Quote of the day—BigWallSection @peter_and_louie

There is no infringement in keeping track of your guns, registering them, transferring title, spot raids by ATF to make sure you don’t mistakenly sell them without reporting, or lose them. No infringement on responsible owners.

BigWallSection @peter_and_louie
Tweeted on January 7th, 2019, deleted by January 8th, 2019.
[This is what they think of, and occasionally share in an unguarded moment, the right to keep and bear arms.

I wonder if cell phones were treated as such (for all intents and purposes a modern day “printing press” and all around “free speech” tool) he would still adhere to this opinion.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

If you need some damn leader to follow or loathe, please look for a new hobby and/or a better religion: this is the United States and our “leaders” are supposed to be doing the legislative and executive grunt work or making sure the streets run on time and the criminals are kept on the run, not to mention avoiding foreign entanglements and providing for the common defense.  They’re not supposed to be shining examples on a hill in the sunlight whom you should aspire to emulate.  Most of them are lawyers who weren’t all that good at practicing law and thought writing laws might be easier; the evidence suggests they don’t have much knack for that, either.

Roberta X
January 7, 2019
Populism And The Cult Of Victimhood
[Articulating it perhaps a bit more succinctly, I think of them as “public servants.”

Whether you thing of them as “leaders” or public servants completely changes how you think about their role in society.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William Strauss and Neil Howe

An impasse over the federal budget reaches a stalemate. The president and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The president declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The president threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.

William Strauss and Neil Howe
1997
The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy
[See also: 2019 FROM A FOURTH TURNING PERSPECTIVE.

Via email from Chet.

Extremely “interesting times” ahead—if the prophecy is correct.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew M. Cuomo

Ladies and gentlemen, this nation is in crisis. The social fabric is fraying and it is nearing its breaking point. We must stand up to this tyranny once again. Not with muskets the way our founders did. But with our voices and our votes and with the power and example of our action here in New York.

Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York
December 17, 2018
Cuomo declares NY independent from federal government
[From the same article:

His agenda, which includes marijuana legalization, gun control measures, and environmental protections, is New York’s Declaration of Independence, Cuomo said.

I like this response:

The new state motto could be Freedom through Over-Regulation. Or, how about, True Liberty Flows from Tyranny?

It’s like Lyle says sometimes. Cuomo wants independence from the Federal Government so he will have, “freedom to do wrong.”—Joe]

Fascism

Operation Choke Point was an attempt to cut off gun (and other politically disfavored) related business from financial services. Operation Choke Point has “effectively” ended but that doesn’t mean the fascists have given up. Andrew Ross Sorkin is advocating another angle:

How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings

The New York Times reviewed hundreds of documents including police reports, bank records and investigator notes from a decade of mass shootings. Many of the killers built their stockpiles of high-powered weapons with the convenience of credit. No one was watching.

Mass shootings routinely set off a national debate on guns, usually focused on regulating firearms and on troubled youths. Little attention is paid to the financial industry that has become an instrumental, if unwitting, enabler of carnage.

A New York Times examination of mass shootings since the Virginia Tech attack in 2007 reveals how credit cards have become a crucial part of the planning of these massacres. There have been 13 shootings that killed 10 or more people in the last decade, and in at least eight of them, the killers financed their attacks using credit cards. Some used credit to acquire firearms they could not otherwise have afforded.

The credit card companies aren’t jumping on the fascist bandwagon yet:

Banks and credit-card networks say it is not their responsibility to create systems to track gun purchases that would allow them to report suspicious patterns.

“We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods or services,” said Amanda Pires, a Visa spokeswoman. “Our role in commerce is to efficiently process, protect and settle all legal payments. Asking Visa or other payment networks to arbitrate what legal goods can be purchased sets a dangerous precedent.”

A spokesman for Mastercard echoed that sentiment, emphasizing its protection of “cardholders’ independence” and the “privacy of their own purchasing decisions.”

John Shrewsberry, chief financial officer of Wells Fargo — which counts the National Rifle Association as a client — has dismissed the notion that banks should regulate the use of its credit cards for gun purchases.

While no friend of gun owners, the ACLU appears to be on our side on this one:

And a policy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union recently expressed concern about how efforts to prevent mass shootings could infringe on individual rights.

“The implication of expecting the government to detect and prevent every mass shooting is believing the government should play an enormously intrusive role in American life,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at the A.C.L.U. Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, wrote in July.

But, of course, the fascist dismisses these concerns:

Not all the concerns involve privacy or politics. Some are practical.

Would they dismiss freedom of (some) religions or association on a “practical” basis? For example, people in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of two. Wouldn’t it be “practical” to preemptively put scarce law enforcement and surveillance resources on Democrats?

In October Gab was targeted for supporting free speech. Among other things that happened Pay Pal would no longer do business with them. Boomershoot processes credit cards through Pay Pal. This has long been something that bothered me because Pay Pal won’t allow you to us them for gun sales but other options went away (Google) or were very difficult to implement (Amazon).

After Pay Pal shutdown Gab I started looking for another credit card processor. I ended up with Wells Fargo. It’s more expensive than Pay Pal but they didn’t have a problem with Boomershoot. I didn’t know the NRA was their customer too. Good to know.

I’m on “vacation” until after the first of the year to, mostly, work on converting the Boomershoot entry processing to use Wells Fargo so I can dump Pay Pal. I just hope it is easier to implement on my web site than Amazon.

Quote of the day—John Crump

New Jersey’s standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey’s one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass defiance, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.

Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony.

John Crump
December 14, 2018
Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags
[Via email from Chet M.

The article says as near as they can determine there have been zero magazines turned in. But that was almost two week ago. So there probably have been a few people who have complied by now. I expect the numbers will be small. Perhaps higher than in some other places like California, Colorado, and Connecticut where the numbers run in the five to 10 percent compliance rate.

So… what will the authorities do about the mass defiance? My guess they will not do anything overt. But if you get pulled over for a minor traffic violation and they find a 15 round magazine (or plant one) in your car you will find yourself facing 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine for each magazine they found. They law was never about public safety. It was virtue signaling. Now it can be used selectively punish people who have not hurt anyone.

It’s about control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vincent Harinam & Gary Mauser

The Canadian gun-ban debate may prove instructive for Americans looking to avoid the consequences of hasty, emotion-driven gun legislation. Three lessons can be gleaned, with each highlighting the pitfalls of a distorted national conversation and the ineffective legislation it breeds.

Lesson 1: A failure to recognize past failures dictates calls for more restrictive legislation.

Lesson 2: Politicians prefer grand gestures over measured policies.

Lesson 3: Long term and secondary consequences are rarely considered.

Vincent Harinam & Gary Mauser
December 17, 2018
Canada’s Impending Gun Ban: Three Lessons for the U.S.
[I think there analysis is pretty good for the majority of the population who isn’t already committed to a side. The pro-freedom people already see the path we are being guided down as leading to disaster.

The anti-freedom people see the above “lessons” as features to snooker the sheep and useful idiots.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Javier Vanegas

Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight. The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.

Javier Vanegas
A Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador.
December 14, 2018
Venezuelans regret gun ban, ‘a declaration of war against an unarmed population’
[Never give up your guns. Only your enemy wants you disarmed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chad Felix Greene

Everything I was told to fear about being openly gay has become a reality in being openly conservative. The fear of being fired, harassed, called dehumanizing names, bullied, and denied access to public life (even violence) are all realities I face today as a conservative.

By the very nature of the left’s views on what constitutes “hate,” I am incapable of freely expressing myself on any public forum without very careful editing and presentation. I never truly experienced hate until I came out as a conservative.

Chad Felix Greene
December 11, 2018
The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay
[I was recently told that a certain organization had a reputation of being a bunch of conservatives… “But they aren’t all bad.”

In her mind “conservative” was a synonym for “bad” and she didn’t want to have anything to do with “people like that”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jason Brennan

Most people seem to subscribe to what I call the Special Immunity Thesis: the idea that the set of conditions under which it is permissible, in self-defense or defense of others, to deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a government agent is much more stringently constrained than the set of conditions under which it is permissible to deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a private civilian.

On the flip side, we have what I call the Moral Parity Thesis: the idea that, very simply, you have the same right of self-defense against government agents as you do against civilians. Officials have no special moral status that immunizes them from defensive actions. When they commit injustices of any sort, it is morally permissible for us, as private individuals, to treat them the same way we would treat private individuals committing those same injustices. Whatever we may do to private individuals, we may do to government officials. We may respond to governmental injustice in exactly the same ways as private injustice.

The Moral Parity Thesis has radical implications. It means you may assassinate leaders to stop them from launching unjust wars. You may fight back against a police officer who arrests you for something that shouldn’t be a crime—e.g., marijuana possession or homosexuality. You may escape from jail if mistakenly convicted or convicted of a bogus crime. Your business may lie about its compliance with an unfair regulation and evade excessive taxes. A jury or judge may nullify an unjust statute by refusing to convict those who break it. The Moral Parity Thesis vindicates helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson, who threatened to kill fellow American soldiers to stop them from killing civilians during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. It vindicates Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for sharing at least some state secrets. It vindicates government agents who sabotage unjust efforts from within.

My basic argument is simple: By default, we should accept the Moral Parity Thesis, unless we can find some good reason to believe the Special Immunity Thesis instead. Upon inspection, though, the arguments for the Special Immunity Thesis fall flat. Governments and their agents aren’t magic.

Jason Brennan
December 2018
When Nonviolence Isn’t Enough—Does the right to self-defense apply against agents of the state?
[It’s an interesting article on personal and political philosophy.

Lysander Spooner had some things to say on this topic as well:

It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess.

I took a philosophy class in college but it was far less interesting and relevant than what I have read in the years since. And it was philosophers never mentioned in class, such as Ayn Rand and Spooner, that my Marxist professor left out of the curriculum that made the difference.—Joe]

Useful research

Via NRA-ILA we have Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative:

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This can and must be used to block further attempts at “enhanced background checks” and eliminating existing background checks. They are a waste of resources in addition to being constitutionally suspect.

Quote of the day—Karl Popper

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper
1945
The Open Society and Its Enemies: New One-Volume Edition, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
[Via email from Bob T.

Interesting observation. I had a similar discussion with a co-worker many years ago. We didn’t arrive at a solution. And it is quite clear our government and society has gotten us into the end game of this paradox without implementing the apparent solution offered by Popper over 70 years ago.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Harvey Milk

It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions.

Harvey Milk
Sometime prior to November 27, 1978
[The previous talk of compromise made me think this was an appropriate time to bring this up.

Milk was thinking of rights other than the right to keep and bear arms but it applies to all true rights. His words resonate well with some people who think of us as the enemy. Use them to your advantage.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles R. Kesler

Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Charles R. Kesler
October 2018
America’s Cold Civil War
[A pleasant call for peace. Unfortunately for our future no further compromise is tolerable for those whose vision of the constitution is the original intent. If we compromise further, and probably even if we fail to turn back the existing compromises, we will sink into a socialist hellhole.—Joe]

If cars were treated like guns in Washington State

From Rehv Arms:

Funny stuff. It would be more funny if I didn’t have to live it instead of just laugh at the poor suckers who have to endure it and hope the courts turn things around. I donated several hundred dollars to SAF and the NRA this weekend. This stuff is real. It must be turned around.

Quote of the day—KrisAnne Hall

The entire argument for gun control is built upon a false premise. The second amendment is not about self-defense from criminals.

As unpleasant as it may be for this modern society to say out loud, historically and constitutionally speaking, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has always been a right to protect yourself from those in power who want to enslave you. If America wants to engage in a real factual debate on the right to keep and bear arms, then it must be approached from the proper perspective.

A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is NOT one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked and depraved people, full of hate and malice, who want to hurt you. You will NEVER feel safe from those people and those people will not cease to exist just because YOU are not allowed to legally own a gun. Why? Because those people do not care about laws and they will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is,

“Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”

If the answer to that question is “no,” the gun control debate is over.

KrisAnne Hall
Facebook post, October 2, 2017
DoYouTrustGovernment
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Norbert Michel

For those unfamiliar, Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off.

Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges.

It is now clear that these unelected government officials set out to harm law-abiding citizens. Yet many of the government officials named in these documents are still employed by the same government agency. Most of these folks work at the FDIC, and one has even moved up from a regional director position to FDIC Ombudsman.

Norbert Michel
November 5, 2018
Newly Unsealed Documents Show Top FDIC Officials Running Operation Choke Point
[That these people aren’t currently in prison making little rocks out of big rocks shows you “the swamp” still needs to be drained.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeffrey Guterman @JeffreyGuterman

Anyone who is paranoid that their guns will be taken away should have their guns taken away.

Jeffrey Guterman @JeffreyGuterman
Tweeted on November 8, 2018
[Implementing a Catch-22 scenario. Nice try.

Apply this to other specific enumerated rights such as the right to trial by jury, right to representation by a lawyer, free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and in Mr. Guterman’s case I would like the local National Guard unit to knock on his door every day and his Third Amendment rights treated in such a manner.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jordan B. Peterson

No political experiment has ever been tried so widely, with so many disparate people, in so many different countries (with such different histories) and failed so absolutely and so catastrophically. Is it mere ignorance (albeit of the most inexcusable kind) that allows today’s Marxists to flaunt their continued allegiance—to present it as compassion and care? Or is it, instead, envy of the successful, in near-infinite proportions? Or something akin to hatred for mankind itself? How much proof do we need? Why do we still avert our eyes from the truth?

Jordan B. Peterson
November 1, 2018
The Gulag Archipelago: A New Foreword by Jordan B. Peterson
[Via a text message from daughter Jaime.—Joe]

Democrats then and now

Via email from Chet:

DemocratsKkkAntifa

Found here.