Herschel Smith of Captian’s Journal has post up regarding a typically wishy-washy NRA board member who thinks the ‘rhetoric’ at pro-gun rallies is getting a bit too much.
In it, he explains what many government supremacists will never understand. And that it is that they can go ahead and attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment, because as much as they try to lie about it, that is, in fact, what they want. But, although it would most certainly affect the life of the Free Man on a day-to-day basis, it does not, in fact, affect what my rights are in the slightest.
Government does not administer rights. The only proper role of government is to protected pre-existing rights.
Here is what Herschel says:
I have weapons because God gives me the right to own weapons, not the second amendment. The opinions of the people are as subject to the vicissitudes of ideology as the times in which they live, and the mind of man cannot be entrusted with the rights of mankind. If Mr. King is placing his trust in the people, he is building his house on sand.
My rights are what they are by divine pronouncement. It is righteous to own guns because it reflects the character of the Almighty. Without this I’m no different than the statist thugs and collectivists who want to disarm me, except we happen to be on different sides of an issue. It means everything … everything … to be right and righteous.
“It is righteous to own guns because it reflects the character of the Almighty.” That ought to put a wad in some people’s panties. As it should.
[Trying to get out of the habit of putting stuff like this on Facebook and instead putting it here and letting the WP plugin put it on Facebook. Maybe my posting will be regular if I commit to that. No promises, yet, but I'm going to try to pay attention to this blog more.]
Recently, I found this pamphlet posted on a bulletin board:
It was behind a glass cover, so I couldn’t covertly remove it to read it. So, when back at a computer, I fired up search engine to see if I could find out at least where it came from and, if I got lucky, the full contents of the pamphlet.
Well, I stopped my search early after finding this article from about a year ago on Parents magazine website with the presumptuous title of A Pediatrician’s Role in the Gun Debate as if any pediatrician has any legitimate role in the gun debate beyond that of any other citizen. (I’ll go further with a Rand quote: “A gun is not an argument.” In other words, there is no debate to have at all. The answer is quite simply, “No.”)
David Codrea has publicized how one enterprising former sheriff addressed the problem of doctors, any doctors, claiming to have training above and beyond the medical and into the “safety” and particularly “gun safety” realm with this Firearms Malpractice Form. It is something which I would recommend every gun owner carry with him to appointments with doctors they haven’t seen before or, in this day in age with the new, horrid requirements of health control, to appointments with any and all doctors.
It’s clear from the comments on the aforementioned Parents article, as well as the article itself, that many so-called safety advocates don’t quite get the objection to having a doctor ask a patient about guns. One went as far as saying, “A doctor’s job is to help keep your child alive by keeping them healthy and safe.”
Let me be clear: The doctor’s job is what I hire him to do. And that is to advise me on strictly medical issues. Notwithstanding wannabee pseudo-scientific, tyrant enablers and modern day Typhoid Marys of today like Dr. Garen Wintemute , guns are not a public health issue. Nor are guns a private health issue. I don’t go to my auto mechanic for advice on gardening. What the vile citizen disarmament advocates have done for a few decades, now, is try reframe the debate over and and over again by changing names of their organizations, and how they try to sell their tyrannical collectivism. This is exactly what Wintemute acknowledges in a paper he co-authored in the Annals of Internal Medicine just last year by referencing former editor of Annals, Dr. Frank Davidoff who called on readers to ‘reframe gun violence as a medical issue.’ One is inclined to ask, why do you need to reframe anything at all, if you’re not trying to manipulate the conversation? Why is reframing necessary, unless you are trying to pedal something that is simply not true.
It all comes down to where the training, skills, and experience of those in medical profession are bounded. Professionally speaking, of course. I’m perfectly willing to listen to a doctor explain to me the details of the damage to flesh and bone I could expect to see from a small, rounded metal object a bit short of one half inch in diameter, propelled at 800ft/s and entering and remaining inside me or exiting out another hole it makes in my body. I am not, however, willing to grant him any deference in discussing what guns I might own, that I keep in my house, or in what state I keep them in nor the ammunition that goes with them. That is something I will only discuss with a true firearms safety instructor, such as the many produced, through training, by the NRA. Or maybe I’ll discuss it with other trusted individuals whom I deem knowledgeable in the area of self defense, safe carriage, safe handling, child education issues (including child curiosity, and ways to mitigate it). If, that is, I discuss it with anyone at all.
I know several individuals who grew up in homes where guns were not only kept in the house, but kept either loaded or with the ammunition very close at hand. They were also not locked in a safe. A recommended approach is twofold. First, start education young. If at all possible, do not ever refuse to engage in a little education and training regarding firearms any time the child asks. One of the key goals here is to kill the mystery and curiosity of guns. You want to make guns literally boring to the child. For more excellent information on kids and guns, Kathy Jackson of The Cornered Cat has written some excellent pieces and it’s worth your time to peruse her site and read her book.
Second, or really just a subset of the first, is to ensure there is seriousness embedded in training the child. If necessary, embed a literal fear of punishment for even touching the firearms without permission. (I’m not even touching the issue of what that punishment should be. But whatever severity you decide as a parent is necessary for any infractions, the severity of this should be at or near the highest on your list.) Be sure to include the rare, but possible necessary exception of using the gun for what it is intended: defense, when age appropriate (as you determine, not any kind of doctor). Take this case of Kendra St. Clair:
Now, Ms. St. Clair, by her own admission, had never fired a gun before. That is something I hope her mom will remedy, now, and take her to the range and teach her all she needs to know about safe firearm handling and self defense. It is fortunate that the correct individual wound up with a hole through his body. Proper training will increase the odds of a similar result if, God forbid, anything like that happens to her again. It’s also not clear whether or not the gun was locked up, as neither Kendra nor her mom say. She did call her mom first and it was then that her mom actually told her to get the gun. But that may not always be possible.
I do my best to stay out of doctors’ offices. And with the current regime in the District of Criminals (who bring absolute truth to that slur), I’m going to make every effort to continue along those lines. But should I ever set foot in a doctor’s office again, I will be armed with the Firearms Malpractice Form stuffed in my pocket and prepared to politely ignore any inquiry regarding firearms and simply say, “So. Are we going to talk about my health? Or was I mistaken in thinking I would find a doctor here?”
In other words, to any doctor who would attempt to venture outside the boundaries I dictate while I request his professional advice, whether for myself or any dependents I may have, I have drawn my line in the sand. And you can go pound same.
To answer the title of article titled A Pediatrician’s Role in the Gun Debate is easy: None.
I don’t really do twitter, other than now having this blog connected to post a link to new posts on my twitter account. But I do read my feed of a whopping 32 other twits (sorry…couldn’t resist) that I follow on occasion.
Well today, due to the obvious solemn anniversary, the anti-freedom nutcases are flooding twitter, and I’m sure other social media, with demands that I give up my rights so they can have a false sense of security.
One point of interest came up that I brought up last year to people complaining that I and others were politicizing a tragedy. There’s incredible hypocrisy from the anti-freedom extremists that insists that we don’t politicize it. All while they merrily go on their way politicizing it themselves by demanding that legislators steal more of our liberties.
So I stand on the rooftop and declare my human, God-given right, codified in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is one particular whiner, @lscotthoover that felt the conversation was getting tiresome. Tough. You or your allies demand action on a tragic anniversary and expect us to keep our mouths shut and just take it up the back end.
I have one answer.
Your move, you whiny little piss-ant.
He thought it was ‘unnecessary’, ‘insenstive,’ and ‘uncool’ that someone quoted Article 1, Section 21 of the PA constitution (their RKBA section, I presume).
Due to tyrants and their enablers using this tragedy yet again to ramp up action to put more weight on the boot already on our collective necks, it is not only necessary that we speak out on this day about our rights, but urgently required.
Anyone who thinks it is insensitive should tell the people around him begging for more control of the population, accelerating us faster toward tyranny, to shut their mouths and stop politicizing it themselves. In fact, I would gladly make a deal that I’m sure all my gunny friends will go along with. You demand that every gun control bill in every state, in every county, in every city or town, that is currently being considered the day before this anniversary next year is withdrawn, every newspaper holds off on all editorials relating the lack of more restrictions on our human right to keep and bear arms, twitter and facebook users go silent on their ‘demands’ that I give up more of my rights. You convince all parties to do that next year and they follow through, then I will keep quiet next year, too.
Otherwise, go play in traffic.
As to whether or not it is cool, contrary to what many on your side often accuse us of, we aren’t interested in being ‘cool.’ YOU may be interested in looking cool to your peers, but most of us understand that that’s primarily a gang mentality.
I will speak my mind. At all times. You do not own this day.
Notwithstanding the fact that the imaginary ‘device’ the kid pretended to use was not a firearm (and if Johnny’s teacher really said that in an email to his mother, she shouldn’t be allowed near children, much less teaching them), there’s still something else even more disturbing in this article.
The Rutherford Institute claims it has been called to intervene in hundreds of cases like this.
Given that many parents likely, stupidly take this kind of crap lying down, and that even among those who don’t, they won’t all go to The Rutherford Institute for help (there are many organizations and individual lawyers who would help, after all), I’m inclined to believe there have been tens of thousands of these cases.
If I worked in a school, I would post this on a bulletin board just to see if someone was dumb enough to call for a ‘lock down’ of the school because there was a gun in the building:
This is really just a test post after I’ve enabled the Publicize feature of the Jetpack plugin so that all my posts here will now be publicized on both my Facebook and Twitter accounts.
I’m not a fan of Facebook, nor really *any* social networking sites due to the lack of control. It’s why I host my own blog in my own server rather than on wordpress.com. I don’t really care about the privacy issue since I don’t put much information in my profiles on those sites even though they keep begin me to complete my profile. (Go. Away. My profile is as complete as it is ever going to be on your site.)
Yes, this breaks my anonymity. But I’ve never really invested that much effort in keeping my identity secret. It’s just not obvious. So now all my Facebook friends will know I have a blog. Whoop-de-doo.
Two of the reasons I’ve done this is that I’ve made a few comments on Facebook that I believe both deserve wider exposure and because I want complete control of the content and to be sure it’s not subject to the whims of the those zuckers in charge of Facebook.
So most, if not all of my original stuff will be posted here. I may try to duplicate some noteworthy comments, as well.
Mr. Colion Noir has a post up on the thug who was justifiably shot while trying to rob a store and do who knows what to the employees.
You angry, Ms. Relative? I’ll give you angry. Do yourself a favor and when your kin gets out on bail and/or finishes his sentence, keep him locked up in the basement where you can fulfill your own damn responsibility and give him the ‘help’ he needs. Better yet, join him down there in the dungeon and leave anything outside your own domicile to the adults.
I suggest that despicable woman from his family who was interviewed ought go live on a deserted island if she doesn’t like civil society. Coming to the aid of someone in distress is a time honored tradition. To suggest that the guy who fired the shots should have just left the store and let this guy do whatever he wanted to the employees shows what a low-life you are, Ms. Relative. Yes, the guy who shot him absolutely did have the right to shoot him. Not everyone would have had the stones to do that and not hightail it out of there. The thug held a gun to some employees’ heads. That is a credible threat. You initiate that kind of force, then you deserve whatever bad thing happens to you.
Yeah, he needed help, as the arrogant relative said, but unless you take that initiative and isolate him from the rest of society while getting him the help you say he needs, then expect individuals that he poses a threat to to deal with in a way that keeps them alive and healthy. You, as the family have the primary responsibility to get him that help. The public at large deserves to protect themselves and others around them from this thug as they see fit. He’s lucky to be alive and should be grateful to spend some time in the slammer. Message to families with sons like this: you let your son run loose like this when you know he needs help, then this is how he will be dealt with. Individuals will defend themselves and others and/or the State will put him away. Deal.
What better way to restart posting on this blog than an with an angry post.
This video has been making the rounds on social media and blogs:
I am appalled that some pro-gun folks are actually siding with the cops here.
I’m sorry, the cops were wrong in this case. I would have no problem with the cop questioning the guy with the long gun about whether or not, in his opinion, his actions are hurting or helping the right to keep and bear arms if he was out of uniform, without his badge, while off duty. I’ve had conversations with off duty cops on these very things. The carriers were doing nothing illegal and should not be subjected to intimidation over a fricken’ opinion, particularly with a cop standing at the fricken’ ready position with her gun drawn. I guess we can be grateful that she didn’t have it pointed at his head. It was the cops who were guilty of egregious behavior, not those peaceable, armed citizens.
UNC, like most universities today, is a cesspool of ‘progressivism’. When its School of Government expresses a legal opinion on state laws, city councilmen and county commissioners stand up and listen. The UNC SOG’s opinion has been quite helpful in convincing municipal governments here in NC to repeal their illegal bans on guns throughout their municipal parks. Jeff Welty is the usual contact for these types of opinions. He just put up a post called “How Should the Police Respond to a Report of a Man with a Gun?” and brought up this particular case as an example. His opinion is that it was not appropriate for the officers to unholster their weapons. In fact, he even opines that the detention, where the officer simply pontificates on his opinion of Second Amendment activism long after it was clear that no crime had been committed was inappropriate.
Read this embedded link to the PA Chiefs of Police Association bulletin on dealing with open carriers. Oh, if only all police departments followed its advice. This would have been a non-event. As it should have been.
I don’t know Mr. Welty’s politics. But when a typically ‘progressive’ institution agrees that a defacto detainment of an open carrier was unjustified, I suggest we step aside and accept the reprieve from official harassment. Heck, we may even be able to use these items (both Welty’s article and the PA CoPA bulletin) to encourage other police departments to follow suit.
Here’s the money quote from the PA CoPA bulletin:
Recognize that the open carrier may be an activist looking to entrap you into a constitutional confrontation. Don’t take the bait! Keep your views on open carry to yourself. Otherwise, you are inviting an escalation, and doing so unnecessarily. On the other side of the coin, beyond the decorum associated and expected of a professional police officer, you are not obligated to listen to a speech from an open carry advocate, or to answer a pre-planned series of questions on your understanding of the law. Again, absent any aggravating circumstances (e.g., terroristic threats, being spit upon, being pushed, etc.) give them a nod and wish them a good day. [Emphasis mine.]
Granted, I think the PA CoPA has the wrong idea about (most) open carry activists. We’re not looking to entrap you. All we want is to be left alone. I don’t really care that they’ve got that wrong, though, because they are still admonishing their officers to do just that: leave us alone when we indicate that we don’t want a confrontation with you. Most activists are demonstrating and educating others that a handgun in a holster or a properly slung rifle is nothing to fear. The average criminal doesn’t keep his handgun in a proper holster. The average mass murderer doesn’t have his rifle slung, but rather is likely to be carrying at the ready. There’s a huge difference, and cops, in particular, should be able to distinguish that difference with five seconds of remote observation. And the lecturing cop was dead wrong about the average concealed handgun licensee: unlike him, we don’t automatically assume that someone carrying a slung rifle is a bad guy. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
Sorry, I’m winding up a pitch to throw more than a few rotten tomatoes.
Glad I’ve never done business with GunsAmerica. Now I know I probably never will.
This post title is a lie. It has nothing to do with protecting the Second Amendment. It’s also a poorly crafted post. Others have pointed out contradictions. So how about another one: 7 and 15 contradict. Has an FFL as a “hobby” (7)? But I thought I couldn’t buy a gun from anyone who doesn’t have a brick and mortar gun dealer (15)?
This is what we call disruptive technology. And in the long run it is a positive market force. You don’t see too many buggy whip vendors anymore, and for good reason. What GunsAmerica is supporting is for the state governments of all 50 states — with the backing of the federal government should this bill become law — to be a market force working against internet retailers. Note I said state governments. I have no problem with other businesses from all 50 states being in competition with a mom-and-pop internet gun retailer, but I do have a problem calling for more government interference in markets.
The primary thinking behind the Second Amendment is as a bulwark against tyranny. I have, in the past, heavily criticized the NRA for there lack of the ‘long view’ and their sometimes (when it fits their narrative) claim that they are a ‘single issue’ organization. If you grade politicians strictly on their final votes on gun bills, you miss the big picture. Because sometimes these tyrants vote for pro-gun bills or against anti-gun bills only when they know they will have no chance in hell to pass (and they therefore got permission from their party leadership to vote against the party line). [Ed. - They are, hence, unreliable and two-faced.] Same goes for things that aren’t purely gun issues, but hugely, negatively affect liberty in general. There’s a strategic problem with this mentality. You see, as long as that tack is taken, you all but guarantee that our liberty will be progressively (heh) chipped away at until all we have left are our gun rights and then we will be forced into a corner and into using that right for its intended purpose. Do you really want that? DEFEND ALL LIBERTY. FIGHT TYRANNY ON ALL FRONTS. And let go of your short-sighted advocacy of government interference to protect your business. Instead, advocate tearing down all other infringements on our liberty.
Methinks you might have just Zumboed yourself.
I should also add a couple of points.
First, as I’ve said elsewhere, credit where credit is due. The NRA has done a much better job this time around, probably spooked a little (in a good way) by the huge surge in membership after Sandy Hook. Good job, NRA. A hell of a lot better than the CCRKBA, this time around.
Second, if GunsAmerica is unhappy about current circumstances, they need to be lobbying their state legislators to reduce or remove any state sales taxes in their own states. The last thing those of us fight for liberty need is someone purportedly on our side turning that fight into a Sisyphean task and pelting stones at us as we push forward, up the hill.
Lastly, not only does single-issue vote scoring cloud where a politician really stands due to votes on bills guaranteed not to pass, but it also, usually misses other votes of importance that often don’t get graded. Oh, like, maybe voting fo Pelosi as for Speaker of the House, or to confirm Supreme Court Justices such as Kagan and Sotomayor.
So GunsAmerica, stop it. Just stop. You’re not helping.
I think I caught this article on FoxNews.com recently, but CATO just posted a link to it on Facebook. I’m mystified what’s going on at this supposedly libertarian institution. But then again, Libertarians (at least big ‘L’ libertarians) aren’t always that good on guns. Even John Stossel admitted that when he first considered himself a libertarian, he wasn’t really all that pro-gun. It’s odd to me that those who are supposedly for liberty and small government would have this kind of disconnect.
So here’s what I posted in response to Trevor Burrus’ article:
I’ve got to wonder what that flip is going on with Cato, too. This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. You don’t negotiate with the home invader. And you don’t negotiate with the gun grabbers, or anyone else threatening to restrict fundamental human rights. It has always been the case that those who cry ‘compromise’ mean nothing but that they will take just a wee bit less of our rights than they originally proposed. NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, AWB, Brady Act, etc, etc, bear that out. I will *never* have a so-called ‘cool head’ about this. ALL laws that even reference guns or weapons of military utility should be repealed, leaving only the Second Amendment. Prosecute violent offenders for malum in se crimes rather than creating so-called ‘criminals’ with malum prohibitum laws, no matter what means they use. And don’t sentence more harshly for the use of any weapons; you actually create a situation where killing someone with your bare hands is less egregious than using a tool. Why, exactly, is that okay? Under NO circumstances should any government entity know where, what, or how many guns the citizenry have. And I will use any means to further that goal. To quote one of the left’s favorite morons: “You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” Well, Mrs. Pelousy, we won’t hesitate to use whatever tactics necessary to secure our liberty. Even though, despite the ranting and whining of the anti-rights cultists regarding this vote, all of this was done via regular order. You had your gawdfersakin vote. Now go home, back to the Oval Office Mr. President. You’ve got work to do. Like covering up Fast and Furious and the Benghazi fiasco.