Entries Tagged 'Guns' ↓
May 16th, 2010 — Guns, Politics
WRSA posted part of Ayn Rand’s famous Nature of Government essay earlier today, with a suggestion to read the rest, then “look around, and behold the antithesis.”
While the portion quoted at WRSA is indeed one of Rand’s most concise pieces on individual rights (well, compared to Galt’s 90 page speech in Atlas Shrugged at least..), it also demonstrates that Rand was her own antithesis. It’s also the reason I don’t consider myself an Objectivist.
Toward the middle of the bit posted over at WRSA, she says this about the right to self-defense..
The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it
..only to turn around and say something one would expect from a breathless Brady Bunch press release.
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistoric savages.
And then she takes it one further and says something the Brady Bunch have generally been afraid to say publicly since they changed their name from Handgun Control Inc.
There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.
Rand was brilliant when it came to economic theory and rights in general, but this idea of the role of government is downright puzzling. In this very same piece, she talks about how government has exploited loopholes in the Constitution and “is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim,” yet she would still trust government to have all the guns.
Yea, yea, I know, contradictions don’t exist, if you think you’re facing one, check your premises, and all that.
Well, in this case, her very own premise is that government “should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power.” Likewise, she seems to suggest we just need better rules to limit government power so that it can be controlled.
But until we invent something like Skynet to govern us, does not Lord Acton’s Dictum apply to the men in state issued costumes given virtually absolute power via a monopoly of force? Would not a disarmed society face the same threat as her example of a “pacifist” society (and, later in the piece, her example of an anarchist society) when the first thug comes along to seize the apparatus of the state? Since the government we have now ignores existing restrictions placed upon it in the Constitution, why would it obey more rules? And how exactly would one go about controlling an Objectivist government run amok after relinquishing one’s right of self-defense to same?
Rand once referred to libertarians as the “hippies of the right,” who substitute anarchism for capitalism. Anarchism, in turn, she dismissed as the “most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun.” But what is so intellectual about saying better, objective rules are all that’s needed to control the government? That doesn’t end the argument. Control of any government is only the beginning of the argument.
All this isn’t to say I feel anarchism would work as a system, per se. In my *cough* objective opinion, nothing will work indefinitely. Least of all while humans have anything to do with politics.
Starting at the left, Marx’s Utopian dream of communism would eventually lead back to competition and capitalism as human nature clashed with the dreadful, collectivist sameness. In the real world, where Marx’s purportedly intermediate socialism as as far left as one can realistically go, the poverty caused by dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator would spark the same competitive spirit. Just as Rand herself was a ultimately a product of the Russian Revolution.
On the other hand, should capitalism (or something vaguely resembling it) be allowed to work, overall prosperity is sure to follow. Prosperity, however, gives people free time to dream up wacky schemes to control other people. Likewise, prosperity also breeds complacency as people forget how much hard work went into creating it. Complacency, in turn, often leads to people assuming prosperity is a given. People who then begin to think like Marx and decide they can kill the proverbial golden goose in order to share all the golden eggs.
On a long enough timescale, rinse. Repeat.
As such, my position as an anarchist “hippie” isn’t to destroy government, but as a foil to statists on both sides. In reverse, my support of restoring the Constitution isn’t because I particularly like government, but because a limited Federal government offers the best chance at some degree of autonomy within my lifetime. Well, unless it collapses under the weight of its own debt first, but, yea..
If everyone else, like Rand, feels (at the very least) that some government is a necessary evil to protect society from force, then so be it. As long as you don’t initiate force against me, enter into whatever flavor of mutual defense pact you like.
But either way, I reserve the right of self-defense no matter which variety of statist is in charge. This is nonnegotiable.
August 14th, 2009 — Guns, lol
Just when it seemed nothing could ever be ridiculous enough to inspire me to touch the blog again after months of having my senses numbed by ridiculous political theater, this bit of rubbish from the “Gun Guys” totally pegged my facedeskometer.
Summary, in case you don’t want to give them the traffic, goes like this:
Real guy goes to a real town hall with a real gun, which, seeing as it was in New Hamster, was probably attended by other real people with real guns. This real event from the real world, however, is apparently just:
the embodiment of the gun lobby’s dangerous and irresponsible myth: that an “armed society is a polite society.”
And how do they counter this “irresponsible myth?”
But this old XBOX advertisement that was banned several years ago shows the complete opposite.
So, basically, reality is a myth, but paid actors in a fake scenario with imaginary guns in a commercial for a game console is a “cogent argument.” Oooooooooooookay.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be going back to being abducted by aliens in Fallout 3 because it seems a lot more realistic than whatever world the “Gun Guys” and the rest of the freaks in DC think they’re living in..
April 6th, 2009 — Guns, lol, Politics
Remember all that talk about banning guns on the official White House web site or from the mouth of the Attorney General or Secretary of State? Well, some on the left seem to think you’re a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist for pointing it out. Likewise, they think you’re paranoid if you believe you might have to defend yourself from tyranny. So how do they want to cure you of this paranoia?
By banning guns and sending SWAT teams to kill their political opposition.
Though, in all fairness, I suppose it wouldn’t be paranoia anymore if they actually did it.
April 1st, 2009 — Guns, lol, Politics
Over the last few days, one can hardly spray coffee through their nose without hitting a monitor containing a story about self-proclaimed anarchist and communist neo-hippies talking about how they’re going to “overthrow” capitalism or some such. For a hilarious and extremely ironic example, see the second clip over on Hot Air featuring some hippie chick selling things to overthrow the capitalism by which she is raising money.
But, yea, I just thought I’d take this opportunity to pass along a friendly bit of advice to any misguided hippies who might pass through while googling for news about capitalism’s inevitable demise. Before you “take up arms” and start your “combat training” in order to wage civil war against us eeeevil capitalist pig-dogs or whatever, there’s one itsy bitsy detail you should probably keep in mind:
We have all the guns.
And we’re buying so many more that you’ll be lucky to find a handful from your local shop without getting on a two month backorder list. It might be worth pointing out that if your pals in Congress and the White House had their way, there would be no more arms for you to take up against us. But, then again, communist rich kids aren’t known for their ability to recognize irony..
Anyhow, as I said, this is friendly advice, so don’t take it as a threat. Most of us eeeeevil capitalist pig-dogs would much rather discuss things *gasp* peacefully until your head hurts from the sudden collision with logic. If, however, you really intend to take up arms and start a physical fight, know this:
We will finish it.
March 11th, 2009 — Guns, Politics
SayUncle blogged that nobody seems to know what kind of weapons were used in the Alabama shooting. Some are saying fully automatic rifles were involved. Others are saying semiautomatic. One source said it looked like an AK-47, but that it “could have been an M-16.” How one can possibly confuse the two is mind boggling.
But, yea, despite (or perhaps because of) the confusion, the Brady Campaign to Promote Gun Myths couldn’t resist dancing in the blood and spreading disinformation. And once again, they’re lying about the SKS being an “assault rifle.” No matter how many times they say it, it’s still a lie. And are they seriously implying that a “38 caliber handgun” is a “military-style semiautomatic assault weapon” now too?
March 8th, 2009 — Guns, Media Bias
Just read on arfcom that some guy driving through Massachusetts to Maine got pulled over and cops searched him because they saw a gun case in his truck. Pants-shitilarity ensued.
An 18-year-old city resident is in a Massachusetts jail after state police said they found an arsenal in his truck.
ZOMG an arsenal!! Everybody panic? Oh. Wait. He only had two guns, some knives, and a set of brass knuckles. But not just any guns..
A Bushmaster rifle with a night scope and pistol grip.
Eeeek! A night scope and a pistol grip?! We’re all doomed!
Then there’s this:
The trooper ordered him out of the truck and patted him down — which turned up several rounds of ammunition, including a .50 caliber rifle bullet, and a knife, police said.
A single .50 cal bullet? Was it a whole cartridge? Or just the pointy bit? And, umm, what exactly is so scary about a round with no rifle to put it in? I’m betting it was probably inert and attached to a a key ring..
But, yea, if you really want to fill up your PSH bingo card, click here.
State police said troopers found a 16-inch Bushmaster assault rifle,
16 inch “assault rifle?” Umm, okay. Is that supposed to scare us because it’s too big or too small?
a Remington 12-gauge shotgun with a pistol grip,
Oh noes! Another pistol grip! hide the women and children!
seven 30-round magazine ammunition clips seven 30-round magazine ammunition clips and several boxes of ammunition.
Magazine ammunition clips? Did his truck have a high powered automatic manual transmission gear shifter too?
The assault rifle and the shotgun had both been modified and each gun was equipped with laser sightings, the paper reported.
Modified with laser sighting?! Well. That’s it. I’m heading to the bomb shelter and waiting for the Apocalypse! The guy might be able to blind me if I stare at his lasers too long! That’s even scarier than Lite-Brites!!11!1one!eleventy!
Huizinga was charged with marked lanes violation, possession of a large-capacity firearm, possession of a firearm, seven counts of possession of high-capacity feeding devices, possession of a dangerous weapon and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Now that seems a bit redundant. What’s next, charging him with being charged with a crime? Then charging him for the crime of being charged with being charged of a crime?
Huizinga could face federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms, the paper reported.
That’s funny. Federal law protects transporting firearms across State lines if the original and destination States don’t have ridiculous laws like, say, Massachusetts. Well, they’re supposed to anyway. This should be an interesting test case.
Oh, and, err, there’s no such thing as a Federal license to carry firearms. Good luck charging him with a non-existent crime.
March 1st, 2009 — Guns, Politics
Looks like CBS couldn’t resist jumping on the Mexican “assault weapon” banwagon.
“Half of what we seize, 55 percent are assault rifles. And this is what gives these groups this intimidation power. Over 17,000 assault rifles, throughout the last two years. Two thousand and 200 grenades, missile and rocket launchers. Fifty caliber sniper rifles,” the attorney general explained.
I must be going to the wrong damned American gun shows or something, as there’s never any missile launchers laying around..
But, yea, even though Pelosi and Reid have said no to a new AWB, and the Senate added an amendment to another law which overturns DC’s gun laws, I still think they’ll try to slip a new AWB by later. The reason? It seems odd to me that Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy hasn’t submitted a new one by now. Isn’t that usually like the first (and only) thing she ever does? If I were a betting man, I’d wager that they’re waiting for some event (some cartel shooting up an American town, for instance) which they can use to bludgeon opposition in the House and Senate.
February 26th, 2009 — Guns, Politics
There’s a war going on south of the border involving vast, criminal organizations who seek to control the trade of drugs which are completely illegal in the United States. Said organizations are “employing automatic weapons and grenades” which are practically illegal in the United States. But the rocket scientists in the Obama administration think the solution is to ban certain cosmetic, ergonomic, and safety features on semi-automatic rifles?
Seeing as the cartels already ignore the bans on smuggling, drugs, grenades, machine guns, assassination, and mass murder, why exactly are they going to obey this ban? And, err, how exactly would that even change anything when they’re already using automatic weapons and grenades which have nothing to do with the proposed ban? Isn’t that a bit like banning attack hamsters in order to prevent vicious dog bites?
And why is the guy who just called us all cowards so eager to surrender one of our Constitutional rights because of gangsters in another country..
February 3rd, 2009 — Guns, Politics
They’ll call it a “12-caliber gun that can pump four bullets with each squeeze of the trigger” first. At the same time they expect you to believe that “nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods.” Though I suppose you could still go into whatever the hell “deer woods” are with an assault branch pointed stick..
January 23rd, 2009 — Guns, Politics
It would appear that NY Governor Patterson has picked a gun loving, tax hating, Blue Dog to replace Hillary in the Senate. And Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy is pissed! I’m not sure if this is what President Obama had in mind, but it’s the kind of Change that gives me Hope.
While I generally disagree with even the Blue Dog Dems (and most Republicans for that matter) on Federal intervention into other areas outside of their Constitutional powers, I don’t mind politely discussing things with them as long as they’re not trying to disarm us so they can force it down our throat. So, yea, more Dems like this please.