Banning History

 

After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation.  This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created.  That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not.  At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.

As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not.  As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups.  And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.

Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery.  Read the words of the people who were there.  Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war.  Certainly it was a reason for the war.  Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war.  But there still would have been reason for it.

The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach.  The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty.  They seceded.  A war between the states was waged.

Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution.  It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union.  It is a defense of Honor.  Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous.  We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.

Fast forward to today.  A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina.  A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag.  And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.

Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds.  Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.

Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened.  Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag.  Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store.  Apparently representing history is now a hate crime.  People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.

This is sad and amazing to me.  Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American.  Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American.  It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.

Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations).  But more than that, it is calls to erase history.  The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol.  Where does it stop?

For Progressives, it doesn’t.  Today it is the flag and some monuments.  What will it be tomorrow?  There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime.  Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.

They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.

They want to ban our Right to say what we think.

They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.

The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.

On Natural Rights

What to write about?

I could write about the Rolling Stone UVA story, but why? At this point, Rolling Stone and “Jackie” have about as much credibility as an unemployed man with a 480 FICO score.

I could write about the riots over the Michael Brown and Eric Garner Grand Jury decisions, but, again, why? Pretty well everything has been said. People made up their minds before the evidence was in; they’re not changing them now.

I could write about CrOmnibus- the Republicans trying to sell out Conservatives once again. I could write about the Use of Force authorization that the SCOAMT wants, but won’t specify exactly what he wants. Sorry, Barry, no blank checks.

With all that’s going on in the news, maybe we need to get back to first principles. Maybe we need to consider why we’re conservative in the first place. It’s always a good idea to review why you believe what you believe from time to time.

So with that, I’ll consider the second* of the first principles: Natural Rights.

 

What are Natural Rights?

Natural Rights are those things (really the only Rights at all) that every human being possesses simply by virtue of being human. No government can grant or remove them. No one has more of them than any other person. Simply being human grants these rights. In many ways, they are simply laws of nature- like gravity or entropy. But, being laws of Human Nature, we often fight against them in various ways.

The Natural Rights are generally summed up as “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Some guy who was really smart in other ways nevertheless screwed the pooch and changed that last one to “pursuit of Happiness” in our Declaration of Independence. We can forgive him that, I guess, though that wording has cause great harm.

Each right really deserves its own post, and may get one, but they deserve a little bit of illumination here.

The Right to Life is perhaps more specifically “the Right to sustain and protect one’s life.” The Right to Life includes things like the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. It includes the right to feed one’s self (which is a bigger thing than you might think).

It really should not be mistaken for a reverence for life. While I am pro-life when it comes to the abortion argument, it is not because of my belief in the Right to Life. Here, a baby has no more “right to life” than a man being eaten by a bear. Less, in fact, simply by the fact that the man being eaten by the bear has some chance of defending himself. He can be his own agent of life protection and sustenance.

The Right to Liberty is both the “right to be left alone” and the “right to do as you please.” From it we derive things like the freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to work.

The Right to Property is the right to accumulate property. It includes the right to purchase and own a home, as well as the right to build wealth.

 

Why are natural rights important?

A belief in God is the foundation of the United States of America (if you don’t believe that, go re-read your history). The Natural Rights are the pillars standing on that foundation holding the rest of the structure up. All of the Constitutionally protected (not granted) rights are either direct applications of, or logical derivations of Natural Rights. I mentioned some in the previous section. The Right to Life is the one where we derive the Second Amendment, for example. The prohibitions against double-jeopardy and bills of attainder also have roots in the Right to Life. The Right to Property is where we derive things like the 3^rd and 4^th amendments.

Natural Rights are also important because if you do not realize from where your rights come, you might agree to any sort of nonsense. If Rights are not Natural, then they must be granted by some agency. If some agency grants them, then that same agency can rescind them. If they can be rescinded, then they are not “rights” at all.

I said previously that no government can either grant or deny the Natural Rights. No matter how restrictive the regime, no matter how devoted to Communism and/or oppression, you cannot be deprived of your Right to Life, Liberty, and Property. The exercise of those rights can be legally forbidden and therefore punished, but the rights themselves exist and you retain them fully.

That may seem trivial. What good is having a Right to Property if exercising it is going to get you imprisoned and all your stuff confiscated? But it is just the fact that people lost sight of the Right to Property that caused them to agree to stop exercising it. Communism cannot exist if the People remember their Natural Rights and vigorously defend them.

One example that might seem trivial. My brother (sorry, bro, but it highlights the point) and I were talking at Thanksgiving, and he mentioned a device had been invented which could be added to a circular saw (or table saw, or maybe either) which would sense when your finger came too close to the blade and stop the blade nearly instantly. He further asserted that this device would add only pennies to the cost of a saw, and expressed disbelief that people making saws were fighting a regulation which would mandate the use of this device.

But, of course, if you really believe in the Natural Right of Liberty, you immediately see why such a mandate should be prohibited. My Right of Liberty says that I can do what I want. Maybe I want to add this safety device to *some* saws and charge a higher price. Maybe I know that some people have uses for circular and table saws which would be interfered with by this device, so I want to continue making them without it. Maybe I just don’t want to add the device to the saws I make. Why should it be the government’s business?

And so we come to the end of this primer on Natural Rights. It is our belief in these Rights which lead first to the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution. Our continued belief in them is what motivates the various Tea Party organizations. It is why Conservatives are so upset with Boehner’s CrOmnibus. Belief in the Natural Rights is why we side with Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman over Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. Our commitment to them is why false charges of rape such as those made by Rolling Stone are met with such condemnation. It is why we oppose rioting for any reason.

*-Yep the 2^nd. As alluded to, the first First Principle is a belief in God. All the founders where Christians of one sort or another.

The Case Against Background Checks

So Democrats keep pursuing "Universal Background Checks" for "common sense gun control."  Their primary "Fact" (which happens to be wrong, color me stunned) is that "40% of gun purchases happen without a background check."

Before I point out why background checks are a bad idea, let's go ahead and dispense with this argument.

First, as I pointed out, it's wrong.  Roughly 60% of guns are purchased directly from stores or dealers and require full background checks.  Roughly 30% of guns are obtained via gift or inheritance.  There's already laws against knowingly giving a gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one, so any additional "background check" rules are not going to do squat about that.

That leaves roughly 10% of gun purchases which do not require a background check.  Heck, let's be generous and remove the gift/inheritance demographic completely.  That means (back of napkin math) that our pool goes down to 70% of it's original.  If we assume 100 guns as the original number(this math should scale up, since we're talking real percentages), now we're down to 70 that were purchased at all.  Of those, 60 have background checks, and 10 do not.  Ten is approximately 14.29% of 70, which is far short of 40%.

But 40% sounds scarier, so that's what they're running with.

Now, lets take a look at what this argument is really saying.  It has two false premises.

False premise number one: A new law can stop people from breaking the law. 
As already mentioned, it's already illegal to give a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one.  If I give a gun to a known felon, I've broken the law.  Are you suggesting I'm going to be more concerned about breaking the law after your super-double-serious law about background checks passes?

False premise number two: The American people are not trustworthy.
The only reason background checks make sense for purchases at all is that we don't want "crazy people or felons" to have weapons.  That's fine as far as it goes.  However- as proven with the Newton, CT shooting, crazy people can still get guns (see point one about criminals not obeying the law).  The same is true of felons.  So the only reason that 40% number is scary at all is if you believe that a) the only reason someone would purchase in a way that didn't require a background check was to obtain an illegal weapon and b) that if that purchase now required a background check they wouldn't find some other way to obtain a weapon.

If you don't believe both of those things, then it shouldn't matter if that number is 10%, 14%, 40%, or 90%.

Now that we've shown the Liberals don't really have a case for universal background checks, let's consider the case against them.

It comes down to one thing: background checks are de facto gun registration.  Even if I don't mention the specific model of the handgun being sold, the background check alerts the government that Citizen Y has purchased a handgun.  Now the government knows that Citizen Y has a handgun.

Registration is the necessary first step in confiscation.  Not that confiscation will necessarily result (though we know that's their end-game), but that without registration confiscation is completely impossible.

Now, since we know their end-game is complete confiscation- they've said as much in hundreds of ways- then it stands to reason they also know that 100% registration is the only way to get to confiscation.  Since I don't particularly want my guns confiscated, you'll excuse me if I reject the idea of Universal Background Checks.

I trust the majority of my fellow citizens.  In fact, until a specific individual gives me a reason they cannot be trusted, I trust all of them.  It does not bother me one whit if you get a gun without a background check.  Why should my doing the same bother you?

Heretics Must Be Silenced

BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns."  That perfectly sums up the article.  But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out.  The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.

You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up."  Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation.  See, ABC said so, so it must be true.

But maybe we should make our own determination.  When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do.  So let's look at those proposals.

Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks."  Essentially this would do nothing.  Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole."  Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist.  If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check.  Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL.  Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway.  And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."

In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult.  They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally. 

Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size.  First, as the memo points out, this is just silly.  Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining.  That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare.  Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.

Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away.  What then?  Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it.  It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines.  If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.

Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons."  We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger.  "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary."  It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle.  Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15.  Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.

And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.

At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer.  Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves.  None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets.  None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used.  None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals. 

If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry.  That is the only option.

Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying.  Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it.  Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades.  This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns.  It is proven by how little coverage those events get.  It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year?  All three with 10+ victims?  Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).

Liberals want to take your guns.  They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright.  And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys.  Thus the article.

ABC is lying to you.  The White House is lying to you.  They do want you disarmed.  Don't believe different.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Red-Coats are coming.
The Red-Coats are coming.

It's official, Democrats across the nation are waging war against the 2nd Amendment.

US Senate Democrats support reintroducing the "Assault Weapons" Ban- which bans a host of purely cosmetic features.
New York just passed sweeping gun controls, including limits on any magazine size over 7 rounds.
Missouri Democrats have introduced House Bill 545, which would not only ban "Assault Weapons," but would confiscate them.
And New Jersey Democrats just passed 20 gun control bills out of committee.

This must not stand.  As our forefathers before us, we "must hang together, or else we shall all hang separately."

Save that image.  Print it out.  Send it as a post-card to your State Senators and Representatives and to your National Senators and Representatives.  If you feel like including a note specifying why you sent it, please do.  But as of right now I'm calling on every 2nd Amendment defender to flood their State Legislatures and the Federal Legislature with this simple note.  Maybe then they'll get the hint.

Softer Tyranny

Or: How even a 2nd Amendment Defender Can Fall For the Left's Lies

In piece on Law.com, Robert Levy, co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller (of District of Columbia v Heller) posits that: "Reasonable persons should be able to fashion reasonable restrictions—a framework for gun control in the aftermath of Newtown—without violating core Second Amendment rights."

With due respect to the counselor, he has bought in to many of the left's lies.  Rather than take down each of the specific proposals (which would be pointless anyway, as he provides them in a "pros and cons" format), I'm going to point out some flaws in his premises.

1) "The (2nd Amendment) is not absolute."

As co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller, I was a vigorous advocate for the right to possess firearms for self-defense. But I understand, as does every rational individual, that the right is not absolute. The Second Amendment does not guarantee a 12-year-old's right to possess a machine gun in front of the White House when the president is walking on the lawn.

Okay, first lets fight that straw-man.  No 12-year-old is (in current culture) going to carry a machine gun in front of the White House at any time- the President being present or otherwise.  Of course the absurd is absurd.  That said, why would a 12-year-old not have a "right to possess a machine gun" other than being a minor in the first place?  Let's put this another way- granted that a 12-year-old should being carrying a gun unsupervised anyway, does a 30-year-old have a "right to possess a machine gun?"

This leads directly into this line: "the right is not absolute."  If that were the case, it wouldn't be a "right."  It would be a "privilege."  The authors of the 2nd Amendment, however, called the ownership and usage (to Keep and Bear) of weapons a "Right."  Rights are, by their definition, absolute.  I have an absolute right to defend my Life.  I have an absolute right to determine my own destiny.  I have an absolute right to accumulate property.  And you will notice that liberty and property (or the more genteel "pursuit of happiness") do not receive the same treatment that the right to self defense does.  The right to self defense is declared sacrosanct: "Shall Not be Infringed."

2) Magazine Size Limits

Firearms experts note that murderers can easily load a second or third magazine in a matter of seconds. Accordingly, limiting magazine size to, say, 10 rounds will not have much practical effect. Perhaps so; but that would also mean individuals trying to defend themselves would not be seriously hampered by a 10-round limit. They too could reload very rapidly.

This is one of "pros and cons" arguments, but it bears special attention.  The point he misses (either willfully or coincidentally) is that those two situations are very different. 

A murderer (say, in an elementary school) is going to have lots of people running away and (importantly) darned few trying to attack him.  Seconds, in an actual fight, are a very long time.  An active shooter isn't in a fight, though.  So a mass shooter has lots of time to reload.  Unless people have suddenly become able to outrun bullets, however, their victims are not going to benefit overmuch from those seconds.

The Korean shop owner, or a woman in her own home, facing multiple assailants is in a distinctly different situation.  There, they are not the aggressor.  As such, even the seconds (~1 - 2) it takes (even longer if you're in California, and so can't have normal one-button magazine releases), can be all the time it takes from the last shot you fired until the first of those (remaining) "multiple assailants" can actually get to you.  So where the seconds are a luxury our mass shooter has, they are not available for someone engaged in fending off multiple assailants.

3) Legalize drugs.

The single most effective option—which is not being discussed at all—would result in a huge reduction of gun violence: Legalize drugs.

No, no it wouldn't.  First off, no one (rational) is considering some gang member or drug dealer who gets shot because of a drug deal gone bad a "victim" of gun violence.  Outlaws are outside the law; they'll find something to fight about anyway.  And it completely ignores (as in: does not even address) the problems inherent in legalizing drugs, especially in our current culture. 

Responsible gun owners already know that guns and alcohol do not mix.  People who are into drugs are not going to be "responsible gun owners" (for the most part), and may not grasp the wisdom inherent in not mixing guns and drugs.

It also assumes that the drug cartels will suddenly "go legit."  No.  Most narco-terrorists are using the "narco" part simply to fund their other activities.  Those activities will still require funding.  Even if drugs are no longer a viable avenue of funding, they'll find something else that is.  So unless you're going to legalize everything (and I mean everything) then you're not going to end drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs.  You might change it into "Soccer game-fixing related violence," or any number of other things.  But the violence will continue.

4) "Mental Health."
I've already addressed this one, actually.  Who determines who is mentally incompetent to possess a firearm?  How long do those determinations last? 

Now, to be fair to Mr. Levy, he is "on our side" on this one.  My problem is not with him, and he sides with 2nd Amendment advocates, on balance, in his piece.  The majority of his opinion is well formed and well founded.  But if we do not address these points, and expose them as faulty premises and ideas, we will never completely win the argument.  Until we have won the argument, gun owners will be forced to defend their rights every few years, and potentially in a more hostile political/cultural environment than we have currently.

If Liberals Treated all our Rights like they treat the 2nd...

If Liberals treated all our Rights like they treat the 2nd Amendment...

You would have to pass a background check and present a photo ID to join a church.

You would have to get a permit to write.

"High Capacity Assault" Lawyers would be banned (hey, maybe that one's a good idea...)

Simply having stuff would be "probable cause" for it to be seized.

The right to a speedy trial would require a permit and a three-day waiting period.



Sound off with your own in the comments.

Tyranny 101

Andy, over at the AoSHQ says of this clip: "We Laughed at that.  He's serious... and representative of a sizable swath of the left."

He's right, too.  But I think this is even more insidious than that.

There are two things happening beneath the surface of this clip.

The first is the deliberate conflation of "Rights" and "Privileges."  A right is something that cannot be taken away.  The Government does not- cannot- grant or refuse any right at all.  They can punish the act of engaging in a right.  They can attempt to circumvent or infringe upon rights.  The right still exists independent of what the government does and regardless of what anyone thinks on the matter.  A privilege is granted by the State.  It only applies in certain circumstances.  Sometimes these circumstances are very broad (public education is a privilege), and sometimes these circumstances are very narrow (so is Social Security).

By purposely confusing the two, the Leftists simultaneously make people feel they are "entitled" to certain privileges, while making them believe they are not entitled to practicing certain of their rights.  This brings us to the next point.

The other thing happening under the surface, here, is that the Left is trying to make people believe that the Government is the source of all things.  That air you breathe is regulated by the Government.  The Government provides you the "right" of education, while denying some the "privilege" of gun ownership.  In this way, people come to view the Government not as a group entrusted with authority by, and accountable to, the People, but as a monolithic entity- an Aristocracy in all but name- to which we are all beholden for everything.

They seek to make us slaves, and many are too enamored of their "free" phones, or houses, or TVs, or Internet service to bother to consider the implications.  Which assumes the Government Run education system has imparted to them and honed their capacity for such consideration in the first place.

Another I Told You So

Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses?  I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?

Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns.  Apropos of nothing, of course.

My mother often calls me a pessimist.  She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead.  I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore.  After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist.  It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.

When I wrote that piece, I said this:

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result.  People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill."  Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.

I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment.  What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual."  Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain.  We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others.  Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse.  Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.

I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).

What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual.  It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.

Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.

Liberal Media Personalities: You Gun Owners Are Evil

See, if you own a gun, you support the Eeevil "Gun Lobby."  And the Gun Lobby must be opposed like the Nazis, and failing to do so is the same as failing to speak out against Democrats (like Bull Connor) during the 1960 Civil Rights debates.

I would set aside these two statements, because they're so stupid, but many will listen to them.  Even if these two particularly stupid statements don't persuade anyone, they're simply adding to a growing chorus designed to make you believe that a) guns are evil, b) gun owners are evil, and c) anyone who thinks otherwise is weird or defective.  Therefore they must be exposed and ridiculed.  They must also be refuted.

So let's take this "Nazi" thing, first.  Opposing gun ownership is being like the Nazis, not like opposing them.  For those of you not aware, just like every other tyrannical regime since the 19th Century, one of the first things the Nazis did was prohibit private ownership of firearms.  You see, the point of owning a gun is not to hunt, or shoot at paper targets, or at clay pidgeons.  The point of owning a gun is not even, primarily, to defend yourself, your family, or your home from robbers and theives.  The point of owning a gun is to have the means to oppose a tyrannical government.

So, when a tyrannical government wants to take power, the first thing it must do is to disarm the populace.  So far from opposing the "Gun Lobby" (read: "Gun Owners") being like opposing the Nazis, it is simply enabling those who would be Nazis, or any other kind of tyrant.  This is also why, yes, I should be allowed to own a howitzer.

Now, on the Civil Rights comment.  Again, would it surpise you to know the nation's first gun control laws were enacted (again, by Democrats) in the South to prevent the newly freed slaves from defending themselves from the likes of the (largely Democrat) KKK?  So, far from failing to oppose the gun lobby being akin to failing to oppose desegregation and Civil Rights, opposing the gun lobby is exactly like opposing the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

The simple fact is that no single item represents the Freedom of Man, and the fact that the People are Sovereign over their Government like The Gun.  An armed populace is one that does not need to fear its government.  An armed populace is one that is sovereign over its government.  Armed civilians are the employers and bosses of the military and the police.  Simply put, a disarmed populace is none of those things.

And only a tyrannical government would seek to disarm its populace.

There He Goes Again.

So, the White House finally decided it had had enough of the plebes daring to voice their opinion, so SCOAMT changed the rules on the White House petitions.  Now, instead of having to get 25,000 signatures, a petition must receive 100,000 to reach the status that it must receive an "official response."

Now, this may seem like a mundane thing, but it really isn't.  This is, as our illustrious Vice President might say, a Big F'in Deal.  In fact, it's another step toward the Neo-Feudalism that I've mentioned in this space before.  You see, the President can't be bothered with responding to something a mere 25,000 of The People care about.  No, he can only bestir himself for something 100,000 sign onto.

But if he can set any number to trigger an "official response," then he is already circumventing the People's 1st Amendment Right to petition for redress of grievances.  How?  Because then nothing is preventing him from setting the number at 300,000, or 500,000, or 1,000,000 or... well, you get the idea.

That is, if the President gets to set minimum boundary on whether or not he will even consider a petition, then he is saying that only "enough" of the people have a right to petition for redress of grievances.  And it is only a step, and a quite small one, from "enough" to "certain."

So, I have started a petition, which I hope you will sign (yes, you'll have to give them an email address).  While I really wanted to say drop the requirement to 1, I figure there are some practical limits.  So I simply requested that the President reinstate the old rules.  To stop moving the goal posts, if you will.

If it gets enough signatures, and I actually get a response, I'll update with what that response is.

Tyranny in a Velvet Glove

Here, go read this.  Human Events has the list of the SCOAMT's Executive Orders on Gun Control.

At first glance, these don't look so bad.  They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing."  But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.

Let's take a look at just a few:

2.  Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Oh, good.  So now my private health information is an "unnecessary legal barrier" to the Government deciding if my 2nd Amendment Rights should be honored.

 4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

5.  Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Law enforcement already runs a background check on individuals before returning seized guns.  So the only purpose for this, that I can see, is that a "full background check" takes longer, which means yet more delay in retrieving your wrongfully seized gun.

10.  Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Guns reported lost are stole are already logged that way.  When someone runs a gun's serial number, it will come back as "lost" if it was reported lost, or "stolen" if it was reported stolen.  I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish if it's not more than that.  If it is more than that, expect DOJ officials to come "verify your report" of a lost or stolen gun.

14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

 16.  Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Now he's just re-writing the law by fiat.  Not that that's new for him.

20.  Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Remember that point about the DSM-V I made earlier.  Yeah.

Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen.  It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself.  But it is what could happen.  And that should be enough.  The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.

This is tyranny in a velvet glove.  The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.

All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."

No.  From my cold, dead hands.

What's Next? "Reeducation" Camps?

Now, this is from Joe ("J-O-B-S. Three letters") Biden, so I suppose we should take it with a grain of salt.  Apparently the Administration is seeking to bypass congress in an unconstitutional twofer.  The Malignant Traitor wants to issue an executive order for gun control.  Unconstitutional 1: what part of "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" doesn't he understand?  Unconstitutional 2: Laws are made by congress, silly.  The Executive has no authority, even via Executive Orders to compel or direct the private citizenry in any way, unless specifically granted by statute.  Which statute provides the President the power to do anything about guns I own or wish to own?

Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing.  It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist.  It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany.  Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin.  Now what do these four have in common?

Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.

And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.

The Good Guns Do

It is easy, in the wake of any mass shooting tragedy, to fall prey to base emotionalism and believe that merely banning guns (or banning "bad" guns) would have prevented the tragedy.  As shown over and over that is simply not the case.  Obviously someone intent on murder is not going to be particularly hampered by some law prohibiting him from having a "semi-automatic assualt rifle" (a gun which, by definition, cannot exist). 

What is harder, or has been up to now, is to show the ways good, responsible, law-abiding citizens are using guns to make the world better.  Or, at least, to protect themselves.

Stepping up to the plate on this matter is the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank.  They have put together this interactive map.  What does it show?  Instances of responsible gun owners using their guns to defend themselves, their family, their neighbors, and their homes.  It's still a work in progress, and I'm sure it will be for the forseable future.  Go check it out, and pay particular attention to the types of things against which people use guns to defend themselves.

With newspapers and web-zines publishing lists of legal gun owners names (and addresses), it only seems right that someone point out what those legal gun owners are doing with those guns.

Let. It. Burn.

House Republicans are already preparing to capitulate to Barack Obama on tax increases.  When he rejects that offer, then they'll come back with tax increases and another increase to the debt ceiling, providing him everything he wants.  In addition, John Boener and GOP leaders are removing fiscal conservatives from their places on House committees.  This is all just more evidence that the GOP is dead as a conservative party.  So let it burn.

But what does "let it burn" mean?  Well, I think it means different things to different people, so I'll explain what I mean, and you can chime in in the comments (hint, hint).

First, "let it burn" does not mean a complete disengagement.  If it looks like things really can be turned around, we have to be willing to rush to the point of conflict to turn things around.  However, it does mean not spending one more minute defending the Republican party.  Not one more dime sent to the RNC or any Republican incumbent. 

It also means disengaging, as much as possible, from the coming economic collapse.  Taxes are going to go up.  Growth is already anemic, and higher taxes will just cripple the economy further.  This means a collapse is very seriously nigh, and we must be prepared.

We must be prepared for the collapse itself.  This means making as sure as possible that you have the means to take care of your family during the collapse.  Form informal groups and cooperatives with others, banding together to see your families through the tough times ahead.  I have a family farm I hope to have operational before the collapse, if it holds off long enough.  Food, shelter, and clothing are the most important things you can secure.  If you can do that through a job that pays well enough, that's fine.  If you can't, then you need to find a way to provide those things.

We must be prepared for the possible societal collapse.  That sounds alarmist, but it is an entirely possible consequence.  Over 51% of the voting public in the United States voted for Barack Obama, who promised them no end to their free stuff.  Once the economic collapse comes, their free stuff goes away anyway.  With luck, enough progress will be made politically that "the masses" will be willing to wait for economic relief.  If there isn't, then our Society, with 60+ years of class warfare rhetoric, 40+ years of racial warfare rhetoric, and an especially divisive President is ripe for societal unrest.  Part of being prepared for that unrest is the same as being prepared for the economic collapse.  Food, water, shelter.  Add physical safety and you're okay.  Another part, though, is being ready to lead.  Which leads us to the third thing we have to prepare for.

We must be prepared to rebuild.  Whether "just" an economic collapse, or a complete societal collapse, those who have prepared are most likely to come out of the trouble in a better situation.  Their preparations will give them advantages over their unprepared neighbors.  This means those unprepared neighbors will look to them for relief.  Those neighbors will either look to the prepared as leaders, or as targets.  If properly prepared, we can be seen as leaders and guide the rebuilding.

Let it burn is as much a path and strategy as anything.  It requires preparation and commitment.  It is not simple resignation and a complete disengagement from the economy, society, and culture.  It is an acknowledgement that "it" is going to burn anyway, and a prioritization of limited resourced based on that realization.

The Imperfectibility of Man

I've already posted this morning on Bob Costas's ignorant (at best) comments on Sunday Night Football last night.  I've also posted about San Bernardino going all "Thunderdome."  AoSHQ Moronette AlexTheChick posted over at Double Plus Undead an open letter to Costas and Whitlock which I highly recommend you read.

But I want to get a little more into this mentality that says "Guns bad."  It's the same nanny-state mentality that says that more Government is always the answer, and any failure of Government is not due to the fact that Government is incapable of doing certain things, but due to the fact that the Government needs absolute unchecked power.  This idea is based on a fallacy to which it seems both Whitlock and Costas fall prey.

There is an idea, ascribed to by teenagers and leftists, known as the perfectibility of man.  According to this idea, if people would just "be nice" to each other, and if the right rules were in place, all the evils in the world would go away.  This is the core premise behind such failed ideologies as Marxism and other collectivist systems.  It ignores the facts of human behavior.  People are not perfect, and no rules or enforcement thereof will make them so.

Case in point: perhaps my favorite quote directed to Messrs. Costas and Whitlock is this, "What caliber did OJ use?"  Human beings are violent, jealous, lazy, evil beings.  People don't like to acknowledge this, but it's true.  All that cursing you use?  It's a form of violence.  It's a very minor way to vent your aggression so that you don't actually become physically violent.  Human nature is evil. 

Now, this is a hard concept for two reasons.  One, if you accept it, you have to accept your own evil.  In the case of Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock, I'm sure they would vociferously deny that charge.  Second is that it means you must accept that evil will occur in the world, often for no good reason. 

It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that caused people to look for someone, other than Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, to blame for 9/11.  It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that causes bleeding hearts across the globe to try to "understand" murderers and rapists.  It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that says if we'd just take all the weapons away, no one would ever be violent again.

However, man is not perfectible.  Indeed, a central truth you must accept if you wish to actually address the balance of evil in the world is man's imperfectibility.  If man is not perfectible, then Government cannot be the solution, since it is run by imperfect men.  If man is not perfectible, then a better armed society is safer than a less armed society, since such a society would give the (relatively) innocent the means by which to protect themselves.  If man is not perfectible, then we do not have to wonder "why" atrocities occur; we can blame the perpetrator for their actions and treat them accordingly.

Bob Costas: Idiot

So, during his spot in last night's Sunday Night Football game between the Dallas Cowboys, who should still fire their GM, and the Philadelphia Eagles, Bob Costas decided to wax eloquent on Gun Control.  In a spot in which he quoted heavily from noted intellectual light-weight Jason Whitlock, Mr. Costas essentially blamed the existence of guns for the deaths of Kansas City Chiefs Line Backer Javon Belcher (suicide) and his live-in girlfriend (and mother of their child) Kasandra Perkins.

If they hadn't owned a gun, Costas opined with Whitlock's words, they might still be alive.  Yes, Mssrs-Highly-Paid-Media-Personalities-Who-Live-In-Very-Safe neighborhoods, because there is no way on earth a six foot tall, or taller, man weighing well north of 200 pounds (and probably not far south of 300) could possibly have killed his girlfriend with, say, a knife.  Nicole Brown Simpson was unavailable for comment.  Failing a knife, he could have used his hands and feet- a means by which you are much more likely to die than any firearm. 

Whatever happened that night, Javon Belcher attacked and murdered his girlfriend.  He then drove to his team's offices, where he shot himself in front of whitnesses.  A man so out of his mind is not suddenly going to reach clarity just because he has to grab a knife, a pipe, a rope, or use his bare hands instead of a gun.

You want to talk about "gun culture?"  Let's look at Virginia, where high fire-arms sales correspond (just coincidentally, I'm sure) with dropping violent crime rates.  Let's look at Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona, where a "gun culture" of routine ownership has not, somehow, lead to mass murders and the streets running with blood.  Let's look at Michigan, with it's own open-carry law where, excepting the cesspools of Flint and Detroit, you don't exactly have to be afraid to walk to your car at night.

Guns do not cause violence.  Guns do not cause us to "escalate confrontation."  Whatever your beliefs about the Wild West, it wasn't like the movies.  A well armed populace actually decreases violence.  This is especially true when the nature of those weapons is that of the gun- the great equalizer.  As written by Robert E. Howard "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

So spare me your holier-than-thou pontifications about the state of our "gun culture."  Don't try to tell me that violence and murder never existed before the firearm.  Don't try to lay the blame of young Mr. Belcher's actions on the tool he used in their commission.  The blame lies solely with Mr. Belcher, who, for whatever reason, killed the mother of his child, and then himself.

The Growing Police State: Email Edition

When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy first introduced his internet surveillance bill, he claimed that it "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."  That doesn't seem to be true anymore.  After receiving push-back from law enforcement, Mr. Leahy is suggesting a series of amendments which basically mean that law enforcement and other government agencies do not need to prove probable cause to gain access to your electronic information, they merely need to subpoena the information they want.

According to CNET, the bill does the following:
* Grants warrantless access to Americans' Electronic Data to over 22 Federal Agencies.  Only a subpoena would be required.
* Allows State and Local officials warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence which is "stored on systems no offered 'to the the public,' including university networks."
* Allows any law enforcement agency warrantless access without judicial review if they invoke an "emergency."
* Requires providers to notify the Government if they are going to warn users that their data has been targeted.
* Increases minimum time for the government to notify users from 3 days to 10 days, and allows for postponement for up to 360 days.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the 4th Amendment allows us to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."  Further, that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

I'm so sorry that it's more difficult to our Feudal Lords to prosecute us when they have to observe the niceties of proving probable cause before a judge, but that's the way the rules work.  This is flagrant disregard of the 4th Amendment, and must be stopped forthwith.

Join me in calling for Republican to Filibuster this legislation.  It is not enough that it be defeated in the House, if it were to be so defeated, our Senators must rise up and protect our Constitutionally preserved rights.

Are you angry yet?

The Culture Wars

Okay, I know I'm screaming into the wind on this one, but I've got to get it off my chest.  Heck, maybe someone who can do something about it will even read it and something might happen.  Stranger things have, after all.  It's rained frogs.

One of the reasons America appears to be a "50/50" nation or a "Center-Right" or (now) "Center-Left" nation is that Conservatives surrendered in the culture wars.  Before they surrendered, they weren't fighting it very well to begin with.  When the culture is Liberal, the electorate will be predisposed to be Liberal. 

Now, I'm not going to waste time saying that the culture is "courser" now than it was.  I'm not going to say we need to return to shows like "Leave it to Beaver," or "Father Knows Best."  For one thing, that horse has already left the stable.  For another, I'm not sure I would recommend it even if it weren't.

No, what we need to do is subvert the culture from within.  We need to take back the schools.  We need to take back music, TV, and movies.  And we need to do it well.

Taking the schools back over is a very tall order, and will take a minimum of 30 years to accomplish.  We need to be encouraging our children to become teachers, and then teach conservative values in the classroom.  I'm not talking about the question of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, either.  I'm talking focusing on a Conservative take on History.  Were you aware that most factory owners and mine owners were already undertaking to shorten the work week and make things safer for workers before unions came into the picture?  Probably not, because that's not taught.  But it's true.  I'm talking about a Conservative curriculum in the first place- more emphasis on "real-world" math and economics, for instance.  Not everyone needs to learn trigonometry.  Everyone needs to learn how to write, and stick to, a budget.

Interestingly, I believe that taking back music, TV, and movies will actually prove easier than taking back the schools.  For one thing, we already know we have some heavy-weights (and middle-weights) in show-business.  Clint Eastwood is such an icon in Hollywood that he is unassailable even when he talks openly about conservatism.  There are others as well.  They might not be quite as iconic, but there are enough of them that they'd be fine if they'd band together.

Currently, conservative entries in pop-culture (which will eventually just become "culture") are some combination of badly done, poorly funded, and under-exposed.  We need to fix all of those.

The typical "Conservative" film in Hollywood is usually a "film" in every since of the word.  It's usually some high-minded concept piece that few will watch.  Or it's some way-too-sappy movie that, again, few will watch.  What we need are not films, but movies.

We need action movies with explosions, and bad guys dying in impressive ways, and a good guy who is definably conservative.  The Governator has made a few of these, but we need more.  We need zombie movies where stereotypical examples of the things we don't like die in gruesome and inventive ways, while stereotypical examples of things we support win the day through self-sacrifice and teamwork.  We need romantic comedies where the main characters epitomize purity and kindness and all of those things, and the conflict comes from something other than one of them lying to the other, or assuming the worst about the other.

We need to promote bands like Madison Rising who sing a conservative message and do it well.

We need Drama TV shows that follow the ups and downs of (just spit balling here) a corporate investment firm.  We could watch them agonize over decisions and find the best way forward for their own employees.  Or maybe a TV show that follows a small business owner, trying to balance a life at home with family against the needs of the business to make it succeed.  We need comedies where the affable, relatable character is a Conservative, with conservative answers to problems.

I can't do this.  That's not the kind of writing at which I'm any good.  I acknowledge this.  But there are those out there who can do that writing, and who should do that writing.  There are those out there who can fund and produce that kind of entertainment, and they should.  There are those out there who can act, or sing, or whatever- and should.

Start fighting back in the culture, it may be the most important battleground between Liberalism and Conservatism.

Dear Socialists, I want a Divorce

Dear Socialists,

Last night you and your ilk decided that your free stuff was more important than my Liberty.  You ask for compromise, but you're not interested in compromise.  Indeed, there can be no compromise between Liberty and Tyranny, and you voted for Tyranny. 

There is no room for compromise.  We're not talking about tax rates, where you think that (say) 50% is enough, and I think 10% is the right amount.  No, on taxation you believe that everything I make should belong to the government, and the government should simply return "what I need" to me.

There can be no "partial" freedom of speech.  Speech is either free or it is restricted.  This is a binary proposition, and your side wants speech to be restricted.

There can be no "partial" infringement of the right to bear arms.  My right to bear arms is either un-infringed, or infringed.  And your side wants it to be infringed.

There can be no "partial" security of my person and effects.  Either I am secure in my person, subject to full due process, or I am not.  And your side has voted "not."

These differences are irreconcilable.  There cannot be compromise on binary positions.  One side will have its way, or the other will.  I had hoped that, given four years of Barack Obama's obvious failures, and the increasing strife in Greece, you would come to see the sense of my position.  Yes, I want what I make to be mine; I want to control it fully.  In return, I want what you make to be yours, and for your to control it fully.  This has not happened.

Unlike between a man and his wife, there is counselor we can go see.  There is no "couples therapy" between Liberty and Tyranny. 

I want a divorce.