We’re told there’s no legitimate use for an “assault rife” – that is, a rifle that looks menacing because it has a military-style stock or flash suppressor. Even though it functions exactly like a regular hunting rife: One pull of the trigger, one bullet is fired. Maybe it has a higher capacity magazine (more bullets to fire without reloading) than a regular hunting rifle. That’s the extent of the functional differences.
Ok. Let’s apply the same logic to cars.
Who really needs a car such as the 2012 Jaguar XFR I’m reviewing this week? It looks very menacing – and it has a 510 hp supercharged V-8, the equivalent – if you follow the logic of the folks who don’t like “assault rifles” – of a high-capacity magazine. Arguably, it has at least four cylinders (and 300 hp) too many for any “reasonable” purpose.
All that power, all that performance capability – what legitimate use is there for it?
And yet, Jaguar – and other purveyors of high-performing cars – are not pilloried as merchants of death. You do not hear much tut-tutting talk about the machinations of the car lobby.
It’s an interesting – and revelatory – psychological disconnect. The elites – the Chuck Schumers, the BHOs, the Clintons, et al – love to talk up what they dishonestly like to call gun control (dishonestly, because they’re really talking about controlling people – and specifically, other people, not them). They’ll demand prior restraint of not just gun owners but would-be gun owners – on the theory that because some one of them might do something harmful with a gun, all of them must be restrained a priori: Restricted by law from owning or possessing a gun, not because of anything they have actually done with the gun – but because of something they might – might! – do with a gun. And not even necessarily them.
It is sufficient that anyone – not you, just anyone – might do something.
Fine. Why not apply the same reasoning to high-powered cars like the $82,000 Jag that’s sitting in my driveway right now. I could hop in and make full use of all 510 supercharged hp, running the car up to its top speed of 170-plus MPH faster than a Prius can get to 70. And even if I don’t do that, someone could do that.
Well, what about the children?
Apparently, it’s ok for them to – possibly, just maybe – get run down by the supercharged Jag as it blasts through a school zone doing four times the limit (because it can, after all). But it’s not ok for me to drive the Jag at the speed limit through the same school zone . . . with my “high-powered” gun along for the ride.
The difference? Gun-controllers tend not to own guns (much less know anything about guns) while they often do own prestigious, high-dollar cars like the Jag – and are very much preoccupied with having more in the way of power/capability than their neighbors.
Check the demographics. Your typical gun control advocate is an affluent professional type who lives in the city or the nearby suburbs. He has a college degree – often, a postgraduate degree – and thus, money. People with money like fancy cars. Superfluous cars. High-powered cars. Go check the specs of cars in the “luxury sport” category, in the $50k and up range. You won’t find one that has an engine making less than 300 hp – that isn’t capable of doing zero to 60 in about six seconds (or less) and which has a top speed capability of 130-plus (150 being typical). It is – arguably, using their argument – the vehicular equivalent of an assault rifle. More “capability” than “anyone really needs” – with no “legitimate” use.
But it’s ok – because these are things the gun controllers like – and own.They may not have an AR-15 or Glock, but bet your bippie they have – or want to have – a BMW. Or Jag. Check Takealot Specials and Woolworths Specials.
Forget about a Kia.
So, no prior restraint. No speed limiters. No tub-thumping for laws limiting engine size or power output. No bans on V-8s, or superchargers. It’s ok to have all those things – because the elites like those things. And of course, the elites – unlike us Mundanes – can be trusted with all that excessive and potentially dangerous capability.
Because they won’t misuse it.
Meanwhile, “guns kill.” There should be a ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, since no one (read: us) really needs them. Prior restraint must be exercised – against us – because us low-IQ blue collar yahoos can’t be trusted with such dangerous, excessive capability – with items whose “only purpose” is to kill.
As opposed, of course, to a car built specifically to be capable of achieving three times the maximum lawful speed limit anywhere in the United States, with three times (or more) the power that “anyone really needs” to get from A to B.
The elites will always have their supercharged Jags, their Daimler Maybachs – and more, besides. The key thing to understand is not that the item in question is potentially dangerous or “more than you need.” Well, I take that back. It is more than you need. According to them. That is the essential point.
Just a little foray into the psychology – and hypocrisy – of the gun control blather that’s picking up steam again.
Throw it in the Woods?
The armed forces define an assault rifle as one that has a selector that allows it to fire either semi, or full automatic. Such rifles are illegal to sell in the US. The politicians and media define an assault rifle as one that “looks like” the military one. Eric’s example makes a lot of sense. The framers of the Bill of Rights, having experienced the confiscation of citizen’s weapons by the British army, rightly gave us the right to keep and bear arms, presumably so they could not be confiscated by a future government. In 35 years of military service, I visited and experienced many instances of people oppressed by their government rendered helpless to resist because they didn’t have weapons with which to defend themselves. Today’s most clear example is he hapless Syrian people, restless for freedom, but without the means to make it happen!
The whole “why do you need” bs should be done with now. Why do I need a gun and ammo that can pierce body armor? In case I’m watching a movie and some nut comes in to shoot the place up, and is wearing body armor.
We need a new law.
Proposal of New Legislation
Our new right, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was signed into law by President Obama and was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Since the U.S. government can now compel people to exercise rights, here is another right we URGENTLY need to protect.
I hereby propose the following legislation and urge members of Congress to quickly pass it into law. Below I describe the Shooter Protection And Realistic Training Act (SPARTA), informally referred to as Guncare. The heart of this bill is an individual mandate requiring every American to purchase firearms, ammunition and training.
Free men and women are recognized by their God-given human right to protect themselves and those weaker. Unlike the right to healthcare, The “Right to Bear Arms” is a genuine God-given human right, ALREADY guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Guncare addresses the problem of inadequate access to affordable firearms, training and ammunition to support these human rights.
There are millions of Americans who don’t have access to adequate training and firearms. They count on the Police and righteous Citizens to protect them. This unfairly places the burden and costs of protecting our civilization on a tiny few. Because of this uneven distribution of responsibility, the cost of guns and ammunition is unreasonably high. If everyone is required to have a gun, ammunition, and adequate training, exercising our firearms human rights would be affordable for everyone.
There would, of course, be exemptions for Religious beliefs or financial hardship. Convicted felons, sex offenders and other liberals would be required to pay a fair tax which would be used provide free guns to the poor.
The costs in human misery of poor self-defense can no longer be condoned by society. If we can stop just one rape or child abduction with this law, it will all be worthwhile. The bill will also provide for a Federal concealed carry right for any adult without a criminal record or a mental illness.
According to Gallup polls, 47% of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993. This is a good start.
The US Census population clock estimates there are 313,810,389 people in America. By my calculations, there are about 150 million people in America who are not exercising this most fundamental human right.
Let’s protect human rights everywhere they are endangered.
It is the right thing to do.
Think of the children.
Feel free to post/repost/copy/paste/edit/whatever trips your trigger, and send it EVERYWHERE, especially your Senators and other elected officials (oaf-icals if anti 2nd Amendment). Maybe something will stick.
Makes sense to me. Lets use guns to force people to buy guns? Sort of weird when you think about it.
Last weekend’s example of idiotic “safety” regulation.
I attended the local air and water show this past Sunday, the highlight of which is an unlimited hydroplane race and Blue Angels show.
Shortly before the heats begin, “shore patrol” boats idle along the shoreline hustling people out of the swimming areas that extend thirty feet from the beach. This is, of course, “for your own safety.”
Picture if you can, beaches crowded with people watching racing boats that can hit 200 MPH. If the steering were to break on one of these suckers, it’s going to run up the beach, across the street, and into the garage on the other side. It’s not just going to stop at the shoreline and spare the folks that have been prodded out of the water “for their safety.”
And that’s before you even consider the aircraft flying with less than three feet of separation between wingtips and converging at combined speeds in excess of 1,000 MPH.
But the safety Nazis are on them too. They can no longer fly below 200 feet. That’ll stop the flaming jet fuel and airplane parts….
We live in a political society where technical ability, skill, and knowledge are considered inferior to political and social skill. Once I understood that, edicts like this make perfect sense.
They ‘feel’ right. Never mind that technically it is absolute nonsense.
Why hasn’t SWIM thrown his weapons and Claymores into the truck, driven to D.C. and fragged men like Chucky Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and women like the darling Feinstein and oh so loveable H. Clinton?? Is it SWIMS’ Christian morality that stops him even after considering many of the heroes in the Bible, including Moses, David, Paul, Samson murdered? Furthermore, it’s clearly prophesied much chaos and evil must occur and will occur before Christ returns and the Chosen should not be troubled over such.
Could it be SWIM doesn’t think he could get in and out without getting captured or killed and is not willing to sacrifice life for the greater good? Surely there are thousands of men and women capable, trained, willing and battling with the same thoughts as SWIM.
A spark and millions of acres of forest soon burn…SWIM holds his striker and flint…
Viewing parts of the Beijing Olympic ceremony showing the fertilization of the dragon and then in London, the birth of the antichrist and huge dark demon taking the souls of sick children…surrounded by pyramids with e y e s…creepy stuff.
What puzzles me deeply are the masses seemingly in a trance, oblivious to the monstrous zionist agenda playing out before them…even embracing such?? The efforts of one seeking to destroy the evil doers wouldn’t even be appreciated by these same masses, perhaps scorn and ridicule, disdain would be the reward for best of intentions.
So, if one waits till NATO troops begin the process of funneling people into camps and courts of death…it will be too late and if we
Could it be SWIM doesn’t think he could get in and out without getting captured or killed and is not willing to sacrifice life for the greater good? Surely there are thousands of men and women capable, trained, willing and battling with the same thoughts as SWIM.
Y’know, I’ve often asked members of the U.S. armed forces –you know, those people who constantly belch out the claim that they are “defending [our] freedoms”– via open letter and individually in person, the following:
Given that the oath you took on the day of your enlistment or commissioning makes it clear that your primary duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC, why haven’t you organized an armed assault on Washington, D.C.? After all, this is the source of the destruction of ALL of “our freedoms,” not countries full of lightly armed Third World tribesman halfway around the world who don’t even know that you or I exist, much less pose any threat whatsoever to our “freedoms.”
So, in light of this fact, what exactly has stopped you from doing what your oath of enlistment/commissioning prescribes as your primary duty?, Since you have violated your oath of commissioning/enlistment, not only be NOT defending the Constitution, but by violating it by participating in transparently illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional military actions, are you ready to submit yourself to arrest and/or legal action for dereliction of duty?
Needless to say, the open letters are met with silence and the in-person encounters are met with anger/belligerence and stonewalling before the individual simply runs away from the subject altogether.
When I took the oath I was a testosterone addled teenager and I had no idea what I was affirming. I suspect that very few who have served in the Armed Forces actually do. Decades came and went before I studied the Constitution with its Bill of Rights.
But what the hell. Wouldn’t it be much better to understand and defend the Principles underpinning the Unanimous Declaration?
Armed combat is the LAST option of course.
Jags or guns…?? And, people are reading this crap as though it has some genuine logic of value to our world???
It’s pretty easy to make a life nurturing argument opposing both, isn’t it? I hold to a logic that ‘always seeks to nurture life’ as a perspective to assume toward any next step I may take in my life.
Of course, a bullet never nurtured life in any way I can imagine… Well except for reducing the number of airheads that believe weapons nurture them in opposition with others pointing one at them.
That said, I can make a single exception. Bullets nurture life to the extent they reduce the world population of brutal ape behavior toward its earlier extinction among us all finally.
No land needs a species which as a signature of its evolution destroys all before it sooner or later. ‘Homo destructusall’ will never reach the sapiens tag while many of them remain at all… Will it?
History shows the true progress of ‘humanity’ as it overpopulates, desecrates festers then falls upon its less successful hoards and loots and murders and rapes and burns repeatedly across each new land again.
Inducing endless marches to nowhere, as each land in turn is desertified and returned to chaos and polluted beyond survivable potentials of all but insects and hardier weeds again.
And well, good luck to all or you who think guns and jags have relevance on sanity in that order of things. Yes, give the fools their guns. Yes, others will be hurt and removed with them too.
But, over all, most of that lead will end up in the airheads, in those perennial brute lawless bastards who choose to oppose each other with those bullets, and that HAS to be good for my world.
And, ‘good luck America’ the world needs the overt example you set for all of us. And, if you can gain a jag too that HAS to even be better for you… Doesn’t it?
Wow, a jag and gun… One step short of heaven… Yes? One quick bullet between your ears from your irreverent neighbor’s toy is all it takes to put you the rest of the way there and may you have your wish soon…
Nice article to help lift the spirit.
Dear Ron, Please start your own blog. I promise to read it for amusement.
With love, mikehell
Is this really how you see humanity–or just those other humans, the ones over there, the ones not you?
And in this rush to extinct humans, which you apparently despise..do you count yourself among their number?
For having see the apparent problem so clearly, and earlier than your ignorant cohorts, perhaps you should rush to eliminate the problem yourself; starting WITH yourself.
But these types of hate-all-humans rants by pseudo-intellectual would-be elitists never include the speaker himself.
I’m reminded of that bucktoothed misbreed professor at Stanford who wants “climate deniers” forcibly medicated and incarcerated at mental hospitals. Somehow she’s convinced herself she’s an exemplar of higher humanity!
He is clearly part of the “we” mentality that doesn’t happen to include “himself”. Typical clover.
Hunting: Nature’s Free Range Organic Food.
My guns have helped nurture my family hundreds of times and in fact help to do so on a daily basis. Not only do they help put food in their stomachs they help keep them safe at night.
Which critters do you eat?
Most folks, myself included, depend on agriculture since hunting cannot feed the 310 million naked apes now living in the U.S. I prefer consuming soybeans and aquatic life to land animals and birds anyway.
I support the right to keep and bear arms since the natural right to self and property defense are unalienable. Unalienable Rights are lawful property.
I am wrestling with this – meat eating… .
I love eating meat; but I have to admit I’m troubled by the idea of killing bashing a cow on the head myself. I doubt I could do it – and I doubt most people would continue to eat meat if they had to do the killing themselves. This suggests to me that it may not be right – our place – to do it. To kill animals/use them in this way.
I dunno… and I admit to being a hypocrite (and maybe a coward, too) because of course I still eat (and enjoy eating) a good steak, or a burger.
If I could get into living off non-meat food, I probably would do so.
Of course, I exclude crustaceans from my moral musings. If it has an exoskeleton, it’s on the menu!
As I have said before I lived a dual life as a kid. Half in the city and half in the country. I spent my summers in Michigan on a farm. I have castrated calves, taken a big set of lopping shears to their budding horns and crunched them off (blood flying everywhere). I can break a rabbits neck so quick that it never feels a thing. Just twist and pull. It actually severs the spinal column by pulling it apart.
You have chickens, right? Have you never butchered one? I guess I understand that it’s not for everyone, but it’s not that hard once you get used to it.
The first time I had my wife help me skin a buck she was a little bit skeptical. She had never done anything like it. (100% city kid) I had it hanging up in the garage and I just wanted her to help pull the hide off of it. She strapped on gloves and pulled while I cut the hide off. Now she is the one telling me to get a move on it. My son has no problem either. My youngest is 16 and he can gut, skin, butcher and package a whitetail deer in around three hours with just a little help.
Believe it or not our local high school takes off the opening day of fire arm deer season as a holiday. Why? because when they didn’t nobody showed up anyway. Half the teachers would call in sick and so would the students or they would just skip. Every student goes through hunters safety, which my best friend teaches for free. For the last few years each student not only passes a test on basic firearms but also a class on first aid, gun safety etc. All at our cost (me and my friends) and on our time, we do use the school grounds. (we also threw a (Ron Paul) Tea Party at our School, but that is a different story)
I really think you should try and butcher your own meat. For one thing it makes you more appreciative. You can’t imagine how annoyed I get seeing anyone toss out meat they let go bad. That is as close to sacrilege as I can think of.
Don’t even get me started on fishing. That would be another ten pages, same for gardening or my orchard. I mostly live off the land and it’s great.
You are right – It seems primitive that we still have to kill animals for food. Burn HC crap for energy. It is bazaar that conscious humans haven’t cured their own death as well. We are still very primitive, as a group. Clover is closer to plant life than animal.
I still maintain that if it weren’t for religious and government terrorism for the last 3000 years, Jesus could have been an Astronaut.
I understand your compassion toward animals. I am, after all, a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals). I’m not prejudiced either. I will kill, butcher and eat meat bearing animals whether they be avian, aquatic or terrestrial (exo- or endo- skeleton notwithstanding). 😉 All kidding aside, it’s easier to wax philosophic about eating meat or not when we yet remain affluent and other people “do the dirty work” for us “out of sight, out of mind.”
However, I strongly suspect you and “most people” would continue to eat meat even “if they had to do the killing” after about 24 hours without food (it doesn’t take long for even Fido to start looking good to a starving man). Apparently there was even a little cannibalism practiced at Jamestown when there were no more belts and boots to boil after a failed experiment in agrarian socialism. Everyone’s outlook changes as their bodies start catabolic muscle consumption and their bellies distend with air.
Our “just in time” consumer logistics system is about 3 days away from the natives going “Borneo” if the SHTF. Let the power and water go off and the stores empty out in Richmond and D.C. In about a week and you’ll be amazed at what the Free Shit Army (I love that!) will eat…including each other. And that alone is a valid enough reason to own accurate, high capacity firearms.
I hope it never happens, but so did a lot of folks in Greece and down Argentina way. The wise man hopes for the best and prepares for the worst. One of those “preps” is getting used to doing some of your own slaughtering and butchering now, before you have to figure it out on an empty stomach. You didn’t wait for North Anna and Surry Nuclear Stations to go off line before you converted your generator to propane, now did you?
I have bunnies, lots of them. My wife even has a bunch of angora rabbit for fiber. Chickens of course. I hunt deer, elk, bear, rabbits, birds of all kinds. I don’t trophy hunt, I am not a sport hunter. Although I do take advantage of the extra seasons for bow and arrow and muzzle loading. I even butcher my friends sheep each year and get one in trade. Once in a while I will buy a suckling pig at a livestock auction for a BBQ. Dispatching animals is all pretty much the same to me. They serve a purpose and that is to become food for something, and that something might just as well be me.
The clovers have decided that wolves should be allowed back and these are not even real wolves they are a hybrid. They rip a deer to shreds and eat almost nothing half the time. I make a clean kill, bring it home hang it from my pole out back. I gut it clean it take off the hide, quarter it, set it on my bandsaw and go to work. I can butcher a full sized whitetail in under two hours and have it packaged and ready for the freezer. I make the most amazing sausage you have ever tasted too. I sell the hides for about five bucks or else I tan them myself once in a while if I’m bored. Bear is amazing if you can get a permit same for elk. I don’t let anything go to waste. Furthermore, the only government group I work with is the DNR (department of natural resources) A lot of them are pricks but some of them work hard compiling numbers so we hunters know how big of a harvest we should take or not to take any at all.
I could go on and on for hours.
Good stuff, Brad–Thank you.
I grew up in South Africa, with a very strong hunting culture–and not the effing idiot “trophy hunters” (bunch of fat rich white guys from America puffing their triple-bypass chests out as they drive around massacring).
My grandfather hunted for meat, and considered it a very sacred act; the land produced the animals, who lived for a while until a predator, illness, or old age returned them to the land.
We’re predators; but we have a conscience, too, and it’s that curious intersection of morals and instinct that bred hunters like my grandfather.
He’d never dream of driving around to the game; he walked miles. He didn’t wait in a stand near a feeder; if you couldn’t sneak up close enough by your own wits, you didn’t deserve the sacrament.
I picked up a nasty case of tick-bite fever walking around with him on a hunt once. I was deathly ill for two weeks before we figured out where the damn thing bit me–you don’t want to know!
But I’ll tell you anyway. Back of the teabag. Got it off and got better in a few days.
There. Now you have an image to haunt you for a few days 🙂
Although I shot my last game critter almost fifty years ago I will not criticize those who still do.
The last animal I killed was a gray squirrel. As the last of its life left its pitiful twitching body I was suddenly sickened by what I had done.
I never hunted again.
I understand where you’re coming from wrt meat consumption but I don’t think that there is a logical argument against the practice. At least I haven’t come across one yet and I’m still open to sound reasoning on the issue. However, you correctly pointed out the contradiction—crustaceans are ok, furry animals not—that permeates the minds of most people on this issue. I get it… And often get the same feelings myself. But it seems that the more distantly related a species is to us humans the farther it falls outside of our emotional boundaries. Plants are ok to us because we cannot relate to their existence in the same way that we can a cow’s. But evolutionary relatedness is no basis for a defensible philosophy of eating. Some plants are just has highly evolved as mammals and many plant groups are more recently emerged in geologic time than many animal groups. So the evolutionary relatedness factor is, if anything, extremely ambiguous and arbitrary.
It’s true that plants do not have a nervous system that elicits a pain response in the way that animals do. But they do have *senses* otherwise plants could not respond to their environment. And who knows, maybe plants do experience pain and we just haven’t yet discovered the mechanism? If we say that animal senses are valid but plant senses are not then we’re back to making an arbitrary distinction that holds no water.
This is not to say that reckless or violent treatment of animals is justifiable. It is not. Only a total creep would maliciously harm a defenseless animal. All effort should be made to house and dispatch livestock in the most gentle and humane manner possible. I try to support such businesses.
That’s the ticket, Mike – agree wholeheartedly. Great post!
The human hating terrorist parasite Ron is the reason peaceful people need to own guns.
And what will you do when one of these “Homo destructusall” desides to murder you? Will you beg for your life?
Murder is intrinsically criminal. Voluntary people prevention is not.
I always try to be fair. I would rather see every statist dead than to see a single Individual who violates a sumptuary law spend a day in jail.
“Jags or guns…?? And, people are reading this crap as though it has some genuine logic of value to our world??? ”
Calling names is not much of an argument.
“It’s pretty easy to make a life nurturing argument opposing both, isn’t it? ”
Is it not “life nurturing” to defend innocent life? Or should we – as you seem to suggest – affirm our valuation of life by rendering ourselves defenseless before those who would deprive us of life?
Not intending to make any arguments. If you really want a valid explanation I’m happy to offer it.
‘ALWAYS nurture life’ is an expectation, a life philosphy I attempt to impose on myself not anybody else.
What do I really mean by it? If your intention intends hurt, don’t deliberately offer it. Don’t ‘take from life’, as a living part of the whole being life is. It is nurturing of ourselves to avoid confrontation, not fight to oppose and ‘defend’.
If we can’t develop a sincere progression toward a compassionate awareness intended for all that needs nurturing, do we deserve nurturing across our lives ourselves?
We can explore the theme personally to internationally. We can explore it legally or compassionately. We can explore it in social philosophical terms or religious or cultural.
But consider, if we seek or pray toward better being given to us as a personal expectation, as individuals or communities, do we deserve any better than we offer?
Oppression in any veiled form or not ‘does not nurture life’. It does not nurture people or living animals in any circumstance. Bullets do not nurture life even though some would consider they use them to nurture themselves or their families.
We do not need to kill animals to eat, regardless of our desire to devour corpes in so many temping ways we may opt to prepare them. We are descendants of vegetarian apes not carnivores.
Yet we have eaten all the animal species toward extinctions on every continent. And thus, we can’t have any animals remaining anywhere until we stop, can we?
EVERYWHERE we go the trees are all burnt or removed. Everywhere the trees are removed the larger animals all die.
Where the larger animals all die, sooner or later we die. The trees are all still being cut down and the animals are still all being killed…
What does this mean for you…?
What does it mean for ‘homo destructusall’ that ape that only destroys, and all life recedes from everywhere we go?
ONLY learning to nurture life in all its forms can save any of us from the terminal desecration we have inflicted across our world now.
On every continent it is nearly too late for most of us alive today – regardless of the peurile wafflings of those among you who don’t want to consider such inconvenient truths. Regardless of who will try to twist my words to trump me on any challenge they deem vaguely relevant in passing next.
Am I one of you, yes! Can I do anything alone but the tiniest bit, no! Do any of you have the heart and presence of mind, the integrity, to stand and defend the living being that nurtures you and all around you or not, is really the bottom line here, isn’t it?
And, not one of us, you or me, will ever escape the true consequences of the wrong answer to this now or later…
I had a death experience several years ago. The pivotal experience it was showed me there is an aware not necessarily compassionate overseeing living awareness behind all life we are a part of. I ‘died’ at its intention and was returned clearly and obviously by it.
We are all a part of it, whether we choose to want to believe or know it or not, and if we are willing to inflict oppress or harm any of its parts, why do we deserve more than we offer?
It does not want its parts offended or damaged or terminated by us any more than you want your fingers chopped off by me.
‘Choose the way of the brute you WILL be brought to face the consequence of your actions’ was its message to me and it was driven home in some very uncomfortable ways.
I don’t want to preach here. I believe this is a learning sphere where all experience is relevant, all levels of insanity against life are permitted for the learning experiences they finally offer.
Regardless of the more garralous among us who may choose to refute it next, we have destroyed the framework of life we ever must walk amid.
We are seeing the consequences. We are forever a full generation behind the results of overpopulation and desecration as we each must impose for merely being alive.
‘Please tread softly here for me and you’ is my only request and warning, for, we are each only the masters of our destinies until we don’t.
‘We are responsible to life’ is the bottom line, whether we want or choose to be or not. Criticise, abuse, offend, distort these concepts forever at your own risk. They will always be core factors in how happy yours and my futures will become.
If my words sting then I’m sorry but true they ultimately are!
If you will reduce it to a paragraph or two I’ll take the time to read it.
The cool internet-savvy way of saying “please shorten your lengthy and unreadable missive” is simply:
which stands for “Too Long; Didn’t Read”
It’s right up there with “RTFM”* as a snappy retort.
*RTFM: Read the Fucking Manual
If your suppositions were based on fact they’d be more palatable.
There’s more forest area in the US than during the 1800’s; we are actually increasing forestation.
Deer, elk, wolf, coyote and other animal populations are increasing, and healthy…so much so that they require culling.
Here’s the key: where-ever private property laws are strong, nature thrives and TRUE conservationism cherishes the wild. Where private property is scorned and the State runs amok, animals are slaughtered wastefully.
Look at Kenya. Elephants–extremely destructive animals–were wrecking the subsistence farmer’s efforts. The farmers were killing them, and the poachers–who sold the ivory to idiotic Chinese too careless to preserve these majestic animals–were massacring them.
The solution? Kenya granted private property rights and gave the farmers the right to invite tourism. Turns out, the elephants are worth a lot more in tourist dollars than as meat or rotting carcasses, and they’re thriving.
Want an ecological disaster? Let the State run things…for an historical example, go check out some previous Soviet factory sites for chromium, lead, PCB’s, and a whole witch’s brew of industrial pollutants.
Humans are not bad, we are not a “cancer” as the pseudo-intellectuals posit. We, like caged chimpanzees, will behave badly in captivity however.
The ancient cypress were logged out by 1910. Careful husbandry could replace them in about 1500 years.
Planting trees cannot replace an ancient forest in the lifetime of the grandchildren of anyone living today. Nor will tree planting bring back the magnificent ivory-bill woodpecker.
Quite right Tinsley. Nor will tree planting (or anything else we can do) bring back the Tyrannosaurus Rex, Carcharodon megalodon, ammonites, trilobites, various extinct gastropods, giant ferns, et al that were long gone before loggers ever trod the Luzianna swamps. What’s done is done and no living thing makes it out of here alive (at least not physically). But that doesn’t take anything away from our successes in preserving nature either. Methylamine’s point was that property rights, free market economics and our desire to preserve our hunting heritage for our progeny here in the United States has resulted in an abundance of wildlife and the preservation and even expansion of woodlands and fisheries. The majority of the money for this came from sportsmen paid in voluntarily. What we get from the “greens” and “tree huggers” is a lot of shrill bitching and demands for more tax money and less Liberty. These same people are more than happy to turn large chunks of China and India into unrecoverable toxic waste dumps so they can have “green energy.” Never mind that windmills kill all manner of birds at a rate no hunter could ever hope to achieve. There’s always a trade off and anywhere you have life you have death.
Nor will tree planting (or anything else we can do) bring back the Tyrannosaurus Rex, Carcharodon megalodon, ammonites, trilobites, various extinct gastropods, giant ferns, et al that were long gone before loggers ever trod the Luzianna swamps.
They were long gone before humans existed so humans had nothing to do with their extinction.
A tree farm is not a forest. I think you missed the point or chose to simply reject it.
And those who justify their critter killing by claiming to “…eat what I kill.” should be damned glad that they do not have to compete with the rest of mankind for the critters they shoot.
I rejected the claim that hunting is a sport many decades ago. It is rare indeed when a game animal or even a large predator manages to kill a hunter.
When I was a youngster I used to drool over my Stoegers but as I grew older I lost all desire to take down a bull elephant with a 600 Nitro Express or a Weatherby .460. It might provide a scary moment but it just ain’t sport.
The naked ape is clever but I despair over him ever being wise.
I think you missed my point Tinsley. Whether man causes an extinction or Nature does it, the results are the same (and that’s ignoring the fact that mankind itself is part of Nature). Who’s to say that those giant Cypress trees wouldn’t have succumbed to some other catastrophe or disease without man’s intervention? All either of us can say is that we’ll never know. But I’ll bet that somewhere in there the infernal state had more to do with the destruction of those trees than a true free market / private property system ever would have. Much like gun-vernment intervention and cronyism in the 19th century railroad industry led to the near extinction of the Plains Indian and their food source; the Bison. The fact is no matter how pissed you or I are about the exploitations, depredations and criminal acts committed by our fellow men or our forefathers, there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it anymore than we can stop the empire from waging war on brown people.
It seems that what is always ruined environmentally are the things that are owned by the political system. That is things that are considered “public” under the protection of the state. Either the state fails to protect them or the state allows some insider to exploit them for short term profits.
Don’t usually hear about an animal that people raise going extinct because they were killed and killed until there were no more. It’s always a result of fouling the commons as far as I can tell. A practice the state has always allowed for its friends.
I suppose there are instances where private property has not been managed well in large areas. However my guess is that in these cases it was likely land purchased below market value, probably from government. Few people actually intentionally destroy the value of their property.
There are dutch researchers synthesizing meat in the lab. When fake steak is is as good as real steak it will catch on with no green primitivism required.
No Tor, they might be synthesizing meat protein in a lab, but they aren’t synthesizing meat.
You must have, by now, tried eating farm raised salmon? It bears no resemblance to wild fish.
Real animal derived meat comes from animals that eat what they want and move where they will. The quality of “free ranged” ranched meat is inferior to wild caught game meat. The quality of intensively grown meats is inferior to ranched meat. The quality of vat grown meat will be still more inferior.
I call this “red primitivism”.
In 18th century parlance,the term “well regulated” as used in the Second Amendment had NOTHING to do with “regulation” by law and EVERYTHING with being a well-disciplined, accurate shooter.
I have heard that before, especially from Judge Napolitano, but it’s not really crystal clear. In fact, the dictionary in almost universal use at the time was Samuel Johnson’s “Dictionary of the English Language.” He gives two definitions of “to regulate”: (1) to adjust by rule or method, and (2) to direct. Either definition is consistent with the modern conception of regulation (with one proviso that you suggest and that is discussed in argument 4, below).
Johnson’s definition of militia is not helpful either: “the standing force of a nation.” The only bit of help from Dr. Johnson is the example he gives of the word militia: “The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together.”
It would have been much better if the introductory clause had been left out of the Second Amendment altogether, but we’re stuck with it. I think the arguments (very much summarized) against gun control by the central government are as follows:
1. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress no power to pass any laws regarding gun ownership.
2. The Second Amendment clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The introductory clause does not impose conditions on that prohibition.
3. The intent of the Second Amendment, as exemplified by statement after statement by the founders, was to ensure that the citizens could defend themselves against an overreaching government. Since a militia was understood to be an army that could be drawn together quickly, the amendment clearly contemplated groups of well armed citizens who could quickly mobilize to resist the government. Their arms, and their proficiency in using them, would be essential in that event.
4. The words “well regulated” do not help the gun grabbers, unless one assumes that the founders believed that regulation can only come from the state. Clearly, groups of citizens coming together can “adjust by rule or method.” Thus, the intent of the introductory clause was to ensure that the citizens could get together with their guns and practice what they would need to do when they needed to resist the government.
Those arguments are presented in a very much truncated form. I hope I haven’t shortened them enough to make them obscure.
Good stuff, Mike!
The only thing I’d add is the context of the era itself. If, as the gun grabbers assert, “well-regulated” was intended to endorse “regulated” in our modern context, one has to explain why there were no “regulations” at all on the private ownership of firearms by free men at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. No laws requiring that guns be registered or controlled in any way whatsoever. Free men were at liberty to possess and bear arms, without any restriction whatsoever. Probably every teenaged and older man possessed a gun – and every household had guns in it. How can this historical fact be reconciled with a (supposed) intent to “regulate” firearms?
The real Libertarian will own guns and ammo in spite of the 2nd Amendment anyway.
Gil, that’s TWO sensible things you’ve said within the last 48 hours. There just might be hope for you yet.
Exactly. Proper law doesn’t give us permission; it merely affirms a natural right. One does not need a codified statute to understand that it is morally wrong to kill or steal. Or to defend against those who do.
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. (Sherry et al, 2012).
Take away suicides, with the argument being that even without a gun many would still choose to kill themselves, and you have 12,205 deaths by firearm.
2010 Automobile Deaths 32,885. This is 20,600 more deaths than by firearms (excluding suicides). I don’t hear anyone clamoring for the removal of cars from the clutches of the unwashed masses.
Watch out. My liberal brother will respond, “Yeah, they should ban overpowered cars too.”
You can be sure that the same elites who want to take away your guns have bodyguards with guns.
Most people I know do not buy a car to go out and kill someone.
Most people who buy guns do not do so to kill someone.
Cars are registered when purchased and reregistered when sold or change hands.
Guns are not…would not stop killing but make people who buy or sell more responsible as to who ends up with the weapon.
Possession of an unregistered gun could be automatic ban to Mars.
Sam, sending someone to Mars is very expensive. It hasn’t been done yet.
How will registering guns – that is, a legal requirement to register guns which will only be obeyed by law-abiding people – do anything about the thugs who use guns to commit crimes? Felons are already prohibited by law from having guns – yet have them nonetheless. Do you imagine the same people – psychopaths and sociopaths – who ignore every other law that tells them, “Thou Shall Not” will magically be persuaded to obey a law requiring that guns be registered?
For that matter, why should cars be registered?
Ever look into the etymology of the word?
“For that matter, why should cars be registered?” Exactly, Eric. You put your finger on the essential bankruptcy of clover-like arguments: they rely on unstated premises that do not stand up under scrutiny. The only reason for registering cars is that the state has decided that we have to do it. Since the state decided that, clovers will argue that it can decide we have to register other things. (Like marriage, but that’s another whole discussion.)
But that argument relies on the underlying premise that it was ok for the state to make us register cars. Clovers simply assume, without supplying any rational reason, that the state is acting within its legitimate power in imposing such a requirement.
Good job of smoking out that premise from Sam’s post.
The only reason for registering cars is that the state has decided that we have to do it.
Actually, it’s a lot more sinister than that. The State makes us register our cars for the purpose of tracking, taxing, and, when they feel like it, confiscating them. Car registration was the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent flap” that was the grandmother of every other totalitarian and asinine “registration” requirement that we’re saddled with today.
You’ve nailed it.
It’s exactly one of the planks of the Marxist platform–the abolition of private property.
“Your” land? Don’t own it. It’s feudal property; you rent it from the sovereign, your liege, at his pleasure. Demonstration? Stop paying property taxes.
“Your” car? Paid off? Got the title, do you? No, you have a certificate of title. The real title and the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin reside with the State. It’s their car. Demonstration? Stop registering it a while.
My powers of Clover detection are strong!
All people I know who buy guns don’t buy guns to go out and kill someone.
cars do not need to be registered if they are kept in the home.
Some people buy cars to commit crimes. Some people use cars to commit murder. People have murdered bicyclists with their motor vehicles and gotten away with it.
re: Drugs – What about the fluoridated water many still drink? A practice begun in Nazi Germany.
But the biggest drug is compulsory, tax-funded “education.” See John Taylor Gatto’s “The Underground History of American Education.” You can read it free on his website.
Imagine a Wisconsin temple shooting and an Aurora theater shooting EVERY day, in EVERY state, for 10 years! This is still half the number killed by the democratically elected Nazis. “Oh, but that can’t happen here”, you say? Sorry it already happened here. There were 600,000 American killed 1860-1865 (many were women and children) and many more times that number before 1900 inflicted on the Indians (again women and children), all under US government orders! If it happened here once, by what twisted logic do you assume it cannot happen again?
Moreover the Nazis were pikers compared to what other countries inflicted on their own citizens. Estimates of about 150 million “peacetime” casualties! Governments are the huge danger and heavily armed governments are the worst.
Encouraging gun control may YOUR own and your family’s death sentence, armed or not. I suggest you don’t take these ideas lightly. I pray we never are forced into a Civil (and it ain’t civil) War by our own government.
I’ve tried that argument with little success in getting through. These people worship the state. Telling them their god is a murderer doesn’t work well.
As to what is happening here, the slow trickle of ‘wrong address raids’ and police brutality killing innocent people likely exceeds these mass shootings in total victims. But nobody adds it up. If people have to be disarmed for a few bad people, why not the police being disarmed because of the ‘few’ bad and incompetent cops?
Yup…The primitive 90% are still “Exteranal Authority” wired and if their God ain’t make believe friends in the sky then their God will be some murdering psychopath on Earth.
You have to understand…Humans are not evolved into the new mentality of sovereign self-authority just yet. It will take serious survival pressure to get the morons to think internally (Why do you think Moses lead the Jews into the Desert). Clovers proves this with every post…Like a scared mental child without its safety blanket of political terror and gun-n-jail backed “Laws”. External authority to avoid the responsibility of conducting its own little life. Clover does not want to be free…Like a child, Clover is dependent.
Now you know how conscious-evolved anti-establishment secular Jesus felt among the idiot peasants and political terrorist of his day.
I was always a fan of the story of some of Ted Kennedy’s guard goons getting caught carrying a concealed machine pistol around DC. “I got mine” as it were.
Endless wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the actions of a lone psycho and yet nothing comparable when it comes to massive casualties on highways owned and operated the state. And when it comes time to take responsibility for the carnage, forget it. The state passes a law that limits damages against itself. Gee, I wish that I could do that.
Yet road deaths are small change compared to fatalities caused by junk food and drink.
Junk food and drink are not unlike guns in that so long as neither are abused, there is no problem. Having a Coke once in awhile – or a fast food burger – is not going to hurt you. It’s not going to make you fat or give you diabetes. Consuming them regularly, of course, is not a good idea.
Keep in mind that the processed junk food is FDA approved while raw milk and various natural substances are blocked by the FDA or other government agencies. The government wages war on the small farmer for the benefit of giant agribusiness as well.
Also, junk food deaths are dwarfed by deaths caused by the FDA approved and regulated monopoly health care system.
My favorite insanity, at the moment, is all the calls recently for banning assault weapons “except for police and military.” They fail to mention, of course, that the shooter was military, and hence their law wouldn’t have applied to him anyway!
As my friend recently said, gun control is like preventing drunk driving by taking cars away from people who don’t drink.
Also, regarding that case, who was promoting the fear and hatred that led to the shooting? The government. Who trained the shooter? The government.
Why, oh why does the American male need a gun? He seems to be that much less of a man without a gun!
This “right to carry arms” is only a few hundred years old. Besides
a few things have changed since then! O.K., you say, he has to defend himself. Well in case most didn’t know, between cameras, satellites, and missles, a gun is a little outdated, isn’t it?
How insecure are you?
It’s not just the American male, Myron.
A gun is the great equalizer. It gives a woman a chance against a male attacker. Or an older person against a younger one.
The issue is simply the right to self-defense.
“Insecurity” has nothing to do with it.
I dunno. Have you tried asking this question to a cop about the weapon on his waist, or the one strapped to his leg, or, nowadays, the larger one he’s carrying? I suggest walking up to him and asking if the guns make him feel like a man.
I really like the idea of my wife owning a gun and being able to carry it when she goes out if she deems it necessary.
I suppose you keep your “women” safe in the kitchen so they don’t have to face the bad world?
Actually should have phrased that “your women”. The key is that he feels that his posessions are his to dictate to and protect, according to his own terms.
My wife carries a .38 snubbie; great little gun for a woman. Reliable, simple – and still very effective, if the need should arise.
This is my wife’s little gun.
10+1 double stack .45 with an overall length of 6″.
I had one of those myself; great value. Taurus makes good guns.
It’s still pretty heavy, though – for CC purposes. And the .45 recoil is not for small hands!
Yep, over a pound and a half fully loaded. And the double stack makes for a wide grip. But, my wife is 5’8″ and can handle it just fine. While it is bulky for concealing under clothing it fits just fine in a purse.
Of course, around here we often carry open.
I found a (for me) very serviceable “inside the pants” holster that allows me to carry my Sig P220 .45 concealed – and (reasonably) comfortably. This gun is single stack, 8 plus 1. Best .45 I’ve ever owned, but easily three times the cost of the Millenium.
The .38 my wife carries is a hammerless Smith, 5-shot. The thing is tiny!
I guess we can assume you don’t have a gun Myron? How secure are you?
I can see it now…first they’ll outlaw assault rifles, then they’ll outlaw private gun ownership. Oh, you’ll still be allowed to hunt…it’s just that your rifles will have to be held at an approved federal facility where they will assign you the right to hunt on land they manage that is crawling with game wardens and other gestapo looking to fine you for something. You’ll only be able to purchase enough ammo for your hunting purposes from them where every round will be accounted for to ensure that no dangerous ammo gets into the hands of people who could use it to harm others.
Then we will have a stabbing epidemic just like what happened in britain after they outlawed private gun ownership. We will then see anti-knife activists come out in full force demanding that we outlaw all excessively sharp knives and we’ll only be allowed to cut our meat with butter knives. Then someone will get the idea to sharpen the butter knife on a rock and in typical knee-jerk fasion they will pass new legislation outlawing knives altogether and we’ll be left with nothing but a plastic spork…just like in prison.
We’re in a prison already, Turd.
Only for now, it’s a minimum-security joint.
one major problem with this scenario…. there are SO MANY arms, and millions of rounds, out there already, undocumented, and in unknown locations, it will be decades before “they” could ever find them all and ruond them up. How is it we keep hearing of the occasional handgun being pressed into service in self-defense in Australia and England? THEY DIDN’T GET THEM ALL!!!! And the armed thugs have somehow managed to maintain a stash of them.
Even if they come door to door, searching houses, things will have got bad enough to “spook” most real patriots into hiding most of their weapons against the day things will turn about once more….as they surely will. I remember an Aussie declaring that, once lost, the right to arms can NEVER be recovered. Nonsense….. Remember in Hungary, mid-1950’s, desparate citizens standing against tanks and armoured vehicles with beer bottles and gasoline? They were effective, to a point. Yes, they were put down once again, but some years later they regained their freedom. The tyrants lost that one.
And yet, even in maximum security prisons, illegal weapons are still abundant – including even primitive “zip guns.”
which is why the TSA to stop box cutter level weapons is completely absurd. At major US airport a person could come in naked, scanned, x-rayed, body cavity searched, issued clothing by the TSA and given $20 bill and board the plane with a weapon superior to what the 9-11 ‘evil-doers’ had according to government narrative.
Well yeah. Especially if the naked person was wearing eyeglasses.
Go through security, go to the nearest bar and order a chili burger with fries. They give a friggen’ *knife*!
The entire thing is absurd. Kafka couldn’t make this shit up.
You saying you can cut up boxes with a $20 bill?
As I’ve always said:
“We should ban the personal ownership of firearms, after all it works for drugs?”
That’s a great point. Whenever I’ve gotten into it with a gun-control guy I am able quickly to shut it down by asking, “Before we continue, could you please name for me any, just one, item, substance or practice that has ever been done away with by government mandate?”
Never. Not one. All that govt can do is raise the price and create a class of very wealthy, very violent criminals. Happened during Prohibition and it has happened in the “Drug War.” We see it with pimps & prostitutes.
As an example, heroin is not legal in this country and, as far as I know, is not produced anywhere in this country. But would anyone deny that there is not a single medium or large city in the country wherein I could not score some smack in a single afternoon. And I’m a dorky, middle-aged white guy! It might be expensive, and I’d have to go to some crappy parts of town and deal with some shady characters, but I know damn good and well I could get it if I wanted it. Same with a whore or anything else.
So where does true gun control fit in? It doesn’t. Because as Eric said, it’s not really even about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Not criminals, either. It’s about controlling law-abiding people. Citizens.
How is it cheap industrial doorknobs can require a 5 digit pin to function but not gun triggers or vehicle ignititons?
Tor, let’s say you own a pistol. Maybe you are really on top of things and you take it to the range once a month. When you go to the range, you look at the card with the PIN on it that you keep in the case, then carefully type in the code, because the buttons on your pistol are really small and you need to wear you bi-focals to see them.
Now you’re at home. Something goes bump in the night. You figure it out.
There’s a reason Glock’s are so popular. The safety is integrated with the trigger. When you put your finger on the trigger, the safety is released. Automatically. So, if you own a Glock, you don’t put your finger on the trigger unless you mean business.
It’s that simple.
Glocks plural not Glock’s possessive. Your bi-focals not you bi-focals.
My Sig has a similar system that enables it to be carried “cocked and locked” – but safely. Rack the slide to chamber a round; then click the de-cocking lever. This prevents the hammer from coming down (causing a round to be fired) unless and only if the trigger is pulled. However, there is no additional “safety” to release before you are able to fire the gun. This allows you to fire the gun immediately, as soon as you’ve got your sights lined up – without having to worry about fumbling with a safety.
I can’t tell you how many deer have lived to eat another rosebush because the safety was on.
Wouldn’t. It be better if your hgh value private property is truly private.
Without a code your big screen TV is useless to a thief.
A 2 year old can’t open a fridge or stick a finger in a light socket or get at poisons knives or meds without a code.
Natural law is immutable like gravity.
Communal use and unrestricted property is an unecessary evil.
You can be blind and still operate raised pins by feel. A one time mechanical challenge ensures owner is operating dangerous tech.
This also would prevent plane hijack and vehicle theft.
It would be criminal to give code to terrorist or criminal if harm occurs.
Code sharer is coliable.
Just law is simple and absolute. Writing down code where harm occurs allso makes you liable.
Let me tell ya’ Tor, I’m fed up with “safety” devices. They make us weak and dependent. I just bought an ’08 KLR650. You can’t start the bike with the kickstand down unless it’s in neutral, even with the clutch pulled in. WTF? But I can still fly down a gravel road on it at 80 MPH and become one with a tree or barbed wire fence. As Ron White says “You can’t fix stoopid.” Pushbutton locks, airbags and interlock switches are just more Cloverian control mechanisms in an effort to protect us from ourselves. Leave me alone and let me decide what level of risk I’m willing to assume. Anything other than rudimentary safety devices should be optional. Folks like you that want them can pay the difference. If you’re worried about shooting deaths, when you manage to disarm the world’s governments get back to me about using a PIN to access my 1911…but not until.
Yup – my KL does the same damn thing.
I have thought about a new bike off and on. But then thought better. They all now have computers, cats and EFI. Many have ABS.
These bikes will be throwaways even faster than late-model cars. Because they will reach the event horizon of “not economically repairable” much sooner. A bike that sells new for $10,000 is worth half that five or so years later. Maybe $3k after eight years. How much is a new ABS pump for that thing? An ECM? Sure, there are used parts. And unlike cars, you don’t have to fix some of these things, or can get away with not fixing them (emissions stuff).
But I just don’t want to deal with it.
Rather than a new ZX10 – which I’d been thinking about – I think I’m gonna get a project H2 750 and build the proverbial shit out of it. 130 hp or so out of a two-stroke triple is gonna be good times!
And instead of a fast-depreciating new bike, I’ll have an appreciating classic. One that I can totally rebuild myself, almost indefinitely – and, affordably.
No worries here. I don’t live in fear of my garbage dispoal or my neighbor who makes his own bullets and whose arsenal puts me to shame.He’s drunk most days. I am drunk 4 days a month or so. I am just thinking in principles. Perhaps poorly.
I am sorry to hear about intrusive safetyism ruining your rights of quiet enjoyment.
There is no need for us to toil. We should all live the lives we choose yet we don’t. Our mutual distrust and delusions have made us prisoners here of our own device.
Goodnight say the watchmen. We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like.
But you can never leave.
By making laws bind only property and its uses I was thinking we might become more free.
No one tells the Japanese of their unfriendly tech. A million dollar idea is to be the guy who makes an american friendly interface. Also most of us need size proportional vehicles not toy sized
It does not matter now. The American people are just mentally retarded meat-sacks. Look what a stupid little brat a “Liberal” (Or you call – Clover) has become. These mental retards are the majority now. America is dead.
I hate agreeing with such a negative thought, but I do 100%!
It’s further strengthening my resolve to GTFO.
It *might* be salvageable; but I don’t want to stomach the transition.
Sadly, those of us who see it coming–and are actively warning people–will be reviled the most by the Clovers.
Prophets are never popular people. Dammit, I’m not even close to being a prophet–I simply read history and draw parallel lines well.
Try to imagine what will happen if the grid goes down for even a week. Grocery stores, gas stations, and pharmacies–empty. The Thug-Elites will do it so we’ll clamor for salvation; as Kissinger said:
Which bears a striking resemblance to Goering’s quote:
And guess what? They’re doing it here.
So, what country or countries would you possibly GTFO to?
Central/South America have several good options; some have quite good gun laws.
My overall take is:
We have theoretically the best legal protections for freedom in the world–but in practice they’re “just goddamned pieces of paper” (W) and they’re ignored. Plus, we have an extremely well-funded police state with an almost complete control-grid–financial controls, banks snooping on you, total data sharing w/ government. In practice the USSA is totalitarian.
C/S American countries (Costa Rica, Panama, Belize, Chile, Uruguay, etc) have theoretically much less well-defined individual freedoms…but in practice because their thugocracy is much underfunded, it’s more free. Plus, their citizens are more cynical toward government, police, and military–something we’ve lost. So there, you FEEL more free, and you’re less subject to the 12th monkey effect.
I like my corruption right up front. Be honest, cop; you’re a goon with a gun and you’re robbing me. Let’s make the transaction, if not consensual, at least honest; here’s your bribe. The utter hypocrisy of the system here disgusts me more and more every day.
When it turns ugly–when they go full siege and shut down the grid–it will be very, very hard to operate outside the system.
Your bank is watched. Your cell phone, email, and internet are watched. Your fucking smart meter even watches you! Being a subversive in the Sun Tzu Wu style of becoming water will be much more difficult here.
The worst part? In the USSA, it’s my neighbors and nosy garbagemen I’ll have to worry about–because they believe in the System!
I second Meth’s comments. My personal choice is Uruguay, for various reasons. As the globalists take more and more control, eventually there will be nowhere to GTFO to, but Central and South America offer at least a reprieve, and possibly a long one. The USSA is lost, imo.
I don’t think anywhere in the Americas makes sense. You have a lot of very violent and primitive people south of Texas that are also Christian. There may be some places that are safe down there but Vietnam and Cambodia maybe Thailand seem better. Asia is moving fast toward freedom and prosperity.
We have them here, also – and I agree. They scare me.
I believe that, precisely because of their “Christian beliefs,” they’d send people like me to a camp (or much worse) because I do not “believe” and because I support other people’s right to believe (and do) whatever floats their boat, so long as it’s not causing me or other people any harm.
Some of the biggest assholes I’ve ever met or know of style themselves “good Christians.”
The Chimp being the obvious example.
What an excellent comparison Methyl. Five stars. Two thumbs up. I had never read Kissenger’s declaration before. He was a true slimeball.
Still is – the scaly old reptile’s alive,I think.
It’s http://www.killology.com/ read and learn….
Lt Col David Grossman has studied this phenomenom extensivly and published in his two books “On Killing” and “On Combat”. Speaking as a vet I can say that to my knowledge he’s spot on. I recomend his website killogy.com and and in the free articles section read “the evolution of weapons” for a peek into what he knows. Hint, the mass media play a huge role and the video gaming industry (massacre simulators) a very specific one.
The website is not registered. Is it http://www.killogy.com ?
Double Clover? Let the good children play video games and simulate shooting guns because the ferals are going to anyway. How are kids going to learn the reflexes to defend themselves if they can’t practice?
Well, Clover, my generation – and generations before – grew up with actual toy pistols and GI Joes, playing cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers. We didn’t commit mass killings, or killings of any sort. So, how come? If – as you suggest – playing “violent” games turns kids into psychotics, how come such psychosis was virtually nonexistent 30 or 40 years ago?
I blame it on Pop Tarts and Ritalin. It’s a drug interaction.
Steven Allen Abrams drove his “assault motor vehicle” intentionally onto a school playground, killing two toddlers. Where was the outcry to ban these “unnecessary” implements of mass destruction?
Clover: “that’s different.”
um hmm, how?
Clover: because the vehicle wasn’t made to kill!!!
The courts from now on should make the distinction between knife killers who use a KBAR and those who use a steak knife. After all, only one was made to kill.
I bought MY high quality and expensive German steak knives because I was certain they are made for one thing, and one thing only… to absolutely DESTROY any cut of meat or fish against which I brought them into action. Fact is, the manufacturer GUARANTEES their ability to destroy a steak, roast, salmon, chicken, or………
Hell, I’ve long stated here that guns are nowhere near as deadly as motor vehicles. But I guess it’s a good argument against any control. Holmes legally bought all his weapons nice and legal before the shooting? So? A person could have easily bought a truck before going on a ram raid.
Um, strangely, that kind of makes sense.
Are you alright Gil? I’m concerned.
There’s hope Gil. Real hope.
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that it’s called a Dodge (and) Ram pickup truck?
Is there a class-action suit lurking here for anyone ever struck by the nefarious Dodge Ram pickup truck?
Old man in mining town, to Al Bundy (Married, With Children) “Dodge is a damn fine car! Ran over my wife with a dodge.”
Eric, you make a good point but I’m just going to throw this out there because I’ve been pondering this question of late. Is anybody willing to consider the possibility that so-called assault rifles and large-mag “military” pistols, because of their look and feel, induce murderous psychopathy in a very small fraction of owners of such guns? Or to put it differently, if you place a 20 gauge over/under bird gun in hands of the James Holmes then he can’t get motivated. But put an AR-15 there and something happens in his brain that puts him over the edge. Maybe some other factor could have the same effect on him, but nevermind that for now. To be clear, I’m not arguing that the gun is the ultimate cause of deranged but instead perhaps a unique proximate trigger. It’s like putting a crazy fool behind the wheel of a 500 hp Jag who then drives it at 150 mph and, lo and behold, he careens it into a bus, killing all aboard. His foolishness isn’t caused by the Jag but aggravated by it in a way that, say, a Prius never would because if the Prius does anything to the driver it turns him into an emasculated watermelon.
The neuroscience of any such effect of guns on the mind would be easy to study these days but I’m not aware of any work in this regard. And I’m not a proponent of gun control either. But I am very much a proponent of seeking empirical truth. What say ye? Is it likely and if so what’s to be done?
I’d say it’s possible, not because of the look of the weapons themselves but because of the ubiquitousness of these weapons in violent media imagery. You have AR/M16 style weapons prominent in imagery coming back from the US wars going back to Vietnam as well as in so many entertainment media productions. The “good guy’s rifle” for almost 50 years while every scumbag from Moscow to Baghdad to Compton seems to be armed with an AK-47. I don’t think it’s too far-fetched at all to say this does something to certain minds.
I think it’s less likely that putting an AR in Holmes’ hands triggered his flip-out and more likely that he snapped, then sought one out. He could have gotten a Ruger Mini-14 chambered in the same round for much cheaper. Old AK and SKS rifles can still be had for a song compared to that AR he bought, and make people just as dead.
So why the AR? It’s an interesting question.
The media is no doubt important in affecting the way people perceive weapons of all kinds. A freak like Holmes probably got all his ideas from “the movies.”
Guys–it wasn’t just Holmes!
Don’t let yourself be trapped in the heavily-scripted media response. Multiple eyewitnesses saw more than one shooter, none of them could identify Holmes–the shooters were wearing all-black, including caps or balaclavas.
Holmes is a modern Sirhan Sirhan. Look at the bastard; in court, he’s so fried on neuroleptics I seriously doubt he knows where he is or who he is. That Army bitch who’s his “psychiatrist” is a modern MK-ULTRA operative.
Same with the Sikh shooter; for gods’ sake, how many of these guys have psy-op or intelligence military backgrounds, or are looked after by military psychiatrists?
Timothy McVeigh–“looked after” by a top military psychiatrist, too. And himself with a military background; probably sheep-dipped, then set up as the patsy.
Every damn one of these attacks–OK City, 1993 WTC bombing, 911, Aurora, now Sikh–absolutely reek of psy-op and false-flag. In the first three, the evidence is so overwhelming you really must make a concerted effort to believe otherwise. The latter two?
I’m enjoying the hell out of the responses. As fast as the media’s being fed scripts to repeat, peoples’ eyewitness accounts come out all over the internet to contradict the Party Line.
Aurora–more than one shooter, gas canisters from both sides of the theater etc etc.
Sikh–three eyewitness accounts of four shooters, most or all leaving in a car, with prior reports of strangers snooping about.
Another fun fact–many of these are accompanied by simultaneous “drills”. The same day as the Aurora shooting a nearby university was holding a drill with the same M.O.. 9/11–same day, a drill depicting hijacked airliners to be used as weapons. 7/7 in the UK–same day as a drill of the exact same scenario.
They do this for several reasons: to provide an “out” if it goes bad, to distract or stand down defensive forces, and to sucker the patsy into participating thinking it’s a drill.
Do you know how to figure out who’s the “mark” at a poker table? Hint: if you don’t know, it’s YOU.
You missed one common thread… the FDA approved drugs these shooters are on were recently on.
50 years. No change in method. Same thing over and over and over again and the american people are just too dull to look. The incompetence of these operations is stunning. But it doesn’t need to be any better, because the mainstream media is owned and so few americans listen to anything else it just doesn’t matter. So why put the effort in to make a good op? Even if the average american is exposed to the truth 999 out of a 1000 of them or better reject it.
I am deeply ashamed that in my previous life as a psychiatrist, I swallowed the party line–despite priding myself on being a contrarian–that SSRI’s “correct a biochemical imbalance in the brain” and hence “fix” depression.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I now think they’re designed to bring the average empathetic, caring person closer to the mindset of the psychopaths-in-power. One prominent side effect of the SSRI’s is a sort of “emotional limbo”–a deadening of emotional responses. Some people like it; “everything just slides off doc, like water off a duck’s back” one patient told me years ago.
But is that a good thing? Maybe they were depressed for a reason–and they should have addressed whatever intolerable life situation was causing it, instead of taking an emotional anesthetic.
But that “limbo” effect can progress to frank depersonalization–they feel like they’re outside themselves, watching themselves do things automatically with no control or care.
And THAT’S what we see in the school shootings, for instance–most of the shooters (Columbine, Virginia Tech among them) were on SSRI’s.
In my opinion, it’s circular. If the person in question is demented/sociopathic – or simply grossly reckless – then sure, a high-performance car (or a high-performance weapon) may “egg them on.” But the poor impulse control of these people is not the fault of the item in question – and more, it’s not reasonable (let alone right) to take away the item from the vast majority of people who can and do control their impulses, or who don’t have such impulses at all.
I’ve got a few “high-powered” guns. I have never had any desire to use them for evil (or just plain stupid) things. I would venture to say that the great majority of gun owners fall into this category. Heck, we don’t have to venture – we know. There are millions of “high powered” weapons in private hands. But only a relative handful of events such as the Aurora Freak. These events seem more prevalent only because of the 24/7 media coverage – coverage that uniformly fails to cover defensive uses of firearms to prevent horrific crimes. Two recent examples:
Virtually no coverage on the national news. But constant news coverage of the Aurora and Wisconsin shootings – both of which, it is important to point out, took place in “gun free” zones.
And with the shootings, despite hours and hours of TV news time dedicated them almost zero coverage of the government ties and FDA approved drug use of the shooters. Near zero coverage of witness testimony that invalidates the official government narrative. No mainstream media investigation what so ever. Only that ‘fact’ guy asking questions…. what’s the vegas odds on how long keeps his job?
ooops “reality check” guy
“I would venture to say that the great majority of gun owners fall into this category.”
That’s about it. I would guess that there are about ninety million gun owners in America.
Many of the real nuts have badges and do not give a shit about protecting and serving. An armed testosterone and steroid soaked iron pumper in his prime can be a very dangerous animal. Add some of the drug alcohol to the mix and the likelihood of a bad happening increases considerably.
I’ve pointed out to Clover (Gil) the situation in my county. I’d bet every third person has a CC permit – and nearly every house has guns. Typically, several – including high-powered rifles and handguns. Yet, there are no shooting sprees. No mass mayhem. No murder at all. Very little in the way of any crime at all – in part (no doubt) precisely because of the fact that it’s well-known most people are armed. And thus, able to defend themselves. It would be a suicide mission to try a home invasion around here.
Contrast this with DeeCee, where I used to live. It is extremely hard for a law-abiding person to even possess a rifle in their own home – and forget about CC.
Need I mention the daily toll of gun violence in DeeCee? Or Chincongo. Or Detoilet?
“I have never had any desire to use them for evil (or just plain stupid) things.”
Eric, tell me you’ve never used a .308 to blow up a watermelon. Just try 🙂
Well… but that’s neither stupid nor evil!
I’ve made short work of a balky printer with my .45, too…!
Death to unrepentant printers…
Office Space printer scene
How much better would that have been with .45’s? I’d even get silly and hold mine sideways gangsta-style.
“Is it likely and if so what’s to be done?”
Clean up the mess and work to make sure that that statist opportunists do not contravene the Principles underpinning the Unanimous Declaration.
” if you place a 20 gauge over/under bird gun in hands of the James Holmes then he can’t get motivated. But put an AR-15 there and something happens in his brain ”
There’s a big difference between handing someone a firearm and simply allowing him to own what arms he will. Those who are inclined to be violent will be violent, using whatever tool comes to hand. Nobody here, so far, has proposed handing out guns.
You’re expressing a logical fallacy by claiming that “something happens in his brain”. How can you know, to any degree of certainty that James Holmes had his brain hijacked by the availability of a certain type of firearm. Try again in the search for empirical truth.
Ed, I was merely proposing a proximate neurological explanation for an individual’s actions and Holmes was just a convenient example. How knows what goes on in his head? But look, if just the *thought* of eating a piece of chocolate cake induces a profound insulin surge (we know that it can and does) then why can’t the feel of an AR or AK compared to a db shotgun induce, for example, a surge in a “fight or flight” hormone like cortisol? I don’t think that this possibility is too far-fetched but there’s no telling how general the effect would be. I wouldn’t expect it to only be a factor in a small fraction of the population, more likely in individuals who are already weak and vulnerable for one reason or another.
I’ve been up to my neck in this shit since the liberal progressive Obama voter (if he were a “conservative Tea Party Nazi” we’d surely know by now, and the silence has been deafening) shot up the movies in Colorado. My arsenal is known in the extended family and they’re all over me about it.
Seems my one year old kid is going to load a mag in my 1911 and rack the slide, which is something that more than a few grown people lack the hand strength to do without turning the gun sideways and endangering everyone to the left of them on the range. And all this after getting the ladder out and climbing up in the closet to get it down. Notable that people who are actually familiar with firearms never say stupid things like this. It’s no less ridiculous than saying he’s going to grab the car keys, start ‘er up and drive himself to the liquor store.
My sister told me ammunition should be prohibitively expensive. I told her it damn near already is; my range time has suffered tremendously in the past couple years. My aunt thinks I don’t need more than ten rounds in a magazine. I told her I don’t think she needs more than three feet of water in her swimming pool. The children, you see. They could drown. “Oh, but that’s different. Guns are made to kill, swimming pools aren’t, silly boy.” My God….
And of course the question of “need.” My answer: “well there are only three days of food in the city at any given time, and the always-imminent ‘massive earthquake’ or ‘catastrophic eruption of Mt. Rainier’ could happen tomorrow, rendering the roadways impassable for days, even weeks. It would be our Katrina. And I know that people I’ve lived next door to for years would peel my scalp back in a second if it would get them into my pantry when their kids start starving, let alone the hundreds-strong Free Shit Army living a mile away in the Section 8 projects. That’s why I ‘need’ my M1A Scout rifle, Remington 870, 1911 .45 and S&W .357 magnum, none of which have killed a soul in the years they’ve spent in my closet, by the way.”
Never get much of a rebuttal to this. Do get some requests to teach people to shoot though, and some questions about what’s the best gun for home defense.
I stopped using the “defend against the government” line. All it gets you is eye-rolling and chuckles. Bring up some kind of Katrina scenario. It’s entirely plausible in most areas of the country one way or another, and the images still fresh enough in most minds.
I almost spitted out my water at “… the hundreds-strong Free Shit Army …” 🙂
I have no issue with people possessing fire arms provided they are not harming anyone.
“I have no issue with people possessing fire arms provided they are not harming anyone.”
What would the point of owning guns be then?
Most people lawfully use weapons for hunting, target practice and/or self-defense.
If you do not invade other peoples homes, then odds are that they will not shoot at you.
If you do not threaten people with bodily harm, then odds are that they will not shoot at you in self-defense.
But the Gils and Clovers want to threaten us with bodily harm for not living the way they want us to live and giving up our wealth for what they want. Hence they need us all disarmed.
That is the essence of the problem.
I (and others) want to be left alone. If I am not harming or defrauding others I should be able to be left alone if I choose to be alone.
There must be some limits to their invasion of my liberty. It seems that it is never enough for them. They can not be happy with what they have. They must meddle in others’ affairs.
Why does there have to be a “point” – as defined by you or anyone else – to owning a gun? No such requirement is set forth with regard to other things. Each gun owner has his own reasons – all equally valid to him – which is the only relevant thing. Perhaps he appreciates guns as art, or collectibles. Perhaps he enjoys hunting/target practice. Maybe he keeps guns to protect himself and his family against violent scumbags who do not obey “gun control” laws or any laws at all. Maybe a combination of these things.
Who the fuck are you to interpose your Cloveronian judgements?
Gil, I don’t own any firearms. I have no desire to own firearms. However, those like you are convincing me I _must_ own firearms.
Attaboy Brent. Own a gun and your conscience will change, for the better.
When one of the bad boys with a fire arm and the intent to harm someone else arrives on your doorstep, I think you may find the answer to your question. Think of boundaries. Would you be prepared to cross the one that prevents you from killing others for pleasure or profit? (assuming trolling is your most serious crime). I think, or at least, hope not. Remember, others are so prepared. What then, Clove?
RichB, I along with a host of others have tried to reach Gil on numerous occaisions. As one of the other regulars pointed out, it’s like trying to train a salamander. In 1987 a serial rapist walked into my house in rural Virginia, chased my ex into the bedroom with a knife and straight to her .38 where she settled the matter in her favor. I’ve related that incident to him and I assure you Gil gets it. He’s just a troll; probably a cop or some other limp wristed Aussie bureaucrat with insufficient testicular fortitude to even admit what he does for a living. But he does sometime manage to generate food for thought in his feeble attempts to incite and provoke, without generating any thoughts of his own. Poor Gil (sigh).
Boothe, thanks. I rarely post but read often. It’s just that this time I couldn’t stop myself. I know it’s a waste of time with the “Gilver community” and I think your assumptions about Gil can’t be far wrong. I’m only too aware of this mindset and am firmly allied with that of you, Eric and the other regulars on here including positions on sail fawns etc, etc. I quite like to see the occasional comment from the cloves as it does, as you say, generate food for thought. Eric kindly allows just a little bit through to maintain a level of entertainment without it becoming a nuisance. Glad to hear you and your ex came out of your 1987 incident OK.
God I’m dying, “Free Shit Army”, gnome sayin’??
Aim for the central gold tooth. Scratch that–it’s valuable. Go for the ‘nads, ensure they don’t propagate.
I’ve tried the “ultimately, it’s to defend against tyranny” when one of my college acquaintances years ago turned snide and said “so you really think you’ll fend off the US Army?”
To which I replied, “Yes, I and the hundred million other gun owners. Works pretty well; been to Afghanistan lately?”
He and his oh-so-trendy wife snickered and went back to sipping their wine.
Fuck them. I’m tired of throwing pearls before swine; I move on quickly these days. People who show receptiveness are ready and teachable. Feed them milk and bread first, meat and potatoes later. There are millions of people who are hungry for knowledge, just waiting to be woken up from the false dream-reality of the last 100 years…and especially the last 40.
You owe it to the ones who WANT the knowledge, who’ll embrace it instead of spitting on it, to identify them and help them.
You owe it to yourself to divest yourself of the smug brainwashed pseudo-intellectual idiots who, like denizens of the Matrix, are so deeply invested in the system they’ll fight to defend it.
Three winters back, if my count is correct, we WERE isolated for nearly a week.. the entire Puget’s Sound region was isolated by commercial air, road, railway, and most water. Small private planes were the only real way to connect with “outside”. Had it not been for the deep snow, it is likely the stores would have been stripped bare within two days. As it was, they were very nearly cleaned out before I-5 opened to the south, and the hundreds of trucks lined up for two days were able to roll through Centralia, which had I-5 under ten feet of water. Mountain passes were still closed from snow, avalanche, mudslide, washout……. rail as well. Fun times…..
Two words for you: Dried Beans.
In five gallon buckets of course 🙂 And have a couple pounds of chili powder, lots of dried onion, some garlic and salt pork. A 5000 gallon water tank is a good idea too.
I made it through Loma Prieta and I was only 3 miles from the epicenter. I know of which I speak…
Also: Rice. Store it in sealed plastic containers win a dark place with moderate constant temp. and low humidity.
After a few days eating “survival” foods you might wish you were dead anyways. 🙂
Dried 3 cheese tortellini. I buy it at Costco by the case and put it in those sealed paint buckets you get at hardware stores.
Don’t forget FAT–and do forget the USDA’s ridiculous serf-diet “pyramid”. Saturated fat is good for you.
Get five-gallon buckets of coconut oil, one of the healthiest saturated fats. For unsaturated, especially omega-3, buy bulk pumpkin seeds, olive oil, or flax seed oil. Peanut butter is another good source of saturated and unsaturated fat.
Keep a good supply of sea salt; it provides the dozens of trace minerals we need but aren’t getting from the depleted soils our factory food is grown on.
Excellent posts, all!
Technology was not an issue when the Second Amendment was drafted. Indeed, the rifled muskets of the Continental Army outranged the Brown Bess smoothbore used by the Redcoats. An ad put out by the Browning Company to market surplus Thompson SMGs to the public e 1920 depicts a rancher fending off rustlers with the Chicago Typewriter.
There already has been Government attempts to employ social engineering in the automotive marketplace. It’s called the “Gas Guzzler” tax. Never mind how pollution regs killed the muscle car forty years ago.
The REAL difference/advantage the Colonials had over the Lobsterbacks was not the quality or technology of their weapons. No, not at all. Seems the Redcoats were trained to judge a distance of about a hundred yards, and not to fire at ranges in excess of that. Further, they were drilled for rifle actions with two commands: Present, Fire. Once discharged, they moved to the rear of the formation whereupon they reloaded in normal cadence.. slowly. On occasion, their fixed bayonets were brought to bear upon the enemy, preferably after being fired upon at the relatively close range of about a hundred yards or less.
On the other hand, the Colonials trained extensively at ranges out to three hudnred yards. Captain Daniel Morgan’s elite Riflemen were admitted to his corps ONLY upon firing a “headshot” from offhand position at two hundred fifty yards, one shot. Hit it, you’re in. Miss, come back later. Read accounts of the action on 19 April 1775… the casualty rates amongst the Brits were multiples of those of the Colonials. Death as compared to wounded are not similar. The Colonials reliably hit their marks (most often the officers) whereas the Regulars often shot over the heads of their adversaries, missing.
The weapons held by the Colonials were, in general, inferior to those of the well-supplied British. Most on the Colonial side were simply the personal weapons of the citizen militia, and had a wide range in quality, capability, even calibre.
Re: comparative technology of British (and their Hessian mercenaries) versus Continentals (regulars and militae).
Not necessarily true either way. The Brown Bess was better suited for the ranges that their troops engaged in their march-and-fire discipline. It fired a hard-hitting round which Continental surgeons would assert was more effective. The Continentals in general eschewed the march-and-file approach (Von Steuben’s efforts notwithstanding) and took to firing with their rifled muskets from cover or sniping altogether. The Brits usually typically prevailed thanks to their superior discipline. Banastre Tarleton had an effective method of dealing with American snipers: he had them hanged as criminals. If there had been sentiment to ban weapons on the basis of technical merit, it would have been why “allow” the Kentucky Long Rifle, since sniping wasn’t a chivalrous way to fight?
Thank goodness Gen Washington didn’t outlaw rifles on the part f rebellious West Pennsylvania moonshiners in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794!
The question of “need” always cracked me up.
When my father-in-laws new uber liberal wife saw my ar-15, she asked why I “needed” something like that.
My reply was “So that I can hopefully stand a chance if someone tries taking it from me.”
Then she said “But that’s circular logic” and I said “Yes, yes it is” and she followed up with a blank stare.
The M1A California Legal Rifle. This is one very bad ass rifle. But yet it’s legal in CA. and an AR15 is not. This simply points out how arbitrary rules are always ignorant.
For instance I have a muzzle loader that is as dangerous as just about any rifle I have ever shot. A 500 yard kill would not be out of the question. 300 yards is easy as pie.
“The M1A California Legal Rifle. This is one very bad ass rifle. But yet it’s legal in CA. and an AR15 is not. ”
Shhhh….not so loud. Let’s not help the regime identify the holes in its net.
But cars have a legitimate purpose….to transport people from place to place.
Guns have only one purpose….TO KILL!
( Just thought it would be fun to throw some more raw meat among the angry beasts…..and to pour a little more gasoline on the fire. 😉 )
One does not need a car that can travel above 80mph or have 0-60mph times under 10 seconds. A Lada can take you from A to B.
A gun can be used for hunting, target practice, and/or self defense which in my opinion are legitimate uses.
Thanks for the meat Mike. My grill was a bit empty. 😉
And since your argument of guns for KILLING applies to governments as well, and since more people have been killed by governments than at the hands of individuals by a factor of 100…shouldn’t that mean that all governments should be disarmed before us? I’d be interested to see why statist think that government should have a monopoly of KILLING and guns especially when most individuals use them for a cause of protecting themselves from assailants (sometimes governments and sometimes their lesser inferiors).
Anyway, of course you could have been the devils advocate. But, the argument presented by the simpler mindsets is in fact logical to its conclusion. Best Regards.
whether government ought be disarmed depends largely upon the identity of the sovereign. In the present case, we KNOW WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign, and therefore ought to be armed. Our subjects, the government, being armed is optional. In most cases, I believe supplying them with lethal force is unecessary and dangerous. History hath proven so.
Killing is a legitimate purpose.
The right to self and other property defense is Natural and therefore Unalienable. Forcibly denying an Individual his right to defend himself is intrinsically criminal. Government in America is increasingly criminal.
Government in America will continue becoming even more criminal until the People do whatever is necessary to disabuse themselves of the tyranny being imposed by juris doctors and career office holders. When Reason has failed, it is not immoral to employ deadly force. However such force should not be employed until victory is certain.
*snip* Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. *snip* –Unanimous Declaration
Today The causes are no longer light and transient.
Ah, and as always, you incite violence.
Provocateur? No, too stupid and keyboard-bound for wet work.
You’re just a lowly minion.
You know what they’ll do to you, don’t you? Because the Elites hate you, too; and they always eat their children first…before the real slaughter begins.
Ah TGS I’m sorry I replied to the wrong comment!
This was NOT directed at you, it was to one of Gil-Clover’s posts. No idea why it landed underneath your post, with which I whole-heartedly agree.
Wow Methyl, you scared me there for a moment. I thought maybe “they” had gotten to you…injections…sensory deprivation…forced you to listen to Madonna for hours on end or something. Glad you clarified that, because I’m on board with Tinsley about 99.995% of the time.
More people are killed with knives and fists than with long guns (rifles and shotguns). Australia has seen a huge increase in gun crime since they enacted their long gun ban.
Outlawing guns only results in outlaws having guns (most especially, the state).
“Outlawing guns only results in outlaws having guns (most especially, the state).”
This is no accident nor is it “unintentional consequences”. The elite know that the crime will go up, they just don’t care. They want the crime rate to go up so the proles will yell for more government to “protect” them.
Gun Control is OSHA for criminals. Workplace safety for criminals. Workplace safety for the government.
Well put Sir!
“Country that limited gun ownership saw an increase in crime” canard. Sure.
So you refuse to believe the statistic that’s proven again, and again, and AGAIN, in country after country, county after county, city after city?
Why is violent crime so much less in any city in Texas, compared to gun control havens like Chicago, New York, and DC?
I confess, I now enjoy kicking cripples–you in particular, Gil.
Are you stupid?
Seriously – How old are you?
Gil is a troll. He’s here to provoke a response – not participate in an intelligent discussion.
Yes, Clover. Sure indeed.
It’s a fact – an axiom.
In every city, county and state where there are fewer restrictions on the possession of firearms by citizens, there is less “gun crime” – and crime, generally. And the opposite. Indisputable.
What do you say in response? Nothing – because you can’t.
Really? That may be true in the US, which is a relative comparison to other cities in the US. But then explain the US having astronomically more gun crime than similarly developed countries. Interested to hear your thoughts on how we deal with this.
Britain has a great deal of violent crime, P – the difference being innocent victims are prohibited by law from defending themselves.
Is your suggestion that we – the millions of people in this country who handle guns responsibly and keep them for self-defense – give them up so that we are rendered defenseless against the violent thugs out there who will not be disarmed, as in Britain?
Not all dangerous and violent crime is “gun crime”. In Britain, were virtually all guns are outlawed, most home break-ins are in occupied homes. Crmiinals don’t fear the homeowners being at home as they know they will be unarmed and even if the homeowners act to defend themselves in some manner they are likely to be charged with a crime for doing so.
In the US, on the other hand, virtually all home break-ins occur when the owner is not around. The so-called “home invasions” are, in parts of the country where people are allowed to own guns, so rare as to be major news. This is because criminals fear homeowners and the chance they may be confronted.
All true – however, I prefer not to use the utilitarian argument as my primary argument. Rather, I like to defend the principle at issue: That each of us has the inalienable right to defend our lives and property. Take away guns, and you’ve taken away that right.
Even if it were possible to take guns away from thugs (which is unlikely) the fact remains that thugs will use other means to brutalize people: Knives – or their hands. Unless the would-be victim is equal in strength and fighting ability, the victim is largely at the mercy of the thug. A gun equalizes things. It makes it possible for a 100 pound woman – or an 80-year-old man – to ward off a 200 pound 26 year old thug.
I absolutely agree that the moral arguments are better and stronger than the utilitarian ones. However, so many have their heads buried in the sand and can’t even begin to grasp the moral issues and must first at least have their practical points refuted.
Ultimately I believe they are all related. The universe seems to be such that the utilitarian derives from the moral. That which is right results in that which is best in most instances. And, when it appears to not be so it is likely that the premises and criteria are inaccurate.
Agreed, Keith – well-said!
“Interested to hear your thoughts on how we deal with this.”
Simple. Accept the fact that the criminal class–both unsanctioned and sanctioned–are armed, and will remain so regardless of law.
Then resolve to arm yourself. Learn from your neighbors; home break-ins from the unsanctioned criminal class are quite rare in Texas. Criminals too understand risk/reward ratios.
At least one of the Sikhs in Wisconsin was able to put his Kirpan to good use.
I think you make an excellent comparison.
I guess it is too much to wait for some one to commit a crime before people lock him up.
I doubt you will get many elites to agree with your analogy. They know better than any mundane.
You could have summed up by this:
It’s about control. Control of YOU. They want to control your behavior, not theirs. Their behavior/actions are righteous. You should obey your betters.
But don’t think that this doesn’t apply to cars either. You yourself have documented the changes going on in this area rather well.
They’ll be happy when everyone is driving a smart car sized electric vehicle and is disarmed. They will be driving limos and have 4 armed security guards…You are the serf, they are the lords.
They will have their special roads.
The HOV lanes are just the start. Illinois’ proposal for them is to make them usable by those in government office any time they want, even driving solo. Like a communist country, good roads only for those upstanding party members. Social order, social contract, whatever…. It’s socialism because what matters is how social a person is, who his friends are, his status in society…. not what he does, not what he creates, not his moral standards… what matters is social rank.
Humanity is doomed I am afraid. Might as well just set off the nukes and let the cockroaches take over. Repitles failed. Mammals have failed. Time to let the insects have a shot. Or maybe the fish.
“Humanity is doomed I am afraid. Might as well just set off the nukes and let the cockroaches take over. Repitles failed. Mammals have failed. Time to let the insects have a shot”
I can’t agree with that. It appears to me that what is doomed is the intention of an elite to continue to dominate humanity through the methods that have been used historically.
There has been a huge shift in the ability of humans to communicate ideas. That the mass of humanity hasn’t instantly become aware of this shift and begun to use this new ability to communicate doesn’t mean that humanity is doomed. It only means that we are at the start of what could be a new age of reason, where a rekindling of interest in the accumulated moral wisdom of several milennia may begin.
I’m more inclined to be hopeful for mankind. The fact that hundreds of like-minded people can have discussions on a blog like this is cause for optimism. 20 years ago, the numbers of us who had access to the technology being used by you and me have this little exchange we’re having were tiny.
Now, several hundred readers a day will see what you and I have written here and will be able to join in and give their own views. This is unprecedented in human history. It makes me see a brighter possible future.
I am in a more cynical phase at the moment.
It requires effort to ‘wake up’. Most people won’t put it in. They’ll put in effort not to.
Humanity doesn’t seem to change. It falls for the same scams and social manipulations over and over and over again. They can’t even comprehend obvious frauds like “climate change”. It’s an ancient scam with a new wrapper, but fundamentally unchanged since pre-history and it still works.
We aren’t isolated any longer, but are we actually greater in number? I was isolated, formed and arrived at many of the principles greats I never heard of had put together decades or centuries before me, before I was even born. I know about them now, it has helped refine and apply these principles. Without the internet we would not find each other, but is there really an awakening? Is it working to increase numbers?
It’s made great advancements, it’s made our presence larger, scared the power structure, but they are just using social tricks on the majority as they always have.
Maybe next month I’ll be more optimistic.
In some countries enough people might finally see reality but I don’t have much faith in Americans. Talk about obvious frauds, how about the whole American political clown show. For decades it’s been patently obvious that both parties are the same criminal organization only pretending to be opposed to each other. This scam is still working for the majority of the sheeple. People still arguing over Obama/Romney like they were any different. Like it makes such a difference whether you order your s**i sandwich on white or whole wheat.
You are 100% correct. Both parties are after complete control together. They are under the umberella of the above elite wanting total global cntrol. I am 72 yrs old and am very scared for my kids and grand kids who will be here in the far future.
Agree its a good argument Eric brings up so the government will be sure to limit your consumption of luxury items like over sized engines just soon as they finish making the issue of every other individual choice first. With a government and body of Americans who worship government power its almost guaranteed.
I rarely watch TV but when I do turn it on to see whats playing I find 7 police drama’s and 2 war dramas. And if thats not playing its the talking heads about legal guns needing restrictions. And if thats not playing its a law and court show. And if that not playing its America’s got talent or something really mind numbing. I think its clear to see why there are so many government worshippers and freedom haters. Add that and the K-12 indoctrination and we that believe in the individual are cooked!
Who’s “they”? I hear the N.R.A. is one of the best funded organisations?
“They” are large bands of your fellow Clovers who have co=opted the power and influence of the Ruling Class in order to control and bully the rest of us who would live our lives as free people.
As for the NRA, it is not the all-powerful lobby that you and your fellow Clovers imagine it to be. It is, in reality, an organization that has thoroughly compromised itself and regularly sold out the 2nd Amendment it purportedly defends by endorsing, time and time again, legislation that gives the Cloverlords wide latitude in restricting and controlling gun ownership. This is why those of us who are REALLY serious about defending the 2nd Amendment are members of Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization with an established track record of resisting ANY federal attempt at ANY form of firearms restriction.
“As for the NRA, it is not the all-powerful lobby that you and your fellow Clovers imagine it to be. It is, in reality, an organization that has thoroughly compromised itself and regularly sold out the 2nd Amendment it purportedly defends by endorsing, time and time again, legislation that gives the Cloverlords wide latitude in restricting and controlling gun ownership”
Very true, liberranter. In fact, we can go further in that statement by pointing out that the NRA is the largest and best funded guncontrol organization in the US. The NRA has written and lobbied for every single large piece of guncontrol legislation passed, beginning with the 1934 National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms and including the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 1968 “Gun Control Act” is a verbatim copy of the 1938 “German Gun Control Act”.
The NRA co-opted and sold out years ago. Gun Owners of America is a no-compromise pro-gun organization.