Category Archives: Freedom

Classy

Posted on by

Progressives are so violent:

— natalie(@heartsinireland) July 1, 2014

I hope Kendall Jones gets mauled by a lion. The evil, disgusting coward pic.twitter.com/kQy2uLm0yK

— Jack (@JackLewBaines) July 1, 2014

I hope #KendallJones gets eaten alive #Facebook http://t.co/IqrQ4GRUyZ

— Wendy Fiore (@wendyfiore) July 1, 2014

It appears to be in their nature.

Quote of the day—Susie Madrak

Posted on by

Do we have the ATF and BLM agents roll up in armored tanks? Do we use drone strikes? I can see the administration’s reluctance to have that confrontation — after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

Susie Madrak
June 23, 2014
So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Phil.

Molṑn labé Susie.—Joe]

We were right again

Posted on by

For years the anti-gun people talked about terrible it was that people could buy guns even if they were on the terrorism watch list:

The Brady Campaign even coined the phrase “terror gap”. Their web page (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/terrorgap) has since been taken down and the phrase cannot be found on their website (but you can find it on bradynetwork.org) but it was an issue they tried to get traction on (see also this search result).

And during that entire time we tried to tell them such action by the government would violate due process protections. They ignored us.

We were right. Again. And it is not just on the constitutionality of using such a list to deny someone their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The present implementation of the “no fly list” itself is a violation of due process:

A federal judge on Tuesday found unconstitutional the methods by which the federal government places U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents on a “no fly” list without letting them see the evidence against them, or letting them contest it.

…

“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes the absence of any meaningful procedures to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process.”

The right to travel isn’t clearly spelled out like the right to keep and bear arms. A judge could (and may still) find a weasel worded way of saying you don’t have to be to able travel by commercial airplane as long as there exist private airplanes you can hire. Hence due process protections for the right to keep and bear arms should be even greater than for the right to travel.

This also has implications for mental health restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms which is something the anti-gun people are trying to implement.

Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.

Hillary Clinton
June 17, 2014
Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[There you have it. She is coming out against the First Amendment, and freedom in general, as well as the Second Amendment. She doesn’t want you to even “hold a viewpoint” that she doesn’t like.

“Thoughtful conversation”? Somehow I don’t think she is planning on including gun owners in that “conversation”.

I suspect she is in close alignment with her husband Bill in that “we can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”.

She should have moved to the USSR in the 1960’s. Her ideology would have fit right in and the world would have been a better place.—Joe]

Anti gun-rights Microsoft?

Posted on by

From the firearm blog.

This would help explain the trend toward cloud storage and toward not really owning, but renting your software. It appears that Adobe, for another example, now only provides the latest version of Photoshop as a monthly subscription service, so you’re not the owner, but the tenant, and they the property manager.

If you don’t have exclusive control of your software, user files, or your contact lists, etc., it could all be pulled out from under you, or used for other purposes via remote control by other people, at a whim. Same as your bank account now, by the way. The Endarkenment proceeds apace.

Quote of the day—saintonge235

Posted on by

Twice in my life I got beaten up because I was in a fight and really didn’t want to hurt the person I was fighting. Recovering from the second beating, it occurred to me that “they don’t matter”, “they” being anyone who attacked me. From then on, I never lost a fight, because when I saw that violence was going to occur, I hit first without warning and didn’t stop till they were helpless. Acquiring that mindset is the most important self-defense lesson I know.

saintonge235
June 14, 2014
Comment to The Naive Idiocy of Teaching Rapists Not To Rape
[One might be wise to apply that mindset to a great many other things as well. Politics and war come to mind.—Joe]

All guns are always loaded

Posted on by

That’s gun safety rule one. Cooper said that it’s not a guide to behavior but rather a statement of condition. (For those unfamiliar, “condition” in this sense refers to the status of the gun, whether it’s loaded, or cocked, whether the safety catch is on, etc.)

That’s the problem with weapon “safety” isn’t it? If you keep a gun for self defense, and you treat all guns as though they’re always loaded, and it turns put that the one you need to defend your life is unloaded, you’re not at all safe. A gun is supposed to be dangerous! but only to your chosen target.

As a matter of personal taste I prefer the NRA rule “Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use”. The guns I keep for defense are “in use” all the time and so they are loaded, whether on my hip or leaning in the corner.

I showed a couple how to load a percussion revolver the other day, by “loading” it with powder and bullets, but since we never applied caps to the cones, it still isn’t “loaded” because I won’t fire without caps. I’ll twirl it if I want to, and you can’t stop me, but I generally won’t twirl a loaded gun even it is single action with the hammer down and nothing you do to the trigger alone can ever make it fire.

We’ve come to a point where we’re making too big a deal out of “safety” and admit it– That’s because of lawyers and politicians (two of the more dangerous kinds of people on Earth if we take them too seriously).

Ultimately, “safety”, to the extent that it exists at all, is between your ears. You’re certainly going to die no matter what though, so cheer up! When people, perfectly well-intended, tell me to “stay safe” as an alternative to “goodbye” or “see you later” it sort of disappoints me. “Have fun” or even “be cool” would be better advice. None of the really fun and memorable, or productive, things I’ve done in life were particularly safe, but they always came off better in a state of coolness.

Here’s another important “safety” rule;
“All lawyers and all politicians are always loaded”

I do like that one. As Cooper said; “It is not a guide of behavior, but rather a statement of condition”, and furthermore it would explain a lot.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I have had the gist of the following in my mind for years but I put it into words and more succulently after reading a comment by Windy Wilson.

A pattern I notice with progressives/totalitarians/communists is they express things in terms of what sort of activities/possessions people should be “allowed”.

Most people think in terms of what sort of activities/possessions should be made illegal.

A liberty orientated person thinks, and our government constitutions is, in terms of what sort of things the government should be allowed to do.

Quote of the day—thewriterinblack

Posted on by

I’m not saying we should kill all the stupid people. I’m just saying we should remove all the warning labels and let things sort themselves out.

thewriterinblack
June 10, 2014
Comment to The Naive Idiocy of Teaching Rapists Not To Rape
[I can see how a case could be made for this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Correia

Posted on by

I really don’t get the mindset where being willing to hurt a perpetrator is equivalent to blaming a victim.

If you truly believe in empowering women, then you shouldn’t stand in the way of the ones who choose to defend themselves.

Larry Correia
June 10, 2014
The Naive Idiocy of Teaching Rapists Not To Rape
[I think the mindset he describes is extremely harmful and out of touch with reality. But I do sort of understand it.

It is a cultural thing. They view taking responsibility for your own self-defense as “joining the cult of individualism”. They view rapists as someone in “the collective” who hasn’t been sufficiently indoctrinated. If only the collective had more power…

Individualist are opposed to giving more power to the collective hence we, by our very nature, are opposed to what they view as a force for good. Giving individual women the power to defend themselves distinguishes them from the masses of women that do not have the inclination, skills, or tools to defend themselves. It is cultural suicide for the collective to encourage individuals to stand out.

But understanding it doesn’t mean we have to accept it. Only in a homogenous collective is one opinion or viewpoint just as valid as another. This is their goal. Their utopia will be achieved when the response to dissent is a prison term, a psych ward, or a bullet to the head* and the power of the collective is nearly infinite in comparison to the power of the individual.

We need to do all we can to legally and morally destroy the cult of the collective. It’s not just anti-women it’s basis of all the great genocides of the 20th Century and perhaps of all time.—Joe]

* I’m nearly finished with The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One). Lenin and Stalin’s vision and the implementation of that vision are disturbingly vivid right now.

The greatest risk to you and your family

Posted on by

A government that disarms you:

Via email from JoeyD Sr.

Open letter to Eric Holder

Posted on by

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

When insanity works, but not the way you expect

Posted on by

Sometimes insanity works… but not the way you expect.

Consider the Napoleonic Wars. Men in orderly rank and file marching into battle with rifle and musket, to face volley fire from opposing rank and file of uniforms. Were the men marching insane? Would not a soldier’s chance of surviving be greatly increased by running away from the line of men firing at his formation? Undoubtedly, yes, it would. Would his own formation have a marginally lower chance of winning if he were to do so? Yes, again. If the man next to him ran away, would he increase his personal chances of survival, too? While decreasing, a bit more, the chance of failure for their side? Yes, absolutely, to both. It is crazy to stand and fight, if you can increase your chance of survival by running away. But if enough people on your side choose to run and survive that fight, you also doom your side to total defeat, and being hunted down by the victors and having your land, property, and women taken, because they were collectively crazy enough to stand and fight. It’s a fine line between disciplined and insane. Continue reading →

On sex offender registries

Posted on by

Interesting:

California’s registry isn’t practical. Amanda Agan, a postdoctoral fellow in economics at Princeton studied sex offender registries at The University of Chicago. She explained her findings to NPR’s On the Media in 2011. She compared multiple studies, across multiple types of registries, including ones like California’s, and found that when the information is public, the pattern of recidivism (which means committing a crime again) was discouraging.

When they were in a public registry there was “a slight increase in how much they recidivated,” although “a slight deterrent effect for first-time offenders. But as the registry size grows, it seems like that recidivism effects swamps the first-time registrant effect. And so, we get kind of an overall increase in sex crimes.” Are you getting this? Sex crimes increased.

Again we find that if the government gets involved in preventive measures they make things worse.

The motivation for evil

Posted on by

is evil.

Did they think this through?

Posted on by

I find this scary as well as ironic:

A committee chaired by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has come up with a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel”.

This represents a severe failure of the Jews in the Attic Test—by a Jewish nation.

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

Anyone who uses the word “profit” as a dirty word should be watched very, very carefully. If they hate the idea of gain through free trade it can only mean that they’re looking to get it through robbery.

Lyle
May 27, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—reality
[I’ve often had similar thoughts but hadn’t put them into words as well as Lyle did.—Joe]

Quote of the day—reality

Posted on by

The NRA is primarily in it for money and profit, and have demonstrated that they don’t give a SH about you and your family. They are not protecting your gun rights to have a gun (because no one is trying to ban all guns) – they are protecting THEIR PROFITS. Keep being ignorant and voting with them, and see how far it gets you . . .

reality
May 26, 2014
Comment to Shooter’s rage at women too familiar in America
[“reality” appears to be living in an alternate reality because in my universe the NRA is a nonprofit organization, does a lot to protect our right to keep and bear arms, and there are a lot of people who want to ban all guns.

I wonder what color the sky is in their world.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark O’Mara

Posted on by

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Mark O’Mara
May 2, 2014
I’m a gun owner and I want gun control
[“…without fear that it will vanish altogether”! That’s his criteria for the preservation of a specific enumerated right? So as long as you get permission from the government to checkout your single shot .22 rifle once a month at the gun range and use it under close supervision before checking it back your right to keep and bear arms hasn’t been infringed, right?

Let’s test this concept with some other rights:

  • Your right to freedom of speech hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you are given a “free speech zone” a mile from the nearest person that might be offended.
  • Your right freedom of religion hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you tithe 10% to the one government approved church regardless of which of the other two approved religions you more closely align with.
  • Your right to not have government agents quartered in your home hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a month without them.
  • Your right to be free from involuntary servitude hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a week to yourself.

I would like to suggest that O’Mara review the concept of “strict scrutiny” in regards to constitutionally protected rights. But I fear his ability to think rationally has vanished altogether.—Joe]

Government at work

Posted on by

This is what happens when the government tries to do something. It is in part because it’s “someone else’s money”:

Employees at an ObamaCare processing center in Missouri with a contract worth $1.2 billion are reportedly getting paid to do nothing but sit at their computers. 

“Their goals are set to process two applications per month and some people are not even able to do that,” a whistleblower told KMOV-TV, referring to employees hired to process paper applications for ObamaCare enrollees.  

The facility in Wentzville is operated by Serco, a company owned by a British firm that was awarded $1.2 billion in part to hire 1,500 workers to handle paper applications for coverage under the law, according to The Washington Post. 

The whistleblower employee told the station that weeks can pass without data entry workers receiving even a single application to process. Employees reportedly spend their days staring at their computers, according to a KMOX-TV report. 

“They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every 10 minutes, no more than every 10 minutes,” the employee said. “They’re monitored, to hopefully look for an application.”

Obamacare will make healthcare more affordable. All the government has to do is pass a law declaring something to be true and that is what will happen.

That is what the suckers believe. Historic data to the contrary is always ignored. Present results are ignored. They believe intentions are more valid than results. These people do not operate in a world of facts. They operate in a world of good intentions. Most of them anyway. Some are truly evil and take advantage of this flaw in the nature of many people.

Daniel Webster and Henry David Thoreau both had it nailed over 150 years ago.

It’s time people put their brains to work and stop relying on their “hearts”. If we don’t the consequences may be extremely severe. Their ideology puts millions of people at extreme risk.