Quote of the day—Rep. Hal Wick

Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.

Rep. Hal Wick
State Representative in South Dakota
Arizona shooting has little effect on national gun debate
[I’m not familiar with the constitution or laws of South Dakota but if they require you to have liability insurance before you can drive your car on their roads then it would seem to me they could require you to have road flares, a fire extinguisher, and a gun in your car before you can use their roads. That does not necessarily expand to all South Dakota citizens but it sure would cover a lot of them. And it would amuse me greatly that before Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member living next door in Minnesota, could visit she would have to have a gun in the vehicle.

The health care requirement the Feds are attempting would appear to be something completely different. Driving on public roads is a privilege granted by the state, mere existence is not.—Joe]

Alright, Classmates…

We’ve been talking about this for several years here.  Who can tell us how Rand Paul utterly failed in this interview;


ETA; YouTube imbedding has been disable for this video, but you can still see it here.


Letterman make a pretty good attempt at it, but Paul is left like a deer in the headlights and didn’t even make the attempt.  As Rand herself would say; “Blank-out.”  Then she would go on to explain how the self described conservative voices are the worst, most deadly enemies of conservatism.


I give him a C minus as a junior high school student.  He did show having done some homework and some listening in class, but I’d flunk him from high school.  Maybe it was just nerves, but I don’t buy that.  You don’t forget your main point– the thing you’ve ostensibly been striving for all your professional life.  I kept waiting for it– fully expecting it, but alas.  Maybe he’s just another Republican.


Anyone?


HT to theblaze.com

Quote of the day—LaciTheDog

I have to admit that I find the US concept of rights to be incredibly biased and ignorant.  It seems that they are stuck in the rut of inalienable rights, natural rights, god given rights, and pre-existing rights. Various definitions of inalienability include non-relinquishability, non-salability, and non-transferability. If one thinks about it, all those terms are gibberish.



Thus these are nice terms, but truly meaningless as any person with a mind can figure out. Society is what grants rights and it grants the rights which enable certain minimum standards which are ‘of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.’ It does not grant rights which would create a state of anarchy or otherwise contrary to public order.


LaciTheDog
Rights: Natural and Legal
[I find this rather amusing.


He claims those who were regarded as the best political philosophers of their time spent weeks carefully writing what they knew was the most important document in their lifetime ended up with meaningless gibberish. I have to wonder how he came to achieve such a high state of enlightenment. Or perhaps he should reevaluate his own writings for indications of meaningless gibberish.


Since I doubt that there will be any forthcoming self evaluation I will do my own evaluation of this particular post by LaciTheDog.


In other parts of the post he paraphrases Edmund Burke. It is true Burke argued against metaphysical/natural rights of ordinary men but he leaves out the part where Burke argues that rights are granted by the king who was granted his rights from God.


It appears that LaciTheDog must now argue he is improving upon the philosophy Burke in that some entity with the name of “society” inherited the role of King or God and now is in a position to bestow or withhold those rights as desired. In the absence of a King and/or God(s) one has to wonder why the individual did not inherit this power but perhaps this knowledge comes from great enlightenment.


Overlooking that major gap in his reasoning I would now like to point out that the Declaration of Independence specifically rejected Burke’s philosophy and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights rejected LaciTheDog’s “improvements”.


But the real meat of the LaciTheDog deficiencies are that he argues rights are granted and can be taken away by government and/or society. Implicit (and nearly explicit in his post) is that force is used as needed to take rights away from the individual. And it must follow that if the force necessary to remove those rights does not exist then the right remains with the original holder. And this is the part I find most amusing.


LaciTheDog is opposed to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms and has specifically stated that no such right exists. Yet the right is recognized by the majority of the people in our society, the courts, most of the legislators, and the executive branch (or at least given lip service). And even if the entire population that does not own firearms were to agree that no such right exists and they held even a moderate majority they would be incapability of enforcing that decision upon the population of gun owners because the tools of applying force would be in the hands of the gun owners—hence by LaciTheDog’s own philosophy the gun owners would still retain the right simply because no societal element was capable of taking the right away.


It boils down to LaciTheDog saying society can forcibly take away the right to keep and bear arms on a whim and society is philosophically entitled to do this because it can forcibly accomplish it.


I say, Molōn labe!—Joe]

Allen West Spanks a Koran Thumper

Interesting isn’t it, how the left has always hated America-loving Bible Thumpers, but has no problem at all with America-hating Koran Thumpers?


West would make a great president, I’m thinking.  Too bad the video isn’t subtitled.  The CAIR rep, when confronted by West, I think, responds; “Hakkalakka, Muhammad jihad! Derka derka!” but I can’t quite make it out so I’m not sure.  The CAIR people aren’t accustomed to having anyone correct their ridiculous assertions.  I guess they’ll have to start learning on the job.


Hat tip to Glen Beck, who mentioned this on the radio this morning.

Collective Firing Rights

There sure is a lot of talk about it, but little discussion of it.  Where is it written that public service employees (formerly known as public servants) have a right to collective bargaining?  Regular citizens have rights.  Government employees have responsibilities.  Do your job and quit yer bitchin’ or get out and get a real job– start your own business.  Whatever.  Just shut up and go away.  We never really needed most of you in those public positions in the first place.


I’m not so sure we should ever allow them to organize.  That’s what regular folks do, once in a while, and even then their employers have the right to collectively fire them.


Surely the public servants’ “right” to collective bargaining should come with the right to be collectively fired.  Maybe it’s time to grant them the latter, over there in Wisconsin.


Somehow an angry rent-a-mob of Marxist beatniks and global “One Big Union” socialist revolutionaries demanding more goodies from the pockets of taxpayers doesn’t sit right.  They’re certainly not what they want to be– equal in principle to civil rights marchers.  Not even remotely.


Since they’re pissed off at the state government and trying to stifle the democratic process therein, shouldn’t we be calling them Angry, Anti Government Protestors?  I’ll say they’re just exactly the same as Timothy McVeigh.  What the hell; they’re incipient terrorists.  If it’s good for the goose…


I say fire the lot, eliminate half the positions permanently, and cut all state taxes by half.  Tomorrow.  That would do for a start.  There’d be some breathing room for new start-up business and a rapidly shrinking deficit.  I don’t see a down side.

If you don’t choose to fight you are choosing death

American Mercenary took the quotes I gathered from the Brady Campaign and explains why they are wrong from an armed tactics viewpoint. And since he has the military officer training to back up his claims I’m strongly inclined to believe his take on the topic.

He lectures us:

Pistols and shotguns actually do a great deal of good against tanks and machine guns.  Because Tanks and Machine Guns can only be pointed in ONE direction at a time (although if count a pintle mounted MG on a tank then a tank could fire in two directions).

If four people have nothing but pistols, and they work together, they can swarm a machine gun nest.  Then they might be three people with pistols and a machine gun.  Then they get two more freedom minded individuals and use the machine gun to set up a base of fire to drive a squad of government goons into taking shelter where the guys with pistols shoot them in the head.  Now they are four people with rifles, pistols, and a machine guns, and likely a few grenades thrown in.

He corrects the Brady’s:

Gun control advocates seem to believe that it is better to live as a slave than die as a warrior.  Unfortunately history has made it clear that such a choice doesn’t exist.  The real choice is DIE as a slave or FIGHT as a warrior.  And yes, sometimes warriors die.  And sometimes warriors are forgotten.  And sometimes we fail to secure the God given freedoms innate in every human.

But if you don’t choose to fight you are choosing death.  How cowardly.

And he concludes:

The Brady Bunch and their ilk seem to be so afraid of “violence” that they prefer unarmed people to be crushed to death by tanks than armed people dying for the cause of freedom.

Quote of the day—michaelchron1

EXCELLENT! Now maybe we can start getting rid of the teachers that create young Republicans right at the source. With a little luck, maybe these young Republicans will also start killing each other.


GO TEXAS!


michaelkchron1
February 20, 2011
Comment to Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus.
[H/T to AntiCitizenOne in the comments here who asks, “Why are antigunners so violent? I answered that question a few months ago so I won’t get into it again other than to point out that in general anti-gun people are a subset of liberals and that this is just another data point which supports my claim that it is inherent to their philosophy.—Joe]

Channeling the Jews from Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe

I have been reading some of the anti-gun people’s thoughts on the events in Egypt recently and a particular theme appeared.

From Colin and Andy Goddard:

If instead of staging peaceful demonstrations, Egyptian protesters been armed with guns, it is highly likely that the Egyptian military, equipped with billions of dollars worth of weapons supplied free of charge by our own government, would have retaliated. That would have produced massive casualties among both the armed and unarmed Egyptians.

From Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson:

If things had gone otherwise and the military had decided to side with President Mubarek instead of the people, what good would pistols and shotguns have done against tanks and machine guns? I say, not much. It would likely have elevated the violence and increased the potential for deaths and injuries.

This theme bothered me but I didn’t quite have the words to express my discomfort. Then I found them here. This is from Reuben Ainsztein’s book Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe page 585:

The Jewish leaders, however, rejected the offer, arguing that if they behaved quietly the Germans might deport and murder 20,000 or 30,000, perhaps even 60,000 of them, but it was inconceivable that they should destroy the lot; while if they resisted, the Germans would certainly do so.

I fully agree that going to the street in a massive, anticipated to be peaceful, protest while being openly armed is generally not a good idea. I agree that making every reasonable effort to avoid violence is a good idea. It does not follow that the general population is better off without owning firearms the government is unaware of. It does not follow that once the government begins killing innocent people that non-violence is the best response.

The anti-gun people may be channeling the thoughts of the Jews prior to the Final Solution but the Jews hindsight is surely superior and it is those thoughts you should attempt to channel.

Quote of the day—Oleg Volk



Oleg Volk
February 19, 2011
No such thing as a social contract with evil
[Oleg can do more with a single picture and two sentences than I can do with thousands of words.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

Who is John Galt?

Ayn Rand
From the book Atlas Shrugged and tagline for the movie.
[The trailer for the movie is here, via David.—Joe]

Inception

I watched the movie the other night.  It’s silly in a lot of ways, but it is interesting, not least because I once woke up from a dream after I realized I was dreaming, but it then turned out I was still dreaming.  I “awoke” right where I should be– right there on the couch where I’d fallen asleep, looked around, and got up.  “Wow, that was a weird dream” I thought.  What tipped me off was that I started floating up from the floor after I got up to go to the bathroom.  That’s a dead giveaway right there, see.  I could identify with the story in a way.  But this post isn’t about that.


An inception the way it was used in the movie, is the seed of an idea that, once it’s planted, cannot be stopped.  It sprouts, takes root, grows and eventually bears fruit.


I remember quite clearly an inception experience I had during my dark days of believing in leftist garbage.  I had what I’ve since referred to as the “Default Mentality”.  It was natural.  Everyone had it.  It was just the way things were.  School teachers, professors, friends, the talking heads on NPR and PBS– everyone thought that way but for a few idiots dredged up and brought in just to make the discussion more interesting and prove to us that we were the smart ones.  I was listening to a crazy, extremist right wing talk show (to see just how stupid it was, and gloat over it) and one of the callers gave his definition of a “liberal”; “The kind of person who will give you the shirt off of someone else’s back.”  I could not refute that.  Hmm.  That set the snowball in motion, though it had already been building on top of the hill by that time.


There was another one that happened long before.  A girl (yes, girl– we were in our tweens) I was dating just set it out there all by itself; “About the only things the federal government should be doing are commanding the military and maintaining the interstates.”  I guffawed, naturally, and she let it be, but that inception of an idea never left me.  Now I question why they should be involved in the interstates (if we need some way to get around, we’ll come up with the solution without being forced by someone else).  Obviously she was a Progressive.


The left has used seed planting for generations.  It’s why they’ve always used “rights” to describe coercive redistribution, “regulation” to describe coercive restrictions, “democracy” as though it is synonymous with freedom, “hope and change” to describe communist revolution, and so on, redefining all the important words and concepts.  Just the misuse of one little word– one single word over here, another little word slipped in over there while you weren’t paying attention, to reverse the meaning of life itself.  Eventually the students are rioting in the streets and taking over the campus, and the Jonestown inhabitants are all dead– men, women and children.  The untimate in “shared sacrifice”.  Why, don’t the good Christians believe in sharing?  Don’t they believe in sacrifice?  Of course they do.  Shared sacrifice can be wonderful.  But see how it was turned around into something ghastly.


We have it much better though, because we have reality on our side.  My challenge to you who advocate the American Principles of Liberty is to plant seeds of your own.  It’s very easy.  Seeds are very small, light, and very compact.  Here’s one that I think just qualifies;


Gun restrictions are not only an affront to the ideal of liberty; they are counterproductive in practice.


Simpler yet; substitute “gun restrictions” with “prohibitions”.  Same thing, you see, but it’s a bit lighter.


Redistribution and restriction do not equal freedom.


Freedom means one thing– the protection of rights.


It isn’t a right if it demands something of someone else.


You know? People, when left alone, are capable of some really cool things…


Try to take it from there if you like.  This is somewhat new to me, and I’m sure others can do better at it.  There are perhaps thousands of them you could come up with– Simple, very small, resilient ideas that can sit around until the conditions are right.  Find some soil and plant them.  Scatter them to the wind and they’ll sprout if they find the right conditions.  Too often we’re tempted to try to convert someone with a protracted back and forth argument until we’re out of breath.  If the conditions for that little seed aren’t right, don’t flood it with more and more water and wash it away.  Just plant it and let it sit there.  You don’t pound seeds into the ground.  You just sort of drop them there, and wait.  When things warm up after the snow melts, when the next rain comes in springtime, they will germinate.

Quote of the day—Bertrand Barère

The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants.

Bertrand Barère
Last sentence of a speech given at the trial of Louis XVI given in December 1792.
[I’m reminded of this because of the events in Egypt.

While this is more than a little truth in this statement the events of the French Revolution and others show that things can get more than a little carried away in the passion of the moment. It would seem to me the moral obligation to only use deadly force when there is imminent danger of death or permanent injury to innocent life or after careful deliberation at a trial when emotions have cooled some should still apply.—Joe]

Shotgun Import Restrictions and the Federal Bureau of Sport

F-Troop wants to “study” the “sporting purposes” of some popular shotguns.  Maybe they’re desperate to justify their existence.  Maybe they’re just bored, or maybe they hate certain liberties enumerated in the constitution.  I don’t know, but it’s about time for Congress to look for ways to clamp down on F-Troop, and question the legitimacy of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  F-Troop, and federal gun restrictions, are relics of the 1920s Prohibition era, and it’s about time we explore ways to rid ourselves of that ugly legacy once and for all.  Short of that, we should at least be able to keep it from growing until we have the votes in Congress to eliminate it.


ETA; Hat tip to Uncle for pointing to the NSSF article.

Quote of the day—Senator Eric Adams

Gun violence is all too prevalent in our society. It is a plague, and we must dedicate ourselves to its eradication. We must use both education and legislation to combat the deadly consequences of weapon-related crimes.

The shooting that takes in Arizona, in Brooklyn, or no matter what city or state … We have become a society that has embraced a gun culture. Enough is enough. We want our country back; we want our cities back; we want our schools back; we want our homes back; we want to, once again, return to a society where gun violence and innocent people being shot, maimed, or killed are not part of the daily tabloids.

There are no First Amendment Rights in your home.

New York State Senator Eric Adams
January 2011
Brooklyn Senator Launches Gun Control Campaign 

[The first part of the quote above is from the linked article. The last sentence is from the associated YouTube video which I have embedded above.

I’m pretty sure he meant Fourth Amendment when he said First Amendment. But even if it was a slip of the tongue rather than ignorance for a lawmaker to do that is pretty disturbing.

Combining his stated goal of eradication of “gun violence” and hatred of a culture that exercises our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with his carelessness and/or ignorance of the Bill of Rights I just have to ask, “What would he think of those that attempt to ignore the 13th Amendment instead of the Second?”—Joe]

Help Heller Holler Harder

Oleg Volk is trying;



I am trying to help Dick Heller with raising funds for more legal mischief in DC.


I may be a good idea to assist Heller in piling on, as you are able.  The more the anti rights bigots, cowards, liars and charlatans in Washington have to contend with, the better.  They are getting desperate now, seeing their Big Chance slipping away after so many generations of careful plotting and planning to spoil this great experiment that is America.  The more these kinds of straight-up contests (the Heller kind) are made public, the more the forces of evil lose their control, and they know it.  They are afraid, and they will do some very stupid things as a result.


See; right here– This is why the beast hates the internet and lusts for control of it.

Quote of the day—Exodus

Meredith strikes me as the kind of person who reads dystopian novels as though they were instruction manuals.

I mean… that’s some serious “keep you up at night scary” reprogramming she’s advocating.

Exodus
January 28, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—Meredith.
[Yup.

I think it is because they don’t have any sense of history or they believe the big lie that “if only the right people were in charge”. They just don’t understand that, in the most simplistic terms, all power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely and that every class is unfit to govern.—Joe]

The Smart People Should be Running Everything

That’s the assertion of all leftists (communists, socialists, Fascists, Nazis, the KKK, Progressives, or whatever it is they prefer to be called this week).  Here’s one of the super duper smart people (Chuck Schumer) discussing the horrible things (naturally) that will ensue if the socialists don’t get their way, and the Three Branches of Government that all have to get along.  Rather than imbed the video, I link to Schumer’s comment here, to show that Reasoned DiscourseTM has broken out on YouTube (at the time of the this post, comments are turned off there).


To summarize the ultrasmart senator’s comments; our creditors want us to go farther in debt, and the three branches of government are the House, Senate, and the President.  Oh; and we have to “…pay the debt ceiling…”  Well it’s good to know that the smart people are in charge of ordering us around.  I’d hate to be pushed around by a fool.


This, says I, is why we can’t allow the smart people the power to make our decisions for us.  Don’t tell anyone (it may be too uncomfortable for some of the sensitive types) but some people are so stupid that they actually believe they’re smarter than most everyone else.  What is it that’s said of those who have such problems– that they’re usually the last to know?


I suppose New Yorkers like Schumer because he brings them lots of booty.  Or they think he does.

Banning books

It makes as much sense as banning imported guns.

We really need to get rid of the “sporting purpose” language in our laws in regards to firearms. I would think the Heller decision would make that relatively easy.

‘Our Progressive Health Care Bill is Better Than Theirs’

Maybe you thought the newly elected Republicans would move to get government’s meddling, grubby hands out of the health care industry.


Think again, suckers.


How many times must we be treated to silver hairspray dude trying to act as though he genuinely believes what he’s saying?  That guy didn’t make it two and a half minutes without an edit, and he was reading from a prompter.  This is our leadership?  It’s an insult.


The least they could do is get these phonies a few more acting lessons, so when they’re bullshitting us to death, at least they’d do a good job of it.  I really wonder who it is they think will find that video appealing.  I think that guy came right off the set of the Lawrence Welk Show.


If you’re figuring on politics to help reverse this encroaching socialism, you’d better be working more locally, because the national-level Republicans are up to the same old Progressive tricks.

Quote of the day—Thomas Paine

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

Thomas Paine
[The individual that values his the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment must also protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment or everyone will discover the liberty secured by the 13th Amendment has been lost as well.

See also the nearly identical concept expressed by Alan Dershowitz.—Joe]