Category Archives: Freedom

Quote of the day—thezman

Posted on by

The American Left was not caused by socialism or radical ideology. The causal relationship was the other way around. The hive-like behavior was a constant, a part of the American biology. When the socialist paradise collapsed, the Left switched to sexual and racial utopianism. That means when the current rage heads burn what’s left of society, only to not arrive at the promised land, they will find some new fantasy to embrace. The Hive is eternal.

thezman
March 7, 2018
The Eternal Hive
[Via email from Peter G.

One of my hypothesizes has been that the political left always needs something to hate. From before the U.S. Civil War until the 1960s the target was primarily their slaves, then the freed slaves, then capitalism and blacks in general. In the 1960s blacks were replaced by gun owners. As the collapse of the USSR and other socialist and communist political systems fell from grace whites and men were added and capitalism was deemphasized.

Z Man’s claim also appears to match my observations.

If Z Man is correct, one extrapolation indicates that the end is near and it won’t be pretty.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

Posted on by

So your argument is, “We’ve already violated this amendment to the point where all you have are very basic infantry weapons, and now we’re claiming those aren’t effective without the stuff we’ve already banned, so it’s reasonable to ban that, too.”

And I’m saying, we need to fix the entire problem, which we both recognize, and eliminate those laws so veterans (and determined civilians who for whatever reason were unable to serve), can have the weapons they need so we CAN fight tanks and planes in such an emergency.

The only people who could possibly object are the kind who want to send tanks and planes against civilians.

Michael Z. Williamson
March 2, 2018
Destroying Gun Control Myths, Part 1: “You Can’t Fight Tanks And Planes With Rifles!”
[I love the insight and clarity Williamson gives the issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Baker

Posted on by

I’m a Fascist… the only time people of real character show up is when the
government crushes the population with it’s heel.

Josh Baker

June 2, 1996
[He may have a point. We may also soon be able to test his claim.—Joe]

Facts can be confusing

Posted on by

This post was inspired by a cartoon sent to me by Will S.

clip_image002

It was only in the last few thousand years that facts and logic began to have a toehold on our understanding of world around us. Even then rational thought would lose its footing and slide back down into the dark ages for a few hundred years at a time.

My hypothesis is that there is a reason for this. Reliance on facts and rational thought created an evolutionary advantage which allowed for the survival of a greater number of less fit people. These less fit, emotionally driven, people drag society down again.

The repeated rise and fall of reliance on rational thought is like a cleaning process. Each time the gene pool was cleaned it became a more biased toward rationality and human society became more advanced.

I had hoped that we need not go through another dark age but there are times when I fear we are nearing another downward slide. How else can you explain the continued infatuation with socialism? What other political system has experienced so many attempts and resulted in so many catastrophic failures? How else can you explain the masses of people who blame private ownership of firearms for the massacres of school children when government disarmed the adults, failed to prosecute the villain prior to his attack, and failed to come to the rescue even though they were close by? The government which failed at ever step of the way is now supposed to be tasked with the job of attacking those who held no responsibility for the creating the circumstance, or failing to stop the attack. This is not the result of a rational thought process. This is crazy talk and to me is a strong indicator that the slippery slope into another dark age is only a small misstep away.

Need

Posted on by

The need for firearms is like the need for free speech. You need them the most when someone is trying to take them from you.*

* See also something similar I wrote in 1995 near the bottom of this post.

More interesting Facebook stuff

Posted on by

The other day I posted about Facebook claiming a comment of mine was spam, asking me to review it, and then deleted it before I had to chance to review it.

Today, I posted a Random thought of the day:

If bakers of wedding cakes can be forced to bake custom wedding cakes for homosexuals because gay marriage is legal, doesn’t that mean stores which sell firearms can be forced to custom order an AR-15 for you because you are legally allowed to own one?

My blog software automatically makes a Facebook post with a link back to my blog. It did that today with the previous post but it doesn’t show up on Facebook. I have seen this before but just thought maybe there was error of some sort and the Facebook post failed. This time, I know that’s not the case.

From Statcounter:

IP: 69.171.240.16
Date: 3/1/2018 15:10
Link: http://m.facebook.com
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

This was two minutes after my blog post went live. I knew it took a minute or two before a blog post showed up on Facebook. I thought it was probably just some sort of normal processing delay. Now I suspect my blog posts are reviewed by a human before being allowed to go live on Facebook. It could be an automated process but that shouldn’t take two minutes.

We have known for a while that Google blocks shopping searches for AR15s (compare with AR10s).

So, what can we do about this sort of crap? Any ideas that are better than boycotting them?

Update March1, 2018 19:22 PST: Another visit to my blog post via Facebook came in 14 minutes after the first one:

IP: 71.92.94.104
Date: 3/1/2018 15:24
Link: https://www.facebook.com/
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

It could not have been because of the original version of this post or inspired because of it because this post was not made until 16:10. Although it could have been that someone saw my blog post and referenced it themselves on Facebook. This is somewhat supported by the fact that another visit occurred at 18:48:

IP: 70.178.238.137
Date: 3/1/2018 18:48
Link: https://www.facebook.com/
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal

Posted on by

In response to my post Why are liberals so violent? I received a comment from John Schussler who said:

I’m fascinated by your characterization of liberals as inherently violent. In the link you point to you say:

“The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.

Why are liberals so violent?”

You pick the most extreme far left commie anarchist examples you could find and then generalize that liberals are violent? In the statistical distribution, you’ve picked some examples that are several standard deviations off the norm and decided to redefine that as the norm. That’s not a rational idea. Sorta like liberals pointing to the KKK and Stormfront and calling them the conservative norm. Why are you doing that?

In the comments I elaborated some but Schussler, with a fair amount of justification, said:

You’re not answering the central question: why are you picking statistical anomalies and generalizing them to the norm? The ELF, ALF, etc. are a tiny fraction of the “left.” Calling them the norm is absurd.

I didn’t actually say they were the norm. But I can see how that might be the interpretation. I decided to elaborate and try to more clearly explain why I see the modern liberal as inherently violent.

In the context of politics “liberal” has dramatically changed in the last 150 years. I did not intend to say classical liberalism was inherently violent. With broad civil liberties and emphasis on economic freedoms it is in fact inherently non-violent.

Modern liberalism is characterized by support for “social justice” and a mixed economy.

The modern liberal appears to have no hesitation to use government to take wealth from one group of people and give wealth to another group of people. This shows up in a extremely wide range of government policies from art, education, food, health care, housing, roads, Internet access, social services, and even cell phones.

The modern liberal sometimes claims support for “civil liberties” but are very selectively in the liberties they defend. They have no hesitation, and in fact appear extremely eager, to ban as many guns as quickly as they can. They appear to be eager to ban speech they declare “hate speech”. They demand people be limited in the both monetary and non-monetary support they give political candidates. This is a limit on free speech. They demand people of certain religions support activities those religions have strict doctrine against (Catholics with regard to birth control, and abortion). They demand government force Christian fundamentalist bakers make wedding cakes for homosexuals. They demand people not be allowed to purchase carbonated drinks larger than some particular size. They have made failure to recycle a crime. They have made it a crime for two people to agree on a fair wage if the wage is below a certain minimum and they have attempted to create an upper limit as well and in many respects have succeeded. They demand business licenses for nearly every activity that involves the exchange of money. They even shutdown children selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of their homes because they did not have a business license. I don’t think I have ever heard a modern liberal politician demand there be less regulation, lower subsidies, or fewer restrictions on free speech or guns. More government intervention is always the solution.

The list of prohibited actions and mandatory behaviors is so extensive that the joke from the USSR, “that which is not prohibited is mandatory”, is easily seen as being applicable to us in the utopian view of the modern liberal. The modern liberal contributes to this environment far more than the modern conservative or, especially, libertarian (classical liberal).

Each law, each regulation, and each tax requires enforcement. One must either be profoundly ignorant of what enforcement means or accepting of it when they advocate for these restrictions on liberty. The person who demands the government punish people for failing to recycle or punish a child for selling lemonade is one who is willing to use the government to physically take money from them or drag them off to jail.

As George Washington said in a speech of January 7, 1790:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

Modern liberals are willing to use force, violence, even if it is by proxy, to make others conform as precisely as possible to their view of proper behavior. This is an inherent part of their political philosophy. This use of (government) violence to achieve their goals must be an inherent part of their nature or they would have reservations about such extensive use of government.

I believe the reason we see violence in the activities of liberal supported groups such as Occupy Wall Street, the Ferguson unrest, and Black Lives Matter because it is part of a continuum. At the low end of spectrum we have fines and regulations which are ultimately enforced via government force to take the money, physically stop a prohibited activity, or threaten forcible imprisonment for failure to engage in a mandatory behavior. In the middle part of the spectrum we have groups of people engaging in vandalism, blocking of streets, and looting. At the high end we have actual terrorist organizations such as ALF, Eco-terrorists, and The Weathermen.

I do not see a similar continuum in those who identify as conservative or libertarian.

Quote of the day—Don Kaag

Posted on by

I’m tired…

I’m tired of typing in the same constitutional arguments on gun control every time there is a shooting anywhere in America.

Tired of citing the same statistics of declining gun crime in America—except in cities controlled by Democrats for decades, with the nation’s strictest gun laws—to liberal people who think the Constitution is an outdated document.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am done discussing this topic. It is like shouting into the wind. No minds will be changed.

If and when you manage to get together the votes to retake the Congress and the Presidency to affect radical change, and to propose and pass and sign and ratify a constitutional amendment abrogating the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, we will reengage.

Because then there will be a genuine shooting revolution.

See you on the barricades…

Don Kaag
February 21, 2018
Private Facebook post (used with permission).

[Kaag is a former Marine. I’m glad he is on my side.

My fear is that unless we keep talking and keep taking new shooters to the range and converting minds we will lose anyway. Our enemies will always play to their strengths and our weaknesses. They will do their best to never get in a shooting war. They know this is our point of greatest strength. Their greatest strength is the mainstream media.

We have other strengths we must enable and utilize. SCOTUS is not yet our friend but with one or two more Trump appointed justices it will be. The Federal district and appeals courts have long been unfriendly as well but this changing with hundreds of new appointment made and to be made during the next few years. In another three to seven years the courts have a good chance of swinging the direction of the tide. This will require we vote, encourage others to vote, and to persuade our Senators to approve the justices which adhere to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

Sometime after we win the battle for the courts is when I expect we could, literally, be “on the barricades”. This will be when the political left enables us to use our greatest strength.

The political left has totally lost their cool in regards to the current political setting. You can see Trump Derangement Syndrome nearly everywhere. The gun issue had people rushing the stage chanting “Burn her!” to Dana Loesch when she engaged in a discussion about the Florida school shooting on CNN. Loesch didn’t do the shooting. She didn’t encourage the shooter to murder 17 people. She didn’t give the shooter the guns or ammo. She didn’t even know of the murdering scumbag loser until she heard it on the news. What do you think the mobs will do when told the Second Amendment doesn’t stop at the school property line? Or that able bodied people on welfare for years must finally get a job or go hungry? Or that in addition to paying for their own food they must pay for their own health care? Or that most of the government grant money is going away and those people are going to have get private grants or get a real job?

One of the strongest political currencies of the political left is street violence. Violence is part of their nature. When they are losing with little hope of recovery they will use it and they will not hold back.

The barricades will have to be strong, the ammunition plentiful, and the aim true. I expect the mobs will be epic.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Viscount Halifax

Posted on by

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.

Viscount Halifax
1940
Referring Winston Churchill’s speech in the movie The Darkest Hour.
[For Valentine’s Day Barb and went to this movie (she chose it). It is a very good movie.

Mobilize the English language and send it into battle. This what gun owners need to do. It is either that or face our own darkest hour and/or a bloody war.

I have often thought something like that is what I was doing. I try look at things, change the point of view, and articulate a vision which makes obvious we have the high moral high ground, we should always attack, and we must always make our enemies defend.

But I had never articulated it even one tenth as clearly and succinctly as Halifax did in the movie. The movie inspired me. Henceforth, I will make better use of words. If these words are properly crafted into powerful weapons of war we can win the battles needed to defeat the forces of evil in this country and avoid a war of bullets and blood.—Joe]

Overheard at work

Posted on by

Boss Lady: I used to run explosives through the TSA.

My ears went up and I listened in as she was telling a co-worker about going through the TSA a few days ago. It turns out that she used to work for Homeland Security and one of her jobs was to test the TSA. This time she wasn’t working for Homeland Security and her pre-check card had just expired (it was her birthday). The people at SeaTac TSA remembered her.

She got “special treatment” even without the pre-check card. It just wasn’t the kind of “special” she was expecting.

Exercise of rights at a minimum

Posted on by

This is very telling:

Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.

What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:

  • Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
  • Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
  • Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
  • Keep people of color from voting at a minimum

There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.

Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997
The Art of the Rifle Page 1.
[A “monarch of all he surveys” must cause a tremendous amount of anger in the authoritarian and collectivist. The possession of, and skill to use, a rifle makes an individual something much more than a peasant to be controlled. It gives them an opportunity to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property, and to have a say in their own destiny. This is part of Why Boomershoot.

Furthermore, the existence of Boomershoot gives people justification to acquire a rifle and skills to realize “the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

Posted on by

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AND STATE AND LOCAL FIREARMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Posted on by

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count
 

Significant

 

  

   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%

 

 227
 

Moderate

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%

 

 885
 

None

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%

 

 10,397
 

Negative

 

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%

 

 3,004
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%

 129

                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642

 

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count

Yes

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%

 

 391

No

  

   clip_image004[6]   95.7%

 

 14,013
 

Unsure

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

 238
                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642


7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%

 

  

1,684

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%

 

  

11,663

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%

 

  

1,295

 

                                                                                                            answered question              14,642

 

11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

  

 

                                                                                                                              Response
                                                                                                                               Percent

Response
  Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%

 

  

3,334

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%

 

  

10,155

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%

 

  

1,026

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

   14,515

 

19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

  

 

 

                                                                                                                         Response
Percent

Response
Count
 

Yes, without question and without further
restrictions

 

  

   clip_image002[4]91.3%

 

  

12,968

 
 

No,
only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%

 

  

586

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%

 

  

646

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

14,200


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%

 

 865

Casualties would likely have been reduced

  

   clip_image004[6]     80.0%

 

 11,215

There would have been no difference in outcome

  

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%

 

 568

An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%

 

 767

Unsure or prefer not to answer

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%

 

 607

                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Very Favorable

 

  

   clip_image002                                           48.8%

 

 7,004
 

Favorable

 

  

   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%

 

 3,181
 

Unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%

 

  

1,382

 
 

Very unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%

 

  

1,029

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%

 

 1,753

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

 

15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort

 

  

   clip_image012                                         44.9%

 

  

6,440

 
 

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction

 

  

   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%

 

 2,468
 

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation

 

  

   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%

 

 1,132
 

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation

 

  

   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%

 

  

1,440

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%

 

  

2,869

 

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.

Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

Posted on by

We don’t need any opinion from the ATF to tell us what “shall not be infringed” means. It means, among other things, there should be no ATF.  We don’t have a Bureau of Speech and Thought Control because that would be as unconstitutional as the ATF. Every day that agency exists is another day the federal government violates the Constitution.

Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus Gun Owners of American
December 29, 2017
Gun Owners of America: Stop Funding the ATF and They’ll Leave Our Bump Stocks Alone
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Good point

Posted on by

Rolf sent me an email with a bunch of memes. I’m going to post the ones I like best one at a time when I think appropriate (or just completely at random).

Thought for today and the entire year:

Differences4

Good point.

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

Posted on by

A handful of effective assassinations a year would make the Ruling Class aware that the ultimate democratizer is death, and that the constituents they claim to represent expect results, or preferably, inaction, to endless blather followed by pointless regulation and jackbootery.

Michael Z. Williamson
December 26, 2017
Why America Needs More Violence
[I prefer trials, but one of the more persuasive counter arguments is that those of the Ruling Class are not going to subject themselves to a trial when they know everyone is guilty.—Joe]

Quote of the day—DebateChallenge

Posted on by

If you care about saving lives than you should crack down on cigarettes. Cigarettes cause about 480,000 deaths per year, there are far more deaths by cigarettes than there are deaths by guns. And of those 480,000 deaths, about 41,000 of them are from secondhand smoke. So just secondhand smoke alone causes about as much, if not more, deaths than guns.

DebateChallenge
December 17, 2017
Comment to Should Hawaii become the model for nationwide gun-control?
[Good point. One could debate the numbers of deaths correctly attributed to secondhand smoke, but those who are anti-gun (control freaks) tend to be the same type of people who want to claim secondhand smoke is a serious threat as well.

While I think one can make a freedom/liberty case for unrestricted recreation drugs for consenting adults, including tobacco and alcohol, they aren’t a specific enumerated right and the push back against restrictions would have less constitutional standing.

So, when someone want to ban guns (such as “assault weapons”) “for the children” you can point out that if they really wanted to “save the children” they should be an advocate for banning tobacco instead of guns. They would have a much higher potential pay off with less constitutional resistance.

We all know it’s not about saving lives and if you point out their misdirected concerns they will come up with some rationalization to remain fixated on guns. But you can hammer them with their lack of logic and make it clear to everyone “in the room” the motivation for this person is not “saving lives”. It’s about control of people who would own guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Walder

Posted on by

When your proposals never would have stopped the massacre that inspired the proposal, it makes it very clear that the proposals are not made in good faith. As we’ve seen, the problem lies not with the private sale exception, but with the fact that the NICS checks are not particularly effective. Fix that before you start passing unenforceable laws that require drug dealers to run background checks on other drug dealers.

Jonathan Walder
December 14, 2017
Comment to SANDY HOOK ANNIVERSARY: THESE ARE THE GUN CONTROL LAWS THAT HAVE FAILED SINCE THE NEWTOWN SHOOTING
[“Fix that”? I don’t think it is fixable. Well, maybe getting rid of NICS and spending the money on something more productive might be considered a “fix”.

Prosecuting violent criminals would seem to be a good alternative.—Joe]

Quote of the day—C.S. Lewis

Posted on by

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C.S. Lewis
1948
God in the Dock
[See also this more recent and on topic interpretation.

This is the essence of most of those who demands we give up our guns. Don’t ever forget they think of us as infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals and they demand to control us. For our own good.—Joe]