Category Archives: Politics

Blind faith

Posted on by

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

…

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Posted on by

Both of the big parties — matched set of jackboots that they are — assume they own women’s bodies. They just have differing plans for them.

Roberta X
January 14, 2012
They Both Think They Own Me
[I was just listening to Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell. One of the things he pointed out that it’s the wrong question to ask, “Where did slavery come from?” As near as we can determine slavery has been around (and continues to exist) since before writing was invented. The real question is, “Where did freedom come from?”

With this background it seems likely that the desire to “own” other human is hardwired into some primitive part of most peoples brains. This manifests itself in many different ways.

Some people are more aware of these urges than others and outright claim, “I was born to regulate.” Others have claimed a divine right from the god(s) to rule other people. Even many of those who do not claim ownership or the right to rule others for their personal benefit will insist there be a ruler to take ownership of both them and their neighbors.

It may be that brief twinkle of freedom in history was an aberration and those reaping the benefits of freedom grew too fatigued to support it (see Thomas Paine). I know that at times I feel the fatigue and yearn to have the burden lifted even as I see our freedoms rapidly disappearing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—President Barack Obama

Posted on by

We expect to have a full — a fully — or a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderón and his efforts in a partnership; also making sure that we are dealing with the flow of drug money and the guns south, because it’s really a two-way situation there. The drugs are coming north; we’re sending funds and guns south — and as a consequence, these cartels have gained extraordinary power.

President Barack Obama
March 11, 2010
The President and the Drug War: Part I
[I find it fascinating how his words, “we’re sending funds and guns south”, can be interpreted completely differently in present day than most people would have interpreted them at the time he said them.—Joe]

The Quintessential Republican

Posted on by

Sure; they know what you want to hear, at least for the most part, though they’re playing the Bible-thumper card a bit too heavy.  They know pretty well how to push your buttons, getting the applause at the rallies and so on.  As they see it, they know how to win over us stupid bumpkin Elmer Fudds in fly-over country (just throw ’em some red meat and watch them bark like dogs).

Here’s an example of what they really think, gleaned from a rare moment of partial honesty.  Newt calls himself a “Realpolitik Wilsonian.”  Yeah; that Wilson.  Be sure to watch both videos on the page.  I don’t care what you think of Glen Beck.  Screw that.  Listen to the words.  The “Four Freedoms”.

That’s the Republican Party today.  You can’t mix the liberty talk with the Four Freedoms.  That’s a lie, and yet it represents everything the Party stands for.

Make no mistake.  We’re being offered what amounts to a plea deal.  Either we take the deal (vote Republican) or we’re sentenced to another four years with a Democrat in office.  Bleed slowly or bleed quickly.  It’s a threat you see– take a Progressive dirt bag (Republican) or else.  That’s how this works, and I’m not playing that game.  I’ll get interested in an election when liberty is on the ballot, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

Quote of the day—Amos

Posted on by

It’s about feelings and self-identity for Progressives. They’re like monkeys. They’ve got enough primate brain to form tribes, but they just don’t use the higher faculties. So it’s no surprise that flinging crap is their modus operadi.

Amos
January 4, 2012
Comment to Well, your legislature asked for it
[The tribes thing stuck with me. They do have thing about about groups don’t they? The individual and individualism is denigrated. They say things such as “The good of society is more important than the individual.” And “It takes a village.” They put a lot of effort into masses of people into the streets without any clear rational message.

Yet it was individualism that created the tremendous advances in Western Civilization which other societies were forced to adopt (or attempt to destroy) lest they be left far, far behind.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Mao Tse-tung

Posted on by

Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed.

Mao Tse-tung
November 6, 1938
PROBLEMS OF WAR AND STRATEGY
[I have used part of this quote before but never the full context. I think this adds a great deal. It’s about the requirement that Marxists control the guns to obtain and keep political power.

While it is true that not all gun-grabbers are Marxist every communist must grasp the truth… And it is for this reason that every gun-grabber must be suspected and carefully examined for communist intentions.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Howard Nemerov

Posted on by

For 2012, the most important criteria in determining a candidate’s legitimacy: how comfortable is the candidate with the concept of armed citizens?

Howard Nemerov
December 30, 2011
A Tough Year for Gun Control’s Brady Campaign: Gun rights advanced across the country, and Brady’s own statistics undermined their cause.
[As has been pointed out by many others the attitude a candidate has about the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is a strong indicator of how they regard other freedoms. If they are opposed to the people keeping an bearing arms then one must seriously suspect they want to change the relationship.

As a single political metric for freedom It’s far from perfect (numerous counter examples could be given) but if only one measure is used it probably is the best. And in a worst case scenario the RKBA can be utilized to recover the other freedoms. It is not so with any other single measure. This is why the NRA calls the RKBA America’s First Freedom.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

Posted on by

It is an insult to United States sovereignty that the U.N. would be entertaining such measures while enjoying this country’s hospitality at its headquarters in New York City. It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.

Alan M. Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
December 7, 2011
CCRKBA APPLAUDS WALSH LEGISLATION TO WITHHOLD UNITED NATIONS FUNDING
[A lot of people think concern over the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is paranoia and/or a fund raising ruse. I probably should do more research on the topic before taking a really firm stand but my initial take is that it would require registration of firearms in the U.S.. That is totally unacceptable and more than sufficient grounds to vigorously oppose it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

My message to our opponents is to give up. Gun control as as fantastical now as unicorns. Technology will just no longer allow it to work.

Sebastian
December 12, 2011
CNC Milled AR-15, The Test Firing
[Legally, politically, culturally, and now technologically, it’s game over for the anti-gun guys.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jane Fonda

Posted on by

I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would someday become communist.

Jane Fonda
August 2002
[In the 20th Century about 100 million people were killed, mostly by their own governments, trying to implement communism. So, tell me Ms. Fonda, are you volunteering your body to be thrown on the pile in the 21 Century?—Joe]

Do as I say

Posted on by

If, as I have heard, pointing out hypocrisy is one of the most potent political weapons then this gun grabber just exposed himself big time. Via Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

BELLEVUE, WA – Mobile, Alabama Mayor Sam Jones has some explaining to do in the wake of a highly-publicized incident this week during which he held a burglary suspect at gunpoint, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Jones, a Democrat, is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that has campaigned for stricter gun control laws that affect average private citizens.

But Jones is no average private citizen. According to published reports, Jones was returning home from an errand, driving his private vehicle. “His bodyguard, who drives the mayor’s city vehicle, was not on duty,” the Press-Register newspaper reported. And now there are questions about whether the mayor has an Alabama carry permit.

“Here is a municipal mayor who has a bodyguard, and believes it is okay for him to carry a gun, but he belongs to an organization that consistently works to keep everyone else from carrying,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If the mayor is legally licensed, why does he belong to a group that has fought to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their self-defense right?

“If Mayor Jones doesn’t have a permit,” he continued, “then he is a poster child for the double standards that elites like Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe separates them from the citizens they serve. Either way, Mayor Jones owes it to his constituents to show them his carry permit, and to oppose any further attempts by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to prevent private citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

“It is no surprise that average American citizens are fed up with government officials at all levels,” Gottlieb observed. “We’re glad that Mayor Jones had the means and the willingness to protect his property, but we are stunned and disappointed that he belongs to an organization whose very essence is to make it virtually impossible for average citizens to do likewise.”

I have to wonder if Bloomberg will kick him out of the organization or if he will find nothing wrong with one of the anointed defending life and property with their own firearm.

Can Someone Please Explain

Posted on by

…in short, sweet, straight-forward detail, the “conservative” position on immigration?  I’ve heard vitriolic disagreement and angry attacks toward any policy proposal that even remotely smacks of “amnesty” and I’ve heard demands for building a wall around the country (like that ever works) but I’ve never heard what the attacker actually wants, exactly.

For the record (and I know this is off-subject as it doesn’t answer the question, because I have no idea as to the answer, which is the point of the post after all); In principle, I believe it should be easy to get into this country, and to become a citizen.  The problem as I see it is the socialism – the goodies – people coming here for a share of the loot.  Turn off that loot spigot and the problem, such as it is, evaporates overnight.  “Heal the World – Outlaw Socialism” would be my bumper sticker if I ever got ’round to putting one on my vehicle, which I probably won’t.

Outlawing socialism would include doing away with labor laws, minimum wage being a big one at play here.  The other loot spigot in play was also manufactured by our government– the “War On Drugs” and we all know for certain that Prohibition failed the first time due to human nature, and that human nature dictates that it will fail just as catastrophically every time, which is what we’re seeing every day.  But we can’t separate it from imigration policy.  Because we’re sniveling cowards.

“They’re takin’ Our Jobs!” (Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!”) is an idiotic assertion.  So forget it.  When the Europeans first started coming here in the late 1400s and early 1500s, they took all the jobs from the “Indians” very quickly, so there haven’t been any jobs here since then anyway, right?  I mean, if you figure that the “Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!” argument has any validity whatsoever.  IF people coming here from other places “takes jobs away” then the peak in the number of available jobs in North America would have taken place before Columbus’ voyage (or much earlier – before the migration out of Siberia during the last Ice Age) and as the Euros et al started coming in, the number of jobs available would have been shrinking constantly ever since.  QED.  So there.

Anyhow;  What, exactly, is the “conservative” policy on immigration – the one that won’t get the pundits, the self appointed Representatives of Modern American Conservatism (the RMACs) all pissed off?  I maintain that there is no such thing, which is why I brought it up.

I figure Newt has a four thousand page preliminary proposal, submitted by his Provisional Committee on Immigration Policy Proposal Research Exploratory Studies, complete with thousands of cross-references and cross-cross-references to the cross-references, which means he doesn’t have a clue and is desperate to avoid clues as it would mean standing for something meaningful and concrete which is to be avoided at all cost.

My explanation for the absurdity is that the Republicans believe in the all the negative stereotypes that the Democrats have created for conservatives– racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes….ad infinitum, thumpin’ a Bible and cryin’ ’bout Jeezus! and so the Republicans are trying, like frightened little kids faced with putting out a house fire, to pander to the Saturday Night Live stereotype “conservative”.  They have no idea how to please us stereotype bigot buffoons without getting into trouble.  They’re scared and frustrated, but they know they have to at least pretend to try, because that’s on the list of things to do to get elected.  So it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most plauseablely meaningless proposal that will offend the least people and will never get enforced anyway.  It makes for good theater all ’round I suppose.

We know for certain that outlawing socialism would be among the most frightening prospects ever presented to a Republican.  Right?  The planet being wiped out by an asteroid would be bad, but at least it wouldn’t leave them blinking in the lights in front of a camera babbling like idiots, knowing they’d have to face the criticism for it the next day– they could die right along with the rest of us and that would be much more comfortable as it wouldn’t require any acts of courage or any application of principles.  It would let them entirely off the hook.

Quote of the day—Conservative4Ever

Posted on by

I had to go talk to my guns just now to let them know If I let them walk that they will be responsible for the violence they cause.

Liberals kill me by their complete lack of logic and reasoning abilities. They are like children.

Hence my talking to guns like they were children.

Conservative4Ever
December 9, 2011
Comment to Gunwalker goes “legal” … again
[He is insulting children. By the age of four my children had better reasoning abilities that some of the anti-gun people I’ve dealt with.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

Rumor has it that Sarah Brady is being put forward by the Shooting Industry Magazine as “saleswoman of the decade.” It is quite obvious that Sarah has done more to boost the sale of personal arms than any person in recent memory, and she should be appropriately honored.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 4
22 March 1994
[This is in response to Ken in the comments here who suggested Clinton popularity and success meant people didn’t buy guns for fear they would be taken away shortly. And that the surge in sales at about the same time as Obama was elected were due to the Heller decision and not the threat of Obama.

But it that were true then why was there a big surge in sales during the first part of the Clinton presidency? I was there at the time. I was one of the people buying my first guns. Nearly everyone I talked to about guns were buying things they were afraid would soon be outlawed.

If you read the book Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun you will find a similar thing happened with Glock pistols. Politicians and anti-gun people started talking about it being a “terrorist gun”, “invisible to X-Rays”, and they should be banned with the result the factory couldn’t manufacture them fast enough to keep up with the demand.—Joe]

Is it still paranoia?

Posted on by

Fear of big government is near an all-time high (via a Tweet from Michelle Malkin):

A near-record level of Americans, 64 percent, say that “big government” is a bigger threat to the country than “big business” or “big labor,” according to a new poll.

While nearly two-thirds say big government is the major threat, 26 percent name big business, according to the Gallup survey conducted November 28 – December 1. Just 8 percent name big labor.

Since Gallup starting asking the question in 1965, Americans have typically named big government as the biggest threat; an all-time high of 65 percent named it as the biggest threat in 1999 and 2000.

If a large majority of the population think they really are out to get us can it still be considered paranoia?

Quote of the day—Christopher Merken

Posted on by

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community?

Christopher Merken
December 8, 2011
Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It: It’s time to take a stand against gun violence
[Heavy sigh. Here we go again.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns without killing anything but two deer and a rattlesnake. By his logic my guns must have malfunctioned with nearly every shot.

He offers no studies to support his assertions. The best he can do is proof by vigorous assertion.

He asks, “Why are guns allowed?” as if that which government does not allow is forbidden. He apparently missed out on the high school government class where it was taught that government is only allowed certain enumerated powers and the people retain all other rights and powers. He has it exactly backward.

He’s got crap for brains.—Joe]

Australia gun control is going ‘backward’

Posted on by

Although from my viewpoint I don’t see a lot of progress being made in Australia the gun control people are screaming bloody murder:

David Shoebridge says NSW has gone backwards on gun control.

As near as I can tell the problem for these people is that people are following the law and buying guns:

Figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show there are 188,885 people on the NSW Police Firearms Register, just short of the estimated 200,000 licence holders pre- the Port Arthur massacre, which triggered changes to gun laws.

NSW Greens described the increase as “alarming” and gun control groups warned that more and more firearms would end up on the black market.

“The trend is all one-way in NSW; that is, more guns and more gun owners and that is a dangerous trend,” NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge said.

“There’s a real concern where we are developing a gun culture here in NSW. A good part of the problem comes from the influence of the Shooters Party and the Gun Council here in NSW. We need this government to stand up to the gun lobby to restrict access, particularly to handguns, and ensure the current restrictions remain in place.”

It’s interesting and revealing that this politician wants to reduce the number of gun owners rather than just restrict the type of guns and that owners be licensed and their guns registered. It was the hope that the restrictions would decrease the number of gun owners. The ultimate goal of the anti-gun people must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.

The wolves must die

Posted on by

Idaho is very serious about thinning the wolf packs to give the deer and elk populations a chance to recover:

An Idaho Department of Fish and Game official said Thursday the state will use aerial gunning and professional and government trappers to kill wolves in the Lolo Zone, even as public hunting and trapping seasons continue.

Dave Cadwallader, supervisor of the department’s Clearwater Region, said he wants a multipronged approach to wolf control in the difficult-to-access area where elk herds are hurting.

One of the comments particularly struck me:

Why are these so called environmental groups so anti-elk? Around this world there are more wolves just like the ones we have here than we have elk. Not only the elk but our moose population here is all but gone. These groups need to be held accountable for what they have caused and should have to pay for the costs it’s taking to correct this destruction.

Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

Posted on by

It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for confiscation throughout America.

David B. Kopel
December 2, 2011
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution
[Kopel is referring to incidents in 1775 but the words could have just as easily applied to the late 20th Century.

The people of Massachusetts went to war against their government because of gun control in 1775 yet Massachusetts politicians lead the way for gun controllers of present day. I keep thinking they should be charged with treason but I doubt I could get much traction with that meme.—Joe]

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

Posted on by

I just finished reading David Kopel’s paper How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution. I found it fascinating. It was like an exciting short story but with lots of footnotes.

There is a lot of great material in it and my QOTD for tomorrow will come from it.

What follow are some of the highlights.

In 1777 when British victory seemed likely Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” It included the following:

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .

Imagine how different things would be today had the British won. Kopel convincingly presents the case (Patrick Henry’s speech of March 23, 1775 is just a hint) that the American citizens knew this was coming and was a significant, if not major, motivation for rebellion.

I especially like this (page 32):

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76, or on District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, both of which hold that, while sporting uses such as hunting are part of the Second Amendment, the “core” and “central component” of the Second Amendment is self-defense.

And this (page 32):

Laws which aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution. Sometimes, legislative history will frankly reveal that the purpose of an anti-gun law was to discourage gun ownership in general, or that the law was based on hostility to gun ownership. This is the case for New York City’s pistol licensing fees. Everywhere in New York State, the fee for the issuance or renewal of a handgun permit is $10 (plus a separate $95 fee for a fingerprint check for first-time applications). But in New York City, the fee is over $340, payable every three years. The explicitly stated purpose of allowing the New York City government to charge extra fees was to discourage handgun ownership in the City.

In Alameda County, California, the five-person County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property at the behest of a Supervisor who complained that her previous efforts to ban gun shows had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution.” She explained that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.” Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban because the other supervisors who voted for the ordinance might have had legitimate motives.

He concludes with:

Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the 21st century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.