerned about these jihad jackwagons, who seem to be making progress while we’re losing liberty in our own house, and if so, what should we do about it?  Or do they even exist?  I’ve heard that argument– “There is no terrorist threat”.  Exactly what would your dream candidate say?  Please be clear and to the point. (assuming your dream candidate would be clear and to the point).  If you’re for Ron Paul I don’t waht to hear from you.  I already read his own words and they make no sense, and since he can’t speak for himself I don’t care what you have to say about him because you clearly don’t know any better than I.

Ron Paul Web Site Melt-Down

Posted on by

I’ve been met with pure emotion every time I question a Ron Paul supporter on RP’s foreign policy positions.  The aggregate response is; “What are you, stupid??!!!  Ron Paul is great!!!!” but in comments on his web site it is mostly smoke screen– pure distraction– Ignore and Redirect.

I went to the obvious source of Ron Paul positions– Ron Paul’s own web site, for clarification, and found none.  The best I could ascertain was that RP’s position on hostile enemies is; “Stop, or I’ll say Stop again!” or “Stop, or you’ll get a letter of condemnation on official letterhead!”

There are two ten minute videos there.  I got through one, with only more questions.  At one stage, where he’s making the point, “America negotiated with the Soviet Union and so therefore we can negotiate with Iran” he wraps it up saying that, after all, Iran is no bigger a threat than was the Soviet Union.  (oh boy)  No, see; the Soviet Union was a massively greater threat than Iran is today.  See.  Mutually Assured Destruction was well in place.  His reasoning is backwards.

In another segment of the same vid, he says he’s totally opposed to sanctions, on the notion that they’re an act of war.  OK.  I could agree with that, but then he slips in the idea of “putting pressure” on hostiles without giving any clue as what that could mean. Let’s see, maybe 12 years, seventeen UN resolutions against the Saddam regime in Iraq, followed by Saddam kicking out the UN inspectors?  “Pressure”, with nothing to back it up, will be met with laughter by our enemies.

As it went, we had not one, but two U.S. Congressional authorizations of force (official declarations of war) with Congresscritters falling all over each other to get in front of the cameras and make sure we all knew they favored military action.  A few weeks later and it was “Bush Lied, People Died!” and “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” and “No War For Oil!” and as far as I can tell Ron Paul agrees with the later attitudes, saying we’re illegally doing this and illegally doing that, and no wonder people hate us because we suck (no explanation of why the Russians and Chinese, among others, aren’t as hated as the U.S., after they’ve been ten times as “Imperialist” as anything the U.S. ever did).

My best assessment of Ron Paul’s foreign/military position is that it’s a conflation of Jane Fonda’s, John Kerry’s and Cindy Sheehan’s, i.e. pure emotion mixed with the belief that the U.S. is on balance a force of evil in the world, with some shameless pandering to the “Make Love, Not War!” constituency (which he must see as an important voting block) mixed in.  That and he apparently can’t afford a moderator for his web site.  Other than that, I like Ron Paul a lot.

A Little History

Posted on by

I’ve long suspected (“suspected” as in I hadn’t set out to prove it, though I knew for sure anyway) that many of our gun restriction laws were vigorously supported by the gun industry.  It’s the only explanation for some of the import restrictions, and it makes sense to explain licensing requirements for manufacturers– protection for the established companies against cheap imports and upstart competitors, respectively.  This motivated American companies, and even the NRA, to get into bed with the anti-rights movement.  Add to that the government’s multi million dollar contracts potentially held over company’s heads, and you have an extremely powerful influence against liberty.  I bring this up because this sort of thing has been going on all throughout our society for, well, essentially forever.

Researching an answer for a customer, which is something I spend a lot of my time doing, I came across this (emphasis mine);

“The patent on the M1 carbine was owned by Western Cartridge Co. and David “Carbine” Williams, and still in effect when Penney and Arnold wanted to begin manufacturing M1 carbines in 1958. Penney and Arnold contacted Winchester-Western and offered them a percentage per carbine manufactured, in return for permission to manufacture the M1 carbine. John Olin, owner of Winchester-Western, refused. Olin, Winchester-Western, and more than a few other American manufacturers were opposed to all of the surplus weapons being returned to the United States, where they were being sold at prices the manufacturers couldn’t compete with. This opposition eventually led the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association to support the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, amongst many other things, prohibited the importation of U.S. military surplus.“

The capitalist in me, which comprises my entire being, says; “Why didn’t Winchester and other manufacturers buy up all the cheap imports, then, or at least strike a deal with the new company?”  But some obvious questions often go unanswered, or un-asked.

Point being; a huge number of the vast mountain of restrictions and barriers to entry into the marketplace we have now, started with a politician getting into bed with someone in business, and working out a deal.

What to do about it?  First be aware of it.  Then understand that our government was set up, partly, to avoid this sort of thing.  Hence I lay the majority of the blame on the corrupt operators in our government.  There will always be one person willing to sell out his country for money, but government is specifically charged with protecting liberty.  Tar and feathers, anyone?  And be aware of what your favorite advocacy group is really doing before you give them money.

Current news from Israel

Posted on by

From our friend Howard Linett, Dateline Aug. 19/11, 4:12 AM PDT;

Friends:

I am speechless that the Washington Post On-Line Headlines do not include mention of the extensive attacks in southern Israel carried-out by as many as 20 terrorists between noon and 6 pm yesterday.  The terrorists infiltrated from the Sinai and used AKs, RPGs, IEDs and mortars to attack civilian vehicles and to ambush the military and police units responding to the attacks.  We have 8 dead – 6 civilians, 2 security personnel and more than 30 wounded.  In addition there have been over a dozen missiles and rockets fired at Israeli cities since last evening – 6 more wounded.   For more information check out YNET.com.

Anyway nothing like an attack to focus one’s concentration.  Up at 05:00 for Israeli Riflemen Association rifle (7.62×51 caliber ArmaLite with Black Hills Match) practice, I can report 100, 200 and 300 meters – damn I’m good!  I may be old, but I’m ready.  Quiet confidence now exudes from my pours.

Today is the 3rd Friday of Ramadan.  After yesterday’s attacks and Israel’s response and today’s incoming Kassam and Grad missiles and Israel’s continuing response, no surprise that there is rioting in East Jerusalem now that prayers have let-out.

Finally, I really do not know if it is for real or a joke, but on the way home from practice I pointed to the metal skeleton of the palace King Hussein was building in June of 1967.  You can see it from the road and I like saying that my home in 300 yards down from the hilltop on which the palace’s construction stopped when Israel recaptured Pisgot Ze’ev from the Jordanians.  One of the guys in the car, a senior contractor, exclaimed that the palace was undergoing “restoration” in anticipation of the present King of Jordan needing somewhere to go – soon.  The current King lacks his father’s resolve and will not institute another Black September.  The King now also knows US backing is an illusion.  Personally, I think he would be better-off in LA.

Howard

I don’t want King Whatshisname here.  We’re Americans.  We don’t recognise royalty.  I’d let him in only if he promises to be polite if we call him by his first name and don’t genuflect or any of that garbage, that he go through the regular immigration process, pay all his own expenses without expecting protection or special treatment of any kind, and not bring in any of the loot his government extorted from the Jordanian people.

Anyway; why report these attacks?  They aren’t news (“news” being any story, true or otherwise, that bolsters the leftist cause).

Twenty attackers and eight dead.  Good thing the attackers were run-of-the-mill jihadists then.  When the Americans go in somewhere, there are more like eight attackers and at least twenty dead.

Jesus the Socialist

Posted on by

This has come up over and over, but then the leftist playbook is only about four pages, and those are all double-spaced.  If you have to lobby for your B.S. for 150 years without pause, you end up being very repetitive.  When your repetitions are all lies, you also end up looking both stupid and insane, which of course makes a good enough definition of socialism right there.  This was my comment over there;

I never read the whole Bible, but I did see the movie. [back when I was a kid]
If Jesus ever lobbied the Roman government, calling for forced redistribution and centralized control, I haven’t heard of it.  Let’s demand that the socialists point us to that passage in the Bible.  He didn’t lobby the government employees to form public employees’ unions who would then take to the streets, calling for revolution if they didn’t get their way, did he?  Let’s see THAT part in the Bible.  (if Jesus did that, he must have been a dumb jerk anyway, and I wouldn’t listen to him)

If we were put here with free will, then forcing “charity” takes away that free will along with the distinction between those who give willingly and those who “give” only under threats from the government.

The socialists know all this of course, so let’s not make the mistake of taking their gibberish seriously– they’re just making up lies to sow doubt among the less attentive of Christians.  The only time we should ever take socialists at their word is when they’re making their threats.  They have a long history of carrying out the most outrageous of threats.  In that case we must be very serious in our resolve to defeat them.  Otherwise, socialism is nothing but a sick joke.

When Jesus shows up in person, dressed in a black ninja outfit with his own team of storm troopers to take my property, I’ll believe he was a socialist.  Until then; Girls, you be trippin’.  I’ll go with Douglas Adams’ definition of Jesus; “A man who got nailed to a tree for suggesting we be nice to people.”  I suppose today he’d be labeled a “terrorist” and the Brits would shut down his Twitter and FaceBook accounts.

The War Got Us Out of the Depression?

Posted on by

That’s the claim.  World War Two got us out of the Great Depression.  It’s become an almost Pavlovian response.  Mention the end of the Great Depression, and the pre-programmed, rapid-fire response is “The-War-got-us-out-of-it!”  Ring the bell and the socialist dogs drool.  No thought about how such a thing could be– Just blind faith that it was so.

I heard one of the talk shows hosts (I think it was Limbaugh) bring this up recently.  The very same people who claim that W.W. II “got-us-out-of-the-Depression” are now the ones claiming that the current “Bush Lied, People Died/Inside Job” wars are dragging down the economy.  I don’t think the socialists can have it both ways.  We have troops in active fighting in what, four countries now?  I lost count, and it’s not “fighting” anymore, but “Kinetic Somethingorother” anyway.  We should be doing great about now if their Keynesian economic theories are correct.

Sure.  Just try this experiment with your own business or family; apply all your best efforts, using all your best resources, to build all your best products, for four years, go deeply into debt doing it, and then package up all of that best stuff, along with all your best workers, and send them overseas to be expended with no compensation.  Then build new houses for a German family and a Japanese family, going further into debt to do that, while you engage in years of litigation and appeals with a Russian family with no clear outcome.  See how rich you are at the end of it.

You can’t advocate two opposite ideologies at the same time.  One negates the other.  Either Keynesian theory is spot on, or it’s crazy.  Your perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn’t work.  Don’t claim both or you’ll look even more blitheringly stupid than you looked when you only said your perpetual motion machine generated a net energy output (oops; I’m assuming you know what “net energy output” means, which, if you believe in Keynesian economics, you don’t. Sorry).

PS.  I read several years ago that we don’t have “Infantry” anymore.  Oh no.  That would be much too.. “yesterday”.  Now we have a “Soldier-centric Force Structure” so it’s all new and shiny, you see.  Makes all the difference in the world.  To a moron.

Since having a “War Department” to fight real enemies sounded too unfriendly, and we now have the “Defense Department” and “Peace-Keeping Forces” instead, I figure it won’t be long before we have the “Department of Peace” that will bomb the shit out of you if you advocate liberty.  You’d better hope that the Peace Squad never shows up in your neighborhood.  It’ll be a bunch of government hippies shooting up your private flower pots.  Or something.

Second Amendment Infringements in a Nutshell

Posted on by

This one, possibly from Daniel Nauenburg, together with this classic from the Half Hour News Hour, tell you just about everything you’ll ever need to know about the subject of gun restrictions.  Add one more, illustrating what governments have done to their disarmed populations, and you’d have all the bases covered in just a few minutes.

The moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-rights movement would be laughable so long as it never gained any traction.  As it is, there remains justice to be done, wrongs to be righted where possible, thousands of laws to be repealed, and government agencies to be disbanded.  When can the healing begin?

Capitalism: A Necessity

Posted on by

My 17 year old wrote this essay for his English class this summer.  While the Brits are rioting over what kind of socialism they want, and American public employees have taken to the streets for more of our money, calling for revolution if they don’t get 100% of the coerced funds they think they want, this is a timely piece.  Advocating freedom is always timely though.  I didn’t help him a whit (other than to try to raise him right) and here I left in the parts with which I had minor gripes over syntax, or over a word or two;

Capitalism: A Necessity

We live in a world full of criminals, fools, rapists, murderers, and countless other evil-doers. Many of us are left to deal with the ramifications of these burdensome people. However, evil-doers are not the only issue; many well-intentioned people make mistakes that affect millions. In considering these seemingly never-ending problems of the world, one is left with quite a dismal picture. The subsequent thought is, how can these problems be solved? Is it possible? How can we make society better? There are many ideas about how to best deal with society, some of them promising to perfect it and eradicate crime and evil. In all reality, there will always be evil and evildoers. However, a condition can be imposed which makes life better for all of us, protecting us, and allowing us the freedom to think, create, and trade with others. This condition is Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system of government which allows individuals the most possible freedom while, at the same time, protecting them from the potential harm of others. This is because its main function is the government recognition [of] individual rights. Individual rights are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (Rand, Man’s Rights). Among them are:  that a person has the right to their  own life, that a person has the right to liberty (or the freedom to think and act), and that a person is free to “pursue happiness,” or to do what they please. A person assumes these rights with the caveat that they may not violate any other person’s rights. A system such as this protects individuals, while still allowing them freedoms proper for their survival.

All rights are actually corollaries of the right to life. Man is a living creature; naturally, he must have the freedom to perform all actions necessary to stay alive. Also, Man is a thinking creature; he relies on his creative faculty to produce the tools necessary to live. Therefore, in order to have the right to his own life, he must have the freedom not only to create, but to own what he creates. Otherwise, he is a slave, subject to the whim of a master (Rand, Man’s Rights 322) and has no right to his own life. Essentially, all other rights ensure Man’s right to life which, in itself, is a basic condition for his survival.

Capitalism holds that government’s only enterprise is the protection of these basic rights. It was also the form of government originally intended for the United States by its founders. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence). It is clear in this excerpt that the founders of the United States thought of government as a protector of the people rather than a controller or a regulator.

A well known  aspect of Capitalism is the absence of economic regulation, or a free market system. No economic regulation can exist in a capitalistic system because it inherently inhibits people’s right to free trade – therefore violating their right to life. A common argument against Capitalism is that a lack of regulation would allow business to grow exorbitantly, take advantage of society, cause poverty and contribute to a general degradation of people’s lifestyle. However, in a free market, if a business is not practicing in a manner that is beneficial to the public, a niche is created for another business to enter, and the public is free to boycott the business in support of an emerging one. As long as a business does not violate another’s rights, they are free to act as they wish. However, in the situation where a business is violating other’s rights, judicial action would be appropriate, just as with any other criminal.

Capitalism is the only system of government that does not require, and in fact prevents, control by force. It ensures that no force may ever be initiated and that the only appropriate force is self-defense. The only method by which any trade may occur is by mutual consent – a transaction in which both parties involved must agree. In this system, it is inherent that both parties benefit; both consensually walk away with something they consider more valuable than what they traded. Other systems of government such as Socialism and Fascism are based on the notion that each individual in society is less valuable than a “public good” and that force may be initiated on society for the sake of this “public good.” In reality, this translates to an ever-growing government control of the citizens. These systems, unlike Capitalism, fail to recognize that society is actually a group of individuals rather than a single entity. In a capitalistic system, individuals are free to act in their best interest and are barred from violating another’s right to do so, creating an optimal situation for the success of society.

An argument made against Capitalism is that it inherently results in people unable to take care of themselves being left to starve because of the lack of redistribution programs such as welfare. However, in a Capitalist system, people are free to help other people as they wish. If an individual believes another person or group should receive help, then that individual can provide monetary support or bolster more widespread support. Additionally, charity organizations can flourish and help millions worldwide. By no means does Capitalism prevent needy people from receiving help. It actually works more efficiently than a welfare system; Capitalism does not support people who, entirely capable of caring for themselves, decide instead to take advantage of a government redistribution system unless other people willfully decide to support them. In a Capitalistic system, force upon any party is forbidden because it violates people’s rights, so redistribution is impossible.

Capitalism is the system that best allows man to produce wealth – anything of value which helps improve his survivability. It does this by giving man the freedom to think, discover, and act on his own volition without oppression from any entity (government, criminals, etc.). Man did not evolve as a highly specialized community species such as bees or ants. By nature, man works best if he is allowed to make his own choices. The early caveman did not create the spear because his only motive was to work for a “public good” – to improve the lives of other cavemen – he created the spear out of his self-interest in his own survival. Even so, the result was an improvement in mankind as a whole; because they saw the first, other cavemen’s lives were improved by using his idea for themselves. Capitalism does not ensure a perfect society. Rather, it ensures the conditions which best allow society to function. It does this by protecting Man’s rights.

 

Works Cited

Decaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776). Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Appendix: Man’s Rights.” Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967. Print. This chapter specifically outlines the nature of man’s rights and their necessary existence.

The public college teacher gave him a “B”.  I’m a little bit suprised she didn’t lose composure and start breaking things.  Maybe she’s been in contact with her higher-ups, trying to find ways to deal with this problem “under the radar”.

Violent Socialists

Posted on by

But I repeat myself.  Spending most of the article sarching in vain for a coherent thought, the author eventually slips in her take on the UK riots;

The failure of the markets goes hand in hand with human blight. Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution. After the Great Crash, Britain recalibrated, for a time. Income differentials fell, the welfare state was born and skills and growth increased.

Damn those pesky income differentials– they did it!  She had to hide her editorial in ~1,000 words of mish-mash.  That one paragraph would have sufficed.  See; that their socialist democracy failed to crush productivity overnight in the first half of the 20th century is proof that it is good and that we need much more.

This demonstrates a couple of my old catch phrases;
The socialists are angry because the socialists in power aren’t socialist enough.
When socialism fails, freedom is to blame, and the answer is more socialism.

When the Teaparty holds a peaceful rally, advocating liberty and denouncing tyranny, leaving the rally site cleaner than they found it, they are guilty of inciting violence.  When socialists riot, loot and burn, calling for revolution, it is because of the income differential– we should listen to them because they represent our future.

Meanwhile in the U.S., our Republican Party leaders, thinking themselves the oh-so-much-more-clever-than-thou pragmatists, are busy trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election season, figuring out how to please this group, gingerly, without overly offending that group, taking polls, doing market analysis, organizing think tanks and hiring image consultants (in other words; there isn’t a shred of seriousness or principle amongst the whole lot of them).

State Sponsored Media?

Posted on by

Speaking of the tools and mechanisms of oppression, have any of you noticed how many government or Ad Council ads there are on AM radio lately?  We’re being told where to find out how to raise our kids, fasten their car seats, talk to kids about drugs, notice the signs of a stroke (call 911) quit smoking, and ZOMG– be afraid of your food!  In the 20 minutes or so I listened to KMAX this morning, there were two or three government ads to one commercial ad.

Now; I haven’t looked into who runs the Ad Council or where its funding comes from, and I don’t know how many of the government ads are actually paid for as opposed to being forced as “public service announcements” but it’s looking more and more like there is already a mechanism in place to further control radio stations– threaten to their pull ads, which are becoming a majority of the ads on the air.

I thought y’all might want to look into this, as there has been “chatter” for years about how to clamp down on talk radio and yet no one is talking about the recent uptick in Big Brother ads.  I smell “Hope and Change” in this.

The Top Video…

Posted on by

…on this page is excellent.  I couldn’t have said it better myself, and that’s saying a lot.


John McCain should be out in a nice pasture right now, munching on sweet grass and chewing his cud.

Enhanced Penalties

Posted on by

Over the years, mostly in the 1990s IIRC, there has been a lot of talk about certain enhanced penalties for “gun crimes”.  Even some supposedly on the pro rights side have advocated them, presumably as a compromise to prevent some other, more egregious infringement.


I thought we had dispatched the whole concept years ago, but it came up again in comments here, so I figure it’s time to update some folks who might be new to this game of official, wholesale coercion and persecution of different groups, verses liberty.  Besides that, we all know by now that the leftist playbook is very short, and so they have to recycle the old ideas and find a way to make them new again every few years or so.


What you’re saying when you advocate special punishments for “gun crime” is that the same, or very similar, crime committed without a gun is somehow less criminal.  What you’re saying is that gun owners are to be treated the way black people were treated before civil rights.


Do you really want to go there?


My sister and her approximately three year old daughter were murdered in their own home by an invader.  The killer used a kitchen knife to brutally stab and slash my sister to death, in the presence of her daughter, and then the daughter was strangled to death with a shoestring as the murder weapon.


So you’re saying; “Oh, well thank goodness they were killed with a knife and shoestring, because being shot with a gun would be…just terrible!”  And you’re saying to the murderer; “Thank you, my good man, for using a knife and a shoestring instead of a gun.  That’s the way we like to see it. Now you’ll get off a little easier.”


WTF..Really?


One of our music store customers in his early teens was minding his own business one night when a carload of other kids stopped, got out, and clubbed him with a baseball bat.  He dragged himself some blocks to the steps of a nearby business, and died from the massive head injuries.


“His parents should count their lucky stars their boy wasn’t shot, ’cause that would have been bad news!”


Really?


That’s just as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to slavery, we should just have enhanced penalties for black people who commit crimes, and referring to that as “pro civil rights advocacy”.  With friends like that I don’t need enemies.  I know the enhanced-penalty-for-the-presence-of-guns concept has been bandied about by supposedly pro gun legisladiots, and that you might have been fooled for a moment, but don’t let it happen again.  Now you know– such ideas come either from the anti rights movement or from people who can’t think straight and don’t understand what the words “rights” and “justice” mean.  We can all do much better without them mucking up the waters.


ETA; Maybe the slavery reference wasn’t the best one.  Maybe it should be, “…as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to outright lynchings, we should have enhanced penalties for blacks who commit crimes…”  Makes everybody happy, right?  Everyone gets a little something.


In any case, when we stick to the basic truths, we win.  When you compromise the basic principles, you’ve relegated the concept of rights to the back of the bus.  You’ve just lost.  Creating enhanced penalties for one group verses another is outright dumb, and evil, regardless of the political/tactical environment.  If you can’t stand on the principle of basic rights, equality, liberty and justice, well thank you for applying but no– we just can’t use you at this time.  Coward.

Ok, That Is Pretty Cool

Posted on by

I’ve come to shrug my shoulders at the various “flying car” ideas out there.  Most of them have never flown, and probably never will, despite having the flight specs listed on the their web sites.  There are of course helicopters and auto gyros, but I don’t know of any highway rated ones.


This one is already in the air and the road, and seemingly ready to go.


I want the option of putting floats on mine, and skis, plus four wheel drive, and it needs to able to carry four people, the dog, and a week’s worth of camping supplies for the family, my tools, several rifles and a couple thousand rounds of ammo.  I’ll have to wait for the “F150 4 x 4” version, and then get it used, ’cause I can’t afford a quarter mil.  You early adopters will no doubt be a great help.

Gambling with Societal Stability

Posted on by

That title reads like it’s from one of the pathetic doctoral theses that students are forced to write, and that no one will ever read, doesn’t it?


No, I’m talking about gambling, or “gaming” as a business.


Gambling, it was said, should be outlawed because of the horrific problems that can result from it.  Some people, lured by the prospect of easy money, cannot control themselves, and so on.  And so gambling was outlawed.  To save us from ourselves.  It’s based on the thoroughly Marxist tenet that says; if we’re allowed to make our own decisions, we’ll surely mess up everything.  Because we suck.


Oh, but wait; there can be a lot of money to be made in gambling, so we should have a state lottery!  Cool!  Think of all the sweet, sweet money!


Now, all of sudden, and just because the government owns it, gambling is WONDERFUL!  Why, look at all the things it funds!  Think of The Children!


The Washington State Lottery has been running radio ads telling us of all the beautiful, wonderful, loving things that the lottery does for all of us and our community.  They quote the happy winners and urge us to gamble like there’s no tomorrow, imploring us to ask ourselves with the catchy phrase; “Who’s world could YOU change?”


See, you cops and you in the justice system and you legislators; this is how the remaining shreds of respect for the law, and law enforcement, are being eroded.


It’s the worst, most destructive thing in the world when WE deoit, but it’s the very definition of beauty and all things holy when YOU do it.


I have a friendly tip for you in this regard–  FUCK YOU!  You’re not helping to stabilize your communities with this sort of crap.  You’re helping to de-stabilize your communities with the enforcement of laws that punish people who HAVEN’T violated anyone’s rights.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is why, if we’re going to de-criminalize drugs, we must keep the drug trade as far out of the hands of government as possible.  This is the sort of crap that led to the creation of the BATFE following the horrors of Prohibition, if you know your history.


If we follow that horrid model, let’s see; “We gave some of the gambling to Indian tribes, so maybe we can give the pot trade to…hmmm…maybe the Hispanic Americans?  Maybe the poor white trailer trash?  Or should they be given the meth trade?  Oh what the hell, lets have the government play the role that used to be played by the syndicated crime gangs that the government created with substance laws in the first place.  Sure—they own it already, by rights.  Fine, now what about prostitution?”


I’ve been asking the question for years; haven’t we learned a single thing from the Prohibition era?  Now I’m wondering.  Maybe we did learn something from Prohibition.  Maybe we learned that there’s a ton of money and power to be gained from making certain things illegal, causing a bunch of crime and chaos, ratcheting up the law enforcement and reaching for more “tools” for said enforcement, then when it’s so far out of control that the people are saying they’ve had enough and they’re demanding “something” be done, government takes it over where the gangs left off.  State pot dispensaries, AND we still have all the 4th amendment incursions we had during the drug “war” AND we still have the DEA.  “Top down, bottom up, inside out” (that model fits perfectly here, so if you haven’t heard of it, you had better start googling it.  We’re being set up).  And you people think it’s a freaking great idea.  Suckers.  Fools.  Dupes.  You think you’re for freedom, and you’ll be begging for this shit, as an improvement.  Just as it was planned.  The BATFEM, here we come.  You’ll call for it, thinking yourself clever, but you’re just someone else’s Stradivari.


On the other hand, we could have a free society, like we were promised after the Revolution.  Now which would you rather?  A free society, or a government-run, hypocritical shit hole with different rules for different groups of people and still different rules for government-run businesses?  We fought a revolution over much less than this, and defeated the most powerful military in the world in the process.  Americans tend to think freedom is worth fighting for.  It’s in our blood.

Revolvernomics

Posted on by

Where is it written that most single action revolvers have to require chambers to be loaded/unloaded individually whereas a double action usually has a tip-out cylinder?  For that matter, where is it written that, if one wants to run a revolver in single action, one can’t buy a double action and run it exclusively as a single action, benefiting from the superior reloading system that is the tip-out cylinder?


If Major Schofield had come up with the moon clip back in the 1800s, and called for a double action, he’d have created what might be regarded as a modern revolver even by today’s standards.


It’s my understanding that the moon clip was created as a stop gap measure after W.W. I, allowing .45 ACP ammunition to be used in revolvers, with a minor alteration to the cylinder, at a time when 1911 pistols were in short supply.  Why don’t we see more moon clips, which allow faster reloading, used with rimmed cartridges?  Instead of carrying speed loaders, you carry the loaded moon clips and drop the whole business into the cylinder.


Cylinders with an odd number of chambers make it easier to place the lock notches in between chambers instead of at the thin spot right atop a chamber.  If I were getting a revolver chambered for a high pressure round I think I’d want a seven shooter or a nine shooter.


An 1858 Remington New Model Army, with its change-out percussion (“cap and ball”) cylinder, can be reloaded faster than the later Colt Peacemaker, so long as you have another loaded cylinder.  The consumable envelope cartridge of the 1860s can (if you’re willing to risk igniting the powder from the hot residue in the just-fired cylinders while you’re ramming the balls in) allow a percussion revolver to be reloaded almost as fast as the Peacemaker.  One problem was their fragility.


The French had combat caliber (10 and 11 mm) metal (pinfire) cartridges and bored-through cylinder revolvers years before the outbreak of our War Between the States.  I did not know that.


I can’t fully explain why, but I want a percussion revolver based on the 1858 Remington but with a lengthened and beefed up frame and cylinder so it can safely handle a 250 grain 45 caliber cast lead bullet and 60 grains of FFF black powder.  It’s what the Colt Walker should have been.  By comparison, the later .45 Colt metal cartridge used a maximum of about 40 grains black powder.  That and I want a matching carbine so they can use the same cylinders.  No fooling around with reloading metal cartridges – just cast the bullets.  Among the reasons I want these is that the way I read the WA State hunting regs for muzzleloader season (last year’s anyway) they’d be legal on deer.  Plus I think it would be cool.

Posit

Posted on by

A coercively funded, government controlled education monopoly verses liberty.


I’ll put it another way.  Let’s suppose we put that on a national ballot.  You have two selections.  You may vote for the coercively funded, government controlled education monopoly on one hand, or liberty on the other.  Either/or.  That’s your choice.


But wait; do you or anyone else, no matter your numbers, have the right to vote against liberty?  Why?

Language

Posted on by

It was hard to fit this into one of Joe’s categories, so I put in “Current News”.  I currently hear this sort of thing in the news.  Does anyone else twitch a little bit when hearing that someone or other “taped” or “video taped” this or that, or that we’re about to be shown video “footage” of something that happened long after the 1990s?


Where do you buy the little videotape cassettes that fit into your mobile phone?  How often do you change reels in your digital camera?  Where do you get them developed?


What’s to be the replacement term for “footage”?  Bitage?  Bytage?  How about “video”?  “I got this or that on camera (or on video)” certainly works.  I didn’t tape it– but I did record it and it’s on my flash drive.  If the cops come after you for videotaping them, maybe it’s because they hate outdated technology.  Ever thought of that?


Do we need some different terms, do we need simply to think about what we’re saying, or should we forget and submit?  There are terms and sayings that linger well past the time when their original meanings were widely understood.  “Flash in the pan” comes to mind.  We still might say that someone is “letting off steam” but how many today understand that a steam engine might sometimes need to let off steam to avoid over-pressuring the boiler, so as to avoid a boiler explosion?  It used to be that boiler explosions were a much more common problem, so when someone was said to be letting off steam it was understood to be the more preferable among possible outcomes.

First Pistol

Posted on by

Nephew and Niece are wanting their first pistol.  They’re interested in defense and fun, and they both can manipulate and control a full-on defense caliber auto pistol just fine, or more than fine, for beginners.  I know; ask a hundred people, get 100 answers.  Many of you have been shooting for decades and have fired 100s of thousands if not a million rounds or more in practice and competition, and so you have meaningful experience.  They’re looking at a sale on an XD or XDm right now.  I’ve also mentioned the M&P.  I figure Joe will mention STI, and Tam might point to another quality 1911.  Some will also say that a .22 is a good idea.  I’m steering them away from a sub compact, toward a full sized pistol of some sort.  They don’t want to spend over a thousand.  Preferably much less.


I usually answer; “Buy the one you like” but when you’re first starting out, it’s hard to know what you’ll like.  I did tell them they could rent at one of the logal gun store/ranges in their city and try a few.


I want to know about pistols you’ve really given some hard use.  I haven’t been able to wear out my old G20, for example, after much trying.  I looks like hell, it has the ergonomics of a cinder block (to quote J. Cooper) and the trigger feels like it was designed by gun owner haters, but it just keeps working.


What say you all?

Idaho Senator Arrested

Posted on by

Seems he got drunk and took someone else’s vehicle out for a joyride, “looking for The Promised Land”.  That would be an unsuccessful joyride, I’d expect.  I guess if he’d driven his own vehicle into, say, a river and killed his date, he’d be OK.  As it is, he’ll probably be fired.  I wonder if he keeps his pension after this.