I come from a family of liberals. We believe that people that don’t work should live better lives than those that do.
Kelsey Leal
October 3, 2011
[Kelsey is my soon to be daughter-in-law.
This was in response to me giving her a bit of a hard time about not even recognizing the name of the Cato Institute. When I explained it was a Libertarian think tank part of her response was the quote above. It achieve the desired results. I was speechless.
She says she was joking—mostly.—Joe]
There are rumors the ATF is about to be thrown under the bus. Although there are people calling this rumor “a bombshell” (via Say Uncle and son-in-law John) it isn’t really all that new (from almost three months ago):
The unfolding scandal over a gunrunning investigation allegedly botched by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives could do what years of criticism of the long-beleaguered agency never quite accomplished — result in its demise.
People on both sides of the issue commented on it:
“I think something like that is likely to happen,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
…
Christopher Cox, legislative director for the NRA, the agency’s longtime nemesis, also said arguments for shuttering or breaking up ATF are building.
“Their criminal investigation tactics are going a long way to proving that point,” Cox said. “If they cease to be an effective law enforcement organization, they will cease to be legitimate, and the calls for restructuring or abolishing of ATF are going to become more and more valid.”
Sebastian says, Careful What You Wish For and he has some good points. The concern that the FBI has credibility and respect the ATF doesn’t and we would rather have a money starved easily demonized bunch of screw ups instead of the FBI, the Secret Service, or the U.S. Marshalls enforcing the regulations has been the whisper from behind the scenes since as least the Regan years when the first serious thoughts of disbanding them came up.
Things have changed with the FBI since the 1980’s. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The ATF created the messes but it was during the FBI “cleanup” that the FBI shot the woman holding the baby and burned down the church with the women and children in it. The FBI has it’s own public relations issues to be concerned about.
I’ll leave making a recommendation on this specific topic at this specific time to others more politically savvy but if we are to make progress trimming down the size and scope of government agencies need to start disappearing. Why is now not as good a time as any to get rid of the ATF? The ATF is heavily involved in a major scandal, the Heller and McDonald decisions imply that many of their duties are constitutionally suspect if not right illegal. Because they are so weak this might be the time to get rid of them simply because it is politically possible.
If now is the time then to “avoid overloading the FBI” with either new tasks and/or the training of large numbers of new personal Congress should simultaneously cut back on a lot of the obsolete laws. Here is my list of gun laws that could be put on the chopping block along with the ATF:
I’m sure there are lots of other nonsensical laws and regulations that could be cut at the same time which our opponents would be hard pressed to defend. And with all the grief the ATF has had because of their “mistakes” perhaps the agencies that take on the remaining functions will “play nice” compared to the ATF.
If we could ban the ATF and “ease the burden” on the FBI at the same time would it be worth taking the risks associated with having the remaining ATF functions divided up among other agencies? I’m thinking it might be.
As part of Ry’s quest to hold a world record we need a name for a game. The rules for the game haven’t been finalized but it will probably be something like Steel Challenge only using one time use reactive targets (Boomerite). You are timed as you shoot the five to ten targets (not sure yet) and the fastest time wins.
We have tentative plans to use this game as a fundraiser for pro-gun (duh!) political lobbying groups at “Legislative Shoots”. The first official event is tentatively planned for January or February of 2012 but I expect we will be doing some dry runs prior to that to work out the bugs and give Ry his chance at a world record. This will also give us a chance to make videos and put together promotional material.
I expect the range will be something on the order of 15 to 20 yards and there will be very few different courses of fire. Perhaps even just one course of fire. There will be no direct “power factor” requirements. If the boomers don’t go off then you didn’t bring enough gun. This typically means participants will use a centerfire rifle but with the right ammo and caliber some centerfire pistols and rimfire rifles may work.
I expect we will have the following classes of firearms:
Here are the candidates so far:
What are your suggestions for a name? The prize will be the fame and fortune (one free entry into the next Zoom Boom event you participate in). The winner will be chosen by the political lobbyist who schedules the first event.
As a side note I have to wonder at the participation level of an event like this versus the events the Brady Campaign put on where they try to find people to lay on the ground and pretend to be dead for a few minutes.
Isn’t the smallest form of government a dictatorship? Is that really what Libertarians crave?
Ubu52
September 29, 2011
Comment to The Mind of the Left.
[I suppose it could be very ignorant question. After all, even if you were to grant that a libertarian dictatorship is technically possible the smallest form government would be no government at all or anarchy.
But I think I smell a troll.—Joe]
That’s Left-Speak for “a People’s [communist] Revolution”. Cornel West wrote an article for the NYT to describe it. “Martin Luther King Jr. Would Want a Revolution…”
Often has the left attached itself to good causes, co-opting them and bending them into radicalized socialist movements.
Have you heard much about the protests on Wall Street? Me neither. Here is Cornel West leading a group of drones in one of those protests. Listen carefully. He wants an “American Fall” to coincide with the recent Arab Spring. The Belt-way left is in a pickle. The base was fired up and ready to go, but they didn’t get their revolution. They feel it’s time to pounce. They’ve taken off the masks, taken to the streets, and now they’re feeling let down. Wait ’till they’ve simmered and seethed for another year and then see their hopes and dreams, their radical democratic vision, slip away. That could get ugly.
This is why we aren’t supposed to feed the bears in the national parks. You give them a little bit of socialism here and there, and before you know it they’re ripping the doors off your car trying to eat your children. Then you’re forced to shoot them. It’s inhumane. DON’T FEED THE SOCIALISTS! The Republicans have been happily feeding socialists for generations, trying to prove their own good intentions, the fools;
“Look! Aren’t they cute? And that one has some little cubs! Awww! I’ll be nice and give them my cold french fries, so they don’t go away unhappy…”
I think we should convince some park rangers to have words with the GOP leadership.
You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.
John Dewey
From Accuracy In Media
[Ahhhh… yes. The collective society. The good of the collective is more important than the good of the individual. The individual must not think for themselves. Except of course the dear, enlightened, leaders who decide what is best for the collective and just happen to live lives of luxury.
What the “intellectuals” need to understand, if history has any lessons to be learned on this topic, is that the “intellectuals” are the first to get the bullet in the back of the neck and occupy the mass graves in the woods. Look at what Stalin, Pol Pot, and communist China did.
It may be that it “won’t happen here”. It may be the government of the collective will put the “intellectuals” in positions of power and that when the shooting starts it will be individualists who first occupy the mass graves. But when the shooting stops it will be because the individualists ran out of collectivist “intellectuals” as targets. Not because we ran out of ammo or individuals.—Joe]
North Carolina Democrat Governor Beverly Perdue gave us a rare moment of honesty as she called for a suspension of elections in order to Get Things Done.
Hat tip to the guy filling in for Michael Savage today.
This confirms, once again, my definition of “Divisiveness” in the language of the left– “Speaking ill of or disagreeing with socialists or socialism.” She didn’t use the “D” word, but used “partisan bickering” instead, which is the same thing. When they win an election, it is the beauty of democracy in action– the will of the people expressing itself in the best of ways. When they lose, democracy itself is under attack. Things can’t get done due to political posturing and gridlock, the American People are throwing a temper tantrum, etc., etc.
The assumption is always the same with communists– the stupid little people don’t know what’s good for them. They don’t appreciate all the great things we smarter and better people could do if only they’d stop asserting their will and submit to ours. In its naked form, it is a cult of mass destruction.
The mindset is nothing new of course. What’s unique is the blatant honesty in Governor Perdue’s statement. It’s very, very rare for a socialist to say something so direct in public in an official capacity They very much love hiding in complexity and have said exactly so. This only shows us that they’re beginning to feel comfortable, and that tells us something. It means things are getting more dangerous, but I suppose that anyone who’s been paying attention already knew that.
We’re now being told it was all a little joke. Reading the quote I don’t see it as a joke. I see it as a trial balloon. Leftists can get away with that.
Not only are you stripping the right of the local municipalities to protect safety but you’re also asking them to adhere to gun laws at the state level that don’t even exist.
Brian Malte
Director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
September 27, 2011
Lawyer keeps local gun laws in his sights—Lawsuits against Evansville and Hammond demand communities comply with state measure
[“Protect safety”? “Adhere to gun laws that don’t exit”? What in the world does that even mean?
I suppose it’s possible the reporter had the crap for brains and messed up the quote but I doubt it because the quotes from the other people in the article weren’t just word salads. It could have been deliberate maliciousness by the reporter but usually the bias is against gun owners.
It’s true that we are sometimes our worst enemy but it may be more so for our opponents. We don’t always act as a team and give conflicting messages to the public and the politicians. We have people that sometimes say things that which, while true, can be exploited by our opponents. They have crap for brains and it shows.—Joe]
I’m determined because there’s too much at stake. The alternative I think is an approach to government that would fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century and that’s not the kind of society that I want to bequeath to Malia and Sasha, and your children and your grandchildren.
President Obama
What President Obama saying to his donors
September 25, 2011
[What President Obama isn’t directly saying is that the U.S. Constitution is crippling his vision of a utopian society.
And while I say that’s a good thing the battle has mostly been lost. I fear the majority of people in this country will have to learn the lessons of socialism and perhaps even communism for themselves.
—Joe]
It leaves me somewhat dumbfounded in a way, and yet it’s thoroughly normal and predictable. What leaves me dumbfounded is that fact that it is so normal and predictable.
“Where’s Waldo” was one title that occurred to me, but there is no Waldo.
I have a challenge for you. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find one thing that Rick Perry actually said in this ad;
Just one meaningful statement– one example of what he’s done to further some goal or other in the past, one guiding principle, one thing that would suggest what he actually wants to do as president. Anything. I only watched it twice, but I don’t think you can do it. Right now as far as I can tell, this ad is recycled from an old Obama ad. As I said in comments over on Uncle’s blog, it was probably produced by the same people, who did Bush’s and Clinton’s ads.
And yet there are people who really love this ad, and that is the rub. Are we as a society capable of thinking critically anymore, or is it simply over and done for us?
We need to able to watch something like this, looking, probing, asking ourselves; “Where’s the meaning. Where’s the substance? What’s actually being said here? Anything?” It should be automatic – you’re waiting for something to be said.
Now I don’t want to hear about Perry. For all I know he’s the greatest defender of liberty the world has ever seen, but if so he would tell us in his very own words. However, there is nothing here that would tell us one way or the other, and the fact that he can’t actually say something in his own ad already tells me he’s not my man. Don’t defend him. If he were the leader we need, he would never allow an ad like this to be produced in his name. If he comes out tomorrow and tells us it was done against his wishes, and that those responsible for it have been fired, I might change my mind, but not before. When ads like this one are soundly ridiculed in the public arena, by all sides, that’s when I’ll know we’ve made progress, yet we are nowhere near that now.
He did say that the greatest deeds are reserved for future generations, but like all the other statements, that one has no substance. No indication of what he thinks is a great deed, but the strangest part about that statement is that it makes no reference to current generations. What about us? Why can’t we be doing any of the greatest deeds? Why are they reserved for someone else, and who is in charge of reserving deeds these days, and why? Who appointed this new “Deed Tsar”? See; you can go crazy trying to infer meaning where there is none.
I’m all for shared sacrifice. But I think it should be shared sacrifice of those responsible for this mess in the first place. So instead of punishing the super rich, who didn’t spend us into oblivion, let’s have shared sacrifice among those responsible for this mess.
I propose this:
I propose that we tax all former members of Congress at a 50% flat tax rate. Former presidents would be taxed at a flat 75% of annual income. Finally, current members of Congress and the current president would be taxes at 100% of their annual income. Any other Americans who would like to can volunteer to join either of these groups (time to walk the walk, Warren!). These tax rates will stay in effect until the debt is erased and we have a balanced budget.
How about we stop coddling those who caused this problem in the first place?
Mike Jensen
August 30, 2011
Coddling
[Yup. Those responsible should be the ones to pay the price for fixing the problem.
And if insufficient progress has been made by the time their term in office is over consideration could be given to auctioning off their body parts.—Joe]
…and then denying it. Pete Sessions, NRCC Chairman, sends out regular e-mail alerts. Every single one of them can be interpreted as “Look at those dirty rotten Democrats! Give us money!”
Today’s e-mail alert title was “Threatening is Not Governing”. Even though it’s completely wrong of course, I might be tempted to see that title as a sign of some positive development in Mr. Sessions’ understanding in that it touches upon an important point, but I know him too well.
What he referred to as “threatening” was Obama’s “threat” to “…veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase.” That contains so many layers of idiocy that I won’t even get into it. Forget the president and that it’s fully within his job description to “threaten” to veto anything Congress pukes out.
The point is that any and all governing is threatening. Every law, rule, ordinance, every tax or restriction, every subsidy– they’re all backed by threats, and all government threats include a group of people with guns who are ready, willing, and I dare say eager to make good on those threats.
I’d say I’m hopeful that even Pete Sessions has stumbled upon an important truth, but he of all people will never admit to understanding it. Maybe, since he has broached the subject, more of us can expand on it.
Mr. Sessions; I see your accusations in much the same way I’d see a drunk sitting at a bar with a martini in his hands accusing the drunk next to him of being a drunk. Only worse– the typical drunk probably isn’t going to work every day to find new ways to formulate threats against the whole of The People.
Fortunately, physicians no longer believe that bleeding the sick will make them healthy. Unfortunately, many of the makers of economic policy still do.
Paul Krugman
September 19, 2011
Decline in manufacturing capacity is probably only the beginning of the bad new: Paul Krugman
[He is apparently oblivious to the irony as he goes on to say, even though the U.S. Government is broke, “For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts abroad.”
Krugman believes that budget austerity is the equivalent of “bleeding the patient” when sane people would recognize it as reducing the hemorrhaging. One has to wonder if Krugman is practicing doublethink, doublespeak, or both. In any case he has crap for brains if he thinks the majority of the people will believe him.—Joe]
I’m not sure exactly what these folks are pledging to do. Are they living constitutionalists pledging fealty to the Constitution on the day they sign the pledge? Or some future Constitution the exact substance of which they don’t even know when they sign the pledge? Is each person pledging to their own Constitution which just doesn’t change to them? Unless, of course, they are all pledging to a Constitution that actually has a definite, knowable, unchanging substance — in which case I look forward to joining them in celebration of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s service at the next Federalist Society convention.
Carrie Severino
September 16, 2011
More on the Living Constitutionalists’ ‘Pledge’
[People who “believe in a living constitution” haven’t thought things through. Do they also believe in “living contracts” where the terms of the contract change without all parties to the contract agree to the changes or even being notified that the contract no longer means what it says? To say, “we have a living constitution” means we have no constitution.—Joe]
Look at it this way, do you think it’s up to the states to set their own rules on slavery? Or search and seizure?
4moreDubya
September 14, 2011
Comment to House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
[States have powers to set their own tax rates, build (or not build) roads, license businesses, and many other things. States have not been given the power to infringe upon specific enumerated or natural rights. Some people just don’t grasp the difference between exercising powers granted to them and infringing upon rights specifically protected. Some people just aren’t very bright.—Joe]
…even when I’m watching good comedy. Maybe it comes from growing up in a large family. If you LOL, shut up already. I’m trying to listen, and anyway, how can you listen while you’re cackling? (In a live social situation, at least the deliverer of the comedy usually has the sense to wait for some degree of quiet, so that’s different) Stuff like that. But I LOL’d at this, from Tam;
Meanwhile, I’d like to offer my services to moderate the next GOP debate:
“Now, if you will all look down at your podiums, you will notice that you’ve all been provided with a short document. A few of you might even be vaguely familiar with it. If you don’t mind, could you each just look in the part headed ‘Article II’ and point out to me the sentence or phrase that indicates that ‘job creation’ or ‘the economy’ is within the presidential purview?
We’ll start with you, on the end, with the hair. No, not you… the other one on the end, with the hair…”
It’s absurd in its truth. Funny and sad.
When thinking of the most recent, absurd rationalizations and excuses for government meddling, and the obvious expectation from politicians that we revere them (why is never explained) I find, more and more frequently, the phrase, “None of your filthy, stinking, rotten business, you sniveling, made-up, hairsprayed, lying piece of shit with the painted-on smile” comes to mind, followed by the thought that if you actually told them to mind their own business they wouldn’t understand– they actually believe that your business IS their business. Tam made it funny is all.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I should clean my guns.
Paul M. Barrett is at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. I talked to him for a couple hours last night.
Barrett is the author of this article which includes:
The rise of the Glock and other semiautomatic handguns cannot be linked to variations in overall crime rates. But that doesn’t mean it would be pointless to take small steps to reduce mayhem, such as restricting magazine capacity. One lesson of Tucson is that there is a difference between a 33-round clip and an 8- or 10-round clip.
If I get another chance to talk with him I’m going to show him this video:
Then I will bring up the constitutional issues.
He just sat down by me. Time to get busy….
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.
The Vancouver Action Plan
June 1976
Agenda item 10 (d)
[Via an email pointer from JoeyD Sr. to a web page about Agenda 21.
I am reminded that Stalin had a particular interest in the land owners of the Ukraine and several million people died as he tried to “create a better society”. He and his followers considered themselves “progressives” and those that opposed him were called “regressives”. Sound familiar?
I would like to remind “public planners” (I prefer to call them “the central committee”) that rural land owners in this country are much more likely to own firearms than the population at large. My limited sample suggests nearly 100% of them own firearms.
Μολὼν λαβέ! can equally well and should apply to acres as well as guns.—Joe]
THIS IS THE REASON THE REPUBLIKLAN WILL GO DOWN IN DEFEAT IN THE 2012 MANDATE ELECTIONS THAT WILL RETURN THE NATION TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS !
Jack Steen
September 02, 2011
Comment to Republican gun raffle in Giffords’ county draws criticism
[Caps in the original.
I’m struck by the parallels between the mindset of anti-gun people, “the anointed” as described by Thomas Sowell, and the army leaders during the lead up to the war with the Nez Perce Indians. They don’t, and perhaps can’t, understand the other side, they “know” they are right and it is obvious their opponents are wrong to the point of being insane. A final parallel is that when things turn out different than expected instead of revising their mindset they proclaim their superiority even louder.
If it weren’t a matter of life and death it would be amusing.—Joe]
In response to Lyle’s post yesterday in regards to our military involvement in the mid-east ubu52 said, “My ideal candidate was Hillary and I think we all know what she would do.”
I honestly have no idea what Hillary do in regards to the mid-east if she were president. I suppose I could do some research on it but I don’t want to destroy this rather pleasant image I have of her flying over the desert on her broomstick turning princes into frogs.