The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
The Wal*Mart of Malfeasance: Quote of the Day.
In relation to the post below:
What is it about the DNC that attracts such sleazy flakes? Maybe they figure the price of a GOP candidate is too steep so they shop for political patronage in the Walmart of malfeasance; the DNC
Left as a comment at Small Dead Animals by “W L Mackenzie Redux”
If the Hsu Fits…
Bruce at No Looking Backwards has a wonderful slogan for Hillary’s campaign, available as a bumper sticker at his CafePress site:
Hey, Bruce! Offer that as a T-shirt, and I’ll buy one.
UPDATE: Hillary does damage control. She’ll return $850,000 to “about 260 donors” (average $3,269 per donor). Nice donors! Further:
The Clinton campaign also disclosed last night that it would begin running criminal background checks on its bundlers — the dozens of individuals who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors on behalf of a candidate, as Mr. Hsu had done for Mrs. Clinton.
Boy, there’s a novel idea! I wonder why that wasn’t part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act?
That’s gotta hurt, but a couple of cattle-futures trades and she’ll make it right back, I’m sure.
The first comment on the post where I endorsed Fred Thompson for President was from a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul has a fiercely dedicated (but very small) base of supporters who believe his understanding of the Constitution is the only valid one – and I’ll say up front they very well may be correct. However, as I tried to explain in those comments, Congressman Paul’s position ignores decades, nay, two centuries of political entropy, both here and abroad.
There are two quotes that I think well express the problem that the mainstream public has with Ron Paul. One is directly related to the Congressman. One is more general. From Rachel Lucas’ comments:
Like all strict libertarians, Ron Paul believes, truly believes, that he has found the Grand Unified Theory of human political relations, that all good political rules stem from a single principle that can be encapsulated in two or three sentences. He is rigidly ideological, which makes him, by definition, a zealot. Like all zealots, he thus appears to the rest of us like he is batshit crazy… because he is. The rest of us live in a far more complicated, nuanced world, where human interactions and human government cannot neatly be reduced down to a 3-sentence rule.
The other quote is by an ex-blogger, Dipnut from Isntapundit, and it’s about Ayn Rand, the inventor of the philosophy of Objectivism:
Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions. Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity’s inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong.
I believe both Rand and Paul have important insights and have important things to say, but the extremes that both insist are necessary ignore the reality that is human existence. We are not (at least not most of us, and certainly not all of the time) rational creatures – but both the libertarian and the objectivist philosophies depend on high-percentage rationality, and so they fail.
The Geek with a .45 put it very well, also in a much older comment:
A truly enlightened society must ultimately be composed of 95%+ enlightened individuals…and the bell curve just doesn’t support that premise.
Ron Paul, if elected, could not fix anything. As I said in the Fred Thompson comment thread:
If there were 50 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 220 Ron Pauls in the House, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Unfortunately, there’s only one, and one isn’t going to accomplish anything, even if he’s President. While it would be amusing to watch him throw sand and monkey wrenches into the machinery of government from the height of the Oval Office, it’s not something I think we can afford to indulge ourselves in at present.
Most especially since we’re in a war that he thinks isolationism can get us out of.
I Didn’t Know Dylan was a Fan!.
Mr. Completely has the latest list of those who will be attending this year’s Gunblogger’s Rendezvous. Right now it looks like this:
Maj. Chuck Ziegenfuss of
From My Position… On The Way! and Project Valour-IT
Chuck is also our Guest of Honor
Fodder and the Commandress from
Ride Fast & Shoot Straight
Uncle from
Say Uncle
JimmyB and Mrs JimmyB from
The Conservative UAW Guy
KeeWee of
KeeWee’s Corner
US Citizen from
Traction Control
Chris & Mel Byrne of
The Anarchangel
Og, the
Neanderpundit
Kevin of the
Smallest Minority (That would be me.)
Dirtcrashr from
Anthroblogogy
Dave Durringer from
World Examiner
John Donovan from
Castle Arrgghhh!
Beth Donovan from
She Who Will Be Obeyed
Joe Huffman of
The View from N. Central Idaho
Boomershoot
Sebastian of
Snowflakes in Hell
Rob from
The Kitchen
(On a Blogging Break)
Larry Weeks from
Brownell’s
(Not a blog-but where would we be without Brownells?)
Mr. Completely of
Mr. Completely
“Very Likely to be There!” List:
Retired Geezer AKA ‘Doc Peabody’ &
Mrs. Geezer from
Blog Idaho
And, of course, I’ve invited JadeGold!
The deadline for getting your reservations in at the negotiated reduced room rates is next Tuesday, the 11th. The Rendezvous is from the 11th of October through the 14th, in cool, beautiful Reno, NV, but the range trip and dinner are on Saturday, the 13th. You don’t have to commit to all four days.
Bear in mind, this get-together has gotten the attention and support of Brownell’s and Natchez Shooters Supply, so there should be some nice door prizes.
And we’ve even got a music video!
Click on image to play
Suicide Rate Among U.S. Girls Soars
I was going to write a post about this, but Zendo Deb has gotten there first, and there is nothing much I can add. A taste:
The numbers for girls 10 to 14 is too low to draw many comparisons with.
the suicide rate for 10- to 14-year-old girls. There were 94 suicides in that age group in 2004, compared to 56 in 2003.
Although the percent increase is large (76 percent) the number is small enough relative to the population to fall under the “law of small numbers” or whatever. You really can’t reason statistically about this small a percentage of the population. The rate is less than 1 in 100,000.
Read her whole rant.
Like I said, I can’t add much to it. She hits every high-point and knocks ’em flat.
Tilting at Windmills,.But Someone Needs to Do It
Striderweb fisks an anti-smoking op-ed by trying to explain to a nanny-state type the concept of personal freedoms and choice versus collectivist edict. Excerpt:
Okay, let’s pause right there a moment. “[W]e understand that the issue presented is convenience vs. health”. Clearly you understand nothing, then. The issue at hand is personal freedom in an ostensibly free society. You curtailing others’ rights for your own convenience, Ms. Grady, is the issue. Business owners have a right to allow their customers to smoke (well… should). You have the right to either patronize those establishments, or not, as you choose.
Good piece.
Dear Ms. Ringler:
I read with some interest your latest post in which you declare that you will no longer accept comments at your site due to the abuse you have received both in comments and on other sites across the internet:
If you google “Robyn Ringler”—my formerly good name—You will find many similar comments about me. I have been called a liar, a rapist, a moron, an idiot, a racist, a bigot, Hitler, stupid, and so many other names—it’s enough to last a lifetime. I’ve been told I should be dead and how my death should take place. I’ve been accused of being singlehandedly responsible for the deaths of every Virginia Tech victim, as well as all other victims of gun violence because these children should have been carrying concealed weapons to defend themselves. The tired phrase “There is blood on your hands” has been repeated to me ad nauseum.
I’m sorry that this has happened to you, I truly am, but perhaps now you understand how many of us on this side of the fence feel when we are called precisely the same things. Oh, perhaps not the rapist part, but everything else, surely. Every time there is a high-profile crime committed with a gun, those of us who believe in a right to arms are painted with precisely those other descriptions, most especially the “blood on your hands” canard.
It’s not pleasant, is it?
I was first pointed to your blog in May, and at that time – twice – I invited you, in the comments to your posts, to debate the topic of gun control. Unfortunately, after gleaning through your archives it would appear that you have deleted both, though I did find this one comment that refers to my invitations:
23.
Robyn,
why are you so afraid of debating Kevin?Comment by Leonidas — June 2, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Continuing on in your most recent piece, I found this heartfelt paragraph:
I believed when I started this blog that “Under Fire” would provide a venue for reasonable voices on both sides of the gun debate. I knew there would be passion, sometimes anger, but I thought these emotions would remain focused on the issues, not the people.
That, Ms. Ringler, is precisely what I offered you.
And other than the deletion of my invitations, I received no response.
But that offer remains open. I am willing to debate the topic of gun control with you; without invective, without ad hominems. I offer you clear, clean, honest discussion on the topic. All you need do is reciprocate. I’ll even recommend a format. We can post each others pieces and responses at our respective sites so that the readers can check to ensure that no untoward editing is going on: no deletions or additions to our posts after the fact.
Let me be clear on this: I do not expect to convert you from your positions, nor do I expect you to convert me. This isn’t about us, it’s about our topic and our audience. It’s about the people who are interested in the subject, but sit on the fence – the ones we each wish to reach. I certainly understand that hurling insults does not aid in persuasion. It has its place, but debate of this type is not the place.
I will, if possible, be posting this invitation to the comments of your most recent post, since in it you note that comments will be accepted through September 8. If this comment does not appear there, or is later deleted, I will know your answer.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
Kevin Baker
UPDATE: The comment is up, #39 in her most recent post. At least, I can see it.
Now we wait….
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Well, this is fascinating. Robyn didn’t just delete my invitation, she apparently hid an entire POST – the one on “Let’s Ban the Fifty Caliber Sniper Rifle.” You can get to it if you have this link, but it does not appear if you click on her archives for May.
Interesting, that.
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE TO THE… (you get the idea.) I’m informed by email that you can get to the “Ban the .50” post by going to “page 2” of her blog. I also found it by clicking on the “.50 Caliber Sniper Rifle” category. It would appear to be not so much a matter of deletion, but of vagaries in how the TimesUnion archives posts on its blog pages.
My apologies to Ms. Ringler for assuming too quickly that the both invitations had been deleted.
FINAL UPDATE: Wednesday, Sept. 12 – One full week has passed since the issuance of my open letter. Robyn’s comments are closed now, but my invitation is still posted at her site. In direct contrast to JadeGold’s last shot at me there, it would appear that I am not the one afraid of debate in this case.
Imagine that.
How Stupid is This?.
Tom Gresham thinks the gun community needs a new term for the AR15 rifle:
The term “assault weapon” was coined by gun banners who knew they could confuse the public who doesn’t know the difference between a full auto and a semi auto. It worked, and we got the Clinton Gun Ban (aka, the “assault weapon ban”).
Of course, the AR-15 platform is the most popular model rifle being made, and people use them for hunting, self protection, plinking, informal competition, national match competition, and pretty much any other type of shooting, because these rifles are robust, rugged, accurate and fun.
So, I decided we need a better descriptive term. Jim Shepherd, editor of The Shooting Wire (www.shootingwire.com) had a
suggestion. Jim Kenzie, producer of Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk had a good one — Utility Rifle. I like that one.So . . . here’s your chance to vote. I’m putting several options on the Gun Talk web site in a sort of poll. I’m doing educational talks for the media on the AR-15, and I’d like to use a good, descriptive term that carries our idea of what this rifle is, and how it is used.
“Homeland Defense Rifle” was suggested by somebody a while back, but every time I hear the word “Homeland” (as in “Dept. of Homeland Security”) I expect to see people in black leather trench coats and knee-boots clicking their heels and giving stiff-arm salutes.
Anyway, if you’re interested go vote, but in my personal opinion they’re “semi-automatic rifles,” no different than a Remington 7400. And Tom? This is a “tactical rifle” too.
Via Gun Law News, meet Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and gun bigot, reincarnation of Bill Ruger, er, Jim Zumbo, um, clueless idiot, ah! “Only One.”
He’s apparently an ex-Texas Ranger, so that explains the “Only Ones” mentality.
I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – as far as civilian – a five round capacity. If you’re a hunter, if you’re a hunter, if you’re going to go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn’t need only but one round.
This after stating:
I feel like if we lose the Second Amendment, then somebody will take the first, then they’ll take the third, and the fourth and there will be a domino effect….
His statement was made in an interview in 2005, and apparently the YouTube video is a recent post with no date. The NRA is now attempting damage control:
Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as “assault weapons”, and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.
Mr. Jackson also attempts to defend himself on that page:
Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.
In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.
As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.
But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.
I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.
I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
And I suppose you have a “wide stance” as well.
Sorry, Ranger Jackson, that doesn’t fly with me. As a former law enforcement official you were one of “the Only Ones” – and apparently liked it that way. Fully-automatic rifles were not mentioned – hunting was. (A five-round capacity for fully automatic weapons? How stupid do you think we are?) I will not accuse you of supporting a ban – you did not. You stated your personal opinion, and the word “ban” wasn’t mentioned.
But it was implied that you wouldn’t oppose one.
I sincerely hope that since that 2005 interview you’ve changed your mind on the topic, but this shuck-and-jive routine makes me think that you have not.
Quote of the Day, Pt. II
From Kenn Blanchard:
Guns are not the problem with the increase of violence in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Detroit and New York. The problem is the community is waiting for someone else to fix the broken home, the un-parented child, the illiterate graduate, and the spiritually bankrupt. We collectively spend more attention and give more love to animals than we do our children. And then when they grow up into prostitots, thugs and mirror the images from People magazine we want to blame something. I have seen the enemy and it is us.
(H/t to PGP)
