Category Archives: Uncategorized

The World is a Slightly Better Place: Another Tyrant is Dead

A dictator is dead. Lee Doren, whom I hadn’t heard of until today, sums it up nicely here:

I’ve been to Venezuela twice, and I can tell you that it is no workers paradise. Yes, the land is breathtaking. And taking is what Hugo did and his fellow thugs do.

I arrived at work today to a repeating adverse weather announcement on the PA system exhorting everyone in the building to take cover in designated safe (presumably, but probably not truly weatherproof) area. I was about to get on the elevator and some random guy came up and said something like, “elevators aren’t safe…you not taking that seriously?” [pointing up, referring to the announcement] It’s not that I wasn’t taking it seriously, as I hesitated and didn’t get on, anyhow. My point in bringing it up is to highlight presumed authority. This guy held *no* authority within the building. He truly was random. And my sense was, “who the heck are you to me?” Among humans, there is a frightening willingness to obey ‘orders’, even from those who have no legitimate authority. In truth, no human has legitimate authority to rule over another. We only delegate certain powers that are revocable.

It’s worth restating what I wrote 2 1/2 years ago on the anniversary of the attacks by 19 adherents to an evil ideology:

We wound up running into an unexpected checkpoint, and while the leader of our group was outside the bus explaining what our purpose was, one of Hugo’s thugs got on board and stood at the head of the bus. He, very, very, slowly, scanned ever single passenger on the bus with his eyes and had a smile on his face that, although almost imperceptible, seemed to me to be rather gleeful. I believe he was gleeful that he is in a position of power to intimidate every civilian he encounters. I remember thinking to myself, “give me a break, you two-bit thug.” I don’t remember whether or not this Hugobot was even armed. It’s likely that he was, given the thugocracy we were in.

A short time after we arrived back in the states, I told this story, (including my thoughts during the experience), to a liberty-loving relative of mine and he rather seriously said, “Yeah, but if anybody was suspicious looking or defiant in any way, he would have just killed him.”

I’ve considered that caution since he said it, and the conclusion I’ve come to is, “So? I will not be intimidated.” In Hugoland, I’m sure I would have been killed had I acted too snotty or maybe made the shape of a gun with my finger and pointed it at him. And every situation requires its own analysis regarding when to resist, talk back, or comply. It was simply wise, and rather non-intrusive to comply in that situation and location. I’m am not interested in fighting that battle for Venezulans. My battle is here.

The world is a better place with one less tyrant. But all tyrants need some sort of popular support to thrive. Take away consent and you take away legitimacy and contribute to the eventual demise of the tyrant. Choose for yourself how will defy. Should our government continue down it’s current path (that’s been ongoing for at least 100 years, regardless of the party in control) I will choose the time, place, and nature of my defiance. But defy I will.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

h/t Michelle for the Venezuela confiscation link
h/t Weerd for the Lee Doren link

Response from SAF regarding HB1588 in WA

Below is the response I just got from SAF.  All I can say, is that hope this play works, including what isn’t being made public.
I’m just not happy with additional precedents being set, state by state, for the deceptively named universal background checks, exceptions or not.  But perhaps the right strategy for WA is to trade a small infringement at the expense of the other side giving up a larger infringement.  But from a national strategy point of view, I’m not all that sure this is wise.
We’ll see.
Alan Gottlieb statement on HB 1588
First you should know that I do not support Washington House Bill 1588 as it is currently written.
My support for a state universal background check bill must include a substantial victory for gun owners that includes, but is not limited to repealing, prohibiting and destroying the current state handgun registration system and the data base of several million records of gun owners  and their firearms that include the type of handguns and the serial numbers.
This would be a huge victory for our gun rights. We would be the first state to repeal a gun registration system. Think about that and what it means for your privacy as a gun owner and the fact that we all know historically that registration leads to confiscation.
In addition, if you have a carry permit you will be exempt from additional background checks. No checks would be required for transfers between family members.  If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors that does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.
There are other inclusions that must be made as well that are good for our rights and freedom that need to be in a final bill to have my support.
My guess is that the gun grabbers will not go along with these provisions and kill the bill. If they do the “blood” so to speak is on their hands, not ours.
There are other smart, tactical, political and morally justified reasons why I have taken this position that I do not want to make public at this time. We do have enemies and I am not going to telegraph our strategy to them by spelling out our battle plans.
I enjoy winning our freedoms more than the fight. I wish I can say that about some of my critics who have pre-judged without knowledge what it is that I am doing.
Anyone who knows me knows that for the past forty years my efforts have expanded and protected our right to keep and bear arms from local city councils all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
Alan Gottlieb
 Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

Reversal of Fortune? (NRA vs. SAF)

Regarding this from David Codrea, we have a guy, supposedly on our side, who needs a cold glass of water in the face. Please give him a splash. Be (somewhat) polite, but firm. The SAF has done a lot of good for us, particularly in the courts. But that is no reason to give them any leeway on this. Please, go here now and let them know that you do not approve. Note that responses are limited to 2000 characters, which isn’t mentioned anywhere on the contact form. So I had to shorten it and continue my note in another submission.

SAF Contact Form

Subject: WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE on so-called Universal Background checks

I have long respected the SAF, particularly for the court cases it has fought, in some important cases, all the way to the US Supreme Court. I am not yet a member, but have been intending on joining soon.

That delay of mine may prove to have been wise, as I read this:

In the above link, if the article is correct, Alan Gottlieb has indicated his willingness to compromise on so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’, which is nothing more than precursor, and even in the eyes of the NIJ, of universal registration. Universal registration will lead to universal confiscation, which enables universal extermination.

See Kurt Hoffman’s article for more information on the NIJ memo:

Mr. Gottlieb, I beseech you to stop negotiating with the liberty stealers. If the Seattle Times article is correct, there would not be enough votes in the legislature for this to pass were it not for your misguided efforts.

I am an ardent defender of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I am a member of the Legislative Team of Grass Roots North Carolina, my state gun rights group. Though I am a life member of the NRA, I have long been disgusted with it’s compromises and complicit in such atrocities as the 1968 Gun Control Act. The NRA, however, has been surprisingly unbending, at least for the moment, on the deceptively named universal background checks. It will not work, and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the government — ANY government — be allowed to know where all the guns are. It is a direct path to tyranny via eventual disarmament.

Know this. Unless you back away from this effort that will give those who oppose liberty another victory in their long march against freedom, you will sully the names of the SAF and the CCRKBA forever. You will never get a dime for me and I am sure many gun rights advocates will agree. The NRA just *may* become the organization we’ve been looking for. And you will fade into the black of the American Hunters Association. No, I don’t think the SAF or CCRKBA were set up with those intentions. But that is what you will become to anyone who cares about freedom if you do not back away from advocacy for universal background checks. And it will be well deserved.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

Two Americas

[Cut and paste from a Facebook post of mine.  We truly are two countries, separated only by a common language.]

This article is both interesting and sad. I will always be proud of being instrumental in teaching and fostering an interest in firearms to at least six of my nephews and nieces as young as 10. It’s not hard to read a note of concern from the author that the gun bigots are not having the success they had hoped on the positive, patriotic gun culture.

It’s also full of wishful thinking. Sure hunting had been on the decline as a *percentage*, until recently, but given that the total population increased by about 50%, a drop in percentage of hunters from 7% to 5% ain’t half bad, especially when you consider — as, to be fair, the article notes — that that is now turning around. Also consider that *other* shooting supports have actually been on the rise for some time, hence the attempt (I don’t remember whether or not it succeeded) in modifying the Pittman-Robertson Act to redirect some of the funds from Conservation efforts to building shooting ranges, etc.

The thing the article completely misses, but can be forgiven only in the sense that it is typical NY Slimes ‘journalism’, is that no matter how hard I try, I *still* can’t find the Hunting and Target Shooting clause in the 2nd Amendment. They keep on telling me that any proposed infringements on the 2nd Amendment won’t, in fact, infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, and then go on to talk about hunting and target shooting. They think I’m stupid. Or they’re stupid. Or both. It’s pretty disgusting that it even has to be pointed out that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. Yup, sure, our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and then debated extensively about an Amendment to the highest law of the land to make sure our new government could not encroach on … a SPORT? Dummy me.

Many years ago when I was living in MA, but down here in NC on a contract, a fellow employee warned me about the anti-smoking hysteria. He warned that they would come after guns, using the same methods, once they were done stomping the tobacco industry. Yeah, I saw “The Insider”, too, and bought it’s one-sided story without question. I’m not so sure, now. Though I do not smoke, never have, and don’t allow smoking inside my house, I will defend a person’s right to smoke if he wants. I don’t have any irrational fear of second hand smoke. I just don’t like the smell when it gets into my clothes, and the curtains, and the bedspreads, and everything else. I won’t kick someone out for having an inanimate cigarette in my house.

No two issues are identical, but at their core the tobacco issue and the gun issue boil down to individual and parental choice. I would never attempt to force a parent to stop allowing their kids to start smoking, as much as I don’t think it’s a good idea. I would also expect that (if I had kids, but it can be applied to my nephews and nieces with their parents consent) you stay out of my life and don’t attempt to force me to not encourage my kids in the fun, sporting, and historically accurate, liberating effect of firearms.

We *will win* the culture war, here. Ever, single time I go to the range, there are new shooters there, and often they are kids as young as 7 or 8. And it’s infectious. I don’t often find people who shoot for the first time go away unsurprised at how many myths they believed get demolished. Most come way from the experience passionate about it. And better informed.

Marxism may have succeeded in it’s openly stated goal of it’s “long march through the institutions,” but we have set up new institutions that it cannot touch. Between the Appleseed Project, Junior Shooters, NSSF, Hunting Heritage Trust, and many, many others, we are teaching a new generation OUTSIDE of your damn institutions. Marx purported also once wrote, “we have your children.” We’ll, we’re taking them back from the brink.

Game on. But it’s not a game. We know that this is the battle of our lives. And we will give no quarter. No compromise, as every single time we have compromised, it has only meant further loss of our rights. NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, FOPA, so-called AWB, etc., etc. No more. Not one more inch. Civil disobedience in New York is only the beginning. Pass anymore restrictions, and you will be de-legitimized. To paraphrase Brody from the 1975 film, “Jaws,”: You’re gonna need a bigger prison.

h/t: Mike for the NYT article link.

“To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom.”

At the time of this post, the video above has only a little under 10,000 views. This needs to go viral to increase the views to a few orders of magnitude more. It’s nothing less than compelling. Please share it far and wide. This naturalized citizen, and gun owner in Massachusetts (!), has a better understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment than most natural born US citizens.

Providing a little more context for the title, this is what he said:

I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in 2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man.

“[G]uarantees that … I am a free man.”

Exactly the meaning of the very name of this blog.

I’m still trying to find the “hunting and target practice” clause of the Second Amendment. They keep telling me it’s in there, somewhere. Can anyone help?

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

And Those Who Hate Guns Claim We Believe Guns Have Magical Properties?

Not long ago I had an epiphany of sorts regarding how people ascertain truth and how that relates to faith. You see for me, faith is never, ever checking my brain at the door. It is not a denial of truth or believing something in face of ‘conclusive’ evidence of its falsehood.

No, every single one of us has faith of some sort. It’s how we live and there is no way around it.

You see, unless you are omnipresent, for all of time, you cannot verify an event took place with any degree of certainty without having some kind of faith. You trust your sources, your senses, or both. Unless you were a witness to the events in question, you take on faith that the video, the audio, the pictures, the story as it is passed on, has not been modified between when it was witnessed and when it has gotten to you. You try to verify the best you can, but unless you were there, there is no 100% proof. Only evidence of likelihood.

Even in the case of scientific experimentation, how do you know that those scientists, those people nearly deified by elitist, did not falsify their data or their results. Maybe to hide the decline. Ever notice how evasive some of them can be?

What it comes down are basically two things: Whom do you trust and what is your threshold for saying, “Yes, I believe it to be true.”

For best results on the first point, whom do you trust, it’s important to evaluate that person’s reliability in the past. It’s good idea to look at both the person’s followers and detractors. But in both those cases, the closer proximity in both time and space, the better, I would think. And, of course, what is the reliability of each of those followers and detractors? You could go on ad-infinitum, but we are talking about a lifetime of learning here, anyhow. It takes time, but it’s not that hard to develop a skill to determine who are the truth tellers who makes things up or bends the truth. When you throw out your preconceptions, the liars stick out like sore thumbs. Most of the time, anyhow. It’s more art than science.

On the second point, where your threshold is, it’s a very individual, subjective thing. However, setting it too high is dishonest. We all make a decision, conscious or not, to finally say, “I believe,” and act it out in our lives accordingly. Set it to low, however, and you’d be quite gullible, falling for anything.

Oh, sure, there are skeptics who say that they never believe anything. That belief is an impediment to knowledge. Man, I don’t think I’ve ever heard such nonsense sophistry. No one truly lives like that. You take actions based on beliefs you have. I step off the sidewalk expecting that gravity will draw my body down toward the earth and successfully plant my foot on the road as I begin my journey across the street.

There’s always the opportunity to revisit what you believe based on new knowledge and modify what you believe. Or not.

I bring this up because of accusations I’ve often seen that gun owners believe that guns somehow magically make them safer simply by their presence. That they will be able to shoot like John Wayne and take out or run off four bandits (well, he did have some help from the Texas Ranger — who was late, by the way).

The latest discussion came up, again, on Facebook. Same guy I’ve argued with before. This time he posted something about those three cops in New Jersey who were shot by a suspect in custody at the police station. After several nonsensical comments by others not worth debating, I just posted, “Oh, I get it. The cops shouldn’t have guns. Right?”

His response was, “I mean, you can’t have it both ways. If Newtown would have been stopped by armed teachers, then this really should have been stopped in a place filled with guns. Sorry this drove a hole into your theory.”

Two problems here. First, he sets up a straw man theory and then claims to have drove a hole in it. Problem for him is that it wasn’t my theory. I never said, nor do I know of anyone who has said that the mere presence of guns will stop an attack. They have to be actually be utilized. In this case, the bad guy was actually taken out, anyhow, before he could shoot, and possibly kill or injure any more. So the attack was in, fact, stopped. If the only person with a gun was the one cop who the suspect snagged it from, we’d probably be reading about a lot more injured and even some dead cops.

Here was my full, somewhat modified response to him:

‘scuse me, but no one is saying that Newtown would have been stopped, only that it was all but guaranteed that it could not have been stopped under current law where they are prohibited from carrying. The presence of guns isn’t some magic talisman that will automatically prevent all evil. It only improves the odds for good people with guns. You look at the costs of the proliferation of guns, but dig your heels in and refuse to the see the benefits. What boggles my mind is that you and your ilk seem to believe what you sometimes accuse me and my ilk of believing. And that is that guns have some magical quality. We are often accused of believing that a gun is some sort of talisman that solves all problems. No, it just improves our odds, levels the playing field in many cases. Yet it seems all those opposed to armed teachers think that ‘kids and guns don’t mix’ like they have some sort of magical power and will overtake the people around them with evil. They are inanimate objects under control of their operators. Concealed, and out of sight, there’s not even any concern about how kids would feel about the sight of people carrying guns around. The teacher who lunged at the shooter had nothing but her body to stop the bullets, which though possibly effective, ended her own life. Had she sent a hail of her own bullets in his general direction, he either might have, just maybe thought twice about continuing his attack against her and her charges, or been stopped in his tracks. The odds would have at least significantly tilted in favor of the victims, yet you would deny them that possibility on penalty of prosecution for the crime of wanting to protect themselves and their charges. The cops need guns to apprehend intransigent suspects, but there is the chance (actually, greater chance due to their more frequent close proximity to suspects) that their own guns will be used against them. If trained (and there are lots of trainers stepping forward to offer free or discounted training to any teacher who wants it) a teacher could utilize a gun to at least be able to attempt to hold off (or maybe even stop) a madman until the cops show up. Jeanne Assam likely saved tens or even hundreds of churchgoers, when you consider how many rounds the madman had and where he was headed after killing two sisters in the parking lot and two others earlier. When you read her account of what actually took place, I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that any kind of expensive, time consuming training was needed. Simple determination and accuracy (and certainly, bravery) was all that was needed. The fact that she was a former cop may have better prepared her mentally for it, but the training to get the job done is available to anyone who is willing. So, no, my theory hasn’t had a hole driven into it.

The only theory that had a hole blown through it was the fake one that he made up. These people really seem to believe that guns have some magical power. Why? Because they are designed to kill? There’s no point in even arguing whether or not they are, indeed, designed to kill. (As I said a while back, I want something that is designed to kill. What they describe with the scare word deadly, we call effective. The conundrum here is that absolutely every single quality of a particular firearm that makes it more deadly in the hands of criminal, also makes it just that much more effective in the hands of a good guy. And that’s what we want, and what every individual in this nation, save the criminals and tyrants themselves, should want.) The point is, as Robb has pointed out, intent is not transferable. It just doesn’t matter whether or not an object was designed with ill intentions. Crafty people can come with positive uses for it. Just as an object designed with good intentions can be used by men of ill repute for evil. Intent is not transferable.

Again, as described in A Gun Is Not An Argument, the invention of the gun was very clearly a positive development. The anti-liberty crowd might wonder what a world without guns would look like and long for it. But there is absolutely no need to wonder. We already know what it would be like, because we know what it was like. Murder and mayhem by those who trained all their lives for it. And no viable means to defend against it without giving up a normal life.

What pisses me off is that the vast majority of those proposing more restrictions, haven’t a clue about firearms. They put their trust in those feeding them their talking points. So regarding the first point above, they put a high degree of trust in other people who happen to believe and feed them what they want to hear. And to the second point, they keep the bar very low for threshold of evidence for believing something that matches their own preconceptions.

It’s been said that the best way to make a pro-gunner out of an anti-gunner is to take them shooting. Given how little so many on the anti side seem to know about guns, I suspect that many of them haven’t even handled a gun, or maybe have but were never taught proper and judicious handling of them.

They truly are sheep. Eric Raymond calls it the substructure, but I think that’s just another way of saying their premises. Their premises need to be hammered away at that without guns, they are, indeed, sheep. As Eric says toward the end of that post, “We are not sheep. We will not behave as sheep. We are armed because we refuse to be sheep.”

Time to hammer away that point. Baa! Baaaaa!

Stay Dangerous, My Friends