I am too lazy to write a real thing, especially since I blew most of my day off on online training for the Army. Much of it was live-tweeted, the results of which I have organized in chronological order and annotated because I’m cool like that. Also, I wanted to play with Storify.
Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. . . A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
Yesterday I went on at some length about HB 1588. One of my (four?) readers commented that it will be DOA in the Senate; here’s hoping, though I can’t help but resent the idea it could even get out of the House.
And now for something completely different–The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013, HB 1371.
I was wondering how long it would take for the national stupidity to get to the state level.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that there is broad consensus that certain people, such as felons, minors, and involuntarily committed persons, should not be eligible to possess firearms for public safety reasons. Background checks are an effective and easy mechanism to ensure that firearms are not sold to those who are prohibited from possessing them. However, because background check requirements apply only to transfers by licensed firearms dealers, many firearms are currently sold without a background check, allowing felons and other ineligible persons to gain access to them. The legislature intends by this act to strengthen our background check system by broadening the requirement for a background check to apply to all firearms sales in the state.
I’ve helpfully highlighted the stupid in red. The first statement is rubbish; the second is blithely asserted without any supporting evidence, mostly because there isn’t any.
Is my Google-Fu too weak, or is there no real leathercraft blogging community?
Oh, Tandy has an occasionally updated blog, and there are a few other big players (or people who want to be big players), but not an actual blogging community that I can find. There are a handful of individuals, but for almost all of them it’s a case of their blog existing primarily to support and market their Etsy store or what have you.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Indeed, if I were going to try to defray the costs of my hobby by selling some of the products online, you’d better believe I’d be pimping the hell out of my online store. But there doesn’t seem to be much of a discussion happening beyond look-what-I-just-finished-now-on-sale, whereas I’m more interested in leather-as-hobby.
I find the idea that there wouldn’t be such a community to be strange in the extreme. My longest running blog was primarily a milblog, after all, and this one started off more as a gun blog (with mil tendencies) before it was largely co-opted this summer by leather work. Each of those fields has (or had, in the case of milblogs) an extensive and thriving collection of voices. Of course, both of those are ongoing concerns with heated opinions on every side of every conceivable issue. (I’m not certain leathercraft even has issues.)
Am I just missing something? I’ve only recently started to search, but so far I’ve been severely underwhelmed by the results.
(On the plus side, I appear to have the market cornered.)
Also, is “leathercraft” one word or two? See, this is the sort of thing we could have blog feuds about.
A defining flaw for the Religious Left when it comes to welfare is that they believe welfare is synonymous with charity. But welfare can never be charity because anything that the government does is backed with coercion and force. Charity, by definition, is voluntary. The Apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7: ‘Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.’
The government cannot run welfare programs without compulsion. Paying taxes does not make the Religious Left charitable because they are required to pay money to the government under threat of penalty. The only way to be charitable is to give from your own pocket or from your own time to help the poor. Sending a check to the IRS to go through the maze of government bureaucracies is not following Jesus’ commands to be charitable. But, how much easier it is to simply pay your taxes and feel pride in believing yourself a charitable Christian rather than actually tithing to the church and working to provide for the poor and needy yourself!
I hate to just post quotes and more quotes, but he’s said it more eloquently than I could have: “Jesus gave the church the responsibility to take care of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, not the government. To prioritize the government’s coercive role in welfare is ultimately to support the government’s usurpation of a God-given responsibility to the church.”
And indeed, doing such work at a personal level means far greater accountability than you would ever get from a government program, and an equivalently smaller government would give us more resources to do so. Just as government involvement in law enforcement does not absolve me of the responsibility to protect myself and those around me from the lawless, neither does government involvement in welfare absolve me of the responsibility to help those around me in need. Continue reading
In the light of the news that all nine of the wounded bystanders in the Empire State Building shooting this week were hit by police bullets, The New York Times op-ed piece concludes that while police accuracy is infamously poor (if you’re paying attention, at least), armed citizens would be that much worse because… not sure.
In the related TTAG post comments, DaveL nails it perfectly:
So if a civilian uses a gun in defense of himself or others and ends up wounding innocent bystanders, that’s an argument for restricting gun ownership to cops and soldiers. If a cop uses a gun in defense of himself or others and ends up wounding innocent bystanders, that’s also an argument for restricting gun ownership to cops and soldiers. Because stuff.
[See bottom for update re: reported misses and hits.]