Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I came here from the former USSR as a child of eight. I attended first and second grades in the Ukraine. In those two years, I studied a foreign language (French), could write compositions in cursive and did algebra. When I came to the United States, I came to third grade. We were cutting out shapes from construction paper and learning how to tell time by looking at little drawings of clocks. I didn’t start learning a foreign language until seventh grade! In other words, education today and yesterday sucks dog schlong! – Nicki Fellenzer, It’s About Choices, at The Liberty Zone

I wonder what she’d have to say about The George Orwell Daycare Center?

Enjoying a Fight

Enjoying a Fight

Back in 2005 I wrote Fear: The Philosophy and Politics Thereof. The general topic was the fact that the gun-control philosophy is based on just that – fear. As I said then:

It’s important to understand this: We call ourselves “gun nuts” – embracing the label thrust upon us by the ignorant, anti-gun bigots – but many of them really believe it. We’re “potentially dangerous” because we like guns.

I think that’s something most gun owners don’t really grasp. I know it initially took me a while to get my mind around the idea.

The Brady Campaign linked to several gunbloggers yesterday. (No link, on purpose. You can find it below if you want.) The author was horrified at that famous letter to the editor, but even more horrified that we gunbloggers didn’t “denounce it as morally degenerate and unrepresentative of gun owners at-large”.

And we didn’t.

Our dedicated opposition is made up of people who actually believe there is (or ought to be) a Right to Feel Safe. The fact that there are people around them, armed and willing to use violence scares the crap out of them. As I’ve noted before, they either refuse or are unable to distinguish between “violent and predatory” and “violent but protective”. They see only violence, and violence is bad, mmmmkay?

But what really gives them PSH are people who aren’t afraid of fighting. It’s taken me a while, but I swear that half the antipathy the Left has for the modern military must come from the fact that soldiers are trained to fight, and volunteer for the training. When I wrote Fear there had been a Great Outrage at the pronouncement of Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis that:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.

One typical response was from Juan Cole:

Just as few priests are pedophiles, few soldiers are sadists. Mattis has brought dishonor on the US Marine Corps with his words. Killing is never appropriately called “fun.” I think he should resign.

As I said then, according to the Left, enjoying the practice of violence is the definition of insane.

Eric S. Raymond posted today on this topic. He’s got some interesting insights. Here’s a taste:

It used to bother me that I like fighting. I had internalized the idea that while combat may sometimes be an ethical necessity, enjoying it is wrong — or at least dubious.

So I half-hid my delight from myself behind a screen of words about seeking self-perfection and focus and meditation in motion. Those words were all true; I do value the quasi-mystical aspects of the fighting arts very much. But the visceral reality underneath them, for me, was the joy of battle.

In 2005 I finally came to understand why I enjoy fighting. And — I know this will sound corny — I’m much more at peace with myself now. I’m writing this explanation because I think I am not alone — I don’t think my confusion and struggle was unique. There may be lessons here for others as well as myself, and even an insight into evolutionary biology.

If that’s not enough of a teaser, you’re not interested in the topic.

Eric is not alone, but I don’t count myself among that group. I don’t like fighting. I haven’t been in a physical altercation since I was probably 12. I have no idea how I would perform in an actual combat situation. I’d like to think I’d be adequate, but I don’t expect more from myself than that. I remember reading W.E.B. Griffin’s series Brotherhood of War. In the first book, The Lieutenants, a soldier is sent to Greece in the immediate post WWII period during America’s initial, stumbling efforts to check the spread of Communism. He is sent as a liaison to the Greek army during their civil war. He was not supposed to be a combatant, but his position comes under major attack, and there are numerous casualties. During WWII he had not been exposed to battle, but in the hills of Greece, he comes under mortar and small-arms fire.

And he shits himself.

Then he picks up his Garand, and goes to war anyway.

That was not the behavior I was expecting from a major character in a war novel, but it rang true.

If the S does HTF, all I can hope for myself is that I do what is right, but I’ll remember what I learned from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society – about 2% of the population is able to kill without hesitation and without remorse. Half of those are clinically insane. But the other half are perfectly sane, and they’re the ones who lead in battle. I suspect Eric is one of that 1%. But the rest of us can do violence, if it’s necessary.

What decides that is the philosophy (or lack thereof) you live by.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

In the wake of the Vanderboegh letter, to one degree or another, armed revolt has been treated as a legitimate policy answer to popular gun control measures by one blogger after another in the gun community – rather than denounced as immoral or as street-corner gibberish uttered by one who wears a tinfoil hat. – “newswatch” at The Brady Blog, 8/6/08

Personal sovereignty scares the hell out of them, doesn’t it?

This is what licensing and registration are for, and we know it.

I Feel Special

I Feel Special

The Brady Campaign blog (no comments, of course. Can’t have any Reasoned Discourse™ going on.) has linked to my most recent überpost, along with Vanderboegh’s letter to the editor, Snowflakes in Hell, Sharp as a Marble, and Western Rifle Shooters Association. Of course, those honest people at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership spin the recent coverage in the gunblogosphere of Vanderboegh’s letter as entirely supportive.

Think we’re Frightening the White People™?

Here you go, Sarah: I will not license. I will not register. Period. No matter how “popular” the idea is.

Mike V: Consider your mission accomplished.

Quote of the Day

New Hampshire has a high rate of firearms possession, which is why it has a low crime rate. You don’t have to own a gun, and there are plenty of sissy arms-are-for-hugging granola-crunchers who don’t. But they benefit from the fact that their crazy stump-toothed knuckle-dragging neighbors do. If you want to burgle a home in the Granite State, you’d have to be awfully certain it was the one-in-a-hundred we-are-the-world panty-waists’s pad and not some plaid-clad gun nut who’ll blow your head off before you lay a hand on his seventy-dollar TV. A North Country non-gun owner might tire of all the Second Amendment kooks with the gun racks in the pickups and move somewhere where everyone is, at least officially, a non-gun owner just like him: Washington, D.C., say, or London. And suddenly he finds that, in a wholly disarmed society, his house requires burglar alarms and window locks and a security camera. – Mark Steyn, America Alone

Interestingly, a search of “New Hampshire” in Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog garnered no hits.

Always Think Forfeiture

When I was writing the latest überpost I went back to my archives for some stuff I’d saved off of DemocraticUnderground, and I came across an image I had forgotten about from early 2002:

Jed was the first to find that little TLA for the ATF, and it took off from there.

But I wonder. . . HAS the ACLU done anything about it, or have they just used “Asset Forfeiture” as a fundraising poster?

A Perfect Example

A Perfect Example

In the post below I wrote:

We read here on the internet, on an almost daily basis, of events where government actors abuse their powers in egregious ways against individuals – and no one’s “threshold of outrage” is exceeded. In fact, when someones threshold is exceeded, it’s a rare, newsworthy event! Man bites dog!

Our job, then, is not to “Frighten the White People,” it’s to make them MAD. It’s to make them “pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles.” It’s to educate them.

It’s to MAKE THEM THINK.

And hope we haven’t waited too long.

How many of you have heard of this:

Fischer: Outrage in Idaho: Feds send man to prison for protecting town from flooding

Lynn Moses will be locked up in federal prison next Wednesday. His crime? Protecting the city of Driggs, Idaho from flooding.

When Mr. Moses began to develop a subdivision along Teton Creek in 1980, Teton County required him to implement an engineer’s plan to modify the Teton Creek stream bed to prevent the flooding of subdivision property, caused by the buildup of gravel bars and downed trees, during high water flows in the spring.

In fact, the county would not allow him even to record the plat for the subdivision until the modification work had been done, and only allowed the development after requiring the homeowner’s association to maintain the flood control channel year after year.

Teton Creek used to be a flowing stream, but irrigation diversion over 100 years ago dewatered the Creek and left the stream bed dry for all but two months a year at the most. Water only fills the stream bed when irrigators have more water than they can use. (Note: this means there is no “aquatic environment” here, nor any “wetland.”)

Officials from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were invited to a planning meeting with the county and Mr. Moses in 1980, but they soon left the meeting after informing county officials that they had “classified the stream as intermittent and therefore outside their jurisdiction.”

So working on plans developed by an engineer and approved – in fact, required – by the county, Mr. Moses got to work and cleared the channel of gravel bars and downed cottonwood trees to ensure that the channel would serve as a flood control structure.

Read. The. Whole. Thing.

And ask yourself: If you were Lynn Moses, what would keep YOU from going Carl Drega on any member of the government you could get your sights on?

Found originally at Random Nuclear Strikes, pointed to in a comment at Tam’s.

Spread it around.

Liberally.

UPDATE: And another.