Quote of the day—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Soviet organisation has made possible the creation of armed forces of workers and peasants which are much more closely connected with the working and exploited people than before. If this had not been done it would have been impossible to achieve one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism—the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
1919 (see here)
The Basic Tasks Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat In Russia
[As many people have pointed out, Democrats/Socialists/Communists are not anti-gun. They just don’t want their political opponents to have guns. See also the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars where they disarmed everyone except members of the Russian Communist Party.—Joe]

Greg Hamilton for Seattle Mayor!

This is going to be interesting.

See also here.

Via multiple sources and an email from Ry who says, “First time I regret not living in Seattle”.

Who is Greg Hamilton? He is the founder and Chief Instructor InSights Training Center. I’ve known Greg for over 20 years and have 51 QOTDs from him here on this blog.

Update: Video of Greg Hamilton’s Mayoral Announcement.

Quote of the day—Patti Brigham

We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.

Patti Brigham
Co-chair of the Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control groups claim victory in Florida – for now
[They claimed victory because no pro freedom bills were passed, not because they were able to pass one or more laws infringing upon our rights. They have to try and keep their morale up somehow.

Aside from blocking the bills which would have reduced the infringements upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment what annoys me is that Brigham thinks she can bypass the Second Amendment with an argument about “public safety”. Apparently she is ignorant of and/or disagrees with Ben Franklin on the tradeoffs involving safety and liberty. Even if I knew nothing of the issue I would be substantially more inclined to side with Franklin than with Brigham.

“Public safety” doesn’t outweigh individual rights. This is particularly true when it involves prior restraint. If it did one could make a winning case for banning speech and writing which advocates socialism. Far more people have lost their lives because of socialism in the last 120 years than have lost their lives because of private ownership of firearms.

And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is about public safety.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan P. Eldridge

Instead of making it difficult for law-abiding gun shop owners, fully prosecute straw purchasers, felons in possession of a firearm and people who unlawfully use a weapon. Incarcerate more criminals, and you’ll get less crime. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, and you’ll get more crime. Which goal is Sen. Harmon trying to achieve?

Dan P. Eldridge
May 10, 2017
The gauzy misdirection and untrue smears of an anti-gun-rights activist
[It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer anyway. Senator Harmon, Democrat, has a vested interest in getting votes. As there are over twice as many Democrats in prison as all other political affiliations combined and convicted felons are not allowed to legally vote the senator wants fewer of his constituents sent to prison. Furthermore the more crime the easier it is for the senator to spin the story that he is needed to protect them from the crime. If people realize they can, and should, protect themselves from crime then they will have less, imaginary, need for him. He does not want this.

So, DUH! The senator wants to make it harder for citizen to protect themselves and fewer violent criminals going to prison.—Joe]

As one would expect

Interesting news from inside the belly of the beast (emphasis added):

Gun control activists who previously worked for Watts in various state organizations are said to be frustrated and feeling burned by her, according to one source.

“Staff who worked for Shannon quit or are fired faster than the organization can replace them. She’s a nightmare,” the source told TheDC.

Another source close to the organization said in a written statement, “Two beliefs unite nearly all gun control supporters: background checks save lives, and Shannon Watts is a self-promoting tyrant.”

In order to be a gun control supporter you have to have a very low opinion of individual rights and a high opinion of the use of government force to infringe upon those rights. That one of the most prominent promoters of rights infringement is also a tyrant is as one would expect.

Sebastian has some advice for Watts.

Quote of the day—Doug Casey

Once an empire starts falling apart, trying to stop it is like trying to stop a tree from falling once its roots have rotted. It can’t be done, and it’s best not to be around when it happens.

The Cultural Marxists and other enemies of Western Civilization are in total control of the education system, so the next several generations of young people are corrupted. They control the media, so they control the prevailing intellectual climate. They control the NGOs, and the “think tanks” that infest DC and other major capitals. They control the Deep State.

So, no, Trump can’t reverse it. Among other reasons because he himself doesn’t have a philosophical or ethical core. He’s just a businessman; his object is just to make things more efficient. Like Mussolini, to make the trains run on time, as it were. He’s a good influence in that he hates the Cultural Marxists, and they hate him. But it’s not like he can offer a positive alternative for people to believe in.

Doug Casey
2017
Doug Casey on the Plague of Cultural Marxists
[I certainly don’t know if Casey is correct but it seems to be a good match for the information I have.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Seattle voters overwhelmingly supported I-594, but refuse to recognize that it hasn’t worked, nor will they admit it will continue not working.

Dave Workman
April 26, 2017
‘Shoplift Shooting’ in Seattle Reveals Liberal Mindset
[But, of course, it depends upon your definition of “work”.

  • It creates a backdoor registration of gun owners who wish to follow the law.
  • It significantly increases the time and expense of gun ownership.
  • It increases the demonization of gun ownership.
  • It drives a wedge between gun owners and the police.
  • It creates a legal beachhead which degrades a specific enumerated right into a privilege reluctantly granted by the government.

It fails to reduce violent crime. But Seattle voters are overwhelmingly Democrats and one should not expect them to have any interest in placing restrictions upon their constituents.—Joe]

The perfect problem

If you are a politician seeking power, and everything is going well, there isn’t any urgency to pass laws beyond those needed for the general maintenance of the status quo, because everything is awesome. You need an enemy or problem to rail against, to be the target of you legislation. You need a boogieman to scare people into supporting you. But what?

You want something that cannot fight back. If you demonize a group they will object.

You want something BIG, because sane people won’t get very worked up about the trivial.

Really big. So big that everyone must be involved, and any dissenters can be easily demonized.

You want something distant in time. You can’t use something that can be disproven next week, or even within the next few election cycles. It’s got to be an ongoing chronic thing hanging out in your children’s and grandchildren’s future.

…but not too distant. Immediate action must be demanded by the hugeness of the problem, not something that can be dealt with mañana.

Far reaching. It must impact every aspect of life, which in turn calls for regulating every aspect of life.

Have many possible parts to the potential solutions. If any one part of the “solution” appears to work it can never be enough, but if some other part doesn’t, it can be used as a call for more spending, more laws, more actions, more something. There isn’t any one magic bullet because the problem is so huge, but many parts that might help some, but they are individually so small that nothing can be proven one way or another. There is always another reason to demand more research, more knowledge, more data, and a reason to demand “doing something” in the meantime “just in case.”

Not an actual threat. If you don’t get everything you demand, no sweat: everything is still going to be OK. But you can always demonize others for failing to do enough, while excusing your own continued high-living lifestyle.

Sound like anything you’ve heard of before?

Global warming?

Yes, global warming, the perfect boogieman.

Quote of the day—President Donald Trump

You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

President Donald Trump
April 28, 2017
Trump: ‘8-year assault’ on Second Amendment is over
[I agreed that a President Hillary Clinton would have been far, far worse. But with all the abuse we have put up with for so many decades there is a lot of work to be done.

The new Supreme Court justice is a good start. But that isn’t enough to satisfy me in this regard.

In a matter of a week or so he could have reverse a number of bans on foreign made ammo and guns put in place by executive order by the last three or four presidents. And don’t forget the requirement that gun dealers report sales of multiple long guns in certain Mexico border states implemented by President Obama.

I remain skeptical.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Kennedy

Which organization is more dangerous to Americans — ISIS or the NRA?

As you know, ISIS is the acronym for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is a terrorist organization founded in 1999, headquartered in Syria and feared around the world.

The NRA is the acronym for the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871*, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and feared by politicians across America.

What makes ISIS so feared is its willingness to kill in pursuit of its goal of creating a fundamentalist caliphate.

What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.

In our country, the NRA is a lot closer to meeting its goal.

George Kennedy
April 20, 2017
GEORGE KENNEDY: The NRA’s influence is a danger to us all
[This is what they think of us and our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Those in power aim to disarm those who are not. That’s true in England, Germany, the USSR, California, DC, etc. And they always start with the subgroups that are easily demonized: catholics, blacks, jews, etc.

Paul Koning
Comment to Quote of the day—Rob Morse
[This is part of the reason why there is Boomershoot this weekend.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Heaton

The president is the top bureaucrat, and there’s nothing more American than despising bureaucrats. The government is basically a giant Human Resources Department with tanks, and the president is in charge of it.

Andrew Heaton
March 18, 2017
Why America Needs A Monarchy
[The title of the article is clickbait, the author is a comedian, but he has an interesting point.—Joe]

Sweet!

David Hardy reports that President Trump is going to speak at the NRA convention:

A delicious twist: it’s the same day as the White House Correspondent’s dinner, which he announced he would cut.

The press is so incredibly hostile to gun owners to have the president snub them and court gun owners is sweet, regardless of what you think of the man.

I agree with David, yes, quite delicious.

Elaborating a bit:

President Donald Trump will speak at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention on April 28, becoming the first U.S. president to address the gun-rights group since Ronald Reagan in 1983.

Quote of the day—Tirno

The best result for the progressive is that you get mugged, assaulted or murdered without resistance, then the perpetrator is captured, tried and convicted by the state, and it is made perfectly clear that you need them. Then the perpetrator is subjected to some hand-wavy correctional action, declared by the state to be redeemed, then released to either be a good ward of the benevolent state, or to offend again and continue to the cycle of you needing them.

Tirno
March 30, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—Rob Morse
[Great insight.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rachel Dolezal

People didn’t seem able to consider that maybe both were true. OK, I was born to white parents, but maybe I had an authentic black identity.

Rachel Dolezal
March 24, 2017
Rachel Dolezal struggling after racial-identity scandal in Spokane
[And maybe I’m standing upright and on my head at the same time.

It’s not surprising that she changed her legal name in hopes it would help her get a job. But, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”? And then she tells the AP her new name?

The political left not only is the party of criminals it’s the party of the mentally ill (see also my post on Peterson Syndrome)..—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Heaton

We threw the baby out with the bathwater when we kicked the monarchy out of America, and we ought to bring it back.

In America we’ve combined power and reverence in the office of the presidency, but legal authority and veneration compliment each other about as well as Scotch and back pain medication. It’s safer to ingest them separately.

Andrew Heaton
March 18, 2017
Why America Needs A Monarchy
[I find it hard to disagree with this point. There many be some interesting psychology going on here that could be affecting politics adversely.—Joe]

Expendable men

Times change.
But it ain’t all progress.

There has been a lot of social upheaval in recent years on the topics of equality, “equality,” women’s rights, men’s rights, patriarchy, the wage gap, marriage, MGTOW, misogyny versus misandry (I note the spell-checker has the previous but not the latter word), marginalizing men, etc. websites like Men of the West, videos like this Continue reading

Is she clueless, or hoping we’re clueless?

Or both?

The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.

Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.

Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.

It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.

Agitprop.

Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.

Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).

That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.

It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.

And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.

Quote of the day—Bob Evans

You’ve never had a better administration for the gun industry than Obama, and now never a worse one for the gun industry than Trump.

Bob Evans
Pennington Capital Management – Analyst
February 23, 2017
RGR – Q4 2016 Sturm Ruger & Company Inc Earnings Call
[Despite this obvious fact known to anyone that cares to do any research (investors dump gun company stocks the day after Trump won the election) we constantly read and hear things like:

Because much of Congress takes its cues (and money) from the National Rifle Association, our nation’s firearms legislation is tilted toward the financial gains of weapons and ammunition manufacturers, and our gun-violence research has largely been suppressed.

Obviously, if the NRA were actually looking after the financial gain of the firearms industry they would have endorsed Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. The NRA, as they claim, represent the interests of firearm owners.

I believe the reason people continue to make such crap for brains claims is because they have a deep seated hatred of capitalism and people making a profit. They believe that if they frame the debate in terms of someone making a profit “everyone” will recognize the “evil” just as easily as they do.

What these people can’t understand is that profit and capitalism are not inherently evil. Free markets and free minds don’t always make the best choices. But they do make far better choices than than coerced markets and minds–the type of markets and minds the anti-gun people insist on creating. Gun control is about control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb

A form of direct democracy is coming.  One that lets people directly influence the decisions of the people they send to Washington.

A form of interactive democracy that doesn’t require any changes to the constitution since it works at the party level and not the national. 

When it does, it’s going to hit us fast, taking off like wildfire since it fulfills a fundamental need that the current system does not provide.

Here’s a quick example from the perspective of the Trump insurgency.  Other political parties would need different approaches, but they could if done in the right way (simple approach, scaled quickly by using disruptive marketing, grow from there), grow as quickly as this. 

Here’s how quickly populism can be automated:

  • Trump or Bannon picks an issue: the narrower and more inflammatory (disruptive marketing) the better.  Make the vote a yes or no.
  • Trump asks his supporters to tell him what they want (he doesn’t ask those opposing him). 
  • His supporters download the app to their smart phones and vote.  
  • A little programming and marketing magic radically improves the number of Trump supporters using the app and reduces spammers/non-supporters attempting to skew the vote down to a trickle.
  • Millions of Trump supporters download the app and vote.  
  • Once the decision is in, the app makes it easy to call or spam message to the user’s Congressional representatives.  Millions of calls roll in.  
  • A bill that codifies that issue is fast tracked in Congress.  Massive pressure via the app and the White House gets it passed quickly.
  • Connecting action and results quickly generates buzz.  Repeat.  This time with 10 m downloads.  
  • The app evolves. The pressure from the network increases.  It consumes the Republican party.

John Robb
March 10, 2017
How Trump and Bannon Could Automate Populism
[I’ve been wondering, for at least 30 years, what sort of new form of government might come out of the rapid technological changes we are seeing. Robb offers us, and he admits this, a very simple view of one possible outcome. I’m not convinced he is correct about the potential for the model he presents. I admit instant communication has great potential to make changes. But the minority party has the same tools as the majority party.

And the technological changes are not just in the field of communications. There are things of great importance on “the technological spreadsheet”. These include, essentially, continuous electronic surveillance on political opponents and the public at large, robots and drones (both armed and unarmed) for law enforcement and military action, and the threat of implementing a cashless society (more than just surveillance, it would make tax resistance extremely difficult).—Joe]