“If I were in charge!”

Posted on by

I get these emotional appeal type e-mail forwards every day. I usually delete them without reading them (just so all you forwarders know, and besides; I get the same information, if it’s even real, days to weeks, to sometimes years, before you apparently did). This one caught me eye as something that needs to be addressed though;

“PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.”

Followed of course with the obligatory;

“Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON…”

Oy. I guess we’re supposed to respond with a hearty; “YEAH! You Tell ’em!” and then go back to our search for other emotional stimulants, such that by the end of each day we’ll need to get drunk or bury our faces in the television to calm down.

Uh, no. I responded to the forwarder thusly;
“This is all assuming that the government is rightly and should forever be in charge of “charity” by way of coercive redistribution, which of course is the problem from the start. It shouldn’t.

‘Put me in charge’ she says….

No, Young Grasshopper; PUT THE CONSTITUTION BACK IN CHARGE. PUT THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES BACK IN CHARGE and then we won’t have those in government usurping the very concept of charity and turning it into something horrible.”

Oh, and just as a side note; If you can’t vote as long as you’re on government subsistence? Heh! No problem; we’ll just make sure everyone is forced onto government subsistence. The Progressives are working on that right now anyway, and so long as you’re dependent on them, vote or not, you’ll have to do what they tell you.

This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans on one side, and libertarians/objectivists and Christians on the other. The former see the problem as an issue of WHO is in charge, while the latter see the issue as being whether or not the guiding principles are in charge. Whoever wrote the forwarded e-mail is every bit as clueless as any card-carrying, ideological Marxist, and most likely is a die hard Republican; take all of the leftist assumptions, make them your own, and wish you were in charge of administering them so you really SHOW THEM, BY GOSH AND BY GOLLY, GEE WHIZ!!!. I’d tell such people to go to hell, but they’re almost certainly already there, so even if they were genuinely inclined to take my advice it would make zero difference.

I’ve tried to say this in several different ways already, but we’ll give it another try;
That which irritates you owns you. It has converted you over to its purpose. This e-mail forward is a PERFECT example of that, and think how many cultures have been trading one tyrant for another, for another, for yet another… Get it?

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

The police stonewalling and cover-up are so that the public doesn’t find out that Chief Lanier enforces laws differently in the District, depending on whether you are a powerful liberal who opposes Second Amendment rights, like Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Feinstein, or an average American.

Emily Miller
October 9, 2013
MILLER: Smoking gun exposed- D.C. police covers up giving Feinstein illegal ‘assault weapons’
[Why can’t this be considered a violation of the constitution via liberals being granted titles of nobility with special privileges?

The only other way I can see to look at this is that the liberals are saying the law does not apply in the “game” they are playing. I don’t think they really want to go there because a lot of people who normally play the rule also consider it fair play to play by the rules of their opponents. And if there are no rules, well, then there are no rules.—Joe]

Shakedown?

Posted on by

I got a request from a guy who works for one of the gigantic firearms magazine publishing companies. They put out several major gun magazines, all of which you know well. He wanted high resolution images showing off some specific products of ours. I was heading out of town at the time and could not change my plans, no way, no how, and so I went to GREAT lengths, using digital back-channels, running into road blocks, fiddling this and that, and finally I got him his images in short order. It was a pain, but when a major publisher indicates that they want to run an article that shows off your products, you jump, right? So I jumped. I know the guy. He’s a big name in a huge industry– Why shouldn’t I jump?

Days later, after hearing no reply, I get this;

“Thank you for the images.

I am also interested in getting one of those [product name redacted] for myself…

Let me know what I would owe you.”

No mention of any specific, up-coming article in any specific magazine, just an implied request for a special personal deal on some special hardware (nod nod, wink, wink).

So I went through all that dorking around just for this?

This ain’t my first rodeo, bitches– I have decades of experience dealing with people attempting to use their very real influence for personal gain, and with those who accommodate them at every opportunity. Many of them have been in public employ too. I’ve also seen more than few of them fall flat on their faces for doing it.

Most people in any business, and all industries have this sort of thing going in spades, take the position; “Aw, just go with it. Don’t be a fool– It’s how the game is played and there’s nothing you can ever do to change it.” I’ve had it said to my face.

Uh huh. Well consider this post my reply to that, and count your blessings that I haven’t mentioned your name and your employer. Yet. Now let the reprisals begin, if you’re dumb enough. I’m ready.

Pre conditioning

Posted on by

I get a lot of e-mail spam, and I work in the firearms accessory business, so when I saw a message from a car dealer I read it as “Full Auto Inventory Clearence”.

“Hmm. Someone must have a lot of machineguns…”

Actually it read; “Fall Auto Inventory Clearence” but my pre conditioning made me read it wrong.

That’s just a tiny example of pre conditioning determining someone’s perception. It happens all the time to most of us, in some way or another.

We played a trick on my brother years ago. We wired up a whistling sky rocket firework and clamped it under his work bench. When he came in, we told him we suspected something was wrong with his bench lamp. When he turned on his bench power and all hell broke lose, he was scrambling in a panic, amongst the fire, the smoke and noise, to turn off his bench lamp. We had pre conditioned him to respond in a completely useless (and funny – to us) manner.

Yeah, funny funny hah hah, but this sort of thing is done to us in politics and social engineering, and we do it to ourselves.

Quote of the day—Luke Chitwood

Posted on by

Whether or not Barack Obama actually has plans to personally invade the homes of America’s 100 million gun owners and forcibly remove their firearms is irrelevant. The NRA has achieved great success in making this event seem possible to the Americans who fear it the most. The NRA has perfected the use of slippery-slope arguments and doomsday predictions to activate a passionate, idealistic, and focused base.

Luke Chitwood
October 8, 2013
Here’s How the NRA is So Freakishly Effective in the Gun Control Debate
[Chitwood has a problem with the truth. This is just one of many examples in the article. Obama would never personally do this and the NRA would never suggest he might. And as usual, if someone starts out with false data and assumptions whatever follows is almost certain to be in error.

What Chitwood apparently doesn’t understand is that NRA members drive the NRA rather than the NRA driving it’s members. People join the NRA to, among other things, encourage them to protect gun owner rights. I know a few people that have quit or refused to join the NRA but all of them did this because the NRA compromised or were to soft of supporters of gun owner rights. Not that they were too “extreme”.

The NRA is a grassroots organization. Our opponents cannot seem to understand that. Their model appears to be that the NRA recruits members and turns them into some sort of mindless minion that does the bidding of the evil NRA overlord. As is usual, anytime an anti-gun person says something you can be fairly certain it’s crazy talk.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

Posted on by

Common sense is not an intense emotion.

Dan Gross
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
October 4, 2013
Almost a year after Newtown, does anyone care about gun control anymore?
[Gross’s problem goes much deeper than this.

Directly addressing, but still a surface issue in the big picture, is that “common sense” is frequently totally wrong. It’s just common sense that the earth is flat, mixing a cup of alcohol with a cup of water will give you two cups of the mixture, and the government fixing the rental price of apartments will result in affordable housing. Each of those are provably wrong along with the “common sense” claim that increased gun restrictions result with decreased violent crime.

The much deeper problem Gross has is that his organization has a systemic problem with lying. The most recent I have seen was just this morning. They claim they have “nearly one million members and supporters”. In 2010 they had a mailing list of about 50,000. And even those 50,000 are inflated because they include people who sent them email to tell them they have errors on their webpage. Deception is an integral part of their organization. “Common sense” is a house of cards in a windstorm when your view of common sense is nothing but deception and lies.—Joe]

I’ve been a wafer a while

Posted on by

Which is to say that I left town for a week, and at the same to say that attempts to find the original meaning of mere syllables can be utterly pointless. The lyrics to the song, Jock-a-mo being a good example. Or is it Chaque Amour? It’s bad enough if you’re sure of the language, but the many languages from several continents that were in use in the greater Mississippi delta region of the Gulf Coast, in addition to several native languages and trade language amalgams, it’s just stupid to think you can ever know.

Anyhow; the central Washington desert is a beautiful place, most notably for the vast, wide open spaces covered by sage brush, layers of ancient basalt formations, the more recent signs of the Missoula Flood, and gigantic public works projects. You can sit in one place and see millions of years of violent geologic history and our violent political future at the same time.

Quote of the day—Daniel Murphy

Posted on by

I propose the federal government put several plastic surgeons on the payroll and offer free unlimited penis enlargement in exchange for giving up these rediculous (sic) weapons.

Daniel Murphy
April 3, 2013
Comment to Debunking the Conservative Myth on “Assault Rifles”.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Phil who sent me an email with the link.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gerry Spence

Posted on by

The police, as in every police state, would simply level their charges and lead the defendant to his blind-folded stance before the firing squad. During Randy Weaver’s trial, an agony for him that he endured for nearly three months, I found the minions of the law—the special agents of the FBI—to be men who proved themselves not only fully capable, but also utterly willing to manufacture evidence, to conceal crucial evidence and even change the rules that governed life and death if, in the prosecution of the accused, it seemed expedient to do so.

Gerry Spence
From Freedom To Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America
First St Martin’s Griffin Edition: May 1996
[The 1990’s were exceedingly dark days for gun owners. The shooting of Randy Weaver’s son and wife by Federal agents and then the trial of Weaver and Harris could be considered the turning point. The egregious behavior and arrogance of the Feds enraged gun owners and inspired thousands, if not millions, of people who had never owned guns to purchase them. The Weaver shooting took place less than 20 miles from where I lived at the time and I was among those that became a gun owner shortly thereafter.

This blog, Boomershoot, and a great number of significant events in my life were the result of what happened at Ruby Ridge.

That was over 20 years ago and many of the freedom activists I know don’t remember the events or that it even occurred. And many that do probably don’t understand the significance of that event in today’s fight for freedom. The Federal government learned some important lessons as a result of that incident and the response of the American people. The “militia movement” was part of that response and it was a real wake up call to the Feds.

But I’m not sure it was the lesson we wanted the Feds to learn. My impression is they learned it was too risky to begin using naked force to subjugate the people. They did not reverse course.

They grudgingly accepted we have at least some narrowly defined right to keep and bear arms but attacked our economic base, our privacy, and regulate the minutia of nearly every activity. The “assault weapon” bans, TSA and Obamacare are just the most obvious infringements of our freedom.

There are probably 10s of thousands of regulations which by themselves would be laughable and easily dismissed if it weren’t for the fact they are each tiny links in huge and heavy chains that enslave us through the daily sapping of our time and money to avoid committing numerous crimes each day. Ultimately these laws can, and probably will, be used to create the police state Spence warns us of. And it will all occur with firing only the occasional, and almost entirely ignored, shots.—Joe]

I think I understand now

Posted on by

As I was unpacking at my new clock tower* Barb L. encouraged me to throw out old clothes. She told me, “A general rule is that if you haven’t worn it in over a year it’s time to let it go.”

I went to the closet and pulled out a sweatshirt. I told her, “I use a different rule than you. I bought this 40 years ago last month and I haven’t worn it in at least 20 years. I don’t plan on throwing it away.” She seemed to understand the new rule and there were no further discussions about it.

But then a while later she told me, “Okay. I’m going to take a picture of all your hats, gloves, and t-shirts. Then I’m going to post them on your blog and tell everyone to not give you any more.” “Why?”, I asked. She gave me a look that seemed like she was about to burst into some incredible snark but was exercising extraordinary restraint and said nothing. Women. You are supposed to “communicate” with them then they don’t talk even when you ask them questions. Whatever.

That was a couple days ago. Today I finished unpacking all my clothes and was thinking about what she had said. I decided I might be able to figure out what she was talking about if I spread the items out and took the picture myself. Here is a picture of some of my hats:

IMG_8731Cropped

I think I understand now. She wants to be the one to give me new hats so I can express genuine pleasure at getting a new one rather than a duplicate of existing one.

* The view from the Clock Tower at my “neighbors” over two miles away through a 6X scope looks something like this:

IMG_8733CroppedAdjusted

Quote of the day—Kathy Jackson

Posted on by

The reason so many self-defense people believe it’s okay to shoot an attacker, after you add up the cold equations and come to the inevitable conclusion that someone is about to die, isn’t because we have flexible moral compasses. Nor do we study criminal violence because we secretly feel fascinated by evil. Not at all! The reason we accept using deadly force to defend the innocent is because we believe it’s actively good to save innocent lives, including your own. The reason we study past criminal events and try to understand how they happened is because we want to know how to save the lives of innocent people during future criminal events. The reason we learn the physical skills of self-defense is because we want to protect the lives of people we love. The key for each of these things is in the goal: saving innocent life.

…

Making the decision to save an innocent life is not a sin. It’s not a crime. It’s not an evil. It’s an active bit of good you can do in the world, saving an innocent life. And if the job of saving an innocent life is a good thing that may need to be done, it’s not wrong to learn how to do that. It’s not evil to prepare to save an innocent life as well and as safely as you can. It’s not bad to study how to save lives efficiently and competently. It’s not a sin to save a life whole-heartedly, with everything you’ve got. Those are actually all good things.

Kathy Jackson
October 4, 2013
It’s a Good Thing
[Thinking this through is important. The anti-gun people are either incapable or unwilling to do the intellectual effort required. That they attempt to force us to join them in their willful ignorance and/or mental incapacity should be, and is, a crime.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Conor Higgins

Posted on by

The only way to go is complete, national disarmament. That way there is no chance that criminals could raid government storehouses, or that military weapons could make it to the hands of violent gangs. There would be no chance of corrupt government officials selling firearms to cartels or other organized crime groups. If we do not push complete disarmament by removing guns entirely from the situation and not just from the hands of civilians, then we are simply promoting the disarmament of the American people who would be left without means to defend themselves, while doing nothing about the very people that the 2nd Amendment afford them the right from which to protect themselves.

The only way to ensure that no guns fall into the hands of criminals, and to ensure the safety of Americas civilians, is to make sure that all guns are removed from the equation.

Because if disarmament does not take place on a national, state, and civilian level, and no one has guns, it is not “gun-control” it is “civilian control.” 

Conor Higgins
October 3, 2013
A modest proposal: On gun control
[I read the entire article thinking there was a good chance this guy was serious. Only the last sentence gave me hope he was sane.

In this article he advocates complete disarmament. This includes the police and the military with naïve, half-baked, plans to collect all the guns and rationale for why neither the military nor law enforcement require firearms. I actually had to go looking for other stuff he has written to convince myself this was satire.

There are people out there that naïve and half-baked but Higgins isn’t one of them.—Joe]

Gun Song – Cleaning This Gun by Rodney Atkins

Posted on by

Classic sort of Country Western style. Classic sort of story. Sort of funny.

Rodney Atkins was born in 1969, but didn’t really get into music professionally until 1997. He has a few albums and hits.

Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

Posted on by

The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.

Daniel Greenfield
September 22, 2013
The Central Planning Solution to Evil
[H/T to Caleb.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matthew May

Posted on by

I will not submit to a cabal who read George Orwell’s 1984 not as a terrifying warning, but as an instruction manual. Nor will I submit to the dictates of those who attempt to trample the right of free speech of others in the halls of government who are warning us about the looming tyranny. I refer to those sons of liberty who, as Camus wrote, “are not all legitimate or to be admired. Those who applaud it only when it justifies their privileges and shout nothing but censorship when it threatens them are not on our side.”

Matthew May
September 30, 2013
I Will Not Comply
[H/T Tyler Durden.

With the NSA listening to and recording every phone conversation, reading and storing every email message, the post office taking pictures of every envelope, and the government mandating the details of relationships (with insurance companies), police officers told to not wear their uniform and gun onto school campuses (H/T Ry), and people seriously advocating absolutely crazy stuff, how can we not think we are in a Orwellian dystopian universe? The Jews in 1939 Germany couldn’t really believe it was happening. It was crazy to believe people would do the things they were doing. It just couldn’t be real. But it was real. And it’s real now. Believe it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—U.S. Representative Major Owens

Posted on by

My bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind. It sets a penalty of $5,000 or 5 years in prison for people who violate it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the Brady bill at this point. I understand this has to be a very carefully crafted rule in order to move forward. It is important to take the first step with the Brady bill. But the American people realize this is already too little, too late. They demand more.

Mr. Speaker, there are many bills that have been introduced by my colleagues which do go further. This bill, H.R. 3232, the Public Health and Safety Act, will solve the problem in the future of the proliferation of handguns. We must go forward and stop the carnage on our streets, and the Brady bill is a very important first step.

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Democrat
November 10, 1993
Congressional Record
[This was during the debate about the Brady Bill. They regarded it as a “first step”. There were plans then, and now, to go much further than merely background checks. The background checks is nothing but a ruse. Background checks to reduce criminal access to guns is crazy talk. It’s real goal is an attempt at backdoor registration. Confiscation is the ultimate goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

Posted on by

The Times did not help matters by illustrating its article with a large photo of a grieving mother accompanied by a prominently displayed quote: “There are no accidents. There are simply irresponsible, stubborn, cowardly adults unwilling to stand up against the gun lobby and those who support it.” In my view, this woman’s pain gives her a pass to say pretty much whatever she wants. Making her anger a central message of such a sizable journalistic undertaking, though, raises questions about whether gun-control backers are just as prone to invective and conspiracy talk as their least responsible foes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better.

Paul Barrett
September 30, 2013
Guns, Children and Accidents: Four Blunt Points
[Yes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better. But that would have near zero chance of resulting in more gun control. And the people at the New York Times almost certainly realize this. Therefore, it’s not going to happen anytime soon. They are so committed to more gun control it is an extremely difficult psychological burden to reverse course. They would rather tens of thousands would die and the rights of millions of people be infringed than risk having to admit they were wrong.

Draw your own conclusions about their moral character and capability for rational thought.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Centofanti

Posted on by

My opinion on #GunControl.. Nothing says you’ve got a little ding-a-ling quite like needing to shoot a big gun and getting pleasure from it.

Dan Centofanti
Tweeted on January 7, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Silber

Posted on by

I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness… The Constitution doesn’t count!

John Silber
August 16, 1990
Former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts.
Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA.
[This was in the dark days of the 1990’s. Back then a lot of people believed that in 20 years anonymous private gun ownership would be illegal. And private gun ownership would be extinguished in another 20.

It didn’t turn out that way but it’s good to know what rules the enemy is playing by so we can all use the same rule book.

The Constitution doesn’t count? It would appear the 13th Amendment is off the table when dealing his type then.—Joe]

Art, or not

Posted on by

Hmmm… Another swing and a miss in the art department. I’m trying to find an artist / illustrator willing to get paid to do cover art, to create a picture that looks more or less the way I want it, rather than the way they like drawing spaceships. I’m looking to commission a piece because none of the “stock art” I’ve looked though looks like what I want, or even close enough to say “good enough” if you squint just right in poor lighting.

I can’t pay a lot, but I can pay. So, anyone out there know any friends, nephews, nieces, cousins, coworkers, or something that has some bit of talent and wants to draw some spaceships colliding in space, at least one of which looks like the ones in the book (not just any old random spaceship)?

Thanks to Paul, I’ve even got some images of Taj, so I don’t just have to explain what she looks like, but can show the artist.It should be, or at least CAN be, a pretty simple, clean image. No people. Smaller spaceships colliding with and splattering on Tajemnica, another of the smaller ships being “grabbed” by the glowing drive field. Background planetary and moon stuff optional. Comments here or over in www.thestarscameback.com, where I also have some graphics posted now.