This’ll drive ‘em nuts...

The next time some whiny bitch tells you that the NRA is evil because they stand in the way of “commonsense gun control”, shove the truth up their ass as follows:

Regrettably, the truth of the matter is that it is the forces of gun control who are the ones standing in the way of “reform”. It is groups like the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence and the Million Mom March that are the roadblocks to the policies you seek to implement.

You see, since the “gun control” movement began over forty years ago, the people at the heart of it have had, as their ultimate goal, a complete and comprehensive ban on the private ownership of handguns and the strict restriction of long arm ownership to those whom the government approves.

They have convinced themselves somehow that the second amendment to the constitution is irrelevant. Now, they have had some help. If you view the law as nothing more than what a particular judge says it is, then if you get some decisions that go your way, it is easy to convince yourself that you’re right. U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois; U.S. v. Miller – these and a few others are the hooks on which the gun control crowd hang their hats.

Now if you believe in the original intent of a law, however, then you are not going to consider these precedents as having any import.

So, it then becomes necessary to see who has the better argument. It is easily argued that both Cruikshank and Presser were wrongly decided viz. the 14th amendment and Miller said nothing about the meaning of the second amendment. Following on, any decision that uses these as their basis is equally flawed.

Today, there is today no constitutional scholar worthy of that term who doesn’t recognize the intent of the founding fathers. Thus, if you are a “gun control” advocate, you either cling feverishly to stare decisis in the face of strong evidence of erroneous judgment or you admit that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and you start arguing about the meaning of the word “infringed”.

To take the latter course is simply unthinkable for the “gun control” crowd. This is strong proof of their totalitarian intent.

Since they won’t admit that the people have any right to keep and bear arms, any and everything they do is highly suspect. Because they won’t admit the real meaning and validity of the second amendment, the NRA recognizes that regardless of what they say, their endgame remains the same. Thus, the NRA opposes them at every turn. When there is no hard and fast backstop to keep legislation or judicial activism from overreaching, no ground can safely be given up. When every “gun control” scheme enacted is welcomed by shouts of “It’s a start!” no proposal will be unopposed. The NRA understands that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, but until the other side - at a minimum - acknowledges the existence of that right, there can be no discussion between the two sides.

If, on the other hand, the courts and legislatures and people around the country had a firm notion of what is acceptable and what crosses the line into the unconstitutional, then a real discussion of a firearms registry could take place. A genuine exchange about the efficacy of a licensing system may happen. A calm talk about the possibility of storage requirements is conceivable.

As it currently stands, however, as long as the forces of “gun control” persist in their perverse denial of the reality of the second amendment, they frustrate their own avowed goals and prolong the bloodshed.

How to...

From an occasional series on how to talk to gun-control advocates…

A. Answering the question: “Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?”

There are three major ‘problems’ with the above question:

1. “Need” – Forget the Constitution. If you believe that a human has the inherent right to life, then you necessarily believe that that human has an inherent right to defend that life – with whatever tools are necessary.
2. “AK-47” – Once again there is the (intentional?) confusion between “semi-automatic” and “assault” rifles. Are we discussing a semi-automatic version or a select-fire “machine gun”? If we are discussing a semi-automatic, then, what is the difference between it and a Browning automatic hunting rifle? Or a Remington 1100 skeet gun? They all work the same way. If you ban one, you have to ban the others. If, on the other hand, we’re discussing a “machine gun” then we’re discussing something that is already very tightly controlled by the government.
3. “Hunting” - This could be subsumed under #1, but since it concerns a slightly different point, I’ll break it out: While hunting is one facet of it, firearms ownership in this country is not about hunting. It is about the founders of our republic realizing that unchecked power grows abusive. Therefore, they quite intentionally placed final authority and the ultimate veto power in the hands of the people. It has been variously estimated that during the course of the 20th century, approximately 40- 60 million people died as the result of international wars. During that same 100 years close to four times that number died at the hands of their own governments.(1) Think that our government won’t become like that? Do you think you have rights? Refuse to pay your income tax and see what happens.



(1) - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

The U.N. strikes again

I believe that there is more than enough political will in this country (and the current administration) to keep the World Government wannabees in Turtle Bay from futzing with our rights, but what worries me is that the rest of the world will adopt ill-conceived and draconian policies which will make it all but impossible for me to travel overseas with my Perazzi target gun to shoot trap/skeet/sporting clays. It is already a sizeable headache to do so in Europe. I don't know that I'd even try it in South America. And Asia? Well, forget about it. After this it may become literally impossible for anyone but the Olympic team to go abroad to shoot.

Have you considered...

What most people haven't thought about or refuse to think about is this:

At some point, there was going to be an accounting between Iraq and the rest of the world.

The chances that a stable, responsible government would have emerged after the passing of Saddam were between slim and none.

As bad as Saddam was, his criminally insane offspring would have been far worse.

Any military leader strong enough to emerge as the next head-of-state would have to have many of the same "qualities" possessed by the soon to be convicted Mr. Hussein.

In short, things were not likely to get any better in the near-to-mid term in Iraq. Would it have been a good idea to leave a country like that alone to whip up God knows what kinds of weapons?

The people who oppose this war are quite simply, Stupid.

Again and again and again...

Until the assholes remember...

1981-3: Saddam uses chemical and or biological weapons on Iranian troops

1988: Saddam uses chemical/biological weapons on Iraqi Kurds

1991: Upon entering Baghdad, U.N. and U.S. weapons inspectors are horrified to find a nuclear weapons program they estimate to be no more than 18 months from a test device.

1991 - 2002: Saddam Hussein refuses to fully comply with U.N. weapons inspectors and does not account for all the chemical/biological agents he admitted to having. He merely claims, "They're gone."

But George W. Bush is the bad guy because we didn't find any WMD? What about the hundreds of artillery shells we've found filled with mustard gas and sarin? Oh, well those aren't really chemical weapons say the BDS sufferers like Kos and Atrios.

Whatever.

Could it be...

To anyone willing and able to think, the truth is axiomatic:

Guns are inanimate assemblies of metal - they cannot walk, they cannot talk, they CANNOT KILL.

So then, since a gun is value-neutral, it means that guns are bad only when in the hands of bad people and, following this, good when in the hands of good people. A better way to describe it may be to say ‘responsible’ people and ‘irresponsible’ people.

Now, we have in Philadelphia certain neighborhoods where gunfire is common and many lives are lost every year. Behind the rhetoric of gun control advocates you find that – when pressed – they will admit the vast majority of communities have no problems with gun-related violence. They almost always point to the inner cities as the reason for gun control. Thus, we find that the people in the inner cities are the problem, not guns. Why are they the problem? Because many of them are deeply irresponsible. The questions that dare not get asked are: “Why are so many people in our inner cities so irresponsible?” And, “What do we do to make our citizens more responsible?” The answer to these questions lies in the assumptions and designs of over seventy years of social policy and for those of the political class these questions are as unthinkable as a fundamentalist Christian asking: “But if the bible is wrong about the sun orbiting the earth – then what else is it wrong about?

Nevertheless, until these questions get asked by those who make and implement our social policies, we will not get a handle on our problems.

In the meantime, while we waste our energies trying to put a band-aid on the cancer in our cities, people die.

Idiocy undaunted by reality

Tom Ferrick is either an Epsilon-minus semi-moron, or he's a shrewd practitioner of Josef Goebbels' art of propaganda. Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie big enough, long enough - eventually it becomes fact.

Mr. Ferrick, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, keeps playing the one string he knows how to play - gun control - as the answer to Philly's violence epidemic.

Despite the fact that there is no evidence to support his assertion that his policy prescription will ameliorate the situation in our poorer neighborhoods and despite the mountain of evidence that gun-control has failed utterly everywhere and in every manner it has been attempted, he just keeps on playing.

Tom Ferrick: King of the one-string guitar. Would that he were around for 'One Night Only'.

Am I all wet on this?

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Even your right to life can be rescinded if you abdicate your responsibilities and commit certain acts. You have a responsibility to pay taxes and obey the law. In return, you are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness as you see fit.

Now, some people say that animals have rights. This is patent nonsense. For the reasons that I've outlined above, if an individual is incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities, they cannot have any rights.

Consider a human child. By law, it has no rights. Can a child vote? Can a child own firearms? Can a child enter into or enforce a contract? Does a two-year-old have the right to free speech? (In fact, considered properly, a child does not even have the right to life. The question is moot, however, because the child's parents have the responsibility to protect him/her and act for him/her in worldly matters. In return, the parents have the right to protect the life of their child and raise him in peace and safety. Additionally, no one has the right to take a child’s life.) Thus, the child is, for all intents and purposes, chattel.

Similarly, whereas an animal cannot fulfill any responsibility, there can be no possibility of rights. We, as humans, have the responsibility to protect them, avoid inflicting upon them unnecessary pain and suffering and maintain their numbers. In return, we have the right to use them as is best for ourselves and them.

It is only by the blood and pain of those who went before us that we have the advanced society that we have today. Analogously, it is by the suffering of some animals that we will find ways to prevent or cure disease in the future. And not just for ourselves; veterinary medicine has benefited from product testing and vivisection as well. If it is demonstrably unnecessary, then inflicting pain and suffering should be unthinkable and punishable - but if not, then let’s not fool ourselves that it is anything out of the ordinary.

The slow, painful death of an antelope run down by lions and eaten alive is not something humans can - or ought to try to - stop. Nature is immutable and it is only our hubris, in thinking we are beyond it, that allows foolish notions like 'animal rights' to flourish.

Education is expensive

Well, it seems that the Dixie Chicks new album is gathering dust on shelves all over America and their tour is about to be cancelled because no one is buying tickets.

I think it instructive to use these young ladies to illustrate some of what is wrong in America today:

Yes, you have the right to free speech and yes, you can use your prominence to promote a political agenda.

However, whereas we live in a (currently) capitalist society, it does not behoove one to repudiate and belittle the cultural norms and moral outlook of those whom you would have as customers.

Further, it ought not come as a great surprise that having thus insulted potential customers, they refuse to purchase your product and/or service.

I am unaware if these young ladies blame the President for their current troubles, but if they do, then they have again failed Marketing 101 and will need to repeat it yet again - or drop out.

Don't worry we'll handle this...

So, New Jersey is thinking of passing a bill to ban protests at military funerals.

The impetus for this is the disgusting displays mounted by followers of a particular fundamentalist Christian minister, Fred Phelps, who believes that our society's acceptance of homosexuality is the reason our soldiers are dying in Iraq.

Now, nobody wants to be rid of these protests more than I; but, why is it the job of the legislature to fix this?

What does it say about our way of thinking today that any time there is a problem, we immediately seek a law to protect us?

My guess is that the nannies in Trenton are saying to themselves, “Well, if we don’t do something, there is going to be trouble and somebody is going to get hurt.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but, as for me – I’m thinking that sometimes we need to have trouble and sometimes people need to get hurt. Sadly, this is often the only way we learn.

These protesters have the right to free speech. Grieving families have the right to a dignified funeral service. Let the people work out the details.

If just one family walked over to these ass-clowns, grabbed their signs and hit them over the head with them, we would likely see no more of this sort of thing. And we sure as hell wouldn’t need legislation - which stays on the books forever and can be misused by the state.

Peace whenever practicable.

Sylvester and John...up a tree...

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

The Philadelphia Police Department says it doesn't track the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders. Really?

Does any honest, sensible person in Philadelphia really believe that if concealed carry permit holders were committing gun crimes the PPD wouldn't know about it and get constant front-page coverage of it by the Inquirer/Daily News?

Of course not.

You know damned well that the PPD tracks the crime statistics of concealed carry permit holders - but because those statistics don't support the Mayor's call for more gun control, the good Syl Johnson won't allow those statistics to see the light of day.

I'm feeling like buying another gun.

John Street and Sylvester Johnson can kiss my narrow, white ass.

Let's play 'Guess The Theme'

"During the course of the 20th century, some 40 million people died as the result of warfare. During that same time, approximately 140 million died at the hands of their own governments" -paraphrase of extract from 2001 U.N. report


"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
-Justice Robert Jackson

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -U.S. Constitution

Karnak's crystal ball

Here, today, on June 7, 2006 I am forecasting the following:

Whereas the Democratic/Socialist party of the United States has fallen under the sway of lunatic fringe elements like those at the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, any Democratic/Socialist candidate for President in '08 will, during the primaries, have to run so far to the left to win the votes of the democratic base that the Republican nominee in the fall of '08 will have a ridiculously easy time portraying the Democratic/Socialist nominee as dangerously extreme.

Result: A Republican victory in the Presidential election of 2008. Once again, the Republicans will be saved only by the insanity of the Democrats.

Karnak has spoken

La la la la...I can't hear you!

The U.K. is the most violent developed country. That was the finding of a U.N. study that looked at violent crime throughout the world. The majority of murders are committed with knives and the problem is such that members of Parliament have introduced bills to ban the private ownership of knives in an effort to staunch the flow of blood.

Interesting, is it not, that here in the U.S., the National Rifle Association has been saying for over 125 years that behavior is the problem. If the behavior is not addressed, then whatever tool is at hand will become an "instrument of crime".

It is also "interesting" (by that I mean illustrative and disheartening) that the U.K., which has banned handguns and strongly regulates long guns, now proposes to enact the same ineffective, liberty denying, band-aid style "solution" to the "knife problem".

The knife has a long history in the U.K. - especially Scotland - and the obtuseness of those who claim that NOW it has become a problem is quite simply staggering.

They've banned guns - and now knives are popular.

Ban knives and cricket bats will replace them.

Ban cricket bats and...well, you get the picture. At what point does common sense reenter the picture? When will we say: Our values have become corrupted and our acceptance of aberrant behavior must cease.

This is about the U.S. as well. Those who advocate gun control don't have a clue about human nature or the mechanics of incentives.

Whenever this is pointed out to them they just raise their collective voice. This is why I will never permit any further abridgment of my right to self-defense. No matter how well intentioned or how awful the mayhem in our inner cities becomes, my rights are not what's wrong with our society.

Mindfield

Some things the Iraq war has taught us and some questions it has raised:

1. Nobody has all the right answers at the right time. Should we have had more troops in Iraq? Maybe. Would we then have suffered more casualties rather than less? Maybe.

2. War and the way we wage it has changed dramatically since 1945 - and our military is still coming to grips with this fact. Because of nuclear weapons and the mind-boggling capabilities of the U.S. military, the chances of a large, set-piece struggle such as in Korea are slim. But, even as in Korea, the fear of a widening fight will continue to limit our options. And if that doesn't, then our fear of world opinion will.

3. When you train soldiers to be killers and then force them to act with the restraint of policemen, you are asking for trouble.

4. The people of the U.S. need the kind of clear cut choices that we faced in WWII. Sadly, in 2006, if we wait for another Pearl Harbor, we'll lose tens of thousands of civilians and we'll still end up fighting a trans-national enemy who laughs at the Geneva Convention.

5. The U.S. does need to take a hard, dispassionate look at our international alliances in light of the fact that the cold war is over. Perhaps it is time to quit being the world's policeman and retrench at home.

6. Foreign oil and Israel are two flashpoints for those who hate us. We need to reevaluate our attachment to both.

7. Just like Lyndon Johnson before him, George Bush maintains we can have guns and butter. It has become clear that one of the greatest of our failures since 9/11 has been the failure to make the people of the U.S. understand why we need to fight this fight and why we need to win this fight. But, most importantly, the people should have been forced to invest in the fight. As in WWII, when we have to sacrifice for the effort, we all feel a part of the effort - and we'll back it to the hilt.