The View From North Central Idaho

Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck Idaho farm boy who became a software engineer living near Seattle.

The View From North Central Idaho

Category Archives: Freedom

That’s it then

Posted on by

If the constitution allows Congress to do practically anything it wants, so long as it can be called it a “tax” by some stretch of the imagination (remember the NFA?), then we’ll have to repeal the 16th amendment.


Has anyone else made this point?  I had Rush on for about an hour, he was talking about the SCOTUS decision on nationalization of the medical industry the whole time, and he never mentioned the 16th.  That’s where most of this social engineering crap comes from– “nudge” us this way and that using the tax code.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

The pro-tyranny side just doesn’t get enough positive coverage.

Ry Jones
June 27, 2012
[This was while walking by Westlake Park in Seattle. The park attracts most of the demonstrators for such things as the Occupy Whatever crowd. As usual there were some people there with signs I didn’t bother to read.

For a while I thought the root premise in the statement, tyranny doesn’t get positive coverage, was correct. But I had a nagging doubt that something was wrong. If anti-tyranny gets all the positive coverage then how does tyranny succeed?

The SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care this morning crystallized the answer. A retweet from Ry put it in video:

The quote above is wrong. The tyrant and their policies receives nearly all the positive coverage and is welcomed with thunderous applause.—Joe]

One Step at a Time, Then

Posted on by

In the spirit of boldly following the truth where ever it leads; can I get any agreement on the following statement?



Prohibition is an absolute, 100% guarantee that there will be increased gang activity, increased gang power, increased gang violence, an escalating police presence, and increased corruption at the police level working its way up through government at higher levels, with a coresponding deterioration of respect for police, and the rule of law, among the general public.


Yes or no?  You have to take all points in the above sentence together.  If you disagree with any part of it, your answer is “No”.  Give a brief, simple explanation of why you disagree.  For our purposes here, we will limit the definition of Prohibition to; a federal ban on alcohol or any other popular intoxicant.  This has nothing to do with your opinions, or clinical expertise, on this or that drug, the general effects of intoxicants on society or any of that.  Keep all of that out of the discussion, please.  Focus like a laser beam.


Yes or no?

This is for Bill Whittle

Posted on by

And also for everyone else.  I don’t get paid to do this.  The time spent is all cost, so I don’t spend much time editing.  I wanted to take this piece, or rant, of mine and really polish it, using historical links and references, but too bad– here it is.  It’s verbatim off of a members only section on gunrightsmedia.org, from a thread on medical pot and guns.  I bring Bill Whittle’s name into this post because he has, as I’ve been describing on numerous blogs, fully embraced, with relish, the left’s “guns cause harm” meme.  All the best intentions will be for naught unless we think clearly, following the truth where ever it leads.  Well here it is;



There is a direct and inseparable link between Prohibition and gun restriction. Note Operation Fast and Furious.

The authoritarians learned a great lesson from alcohol prohibition. They learned that huge amounts of power and money were transferred to authoritarians, both inside of government and outside of government (tyrants and gangsters) as a direct result of prohibition.

The first time; Americans understood that it would require a constitutional amendment, because the government is not authorized by the constitution to tell us what we may or may not consume. When Prohibition was modified (it was never ended) with another amendment to the constitution, the feds that were employed to smash down doors and brutalize people over alcohol were given another job, the very next month. Prohibition was modified in December of 1933 and the NFA went into effect in January of 1934. The former Prohibition enforcers, who were accustomed to stealing alcohol for their own use and profit could now smash down doors and brutalize people to enforce the brand new National Firearms Act,. Stealing guns and using them for their own use and profit, and making deals with gangs as before.

Just as Prohibition created a newly vitalized and powerful organized crime culture, which of course availed itself of the best weapons, so too did it give FDR an excuse to circumvent the second amendment. He pushed for and got the NFA as a backdoor to gun restriction, making the case that all this gun violence is just too much—something must be done. “Why; it’s not a ban– it’s a tax!” The shiny new ATF was originally a part of Treasury. See?

Create a situation of violence and gangsterism (Prohibition) then swoop in and “fix” it with more even authoritarianism. Works like a charm, every time it’s tried.

The authoritarians have since come up with ways to fool us into accepting federal drug laws, this time without a constitutional amendment. So now we’re right back to the 1920s, but the constitution took a hit in the process. Drug money instead of alcohol money, drug gangs paying off law enforcement instead of Al Capone buying cops– drug enforcement excuses for more power and money instead of alcohol as an excuse for more money and power. The equation is exactly the same, only this time it’s far worse. They’ve beat down former constitutional limits, this time it’s far longer lived, it’s still growing, and it’s growing right along with outrageous actions of feds working directly with Mexican drug gangs (Fast & Furious). Meet your new masters– the big, happy family of gangsters, corrupt government officials, corrupt police, corrupt foreign governments controlled by gangs, some of the worst enemies of America, the BATFE which was recently made part of the Justice Department (not even any more pretense of being a tax authority) and whole new agencies with guns, lots of funding, and protection from the President when they get caught with their pants down, all circle-jerking together, and weakening America at every stage.

Meanwhile; the Republicans are still busy, frantically trying to decide on what they should pretend to believe during the next election. You Suckers!


Now was that so hard?  I don’t believe I blamed guns for anything, or said that guns were “responsible”, I acknowledged the existence of the constitution, acknowledged the fact that corruption exists at all levels (though it’s unpopular to even think that cops can be corrupt) I blamed gangsters for their gangster crime, I didn’t use the term “assault weapon” which was fabricated by the anti-gun media and the Clinton administration, I didn’t confuse an assault rifle with a semi auto carbine, and I laid out a brief history of drugs and guns, showing that they have been inseparable since the 1930s, when FDR linked them and made up the BATF as a faux “tax” authority.  This is all one, continuing story, see, on-going for generations– we’re just caught up in it.  It’s louder now, our government is every bit as corrupt as during the 1920s and ’30s if not more so, and it’s bigger and more powerful, but as of this morning we’re still not connecting all the dots.  Now I have to go pick up my kid.


ETA; Here’s the Whittle piece.  Listen to the actual words.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some principle that engages people’s emotions. “Fair” is one of those undefined words which have attracted political support for policies ranging from Fair Trade laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the fact that the word is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage.People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified and mobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimes even mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness? Similarly with “social justice,” “equality,” and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.

Thomas Sowell
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition pages 1 and 2.
[The phrase “special power” brings to mind “super heroes” and “super villains”. I am of the opinion that while there is ample evidence of “super villains” “super heroes” only exist in the minds of small children, some Ron Paul fans, and Democrats.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

Posted on by

To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

Ayn Rand
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library)
Via Atlas Shrugged Movie
[Those that initiate force against you are not properly identified as human and force may be required. Only in extremely rare circumstances is persuasion a good option with these animals.

Government is force. Government is an extremely inefficient, and hence impractical, means of dealing with a set of rational people. It is only when your set of people are not rational and are approximating a herd of animals that government/force is appropriate. The case can be made that our government is creating, perhaps with malice aforethought, a class of people that are best dealt with as if they were an animal herd. This makes more and larger government seem like the appropriate solution to societal issues.

Perhaps growing up on a farm makes me more aware of this but the owner of the herd does not have the best interest of the herd in mind as they care for it. Yes, the herd gets food, water, shelter, and free health care as needed. But it also gets sheared, neutered, dehorned, selectively bred, and those which will be expensive or impossible to be made productive are killed.

I highly recommend Rand’s book. Rand makes the case that whether we think about it or not we each have a philosophy that guides our life. The only question is what type of philosophy. Will it be rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and ultimately lethal? One can make the case that failure to teach philosophy at an early age is extremely harmful to both the individual and society.

The inconsistencies of those supporting the current administration are a case in point.—Joe]

What, indeed, my friend

Posted on by

A lot of people are thinking the same thing.


But let’s not be too coy about it.  What if Al Capone actually condoned illegal activities in Chicago?  Gosh; that would be shocking, wouldn’t it?  Oh but that would mean…. No; it’s too much to contemplate.


And again, because it isn’t sinking in.  At all;
Saying that the guns were “allowed” into Mexico is a bit like saying that the Reichstag building was “allowed” to burn.  Why; they just stood by and let it happen.  That’s it– there were all these petty arsonists all over the place, setting fires all the time, so all that happened was someone (we don’t know who) turned off the pumper truck.


No, you fools; Obama and Holder longed, they desired, they were frustrated, so they planned, they plotted, they bought the gasoline, they bought the matches, and they lit the fire.  THEN they “allowed” it to burn, see?  You still don’t really know what we’re dealing with?  Do I need to slap someone upside the head?  Can you read the ten-foot high letters on the wall in front of you?  No?  Well then take a few steps back and look again!

Check Your Premises

Posted on by

I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against.  I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.  I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world.  Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).


I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.


Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American.  Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!!  We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished.  Enough is enough!  Enough of these lax saw laws!  The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!”  Really?


No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises.  Please.  It’s not about where the saw came from is it?  Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang.  You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy.  Stop it!


The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that.  They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).


Grasshopper; are you listening?  Snap out of it, Man!


The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people.  They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.


If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result.  THAT is your body count.


We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully.  I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention.  I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.


Read.  The.  Words.


Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear.  I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it.  I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.


And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime?  Seriously.  Wasn’t that supposed to be your job?  I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern?  Get busy, you slackers!  Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves?  Or are you just cowards?  I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?


ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;


DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day—Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney

Posted on by

There is no economic sliding scale for the right to engage in constitutionally protected activities. The richest and poorest among us, as well as those individuals in-between, all have the same rights under the constitution. We hold that, as the ordinance could apply to virtually any pair or group of people engaged in a common activity, the ordinance is overly broad.

Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney
Tennessee Court of Appeal
Street preacher wins battle against Maryville permit ordinance
June 19, 2012
[This was in regards to $50 permit being required by the city of Maryville Tennessee in order to exercise your First Amendment rights in public.

Via Say Uncle who asks, “So, we should get rid of the fees associated with getting a permit to carry a firearm?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

Posted on by

To date, no gun-control scheme of any sort has ever been proven to deliver even minor reductions in crime, accidents or suicides in any nation. Even if restrictions were to reduce some aspect of crime, they could not be justified because they undermine both the individual right to self-defense and the collective right to political self-determination.

Jeff Knox
June 14, 2012
Chinese plot to strip Americans of firearms–Jeff Knox explains how communist ideals converge in both Asia and U.S.
[And yet those that would ban guns keep trying. One could claim they are ignorant or have evil intent. But I think both are somewhat rare. As near as I can tell the vast majority of anti-gun people are mentally defective.—Joe]

Unauthorized Eating! Oh My!

Posted on by

I went to an FFA meeting a while back.  It was a pot luck banquet.  We all ate food that was prepared by semi annoymous, untrained, untested, unlicensed cooks in multiple households without inspection, using unlicensed, uninspected, unauthorized cooking equipment.  It was served in the open on low tables with no sneeze guards, and in some cases there were no tongs for serving things like hotdogs and hamburger patties.  We were drinking lemonade from an unknown source, dispensed from a communal, uninspected cooler that was being serviced by multiple, untrained, unlicensed kids.  There were no ingredients listed and there was no nutritional information posted.  No one knew for sure whether there were organic or green or union-made or imported or genetically altered foods, whether the various types of not exactly specified meat were “free range” or not and no one gave a flying crap.  It was good food.  Shockingly, no one died, or even got sick from it.  No one wet their pants even.


Better yet, a good time was had by all– There were no parasite/bureaucrats or parasite/government thugs getting in our way, no one was accusing us, no one was groping us and no one was threatening us.  This is how we eat on a regular basis and we will keep it that way.


So yeah; if you don’t like what we’re doing in this neck of the woods, just keep your worthless, less than worthless, pathetic, parasitic, self-serving, batshit insane, power-mad selves out of our way.  I know that it is virtually impossible to reason with you.  To beg people who don’t believe in freedom, asking them for our freedom, is a fool’s erand, and so I have to say that when push comes to shove, there are plenty of people who can shove back as hard as you can shove and who aren’t intimidated.  Just go and bang your head against a wall next time you feel the urge to fuck with someone.  It’s much safer.

Quote of the day—Raffy Mulivor

Posted on by

Americans are peace-loving people, but if you start up with us, we’re going to kick your butt.

Raffy Mulivor (12 years old)
June 16, 2012
This was when he was asked to explain the meaning of the arrows and olive branch in the eagle’s claws on symbols in the Great Seal of the United States.
[Via email from his father Phil Mulivor, author of Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms–Joe]

A step in the right direction

Posted on by

Via Politico I found out Rand Paul has introduced legislation which from a principled viewpoint I find pathetic. Only if I put my Wookie suit in a hidden vault and delete thousands of blog posts could I praise his first piece of proposed legislation. It is “a ‘Bill of Rights’ for air travelers” (S. 3302). “Guaranteeing a traveler’s right to request a pat-down using only the back of the hand” is to be considered a “right’? Really?


We don’t need a new law like this, we just need to enforce those already on the books. I’m of the opinion the 4th Amendment is the guaranteed right. All who voted for or have been involved in the implementation of TSA should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. Impose fines for every violation and you would see second thought given to a lot of other government infringements of our rights as well as A Security Theater going down in flames.


The other Bill, S. 3303, “ends the TSA screening program and requires screening of passengers at airports to be conducted by private screeners only”. While elimination of the TSA would earn my praise the requirement that private business violate our 4th Amendment rights nearly nullifies the benefit.


But, as I said, that is from a principled viewpoint. Principles are a serious obstacle in politics. If you want to get anything done you had best leave your principles at the door and just keep a short cheat sheet up your coat sleeve when you enter the legislative arena. If either of these bills could be passed it would be a step in the right direction. Incrementalism is sometimes all that is politically feasible and that we have legislators looking for a path in the proper direction is something to be pleased with.

Quote of the day—Jesse Ventura

Posted on by

People in this country need to understand when you go to any airport in the United States, you are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They can do anything they want to you and there is no where you can go to seek redress.

Jesse Ventura
June 13, 2012
Jesse Ventura No Longer Flies, Thanks To Transportation Security Administration
[Well… strictly speaking there are some options. They just aren’t legal.

What really needs to be done is to abolish the Security Theater known as TSA.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timothy A Campbell

Posted on by

Just make gun ownership punishable by death and we won’t need any more prisons or court systems. We will all be free.

Timothy A Campbell
June 12, 2012
On Twitter via a Linoge retweet.
[Not even a court system to judge those accused of gun ownership?

Why are anti-gun people so violent?

Campbell uses that word “free”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.—Joe]

Jobs Jobs Jobs (and Governor Butch Otter)

Posted on by

Just in case you’re confused on the subject (and I know that millions of people are); the purpose of a business is not to “provide jobs”.  Not ever.  Don’t even think about it.  Stop talking about it.


The Republican Governor of the State of South Idaho is one of those who are deeply confused.  He instated his “Hire One” program to nudge us into hiring people.  We’re supposed to go to some government web site and see if we “qualify”.  (Ooh!  Do I “Qualify?  Maybe I’m “special”)  Maybe that’s the “jobs program” right there— more state workers to manage the web sites and the “jobs” program implementation, whether or not anyone applies.  To hell with that, Governor Otter.  My business is not a stupid Butch Otter, State Government “jobs” program.


If we really need more help, we (without holding your hand and without being threatened) will hire someone.  That is, unless taxes, requirements, energy prices inflated due to restrictions, red tape and more restrictions get in the way, and unless you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong and use the coercive power of government to favor some businesses or industries at the expense of others– then we’d be expected to come crawling to you for some of that favoritism that only communists and mobsters have the power to dole out to their supporters.  I’ll die first.  I want nothing to do with you.  I have work to do.  You and your fellow communists at all levels are in the way.  Just get the hell out of the way.  Understand?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  You have “interests” to pander to.  You’re a coward at best, and we have no use for cowards.


You’d rather have a government “jobs program” so you can take credit for that which I accomplish in spite of your interference and confiscation.  Have you ever considered a “liberty program” instead of a “jobs program”?  No; I’m sure you haven’t.  Too novel.  It takes too much imagination for some people.  Communist scum don’t think that way, see.  They think instead of how they can meddle, how they can take credit for other people’s work, and live as parasites off of other people’s honest work.


The purpose of business, Little Grasshopper, is to create goods and services, sell them at competitive prices, and thereby make a profit.  See– jobs don’t even figure into it, except that in order to provide our goods and services at competitive prices, we NEED to hire as few people as possible to get it done right.  Otherwise our expenses are too high and we fail.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  If you got it, you wouldn’t be talking about “Jobs” AT ALL.  Jobs are what happen naturally when you leave people alone, you ignorant, pathetic, self-serving heap of RINO shit.  Only communists talk about “jobs” in the context of government action.


The rest of us talk about liberty, because we want you off our backs so we can produce, sell, buy, exercise ownership of what we make, and live in peace.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  Your actions and your language betray you, Fool.  You don’t belong here— not in the Republican Party and not in America.


We’ll make it real simple;  People either a) work, because they’re free, or they b) don’t work because they’re not free (government’s paying them not to work or the government’s in the way).  “Government jobs program” is therefore something of a contradiction in terms, and the mere fact that we have a Department of Labor is an affront to America.

Quote of the day—Mark Alger

Posted on by

The Left’s ideas are un-falsifiable. Their ignorance is invincible. This is why the notion is rapidly catching on that there is no compromising with them. They must be defeated and kept away from the levers of power. Whole swathes of society, which were abandoned to their depredations — education, journalism, the arts — must be reclaimed from them or given up altogether. Some may be converted through repeated teaching and their own experience, but — sadly — not many. It will not be a quick process. There will be many setbacks. But it must be done or the whole of civilization will be taken down by their idiocy.

Mark Alger
June 8, 2012
Comment to Seriously scary stuff.
[I really need to finish reading The Handbook of 5GW. As Ry told me, “This is where we need to be.”

Warfare, at the most fundamental level, does not mean destruction of life or property although that is a means to the ultimate goal of warfare. Warfare is about getting people to change their behavior. Sometimes that is about getting people to give up their natural resources or it might be about getting people to change their religious beliefs. Even if the purpose of the war was to extinguish an entire race or society the goal, ultimately, was about changing behavior (stop them from breathing).

Seen through this light we liberate ourselves because we release we are at war and that it is acceptable for us to go to war. The traditional tools of war including slings, arrows, chemicals, and bullets do not necessarily have to be used directly. The mere presence of our training and firearms will probably be sufficient prevent the war we are in from “going hot”,  We have other weapons at our disposal which must be deployed. We must get those in power and those that demand power over us to stop their behavior. We have votes, the courts, propaganda, education, and probably a thousand other things at our disposal. But we must win this war. Our country, no, all human society, is being laid to waste by those that believe they know better than the individual how the individual should spend the fruits of their labor. And this behavior must be stopped.—Joe]

Seriously scary stuff

Posted on by

While Bloomberg’s retarded proposal to limit the size of soft drink containers is getting a lot of attention I don’t think most people really understand how serious the problem is. I’ve had conversations with a few people who were admitted Marxist and many others who merely claimed they were Liberals or Progressives. One of the things they all had in common was their extremely simple view of the world while simultaneously proclaimed they were smarter than others and that gave them the authority to force others to live as they demanded. Any mention of individual freedom was immediately shot down because “People don’t do what is best for themselves or society.”


One of the admitted Marxists proclaimed, “I’m a firm believer in the good of society over the good of the individual.” In his world view the individual just doesn’t matter. Government must do what is best for the good of society and if the individual sometimes doesn’t get what they want or gets hurt that is just too bad. Pointing out I could find nothing different in that justification versus that used by those who murdered innocent civilians in 10s of millions in the last century yielded comments to the effect of “They made some horrible mistakes. We just need the right people in charge.” Of course he believed he was one of the right people.


Just as Bloomberg apparently cannot think one step ahead to how easily his proposed restriction on “high capacity” soft drink containers would be defeated these people cannot envision what follows next from their every proposed attempt at restricting individual liberty and the free market. In one of the recent books of Thomas Sowell that I listened to he related the story of when he was a economics student and was enamored with some idea that would “force people to do the right thing”. He proudly presented it to his instructor who asked, “And then what happens?” Sowell initially was perplexed. Why of course, the desired outcome would happen. There was a law or regulation that required people to do the right thing. The instructor pushed him to think it through from an economics point of view. And Sewell thought it through and gave the answer that only slightly diminished his enthusiasm for the idea. The instructor again pushed, “And then what happens?” Again Sowell answered and his enthusiasm damped just a bit more. As the instructor pushed him again and again Sowell walked through the rippling effects of the simple one law and it was not long before he realized that not only was the effect of the law far less simple than what he thought but it would not result in his desired outcome. Everyone touched by the “one simple law” would pay a price with no one, except perhaps the bureaucrats and the politicians, receiving a net benefit.


The typical gun controller cannot conceive of why registration of firearms would not make society safer. Unintended consequences escape their grasp all the while they proclaim themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to us. It’s all just “common sense” to them. They vehemently insist there are, literally, easy answers to some difficult problems that involve the constitution, criminology, psychology, and practicality of implementation. I sometimes believe those that insist that if someone had not had a concealed carry permit they wouldn’t have committed multiple murders must be suffering from some kind of insanity. If one is willing to break the law against murder why would they obey the law against carrying a concealed firearm or even ownership of a firearm? Why is it so incredibly difficult for them to think even one step ahead?


I struggle with how to get what I think are extremely simple concepts across to these people. Even everyday things Liberals/Progressives claim to be experts on they are profoundly ignorant and/or stupid on. One Liberal I know went on about how because something was “natural” it was “so much better for you”. I asked what the definition of “natural” was. Was this opposed to “super-natural”? This is about the only thing that even comes close in my mind. She said, “No. Natural is something that is not man-made.” “So”, I queried, “Does that mean the lemonade you are drinking is not natural? At the bare minimum a man or woman had to squeeze the juice from the lemon and mix it with water.” The response was, “If you ask that then you are just stupid.”


This liberal can’t even present a defendable definition of a word that she uses in probably 25% of her conversations with me and she calls me stupid? How do you get through to someone like that?


Sowell’s instructor had an advantage we don’t. He or she had a very bright student with a grasp of economic theory and the student was in a subordinate position. Liberals/Progressives will not tolerate being in a subordinate position. They believe they are superior to non-liberals and any challenge to that world view is met with an attack. And if the verbal attack isn’t sufficient to “win” their argument they are more than willing, as Bloomberg is demonstrating, to use force to get our compliance.


People with the intellectually power and problem domain knowledge of a 2nd grader are demanding they be put in charge of essentially everything with guns to back up their decisions. This is some seriously scary stuff.

Quote of the day—Bob Budz

Posted on by

Big Brother is now here – and look, he is retarded!

Bob Budz
Via Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, No.1 January 1, 1994
[Although it was said over 18 years ago I have to think it is more true today than it was then. At that time Mayor Bloomberg had not yet taken it upon himself to try and restrict the size of soda cups. Perhaps he is too stupid to realize that if he wants more than ‘X’ number of ounces he can hold a cup in each hand each holding ‘X -1’ ounces but very few others are so handicapped.—Joe]