Quote of the day–Herbert W. Titus

The Solicitor General has argued, Congress may prohibit such persons as idiots, imbeciles, felons, and children from possessing any firearm whatsoever. Id. at 25-26. While the Second Amendment would not absolutely preclude exclusions, it does prohibit them if they rest upon the constitutionally impermissible ground of unfitness. Exclusions may only be based upon the foundation that the class of persons excluded are not art of the constituent “people” — i.e., those persons ho have authority to constitute and reconstitute the government — being either incapable of giving the requisite consent to be governed, such as children, or having forfeited their civil rights, such as a convicted violent felon. According to the republican political philosophy underpinning the Second Amendment, whether a person is “trained” in the use of a firearm, and thus fit to possess it, is a matter of self government, not subject to any fitness regulation of the government.

Herbert W. Titus
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller.
February 11, 2008
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

Quote of the day–Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles “a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills”, and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
“On New Democracy” (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn’t want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.–Joe]

Quote of the day–LawDog

Evil is not defeated by submitting to it. Evil is not defeated by running away from it; nor is evil defeated by ignoring it.

Evil is only defeated by fighting back.

You may, or may not, think you have the right to self-defence — and that is between you and your conscience. As a member of society — as a member of a community — you have the duty, the obligation, and the responsibility of self-defence.

LawDog
Meditations on Self Defence
January 27, 2008
[Via Tam. I’m in full agreement with this philosophy but not all people are.

I had an interesting discussion with my officemate last week. She is from India and a Jain. Just a quick refresher on that philosophy of life:

Nonviolence includes the concepts of vegetarianism. Jains are expected to be non-violent in thought, word, and deed, both toward humans and toward all other living beings, including their own selves. Jain monks and nuns walk barefoot and sweep the ground in front of them to avoid killing any insects or other tiny beings. Even though all life is considered sacred by the Jains, human life is deemed the highest form of life. For this reason, it is considered vital never to harm or upset any person.

They also don’t eat the roots of plants because of the increased chance of harming some organism that lives in the soil or the root. She does eat dairy products but not eggs.

Quite a contrast from me. I asked her, “If a lion was about to have you, or your children, for lunch does your religion require you to submit? The answer was that in the most pure form, yes, you are required to tolerate being lunch. But of course most people would not do that. They would fight back. Similar responses were obtained after gentle probes about taking antibiotics and defending against a human attacker. I dropped the subject. Maybe some other time when we have lots of time (this was to/from a lunch for our group) I’ll explore more. It seems so odd to me that their ideal and the admitted practical are so divergent. And that she is so positive about my explosive videos. Maybe it’s just the contrast from her live experience in a non-threatening form. Or maybe she is just being a Jain and doesn’t want to upset me by showing her disapproval.

[shrug]

Those are questions for another time–we have a product to ship…–Joe]

Replication errors–how to prevent and correct them

I received the following story from an email list I subscribe to. It’s just a funny story but I do sometimes wonder if this sort of thing might have contributed to our current political mess. Politicians, and the people that elected them, ignore and deliberately bend the first principles of our Constitution and even the philosophical underpinning (yes, Ayn Rand’s book Philosophy: Who Needs It has made big impact on me) of how we determine truth from falsity and right from wrong. Little by little the nature of our government morphs into something completely unrecognizable and unrestrained by the founding document.

A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying from copies, not the original manuscripts. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk says, “We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.” So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours go by and nobody sees him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying.

He asks the old monk what’s wrong, and in a choked voice comes the reply…”The word is ‘celebrate.'”

Even in the simple story above it would be tough to change. All those centuries of tradition and the hundreds of collaborating volumes by “great teachers” who based their scholarly works on simple clerical errors. Who would be willing to say their greatest leaders through the ages were mistaken and totally wrong?

So, what was the fatal error or errors of our founding documents that allowed the replication errors to be introduced and never corrected? It’s not as if we were actually making copies of the copies. The original documents are available and other than perhaps the question of a comma or two no one questions the integrity of copies.

I believe there is a single flaw that allowed this to happen. This fatal flaw permeates our state constitutions as well as our U.S. Constitution. That flaw is that there is no punishment for those that violate the Constitution. If a politician votes for a law, another signs the law, the judges, the police, and the prosecutors enforce the law. If it is later declared to be unconstitutional the very worst that happens to all of the people involved is they say, “Whoops.” Hence there is nothing to lose for them when they engage in illegal activities. How can you expect any other outcome than what we have today? Imagine how your children, your employees, employer, your local merchants, your banker, your neighbors, etc. would behave if they could cheat, steal, lie, and injury people and the worst that would happen to them is they had to say, “Whoops, I’m sorry.” That is what has happened to our governments.

I keep wondering how to restore our Constitutions (yes, I remember Jack Anderson’s quote–I deal with him in that post). There needs to be some punishment for those who violated the constitution. But the same judges, prosecutors, and police who violated the constitution would be reluctant to convict themselves. One thing that might work is a separate branch of government whose sole task is to prosecute violators of the constitution. But at this point I don’t think our government needs to get any bigger. I have a better plan. This plan will not only eliminate the problem of unconstitutional laws being passed and enforced it will also reduce the size of government.

Joe’s Enforcement of Enumerated Powers (JEEP) would be implemented as follows:

  • Whosoever shall identify a government employee who is acting under the color of law but outside constitutional boundaries shall post said transgression on a special Internet website.
  • The identified government employee will have seven days to constitutionally justify their actions on the same website, correct their error, or remove themselves from government employment for life.
  • If, after the seven days have elapsed, anyone who does not believe the constitutional justification or correction of the error was adequate may remove said government employee from the gene pool. This shall also apply to anyone that attempts to prevent him from said gene pool cleaning.
  • After successfully cleaning the gene pool the pool cleaner(s) must identify themselves and may post information on the same website to support their actions.
  • After successfully removing the pond scum from the gene pool said pool cleaner(s) will stand trial via a popular election in the jurisdiction of the government employee. Hence in the case of a city mayor being removed from the gene pool the pool cleaner(s) will be judged by the voters of the city. A U.S. Senator would require a state election. A President would require a national election.
  • The criteria for finding the pool cleaner(s) not guilty of murder will be that if 10% or more of the voters, having read the web postings and tested to make sure they actually did read the postings, believe the pool cleaners had probable cause to engage in said pool cleaning the pool cleaners will be declared to have engaged in praiseworthy homicide. Note that is “Probable Cause”, not “Preponderance of Evidence” or “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
  • If the pool cleaner(s) are found NOT guilty of murder they will receive all of the material assets of the pond scum which they removed from the gene pool.
  • If the pool cleaner(s) are found guilty of murder they will be punished as any other murderer.

Expect a rapid and dramatic reduction in the size of government and strict adherence to the enumerated powers.

See, that wasn’t so tough was it?

Promote JEEP, it’s the for the good of our children.

Quote of the day–Ayn Rand

A perceptual consciousness is unable to believe that ideas can be of personal importance to anyone; it regards ideas as matter of arbitrary choice, as means to some immediate ends. On this view, a man does not seek to be elected to a public office in order to carry out certain policies–he advocates certain policies in order to be elected.

Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 49
[I don’t need to point out the application of this quote in the current space-time context.–Joe]

Why do they push irrelevance?

Sebastian asks, “Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it?”

It probably was a rhetorical question but it fit in so well with the book I’ve been listening to, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, that I felt compelled to offer some answers.

There are several plausible answers to Sebastian’s question and they are not exclusive, it could be several of them are correct depending on the individual and the tribe they belong to. More on “the tribe” later but first a quote from Rand, page 9:

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it–intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved–as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but the hatred for America. Why hated? Because America is the living refutation of Kantian universe.

Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.

And from page 41, where the tribe reference originates in this post:

As an example of the principle that the rational is the moral, observe that the anti-conceptual is the profoundly anti-moral. The basic commandment of all such groups, which take precedence over any other rules, is: loyalty to the group–not to ideas, but to people; not to the group’s beliefs, which are minimal and chiefly ritualistic, but to the group’s members and leaders. Whether a given member is right or wrong, the others must protect him from outsiders; whether he is innocent or guilty, the others must stand by him against all outsiders; whether he is competent or not, the others must employ him or trade with him in preference to outsiders. Thus a physical qualification–the accident of birth in a given village or tribe–takes precedence over morality and justice. (But the physical is only the most frequent apparent and superficial qualification, since such groups reject the nonconforming children of their own members. The actual qualification is psycho-epistemological: men bound by the same concretes.)

With that background I offer several possible answers to Sebastian’s question. All come, perhaps in a somewhat obscure manner, from the first few chapters of Rand’s book.

  1. Because the gun is a means of individual power and threatens the power of the collective. The more power an individual has the less it needs the collective. They believe the collective is more important than any, and in fact all, individuals and therefore must be suppressed by any means possible to preserve the collective.
  2. The tribe of the people of the gun are outsiders to the tribe of the people of the non-gun. Anything that harms the outsider is good because outsiders are viewed as threats to the tribe.
  3. The question assumes facts not in evidence. In particular the question assumes the anti-gun mind is capable of understanding cause and effect. Therefore the question has little or no meaning within the context of the anti-gun tribe advocating restrictions on guns.
  4. Because they are incapable of distinguishing action from accomplishment. These are the same people that protest, demonstrate, and chant. Action for the sake of action is their “currency”.
  5. The leaders of the anti-gun movement know the truth but also know that the majority of people are so philosophical bankrupt they can be persuaded to use the force of government against innocents to further their own agenda.

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

This isn’t the way counterterrorism is supposed to work, but it’s happening everywhere. It’s a result of our relentless campaign to convince ordinary citizens that they’re the front line of terrorism defense. “If you see something, say something” is how the ads read in the New York City subways. “If you suspect something, report it” urges another ad campaign in Manchester, UK. The Michigan State Police have a seven-minute video. Administration officials from then-attorney general John Ashcroft to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to President Bush have asked us all to report any suspicious activity.

The problem is that ordinary citizens don’t know what a real terrorist threat looks like. They can’t tell the difference between a bomb and a tape dispenser, electronic name badge, CD player, bat detector, or trash sculpture; or the difference between terrorist plotters and imams, musicians, or architects. All they know is that something makes them uneasy, usually based on fear, media hype, or just something being different.

Bruce Schneier
November 1, 2007
The War on the Unexpected
[This is the way real witch hunts happen. This is the way we lose our freedom and our rights are permanently infringed. And when you dig deep into what actually happened, with 20-20 hindsight, no one was really to blame. Everyone makes pretty reasonable decisions at every little step along the way. The problem is that most people don’t have any hard and fast principles. They have no underlying philosophy they have confidence in. They take “one day at a time”. And “today is a good day to ignore the Bill of Rights” because these are “special circumstances”.

What I think people don’t really get is that the Bill of Rights wasn’t written for “a sunny day in the springtime”. It was written, and expected to be honored, when emotions are running high and as a firm reminder of what the true limits to government must be. It was written with extraordinary deliberation by very smart people who knew the risks of a tyrant, a committee, a mob, a government under stress and running on high emotions. After due deliberation it can be changed but it should never be violated because tyranny often masquerades as doing good.–Joe]

Run in circles, scream and shout

I was browsing some of the bigot sites this evening and ran across this set of pictures (rel=nofollow set on the link so they don’t get a bump in ranking from the search engines). I just can’t see what they think they are accomplishing. I kept thinking of that old adage, “When in danger, when doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. They must actually subscribe to that sort of philosophy. Pictures of people laying on the ground helps in what way?

Their actions remind me that the dead students at Virginia Tech were disarmed by the people that claimed to be protecting them. The people laying on the ground symbolize the people that believe submitting to evil frequently end up dead. It makes me think of “proof by vigorous assertion”. They can’t prove their case with numbers and logic so they have to just insist that lawmakers do things their way. They don’t even bother trying to prove what they want would benefit anyone but the criminals. Just do things their way or they will lay on the ground and have people take pictures.

It doesn’t seem like they are getting their way yet. Maybe if they start screaming and kicking they would get better results. It works for some two-year olds.

Quote of the day–John Adams

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.

John Adams
[One could make the argument that this is more true today than when Adams said it 200 years ago.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Mahatma Gandhi

Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.

Mahatma Gandhi
[Closely related is Erich Fromm’s “There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.” Those that advocate gun control or claim health care is a right need to study a bit more philosophy.–Joe]

Response to The United Federation of Planets

Kevin has at long last delivered The Überpost!

I can’t really disagree with the essence of what he says but I’m going to play devils advocate for a bit. And I’m certain he already recognizes the problem I am about to point out. He says:

But the ideas of Western civilization in general, and the American philosophy in specific have proven themselves superior.

“Superior” on what scale? How is it that you measure that superiority? By the scale used by Muslims we are arrogant, decadent, and sinful. We drink alcohol. Our women, who are the tools of Satan, are allowed to tempt men with exposed skin in public are allowed to attend schools. We charge interest on the loaning of money. We do not pray to Allah. We tempt the youth of the faithful to desert that which is holy and become sinful. We have succumbed to Satan. Our power is not proof of our superiority. It is proof of the bargain we have made with the Prince of Darkness.

The Germans in the late 30’s had a “noble goal” as well–“purification” of the human race. A similar argument could be made of the Japanese in the same time frame.

Who are you to say Western civilization is superior? By what measure and how have you determined that measure is superior?

[End devils advocate mode.]

Other things that come to mind from his post:

In the Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order Huntington said that frequently after one civilization convincingly wins a conflict with another civilization the loser imitates many of the characteristics of the winner. If the loser has a framework for dealing with the loss then there can be peace for a while. In particular the Chinese and the Japanese civilizations have the concept of a hierarchy of power and when the West unequivocally demonstrated greater military and economic power they had a cultural construct for at least a short term (in civilizational time scales) peaceful co-existence with the West being the superior civilization.

Islam does not have as much resiliency in this regard. After their defeats in the first part of the last century they realized they had to learn from the West and adapt what they could to their civilization. But they have no cultural construct of accepting non-Islamic people or institutions as being superior to Islam. If such a thing appears to be true then it is proof that those Muslims were not Islamic enough. It was proof that Allah was punishing them by allowing Satan to rule over them. Hence the demonstrations of the West being of superior power only means they must be even greater adherents to Islam.

They also have no concept of pacifism as a virtue (I am not a pacifist but consider input from those that are a useful balance of ideas in how to deal with conflict). Their greatest religious leader was a warrior and is praised for his warrior acts. The killing of infidels is regarded as not only acceptable or praiseworthy but as necessary acts of profound devotion to their faith.

Paraphrasing Greg Hamilton here: In the eyes of Muslims what Osama Bin Laden has to say about the West is as inherently obvious, once articulated, to them as the superiority of Western civilization is to us.

As to the central question brought up by Kevin I think he misses a concept that can help explain, or at least rationalize, our killing the civilians of cases such as the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In our minds we were not the aggressor–Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked. The Japanese, of course, have a different view on this. We believed Germany’s aggression would not end with the conquest of Europe and ultimately would be a threat to us if it was not stopped in Europe. The aggressor, in our minds, is the criminal in a conflict. Criminals do not have the same rights as innocents. That combined with the view in both Germany, at that time, and Japan that the concept of individualism was almost if not in fact repugnant. The State (in Germany) and the Emperor (in Japan) were what the individual existed to serve. Hence, we were “playing by their own rules” by killing civilians in our efforts to defeat the Germany state and the Emperor of Japan. And even then it is clear that many had serious qualms about the actions taken. We weren’t blind to the hypocrisy of suspending our principles. It was a reluctant pragmatic concession to reality not mapping perfectly to our theory of individual rights. It was an ugly thing, as is all war, but it was the least ugly of the available alternatives.

This last point could be just another way of saying what Kevin offers when he offers this quote from Second Hand Lions on how we justify our violations of others “inalienable” right to life:

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

Lots of things to think about. Thank you Kevin.

Quote of the day–Robert A. Heinlein

Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value–the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives–and illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.

Mr. Dubois
Instructor of History and Moral Philosophy
A character in Robert A. Heinlein’s book Starship Troopers
Page 90
[Do not think for an instant that Marxism, the most thoroughly tested and failed political philosophy in human history, is dead. It should be but millions of people still yearn for it. It’s a mind numbing addictive drug that gives an initial euphoria and the illusion of well-being but ultimately it destroys initiative, your economic health, and then your life.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Robert A. Heinlein

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral–doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.

Mr. Dubois
Instructor of History and Moral Philosophy
A character in Robert A. Heinlein’s book Starship Troopers
Page 26

Lewis and Clark go to Mars

I grew up just a few miles from where Lewis and Clark went through Idaho on their way to and from the Pacific Ocean.  Lewis and Clark were a prominent feature in Idaho History taught in the eight grade.  I have listened to books on tapes about them and Barb and I have stopped at lots of historical landmarks and a few museums along the Lewis and Clark trail in Montana and Idaho.  It was an amazing journey with only one man lost, probably due to an appendicitis rupture, through hostile native American country (the Sioux in particular) as well as incredibly friendly native Americans (the Nez Perce as well as others), starvation as well as an excess of food, and dangerous animals (read about their experience with grizzly bears!).  Thomas Jefferson made an excellent choice in Meriwether Lewis for the leader of the journey but screwed up in the handling of his return.  Lewis probably should have been sent back out on another trip rather than being given a desk job as a governor.  Lewis ended up committing suicide just a couple years after returning from his historic trip.

I’m reminded of all this by the following from the Washington Post:

“What we have ahead of us represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to the moon,” Griffin said recently in a speech.

New classes of astronauts will have to practice flying in a vehicle quite different from the shuttle and learn how to extract resources such as oxygen from the moon’s soil. They will be taught to grow vegetables in lunar greenhouses and conduct geological tests on the moon’s surface. Already, engineers at United Space Alliance are studying how a crew will be able to train aboard the spacecraft on a three-year trip to Mars. Eventually, Mars-bound astronauts will have to learn how to extract fuel and other resources from Mars’ surface.

“The requirement to live off the land will be crucial to our future in space, just as it was to Lewis and Clark,” Griffin said recently.

There will be some crucial differences in the journey to Mars versus to the Pacific Ocean via the Missouri and Columbia rivers.  In some ways we know a lot more about what is between Earth and Mars than the men of Lewis and Clark’s expedition knew before their trip.  But then L&C could turn around and come back at almost any time if the going got too rough.  They never had to worry about where their next breath of fresh air was going to be found, water was never a problem, and food was only rarely a problem.  Even when they were at their most distance point from their origin, the mouth of the Columbia, they could have just waited for the next ship to stop in and pay for a ride home.  Mars explorers will face larger challenges but will probably have to do less “thinking on their feet”.  The brain power of thousands of support staff on earth will be only a few minutes away as long as their radios work.

I wish them luck and wish I could go with them.  James and I, as well as other friends, have often fantasized about starting over someplace other than Earth.  If it were up to us we would create a new place to live where the rules were extraordinary few and the freedoms vast.  A place where the Bill of Rights were adhered to rather than ignored.  Where government was truly limited to the most minimal amount absolutely required.  Where free markets and free ideas were something to be celebrated rather than repressed. 

This isn’t off topic, so stay with me for a moment–James sent me an email yesterday saying:

Ok, Meredith is insisting that I read some Heinlein.  Not reading him is apparently a great offense.  She’s got where I should start narrowed down to The Past Through Tomorrow, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.  So I’m cross-referencing them by you to see what you think I should read first.  Thanks.

I have been trying to get him to read Heinlein for about 15 years now.  I saved all my Heinlein books for my children hoping they would enjoy them as much as I did.  No luck.  None of my kids would read more than a chapter or two before getting bored.  Now James is almost 22 years old and “Meredith” has more influence over him than his father ever did.  I’m a little bit envious but I like this “Meredith” already and I have never met her or had any contact with her.  Just a few things James has told us about her.  Heinlein had a huge influence on me and my personal philosophy.   My recommendation to James from that short list of Heinlein books?  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.  It’s unlikely I will live to see the revolution as envisioned by Heinlein in this book but the dream that my children may live to see it or something similar and enjoy the fruits of it please me.  Freedom is embedded in the spirit of humans and repression of that is only a short term accomplishment.   Thank you Meredith for helping me to keep James on track.

Quote of the day–Jeff Cooper

Despite the best efforts of the hoplophobes, the U.S. remains way ahead of most other jurisdictions in the matter of firearms freedom. Recently an English jeweler, whose shop had been raided twenty times in twenty years, repelled borders by seizing the firearm of one of the bandits who broke into his shop. With the captured firearm he shot both of the bandits, though not fatally.

This was in England, and, of course, he was immediately in a great deal of trouble. He was fined 2,000 pounds for “illegal use of a firearm,” 100 more for possession of ammunition which was related to another weapon, plus 1,050 more pounds for prosecution costs. This whole affair is costing the jeweler over $6,000 in American money, plus his attorney’s fee.

Just how this sort of idiocy is justified in the eyes of the British courts is unclear, but though we find a lot of domestic jurisprudence pretty bad, such things can get worse.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 3, No. 12
October 1995
[This idiocy is easily justified in the eyes of the British–if they subscribe to the cattle philosophy of human governance.  See?  It all makes sense now.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ann Landers

No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.

Ann Landers
Nationally syndicated advice columnist and Director of Handgun Control, Inc.
[I would claim than in matters that adversely affect other people one has the obligation to demand empirical evidence.  But so many moonbats agree with Landers philosophy that it is rather depressing at times.  — Joe]

Quote of the day–William O. Douglas

The American Government is premised on the theory that if the mind of man is to be free, his ideas, his beliefs, his ideology, his philosophy must be placed beyond the reach of government.

William O. Douglas
Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
April 17, 1939 to November 12, 1975

Quote of the day–Madeleine K. Albright

Of course, small arms are not the root cause of conflict in these and other regions. We cannot ease every tension or prevent every fight. But we can help make bad situations better by doing more to ensure that arms do not fall into the wrong hands. We can help governments that want help to keep dangerous weapons off their streets. And we can make it harder for the forces of extremism and hate to get the weapons they need to carry out their destructive designs.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks on the Occasion of Receiving the
International Rescue Committee Freedom Award
New York, New York, November 10, 1998
[That philosophy is working well in the Sudan right now, huh?  And it worked well for Germany when they passed the Weapons Control Act of 1938 keeping guns out of the hands Jews. –Joe]

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Our fighting system is as non diagnostic as can be, very little conditional branching, and works against either side attack without mirroring. It is reactive from the stand point that the bad guy has to attack but after that it stresses that you be the actor forever after that.

My simple combat philosophy: My turn, my space, your pain.

Greg Hamilton
Thu 7/19/01 6:47 PM
Email to Insights discussion group

Philosophy Question for the Winter of ’98*

Q: What are the proper limits to government?  Can it be determined by popular vote?  Or are there limits that absolutely must be respected?

By this I mean, suppose that 90% of the people voted to kill all but 2% of the male babies at birth and just keep those few around for breeding stock.  Would it be acceptable to do so?  90% is more that enough to get a constitutional amendment through to overcome any sort of impediment like that.  So what if 10% of the people didn’t want most of their male children killed at birth.   The majority rules right?  What if it was blacks, native Americans, whites, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, or some other racial/religious group that was being exterminated by popular vote?  How is it that we should determine just what our inalienable rights are?  Some people think the Bill of Rights in the US constitution are a pretty good enumeration.  But then there are those that have a problem with the Second Amendment.   And a few that have a problem with the fourth — due process sort of gets in the way occasionally in the “War on Drugs”.  But just a little, we have overlooked it for the most part.

I see our Bill of Rights under extreme attack from our government.  Is it essential to freedom?  Or just a bunch of loopholes for criminals to make a mockery of our laws?

Send me email. I want to know. If you say it’s okay, I’ll publish your response here.


*This originally appear on a web page of mine. I am moving it here for better visibility and archival.—Joe November 5, 2010