he might know a thing or two about totalitarian governments

Those who would unjustly deprive us of our Constitutionally-protected individual rights to self-defense, self-preservation, and the peaceful ownership of private property make a big deal about the number of "gun violence" victims they have on their side, as if being shot at by a criminal somehow makes you an expert on all things firearm- and rights-related (note: it does not). Unfortunately, once you start pulling back the layers of publicity polish and bluster, you start discovering that those "victims" are liars, prevaricators, and not actually victims at all.

Just as ostensibly being a victim of a crime does not make you an expert on that crime, it also does not excuse fabricating nonsense to support your authoritarian agenda.

But given the moral authority "gun control" extremists automatically bestow upon anyone who might, possibly, maybe be a victim of firearm-related violence no matter how tenuous or suspect the connection, I wonder what they think of a Tiananmen Square protester telling Americans in Boston just how important the Second Amendment and the private ownership of arms are:

On the one hand, I can hear anti-rights cultists’ heads exploding as you read this. On the other hand, given the CSGV‘s comments in the past regarding "insurrectionists", I have absolutely no doubt they would gleefully toss this now-American under the treads of the tanks that rolled through Tiananmen Square on 04JUN89.

When it comes to the two sides of that debate – "students" and "tanks" – I know which one I want to win.

consider the symbology

Uniformed, badged personnel, operating under the authority and power of an authoritarian set of laws granting them extra-Constitutional capacities, instruct you – an American citizen who has broken no laws and done no wrong – to adopt a position of submission – hands above your head – before entering a chamber that could, on quick glance, resemble a high-tech shower stall.  After that, you will be "allowed" to enter the secure side of the area these uniformed guards control. 

holocaustshowerWhat do you do? 

I dare say any educated student of history would tell the… entities… wearing the uniforms and wielding their authoritarian power to pack sand (in hopefully significantly more colorful language) and take their violations of basic human rights and shove them up their collective arses… not without cause, given what history has taught those who are willing to learn about such situations. 

Unfortunately, it would appear as though the average American is far from educated, or at least is willfully ignorant of inconvenient facets of history, given that this scene is replicated thousands (millions?) of times every day around the country, and disturbingly often with smiles on all parties’ faces at that: 


Think about it. 

why we win

CSGVBloodDancingIt really boils down to a difference in perceptions.

On the one hand, "gun control" fetishists gleefully dance in the blood of victims and exploit the murder of innocents to further their own, personal, unjust, totalitarian, anti-Constitutional dreams, as documented in the image to the right. (Highlights added to really bring out the crazy in those cultists’ eyes.)

On the other hand, we quite cheerfully and respectfully celebrate the lawful, peaceful defense of civil rights and the restoration of the same to an entire state of people for whom certain aspects of the United States Constitution might as well have never existed.

Now, tell me – to an outside observer, which group of people would appear to be the more rational, reasonable, well-adjusted, and positive? And which would be perceived as being destructive, irresponsible, and negative? Hm.

In other news, I am very thankful I am not the only person who considered the Portland, OR mall shooting yesterday to be remarkably… coincidental… what with it happening on the same day as the decision in Moore v. Madigan being passed down. Obviously I am not hypothesizing that "gun control" extremists keep spree shooters locked in a big pen until they are needed, and then release them into the wild to distract/detract from pro-rights victories; that would require more coordination and intelligence than those organizations are capable of. But I do think the media sees incidents like these transpire on the same day as something major like that court case, and think, "Oh, hey, this would make a great counterpoint; let’s blow this out of proportion!"

After all, more people were murdered in Chicago on the 30th than were murdered in the Clackamas Town Center on the 11th, but the former is the "gun control" capitol of the country, and we would not want to highlight the fact that such policies demonstrably do not work, now, would we?

(And for a dose of humor, that Michael Barkley character at the bottom, whinging about not being supported by his anti-rights cultist ilk? We have discussed him before, and apparently even his fellow fetishists think he is too far out in the weeds to really care about – he admits to coming in "a distant fourth" in his district. Poor baby.)

quote of the day – @scootey

A common theme you will find amongst “gun control” extremists is that they not only hate the Second Amendment, they hate all the Amendments, but especially those found within the original Bill of Rights.  This only makes sense – if there is one thing an authoritarian or totalitarian hates, it is individual rights, and a document and its addendums that go out of their way to specifically protect and preserve those individual rights would be a despicable thing indeed… at least to them. 

Today provided a perfect example of this phenomena.  I had the misfortune of attracting the attention of a variety of “Trayvon Truthers” on Twitter – you know, the folks who firmly believe that George Zimmerman should have allowed Trayvon Martin to beat out his brains on the ground on account of the former following the latter, and that Zimmerman himself is racist and “hunted” Trayvon – and one in particular, a certain @Scootey, just could not tolerate my calling out his repeated and incessant lies.  His response?  To tell me to “STFU”: 

imageAnd the true "progressive" comes out – silence all who would dare point out their lies. RT @scootey: Just STFU already.

Of course, not willing to let go of his hatred, he clarified: 

image@linoge_wotc You need to be silenced b/c you’re an idiot.

Read those words carefully; not the insults (I hardly care about being called an “idiot” by a mental midget who believes, and I quote, “Individual rights … come from government.”), but them, “You need to be silenced,” part.  The phrasing of that statement makes it very clear that @Scootey there firmly believes that someone should silence me for him; in other words, he believes someone should use force to abridge my individual rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, all for daring to point out his lies.  One has to love the threat implied in that statement: “Be quiet, or someone will make you be quiet.” 

Apparently, like so many “gun control” fetishists before him, @Scootey respects the First Amendment just as much as he respects the Second – not at all. 

Bear this in mind when dealing with other anti-rights cultists…  They do not hate your guns, they hate your rights – all of them – and they will use whatever force they believe necessary to strip you of those rights. 

(Incidentally, this answers Bob Owens’ question of why I bother with authoritarian scum like @Scootey – know your enemy, and all that.  Plus, it gives me blogfodder like this). 

dear jeremy alcede, owner of tactical firearms

I do not live near Katy, Texas, and I probably never will, but I can guarantee you that I will never purchase a single thing from you.

For the rest of you all, the answer to the inevitable, "Why?" is contained within this radio interview:

Matt Patrick: It is 6:16, Houston’s Morning News and I’m Matt Patrick. Glad you’re here; also glad that Tactical Firearms owner Jeremy Alcede is joining me, and, Jeremy, first of all, I love your place. I’ve bought a couple guns from you already. Love the new range. But I also love what you were saying about the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, which is being presented by the Democrats now. You say, "Look, if this is gonna make them happy, then let’s give them this, let’s let them have this and go away and leave us alone." Right?

Jeremy Alcede: Right. I mean, they’re never going to stop. This is just an ongoing thing that, y’know, I don’t agree with anything, y’know, if you give ’em an inch, they’ll take a mile. But, y’know, if this is gonna shut ’em up, then give it to ’em. The only good thing that could come out of this is, y’know, it’s gonna not allow all these big online companies to purchase ammo from the manufacturers so the manufacturers are gonna be overloaded with ammo, so guess what that means? They’re gonna be calling me sayin’, "Look, I’m gonna give you an extra dollar-fifty off off a box when you buy it. Please buy it." So it might actually lower the cost for you, the consumer. I know when I get it lower, I’m gonna sell it lower to you.

Patrick: And that’s good for me.

Matt and Jeremy, you are cordially invited to get bent, which should not be terribly hard with your heads so far up your respective asses already.

Oh, and, yes, you read that correctly – Jeremy Alcede is supporting the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act because he correctly believes that it will result in more business for his company through the shutting-down of other companies, but, better, he considers this bone tossed to the authoritarians hopefully enough to keep them satiated for the time being, while simultaneously acknowledging that authoritarians are never satisfied and this is just one step in a long line of steps.

The first position is that of a cold-blooded, calculating businessman; oh, sure it screws over his competitors, and it likewise screws over his customers (no matter how he spins it, removing competition is never a good thing for the customer), but establishments like his probably will end up making more money under the SOASA.

The second position, however, would be laughable if it were presented in a humorous fashion, but I have an annoyingly nagging suspicion that Jeremy was 100% honest; he truly believes the SOASA would be sufficient to stall "gun control" extremists for the time being, despite knowing that "if you give them an inch, they will take a mile". That kind of disconnect from reality makes me truly wonder as to his sanity…

1 With a Bullet has some additional information on Jeremy Alcede and Tactical Firearms, and in answer to his question, I do believe, from what I have seen, that Jeremy is a quisling, especially given his willingness to sell his competitors up the river to make another buck.

“gun control” demotivator


Really, I have no particular use for a 30-round magazine for my Baby Eagle (no carbines take its magazines, I would not carry such a magazine (where would I put it?), and the damned thing weighs a ton when fully loaded regardless) but some halfwitted petty totalitarians decided that us “average” Americans should not be allowed to purchase/own such a device, so I adopted the attitude that founded this country and proceeded to make it great: screw you, I am doing it my way

I wonder if anti-rights cultists will ever understand that small quirk in human, and, specifically, American, psychology… how many previous non-gun-owners or “hunting” gun owners went out and stocked up on “assault weapons” before that ill-fated and completely useless ban was enacted?  How well did firearm sales uptick before the last election, when a candidate with a strong anti-firearm stance stood a very good chance of winning, and did? 

The more folks scream about something, the more interested other folks get in it.  This is not hard to grasp. 

Speaking of thought process failures, my owning a normal-capacity magazine / “high-capacity magazine” hurts precisely no one, but “gun control” extremists do not seem capable of comprehending the differences between malum prohibitum and malum in se crimes, and the general stupidity of trying to regulate an inanimate device, or, worse, people’s actions, on the basis of the former.  On the other hand, if I am ever faced with 25 pipe-wielding thugs trying to bash through a storefront’s windows and assault the customers, you can bet your ass I want as many rounds on me as I can possibly carry. 

Interestingly, if I were to load up all three of those “smaller” magazines, and have one in the pipe, I would be carrying two more rounds than your average box of ammunition can hold, which is the ultimate plan once I secure a holster and mag carrier for the Baby Eagle.  The 30 was literally just for fun. 

quote of the day – roberta x

I confess that I experience some degree of perverse entertainment / amusement while I watch my peers and compatriots convince themselves they have to vote for either the crap sandwich or the gos-se sandwich in the upcoming Presidential election. No, a third party is not going to win this election, and it does not even really have a chance of placing that well in the overall polls… which is primarily due to the fact that no one votes third party, which is due to those people convincing themselves that third parties cannot win, which is due to the fact… And ’round and ’round we go.

What can I say? Circular logic makes me giggle.

Come this election, though, I will be voting my conscience (or at least as close as I can get to it, which is not saying a whole lot), which, in this case, means a third party – both the Republicans and the Democrats are headed in exactly the same direction; the only variables are their velocities. Both want your money. Both want to control your life (though in arguably different fashions). Both think you are too stupid to live life on your own terms. Both want to limit your choices, or, better yet, make them for you. Both are too concerned with their own continued employment to worry about their constituents.

And none of that is changing. In the course of the past 200+ years, we have successfully transformed “politics” from something wealthy land-owners did in their spare time when they were not managing their land and businesses, to a whole new business in and of itself. And you cannot hardly blame people for engaging in a little friendly authoritarianism when their livelihoods are on the line, now, can you?

I can, and I do.

However, the politicians, and their abuses of their powers, are only a symptom of the problem – a glaring, jarring symptom, but still just an outward exhibition of a greater, and significantly more concerning, affliction which, when taken to its natural conclusion, does not bode well for the country we think of as “America”:

I’ve backed off quite a bit on overt political content (“Vote for so-and-so!”) here: I think the U. S. is doomed. Probably doomed to a long, slow Roman Empirish-ish decline — “History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.” Doomed nevertheless: too much is given away from the public purse to too many. It adds up to a solidly pro-Leviathan voting bloc, especially when one includes government workers, and it is an effective majority already.

By dint of this glorious constitutional republic* experiment our Founders provided with all those centuries ago, we, the people, have provided the impetus for the downfall of the same. We just kept on electing, re-electing, and refusing to recall politicians who gave away money they had no right to, incrementally infringed on our rights under the guise and color of “law”, protected their own positions of power and authority at the cost of their constituents and our country, and generally considered the country and the government to be their own private playpen and piggybank combined. What, exactly, did you think was going to happen? Better yet, Congress has discovered it literally can bribe the American people with “Welfare”, “Social Security”, “Medicare”, “Medicaid”, and countless other “social welfare” programs that exist exclusively to pad the pockets of the legislators involved in them, and move money from the rich to the poor as inefficiently and indirectly as possible.

Alexis de Tocqueville was right, and the sad thing is that the people who are proving him right probably have no idea who he was.

So, yes, I do concur that the country is on a pretty muchinescapabledecline, not because of the big bad Federal Government, but because of those majorities of people who support the Federal Government, who want their Social Security even though it has turned into nothing more than a Ponzi-Scheme scam, who want their welfare checks, who want someone else to make the hard decisions for them, who want their every wish taken care of, no matter the cost. And given that the government is all too happy to provide, what hope do we have for changing that?

Well, apart from the cold wall of reality we are eventually going to auger into once we run out of everyone else’s money.

(* – Not a gorramed “democracy”, contrary to the bleating of countless mouth-breathers.)