Quote of the day—Carrie Severino

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]

Quote of the day—4moreDubya

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]

Fundamentally Transform This

Our second amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental human right to self determination and self defense, including defense of one’s community and of liberty in general.  The American Founders understood all of this very well, and specifically added that, practically speaking it would deter (“hold in awe” I believe were the exact words) any army that our government could muster for the purpose of tyranny against the general population.

The phrase “…a rifleman behind every blade of grass” is often attributed to Imperial Japanese warning their own against an open attack upon the American mainland.  The story of Sergeant York was widely known at that time too.  Whether it was actually said, the reality was there and no doubt it was, and is, a deterrent.

In my neck of the woods, there may not be one rifleman for every single blade of grass, but school teachers, housewives and mothers, grandmothers, farmers, business owners and professionals in large numbers tend to own and regularly use firearms.  As for the socialists, general leftists and other nitpicking, envious busy-bodies who are incapable of minding their own business, who strive to use the power of government to beat back the American Principles of Liberty and self reliance – Here’s Lookin’ at You, Kids;

Photo by Oleg Volk.  I generally don’t believe that saber rattling is good politics, but then I didn’t start it either.  Too many people have fallen for the deep lies that form the rationalizations for Central Planning, and make no mistake about it – Central Planning (or Redistributive Change, or whatever the hell it’s called this week) by government relies purely on threats against peaceable citizens.  This has gone on far too long.

All I want to do is mind my business.  I avoid getting into other people’s faces as long as they stay out of mine.  I’m ready and willing to help out when need arises, and I understand that my own success, such as it is, in addition to setting a good example, increases my ability to help those in need.  But that is my prerogative and mine alone.  That goes for me and several million of my closest friends who favor liberty over tyranny.  So go ahead and march for “One Big Global Union”, screaming for revolution, carrying your picket signs attached to baseball bats.  Go ahead and plan ’till you’re blue in the face, and plan to carry out your threats.  I’ll be sitting here quietly minding my own business and respecting other’s right to do the same, until it comes time to act.  I hope you’re not that stupid, but I know from experience that I can’t count on socialists having a lick of sense, even when it comes to self preservation.  They tend to get themselves in far, far too deep before they even begin to understand the implications.

I’m reminded of a saying from the movie Broken Trail – “There are things that knaw on a man worse than dyin’.”

Quote of the day—Daniel Sitarz

AGENDA 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth… Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.

Daniel Sitarz
1992
Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet
[This sounds like something out of a dystopian novel.

If they try to “reorient” me they might succeed in a manner in which they had not intended.

I wonder how many people he is willing to kill to accomplish his goals. I know how many I am willing to kill to stop them if they choose that method of “reorientation”.

As. Many. As. It. Takes.—Joe]

I second that

What he said. Referring to someone that another blogger recently described as, “Seldom wrong and never in doubt.”

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

Give money to SAF and take people to the range.

Alan Gura
September 10, 2011
Gun Blogger Rendezvous
In response to the question he posed, “What can you do to help?”
[SAF is the main funding source for the lawsuits Gura has been engaged in. Taking people to the range, particularly new shooters, decreases the odds they will vote for an anti-gun politician or donate money to anti-gun organizations. And, most importantly, it makes Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarmann, and Michael Beard cry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Verini

Let’s start with the obscenely irresponsible laws that cover gun sales in America. For instance, anyone without a criminal record can legally purchase as many rifles and other long guns as they want in the United States. You read that correctly. If you have no criminal record, you can walk into a gun dealer and buy 100 AR-15 rifles, 200 AK-47s, the store’s entire inventory of shotguns, or a .50-caliber sniper rifle that can take down a low-flying aircraft — as long as you have the cash.

James Verini
August 30, 2011
Mexican Roulette
[And anyone, regardless of their criminal record, can purchase as many copies of the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and Korans as they want in the United States. Anyone can also purchase as much gasoline, road flares, and matches as you want. Or you can purchase as many baseball bats, hammers, and knives as you want. What you can’t legally do is deliberate or carelessly harm other people.

As seen in this light that you have to pass a government mandated background check to exercise a specific enumerated right demonstrates that firearms are over regulated.

It’s time for Verini to grow up. The government is not, cannot, and should not be his mother or anyone else’s.

H/T to Col. Milquetoast for the link.—Joe]

Living With Sclerosis

In this case, the sclerosis of the USPS.  My wife thought I’d taken care of it, and I thought she’d taken care of it, so neither of us took care of it and our P.O. box rental lapsed.  “No problem” says the postmaster to my son on Friday, “you can still renew it on-line by the end of day Saturday.”

After much searching I find the PO boxes link in that grey fine print at the bottom of the page.  Then I have to create an account.  Funny – I’ve never run into this hurdle before, “profanity in the password. please choose another password”.  I always figured no one would ever see your password, so why the hissy fit?

After much fussing around, I finally get to enter my particulars.  “Street Address”  That’s an easy one.  It’s been the same for decades.  As far as I know it’s been the same since the house was built, more than 100 years ago.  “Invalid Address.  Please select from the the alternatives below.”  There were none, so I click through and this time it accepts it.  Next is “Post Office Box Number”.  So I enter that along with my zop code.  That box number with that zip code has only existed since that post office was built, sometime in the mid 20th century, so I can understand how they might not have gotten it entered into their database yet.  So it comes up “invalid Post office box”.  I quit.  I did get a nice e-mail notice this morning though, thanking me for setting up an account.  It listed four or five things that were really super great about having an account with them, one of which was “manage or renew a post office box”.  Super.

So I went in to the post office this morning, saying I’d tried the on-line thing and failed, explaining in detail.  “Oh, No!” the flabby man behind the counter says, “you should have entered your PO box number, not your street address…”
“It asked for the street” and I spell it out for him “Ess Tee Awr Eee Eee Tee, Street Address.” He ignores that. “So what can I do”  Now this is the Monday after the Saturday that was our last day to renew.
“I have to change the lock, and you’ll have to pay the fee. How many of the new keys do you want?”
“I’d rather keep the same keys if it’s all the same to you. Charge me the fee and you can avoid the absurdity of changing the lock” Well that put him all in a pother.
“I’ll have to fool the computer….” and he pittered and pattered around the office for a bit, printed something off, cussed, threw it away, printed something off again, I wrote the check, thanked him, and was on my way.

All I could think of after that ordeal was the old saying among business owners everywhere; “If they ran a business like that, they’d be bankrupt.”  Oh wait.

It also reminds me of Douglas Adams’ Vogons, or of Ayn Rand’s description of the Soviet Union as a “morbid absurdity”.

If it were teenage drinking instead of guns

Ry and I were talking about operation “Fast and Furious” on the drive back from the range yesterday. The synopsis is, suppose operation “Fast and Furious” were about teenage drinking instead of guns. Law enforcement would have given $70,000 to several underage people and told them to go buy alcohol at particular stores where law enforcement would tell the stores to not check the IDs of the people they gave the money too.

Law enforcement would then find receipts from those purchases at drunk driving accidents. The executive branch would then claim more laws are required to register people who want to buy more than one six pack of beer or one bottle of hard liquor at a time. The news media would enthusiastically support this proposal until it was discovered that a law enforcement officer was killed by one of the drunk teenagers. Then both the news media and the government officials would say they aren’t going to admit any wrong doing and the proposed laws are a good idea even if enforcement of the existing laws would have prevented the problems they used as justification for the new laws.

As Kevin and I discussed last night the entire scandal was only exposed when people who stomp kittens to death as part of their regular job found it too immoral to continue with the operation.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Yeah…. And I want to f*** supermodels tomorrow. Both have about an equal chance of success.

Ry Jones
September 10, 2011
This was in response to the Brady Campaign’s search for a new president who will be given the “Programmatic Objective” of “Build the movement to insure that all guns in our nation are childproofed by 2015.”
[Sebastian and Kaveman have more comments.

I also laughed at this one:

Develop strategies to determine and promote evidence-based arguments for public policies, which are grounded in research and support common sense efforts at reducing gun violence.

As a scientist I would be persona non-gratia in most scientific circles if I advocated for something like that. You don’t look for evidence to support your preconceived notions. Furthermore an abundance of evidence exists which supports the conclusion that the Brady Campaign is on the wrong side of the data.

And finally since they are looking for justification to infringe upon a specific enumerated right this goal is like the KKK looking for evidence to justify racial segregation and discrimination. Even if it exists they have no business attempting to use the force of government to achieve their objectives.—Joe]

Author of “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun”

Paul M. Barrett, the author of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun, showed up at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. We have been pushing him a little bit for some of the things he has written in the past. While he is someone I would characterize as mildly anti-gun* I don’t think I need to put on my tin-foil hat. With the limited information DirtCrashr had his suspicion was reasonable. But I’ve spent many hours with him now and I think he is probably being straight with us when he says he thinks we will like his book. I have agreed to read it and write a review of it. I expect I will get a preliminary version in a few days. My expectation is that I will find it an interesting read and will suggest it to others.

He went shooting with us yesterday and he shot a variety of guns and said he had a great time. He also said he tried to buy a handgun but going through the paperwork required by New York City had a rather chilling effect, “The police have no business knowing all the information they requested.” That was a very good sign to me.

In case you are wondering; after I showed him the video I made he showed me the video he made. We had a nice discussion afterward and (I believe this is correct) his position is that there might be some instances where the banning of possession of magazines greater than eight or ten rounds would save a few lives. He concedes there might be cases where such a ban would cost a few lives. In any case that’s not something worth investing political capital in. He put that in there mostly to point out that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban was totally worthless. The only thing that would have a chance of making people safer is a ban that would prohibit possession as well as manufacture and sale. But again the political difficulty of passing such legislation is not worth the effort.

The bigger story, again paraphrasing my discussions with Barrett, is that the anti-gun people biggest successes were the seeds of their failure. The Glock supposedly being “invisible to X-rays” got it unwanted attention by the Federal Legislature. But this increased its public profile and sales. The same with the 1994 ban on magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. The irony is fascinating to him and he explores this in his book. This is part of what makes the book a very good read.

I’ll let you know after I read it but for now he has me about 90% sold when he says it is a good book that gun owners will enjoy.

*Update: After reading his comment I think that instead of “mildly anti-gun” it would be more accurate to say he is accepting of more gun regulation than I am comfortable with to call him pro-gun. And in any case as I have said before finding something to disagree with him on, which I could find many, is not the way you recruit people to your cause. Find the things that you agree on and work together on those issues. If necessary the points of disagreement can be revisited when you have accomplished everything you can as a team.

Quote of the day—Jennifer

There is only ONE purpose for a gun and that is to kill. Knives have other purposes but the only thing a gun is good for is killing.

Jennifer
September 7, 2011
GOP’s gun raffle in gabrielle giffords county
[With about 10 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the U.S. each year one has to wonder where all the bodies are being piled. And I find it odd that I went through about 200 rounds yesterday and I don’t recall killing anybody or anything.

I have to conclude that either my gun or Jennifer’s brain malfunctioned. I’m going to gather some more data today but for now I’m going with Jennifer has crap for brains.—Joe]

Seldom Do I LOL…

…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.

An opportunity

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….

Quote of the day—Barron Barnett

These piss swilling cheeba monkeys are TSA agents because of one of the following three conditions:

  1. They are too stupid to get a job any place else, including McDonald’s.
  2. They get off on physically molesting people .
  3. They are wanting crimes of opportunity for theft .

There are no other options.  While one would say maybe they just need a job, the bottom line is they sold their morals down the river and now are molesting people.  They are molesting people cause obviously they’re too stupid to get a job any place else.

Barron Barnett
September 8, 2011
A Security Theater and Illegal Aliens
[I think there is the possibility of some other reasons.

  • They could be of the opinion that it is the job of government to do these sort of things. The reasoning could be something like, “Government is for the good of the people. If the government does this then it must be good.”
  • They simplistically believe that laws against “molesting people” do not apply if they are wearing the proper badge (see examples where people have explicated claimed that possession of a badge means “the law doesn’t apply to us” here).

Still, Barron gets it almost completely right in the rest of his post which I categorize as “a nice rant”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Barbara Scott

WP_000213

What the hell?

What are these people thinking?

Barbara Scott
September 8, 2011
Via text message after I sent her the picture above of, top left to right, Mr. Completely, David, and in front Kevin.
”Face colander” provided by David specifically for Kevin.
[Gun bloggers sometimes mock the stereotypes assigned to them.—Joe]

Gunwalker Guns Not ‘Allowed’

If you believe the BATFE merely “allowed” criminals to buy the guns,  you have to believe that there were regular, on-going attempts, by Mexican gangsters, to make huge purchases at U.S. gun stores, that these huge purchases were being regularly denied, and that the Mexican gangsters simply kept trying, failing, trying, failing, and then one day, all of a sudden, the gigantic sales start being approved, one and another and another, simply because our local dufi started pushing the green button instead of the red button.  And nothing else.

Sorry; I can’t believe it.  I say those purchases were engineered.  Someone had to be in contact with known criminals, asking them, or ordering them, to come here and make those purchases and take delivery down south.  Can we please stop using “allowed” or “let” when talking about this?  It defies logic.

Let’s also be very careful about getting indignant, saying in essence, “Allowing guns to be sold in the U.S. resulted in crime.”  No, Little Grasshopper.  Criminals result in crime (and the sons of bitches who work with them at our expense).  I cannot be convinced, in any case, that said criminals couldn’t have gotten, wouldn’t rather have gotten, their guns from any of multiple sources in their own country including U.S. government arms supplied ostensibly as aid, from other Central and South American countries, and from the black market.

Criminals and tyrants will always be armed.  The only question is whether the good guys will also be armed, and Gunwalker was an attempt to engineer a crisis so as to help answer this question in the negative.

Quote of the day—The Vancouver Action Plan

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]

Agreement with Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything

Barb received an email the other day from our friend Michelle. She has started a blog, Sex, Lies, and Sensibility. Her first post essentially says, “Dr. Joe is correct.”

Gun Blogger Rendezvous

Ry and I will be taking off for Reno from Seattle tomorrow afternoon. We expect to attend breakfast on Thursday.

I still have some prep to complete and I realized I left my daypack in Idaho yesterday with one of my guns I planned to take. Rats! I still will have three long guns, one pistol, and thousands of rounds of ammo to play with.

Kevin is already on his way.