He gets everything right:
Via email from Squirrel Hunter.
But the devil is in the details. You don’t have a lot of people feeling particularly pressured to do anything.
In the end, however, gun control advocates need to get something, he says, and will have to cooperate with the NRA to do so.
The political reality is that the NRA, surprisingly, didn’t give an inch. Now the other side needs to figure out a way to negotiate.
Stuart Rothenberg
April 3, 2013
Gun Control Prospects Recede As Politics Swamp Momentum
[Why should it be surprising the NRA didn’t give an inch? If the propose laws were severe restrictions on the right to attend the church of your choice or the right to read the books you wanted do you think the ACLU would give an inch?
The right to keep and bear arms is no different. Over a hundred million people were murdered or killed in wars in the 20th Century by people who read and took to heart the works of Karl Marx. And I expect there will be millions more death in the conflict over communism in this century. Yet I have never once heard of anyone advocating for the banning of his books. 20 kids murdered by a nut case with a gun is a huge tragedy but millions of kids murdered by leftist monsters is just a number.
I want the people at large to own guns so the risk of genocide and mass murder due to advocates of communism or any other totalitarian government is pushed to near zero. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to bear arms are a package deal. And there is nothing to negotiate.—Joe]
There is no crisis of rifle violence in this state, only a crisis of fear driven by opportunistic legislators.
Ed Pietruszka Jr.
March 31, 2013
Don’t be fooled by gun control lies
[Pietruszka was referring to Maryland but the statement is true in many other states and at the Federal level as well.—Joe]
On Thursday, President Obama renewed his call for legislation, including a ban on some of the most lethal guns (so-called “military-style” assault weapons designed for the singular purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.)
Andrew Rosenthal
March 29, 2013
What Now for Gun Control?
[Many millions of these “singular purpose” guns are in use all over the U.S. yet only a few hundred people are killed each year using a rifle of any type yet alone a “assault weapon”.
It’s long past time for the New York Times (Rosenthal works for the NYT) to openly state they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and have concern for, and perhaps no awareness of, facts.—Joe]
Some other blogger, sorry but I can’t find the post, Robb recently said something about communists/socialists/liberals/progressives/whatever-they-call-themselves-these-days have as a basic premise that the people in general are so incompetent that they must have a strong, near all-powerful government/central-committee to govern their lives. But then they expect these same incompetent people to wisely elect, from within the general population, superior beings to govern them. That doesn’t exactly make sense.
That is all well and good as far as it goes but I think it can be further extended. In fact I suspect there are numerous examples of the following even though I don’t have direct evidence to support it.
Since the people doing the electing are so incompetent as to not be able to manage their own affairs then it must be completely beyond hope to for them to be able to distinguish who should be their rulers.
Hence one concludes that it is a logical necessity that those who would be rulers must assume their rightful role without concerning themselves with obtaining the consent of the governed.
It’s just common sense.
Statists invariably have talented people drawn to politics because they believe in power. And they’re very effective at defending government control of the economy in our lives.
Ted Cruz
(Then candidate for) U.S. Senator
October 17, 2011 Issue of National Review
[H/T to Kevin for the video from which I was alerted to this quote.
This is very similar to a message in The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. Power abusing people are drawn to powerful government positions. These people work to increase that power.
This can also be related to the line, “Because that’s where the money is” falsely attributed to Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks.
Banks vaults are built strong because they are subject to repeated and determined attacks. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be analogous to a vault for liberty. By limiting government to specific enumerated power people who would abuse government power would be prohibited from doing so because government was not given power to abuse on a wide scale.
But unlike a bank vault those that attack and/or defeat the Constitutional “vault” through illegitimate means are almost never caught and punished for their crimes. I believe this to be the greatest failing of our form of government and I believe it will result in the collapse of our government.—Joe]
The Constitution doesn’t matter. The law doesn’t matter. We live in de facto anarchy, where it all comes down to who’s got the biggest gang, the most guns and the most sociopathic outlook on life.
Seriously, folks–that’s how it is. This country won’t even follow Iceland’s lead in prosecuting the plutocrat banksters. It won’t hold any Proglodyte accountable for their actions, but will hold every one of us accountable for the actions of others. It’s never been plainer that it’s Who You Are or Who You Know that determines whether you’re subject to the law of the land.
So if you expect even one politician to face any consequences at all for their treasonous actions, you’re dumber than Joe Biden. Period.
Wraith
March 21, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Magpul Industries Corp.
[He’s got a point.
I’ve been recently thinking that even true anarchy with people contracting with private firms and individuals for dispute resolution, and construction and/or maintenance of common resources (roads, forests, lakes, rivers, etc.) might be a better “government” model than what we have now.
What we have now is that some subset of the people adhere to the rules simply because they are the rules and those people end up being at a severe disadvantage to those that don’t play by the rules with a very low risk of punishment.—Joe]
When I saw the title “The five minute NRA speech that would change the gun control debate forever” I cringed. I expected the article to be something along the lines of advocating the NRA saying, “We were wrong. Assault weapons are evil.” I was wrong:
The time for partisanship is over; now is the time for action. And that’s why the NRA is requesting the assistance of the ACLU.
The Sandy Hook tragedy, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora “Batman” shooting, the Tucson shooting – all of the killers had something in common: They were all mentally unstable young men who were prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs.
The only thing I disagree with is that speech would change the gun control debate. For most politicians and many activists their gun control agenda isn’t about saving lives. That isn’t even debatable anymore. It’s about control, money, and security theater.
Addressing the extremely difficult problem of how to appropriately deal with mental illness isn’t something that lends itself to simple, even if false, answers and sound bites. Politicians don’t get elected by getting people to think about complex issues. They get elected by offering simplistic “solutions” to distressing emotional events and/or situations.
Don’t expect pigs to fly and don’t expect politicians to advocate people thinking.
Via email from the CSGV:
Where We Stand on the Assault Weapons Ban
By now, many of you have heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s announcement yesterday regarding the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Senator Reid announced that the Assault Weapons Ban will not be part of the base gun violence prevention bill he brings to the Senate floor next month.
The reaction from gun violence prevention advocates was fierce and immediate; many felt betrayed. The press quickly reported that “the Assault Weapons Ban is dead in the Senate.”
The press is wrong.
There’s no doubt that Senator Reid’s statement could have been more sensitive and thoughtful. But it’s important to understand the procedural hurdles he is contemplating. If there is a filibuster by Republicans, Senator Reid will need 60 votes to bring a gun violence prevention bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He is weighing whether he can get those 60 votes in a package bill if the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is included. His estimation is that it is better to leave the AWB out of the bill he brings to the floor, so that he can break a filibuster and get it there in the first place. Once it’s on the floor, Senator Reid has been clear that he will allow Senator Feinstein to introduce the AWB as an amendment to the bill. This strategy would ensure that all the important pieces of the Senate Judiciary Committe’s package (universal background checks, anti-gun trafficking penalties, and the Assault Weapons Ban) actually get votes, as opposed to none of them.
And let’s remember what the sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said on January 27th of this year:
“There will be a package put together. If assault weapons is left out of the package…I’ve been assured by the majority leader I will be able to do it as an amendment on the floor, which is the way I did it in 1993. So, that doesn’t particularly bother me.”And it shouldn’t bother us either.
Let’s all stay focused and get the up or down votes on the Senate floor that gun violence victims and survivors so richly deserve. Please continue to call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote YES on universal background checks, the assault weapons ban, and tougher criminal penalties for straw buyers and gun traffickers.
Thank you as always for your support!
Sincerely,
Josh Horwitz
Executive Director
Barb S. and I used to say, “I’ll believe it when the check clears the bank.”
In regards to anti-gun legislation being dead: I’ll believe it when the perpetrators are convicted. Until then we need to be on guard because it isn’t and won’t be over for a long time.
The State of New York has resorted to a “turn in your neighbor” program, for enforcement. Knowing that people will not willingly comply, the state has resorted to a tried and true tactic of turning the citizens upon each other to aggrandize the power of the state.
Does this strike a responsive historical cord, in anyone???
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
March 20, 2013
And so it begins
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We think it’s a civil right that deserves a single uniform standard across the state. No matter whether you’re from Decatur, or from Chicago or from Moline to Lansing, it’s a fundamental right.
Todd Vandermyde
February 22, 2013
Heated testimony at hearing on state’s concealed carry law
See this and much, much more at Video Weekend, Part II: Todd Vandermyde.
[I found it enlightening that no matter how many times and how many ways Vandermyde explained this the legislators, most, if not all of them lawyers, questioning him couldn’t seem to get it. They would even say, “We respect the Second Amendment” then in the next breath say they had an obligation to deny that right to the people they were representing in the interests of protecting them.
Vandermyde would ask questions like, “Well then do you think you should let the police search people without a warrant? Or should the police be able to ignore their Fifth Amendment rights?” Apparently these people could not understand the point he was making.
These people are bigots and should be treated as such. They, as Federal judges have said, are thumbing their noses at the U.S. Constitution, the Federal judges, and the rights of the people they supposedly represent. This is no different that the people in the deep south that abused the rights of people of color 50 years ago and I would not feel the slightest bit of sympathy for them if the Feds used similar methods to enforce their rulings upon them. Send in the National Guard to protect a parade of individuals openly carrying guns down the main streets of Chicago and Federal Marshalls arresting any city or state government employee that attempted to interfere with people peaceably exercising their right to bear arms in public.—Joe]
Yesterday Senator Tom Harkin introduced S. 544, “a bill to require the President to develop a comprehensive national manufacturing strategy.”
In effect, Senator Harkin wants the President to centrally plan the economy. Never mind that the President has zero experience in business or manufacturing. But hey, this worked out so well for Stalinist Russia, it’s no wonder Mr. Harkin wants to copy that model.
If I were emperor of the U.S. I could come up with a plan that outperform anything the President could accomplish in five years and have it implemented in five days. It’s really simple:
Government shall make no law restricting the free association of people other than a tax on retail sales not to exceed 5% and to enforce contracts freely entered into by people and companies.
All waste products shall be safely contained or returned to the natural environment in such a manner that those people responsible for producer of said waste are willing to build their own homes on, eat, breath, or drink said waste products.
In five years there would so much wealth generated there would be private companies with terraforming Mars, robots bringing mining products back from the asteroid belt, and sex tourists going on vacations to the resorts in low earth orbit.
Those are Rand Paul’s words from CPAC, and as much as a like what I see in Rand Paul, that phraseology really bugs me. That’s like saying we must pay attention to the weather AND the temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation, cloud cover and wind as though the term “weather” doesn’t already take those other things into account.
As a business owner, that attempt to separate the economic from the personal has never made any sense at all.
In fact, it is impossible to separate the economic from the personal. Name any “personal” subject or issue and tell me it has no economic implications whatsoever. Name any economic subject or issue and then tell me it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal choice.
Tax me, limit my business activities, my investments, get between me and my bank, and you are directly attacking my personal choices. Try to tell me who I must or must not associate with, how I must interact with others, or what I can do with my body, and that is a direct attack on my economic liberty. One equals the other. There is no moral or logical separation between them.
Yes yes, I know that we’re supposed to separate the personal from the economic, as though they’re different, for political reasons, but that’s a ruse. A trick. I will not step over the line into Crazyland just to make someone else’s politics easier, or to assuage their guilt. No, Young Grasshopper; there is just the one word that matters, the one that encompasses everything, and you’re either for it or against it – liberty.
That’s a John Ross term, for something that “nukes” the enemies of freedom. Tonight’s episode of the Glenn Beck program is pure plutonium. The fastest hour you’ll spend this week is the March 13 episode of the Glenn Beck program.
Call in sick, take a vacation, whatever it takes; watch this episode. Hang on every word. Even the commercials, most of them anyway, will have you up, out of your seat. It’s on theBlazeTV.
THIS IS THE (new) MAIN STREAM MEDIA, or medium. If you are not a subscriber, you are missing out. I don’t care who you are, you are missing out. They have a free trial membership, so you have no excuse. Support them.
Tonight’s guests include one Starr Parker. I’ve read two of her books. The other guests are very good also, and it is clear that they love each other. You will get hope from this.
If there was any doubt before tonight, there is no longer any doubt– Glenn Beck is slated for death. Keep an eye out. I think he knows this and he can take care of himself, but keep an eye on it.
This is what can happen when you own your own network, and it’s beautiful. What you may not know are the things Glenn could NOT say when he was on someone else’s network. That’s a story unto itself, but I digress. Go watch, and for that matter spend your sick day, or your vacation day, watching this whole week’s worth of shows.
It’s is an addendum to Joe’s latest post.
To you Progressives out there, and you know who you are, weep. You cannot escape the truth forever. We are WATCHING YOU.
Trying to argue abstract concepts like right and wrong or constitutionality with most Americans is a waste of time. Few believe in right or wrong, and fewer still have any conception of the Constitution as a contract between the generations.
Clayton E. Cramer
January 18, 2013
Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic.
[I can’t say that I disagree. But to agree with him sucks me into depression and despair. If right and wrong are beyond most Americans then are not also facts and fallacies, truth and falsity beyond them as well? Unfortunately I have substantial data to back up that claim.
See also Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1). A case can be made, as Rand does, that what Cramer states as fact can be explained by the lack of sound philosophy being taught to our children for the last 50 or more years.—Joe]
A combination of an exponential decrease in cost and an exponential increase in production would make Moore’s law and Wright’s law indistinguishable, as originally pointed out by Sahal. We show for the first time that these regularities are observed in data to such a degree that the performance of these two laws is nearly the same. Our results show that technological progress is forecastable, with the square root of the logarithmic error growing linearly with the forecasting horizon at a typical rate of 2.5% per year. These results have implications for theories of technological change, and assessments of candidate technologies and policies for climate change mitigation.
Béla Nagy
J. Doyne Farmer
Quan M. Bui
Jessika E. Trancik
2012
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress
[I have two observations.
One; This is awesome! A variation of Moore’s Law applies to, apparently, all technology.
Two; It looks as if they had to make a tie in “climate change” to get National Science Foundation grant money. That’s really messed up. Government grants should not exist. The politics of research should succeed or fail using the money of someone other than that taken by gunpoint via taxes.—Joe]
At the “urging” of ubu52 I finally decided to elaborate a bit on an edgy meme I’ve been pushing for quite some time. I’ve been saying something to the effect that people advocating for or enforcing anti-gun laws should be tried, convicted, and punished under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. These are, essentially, laws that prohibit conspiracy to infringe the rights of others which are secured by the Constitution.
I’ve long known that those laws are not going to be enforced against anyone anytime soon. I’m pretty sure there are even some laws that give immunity to government officials under many circumstances.
I don’t care.
I’m taking a long term view of things. There have been many instances throughout history where activities that were perfectly legal or at least accepted by all “right thinking folks” became politically out of favor. Then, as long as the statute of limitations had not expired, prosecutors found pre-existing laws to enforce and punish those who engaged in the activity. The most famous example of this is probably the Nuremberg Trials.
Examples exist in our country too.
Lynching blacks 75 years ago was technically illegal but the risk of prosecution and conviction was pretty low. Decades later some of those people were convicted of murder.
The perpetrators of the internment of Japanese were never brought to justice but, decades later, payments were made to those people who were put into the camps.
Ubu52’s point in regard to people advocating for gun control is:
But they should have the freedom to do that, right? This is the USA, isn’t it? Joe is saying that they shouldn’t have the freedom to do whatever they want. I think he’s wrong.
At first glance, in this context, I’m pretty certain nearly everyone would agree with her. But, in todays context, what would be the legal response to advocating riots, lynching blacks, and assassinating politicians? Anyone doing that would be running a serious risk of prosecution if they or people they influenced began conspiring to implement some of those ideas.
The bottom line is that there are, and rightly so, limits to free speech. Those limits in general are, in our country and our time*, set at the point where someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated. The classic “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” says it more succinctly and less abstractly.
Think about that. The limits of free speech are the point at which someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated.
You see where I’m going now, right?
This is a very clear logical path to prosecuting anti-gun people. Those that object to this logic either don’t regard being able to keep and bear arms as a “real right” or they are being logically inconsistent with those limits to free speech in existing law.
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read enough court rulings to know that judges will almost always give at least lip service to logic. They may have to fabricate a logic scaffolding that only Rube Goldberg could admire but they will rule in a “logical” manner.
A logically consistent case can, and should, be made that advocating for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is no different than advocating for riots and lynching. People can and do die because they were denied their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is directly foreseeable that people will be injured because of people abusing their right to free speech.
The logic in my example is far, far less torturous that hundreds of court rulings. It could happen.
What I am trying to do with my “That will come up at your trial,”** quip is to change the culture such that it becomes possible to regard the deliberate infringement of other rights as a punishable offense. Yes, it’s sort of twisted in that I am advocating the restriction of one right to protect another right. It is not “twisted” in the sense that restricting the right to some sorts of speech it does not put people in danger of life or serious bodily harm such as restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms does.
Of course no judge today, or probably even ten years from now, will rule in such a manner. But I want the seeds planted. I want people to ask, “Why aren’t these people violating the law?” “Why aren’t these people being prosecuted?” I want the anti-gun people to pause and think about it.
I want to see the day, perhaps 20 years from now, when people are brought to trial for the crimes they are committing today. By the advocating the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they caused the foreseeable, needless, injuries and deaths of tens of thousands and they should be brought to justice for that.
Update: L. Neil Smith points out we could, literally, have our own Nuremberg Trials in the U.S.
*Kevin links to a fascinating post which ties into this topic. It makes you think about other times and places if you are interested in a much bigger picture. For example, imagine a cultural shift where the advocating of the right to keep and bear arms is a punishable offense.
**Thanks to Sean for that line even if it was in a completely different context.
At a rally for “gun violence” prevention:
In the middle of the program we had three songs by Eugene singer/songwriter PeterAlmeida, who coordinated the musical portions of the event, including a sing-along with John Lennon’s “Imagine.”
Wow! Maybe next time they should also visualize world peace, or is it whorled peas?
These people really are into the “feelings” aspect of things. It’s no wonder they can’t distinguish between making some people feel better and people being physically safer.
The stereotype of them being disconnected from reality has just been validated.
Michael Kirkland writes in The lost fight for gun control:
The National Rifle Association plans to resort to the democratic process to derail those brave enough to support restrictions on gun or ammo possession, targeting Democratic senators in newspaper ads as they run for re-election in 2014.
“Resort to the democratic process” seems like an odd choice of words. What does he think NRA usually does to those that advocate for laws that violate the Second Amendment? I’m pretty sure I would have heard about it if one or more NRA High-power Rifle teams engaged these Senators violating their oaths of office.
Kirkland labels those advocating restrictions on guns and ammo as “brave” but I’m not convinced. It would seem to me the label would be a lot more appropriate if they were taking incoming fire. Until then I think the more appropriate labels are “weasels” and “criminals“.
It’s nothing more than the alpha bitch baring her teeth and growling at us. She doesn’t want to ban guns. She wants us to submit, to roll over and show our throat and our belly. She wants submission. She wants to be acknowledged as higher status than us.
But you know what makes them come after us again and again? What really pisses them off? What keeps this issue coming back over and over again when any other political issue would be debated, legislated, victory won or lost and then forgotten?
We fight back. We refuse to submit. We refuse to show our belly. We refuse to show submission. We will not surrender. We will not submit. Maybe we lose, and retreat to lick our wounds, but we come back later even stronger than before, and every time that alpha bitch looks away from her nice, comfy top of the pack status, we’re there to steal her food and challenge all over again.
It’s all a status display, and we will not submit.
That’s why they are gun bigots. Bigotry is the ultimate status display.
TriggerFinger
February 27, 2013
Comment to More on that Canton police freak-out.
[TriggerFinger is explaining why anti-gun politicians don’t care that their laws don’t make sense and are ineffective at doing anything more than making us mad.—Joe]