Archive for the ‘Country Class’ Category

From ForeignPolicy, Rosa Brooks writes a piece called “Blood on the Constitution”:

Here we go again. With 12 dead bodies at Washington’s Navy Yard, not including that of the shooter, Americans are back to the usual handwringing: Why, oh why can’t we stem the tide of gun violence?

People, this is not rocket science. (Yes, I’m mad).

That’s the best way to write a modern liberal column.  Impotent Rage!

Americans currently have crappy gun-control laws, “crappy” being the technical legal term for “hopelessly, pathetically inadequate,” especially when compared to other countries‘ laws. Yes, those countries with fewer guns and fewer gun deaths — they have much tougher gun-control laws than the United States does.

Those “other countries” being the usual suspects: cold-weather politemongers of Canada (who have abandoned their long gun registry as pointless and a stupid failure), ethnically whites-only no-guns Australia, under-siege religious-ethnic bonded Israel, unarmed UK, genetically homongenous Norway, and genetically homogenous xenophobic and occasionally murderously totalitarian Japan.

And why do we have crappy gun-control laws? Because of the Second Amendment, which gives Americans a constitutional right to crappy gun-control laws. That’s why we fought a war against the British: We wanted to the right to kill each other, instead of being killed by foreign enemies.

At least when leftists write mad, they write what they feel.  And she’s right, in her own warped worldview.  But we’ve had some of the kind of gun control laws she’d like in the past.  They were instituted so America’s slave underclasses and minorities and undesirables could be kept down.  Just the way she likes it – she just adjusted her sights to oppress the serfs of the Country Class.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state – as opposed to a tyrannical oppressor state.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

- Thomas Jefferson

And remember, he was referencing Shay’s Rebellion at the time – a domestic insurgency against perceived tyranny.  And it was viewed as a good thing, because it was necessary to keep the government honest.  Yes, that was TJ supporting armed rebellion as a way to keep government in check.

Brooks real complaint is that the classic liberal enlightenment document that the nation is based on must be destroyed.

For its time, the U.S. Constitution was a pretty impressive document, if you leave aside certain small details such as slavery, which was considered A-OK by the Founding Fathers, and women’s rights, which were considered not A-OK. But let’s give the Constitution’s authors a break; they lived at a time when slavery was widespread not only in the United States but around the globe and women were still considered semi-chattel in most of the world. For its time, the Constitution was not bad at all.

But for our time, it stinks.

First off, it was broad enough that “all men are created equal” in founding documents can easily apply just as well to everyone.  And things like the 3/5 compromise were written to slowly abolish things like slavery.  Also, amendments, how do they work?

Whenever I teach constitutional law, I ask my students if they’re happy that they live in a nation with the oldest written constitution in the world. They all nod enthusiastically. Then I ask them if they’d be equally pleased if our neurosurgeons operated in accordance with the oldest anatomybook in the world, or our oil tankers steered using the oldest navigational charts in the world, or NASA’s rocket scientists used Ptolemaic astronomy to chart the path of the Mars Rover.

Frankly, having the world’s oldest written constitution is not something to be proud of.

From here she goes into a leftist diatribe about how the Constitution sucks because it’s old, and thus it’s irrelevant and needs to be destroyed to represent her chosen vision of a modern world because remember, she’s mad.

But she’s got some specious argument there about age being a condition of obsolescence.  A counterpoint would be to ask students if they think their mathematicians should continue to use the Pythagorean Theorem, or if they should use the positions put forth in the Kama Sutra in their dorms.

soha ali khan

Picture of Soha Ali Khan unrelated.

Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.  Often it means it’s tried and true, and especially as human nature tends to be rather consistent, the Constitution works rather well, just like the Quadratic Formula and cowgirl.

And boy, have circumstances changed lately. To return to gun deaths, the framers could never have imagined weapons technologies like those used in Newtown or the Navy Yard. But because the U.S. Constitution is amazingly difficult to amend (incredibly, women still have no text-based constitutional guarantee of equal rights), Americans are stuck with gun rules from more than two centuries ago.

The Founders were very, very smart men.  They were inventors themselves.  They also had privately owned cannon at the time – ordnance, not arms; and they were well aware of rapid firing weapons, anti-personnel munitions, and all kind of other assorted nastiness that could be used for evil intent.  Keep in mind that was also an era where swords were still commonplace, and unlike a gun, you don’t have to reload a sword ever.  Also, medicine to treat wounds in the 1700s was much more limiting. thus survivable wounds today would often have been fatal wounds then.

The Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason.  It’s so a bunch of mad shrews like Brooks don’t just go out and change it willy-nilly.  Anger-fueled madness triumphing over reason is how with the likes of Carrie Nation and later iterations of the temperance movement, we eventually got Prohibition, which no one but some progressive anti-freedom anti-drink busybodies wanted.  Government driven by progressive do-gooders inflicted Prohibition on the population, and murdered 10,000 US citizens for our own good.

Crime statistics of individual man on man pale in comparison to 10,000 murdered by the government in the name of “the common good” against “fiend intemperance”.  And that’s from a mostly benign government.  Government is the problem.

oleg volk government killing

This may help explain why the U.S. Constitution no longer gets much global respect. Just a few decades ago, the overwhelming majority of nations around the globe modeled their own constitutions on it. Today, that’s no longer true.

Just why other democracies are losing interest in the U.S. Constitution as a model is an interesting question, and there are undoubtedly a thousand and one reasons.  But I’ll bet the Navy Yard shootings just added 12 more.

Guess what, Brooks?  I don’t care too much what other countries do with their constitutions.  I like ours just fine.

I also don’t care because most of the world isn’t founded on the idea of a representative democratic republic based on Enlightenment ideals of the individual as the most important element of society.  Most new governments are filling themselves up with collectivist declarations of the special rights of group A or group B, not with the declaration of the Natural Right of Individual X.  They exist only to empower the Ruling Class at the expense of the ruled, to balance different balkanized groups against one another while the truly powerful play a game of favorites with resources they steal from the population.  It is a game of plunder, where Brooks and her Ruling Class plunderers distribute it for the good of their own personal power as the Ruling Class.

It’s worth noting that her bio includes this:

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.

She’s been a high-level advisor in the Obama administration, and a professor of law.  She teaches students that the Constitution must be destroyed, and she advises government to destroy the very document that governs the government.  She is one of those Ruling Class elites who of course would demand that you be disarmed.  It makes her job of administering your resources and deciding how you will be controlled that much easier.

-

And as a complete counterpoint to her nonsense:

From 9 News Colorado:

FORT COLLINS – One corner of rural Colorado is so fed up with the leftward lurch of our state that county leaders are talking secession by creating the 51st state.

Weld County Commissioners say other leaders in northeastern Colorado are ready to go with them, citing concerns that they are being ignored on issues like energy and agriculture.

“Our very way of life is under attack,” Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway said on Thursday.

The Republican says Wednesday’s signing of Senate Bill 252 by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, which critics say would increase rates for only rural Colorado while at the same time promoting renewable energy, was the last straw.

“That is a direct assault on rural Colorado,” Weld County Commissioner Mike Freeman said.

They’re standing up for what they believe.  Good for them.

At a recent meeting of county commissioners from all over the state, Conway says roughly 10 counties warmed to the idea of a petition to create a new state.

“That state would be the state of Northern Colorado,” Conway said.

Hey, North Colorado!  I’ve got an idea for your new capitol…

galts gulch

Sure, Galt’s Gulch is supposed to be Ouray, but it’s looking more like North Colorado is serious about it.

-

On the Ruling Class and Country Class:

The ruling class’s appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side’s vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side — especially the ruling class — embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side’s view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.

greetings from galts gulch

From Washington Examiner:

The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama’s Rose Garden “tantrum” after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because “he bit off more than he could chew.”

David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don’t have a sense of the public’s attitude toward gun control. “They just can’t gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don’t have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do,” said Keene.

“He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn’t change people’s basic values and feelings,” added the NRA president.

Fact is, people are opposed to it.  The culture of the nation is opposed to having the government chip, chip, chip away at our rights.  This is the Country Class telling the Ruling Class “no”.

The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA’s power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday’s vote.

Keene, however, saw it differently. “It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum.”

Keene is spot-on here.  Obama was mad and ranting, calling the NRA and the pro-rights lobby “liars”.  Mind you, this is the same president who had the ATF send guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels and then claim executive privilege to hush it up.

Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to “just stop it now.”

All you have to do is listen to what the Democrat anti-rights activists say:

They do not stop.  They will not be happy until everyone is disarmed and doing exactly as they say.

Keene had a good way of handling the leftists who want to “compromise” by sticking in just the tip, baby:

In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. “Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it’s Joe Manchin, who’s talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, ‘Look, I’m in the middle of the Missouri River, I’ve got a trout on the line. I don’t agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight.”

There is no compromise, and there’s no use in talking to someone who just wants to stick in the tip a little bit, baby.  No means no.

May as well go fishing.

wy creek

May as well start with the vice buffoon:

WASHINGTON — The terrorist organization al-Qaida is telling its followers to exploit the so-called “gun-show loophole” to buy semi-automatic weapons that could be used to kill Americans, Vice President Joe Biden warned in an interview with Hearst Newspapers.

Biden, the quarterback of the Obama administration’s anti-gun-violence campaign, said the classified presidential daily intelligence brief that was delivered to President Barack Obama and him last Thursday described “an al-Qaida principal” declaring on an al-Qaida website that supporters ought to “go to Washington and go to a gun show” because a fair portion of gun show sales bypass background checks.

Joe Biden is an idiot.  To begin with, there are no gun shows in DC.

For those who’ve never been to a gunshow, let me give you some idea the kinds of bumper stickers that are sold there amidst the guns and ammo and camo and beef jerky and militaria and holsters:

terrorist hunting permit

The people who frequent gun shows are people who are into gun culture.  American gun culture celebrates the United States, the Second Amendment, the US military, and does not, contrary to leftist belief, hate the country.  Nor are people at gun shows (often disproportionately veterans; and almost always Country Class folk) the kind of people to have any tolerance for terrorists.

“You can buy a semi-automatic weapon,” Biden characterized the al-Qaida official as saying. “It’s your obligation to do Jihad, and kill people, kill Americans. In other words, you radicals, what’s so gol’darn hard here? Just go to America and buy a gun.”

Joe Biden has clearly never been to a gun show, and understands neither American gun culture nor Al Qaeda.

At a couple gun shows I’ve been to, I’ve seen straw purchasers and illegal purchasers arrested and walked off by the police.  At all the gun shows I’ve been to, I’ve seen a crowd that’s predominantly of a conservative mindset, slightly older, mostly responsible, and regardless of who they seem they’d be politically based on gender or ethnicity or orientation – again generally more conservative and patriotic.  In the last few years, ethnic groups have become even more diverse (especially regionally), but in general, elements that are criminal or suspicious are turned away.

Gun people don’t want to sell to dangerous people – period.  Gun show clientele, especially the stereotypical “bitter clingers” do not truck with Al Qaeda.  Many of them have actively fought Al Qaeda, or have friends or family serving in the fight against Al Qaeda and in conflict generated by Al Qaeda.  US gun culture and Al Qaeda are diametrically opposed forces.  Biden and the left don’t get that.

-

From WaPo, an opinion that gets it wrong pretty quick:

Those who support stricter gun control fear that the passage of time since the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School will result in further watering-down of measures. They should not, however, discount the risk that attempts to shave a few weeks or months off the usual legislative process will result in bad laws, with unintended and lasting consequences.

Pretty much all gun control laws are bad laws.  Ones made in the rush to dance in the blood of children are made according to Rahm Emanuel’s maxim of “Never let a good crisis go to waste” and “you can do things you normally couldn’t” in the wake of a crisis.  They are pushing for bad laws, and the families are pushing for bad laws.  Nothing in the laws they push will help anyone except criminals and would-be tyrants.

While pro-gun forces may overstate the case against expanded background checks — they are not, for example, a prelude to disarming the citizenry — President Obama and his allies have understated the difficult legal questions posed by extending the background-check system to cover more sales and transfers.

Wrong.

Expanded background checks, and the necessary registry to ensure compliance with background checks, are a prelude to disarming citizenry.  The included background checks as well as any other barriers to entry (taxes on ammo, guns, legislation restriction bearing and use of arms) are all there to prevent people from getting involved in exercising their Second Amendment rights.  The issue is that not only is it an attempt to track gun owners for later confiscation, it’s also a cultural attack by keeping people from ever owning guns by making it more difficult to do so.

Australians who used to be gun owners, or who try to still be gun owners, discuss how they have to have their rifles locked up at their club, have to have licenses, inspections, and have to comply with a myriad of laws in order to exercise what is a denied right that only still exists as a shadow in the form of a severely regulated hobby.

It is a prelude to disarming the citizenry.  Just ask people who’ve talked to dear leader.

Given the time and attention that they deserve, these issues could be addressed. But artificial deadlines and an undue sense of urgency guarantee worse results and continued mistrust on both sides of this debate.

There is no surrender of rights.  Period.

There is no mistrust.  The political left and those who favor gun control want to deny rights.  They say so.  Thus there is no compromise with denial of rights.  They are pushing to keep a crisis going in order to erase rights.  That’s all.  There is no debate to be had – there is an assault on rights.

It sounds absolutist, and it is.  They aren’t looking at how to deal with the murderer, they’re looking at how to target people who they think shouldn’t own firearms because to some degree Mao was right about the origins of political power.  Because the left mistrusts and loathes the American people as stupid people who need to be controlled, they want us all disarmed – you and me and your family and your friends – all “for our own good”.  I trust them to continue to assault our rights – they’ve stated it’s their intention.

-

John Bolton and John Yoo cover Obama’s back-door gun control through the UN:

Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. Yet because the Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senate give its advice and consent to any treaty, Second Amendment supporters still have a political route to stop the administration.

…the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of “small arms and light weapons.” The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to “establish and maintain a national control system,” including a “national control list.” Article 10 requires signatories “to regulate brokering” of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is “mindful” of the “legitimate trade and lawful ownership” of arms for”recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.” Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.  Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails.

…The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”

Yup, because they can’t get in through the front because you’ll oppose it, they’ll try to side with a collection of dictators-for-life and tyrants in the UN so they can take your rights.  If you’re armed, you’re still a free man, and the global elite don’t like that (sounds tin foily but it’s not if you look at what they want).  There simply are international institutions dedicated to removing your rights, and that’s just what they do.  You’re the last obstacle in “civilizing” the world; and then they can use force to make people do what’s best.

-

And a shrewd piece from David “Broke the Gunwalker Story” Codrea:

The draft of S. 649 that provides the framework for the legislative arguments that lie ahead contains an item that could prove highly controversial, even though no one has, until now*, recognized it, let alone raised it as an issue. …

“[I]t shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s),” the section on Firearms Transfers states. “Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.”

But this “shall not apply,” the section continues, “to … bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.”

The issue? Absent a change in federal law, 1 USC § 7 – Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

Basically, if you have a gay marriage or civil union, you’re not exempted.  Thus, if you’re gay, you’re denied Second Amendment rights because of the definition of marriage (though at this point they’ve been reduced to privileges).

While marriage as an institution is one man and one woman; this law by recognizing marriage for 2A purposes and not recognizing gay unions does deny gay partners to enjoy their Second Amendment rights between each other without asking government permission.

Solution?  Don’t pass the stupid law that discriminates against gays and lesbians by requiring government-sanctioned marriage.  And as Andrew Wilkow notes, you can solve the whole marriage issue by finding where in the Constitution it says the government can regulate marriage… and since it doesn’t, you just hand it all back to individual churches (or states) to decide.  That way if the Reformed New New Reformed Church of Vermont wants to marry gays, they can – and it doesn’t infringe on their beliefs; and if the Al-Mohammed Al-Akbar Mosque of California doesn’t want to, they aren’t forced by government to marry gays – and it doesn’t infringe on their beliefs.

You leave them alone to live how they like, and you leave them alone to defend themselves how they like.  Armed gays don’t get bashed.  (And insert joke here about right to arm bears.)

-

And finally, calling out the gun-grabber tyrants, Thomas Sowell’s piece – Gun Control Crusaders Unconstrained by Facts:

The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.

In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.

What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.

The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.

It’s the Broken Window Fallacy as related to public policy.  You can’t see the benefits of the gun – just as you don’t see the baker’s new suit.  You have to look for the hidden costs and benefits.  You see the broken window and its replacement just as you see the new gun control law “doing something”.  Most people don’t see the loss of safety through disarmament – at least not until it’s too late.

Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first.

Eloquent and to the point.  Classic Sowell.

Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.

And they will come for those next.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars.

Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.

The US Navy’s chief of information, Rear Admiral Kirby, laments that there’s a “military-civilian gap”.   But what he doesn’t understand is that it exists only to him and those in Ruling Class circles.

In more than 10 years of war, we in the military have gone to great expense and trouble to listen to the concerns of foreign peoples and cultures. We have learned Dari and Arabic and Pashto. We have sat cross-legged in shura and tribal councils. And yet I worry that we do not pay our fellow Americans the same courtesy.

It’s time that we do a better job understanding and relating to the people we serve.

Really?  Has he been reading William “Troops are vile scumbag mercenaries who should grovel before their betters” Arkin‘s pieces?

Kirby’s perspective is horribly distorted.

We do not talk with them. Too often, we talk at them. We are the guest speakers, the first-pitch-throwers, the grand marshals. We show them the power of our capabilities through air shows, port visits and other demonstrations. This outreach is important, but it isn’t always a two-way street. And it doesn’t improve our understanding of the society we defend.

No, Kirby, you’re an admiral and chief of informationYou talk at people, you are the guest speaker, the first-pitch-thrower, the grand marshal.  You attend and orchestrate the dog-and-pony shows.

This lament comes up a lot from the left, and sometimes it comes up from those stuck inside the DC bubble.

I’ll address it the same way I did last time:

There are two Americas.  There are those who serve, those who know those who serve, who understand service to the country, and those who don’t.  Leftists and mainstream media writers are constantly scribbling about this.  Read enough and you’ll find it shows up all the time.  They lament that that the military isn’t representative of the nation, especially since we’ve switched to a volunteer system.  It’s not an uncommon thing to notice.  But it’s not a disconnect between the broader US public and the military.

It’s a divide between the Country Class and the Ruling Class.  The military is the Country Class, and the Ruling Class always wonders why they aren’t represented enough.  They wonder why the military is societally so far away from them, the same way they don’t understand farmers, truckers, miners, etc.

I guess I should amend that.  Once you’re an O-7, you’re crossing over into the Ruling Class.

Kirby is an admiral and chief of information – he’s firmly in the Ruling Class.  Off the top of my head, I can name 10 coworkers who are veterans in my job.  Outside of work, back in regular life, I can come up with at least two friends from circles as far back as high school who are veterans – in circles that weren’t very military-oriented.  If I count family and those who’ve served, I end up with 5 off the top of my head.  The military and veterans don’t talk at people the way the Chief of Information Admiral does… because they aren’t the Chief of Information Admiral.

They’re people you have conversations with.  The only “talking at” comes in the form of telling people about things they have limited to no experience about – which is true of any profession.

If you end up hanging out with a gearhead and know nothing about cars, you may feel “talked at”, but that’s just because you’re getting up to speed.  Even if you know about muscle cars or imports, you may find yourself getting “talked at” as you’re brought up to speed on rat rods.

32 ford rat rod

If I talked to the owner/builder of that ride, I expect to get talked at, because I know very little about it – but if I’m engaged in conversation, I’m probably going to learn.

The rest of the Admiral’s piece, when seen with the understanding that he’s part of the Ruling Class, makes sense.  He seems to lament a disconnect between himself and the civilian world.  But it isn’t a military-civilian disconnect.  It’s between himself and his DC cronies against the Country Class.  He even writes about cultivating relationships with the Ruling Class, and yet somehow doesn’t understand that’s the problem.

Naturally he, as a Ruling Class professional leader who talks at people, has decided to talk at us again and tell us all how we need to live and act.

Your daily does of leftist stupidity, courtesy of the Washington Post opinions page:

Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.

Um, for starters, that is going on.  It’s just in ones and twos.  Even Juan Williams was talking about this a couple days ago (his solution was half-addressing the societal problems, but he still took the leftist idea of banning tools, too).  People who discuss crime rates in the black community (as well as other ethnic communities – including poor whites) look at demographics of violence and do try to address them.

Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago is rife with violence (despite banning guns for good citizens).  Every week is another series of murders. There is no “imagine if” – it really is the case.

But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

Not really.  Maybe to a racist.

Here’s the pitch for stupid…

Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

…and it’s a high fly ball out to deep left field!

Let’s look at those mentioned.  Newtown, Aurora, Tuscon and Columbine were done by white kids and guys with varying mental problems.  “Not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine have been committed by white men and boys”…

…and it’s in the stands!

The Fort Hood shooter, was a psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan, fully cognizant of what he was doing – committing jihad, yelling “Allahu Akbar!” as he gunned down the soldiers that he, as a “Soldier of Allah” wished dead.  And he wasn’t a white guy.  (Unless the authors are truly archaic racists/racialists who divide people only by caucasoid, negroid & mongoloid… which actually wouldn’t surprise me from the left.)

nidal hasan

Meanwhile, the murders at Virginia Tech, the most prolific mass shooting murder in US history, were committed by an Asian kid of Korean descent.

And maniac cop Chris Dorner, who wrote a manifesto and started his killing spree by killing an Asian gal and her black fiance and was the subject of news coverage for days until he burned to death in a cabin in Big Bear, CA, was also a black man mass shooter murderer.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.

No, actually white guys are used to being singled out by the left.  The last several decades of leftist rewriting of history have been an attempt not to recognize accomplishments of all ethnicities, but to drag down the accomplishments of the white man in an effort to make the world “fair” at best, and at worst as an attempt at subversion of the good done in large part by white men in America’s past.  It insults the achievements of men and women of all races.  It makes both the heroes and villains of history less colorful in all ways when not seen through an objective lens, but through one that demands “social justice” against the white man.  Diminishing one man diminishes them all – especially by contrast.  Of course, the left’s hate for “dead white men” has become parody by now, so I’m not going to belabor the point.

When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

Just to prove a point, I’m going to go to rifle manufacturer John Noveske’s last facebook post before he died (under odd circumstances) – you’ll probably get the point pretty quick and scroll on down, though:

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.

Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….

What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az

What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado

What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or

What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.

John Noveske, at this point, has sadly become one of those “dead white men” of history, but I think that pretty well blows the “mental health isn’t an issue – it’s the white man!” argument all to hell.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.

Women and girls are just having sex with schoolchildren.

I’d guess the writers mean “non-American guy” by “immigrants” since they like breaking down other ethnic groups, but in fact they’re wrong again: Sulejman Talović murdered 5 people and wounded four at Trolley Square until he was shot by a white man with a gun.  Some people classify those who live in southern Europe as some kind of non-white ethnicity because they’re non-Anglo, but either way, it’s still meaningless.  Lee Boyd Malvo, is a black dude from Jamaica and was one of the two DC Snipers (the other a US-born black dude).

As for Latinos… Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people in 1990 in the Bronx, NY.  And there are plenty of “latinos” killing plenty of other people, but it’s mostly drug and gang related, so just like run-of-the-mill black killers listed at the beginning, they’re ignored because it’s usually in ones and twos… except when they kill dozens, but it’s okay because it’s a mile away from the US.  And sometimes it’s not, but those don’t make the news.

Each of us is programmed from childhood to believe that the top group of our hierarchies — and in the U.S. culture, that’s white men — represents everyone, so it can feel awkward, even ridiculous, when we try to call attention to those people as a distinct group and hold them accountable.

No, what feels awkward is that there are people who really think there’s a “hierarchy” based on race.

For example, our schools teach American history as the history of everyone in this nation. But the stories we learn are predominantly about white men. To study the history of other groups, people have to take separate classes, such as African American history, women’s history or Native American history. And if we take “Hispanic American History,” we don’t expect to learn “Asian American History,” because a class about anyone but white men is assumed not to be inclusive of anyone else.

To the first part, that’s because there were a lot of things done by white men.  And to study the history of other groups seperately is insulting to other Americans.  Ignoring Crispus Attucks because you’ve shoved him into February alone is stupid, seperatist, leftist racist nonsense.  To ignore Buffalo Soldiers when talking about the Old West (or that 1 in 3 cowboys were black), or ignoring Goyathlay or King Mike is absurd.  They are all Americans and part of the American story.  Cutting them out for a “special month” makes them seem to be aberrations, not an instrinsic part of the whole history of the nation.  It’s both separate and unequal.

That’s a failure of educators and a failure of the writers of the WP piece, who think in racist terms.

If life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

The same facets that create asian mass shooters and black mass shooters and every other sub-ethnicity’s mass killers.  It’s not based on relative melanin levels.

Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

You realize black, red, yellow, brown, green and purple people all play video games, right?

Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

Because black people were targeted for systematic disarmament by the racist Democrats of the South after the Civil War.  If more black people had been NRA members – like Robert Williams was in Monroe, NC – the civil rights movement would’ve looked different, too.  Oh, and because Amerind tribesmen were targeted for disarmament by racist expansionist progressives in the past.  If they hadn’t been disarmed and massacred at places like Wounded Knee, the American West might be composed of states that would be represented in large part by Amerind tribes who peacefully would’ve decided to join the US.  Because progressive leftist racist Democrats have managed to convince them that self-defense is racist and that they should roll over and die.

The Democrat leftist think they know what’s best, the media thinks they know what’s best, and they’re all groups that have subjugated groups “for their own good” beneath the heel of the state for decades.  Democrats are anti-gun and racist, that’s why – and they’ve beaten into the people they’ve shoved into their “great society” the idea that they should be disarmed and that the wonderful state will take care of them.  While limousine liberals are the ones who think they’ll be doing the “taking care” and thus they hate guns as well, as those are tools of free men, not slaves or subjugated, infantilized sheep.

Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

White isn’t all they are, and they aren’t all white.  The congressmen leading the fight against gun control can go back to that previous paragraph and see that disarmament leads to oppression.  The hard-fought gains made by the Country Class – which is made up of people of all ethnicities – should not be tossed away and handed to dictatorial white male politicians like Shumer and Durbin and Lautenberg who are the same Ruling Class oppressors who targeted non-whites and whites who were of different sub-groups in the past.

The right to keep and bear arms is a color blind issue.  God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.

If Americans ask the right questions on gun issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage white men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other white men and boys become healthier and less violent.

The answers the clueless writers intend to get are predicated on the idea that you believe their bias to begin with.  If you aren’t a racist who views society as having a race-hierarchy, you don’t see things their way – and that’s important, because America isn’t a race-based hierarchy.

From the NYT.  He says liberal, but he’s not.

I AM a New England liberal, born and bred. I have lived most of my life in the Northeast — Boston, New York and Philadelphia — and my politics are devoutly Democratic. In three decades, I have voted for a Republican exactly once, holding my nose, in a mayoral election in which the Democratic candidate seemed mentally unbalanced.

I am also a Texas resident and a gun owner.

He the “brings-his-failed-politics-with-him” kind that’s referred to as a goddamn yankee.

Lots of people on both sides of the aisle own firearms, or don’t, for reasons that supersede their broader political and cultural affiliations. Let me be clear: my personal armory notwithstanding, I think guns are woefully under-regulated. It’s far too easy to buy a gun — I once bought one in a parking lot — and I loathe the National Rifle Association. Some of the Obama administration’s proposals strike me as more symbolic than effective, with some 300 million firearms on the loose. But the White House’s recommendations seem like a good starting point and nothing that would prevent me from protecting my family in a crisis. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and, frankly, a gas to shoot. So is a tank, and I don’t need to own a tank.

Because people having rights is a scary thing (especially black people).  People exercising rights is a scary thing.  An organization dedicated to shooting sports, safety, and advocacy of the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms is an evil thing worthy of loathing for no reason that he’s willing to give, because he has none.  He’s simply a Ruling Class leftist who hates that you have rights.

300 million guns need to be regulated because he can protect his family.  He got his.  You are part of the mob that needs to be lorded over and controlled.  He’s one of the elites who should be able to exercise his rights.   You’re one of the violent maniac criminals-to-be that threaten his family when he goes running from a hurricane.

And of course the idiot leftist goes down the gun=tank/nuclear bomb route.

I agree it would be nice if the world had exactly zero guns in it.

And here the writer proves himself to be a colossal fool.

Thus, my secret life — though I guess it’s not such a secret anymore. My wife is afraid of my guns (though she also says she’s glad I have them). My 16-year-old daughter is a different story. The week before her fall semester exams, we allowed her to skip school for a day, a tradition in our house. The rule is, she gets to do whatever she wants. This time, she asked to take a pistol lesson. She’s an NPR listener like me, but she’s also grown up in Texas, and the fact that one in five American women is a victim of sexual assault is not lost on her.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if the world had exactly zero guns in it?  Then your daughter could fistfight her rapist.

He hates that you, the Country Class, have the right to bear arms.  He’s an elitist who believes that he should protect himself, and his family, but you shouldn’t have any rights – that you should be regulated.

But I don’t see that happening, and calling gun owners “a bunch of inbred rednecks” doesn’t do much to advance rational discussion.

“Rational discussion” can’t occur between someone who wants to render my family disarmed because he’s got his.  “Rational discussion” doesn’t occur between a party of leftists whose objectives are always disarmament.  The leftist author does believe that gun owners are “a bunch of inbred rednecks” – that’s why he wants them controlled – that’s why he hates the NRA.  That’s why his piece is about his closet shame and how he hates the NRA, and not a denunciation of the anti-rights control-freak nonsense that comes from the left across the country.  That’s why he’s all for your daughter being disarmed – because his ruling class liberal elite daughter is going to be protected.

He’s got his.  You don’t need yours.  He’s a hypocrite – and wants your world to be without guns.

Fists/A World Without Guns by Oleg Volk

There is no “rational discourse” with someone who wants to destroy your right to self defense, even if he claims understanding with you because he uses similar tools for his defense.

This is a “just the tip” compromise with a rapist.

Hey leftist – you like your regulations so much – go back where you came from.  We don’t want you here.  You and your kind are seeking to infect the rest of the country with your disease, either by moving and infecting slowly, or through federal mandate and infecting broadly.  You want a world without guns?  Start by getting rid of yours and GTFO.

That’s something he’ll never do, because his family has worth.  His rights have worth.  His elitist new england pretentious priviledge has worth.  His pretentious education and Democrat zealotry has worth (despite the objective failures of leftist states and the objective success of free states like Texas – which is why he moved).  Your life needs to be controlled and directed by his master plan.  You are the serf, he is the master.

There is no compromise.  There is no rational discourse with a tyrant.  He is only saying “nice doggy” to you until he can beat you with a rock.

Update: Instalache!

A few other points are missed here.  If you buy online, you not only have to provide your credit card info that matches your mailing address, but most, if not all, online stores also require a state-issued form of ID.

This is actually more than 1000 rounds of ammo.  It’s 1100 rounds (measured by weight, so give or take), with Lego Indiana Jones, a horse, and shag carpeting for size comparison (and I have the Legos as far back from the front of the box so with camera tricks it looks as “big” as possible…until you remember how little a Lego is or look down at the carpet):

1100 rounds

And people want to make that “an arsenal”?

Why need 1100 rounds?  Buying in bulk, like the video mentioned, saves money.  If I were to buy 11 boxes of 50 rounds, I’d be paying a lot more for packaging and individual costs, retailer markup due to the retailer having to deal with 11 pieces of inventory instead of 1, and so on.  Why need 1100 rounds?  If you go plinking for a day with a .22, you can easily burn through all that ammo in an afternoon.

Why need 1100 rounds of centerfire ammo?  Same reason.

I’ve mentioned much of this before, but I’ll also address something else the video said about there being no tracking on ammo at stores.  To the leftist, this doesn’t mean “oh, online ammo is okay”, it means “store sold ammo is evil”.  They want that banned, too.

Criminals will always violate the law.  Criminals will always find people with clean records (straw purchasers) to make gun or ammo buys for them.  The ATF and FBI have even enabled illegal straw purchases of guns and ammunition in order to support Mexican narcoterrorist cartels so the ATF could blame American gun owners for Mexican crime.

Tracking gun and ammo sales, imposing high taxes, cutting off ammo supplies to rural areas by banning ammo sales – all of these are tools to deny people their rights.  Imagine that if, in order to buy a computer or a printer, your purchase was tracked, higher taxes were imposed, and buying a computer online was made illegal.  This would make buying a computer and printer and being able to exercise your First Amendment rights that much harder to do.  In regular old economics, we’re talking about the government establishing a barrier to entry for you as a citizen in order to stop you from exercising your rights.

All it really does is make it harder for the person of limited means to afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  It makes them more dependent on government, rather than less.  It hurts folks in rural areas a lot, as they’re cut off or subjected to gouging local monopolies.  It stymies American gun culture through regulation – which is the leftist/progressive point, all of which enables tyranny – at the individual level oppressed by criminals or madmen, and at the national level oppressed by government and madmen.

Good piece by Bob Owens here.

Bob Owens details his realization that the Country Class knows what’s up.

Walmart Standing Strong

Posted: December 19, 2012 by ShortTimer in Country Class, Economic freedom, Guns, Second Amendment
Tags:

Well, I’d like to think it’s a principled stance, but it’s a stance probably just based around money, profit and loss, and sales.  From Bloomberg news:

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, said yesterday that it would continue to sell guns, including rifles like the one used at Newtown, where 26 people, most of them children, were killed on Dec. 14. By contrast, Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. (DKS) suspended sales of similar guns at its more than 500 stores.

Searches of five kinds of semi-automatic rifles on Wal- Mart’s website showed them to be out of stock at stores in five states, including Pennsylvania, Kansas and Alabama. Wal-Mart doesn’t sell guns online, instead asking customers to input a zip code to see if their local store carries a specific weapon.

We remain dedicated to the safe and responsible sale of firearms in areas of the country where they are sold,” David Tovar, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, said yesterday.

ARs aren’t popular because Walmart sells them.  Walmart sells them because they’re popular.  They know it’s a product that many, many, many people want to buy, and Walmart is willing to sell it.  AR type rifles have been the hottest selling rifles in the last decade as military servicemen want their old rifles, shooting competitors want them, sport shooters want them, those that embrace the Second Amendment want them, varmint hunters, deer hunters, critter hunters, self-defense advocates (especially in large areas) want them, moms and dads, girls and boys, grandma and grandpa want them.

This is more an indicator of how overwhelmingly popular the AR series rifle is than of Walmart taking a stand.  Here, Walmart represents the demands of its consumers.  And its consumers believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and are voting with their dollars.