A world without guns

Tags

2nd Amendment, gun control, self-defense, violence, weapons

I think this is a very well-considered gun control position. I disagree with where he ends up, but he at least understands ground truth up to a point.  [via National Review, 11 January 2013.]

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?

#NowIsTheTime to hijack the trending hash tag

Tags

2nd Amendment, astroturfing, concealed carry, government, gun control, politics, self-defense, social media, Twitter

I’m not normally a huge Twitter user.  It has its uses, and I admire certain masters of the art, but I don’t have the always-on mentality to constantly stay in the stream saying witty things.  For one, my job doesn’t allow me the luxury of carrying a cell phone (or even Internet access); for two, I don’t want to be always plugged in, always looking for the next clever thing to tweet.

But for a brief evening, I tried it out.

Something completely different: HB 1371

Tags

2nd Amendment, confiscation, federalism, gun control, HB 1371, politics, self-defense, society, state of emergency, WA state, weapons

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.

And so it begins: WA HB1588

Tags

2nd Amendment, background checks, confiscation, gun control, gun shows, HB1588, politics, private sales, self-defense, society, WA state, weapons, What does inalienable mean to you?

I was wondering how long it would take for the national stupidity to get to the state level.

House Bill 1588 would make it a gross misdemeanor (not a felony, as reported by the Seattle Times) to transfer your firearm to anyone at all without running a background check:

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.

MadMike: Who Really Needs An AR15?

Tags

2nd Amendment, ar15, self-defense, violence, weapons

So, yes, the AR15 is made to kill people, and there are some people who need killing, so says common law, codified law, and the Supreme @#$ing Court.  Therefore, if you say, “The only purpose of a gun is to kill people,” you’re not entirely correct, but you are in fact making a statement that supports gun ownership. Thanks.  We’re glad you’ve figured it out.  One of the main purposes of guns is to kill people who need killing.

Michael Z. Williamson, on Who Really Needs An AR15?

Read the whole thing.  I don’t have one, but I’d hoped to get one this year or perhaps next.  It really is the modern equivalent of the revolution-era musket.

Inflict this on your friends:

Tags

self-defense, society, weapons

I don’t believe in reblogging, but it is eminently appropriate here.

the munchkin wrangler.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts…

View original post 426 more words

When there is no hope

Tags

2nd Amendment, jus ad bellum, leadership, self-defense, society, violence

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Winston Churchill, The Second World War, Volume I : The Gathering Storm (1948) Chapter 19 (Prague, Albania, and the Polish Guarantee)

And because he’s so damned quotable:

Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Ibid, speech given at Harrow School, Harrow, England, October 29, 1941.