Mr. Friedman schools Phil Donahue. Too bad Milt isn’t still with us.
h/t: William Jacobson
Monthly Archives: July 2012
How’s “No. Your Move.” for an Argument
Ah, yes, as is often the case, those fact checking sites turn out to be statist shills. First there was Snopes (or actually, I think there was one before it, but forgot the name), then Factcheck.org, and now we have someone over at cracked.com seeking a bloody civil war.
In his latest cracked (up) post he brings up four points that freedom lovers bring up during any debate on gun people control.
I’m not going to fisk his entire post. There’s plenty of rebuttal for just about every point he makes all over the ‘net and dead tree letters to the editors.
But the bottom line is, the answer is “No.” As Bob Owens said, We, the supporters of the Constitution, are in the position of strength. So why should we compromise? Show me one time in history an instance when those interested in individual liberty compromised with those who wished to control them and it didn’t benefit those on the side of control and be detrimental to those on the side of liberty.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
There’s been enough carnage, in the 100s of millions, due to tyrants killing their own innocent countrymen in the 20th century alone (after disarming them, of course), that we simply do not trust you. And never will.
Yes, we’ve figured it out. You are lying through your teeth when you say things like we should license guns they way we license cars. You are a liar.
Cody at Cracked whines about the four most meaningless annoying arguments he hears from pro-gun folks ending the argument. He makes it sound like they’re four magic incantations recited by the faithful that puts metaphysical tape over their opponents’ mouths. If these end the argument, maybe it’s because you hoplophobes haven’t come up with believable counterarguments, eh?
There’s always a gun people control debate after a tragedy involving firearms. The problem for you statists who would control us is that you keep using the same old tired arguments that the majority of populace does not buy.
It’s obvious that the antis are feeling a bit defeated these days. But it’s clear to this writer that there’s plenty of debate going on, just nothing new.
Ayn Rand said it best: “A gun is not an argument.”
And we know damn well that those who would restrict us further in our right to keep and bear arms would have no compunction about using government guns to enforce their edicts. Whether you accept it or not, that makes you an accessory to the state sponsored murder of me and those who think like me. Although I have scant hope that there would be a 100 heads response to my death by tyrant, you can rest assured that the collectivists’ army will eventually take out someone of enough significance that you who advocate for our disarmament most definitely will be one of those 100 heads sought out as a result. To echo Billy Beck’s take on those who think they only advocate common sense gun laws but really advocate for reversing the government to citizen equation:
Get those guns out of my face and I can be the sweetest person you ever met. I will always meet you on your premises.
Should you succeed in subversively enacting further control over our lives, you’re advocacy will not be forgotten when the killing of those who love liberty begins. You can be certain that our side will be operating under Clinton’s “Serbian Rules.”
When it comes to my unalienable human rights, I will not argue to make my point. Not because our side doesn’t have great arguments for the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, as we most certainly do. I will only argue for my own entertainment.
Tam, of the blog View from the Porch gets credit for an often quoted footnote to one of her “tab clearing” posts: “Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.”.
So, yeah: do that.
Update: via Mike, Mama Liberty says, “Get over it” which is a slightly nicer way of saying Tam’s “So piss off.” ML’s post is great. Go read it. (I still like “piss off” better than “get over it” but it’s a great post, nonetheless. :-))
Open Carry Chronicles, Issues #5-8
OCC#5:
2012/07/10: Bojangles: an elderly couple engages in small talk with me, but I can’t hear much of what they say over the chatter of the other customers. Something about my job, maybe asking what I do given that I carry a gun. They’re all smiles, so I just nod and smile back. 🙂
OCC#6:
2012/07/10: Food Lion: One employee, who has seen me before and noticed how I stacked my groceries in such an organized way, asks if I have OCD. I say, “Absolutely!” She then makes more small talk and asks if I’m a detective. This is where I overdo it and go on about how I’m glad I moved down here from MA seven years ago and it was a feeling of “finally, freedom!” She says something about “some people” trying to “stop it” meaning people carrying guns I guess. I say, “well, good luck to them.” I really should have kept this conversation a bit more brief. But no harm done. Another employee walks by me and says, “Sir, you have a gun on your hip,” just trying to be funny. I just laugh and say, “Thanks for telling me!”
OCC#7:
2012/07/17: IHOP: One of the waitresses who has waited on us before and asked, “What job do you have that you carry a gun?” a while back. She had made some silly comment about being glad to know where she can get a gun if a bad guy comes in, implying that she would just pull mine out of the holster. Yikes. Reminder to self: check holster retention real good before going into IHOP from now on. Anyhow, that was a while ago. This time she was pretty funny, saying that “that’s a big-ass gun” and asking what it was. I told her it was a 1911 .45, and she when on and on about how she shot a Desert Eagle 50 cal and how it dislocated her shoulder (probably exaggerting a bit there) and that she then went and bought the gun. Anyhow, it was a fun conversation (or funny, at least).
OCC#8
2012/07/22: Bojangles: Some customer asks me if “that’s a 1911.” I respond my usual way with, “it’s all I carry.” He asks if it’s a .45 and I say yes. He says, “that’s kind of big,” I think meaning he thought it was a bit inconvenient to carry. I just say that it’s not a big deal when you’re carrying openly. He says he’s “more of a Glock guy.” I acknowledge it, but purposely trail off so he can’t hear exactly what I say, signaling that I really don’t want to take that conversation any further. I think he got the message. All good, though, there didn’t seem to be any negative feedback.
I also have another general open carry post coming up. More people on the internet are wrong, so I guess I have to address it.
*sigh*
😉
But I Heard that 1911s Suck!
From experts, no less!
That means that this couldn’t ever have happened. It’s a lie.
(Yeah, it’s a 9mm, but given that just about any design, when shrunk down, will run into problems that the original design didn’t, that actually speaks better of the common .45 caliber version of the 1911.)
Next time some Glock fanboy echoes the Glock “Perfection” slogan or some such nonsense, have him do an internet search.
Neither the endurance test nor the Google search above are proof positive of anything. But each are definitely counter-examples of the Religion of Glock(tm).
“Stay Dangerous”
I am guilty of making the mistake of seeing off soldiers who are going into a battle zone with a comment something like “stay safe.” I’ve since learned, from a great line in Battlestar Galactica, as well as elsewhere in real life, that that’s in bad form. You don’t tell a soldier to stay safe. His job is to be unsafe. His job is to be dangerous. You tell a soldier, “Good Hunting,” or something similar.
Alvie has a Doble Equis mock up that I hope goes viral. “Stay Dangerous, My Friends.”
Indeed. Life is dangerous. Be more dangerous than the tyrant or the freelance socialist (the common criminal). And win.
Ann Coulter Nails It Again
Mike Vanderboegh links to an article on Townhall.com by Ann Coulter which she ends with this:
Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not collateral damage.
It would be as if the Bush administration had implemented a covert operation to dump a dangerous abortifacient in Planned Parenthood clinics, resulting in hundreds of women dying — just to give pro-lifers an argument about how dangerous abortion clinics are.
That’s what Fast and Furious is about.
Why does a Walter Duranty quote come to mind? Something about an omelet.
The co-conspirators of Fast and Furious intended for people (mostly Mexicans) to die and facilitated their deaths to give them a justification push an agenda that has been a losing political proposition since the 1994 elections.
The only thing botched about this operation is they got caught.
How many people went to prison over Watergate, a crime where no one was killed? And yet we still have criminals with murderous intent, not only walking free, but lording it over us.
h/t Mike