Category Archives: Politics

That explains a few things

Posted on by

According to some new research those unsure of own ideas more resistant to views of others:

We swim in a sea of information, but filter out most of what we see and hear. A new analysis of data from dozens of studies sheds new light on how we choose what we do and do not hear. The study found that while people tend to avoid information that contradicts what they already think or believe, certain factors can cause them to seek out, or at least consider, other points of view.

Yes, of course. No surprises there.

The analysis, reported this month in Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, was led by researchers at the University of Illinois and the University of Florida, and included data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants. It puts to rest a longstanding debate over whether people actively avoid information that contradicts what they believe, or whether they are simply exposed more often to ideas that conform to their own because they tend to be surrounded by like-minded people.

Very cool! Excellent hypotheses to explore.

Perhaps more surprisingly, people who have little confidence in their own beliefs are less likely to expose themselves to contrary views than people who are very confident in their own ideas, Albarracín said.

Now that explains a lot of anti-gun bigotry (actually all forms of bigotry).

Certain factors can also induce people to seek out opposing points of view, she said. Those who may have to publicly defend their ideas, such as politicians, for example, are more motivated to learn about the views of those who oppose them. In the process, she said, they sometimes find that their own ideas evolve.

I suspect this is part of why there is more support in the general population for gun control than in politicians. As they get ready to act on their original beliefs they become educated on the topic and change their ideas. That applies to those who believed gun control would increase public safety. Those politicians that push for gun control because they view guns in private hands a threat to their personal ambitions are likely to become even more set in their beliefs.

Women and Guns (and some other stuff)

Posted on by

I’m just wondering aloud here.  When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen?  I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable.  Is that condescending to women or am I missing something?  At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?

Maybe it’s a dumb question.  Maybe men can’t help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport.  Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.

Maybe the question is simply premature.  Any female shooters want to comment on that?  Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why?  Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why”  Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question.  Hell, maybe it’s all about marketing, in which case, never mind.

I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we’ve all seen some women who can out-lift some men.  So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?

Here’s another.  How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts?  I understand personal preferences, but that’s quite different.  I’m talking socially, politically and legally.  When will I be able to tell a black guy he’s being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she’s wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent?  When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch?  I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down.  Knock off the race and sex defenses.  Some people are using it as a tool and I’m not buying it.  Not at all, and I’m getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don’t even start.

When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs?  Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won’t quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, “OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, ’cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you’re right on to calling for another restriction.  This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here.  Go ahead.  Lay out the circumstances.  I have all day.”

Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, “this far and no farther” is you’ve already established that a) you’re willing to give ground, and/or that b) you’ve accepted or granted your opponent’s basic premise(s).  Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights).  When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, “this far and no farther”.  Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist.  If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them.  You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing.  Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.

Quote of the day–Dave Workman

Posted on by

On this one-year anniversary of the landmark Heller ruling, it is sadly clear that gun prohibitionists are as determined as ever to re-write history and live in denial. Of course, what they really want is to deny gun owners their civil rights.

To paraphrase Barack Obama, these gun prohibitionists have become bitter, clinging to their gun control agenda as if it were a religion.

Dave Workman
June 25, 2009
The Heller ruling one year later; antis still in denial
[Just as many whites clung to their bigoted beliefs about blacks for 100 year after the 13th Amendment was passed it’s going to take a long, long time before the anti-gun bigots are driven into the fringe politics along with the KKK. It should not be a surprise that the bigots of today overwhelmingly are Democrats, just as they were in the heydays of the KKK. Apparently they just can’t help it and have to hate someone.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sean Flynn

Posted on by

After the long nightmare of Microsoft health insurance, to finally be delivered into the arms of the kind and loving bureaucrats who give their all to ensure America’s veterans never want for care…

Sean Flynn
2:59 PM PDT, June 25, 2008
Microsoft employee commenting on the Obama administration’s efforts to “reform” (nationalize) health care.

Obama’s stimulus package

Posted on by

Via a Bitter Twitter (or should that be Bitter Tweet?) I found this:

The federal government is spending $423,500 to find out why men don’t like to wear condoms, a project government watchdogs say is a nearly-half-a-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money.

…

But the $423,500 grant for the study is just a crumb in the NIH pie. The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad.

But some questionable queries have come under close scrutiny, including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.

I presume this is part of Obama’s stimulus package. If you were to ask me I would say we should stop stimulating him.

Quote of the day–L. Hope

Posted on by

I can see that our politicians haven’t cornered the market on stupidity and insanity. I think after a liberal/progressive person gets to a certain age, they should have a net thrown over them and hauled away somewhere. The longer they are liberal, the crazier they get.

L. Hope
Baldwinsville, USA
June 15, 2009
In the comments to First ‘anti-stab’ knife to go on sale in Britain
Via Jeff.
[In a sense I think L. Hope is right. They are, in a sense, crazy. What I think is going on is that they do not or cannot understand the complexities of the real world. They believe central planning/control by “the right people” will result in a better result than letting people make their own decisions and being responsible for their own well-being  When unintended consequences happen they think they need to exercise more control rather than understanding there are people just as smart, if not smarter, working to defeat their controls and even take advantage of those controls to their advantage. Hence criminals take advantage of disarmed people by nearly risk free home invasions. The disarming of the population made the home invasions possible with only a knife as a weapon. This sort of thing is repeated on a massive scale in the black market, taxes, prostitution, gambling, etc. Government controls, implemented with the best of intentions, almost always create more problems than they fix. The person that believes government can solve everything keeps thinking “just one more law” when a new problem shows up that was caused by the previous law. Eventually, such as in this case with the “anti-stab” knife, outsiders realize the proponent of government control is in some sense insane. But unless one or more of the five conditions are broken the people on the inside will not only fail to realize their insanity but will proselytize even more. This happens even when the proponents are facing near certain death. Read up on Joseph Stalin and his supporters sometime.

The only real solution that I know of is to remove the social support for their delusions. Point out their insanity. Rub their noses in it. People that have do not have the commitment to the “cause” need to be made aware and then join in on the public humiliation of the proponents of the insanity.

If we fail to stop the insanity early enough we run the risk the next Joseph Stalin will take over the reins of power of a system intended for use only by “the right people” with predictable and catastrophic results. And even after tens of millions have died there will still be people saying Stalin was a great leader. I believe there are some forms of insanity which are not completely curable and liberalism/communism/progressivism/socialism/statism may be one of those. The best we can do is to remove them from power and ignore them as they spout their mad ravings in public.–Joe]

Another dilemma for congress

Posted on by

The gun rights people in the U.S. Congress have been giving their anti-gun bigot co-workers some interesting dilemmas recently. There was the elimination of D.C.’s gun laws amendment attached to the bill giving D.C. residents a voting member in the house (on hold). Then there was the removal of guns restrictions in National Parks attached to the “credit card reform” legislation (passed!). And now there is this (via email from Wesley D.):

The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

…

Conceptually, the amendment would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry handguns across state lines with reciprocity, while following local concealed carry laws. That makes sense to me. If the original legislation is intended to reactively punish thuggish citizens for “so-called hate crimes,” it only makes sense to also proactively make it easier for all citizens to defend themselves and prevent the “so-called hate crimes” in the first place.

Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”

See also posts by Phil and Ride Fast.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.


Ben Franklin
[I can’t say that I disagree. The problem is that people have not been taught to know and prize their rights. Ignorance has been a big part of our country’s downfall. People vote for politicians promising perceived benefits without glimmer of recognition there might be unintended consequences.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Wilhelm Reich

Posted on by

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.


Wilhelm Reich
[I’m thinking of dominate political ideologies of Democrats and Republicans. Extraordinarily powerful social realities with the utility of the bubonic plague. That sounds about right.


The major political parties appear to have no principles or underlying philosophy. As near as I can tell they are merely coalitions of people in desire of fame/power/money. Political ideologies based on consistent philosophies such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party are for the most part unable to achieve power. This is in part because they are consistent philosophies which makes them less willing to compromise.


I sometimes fantasize of creating a political system that makes such coalitions of zero or negative value but have been unsuccessful of anything approaching something feasible. I keep coming back to enumerated powers such that the coalitions can’t exceed certain boundaries. We tried that once and look at what we have now. There needs to be a “Fourth Branch of Government” or something that does nothing but permanently nullify laws and remove politicians who voted for them from government if something like 10% of the members think the law violates the constitution.–Joe]

Can We Put This to Rest, Please?

Posted on by

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from an anti-rights activist; “There are ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ on all rights…” as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s been a lot.  As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.


The main argument the anti uses is the old, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void.  QED).


Oh please!  Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title “free speech”? 


Anyone?


It is a malicious fraud to yell “Fire!” if there is no fire.


The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as “free speech” any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.  It doesn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed”.


We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least.  “Keeping and bearing” arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms.  Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime.  Can you say, “Duh”?  Everyone together now;  “Derrrrrr!”


Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) “Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don’t see YOU opposing with THOSE” argument to get any traction whatsoever?

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.


Thomas Jefferson
[One might reasonably conclude that the bailout of the automobile and banking industries is evidence that this principle has been forgotten in the years since Jefferson help found this nations government. But then what do I know? I’m not the constitutional law professor who actually respects the constitution like President Obama.–Joe


Update October 28, 2012: This is a bogus quote. Thoreau said essentially this if you want to quote someone famous on this topic.]

Seattle Library rules on firearms

Posted on by

I received this just today which is too late for attending their hearing or sending in comments but via an email from Mike B. we have this:



Category A (Library Specific Violation)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (with a valid permit),


…


Category E (Serious Violation Toward Person(s) or Property)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (no valid permit).


So what they are saying is that even though the State has said local governments may not regulate firearm possession the city library is going to do it anyway. They recognize the existence of carry permits but will not honor them.


It sounds to me like it is time for a lawsuit. Email to appropriate people is in the works.

Quote of the day–Fred Woodworth

Posted on by

If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.


Fred Woodworth
[I think Woodworth overlooks some fundamental issues with things like his opposition to profit in economic relationships and ownership to raw land but I think he makes some valid points about the non-utility of government.–Joe]

Safety Shmafety

Posted on by

We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety.  Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies– the enemies of liberty.  Though the statistics are often on our side, we’re granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.


Wrong premise.


Too many police departments, for example, call themselves Departments of Public Safety and the like.  That’s not their function, per se.  Their proper function is to enforce the law and the primary purpose of law, in the uniquely American sense at least, is to promote and protect your rights.  That this function has been corrupted over the years does not change the original intent.


The American Revolution was indeed fought for safety, but the safety so dearly bought therein was a rather different kind of safety from that promoted by the neo-Fascists.  It wasn’t the kind of safety taught at your local public school.  It wasn’t the kind of safety we’re training for in a fire drill or in a drivers’ education class.  That kind of safety is properly the responsibility of the individual or of private interests.


The kind of safety for which the Revolution was fought and for which the constitution was written is safety from government interference– safety from the enemies of liberty both foreign and domestic.


Historically, out-of-control governments have presented a danger to public safety far greater than all common criminal activity and standard physical danger combined.  Some government or left-wing hack asserting that we need more government intrusion as a means of promoting “safety” is a bit like advocating mass sex orgies for the promotion of abstinence.


When we’re arguing safety and public policy then, we need to make it clear beforehand which particular kind of safety we’re discussing– the safety of subjects owned by the government (the safety of tyrants and sycophants) or the safety of a free people.  They are near polar opposites.

Guns in national parks goes to the house

Posted on by

The credit card bill with the amendment for restoring our rights to keep and bear arms in national parks passed the Senate a few minutes ago:



_ Includes unrelated provision that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.


It’s not a sure thing it will get passed into law yet but the chances aren’t too bad:



The 90-5 vote, following a 357-to-70 vote in the House on April 30, made it likely that President Obama will have a measure on his desk before the Memorial Day recess. The differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be worked out, but given the political atmosphere it seems likely that the House-Senate negotiations will move quickly.


Amazing. And this bill is much better for us than the ruling change the Brady Campaign shot down with the bogus “no environmental assessment study was done” lawsuit.


The Brady Campaign may have not only wasted their money but they may get a worse result for their efforts.


Be on the lookout for more Sad Pandas.

Buffers take a beating

Posted on by

In the U.K. the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament has several duties. Some of these have been hazardous to their health:



The Speaker sets the agenda for debate in parliament, calls on members of parliament to speak, can limit question time and decide whether amendments should be voted on.


They also traditionally serve as a liaison with the monarch, acting as a buffer between the Commons and the sovereign.


In the past, when relations between the two were not always so good, Speakers had a deadly job. In fact, nine Speakers, all prior to 1560, died a violent death, one murdered, one killed in battle and seven beheaded, two on the same day.


I’m all for our Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi resigning because of her scandal (as the U.K. speaker is) but being beheaded seems a little over the top (as well was being a little off the top).

Quote of the day–Kurt Hofmann

Posted on by

The citizen disarmament advocates may indeed eventually get their “terrorist” incident.  The question is this: are they trying to forestall that, or to provoke it?  At some point, some concerned patriot is going to wonder if it’s time to paraphrase Patrick Henry (one of the original “right-wing extremists”): “If this be terrorism, make the most of it.”


Kurt Hofmann
May 15, 3:56 AM
How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps
[Patrick Henry may not have actually said this, but Hofmann does ask a good question.–Joe]

Bloggers are making an impact

Posted on by

Sebastian, Kevin, and others were quoted in the Christian Science Monitor today after being interviewed last night in Phoenix.


Bitter pulled The Josh Sugarmann Endorsement out of that article.


Great job guys! It makes me wish, even more, that I was there.

Another year of amnesty for Canadian gun owners

Posted on by

Canada said they wanted all the guns in the country registered. The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. Canada said, “Okay, how about we waive the license fee and you get another year to register them?” The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. The registration law was passed in 1995. It’s now 14 years later and what is the story? See for yourself:



The Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety, today announced the re-extension of an amnesty and other measures that helps firearms owners comply with the law.


“This Government has, once again, extended the amnesty to continue to bring law-abiding citizens into our licensing system,” said Minister Toews. “We are preventing the pointless criminalization of non-restricted gun owners, who are working to come into compliance with our firearms laws.”


“Make no mistake. This amnesty actually serves to enhance public safety. When previously extended, the amnesty encouraged an increase of gun owners registering as licensed firearms owners, as did the other measures we are renewing today,” said Minister Van Loan.


The following three measures, which will encourage compliance and reduce the administrative burden on lawful firearms owners, are now in effect until May 16, 2010:


– Extending by one year an amnesty which allows individuals in possession of unregistered non-restricted firearms to take steps to bring themselves into compliance;


– Extending by one year the current fee waiver for firearms licence renewals or upgrades; and,


– Allowing eligible holders of expired Possession-Only Licences to apply for a new one within a year.


“Our effort to combat criminal gun crimes remains strong. We have introduced mandatory prison sentences for those who commit gun crimes and tougher bail rules for serious weapon-related offences,” added Minister Van Loan.


All together now, everyone!  Μολὼν λαβέ

Due process? Who needs it?

Posted on by

H. R. 2159 would allow the U.S. Attorney General deny people an ATF license for firearms or explosives without due process:

The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

“Appropriately suspected”? Yeah, right. Like I donated money to his bosses opponent in the last election? Or he read Why Boomershoot?

Surely it there must be some sort of hearing and you are given a chance to see or respond to the evidence they used to arrive at the decision, right?

by striking ‘The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert ‘(2)’;
…
(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period;
…
‘(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

No crime need be committed. The AG just has to have a bad feeling about you and you don’t get to see or respond to the evidence being used against you.

What Henry Kissinger said comes to mind.