Saturday, March 23, 2013

As Natural As The Fingers On Our Hands (UPDATED with replacement video)

For all those who would like to exhibit Abe Lincoln as some kind of Republican role-model, witness Judge Napolitano saying he could devote a month's oratory on the frontal assault Lincoln performed on the Constitution, as its worst offender ever.

Constitution For Dummies.  Video replaced...

Hat-tip to Brock Townsend at Free North Carolina.

Guard what is yours.  Trust your government at your own peril.  Resist.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Reading Materials


I did not forget to dose out snippets of Evan Sayet's The Kindergarden Of Eden, as promised.  I just blasted through it and lent it out to some friends, when I finished.  True, that doesn't mean that I did actually live up to that promise of more excerpts.  So, as a way of making some amends, here's the interview that made me want to order up this book in the first place...even better than snippets, no?

When I get it back, I'll try to dispense some more nuggets from Mr. Sayet...but really, why don't you just go buy your own copy?

Finding time to read has been difficult.  But, over the past 10 days or so, I've devoured my way through the first 36 chapters of Matthew Bracken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic (link fixed).  The Batfee splinter sect has Brad in the hurt locker at their psycho-Gman funny farm, and Ranya's plotting to spring him before he gets waterboarded and/or dirt-napped.  I'm betting she calls in reinforcements and makes a surgical extraction...we'll see.

Do yourself a real favor, and order up the EFAD trilogy.  Go to Bracken's website (link fixed), and get signed copies, like I did.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Common Sense

If you're a moderate or left-leaning person, you may have considered the phrase "common sense gun violence solution."  Speaking just on your terms, the very simple nuts & bolts solution isn't a buffer  zone between guns and good people (like background checks and restricted ownership), or even between guns and bad or unstable people (like restrictions on ownership by felons and those with mental issues).  The "common sense" solution on those terms, would be a different kind of buffer: one between people who are violent criminals and the general public.  Another would be a buffer between the mentally disturbed and again, the general public.

These buffers already exist, or at least they used to:  Jails, prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and insane asylums.

No one seems to be talking about the naturally-predictable consequences of pardons, early parole, and lax law enforcement.  If there were proper deterrents and actual crime control, for example, young Trayvon might not have had a gang in which to belong.  And he might not have learned to self-medicate with dextromothorphan and Skittles and Arizona Tea.  And even if there'd been a gang, he might have been arrested for being in one, and been alive in jail, instead of picking a fight with anyone (much less an armed citizen).  The common sense lesson in that exchange is that George Zimmerman did the two things that Florida Law Enforcement could not or would not do: he tried to disuade crime, and then punished a violent criminal while being the object of a violent crime!

Trayvon Martin is dead, not because of an inanimate object, and certainly not the wickedness in George Zimmerman's mind, but because of the unchecked wickedness in Trayon's mind.

In fact, if Mr. Martin had been thinking about a likely armed response to his thuggery, he'd perhaps have found some other exercise for working off his enthusiasm.  Like maybe some homework, or a job, or even a wholesome team sport!

But, as I've said before, "gun control" isn't about controlling guns.   It's about controlling people.  Specifically, controlling these good citizens who would, when push comes to shove, shoot those other bad people gang-banging our neighborhoods.  Those gangs include the obvious drug/turf gang examples like Trayvon's, but also self-legitimized versions swelling in rank and armament, sent by the tyrants who can only complete their dominion whence there's no longer the potential for resistance.

In a common sense debate, then, what really is the Bill of Rights?  Wherefrom did the 2nd Amendment come?

Well, if you believe that all of our rights come from our Government (and its mechanisms and structures, whether an imperial President, a 99:1 ratio in the Legislature, and "forward-thinking" Supreme Court or any similar collection of would-be tyrants), then you can't understand, or be made to understand, what the pure nature of these rights meant to those who wrote the Constitution.  They knew and firmly believed that there were rights which pre-dated their Document, and their Revolution, and Civilization, and all the rest of history.  And, one of those rights was the right to defend any way seen fit.  They knew the dangers posed by wicked men in power would outstrip the dangers of sabre-tooth tigers, marauders, clans, thieves, and thugs named Trayvon.

And they knew that the only way for this new government of theirs to get out of hand, was an elimination of the citizens' means of self-defense.  Therefore, the common sense discussion begins and ends with the phrase, "shall not be infringed," and the understanding that God (or Nature, if you prefer) created and gave me this right, individually for my own benefit of self-preservation.  The Founding Fathers recognized that this right came from God, and they wrote it down as a manner of acknowledging so, taking care not to be seen as bequeathing it.

It's an infringement when any legislator or judge pretends to have any business defining what constitutes "allowable."  If I want a tank, or a samurai sword or a 30-round magazine clip (hahaha), that's between me and my Maker.  Same equation for you, if that's what you want and can afford or make.

It's an infringement if/when anyone, including an officer of the State, pretends it's his business whether I'm armed or not.  If and when I start shooting, then it's your business.  You'll be better off on my side, if this happens.  Spend your efforts to solve actual crimes or catch actual criminals.

It's an infringement if you, my presumed betters, scrutinize my credit history and insist on filing my fingerprints to assess my "carry-worthiness".

Any registration requirements, from pea-shooter handguns to bazookas?  Infringement.

Simply considering that anyone other than myself or my God has any voice in restricting my having or bearing, whenever and wherever I see fit any weapon I choose, is infringement of my right and an immediate violation of the 2nd Amendment, punishable also in any way I see fit.  And whether you're an imperial President, elected representative, appointed judge, sworn deputy, or Florida gang thug, once you've broken the rights given me (us) by God, your authority no longer has merit, and you are just another criminal.

Another criminal, like Trayvon, making mistakes about the difference between the laws of God and those laws of man.

Today is a beautiful day, even if it's just another day on the right side of the dirt.  I should be floating dries down the creek, or killing golf eggs, or riding my horse, or sailing my boat...or just playing couch-survivor in preparation for the ACC Championship basketball game.  But instead, I'm writing an essay about tyrants and then heading out to a gun show.  Because I'm a racist?

No.  It's because I'm afraid of what might happen if I'm not paying attention.

God bless you.  God bless America.  God bless Roy Williams and the Tar Heels.  And just as importantly, God bless me.  Happy St. Patty's Day.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Hot Women, Loud Guns, and Fast Cars

Just because (A) I've been way too busy keeping all my fingers in all those dikes and have precious little time for real essay, and (B), the simplicity of the Virtual President is really enough in itself, here's some Bill Whittle for your edification.

Although he didn't say it specifically, the phrase that bumped its way into my head as he delivered this speech, was "natural anarchy".  That is, our leviathan by its very nature is about to get shed like a cocoon, just because of our very nature, individually, as we gravitate toward that which is more nimble and unencumbered.  And that is, of course, unless that same government, out of its own self-preservation, ratchets up the enslavement of its people.  And let us not discount that possibility.

The only exception I take is his presumption that the North's impetus for the War Between the States, was borne of some fairy-tale pure notion of emancipation, and their (dishonest) justification in acting on those notions.  Your thoughts?