Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. Which of these are you opposed to?
Joseph A. Hauptman
Found at the beginning of Chapter 10 of Freehold.
[I’m not sure if this is a real person or a fictional character but it’s a great question.–Joe]
Category Archives: Freedom
Quote of the day–Tamara K.
This is not how war works. This is an aberration, a relatively recent Anglo-American twist on warfare brought to its current fine pitch only by the might of American technology and taxes that allow us to blow up a crude hand-built donkey cart carrying a couple of AK-47’s with a $250,000 computerized satellite-guided bomb. And then worry about the wrath of the ASPCA for hurting the donkey.
…
Think about that the next time you rail at America’s “brutal, fascist war machine”.
Tamara K.
August 8, 2008
Further ruminating on South Ossetia…
[I’m not at all happy with a lot of the things that came out of the Bush administration but what bugs me is that the Democrat opposition to Bush is about all the wrong things. The war is one of he few things Bush as done reasonably close to right. Why don’t they complain about the TSA or the expanding power of the ATF? Oh, that’s right, implementing a police state in the US will be useful once they get back in power.–Joe]
Queen of Smackdown Wields Her Bat
Her baseball bat of truth, that is. This is simply rich. And timeless.
Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents — but Heaven forbid an infidel touch a Quran at Guantanamo.
But there’s so much more. RTWT and enjoy.
Quote of the day–Oliver Wendell Holmes
If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Found at the beginning of Chapter 3 of Freehold by Michael Z. Williamson.
[I’m reading the dead tree version. I found it on my desk at work one morning. Reader Tony had delivered it. I changed my habits to make time for reading a chapter or more each night before I go to sleep. I’m just starting chapter five now. It’s good stuff so far.–Joe]
Quote of the day–David T. Hardy
Both dissents are not merely mistaken, but (if I may be blunt) shoddy. Prior decisions and statutes seem to have been skimmed rather than researched. Historical theories that were clearly disproven are invoked as fact. The logical conclusion is that the dissenters cared not so much about constitutional law as about policy, and what they find good policy simply had to be constitutional.
David T. Hardy
July 15, 2008
D.C. v. Heller: The Court’s Liberal Wing Shoots Itself In The Foot
[One has to wonder what can be done about this. I find it very, very disturbing but don’t have the slightest idea what the solution is.–Joe]
The most anti-gun ever
With his usual thoroughness John Lott said:
Possibly one of the more remarkable changes has been his position on guns.
But despite Obama’s recent concession on “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” that there has been a “shift in emphasis” on various issues, on guns he held firm: “You mentioned the gun position. I’ve been talking about the Second Amendment being an individual right for the last year and a half. So there wasn’t a shift there.”
…
No matter Obama’s current position, no major party presidential nominee has probably ever had as strong and consistent an anti-gun record. Here is a politician who supported a ban on handguns in 1996, backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns in 1998 (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), advocated in 2004 banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on virtually all gun stores), as well as served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban research in the country.
In a post Heller world Obama is the equivalent of someone who owned slaves two years ago now claiming he always believed slavery was wrong. If he really believed what he claims then he should have acted on his beliefs instead of what was most advantageous to him at the moment.
Words of wisdom
Jeff Knox gives us some perspective and advice:
As I have said before; sometimes it takes a Pearl Harbor or an Alamo to wake the giant and win the war. Sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to wake voters up and give a Ronald Reagan a chance to lead. And sometimes it takes an Assault Weapons ban to get our guys off their butts and into the voting booth.
I’d rather by-pass the devastation of a lost battle and skip right to the victory, but we can’t always get what we want. The important thing is that we don’t concede, and compromise, and settle for a little more restriction for fear of a lot more restriction. That is the great danger. When they come and take something from us, we have a righteous, moral imperative to rise up and take it back. When we compromise and give something away, we surrender that righteous moral imperative and have only whining as our rallying cry. That is why there is no such thing as a “reasonable” gun control law. No such thing as “reasonable” restrictions on our fundamental right to arms. No such thing as “reasonable” compromise to avoid “something worse shoved down our throats.” If they want to shove something down our throats, we must stand firm and not give an inch. If we succeed in beating them back, we are battle hardened and better prepared for the next fight. If we lose, we are energized and reinforced by our brothers, finally awakened from their complacent slumber.
Thoughts on a revolution
This was originally posted as a comment to Sebastain’s post The Myth of the Clean Revolution several minutes ago but the comment didn’t show up–at least not immediately. It probably tripped some spam filter and needs to pass moderation. And besides it stands fairly well as it’s own post. Plus I have corrected a few minor typos, grammer errors and my sloppiness of formating and writing in the original.
Sebastian, This is not intended to dispute your main point. Just to point out that perhaps not all of your justification for it is valid. You said:
Remember that your revolution will not change the people of the United States, who elected the government that you so despise.
There may be solutions to the problem of continuous government growth and power without restricting the voting rights of the people that don’t know better.
Go read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and their search for a new form of government. Possibilities discussed included all laws requiring a 2/3 majority in one house of government to be put into effect. And second house of legislation has as it’s sole purpose the repealing of laws. And it could do so by getting only 1/3 of the votes. Other interesting options were considered. I think we have learned a lot about the failures of our current system of government to protect freedom and perhaps we could better if we started with a clean slate.
Often the biggest barrier to a solution is properly defining the problem. My son James and just finished the book Future of Freedom. We both were highly annoyed about the author being able to describe the process by which freedom was/is destroyed in democracies but never pointed out the, what to us seemed, obvious solutions. But perhaps we were too harsh. Successfully defining the problem is a major accomplishment in its own right.
Anyone considering “shooting the bastards” needs to realize that even if taking that step is fully justified (justification basis deliberately omitted as being beyond the scope of this post but this could be a starting point) one needs to look at the long term direct and unintended consequences of such an act. They need to have a reasonably good idea what the position of society will be a day, a week, a year, and a decade after they “pulled the trigger”. And after evaluation they conclude the world will be a better place by most measures. They need to be a grand master chess player with only a small fraction of the pieces visible on the board and see ten moves ahead against opponents who are known and unknown. Or they need to know, with near certainty, things can’t get any worse if they do take the shot.
I contend no such grand master “chess player” exists. Hence before “taking the shot” the existing or reasonably projected conditions need to be so bad as to replicate something like a Nazi concentration camp or Soviet Gulag. We aren’t there yet.
How to handle calls for “reasonable restrictions”
Okay, the example is for “rational management” but I figure that is an attempt to dodge the bullet (figuratively) coming his way with the name “reasonable restrictions” on it:
The high-muckety-media histrionics have been comical. One howler was a clueless-as-usual Washington Post editorial harrumphing that Washington DC may still “devis[e] regulations that can provide for rational management of gun ownership.”
“Rational management?” Snrk …
For the sake of argument, isn’t “rational management” of printing-press ownership a terrific idea, limiting it to those who scrupulously adhere to known facts? Oh, the high dudgeon! Why, people would rise up in ARMS, for heaven’s sake!
Imagine this: Two talking heads, brows furrowed, power ties immaculately knotted, pompously declaiming how to “rationally” destroy (excuse me, MANAGE) the right they disfavor:
Second: “Guns can be dangerous.”
First: “Editorials can be dangerous.”
Second: “Gun owners need a government permit.”
First: “Journalists need government permits.”
Second: “People should be made to wait ten days before buying a gun.”
First: “Reporters and editors should cool off ten days before writing.”
Second: “We must ban guns that fire more than one shot in rapid succession.”
First: “We must ban printing presses that print more than one page in rapid succession. And those Web servers! Millions of hits per hour? Dangerous!”
Second: “Oh, but that’s different! Guns can bring down a government!”
First: “And free speech can’t?”
The question here is, how should Americans respond to those seeking “rational management” of any of our civil liberties?
I would also like to suggest that perhaps even better success could be had by discussing the “rational management” or “reasonable restrictions” of blacks freed by the 13th Amendment.
Quote of the day–Jon LeVee
In my mind there is no one who is as dangerous as one who truly believes that they know what’s best for other people.
Jon LeVeeMay 14, 1998
[I was reminded of this by reading this link found at Say Uncle. Jon LeVee was one of seven shooters at the very first Boomershoot.–Joe]
No philosophical foundation
I highly recommend Ayn Rand’s collection of essays, Philosophy: Who Needs It?
I was reminded of her work by this discussion in the Washington Post:
I think both party’s leaders would be wise to do away with platforms altogether.
It’s the logical conclusion of a society that lacks an understanding of the need for philosophy. Political candidates of the same party can be on opposite sides of the same issue and they see nothing odd about it. There are no principles to guide them. They believe whatever they want to believe regardless of it’s validity. People support and even celebrate “diversity of opinion” for views that are obviously false.
Do you think I exaggerate? Remember this quote?
No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.
Ann Landers
Something needs to change in order for there to be hope for our future. And Obama is not the solution. It’s him and those like him that are the problem.
2nd, 4th, it doesn’t matter
In the Peoples Republic of California they have been ignoring the 2nd Amendment so long it just seems normal that they would ignore the 4th Amendment as well:
“In our investigation, we believe an AK-47 was brought on school grounds,” Janke said. “We’re still investigating what happened to the weapon.”
…
All of the approximately 800 students were searched.
There is not even a hint of outrage in the article.
Update: I can’t find the original article and the link I used is broken. I can only find a significantly stripped down version here.
I do have a copy of the original and have put it here.
Ignorant bigot Rebecca Peters
According to Peters–the head of the organization which the U.N. says represents “civil society” on gun issues, all handguns should be banned, as should all rifles capable of firing 100 meters, as should the defensive ownership of any gun.
The only “rifles” which aren’t capable of firing 100 meters are those that fire plastic suction cups or Nerf “bullets”.
Left-speak
From Lyle @ Ultimak. Left-Speak– A Glossary of Terms
Some examples:
Arsenal: Plural of “Firearm”. An arsenal is found in a Compound
Compound: The home of a firearm owner.
Fairness: Socialism.
Fifty Caliber Rifle: The most powerful and terrifying weapon ever devised by the sick mind of man, possessing magical powers of self-will, with wanton mass destruction as its goal, able to take down a jumbo jet, for example, from several miles away with a single shot. No human other than a sadistic murder ever used, wanted, or was even slightly interested in, a “Fifty Caliber Rifle”. Due to tragic and inexcusable inaction on the part of legislators, and due to inordinate influence of the merchants of death (the NRA and their henchmen in the gun industry) billions of hardened criminals now legally buy, sell, trade and stockpile “Fifty Caliber Rifles” and are at this very moment poised, looking through the sights of their “Fifty Caliber Rifles”, ready to annihilate with a single trigger squeeze, anything that annoys them, or anyone who disagrees with them who is unfortunate enough to hazard to within a ten mile radius of one of these monster killers. Trillions of people, mostly children in kindergartens, are killed every day by “Fifty Caliber Rifles” sold to criminals by illegal gun dealers at gun shows. The NRA celebrates each of these deaths by passing out cigars, brandy, 100-dollar bills and cheap handguns to pre-schoolers.
Quote of the day–Arkansas Supreme Court
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
Arkansas Supreme Court
1878
[Somewhere along the way people believed the state had the authority to prevent crime. This should be a hot button for freedom loving people. Even the classic restriction on the 1st Amendment, “You can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” is a punishment for doing something wrong. The Washington D.C. gun law mindset equivalent would be to have your jaw wired shut with duct over your mouth when you go into a theater.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Wayne LaPierre
I believe, and the N.R.A. believes, that in all human society there is a right for good people to defend themselves from bad people, and a firearm is an essential tool of self-defense.
Wayne LaPierre
July 19, 2008
U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms
[Ultimately we need to start pushing on the rampant human rights violations in other countries. I’m just not sure where and how to start. I’m thinking Canada because the gun culture is still alive and trying to fight back. But how? Smuggling guns into the country probably isn’t going to get guns into the proper hands and is subject to demonization if even one gun in a 1000 is used in a crime. An “underground railroad” for escaped political prisoners and then refuse to extradite them? Trade restrictions if they don’t ease up on the repressive laws? Boycotting of Canadian firms like the boycotts of South Africa because of apartheid?–Joe]
Quote of the day–David Kopel
The fight over original meaning has to come an end when the opinions analyze “the” right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. Circuit opinion pointed out that the phrasing indisputably shows that the right was a pre-existing one. That is, the right to keep and bear arms already existed before the Second Amendment was written. The Second Amendment merely imposed a legal requirement that the right not be infringed by the federal government. The 1875 Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank said the same thing, as both the majority and dissent agree.
David Kopel
July 18, 2008
The Right to Bear Arms and “Sensible” Gun Laws
[This is going to be a big stumbling block for the anti-rights crowd. Even if they try to repeal the 2nd Amendment Cruikshank says, “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” But we should not let them get so far as to publicly suggest repealing the 2nd Amendment. They should get all the derision, outrage, and humiliation that would arise should they suggest the equally unacceptable repeal of the rights to free speech, to a trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.–Joe]
Attack! Attack! Attack!
In response to Joe’s recent post, Racking up the Victories, I offer this a little pep talk to the troops in the gun rights organizations.
We’ve taken the beach, as Joe put it, and established a tenuous foothold. This is just the beginning of the fight. Give no quarter and take no prisoners.
The anti gun movement has inconvenienced us, insulted us, and harassed us at every opportunity. They’ve accused us of being responsible for other people’s crimes, they’ve accused us of being dangerous, “bloodthirsty” and of being “vigilantes” just because we stood up for a guaranteed human right. They’ve ruined people’s homes and property in bogus raids, justified with bogus “sting” operations. They’ve charged innocent people with “crimes” because a piece of wood or a piece of steel was an eighth inch too short or a magazine held “too many” cartridges for their tastes. They’ve put people out of business and bankrupted them for minor clerical errors. They currently have innocent people in jail, they’ve left untold numbers of people defenseless against criminal and terrorist attacks, they’ve pitted American against America, and they’ve outright killed people who did no wrong to anyone. All this and much more they have done under the color of law.
I could go on for another thousand words, but you get the point. The anti gun movement has been disrespectful, mean, cruel, ruthless, dishonest, completely without morals or principles, in full, open, blatant contempt for the Founding Principles of this country.
In short, some of the very people charged with protecting our Liberty have been in the front lines fighting against it. It’s like a security guard turned burglar, a bodyguard turned rapist, or a policeman turned murderer.
They still have prisoners. And they preach to us, telling us they have a “right to their beliefs” and that we’re supposed to be the picture of “tolerance”, restraint, and even politeness in return!
If this fight is going to have any success at all– any meaning for future generations, there has to be a price paid by those who have fought so hard to destroy an important part of the U.S. Constitution, undermine the security of our neighborhoods, and spit on our American culture. The price must be very high, so future generations can look back and see the consequences of attacking the American people’s very lives and Liberty from within, under the color of law.
Interview about the gun culture
I knew the call was coming, he called right on time and we talked for nearly 50 minutes.
Brian Doherty is writing a book that is primarily on the Heller case. It’s title is Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. I’m not sure how it came about but Stephanie, who has done a lot of PR work for Boomershoot, referred him to me. Mostly as a side note Doherty wanted information on the gun culture and how this great clash of ideas culminated in the Heller case.
After Doherty and I exchanged email and agreed on a time for the interview Stephanie called me and said I should send him a link to a blog post of mine from several years ago. She doesn’t like to talk about certain things on the phone and did a lot of hinting without coming out and saying things. It went something like, “That blog post about Boomershoot, the one that might get you fired, the one that is sort of extreme, but is what guns are all about.” I knew which one she meant–Why Boomershoot. I sent it and, as Stephanie suggested, it was a good conversation starter.
The interview went well. Where did I grow up and did I grow up with weapons as part of my daily life? Was the political viewpoint espoused in the post part of my growing up? Have things changed in the last decade or so? The sub-title to your blog is “Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal.” Do you think people, including those around where you live, actually think of you as that? How did you arrive at your political viewpoint on guns? How many people attend Boomershoot? Did you have a lot of regulatory hurdles to overcome for Boomershoot? Do the people that attend share your political views as expressed in the blog post? Do you talk about that sort of stuff a lot at Boomershoot? When the media shows up do you give them that side of event? “No”, I told him, “That would scare the white people.”
Once I answered all his questions I had a few questions for him.
Had he read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? Nope he hadn’t. I gave him my two minute overview of it with a slant toward what I figured Doherty’s interest would be in it–the gun culture and the revolution. I told him that I had talked to Ross, he was approachable, and that he probably would be a good person to interview as well.
What did he think of Boomershoot? He said he was planning to attend this year and something came up. He really wants to attend next year. I offered to put on a private party for him if he wanted to show up sometime before next April.
During the conversation I sent him several links that gave more thoughtful answers and background to our conversation:
Published by Cato Institute he expects the book to be released in late October but Amazon says, “November 25, 2008”.
I’ll be buying a copy.
Only if I can buy tags
New Jersey is so repressive toward gun owners that the only way I would willingly go into that hell hole is if I could buy tags, or preferably a license for varmints, to harvest politicians:
The 20-year-old sales clerk at a shop at Menlo Park Mall and former Middlesex County College student had a pellet handgun in the car, according to an indictment filed last week in Superior Court, New Brunswick.
…
Under a new state law, Narciso’s possession of the weapon qualifies as a Graves Act offense. Narciso could face what prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys call a “hard three,” meaning three years with no prospect of parole.