Author Archives: Lyle

We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight

Posted on by

I spoke with an NRA spokesman the other day.  Among other things, he was bragging up the fact that the NRA had sued to get some of the guns seized in the Katrina aftermath returned to their owners.

OK, kudos, NRA.  Great.  Wonderful.  Good job.

“Lets say I had broken into your home” I said, “ruffed you up, handcuffed you, and robbed you.  I then get caught, taken in and put on trial.  Would you consider it justice if the only thing that happened to me was that I were forced to return some of your belongings?”  End of story?  Hurrah, Hurrah?  I think not.

I then asked him if he could name a single instance in which the NRA had attempted to get a violator of the Second Amendment punished for his crime.  A long silence ensued, after which I had to ask, “Are you still there?”  He could not think of a single instance, nor had he ever even considered such a question.  I then asked him if he could name a single anti-gun law that, once passed, the NRA had managed to get repealed.  Again, silence.

“If I stole all the fire extinguishers from your house, and later you started a minor kitchen fire while cooking dinner, and your house burnt down because you couldn’t find a fire extinguisher, would you not hold me at least partially responsible for the loss of your house?”  After all, stealing your fire extinguishers is a violation of your rights and of the law, which limited your options in a response to an emergency.

Maybe you’d consider justice as having been served if, after you lost your house due to my violation of your property rights, I were merely forced by order of a judge to return half of your fire extinguishers a year later, all the while having continued my attempts at burglarizing other people’s houses for their fire extinguishers.”

Anyone would be a damned fool to think so.  It would be a sick joke, wouldn’t it?  Yet this is exactly the situation we face with regard to our Second Amendment rights and I dare say no one is doing anything about it.  People are being disarmed and thereby exposed to an increased risk for injury and death, and we’re supposed to jump for joy, singing “Happy Days Are Here Again” at the news that a few of the weapons are returned a year after they were illegally confiscated?  What about the perpetrators (I say, criminals– enemies of the Republic) who confiscated the weapons in the first place?  What happens to them?

Dead Silence.

We have a certain body of law in this country.  It is defined as the Supreme Law of the Land.  It is the Constitution of the United States. All of our elected officials are sworn by Oath to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution, and many of them set out immediately to circumvent, compromise, dilute, and willfully violate that Constitution.

Yet when was the last time you can recall any individual ever being punished for that violation?  It does not happen.  These people are law breakers.  They have been entrusted with, and then broken, the most important law in our society- the one that protects the very fabric of our Republic, and it seems to me that the very worst that has happened to any of them as a result is that they stand a small chance of being forced into early retirement (losing an election) and taking a life-long pension at the tax payers’ expense.

Until those who violate our constitutionally guaranteed rights are held personally liable for their crimes, they have no real incentive to stop.

Having said that, I have a friendly message for all you legislators, cops and judges out there– those of you who feel so comfortable attacking the rights of your fellow countrymen:  Your words, and your actions, are a matter of public record.  They will follow you for the rest of your life and in a time when intercommunication is increasing exponentially.  How much are you willing to bet on the notion that We The People will never actually get serious about protecting our rights?

The Credibility Gap Runs Wide

Posted on by

This is, word for word and in its entirety, the text on a poster that has been displayed in a public school in our area for years:

Violence is Any;
Word
Look
Sign
Act
 that inflicts or threatens to inflict physical or emotional injury or discomfort upon another person’s body, feelings, or possessions.

Can anyone make sense of that statement?  Adopting it as policy would be quite another matter:  “Ms. Dimbulb, Johnny gave my pencil a dirty look…”

Send the kid in for anger management counseling.  That’ll get him to respect you, I’m sure.

I would point out that approximately 100% of a public school’s budget comes as a result of threatening tax payers with acts of violence, but saying that might inflict emotional discomfort and thereby constitute an act of violence.

Germans Retreat in Fear of Islamo-Nazis

Posted on by

A mere 70 some years after many Jews no doubt told each other, “Careful not to piss off the Nazis.  It might antagonize them” we see the German government ceding to the Jihadis’ wishes.  No doubt this will be a big help in bringing “Peace In Our Time”.

Mozart’s Idomeneo, re di Creta (K. 366) was written in 1780, and premiered in Munich in 1781.  225 years later, it has become politically incorrect– apparently banned in Germany until further notice.  My! How we have progressed.

LONDON (Reuters)
Berlin security officials had warned that staging the opera “Idomeneo” would pose an “incalculable security risk.”

The controversy centered on a scene in which King Idomeneo is shown on stage with the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and the sea god Poseidon.

This Mozart was an unusual fellow.  Here’s a background of the offending opera.  You can see it performed for yourself, or arrange a community showing.

On a slightly interesting side note;  Mozart died in December of 1791– the same month in which our United States Bill of Rights was ratified.  Both, it seems, are unpopular today among idiots.

Utah Supreme Court Justices Domonstrate Ability to Read

Posted on by

Here’s something you don’t see– a gun ban struck down on constitutional grounds, thoughbeit a state constitution:

“The Utah Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on guns at the University of Utah, saying campus officials cannot adopt a policy that runs counter to state law.”

Did I read that right?  State institutions cannot enact policies in violation of the constitution?  This is groundbreaking stuff (well, outside the issue of public funding for Maplethorpe or Piss Christ exhibits, et al, being claimed as “free speech” elsewhere).

Here is the pertinent language out of Utah, courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation:

Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Take note that security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state are mentioned as the primary reason why the right to keep and bear arms should be protected.  That blows the whole “Sporting Purposes” test concept all to hell, doesn’t it?  But Utah reserves the right to define “lawful use”, like, I guess, not allowing shooting at your local community range at 03:00 for instance, without an effective sound suppressor.  That makes sense.

And “…defense of…property”?  There’s an obscure concept.

Now, if we could only get the several states to recognize the U.S. Constitution, it wouldn’t matter what any state constitution says about the keeping and bearing of arms (unless I am mistaken, the U.S. Constitution prevents, ostensibly, your home state legislature from banning newspapers, forcing Catholics to wear crucifix arm bands, for example, or reinstating slavery, but maybe someone could correct me on that).

The NRA linked to the story also, but had little to say about it as of this writing.

Psychology of Holocaust deniers & 9/11 deniers

Posted on by

I was thinking all morning about posting on this subject, then a pen pal in Israel, Howard, a marksmanship instructor for the IDF, sent me an e-mail along the same lines.  I therefore can simply post the exchange I had with him:

From: Howard in Israel
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:46 AM
To: GPOSUMMARY
Subject: Fw: Headlines and Editorials

Friends:

The other night Israeli TV news reported that a recent survey in the USA determined that a third of all Americans believe that there was US government complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  I find it hard to believe.  I also find it hard to believe that a group of 75 (?) university professors say the evidence of such complicity is undeniable.

If the TV report is correct, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

Howard
—————————————————————————–

To which I replied:

Funny you should mention that.  I was just commenting to my wife this morning that I believed I had identified a parallel between Holocaust deniers and 9/11 deniers.  Yes, it is true that there are a number of Americans, many of them college professors and administrators, who are touting the notion that the twin towers were brought down in a “controlled demolition” and the Pentagon was hit with an American cruise missile.

My hypothesis is that, just as Holocaust deniers are the very ones who agree with the Nazi’s “Final Solution”, so too are the 9/11 deniers the very same people who hate capitalism and especially international free trade.  To put it another way, they agree with the premises of the terrorists, though their rationalizations may be slightly different.

I’m no psychologist, and I cannot begin to explain why those who most agree with the anti-Semitic premises for the Holocaust would be the ones most likely to deny that it happened, or that those who most agree that Western capitalism is the root of all evil in the world would deny that the attack on the World Trade Center was perpetrated by anti-Western, anti-capitalists, but I find this fascinating.

Lyle

————————

Update, 9/12/:

Lyle:
“Fascinating” is the politest term used so far.
Howard

————————

They just lost another soldier this morning in Gaza.  He isn’t joking at all about any of this.

The “Right” to Enslave

Posted on by

First:  Thank you, Joe, for allowing me to post on your blog.  The trouble is I have this terrible habit of writing whole essays (but I did get freedom, gun rights and sex into a single issue):

Years ago I had a conversation with a man who considered himself a libertarian– one who had been reading Ayn Rand’s definitive work, “Capitalism”. He persisted in trying to convince me that “state’s rights” might properly involve the right to “allow” slavery if the people of that state so choose. It took some doing before I could get him to admit that just maybe, there can be no right to enslave, because such a “right” involved the blatant violation of rights.

I ran across two examples of this kind of silliness today.  One was in a discussion of self protection rights. A state “shall issue” concealed carry law, it was asserted, would take away “local discretion”, or to put it another way, it would deny local governments the “right” to ban the carrying of concealed guns. In another discussion I heard of the practice of removing a girl’s clitoris being described as though it were a right, or as a “traditional cultural practice” that certain peoples had a right to exercise.

In both cases, there is desire to define the protection of Liberty (the right to bear arms, or the right to keep your body parts) as “taking away local discretion” as though local “discretion” (to impose force upon individuals) is the same thing as Liberty. Lets apply that position to some other hallmarks of a free society: Nation-wide Emancipation denies “local discretion” regarding the keeping of slaves. The First Amendment takes away “local discretion” regarding the confiscation of computers and printing machines or the forced shut-down of local radio stations, and it takes away “local discretion” to ban Jews from owning land.

I guess we’re not “free” after all if we don’t have “local discretion” to ban or confiscate anything we want, or to cut various body parts off of anyone we want, so long as it gives us the sort of “Culture” we desire for “Our Community” and what about “democracy” after all? (Is anyone else reminded of Jim Jones at this point?)

Such an attitude is rooted in a fairly complete lack of principles and a total ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and history. Government’s job, in the uniquely American sense, is to protect us from force and fraud, to ensure our right to life and property, and to ensure our right to peaceable, voluntary association and exchange with others.

That’s it. Whether government has “local discretion” or “regional discretion”, or “global discretion” to control us, rob us, allow our neighbors to cut pieces off us, or enslave us, the outcome is going to be very much the same—violation, stagnation, decay, and suffering.

Government, properly, has only responsibilities. We as individuals retain all the discretion, and we as individuals, or as collectives, do not have any “right” to initiate force or fraud upon anyone, no matter how wonderful and “Cultured” it might make us feel. Is that so terribly difficult to understand?

Clarity is Poison

Posted on by

…or maybe kryptonite.  Demanding clarity from a socialist is, universally, considered a personal attack.  Remember this next time you see a Leftist interviewed.  Here is just one of countless examples.  Its from 1994, the year of the deadly “assault weapon”:

Violence, properly, begets violence

Posted on by

Oh, how many times we have heard the phrase, “It takes two to make a fight”.  That statement appears to assign equal guilt to the defender and the perpetrator, which is the same as saying that you do not have any right to defend yourself, or to be defended by anyone else.  By the time I reached high school in 1972, two kids caught fighting were both punished equally (’cause fighting just isn’t cool, man).  I see it as no mere coincidence that the arena wherein I’ve heard this phrase uttered the most, if not exclusively, is the public school system.

Its time to modify the phrase slightly, based on the application of intelligence guided by experience:

“It takes at least two to make a fight– one perpetrator and one defender.”

Col. Jeff Cooper was once asked whether violence merely begets more violence.  His answer went something like this (I’m going from memory, so I can only paraphrase): “It is my sincere endeavor to see to it that it does.”  In explaining his answer, he said that if someone is going to perpetrate violence against innocents, that person should get more violence in return than he can handle.

How many times have you heard some version of “Don’t judge me, man” or “You’re being too judgmental”?  Similar to the “it takes two” quote, this seems to be designed to prevent us from doing that which makes us human– it asks us to stop using our ability to reason.

If we really value “Peace And Love, Man” we should be ready to dish out both blame and praise appropriately.

Path to Excellence

Posted on by

In the 1980s the Regan administration “deregulated” the telephone industry.  Since then, phone service has become vastly better, cheaper, with far more options, and the prospects for the future of personal communication are truly awesome.  Critics of deregulation said we simple Americans would be inconvenienced with too many choices, and too inept to shop for the best deals, etc., etc.  They were of course entirely wrong.  Stunningly wrong.  More wrong than anyone could have imagined 25 years ago.  Does anyone remember having to get your phone from the same company that provided your connection service, and then having to buy your long distance from that same company (there was, naturally, only one choice)?

Maybe its time for more deregulation.  I say start with education, energy, and transportation.

Is anyone going to seriously argue that the old, Soviet-style, big government monopolies are a proven path to excellence?

A good place to start, mentally, is to try thinking of just one part of our lives in which government has absolutely no business whatsoever.  For some people, this will be a formidable challenge.

Official “Conventional Wisdom”

Posted on by

I just had a long and very interesting chat with a man, retired from the Air Force, who served in Korea among other places, then spent several years as a government inspector for M-14 rifle production.  He could rattle quite a bit of fascinating information off the top of his head (I took notes) but one thing struck me as odd: He seemed to be completely unaware of both the NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934 and the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986.  A forgivable “offense” I suppose, but interesting from one who had had a career in handling “machineguns”.  He was under the assumption, as are many citizens, that machineguns in the hands of peaceable Americans are illegal.  Anyone casually interested in such things can take a clue from the acronym, BATF.  A machinegun is much like a carton of cigaretts or a bottle of whiskey– their possession is said to require an accompanying tax stamp.  Also take note of the fact that BATF is a branch of Treasury.  They are (ostensibly) a tax authority.

For anyone interested in Second Amendment politics, please take a look at this analysis of THE FIREARMS OWNERS’ PROTECTION ACT.  You will get some insight into that hideous, chilling muddle with which we in the industry are faced and, I think it important to point out, what John Moses Browning, among others, was not.  FOPA was a simplification, mind you, of previous law.

For those of you at all levels in law enforcement; you need to know a little about what’s been going on, from the coup of 1934 until now, so that collectively we can begin taking the steps to restore American’s full civil liberties.

When I was getting fingerprinted at the local sheriff’s office years ago for an NFA weapons transfer, the deputy taking the prints saw the “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms” title on the forms and asked me if I was applying for a job.  I told him, “No.  This is an NFA weapons transfer.”  Previously chatty, he clammed up and said no more, obviously knowing nothing about such things.  He probably thought I was a super-spook, paramilitary international arms dealer working on the sly for Ollie North or some such, and he wasn’t going to ask any questions.  I didn’t try educating him on decades of political and legislative history, either.

Professor terminated for advocating critical thinking skills

Posted on by

Does this seem at all familiar, Joe?

Professor Thomas Klocek a Roman Catholic…was dismissed by DePaul University for allegedly offending Muslim students when discussing Christian interests in Israel, disputing that Israeli treatment of Palestinians was akin to the Nazi treatment of the Jews and then terminating the discussion when it appeared that the students were more interested in Israel-bashing than discussing the issues.

It is our understanding that Prof. Klocek alleges:

1) He was never allowed to meet with his accusers.

2) He was never presented with a written list of the complaints or charges against him.

3) He was suspended by the Dean of the School for New Learning in clear violation of the University’s own stated Faculty Handbook procedures.

4) He was never given a hearing.

5) A vote by the DePaul Faculty Council affirmed that the same rules that apply for a formal academic hearing apply to all professors, full-time and adjuncts alike.

Read more here http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/display_petitions.cgi?ID=3