Over the last few months on my twice monthly visits to Idaho there has been a bunch of wind turbines being erected near the Rye Grass rest area on I-90. When Barb came west on Tuesday of this week to visit me in my bunker she told me she stopped and took pictures of the turbines. “They look like something out of a science fiction movie”, she said.
Wow! It just so happens that on my return trip last Sunday I also took some pictures:
Of course all this reminded me of something else:
In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus reviews wide-ranging evidence including an analysis of Madison’s original language and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England’s Declaration of Rights. Madison’s concern, Professor Bogus concludes, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny but slave control.
…
During the panel discussion, all three experts said that “The Hidden History” has dramatic implications for the contemporary debate over gun control. Rather than applying to individual gun ownership, the three agreed, the Second Amendment is rooted in the political battle over control of militia forces and ratification of the Constitution. This history, which has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is often ignored by modern day pro-gun lobbyists.
Violence Policy Center
Second Amendment Rooted in Southern States’ Control of Slavery, Academic Experts Say
May 15, 1998
[Odd isn’t it? This “hidden history” didn’t get any traction 10 years later when all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed the Second Amendment protected an individual right. Perhaps the evidence Professor Bogus presented was, well, bogus.—Joe]
Recently I have been seeing the anti-gun people almost begging for mercy and asking for “common ground” (see also Paul Helmke):
I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things?
…
Can we get together and do what’s right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won’t affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don’t actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?
What they do not seem to understand (or just a likely do not want to admit) is that any of the laws they advocate which would “prevent gun violence” are prior restraint on a specific enumerated right and have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. We can no more find common ground on this topic than we can find common ground with someone who would demand we get government approval before buying a book, dating someone of the same sex, or marrying someone of a different race. And in fact a better legal case could be made for the last two examples because they are not specifically enumerated rights.
These people are weasels that have no interest in finding common ground, playing fair or even pretending their laws “won’t affect those who are law abiding” and only affect criminal when they are in the drivers seat. They need to be, and deserve to be, politically exterminated and their leaders sent to prison.
The guy yesterday that held people hostage at Discovery Channel making demands that they “save the planet” by having a programing agenda that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humans (thanks to Ry for sending me the link to his webpage) will be dismissed as a nut case. This is probably valid but perhaps further consideration should be given to the topic. Don’t forget that not only did this nut case base his philosophy on the work of Al Gore but so did Ted Kaczynski.
We have known for a long time that anti-gun activists have strong violence tendencies. And such things as John Cusack’s “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES [OF DICK] ARMEY AND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” is not all that uncommon.
And of course all the great genocides of the last century were under leftist regimes.
The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.
Why are liberals so violent?
My hypothesis is that at some level they know that is the only method by which they can achieve their goals. They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into. They believe in central planning and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But as George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government is force. It is violence. Every dictate of the government is backed up with people with guns who job it is to force compliance.
Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals. It should therefore come as no surprise that liberal individuals and groups are inclined to use violence to further their goals even outside the domain of government.
This also might explain why most liberals are opposed to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It explains why they keep insisting, long after the courts have ruled otherwise, that the Second Amendment only protects the power of a state to arm itself independent of the Federal government. The explanation is that they see the willingness inside themselves and those they associate with to use violence and they fear it. They believe they, and everyone else, might use violence in an unethical manner if allowed the tools and the opportunity. They believe in the wisdom of “the central committee” to temper the violent impulses they believe the individuals to have.
This might also explain why liberals accuse the others of violence tendencies. They are projecting the worst fears about themselves onto their opponents.
These violent tendencies can be dealt with at the individual and small group level via the police and the legal system and amount to noise in the big picture of things. It’s at the governmental level that we have genocides with millions dead in the span of a few years. It is at the government level that we must enforce strong restrictions on their power to deliver violence against individuals. This is why we have a constitution that (by design, not in practice) limits governments to a small set of enumerated powers and the Second Amendment to stop a runaway government from becoming tyrannical. One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
Update (6/16/2016): The Orlando Florida gay nightclub shooter was a registered Democrat.
More examples from here:
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln.. President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 Jame Pough a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office….
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza..shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown CT.
Sept 2013.. an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship
1968 James Earl Ray… worker in George Wallace’s presidential campaign(Democrat), shot and killed Martin Luther King…..`
June 2016 Registered Democrat, Omar Mateen, murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at the Orlando nightclub Pulse.
Update 1/7/2017:
One scientist confirms the claim that leftist are violent and has a different hypothesis as to why:
Update June 19, 2017: Surveys show that criminal prisoners who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of more than two to one.
Update February 27, 2018: See also Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal.
Today is the day that the Windows Phone team has been driving towards, and we’re very excited to say that we’ve reached the biggest milestone for our internal team – the release to manufacturing (RTM) of Windows Phone 7! While the final integration of Windows Phone 7 with our partners’ hardware, software, and networks is underway, the work of our internal engineering team is largely complete.
Windows Phone 7 is the most thoroughly tested mobile platform Microsoft has ever released. We had nearly ten thousand devices running automated tests daily, over a half million hours of active self-hosting use, over three and a half million hours of stress test passes, and eight and a half million hours of fully automated test passes. We’ve had thousands of independent software vendors and early adopters testing our software and giving us great feedback. We are ready.
Terry Myerson
September 1, 2010
Windows Phone 7 – Released To Manufacturing
[If you climb high enough on my work food chain you will find Myerson.
I can’t vouch for the exact numbers but they sound about right. We have some amazing automation. And if you think the half-million hours of active self-hosting is implausible think again. I first used a Windows Phone 7 about a year ago and started carrying one as my primary phone early this year. When I went on vacation to Missouri last May I took three (the rest were loaned out to co-workers for testing) of them with me and used them for navigation (I’m on the “Location Team”), traffic, lots of email, web browsing, pictures, video, and of course phone calls. Everyone I know on the team has a minimum of two phones and some have five. That adds up to a lot of hours. I actually suspect the half million hours is an understatement.
I am more proud of this product than anything I have worked on since Direct X 1.0. In terms of my primary reason for wanting to work for Microsoft (to change the world) this is, by far, my largest contribution.
Technically it is great. It’s not perfect but it is much more than “good enough” to compete. Market acceptance is a question in our minds though.
Most of the people I associate with are engineers. We understand the technology but not people who are different from us. Will this phone be compelling for non-engineers? I’m sure I can configure one such that my wife (who always insists she just wants “a simple phone, nothing more”) can and would use it as a phone, camera, and for occasional navigation but I’m not so sure she would be interested in spending the money on one if I didn’t “twist her arm”. In many ways it is simpler to use than her current phone. Son James (also a software developer working at Microsoft) will get one. I’m not so sure about his girlfriend. I think my daughters and their spouses will give very serious consideration to one. But how does this translate into the market at large? I think it will be at least “good”. With a little bit of luck and a lot of awesome Microsoft marketing (I’ve seen some “concept ads” that look really good) it will do great.
We have some “ship parties” (not really my thing but it is nice to see others have a good time) in the next few days then we have to deliver on the next version. Yesterday I took care of four bugs on our next deliverable so don’t think we are sitting around to see how well this version does before deciding what to do next.—Joe]
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Ben Franklin
Also attributed to a motto found among Thomas Jefferson’s papers.
[You would think that with all the data supporting the concept of the right to keep and bear arms as a legitimate method of last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government the anti-gun people would give up trying to scare people into giving up that specific enumerated right. It didn’t work when the Democrats in the deep south tried to “scare the white folks” about all the terrible things that would happen if people with dark colored skin weren’t closely controlled after the civil war. So why would they think it would work when Democrats from the west coast and the Northeast try to scare people about the exercise of rights that have existed since before this country was created? —Joe]
The Brady Campaign is proudly touting an interview they did with United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:
Duncan is from Chicago, the nearly gun law utopia of the Brady Campaign. While he praises the Brady Campaign for “all their hard work” he avoids any indication that he is aligning himself or the administration with their agenda.
If you attend the Gun Rights Policy Conference and listen to the politicians there they will be very direct in their support of the right to keep and bear arms. That an administration official who came from Chicago is avoiding support of the Brady Campaign agenda is exceedingly noteworthy.
It’s also noteworthy that the Brady campaign has disabled comments for their video. Reasoned Discourse is a requirement for their agenda.
Glenn Beck announced a new news site on his website last night and on his show this morning: TheBlaze.com.
It looks interesting.
Just scanning a few stories I particularly liked the stores about the Education Secretary urged government works to attend the rally led by Rev. Al Sharpton on August 28th and the one about Human Service Secretary says the Whitehouse will use reeducation to convince voters the health care bill was a good thing.
In addition to doing their own research and reporting they also have AP stories such as EPA Now Denies Plans to Ban Lead Ammunition.
I haven’t looked around for the evidence yet but I expect we will see signs of incipient aneurisms in the political left over this.
Via John Richardson I added more websites to my blacklist of places bloggers should not link to.
…the California Justice Department’s Criminalists Institute conducted a survey of all the crime labs in the state, trying to determine how many so-called “assault weapons” were seized, and how many were used in violent crimes, during 1990. Those forensic labs, which included 22 state-run units, have all the data concerning the guns used in crimes in the state.
According to the 1991 Helsley internal memo, those involved in pushing the “Roberti-Roos’ bill—including some of the state’s highest-ranking police administrators, the Senate President, one of the most-powerful members of the assembly, and the Attorney General, himself—had made the deliberate decision not to seek information from the crime labs.
Helsley wrote: “Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the legislation would be based.”
The current Justice Department apparently wishes it hadn’t asked the laboratories for hard information either, for the data—with responses from the labs covering two-thirds of the state’s population—shows there is no significant problem. The DOJ has refused to provide their draft summary of the results, but has released the raw data, in compliance with the state’s freedom of information law.
According to reliable sources the survey showed that of all firearms confiscated, less than 5 percent were guns in the Roberti-Roos list. And of guns involved in violent crimes, only six-tenths of one percent were “assault weapons.”
Neal Knox
January 31, 1992
The “Assault Weapon” Hysteria
From The Gun Rights War, page 273.
[f they knew an assault weapon ban would not, could not possibly, reduce crime the what was the real reason for wanting an “assault weapon” ban?
That was over 18 years ago. Why do organizations like the Brady Campaign still advocate for such a ban? Just what could possibly be the real reason?
This book is a wealth of information for gun rights activists. But I have a love/hate relationship with it. The articles go back 40 years. 40 years of fighting against this kind of stuff! The deliberate deceptions and misrepresentations of the anti-gun people has been constant. I love to see the history but I hate it that we still are fighting the same battles against, apparently evil, and obviously lying, people. We currently have them on the run in the courts. We need to drive a stake in the heart of this beast this time. We need to do that both legally and culturally. Make them the 21st century cultural equivalent of the KKK. Because that is what they are.—Joe]
Last week Kevin posted My New Favorite Flag. I went over to have dinner and watch a DVD with son James recently. The Gadsden Flag on his living room wall reminded me of Kevin’s post so I told him, “There is a variation of that flag now. I saw it on a blog yesterday.”
“Oh?”, James said. James has a strong tendency toward cynicism and I could hear it in his voice this time.
I figured I would be able to put a little bit of a crack that cynical wall he puts up sometimes and so I described the flag to him, “Instead of the snake just being coiled it’s in the middle of a strike with the fangs bared. And instead of ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ it says, ‘Times Up'”. I’m sure I had a smirk on my face. That should break through I thought.
He didn’t even look at me. He just sighed and asked, “And where is there any evidence of anyone doing something about it being ‘times up’?”
“Let’s watch our show now”, I told him.
Chet came by my office today and started talking about “When we were kids.” We are about double the age of most of our co-workers and have a little more in common with each other than we do some of the other people. We both grew up on farms. He in Kansas. And, of course, me in Idaho. It gives us a perspective that “some of the younger folk” don’t really appreciate. We remember when most of the homes had outhouses instead of indoor toilets. And our parents lived through the “Great Depression”. We remember what our parents told us about what they and others had to do to make it through. I keep wondering if that will someday be referred to as “GD I” and this go around “GD II” but that is another story.
We talk about economics quite a bit. “What is it going to be like this time?”, we ask each other. Back then it was a world-wide thing too. That was what enabled Hitler to gain power.
This time it wasn’t economics that Chet wanted to talk about.
“Remember those old movies about WW II when the Germans would stop someone on the train and demand their papers?”, he asked.
My officemate had stepped out for bit and I knew we were going to have “a session”. I leaned my chair back and put my feet up on my desk and said, “Yeah. I remember.”
He continued, “We used to think how scary that was. How terrible it was they would do something like that. Right?”
“Absolutely!”, I agreed.
“There is an article in the New York Times today about how our government is doing that today on trains that run between New York City and Detroit”, he said.
I told him I had just read a blog post about that same sort of thing this morning. We chatted a while about it. Neither of us knowing what we could really do about it. “But it sure ain’t right.” we agreed. We always used to believe it couldn’t happen here. We were “special”. We were a free country and that sort of thing just didn’t happen here. It couldn’t happen here.
But it is. It is happening here, right now. And as Roberta X said this morning, Getting Used To It Doesn’t Make It Right.
My officemate returned and Chet left with us both shaking our heads in sadness.
I found the New York Times article and after I read it I went over the Chet’s office. “The government is claiming that if they are within 100 miles of an international border or the three mile limit off the coast they don’t need warrant or anything. They can just grab people they think are ‘of interest’ and demand they prove they are citizens”, I told him. “Right here in this office we are within 100 miles of the Canadian border.” I let it sink in for a couple seconds then continued, “Think of what 100 miles inland from both coasts, the Gulf, and both the north and south borders cover. I’ll bet 50% of the U.S. population is covered by that.”
Chet and I didn’t have much to say after that you wouldn’t have already concluded. We could be headed for some scary times. We talked about it for a couple minutes and went back to work. I think we just got used to it.
If it makes you feel any better about the whole thing–the agent in charge of the Rochester station told the New York Times, “Our mission is to defend the homeland.”
Yeah, I’m sure it is. I think I heard that line in a movie when I was a kid.
Bigotry is terrible no matter where or when it happens. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when it happens in a place like San Fransisco. At least no one has been bashed in this latest incident.
As much as I would like to confront them I’m pretty sure Ry has the right idea.
I received an email today from Bulk Ammo:
Hi Joe!
I read your blog- The View From North Central Idaho from time to time and thought you might want to know that we just launched a new online ammo retailer that specializes in bulk ammunition for serious shooters.
If you are interested, we would sure appreciate a short post to your readership (and a link to http://www.bulkammo.com/ with the anchor text “Bulk Ammo” – or feel free to link to your favorite category page!) about our grand opening!
Feel free to pass along the following coupon code for $25 off their first order over $200: GrandOpening
We have a lot of inventory available and its all ready to ship, so enjoy!
Keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Steven
BulkAmmo.com
I haven’t bought much ammo recently. Mostly I have been reloading from supplies I purchased two or three years ago so I’m not really the best person to judge whether the prices are good. Check it out for yourself.
Via David I found there is a blog with nothing but videos of explosions.
I go out to the Boomershoot site every few weeks and have the opportunity to do something with some explosives. I rarely do. Mostly it is maintenance and improving the infrastructure. But if I spent 30 minutes or so setting off some explosives doing some sort of experiment (I’ve always wanted to know what two pounds of Boomerite does to a small body of water) and videoing it for posting on this blog it probably would be worthwhile.
I was on site Saturday but just did clean up and inventory. I took my rifle and planned to do some explosives testing but I didn’t have time for it. I didn’t even get all the clean up done.
We must throw the infantile model of “the people are under the cops as a
baby is under his or her parents” in the dustbin and instead transition to
a model of “you’re adults, you’re free to act as adults, and we both trust
you to be adults and assist us in our job of identifying crooks when necessary.
We also both believe in and support your right to stop the
thugs on your own in lawful self-defense should it become necessary, God forbid,
and we will not only cease and desist from interfering with that right we will
start encouraging you to exercise it.“
While there are few if any places in the United States where the victimless
crime view has been adopted, there are plenty where law enforcement both
respects the right of the people to self-defense and recognizes that
they need the common citizens more than the citizens need them,
especially if and when the government teat of “everyone can suckle all they
want” disappears.
Where I live is one such area in this country – if things get “really bad”
around here I’m quite certain the common man will be standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with local law enforcement agencies toward the same aligned
goal – stopping the Zombies from eating the citizens.
For Chicago to achieve that it’s law enforcement community is going to have
to quit treating the citizens like infants whom it can rob candy from any time
it feels like it.
Genesis
August 26, 2010
Janet’s Heart Is In The Right Place
[Via email from Chet.
There is a lot more of interest in the post. He explains why the cops are so hated in some areas of the country, why this is a bad thing, and how to fix it.–Joe]
I sometimes wonder it it wouldn’t be better if the victims of a crime were to deliver the punishment. Or in the case of the victim being dead or otherwise physically unable to carry out the punishment their nearest living relatives or friends could be assigned the task.
The convicted criminal would be sole property of the victim for three days and would be presented to the victim in stocks with a wide variety of tools available for inflicting punishment or the victim could bring their own. The victim do anything from set them free, to sell off their organs, and torture and/or kill them. It would be all be recorded and made available to the public. This would put some social pressure on the victim to deliver a just punishment.
Of course this would totally violate the Eight Amendment so suspend that objection for now and consider this just some random thought. As the anti-gun people do, only consider the plausible benefits and not the adverse consequences.
The thing that brought this to the forefront of my consciousness today was this story. What sort of punishment is this guy going to get from ejaculating into his co-workers water bottle? A fine? Somehow that just doesn’t seem right.
If his victim were to decide the punishment I would expect him to be stripped naked in the hot sun for three days with one hand free to drink from the water bottles within his grasp. When he finished drinking all the bottle contents he could go free. I’m sure the male friends of the victim would be glad to provide the bottle contents. He could drink or die from dehydration. His choice.
If government is the source of rights, then the government can take those “rights” away. Don’t believe me? Reference; China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, USSR, and Burma.
Government can and will take your life. Where the hell are your “rights” then?
Here is a base truth; Government does not create, government meddles in the form of regulation and redistribution of human activity.
American Mercenary
August 28, 2010
ubu52
[As I have said before, governments cannot grant or create rights. They can only protect them or infringe them.–Joe]
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison
[But if there were no government who would give us our free medical care, free food, and subsidize our housing? I don’t think this Madison guy knows anything at all about the true business of government.–Joe]
The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous
year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the
Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that
it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in
the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.