One of the things that’s always been amazing about the left is that they do such an effective job of making people’s paranoid delusions seem to not, in fact, be paranoid delusions.
Sebastian
December 28, 2009
Hope and Change
[It’s pretty amazing alright. It’s this sort of thing that further encourages me to invest in precious metals such as brass and copper coated lead.–Joe]
When the human race has once acquired a supersitition nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it.
Mark Twain
[How many things does this apply to? Liberalism, gun control, fanatical religions, the list is practically endless.–Joe
Update: Case in point. Via Say Uncle.]
Instead of identifying politicians by name or party, we ought to do so by ideology – which is uncomfortably akin to classifying strains of dysentery by patient I admit.
Will Brown
Comment to a post by Kevin Baker on November 26, 2008
[The take over of the health care industry by the Federal government reminded me of this.–Joe]
If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.
Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller
No. 07-290
Pages 15,16
[Words mean what they mean. Not what someone wants them to mean. Hence those that wish to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment deserve our scorn and contempt and were justly slapped down by the Heller decision. Mad Hatters does describe many of the anti-gun people. –Joe]
[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.
J. Pomeroy
An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152– 153 (1868)
From District of Columbia v. Heller pages 45 and 46.
[Citizens are enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. It’s the law of the land. It is a constitutionally protected, specific enumerated right.–Joe]
The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.
A government of laws and not of men.
John Adams
(1735-1826)
Second President of the United States
The Life and Works of John Adams (1851)
[And by necessity the same applies to the defenders of the tyrant and the thugs who enforce the orders of the tyrant. And to do this the people of the nation need the tools to accomplish this task.–Joe]
The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That’s like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight.
Rev. Jerry Falwell
[I don’t have to point out the parallel to those that don’t want children taught gun safety–do I?–Joe]
It’s the immortal truth of Con Law: conservative decisions are provisional while liberal decisions are eternal.
Blue
December 20, 2009
Comment to Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court may eventually overrule Heller.
[Certainly that is the way the liberals like to think of it and the conservatives fear it is. I’m not so sure that is reality however. Heller, the (soon to be) McDonald victories and many others in the pipeline will make it difficult for liberals to undermine the right to keep and bear arms for a long, long time.–Joe]
So by the same argument that it’s no big deal, it would be ok for them to publish a registry database of where all the bloggers live, right?
I mean, you’re just exercising your 1st amendment right to free speech, nothing wrong with that, right?
Maybe you’d like to let us know what YOUR street address is, so we can get started on that…
Freddyboomboom
December 20, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath.
[I really need to jump in on this. Soon, I hope.–Joe]
[W]hat’s the Star done to me except list my like in the same section as preverts, bank robbers and marriage licenses?
Beseems every coal mine needs a canary or two; and they are silly, fluttery little birds most of the time. Doesn’t mean they’re not useful.
Roberta X
December 19, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath
[There are several other people in the same comment section and on their blogs defending the appropriateness of getting upset about publishing information about concealed carry permit holders. I’ll post my own opinions on the topic soon. I’ve been very, very busy and blogging has been dropping off the end of the priority queue.–Joe]
These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that’s someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.
Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
[“Weapons of war”? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.
If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an “assault weapon” by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.
Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?
“Animal assassin”? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an “animal assassin”? No wonder their side is losing. They can’t make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.
Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It’s another case of Crap for Brains.–Joe]
Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.
Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox–The Gun Rights War
[A gun in the woman’s dormitory!
In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters–Neal Knox.
I’m just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.–Joe]
That sounds like something Jim would say. Except he would give excruciating detail about the method of execution.
Sean Flynn
December 16, 2009
In response to my suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should require any government employee who votes for or enforces a law or regulation that is later found to be unconstitutional is to be charged with and convicted for the crime of treason.
[Sean and I both like Jim.–Joe]
Just as the Fourteenth Amendment extended protection of the enumerated rights of the first eight amendments to violations by state governments, so too did it extend federal protection of the pre-existing unenumerated rights “retained by the people.”
Randy Barnett
Regarding the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[Via a lead from Kevin.
What Barnett says may be the true intent of the 14th Amendment but these days when someone questions whether something the Federal Government does is constitutional or not they look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Are you serious?“
This is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate what you have left while you can.–Joe]
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
[Being an economist himself he should know. Further evidence that other uses are somewhat questionable at best can be easily seen if you just look around a little bit (here for example).–Joe]
Here is what I think they don’t get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.
…
And they don’t get in some cases that they wouldn’t be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions.
Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won’t get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.
If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):
–Joe]
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
[I was because this is true that the global warming hoax mongers were suppressing reason and opinions.–Joe]
In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.
Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.
Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.
I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.
Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.
The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing–total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.
I sometimes can’t help but think that “if it saves just one life” then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.–Joe]
In a grim scenario we’ve seen all too often in the news, 20 year old college student Jason Hamilton reportedly burst into a classroom on Wednesday and opened fire at a small community college in Virginia. After two shots, however, his rifle jammed. Not only that, he missed both times. Not surprisingly, Hamilton’s father is furious.
…
In failing to check the bolt action of his brand new firearm, Jason Hamilton didn’t just let himself down, he let his community down.
Local news reporters were also disappointed with Hamilton’s performance on Wednesday. The event forced the cadre of journalists into the cold for a boring press conference about a crime that didn’t quite happen for a story that would only last a day at best. The story had all the elements of a barn-burner news meme: a stressed and mentally unbalanced college student, a link to the ongoing debate over gun control, and eerie proximity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It had everything going for it. Everything but actual victims, that is. If he had managed to pull it off, they would be sitting on a goldmine: weeks worth of easy copy and the warm glow of the national spotlight. But no, it didn’t bleed so it didn’t lead. As it was, not a single cable news network bothered to send a satellite truck. Perhaps that’s why the headline in the local paper read, “Thanks for Nothing, Asshole.”
Frank
December 10, 2009
Father Deeply Disappointed in Son’s Failed Murder/Suicide
[There is more than a little truth in this satire but he left out references to the Brady Campaign, the VPC, etc. getting all dressed up for the dance in the blood and not finding any blood.–Joe]
The phrase “we (I) (you) simply must -” designates something that need not be done. “That goes without saying” is a red warning. “Of course” means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care “reform”, and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.
The appropriateness of Heinlein’s wisdom is probably endless.–Joe]