Response to one favoring restricting the second amendment

Mr. Gun Control advocated wrote, "The issue is the justification for assault weapons in the hands of he civilian populace. I want to say that their unavailability "would help." How do your examples disprove that? "

My example doesn't disprove that directly and specifically, and wasn't meant to. 

What it does prove is, in a bad world with bad people, individuals--INDIVIDUAL--- need and ought to have the means of adequate self-defense. 

The right of self-defense is a Natural Right.

Liberals are always droning on and on about rights--especially about rights that really aren't rights. But when it comes to the right of self-defense from deadly attack--a real right if ever there was one--- they're all for stripping honest private citizens of both the right and the adequate means--in the name of public safety. Absurd!

No man or group of men have the right to take another's right of self-defense--and that right includes the adequate means of self-defense--with the emphasis on adequate. 

It is immoral to do so. And the fact that evil people commit heinous crimes does not amend or abridge that right in any way. 

Au Contraire. The presence of such people and their acts support that right and increase the need for it, a fortiori!!! 

Now consider this: Time and again, crazies go on a killing spree, and have plenty of time to do their worst, because no help from the apparatchiks of our all-wise officials is forthcoming--officials who are the very ones who have restricted the presence of weapons for self-protection in these localities made areas of slaughter---that fact alone proves their inadequacy to provide the needed defense, even as they write more and more laws restricting our rights and means to defend ourselves. How crazy is that?

Now, the specific support for the argument for the possession of assault weapons by private citizens, if I understand the second amendment rightly, is simply the fact that the government assault teams possess assault weapons. 

These assault teams routinely break into the homes of citizens, terrorize their families, kill the man of the household or shoot their dog looking for a little mary jane--only to find they got the wrong address--and they do it with assault weapons.

If they have them I should be able to have them, should I so choose. That is the second amendment. 

The fact that politicians have cadres of body guards to protect their worthless, thieving, vote-buying, corpulent corpuses--means to me I ought to be able to possess the humble means of protection I might choose and/or can afford. 

I mean, just think of the Gubberment thugs Clinton sent down to Waco, all armed with assault weapons--and the Branch Davidians using standard rifles. With all that advantage in firepower they found it necessary to set the place on fire and burn 70 children to death. 

Think of the FBI men and their assault weapons attacking a peaceful citizen at Ruby Ridge--killing his teen age son, his friend, and even his wife as she stood in the door of their home holding their infant child. 

THAT is your gubberment--the gubberment you want to be in control of OUR right of self-defense--to mete it out to us like I mete out milk bones and chew sticks to my dogs. It's not okay for us to have the adequate means of self-defense, but it's okay for the gubberment to murder--especially if a democrat is in power. It's only Republican bullets that are bad. 

I say they are BOTH bad. But I digress.

Think of THAT! 70 children burned to death by gubberment assault at a religious compound. Yet, you don't bat an eye at that, because it's the gubberment. Gubberment is, perhaps, like Lola to you--getting and doing whatever it wants.

You go wild when people are gunned down by some crazy, all of whom were made defenseless by gubberment mandate; 10 people here, 20 people there, and so on--and then the first thing out of your mouth in response is illogical madness. 

You do not ask the reasonable questions: "Was there no one in the theatre, the school, or the building that had a weapon to stop this maniac and save lives? If not, why? What was the reason there was no one there to defend so many? Why was there no one there at all?" 

Indeed. Why ask the reason when the reason is always the same: the gubberment forbade the presence of the means of self-defense in that area and published it far and wide, for all to know, including homicidal psychos---all the while failing to provide it, making citizens in those areas sitting ducks---which is utterly and unspeakably immoral. Why ask the reason: No matter how different each situation, no matter how many particulars vary from massacre to massacre, the fact that the government fails to provide the necessary thing it forbids to us is always present. ALWAYS. 

But you're such a victim of institutional Stockholm Syndrome that these thoughts never occur to you. Instead, you ask the mad question: "When is the government going to ban thus-and-such weapons so citizens can't get hold of them?"(You don't recall they already did in 1994 and it did no good--it made no difference, just as restrictive gun laws in Chicago have not prevented it from becoming the murder capitol of America). You might also recall that, with the court-ordered lifting of the gun ban in D.C, the murder and crime rate there has dropped. 

But you pay no facts such heed. Rather, you continue to make the predictable knee jerk response. What you're really asking, in effect, is this: "When will the gubberment render us even more helpless to the violence they themselves, street thugs and crazies perpetrate upon us daily?" 

Such, perhaps, is your thinking--which is not thinking at all. Why just as well not ask, "When is the gubberment going to require all the crazies be either exterminated, incarcerated or forced to wear a large yellow "C" or "K" around their necks?" 

My response is this bit of manifest reason: The gubberment only poses as being all powerful--an ersatz diety. The gubberment is not powerful enough to keep such weapons out of the hands of those who are determined to get them. Those determined to get them don't give a rip about the gun laws. By obeying laws that increasingly restrict our right of self-defense we are committing the folly and sin of leaving ourselves and our families at the mercy of a band of thieves, psychotics and misanthropes. 

My duty is to my family, first and foremost. You perhaps call that treason.

Republican Loss and Minorities

The aftermath of the election has been something to behold. The excuses, the finger pointing, the recriminations, of course, hold no interest. But why the Republican party consistently fails to capture a meaningful amount of the minority vote is something of real interest, especially because it will most certainly play a greater and greater role in the future.

I noted that Rush Limbaugh was particularly perplexed and frustrated.

Speaking about attracting minorities he asked, "What more can the Republicans do?"

A fair question. At their convention they did a lot.  A virtual parade of minorities addressed the nation; people of color and race who had come from nothing, and had risen to the pinnacle of their respective professions. These were people of real achievement.

Their successes were undeniable proof the system wasn't rigged, that hard work and achievement would be rewarded in America, no matter who you may be or where you come from. Seeing this should inspire anyone and give them hope. Right?

Apparently not. But why?

I found the answer quite by accident, and I will share it with you now.

Several years ago, I was driving late at night listening to the radio, and surfing through the channels blindly while keeping an eye on the road.

All of a sudden I heard Al Sharpton's unmistakable speech cadences. He was speaking to Jessie Jackson's Rainbow Push coalition in Chicago. I didn't listen long, but what I heard I have never forgotten.

In one simple sentence Rev. Sharpton gave what I feel sure is the definitive and honest response to Rush's question--the response Rush and the Republicans can take to the bank.

Sharpton, addressing the audience in a sermonic tone said, "Black faces in high places do not impress me. Take our present Supreme Court justice. He's my color, but he's not my kind."

While this statement shocked me at the time, it has taken me years to reduce what he said into a workable and meaningful principle. That principle can be expressed in an even simpler sentence than Sharpton's: policy trumps race.

Today, Sharpton's statement is echoed by millions of minorities. All the achievement oriented minorities who spoke at the Republican Convention did not impress, because, though they might have been of the same race, they were not of the same kind: their policies did not inspire, and therefore they did not inspire or persuade.

That which can be said of race or ethnicity can also be said of gender.

Bill Clinton was a womanizer, a man convincingly accused of rape and other abuses of women. Any N.O.W. fire breathing femiNazi ought to hate Bill Clinton, but, apparently, none does. All the revelations about his abuses and exploits were met with a deafening silence from N.O.W.

Why? His policies---they like them. Because of what he had done for women in supporting unrestrained abortion among other things made what he had done to women forgivable.

Policy trumps gender too.

Policy trumps  race and gender for conservatives as well. For instance, any conservative worth his salt would vote for Walter Williams over any white liberal you can name.

A conservative would vote for Marco Rubio,  Alan Watts, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez or Condeleeza Rice before he would the whitest liberal you can name... Joe Biden, I'm looking at you.

Policy trumps race: this is the simple principle upon which Al Sharpton's statement rests. This is the simple and unvarnished truth with which the Republican party and conservative must grapple in formulating an effective strategy for the future.

Republicans must come to realize that it is not that minorities don't like the Republican shoe salesmen and all this is needed is to show them you gladly hire minorities and they will enthusiastically patronize your store.

Nope. That ain't it.

The fact is, they don't like your shoes--they don't like what you're selling: hard work, effort, achievement, accomplishment.

Such things seem at once too hard and too remote. In addition, their leaders are constantly telling them that whatever they can take by means of government is deserved.

They hear constantly that the white man is rich at their expense, and what whites have has not been earned, but stolen from the minorities.

Therefore, using government to get what they want and need is not theft. It is justice. They're just getting back what was and is rightfully theirs.

With such a rationalization minorities can get on the welfare and entitlement benefit roles without a single twinge of conscience. They know what they're about, and it's not hard work and accomplishment. They're in it for the goodies and vote accordingly.

As Ron Paul told his wife when he first ran for office, "Don't worry. I'm not going to win. The voters want Santa Claus, and that's not my message."

Republican's successful wooing of minorities will not be accomplished by "outreach" of any kind. That's just stupid. Any attempt to do so will be seen a phony and disingenuous, and greeted with contempt and suspicion----their brainwashing has been quite thorough.

Take Bush 43, for instance. He had policies and programs that lavishly spent on minorities, programs that put the things Clinton did to shame.  Minorities took the benefits and still hated Bush.

Conservatives wonder at the continued support of Obama by blacks, even as the unemployment lines swell and black unemployment leads the nation.

"Why," they ask, "why do they support him even while the situation worsens?"

Republicans and Conservatives are perplexed because they are looking at the wrong line. If they want to understand the reason for Obama's black support, they should look at the lines where tens of thousands are applying for food stamps, unemployment, welfare and disability benefits.

Their's is not the traditional American goal. They see getting on such roles as a worthy achievement and a reachable goal---and that is more true today than ever, thanks to Obama.

For them unencumbered opportunity to compete and succeed is not enough. What they want, their most nobel achievement, is having government footing the bill for their wants and needs.

By their standards Obama is a whopping success.

Obama is selling what they want. He is their color--sort of---and he is their kind. He is the best of both worlds, a world in which race and policy find a happy compatibility.

Now, just what the Hell are Republicans going to do about that?

Social Justice, Compassion and the American Left

The mantras of the left are mere pretext used to seize and hold on to the greatest all earthly power: political power.

As Tom Sowell so often and cogently demonstrates, liberals care nothing about people. They care only about categories, percentages and statistics they can use as pretexts to hold on to power, while, at the same time, making themselves feel morally superior to others.

Thus, liberalism's mantras are a double deception. 

First, they are meant to deceive oth

ers, presented to We the Hoi Polloi under the guise of "compassion" and "social justice."

Second, they are meant to deceive the messenger into thinking he or she is morally superior--and that their message is so lofty and noble that no earthly means, no matter how vicious, costly, destructive to others or corrupt, is to be rejected in the achievement of their utopian vision.

Obama, Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are classic examples, demonstrating Sowell's point.

For instance, Obama can feel morally superior as he takes our money (by FORCE) and redistributes it to those who, in his view, are among the disadvantaged, all the while letting members of his own family languish in penury and squalor. At the same time, his "public compassion" serves to blind him to his own failure to exercise compassion toward his own flesh and blood--the one act of social justice he can actually do something about without breaking the 8th commandment.

What I find ironic is how many of the "disadvantaged" who have received millions from Obama's redistribution scheme already made a six figure income (or higher), ran big (failed and failing) companies, and were financial bundlers for O's campaign in 2008.

Ba-da bing! That's "compassion" and "social justice" Chicago-style.

2016: Obama's America: Highly Recommended

I saw 2016 this afternoon. I have strange feelings about the whole thing. I did not come away justified as a conservative, self-righteous and ready to fight. Rather I walked away from the theatre with a feeling of great sadness, for both Barack and for America.

It seems Obama is a man who has no authentic identity. The identity he does have has been fabricated by him from a mythology, the content of which includes a false view of his biological father taught to him by his Marxist mother, a distorted view of the past and of America learned from Frank Marshall Davis, and reenforced by his Marxist and radical associations throughout his life. He has let that distorted view guide and direct--nay, dictate his actions. It wouldn't be going too far to say he is enslaved by this artificial, intellectually derived identity. And this is the man who is now president of the United States.

Deeply Disturbing–––a man who is living a completely artificial life, his decisions rooted in prejudice and falsehood--and his decisions affecting millions worldwide in the most profound and immediate of ways. Obama is obviously a very complex (read: confused) person, but in essence what we have is a typical Jacobin--a typical iconoclast: a person with a clear idea of what he hates, but not a clear idea of what he loves and what he really wants. People of such a mindset, driven more by their hatred than by a precise and definite love, proceed to do all they can to tear down the thing they hate and worry about what is left later. Consequences have never been a big concern of the Jacobin mind-set.

In contrast to Barack's muddled thinking, I have to say I was taken with Barack's half-brother, George Obama--who obviously has LOTS of personal problems. But he is real, not artificial--he really exists. With Barack the real person is missing. I have sensed that for the longest time. But George puts up no front. There is no phony, smiley demeanor he uses to confront a world he misunderstands and secretly hates.  George is clearly not burdened and ruled by ghosts and fantasies about his father and a past that does not exist. He sees things much more honestly and realistically.  Unlike Barack, he has lived in the reality of it. He does not idealize the country of his origins and its' history, and he is not blinded by his brother's ideology and false, distorted view of the past. 

What impressed me most about George was his lack of affectation and his plain, immediate and unequivocal acceptance of  an understanding of Kenya's past that is the very antithesis of Barack's evanescent fantasy; an understanding, for George, that is so obvious as to be undebatable. His conclusion: Kenya's progress and development was seriously attenuated by the departure of the colonialists, whom he wishes had stayed longer. 

Stated another way, the colonialists were a benefit, a plus to Kenya and the people there--and not the parasitical drain Barack fantasizes about and which fuels his rage against what he sees as the colonial west. When DeSousa read that from George's book his response was instantaneous, simple and unaffected.
"It's true," he said softly.
It was so obvious to George as to need no further defense or comment. 

This must infuriate Barack and is perhaps the reason George, who lives in debilitating penury, receives no help from his famous half-brother, who is constantly reminding the America people about fairness, sharing and concern for the poor.

Who is Barack Obama? After reading his books, observing his acts and choices as president for four years, examining his past and past associations, and even after seeing this movie, no one knows--and that includes Barack.

Men, such as Barack, who lack an inner sense of identity from their youth, men who have artificially created an image of themselves by a series of rationalizations, distortions and tortured reasonings, are men who feel powerless and lost. And nothing, not even becoming president of the United States, can make up for it and fill the void.

The real Barack is hidden, encrusted over by the narcissistic artifice he himself has created. Such people compensate for their inner confusion by seeking external power. In such a fertile ground the seeds of the despot and the tyrant can easily be sown--and their fruit is increasingly autocratic acts and the alienation of others. 

DeSousa's conclusion is disturbing: America's waning influence in the world will bring on the modern version of the end of the Pax Romanum. What follows now will be much the same as what followed then: violence, factionalism and collapse on a wide scale--a possible new dark ages. This is some scary stuff.

On a personal note, there is, I believe, a middle and more sane position between DeSousa's Neoconism and Obama's vision of a weakened (and endangered) America, with not even adequate defensive capabilities. It is Ron Paul's vision of strong military used only in defense--NO wars of choice, no policing the world, no dictating of policy to other nations, no nation building. Stated another way, it is the policy of the Founders.

If DeSousa is right, and Obama gets his way, America will not even be able to defend itself, let alone nation build. If the Neocons persist America will be burdened with an impossible task that will inexorably lead to fiscal collapse and utter defenselessness. Ironically, the Neocons and Obama's policies lead to the same disastrous conclusion for America--proving once again there is more than one way to skin a cat. Ron Paul's policy deftly avoids the scylla and the charybdis upon which the Neocons and Obama shipwrecks.

I think DeSousa is right and he has presented some critical information about Barack that ought to be widely known and discussed as a valid means of understanding and explaining the President's actions and choices. His thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis and clear presentation is impressive. As DeSousa himself says, it is the only understanding of the man and his policies thus far that covers all the bases--the only perspective that explains it all. Others who have tried to explain the phenomenon of Obama have quickly drawn a conclusion based upon superficial observation or their own biases, and then sought to cobble together bits and pieces of supporting evidence. In contrast to them, it seems clear that DeSousa tried to begin at the beginning and see where all the evidence would lead him--the only  process that ever leads to a correct conclusion. 

If DeSousa is right then it is clear Obama has shown us and the world a false image--a mask, and racism in America has helped him get away with it. DeSousa also tackles this issue in his documentary by turning to  Shelby Steele, a man, like Obama, of mixed race.

Mr. Steele insists that Obama was elected SOLELY because he was black, and no other reason. In other words, by my definition*, his election was a collective racist act by millions of  Americans, most of them white.  White Americans voted for him in droves to prove to themselves they were not racist. What they proved, by voting for him JUST BECAUSE of his race, was the very opposite. 

I'm sure many people read my remarks from time to time and conclude I'm a racist. That, I always say, tells a lot more about them than it does me. The fact is, I'd never vote for or against anyone because of their race--because doing so would be straight up racism. That's madness when you're selecting a political leader. Competence and sane policies, not sex or race or looks, should be the determining factors--and the ONLY factors. For instance, I would vote for a Tom Sowell and Walter Williams ticket in a New York minute--with not the slightest hesitation.

Alas, America is obsessed by race, and whites, as you know, have been brainwashed by the media for decades, and intimidated by political correctness to such a degree they are terrified of being called racist. My sense is a lot of whites today are not coming clean when they participate in polls. They do not want to say what they actually think because of the fear of appearing as racist. But the voting booth is still sacred. It is there and in the Catholic confessional one can still be honest with one's self.

My concern about the election is that Obama and his minions are so unbalanced psychologically, so fanatical in their lust for power that they will use any and all means to steal the election. It has been done before. Just ask Joe Kennedy.

If Barack wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory, at best. If the Republicans can maintain control of even one house there will be Hell to pay on Obama's behalf for running so low, sleazy and unprincipled a campaign. Hidden behind his friendly mask is a man seething with resentment and hatred, and the veneer that hides it is growing thinner and thinner.

What the result will be in 2016 no one knows. (DeSousa does give us a likely scenario.) But if Barack's re-election comes to pass in 2012 I think I'm safe in saying we will limp there---and we may end up on our knees...and don't look for anything to improve, at home or abroad. And when and if things totally collapse around us don't look for Barack to shoulder the blame then any more than he has thus far. Jacobins, who are myopic, don't accept blame any better than they calculate the full consequences of their actions. 

2016: Obama's America. A must see. Watch it and think long and hard about it.

*Racist act: Any act done for or against another person or persons SOLELY because of their race. 

Repeal the Second Amendment? Not on YOUR life!

Let me see if I can insert some reason into this madness--not that anyone will care to read it.

Let's start with the very recent past--one year ago to be exact.

How soon we forget!

Norway had extremely strict gun laws--laws that would make the Brady campaign proud. Not even the cops had fire arms without going to check them out where they are stored at the police station. 

The psycho there set off a bomb in town, then proceeded to slaughter mostly young Norwegians on a small island with impunity--for 90 MINUTES with no resistance whatsoever!!! 

Just think of it! He was able to treat the children and adults on the island as prey in a game of cat and mouse for that long because the police, once they got the report of what was happening, has to go to headquarters in town to check out guns. In this case, lack of guns clearly cost lives--dozens and dozens of them.

Q: How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use to kill all those in OK city?
A:None.

My point in presenting these two examples? The point is that the real question we face is not how do we stop public tragedies like Colorado, Norway or Oklahoma City. The real question is how do we stop psychopaths--especially lone wolf misanthropes that have flown under the social radar and have not so much as a parking ticket? 

The answer is there is no way. 

Sorry deranged, delusional liberal utopians--a perfect, danger free world is not possible, and the sooner you see it the sooner the best solution becomes obvious. 

The evils psychos do cannot be stopped. BUT, the evils they do can be reduced in number and mitigated in degree. You don't reduce societal danger by disarming every one--including the police. In doing so you only make both the public and the police to be sitting ducks, helplessly bobbing on the water.

Forced disarmament makes things worse and We the People even more helpless to the craven machinations of a mad man.

Can the government make us safe? The answer is "No!"

Why? For two reasons.

First, the government is eaten up with political correctness. The psycho who killed the students at Virginia Tech was clearly disturbed. But fear of law suits and accusations of racism prevented the doctors at Tech from acting. The government's bully tactics and the cowardice of academic officialdom were the means by which this deranged young man remained at large and was free to slaughter his fellow students.  That guns were forbidden on campus served his purposes, enabling him to go without fear or resistance from classroom to classroom. 

Second, psychos know how to steer clear of officialdom. In short, they know where the cops are and how to avoid them. Just because some one is crazy or deranged does not mean they are stupid. In fact, many, like the colorado killer, are very bright and know how to get elude detection from the police. 

So you ask, "If taking guns makes things worse, and government can't really protect us, what other options do we have? What will deter killers and save lives?

The one thing the pyscho cannot calculate or determine with any reliability, the one Wild Card he cannot be sure he can avoid is the armed citizen. He has no idea where he is, where he might show up or where, in a crowd, he might respond to the violence.

 
Because of this, the armed citizen is the one thing that can either limit the evils done by the psychopath, or deter it from happening altogether.  

Of course, we can read about the evils that were stopped by armed citizens. The newspapers are filled with them.  But we have no way to calculate how many evil events did not take place because the pyscho knew citizens were armed.

If we ban citizens from having weapons to protect themselves and others, we consign ourselves to the fate of the Norwegians on the one hand, or the fate of the Chinese people on the other. I KNOW. I've been there. 

In Beijing you can be arrested for carrying a pocket knife that has a blade over 3 inches. The people in China are helpless, and the only ones armed--HEAVILY armed--are the army and government agencies that exercise the powers of the communist police state upon the helpless people.

You stupid people arguing against an armed citizenry and getting rid of the second amendment are arguing for your own enslavement to the control and brutality of the modern police state. To quote the immortal Bard, "What fools these mortals be!"

INEPTOCRACY

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

This is your last warning

Now, you can't say you weren't warned...