Category Archives: Politics

Seriously scary stuff

Posted on by

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Quote of the day—Bob Budz

Posted on by

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

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

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

What makes MAIG so dangerous is that they have chosen to remain rooted in reality as the rest of us know it, rather than trying to construct their own.

Sebastian
June 4, 2012
Richard Aborn’s Desperate Plea
[Sebastian has been concerned about MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) for a long time and I haven’t been seeing it. I’m not convinced yet but this is a best reason that I have seen so far.

The Brady Campaign and others have severe cognitive distortion problems. And it’s almost as if When Prophecy Fails was written about them. When one of their predictions about “blood will run in the streets” fails they become more frantic and proselytize even more. After a time most people realize they are a few Fruit Loops short of a full bowl and don’t pay much attention to them.

MAIG does appear to be fairly well grounded and for the most part stay on their one message. That message, if implemented, is harmful to us but is not easily dismissed as pointless. People want to believe there are simple solutions that will reduce violent crime. The MAIG message when viewed from a very narrow perspective would seem to have promise in doing this without significant harm to gun rights. This isn’t true but the complete refutation of that message doesn’t lend itself well to sound bites* and that makes the risk of causing problems greater.

*I like, “The war on ‘illegal guns’ will be no more effective than the war on illegal drugs.” But too many people view the war on illegal drugs as a necessary and beneficial thing. And it would seem to concede there is such a thing as an “illegal gun” when in fact they are referring to a prohibited person in possession of any firearm. Hence we quickly get out of sound bite territory.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Health care is considered a right and everyone is required to purchase insurance so they will have it when they need it.

Doesn’t that mean that everyone should be required to purchase a firearm, training, and carry it with them all the time so they will have that right available to them when they need it?

Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

Posted on by

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

Ann Coulter
April 23, 2012
Coulter: Gun control and self-defense
[Great article. As is usual for Coulter there is lots of snark.-Joe]

This could be good

Posted on by

I like what I see here:

Quote of the day—Bruce Ramsey

Posted on by

We live with guns and occasionally worry about them. If this leaves you feeling at a disadvantage, Lynne, maybe you need to get one.

Bruce Ramsey
May 31, 2012
Seattle shootings: Is it time for gun control?
[Considering the political atmosphere of Seattle in general and the Seattle Times in general this was actually a pretty positive editorial about guns. It certainly wasn’t “SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.” or molṑn labé! But compared to what Seattle Times editorials would have been 15 years ago it is absolutely awesome.

And I would like to go on record as making a public offer to Lynne Varner, or anyone else in the Seattle area, to take them shooting for their first time.—Joe]

The Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Over the weekend I read The Communist Manifesto for the first time. I expected some sort of almost magical power to draw me into embracing the evil. I was surprised, disappointed, and finally I had a sinking feeling of emptiness as I thought about it more.

The book was like a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel. Assumptions critical to the reasoning which followed were unsupported and, at least to my present day perspective, either blatantly wrong or highly suspect. Even conceding the authors their assumptions without contest the conclusions reached with such confidence were as unstable as any house of cards.

And this is the book that convinced millions of people to murder hundreds of millions of others? Is this all that it takes to remove the thin veneer off of civilized behavior and enable the most evil empires human history has ever known? Self-described intellectuals accept this book as a valid political philosophy? These “intellectuals” regard themselves as my betters? Wow!

The typical two year old child or even the family dog wouldn’t accept the conclusions unless they were forced into compliance. It’s no wonder the authors state, “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

But in talking to Ry about the book I got a new perspective. He said that he first read it when he was about 12 years old and it was like the scales had been removed from his eyes and he saw everything clearly for the first time. Furthermore he said it is no wonder Communists killed off older people with any education or even if they wore glasses. It’s no wonder they attack capitalist societies through the school system. We were and are in a war most people don’t even realize exists (see also The Handbook of 5GW). Ry went on to claim that the book was aimed at the young and “the people with guns, the muscle” who would do the “heavy lifting” of “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” These would be people without the intellectual rigor to challenge the assumptions, reasoning, or conclusions.

Okay… I can buy into that hypothesis for now.

The obvious question then becomes why do the people who claim to be the intellectuals of our society so much more likely to advocate for Communism?

I know a professor who admits he is a Marxist. He once insisted our family should not be allowed to own the home we do because we “don’t need such a big house.” The “government should let someone with a bigger family use that house.” This professor told me the previous dozens or hundreds failed attempts at implementing a Communist utopia failed because, “The right people weren’t in charge. We just need to have the right people.” I explained that concentrated power of that sort attracts the “wrong” people who would always succeed in the acquisition and control of that power. He insisted that “we just need to get the right people in power.” I then sent him a copy of The Road to Serfdom. I don’t know if he even read it but I do know his attitude has not changed. He believes he is an intellectual superior in our society. He is a professor. He knows what is best for our society. Of course you know he voted for Obama. But I could have given you 20 chances and you would not have guessed that he is a professor in a school of business.

So one answer to the obvious question is we are at war and most people don’t even know it.

Another possible answer is something Sarah once asked me, “Have you ever noticed that liberals are not very bright?” I was a bit shocked. Someone else noticed? I am a bit sensitive about challenging the intellectual capacity of others because I know there are many things that I don’t know and seem to be beyond my capacity to understand (such as the mass appeal of The Communist Manifesto). But here was someone else, without an engineer’s mind, who noticed it too. As I pondered the book and Ry’s observations I realized that was another plausible answer to the obvious question.

The Communist Manifesto tells its readers that supporters of Communism are the intelligent people. They deserve, are destined to, and the good of all human kind depends on them, being in charge. That they “understand” the benefits of Communism to the bafflement of others is probably proof to them that they are the intellectual superiors of those that think Communism is, at best, prone to abuse.

In other words the second plausible answer to the obvious question is that those that advocate Communism are not very bright people who want to believe they are the brightest of all people. And that The Communist Manifesto tells them they are the brightest enables them to then claim themselves as intellectuals.

Regardless of the plausible answers I have no choice but to view Communism as a cancer which has metastasized beyond the point which surgery or chemotherapy can do little more than delay the death of the host. And it can all be traced back to one little book. I’ve written thousands of blog posts on freedom related topics and thousands of others far smarter than me have written hundreds of times more than me with hundreds of examples of Communism evil and failure. Yet we are losing to a couple of guys who have been dead for 120 years who wrote something that was little more than a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel.

Man, that sure does suck.

Quote of the day—Harold Berman

Posted on by

A child says, “It’s my toy.” That’s property law. A child says, “You promised me.” That’s contract law. A child says, “He hit me first.” That’s criminal law. A child says, “Daddy said I could.” That’s constitutional law.

Harold Berman
[Via email from Rolf.

I have often thought of the property law angle. Animals even have a sense of what belongs to them. This has the potential to be used as an argument against Communism (as if more arguments were necessary).

But the extension to the others is enlightening and makes one ponder. Are these concepts universal? Or is there a strong environmental component that is injected by the time the child is able to speak? If these are universal then are there psychological or socials costs “paid” when the government (or even individuals in positions of parent/teacher/neighborhood-thug power) violates these universal laws? If they are not universal but are products of Western cultural then how do other cultures stack up in terms of happiness, longevity, productivity, and wealth?

Interesting stuff.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mikee

Posted on by

Prosecutors and police have an authority, not a right, to hold evidence. Citizens have rights. State agents have “authority” or delegated powers, based on the decisions of the citizenry. When the police and prosecutors overstep their authority, they are infringing on rights, not exercising them.

Mikee
May 26, 2012
Comment to Three years
[Mikee is absolutely correct. But that is not anywhere close to the way our opponents talk about our political system. They talk in terms of terms of people being allowed to have rights.

But what I find most interesting at the highest level at least some of them know the truth. From the Brady Center Legal Action Newsletter Spring 2012 (emphasis added):

The people of Colorado should have the right to protect their communities from the dangers of loaded guns on their streets and parks. The gun lobby wants to force guns onto the streets of Denver, and they don’t care how many lives it costs. Their position is so extreme that Colorado’s Attorney General, who has an A- rating from the NRA, is arguing side-by-side in court with us against the NRA and other members of the gun lobby.”

Jonathan Lowy, the Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project who argued the case in court, stated, “States and cities have the authority to keep guns off the streets.”

When talking to the public they speak of the collective people and governments having rights. When speaking to the courts where words have more carefully defined meanings and the opposition is going to point out their errors they correctly speak of government having authority.

They are not merely ignorant or careless with the truth. This is concrete evidence they are deliberately deceptive.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

Posted on by

The old adage of never looking a gift horse in the mouth does not apply in civic matters – just ask the Trojans.

Jeff Knox
May 24, 2012
Scandal! Cities pay anti-gun lobbyists
[This is in regards to the Illegal Mayors Against Guns and the Joyce Foundation partially funding city “staff positions for professional lobbyists whose primary function is to drum up support for ant-gun legislation, ordinances and regulations.”

As Jeff points out in his article if this were the NRA getting pro-gun lobbyists on city staff the media and liberals would explode in fury. Bring this point up as needed to eliminate these questionable if not illegal use of tax money.

There are other ways to get the point across as well. What if they were lobbyists for other controversial political positions such as:

  • Pro-Life?
  • Pro-Choice?
  • The KKK?
  • Creationism?

Government is rightly limited to specific enumerated powers. For them to use taxpayer money to advocate the infringement of specific enumerated rights goes way beyond any power they should ever be allowed to have.—Joe]

Your bias is showing

Posted on by

Google news shows Fidel Castro’s niece endorsed President Obama (last Google entry shown on this page):

 CastroEndorsesObama

Yet when you go to that page the name “Obama” and that quote is not to be found.

Other sources include the quote, “I would vote for President Obama. I think he’s sincere and speaks from the heart.”

Apparently the AP removed that portion of the story. Perhaps because it is because it really shouldn’t be considered news. Communists endorsing communists is even less newsworthy than “dog bits man”.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

Assault weapons are increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.

Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America’s gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America’s gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby.

Josh Sugarmann
1988
Conclusion to Assault Weapons and Accessories in America
[There are multiple things of interest in this 1988 prediction.

As an almost off the wall observation I find it curious Sugarmann uses the British spelling of “luster”.

More on track is that Sugarmann, in some ways, was brilliant with this study. He correctly identified a political weakness and was instrumental in exploiting it. The 1994 Federal “Assault Weapon Ban” and as well as several previous and subsequent state and local bans can trace their roots to this study.

But Sugarmann failed in his prediction “America’s gun lobby” would be damaged and that the handgun restriction lobby will benefit from the debate and restrictions on “Assault Weapons”.

The NRA membership exploded to record levels with the political debates and actual passing of the Federal “Assault Weapon Ban”. Today they are as strong or stronger than ever before and members of Congress have ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country several years in a row.

Handgun Control Inc., now known the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is specifically called out as having 180,000 dues paying members and an annual budget of $4,000,000. They changed to the more stealthy name in 2001 and as of 2010 only had about 28,000 people who had given donations or paid dues in the previous year. (Tamara has the appropriate words).

The National Coalition to Ban Handguns, now known as Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is also called out. This organization changed their name just one year later, ‘because the group felt that “assault rifles” as well as handguns, should be outlawed.’ These days they are reduced to little more than sparing with gun bloggers on Twitter.

And of course we need to look at Sugarmann’s own Violence Policy Center. Yesterday, which inspired this QOTD, Sebastian posted the answer–VPC: The Most Irrelevant Anti-Gun Group?—Joe]

Quote of the day—State Senator Leland Yee

Posted on by

It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.

State Senator Leland Yee
May 20, 2012
CBS 5 Story Inspires New Legislation To Ban ‘Bullet Button’
[Let me fix that for you Senator Yee. What you really meant to say is, “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California have no debate, no discussion. Just so it is crystal clear I respect neither the 1st nor 2nd Amendments.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Carson

Posted on by

Why is supporting the Bill of Rights a good thing?


David Carson
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Comment to The VA Tells the Truth About Guns. The NRA Can’t Handle It.
[It’s nice for our opposition to explicitly say what we already knew about them. They either cannot or will not respect the rights of others. They not only see no need to put limits on government but actively oppose and ignore limits on government.


In answer to Carson’s question, “Just because“.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gore Vidal

Posted on by

Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.

Gore Vidal
[I normally would find something of this nature funny but with too much truth in it I, as well as the humor, suffers.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

Posted on by

… Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the right of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

Ann Coulter
April 23, 2012
Coulter: Gun control and self-defense
[Great article. As is usual for Coulter there is lots of snark.-Joe]

I like it, but…

Posted on by

…she should be suckling an adult if it’s supposed to depict The Obama Way.  Well, children, adults– everyone.  Maybe there should be a long line behind the kid, all carrying signs and complaining/competing over who gets to suckle next.

Winning

Posted on by

Via a SAF Tweet.

Liberal Whoopi Goldberg Admits She’s a Member of the NRA:

GOLDBERG: But it is also, is it also, John, because those folks are saying, okay, here’s what I have in my house. I’m letting–the government says — I want you–I’m an NRA member, as you probably know or don’t know.

…

STOSSEL: You packing now?
HASSELBECK: Maybe?
GOLDBERG: You don’t want to find out.

I despise emulation of celebrities but I recognize it probably is hard-wired into the human brain. Therefore this is great news. Not only has she “come out of the closet” as a gun owner and NRA member but she is a black female who comes across as reasonably smart, rational, and likable. This makes it more difficult for the anti-gun people to make their usual claims about gun owners being stupid/ignorant/insurrectionist racist white males.

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

The District needs to realize that it cannot choose to exempt itself from a fundamental provision of the Bill of Rights.

Emily Miller
March 6, 2012
MILLER: Gun owners win a round: Second Amendment rights advance in District and Maryland
[Unfortunately such a realization seems to require a (figuratively) 2×4 between the eyes. Fortunately we have such a 2×4 with SAF and Alan Gura. It’s tragic it took over 30 years to connect for the first time and so many people had, and still have, their rights infringed upon and no public official has ever gone to jail over it.—Joe]