Wednesday, June 24, 2015

"Four Steps Toward Ending Gun Violence" and one giant leap into bloody civil war.

A collectivist ninny in the "field of Peace and Conflict Transformation" has a modest proposal: "Repeal the Second Amendment." My comment (although I doubt it will stay up long.
Starting a bloody civil war seems an odd way to "fight gun violence." In fact, if you want to see what real "gun violence" is, try to repeal the Second Amendment and watch the carnage that results. C'mon. We'll make it easy -- we won't fire the first shot. Your side, if you want to get what you want, must do that. Of course, given the ironclad Law of Unintended Consequences, intellectual apologists for tyranny such as yourself are unlikely to survive such a conflict, so does that make you brave or stupid? I'm leaning toward suicidally stupid, but you tell me. Follow through on your logic at least and tell us how many uncompromising firearm owners' deaths (and of their families) do you require before you would consider such a benighted, benevolent proposal requiring the iron hand of state violence against its own citizens to have been worth it? A hundred thousand? A million? Six million? Ten? If you want to get your way, you will have to kill us first. Just tell us how many of our deaths you require, you bloodthirsty collectivist. How many? Think it through and give us an answer now. -- Mike Vanderboegh, Pinson, AL


Block Of Instruction said...

I'll take "When perception goes wrong, ref Athens Tenn" as a guide line of what will happen if they want to step up and try they're hand. I'll not be the first to fire a shot, but a fence rider I'm not. Again, when the rule of law is out the window, old scores will be settled, as well as with those who think they are immune to what they started.

Anonymous said...

What a Moron. This Tom Hastings person presents himself as the director of "PeaceVoice" whatever that is and an expert at "Peace and Conflict Transformation" Presents his principal of "three levels of causation" required for an outbreak of "destructive conflict" Bullet pointe they are 1) "means to destroy and the willingness to do so" 2) "mix and intensity of contributory causes" 3) #2 plus the "necessary causes" reaching the tipping point. The prinicipal states if any of the three are missing then destructive conflict is avoided. The inverse then is if all three are present there is a resulting destructive conflict.

So he is a Moron in that he fails to realize the first step he proposes is actually the third leg of his principal the "necessary cause" that is the tipping point to "destructive conflict" because the two opposing groups both have the "means to destroy and the willingness to do so"

Like Forrest Gumps mother always said, "Stupid is as Stupid does"

Unknown said...

One Hundred Heads Life and Causality Co. will be vary busy paying off premiums in the event that the collectivists get their way.

Anonymous said...

They always accuse us of ignoring the "well regulated militia" clause. I'll leave aside for a moment their sometimes deliberate lack of understanding of what "well regulated" meant in 1789.

But even if we are guilty of ignoring the first clause of 2A, they are certainly guilty of ignoring US v Cruikshank wherein SCOTUS declared that 2A and the rest of the Bill of Rights did not grant anyone anything. That they merely recognized the existence of the inalienable rights mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. That the mentioned rights predated the US Government and its founding documents and were not dependent on either for their existence.

Repeal the 2A if you wish, and if you can. My right to keep and bear arms comes from somewhere else and you mess with it at your peril.

Longbow said...

We are not two countries. We are two different planets in the universe. They need us. They must have a civilization within which they can thrive, like bacteria, but it must be provided by us. They demand it!

Ah, but then there is the Parasite's Paradox. In order to live, the parasite must have a healthy host of of which it can suck, but if it follows its inclination, it kills the host, thus killing itself also.

This is why they demand we live in their delusional world. They cannot live in ours without or acquiescence, indeed our support.

As Ayn Rand said, shrug!

Anonymous said...

And, to quote George Orwell "Some ideas are so stupid that only an intelledtual could believe them."

Anonymous said...

Revgen45: That is an excellent quote, but I believe it came from Thomas So well, not George Orwell.

Anonymous said...

Hey I didn't get the chance to kill European commies for Uncle Sam in the 70's.Home grown commies will do. Are they that bemused to think we will comply ? Or go quietly in the night ? Their will be many dead on both sides. The lists are long and the enemies of the Founder's Republic are many. I don't think these power hungry ninnies got the balls. We are legion and we are many. Behind Enemy Lines.In Unconstitutional collectivist Ct. We will not comply nor stand down... AAA/O.11B20.

Anonymous said...

The best way to destroy the "militia" argument is to present the simplicity of this statement.

It is plainly scripted as the right of the people, not as the right of the militia.

Therfore, the "militia" argument is then exposed as intellectually dishonest. ut reallybSubterfuge. Incorrect. A lie.

So why is it there? It is there as a simple recognition that, absent this plain demonstration, what was achieved, independence, could not have come to fruition, much less be defended going forward, if it was to be shelved as not "needed".

Its presented as if the militia is the reason, but really its the other way around.Its not the right is protected to well regulate the militia, it is this- In order for the militia to be well regulated, the right shall not be infringed.

Its not forced training power assigned to gubmint, its the opposite. Its people growing up with arms, having unfettered access to them, practicing with them all their lives. This produces a population familiar and indeed brings about a well regulated militia when it is called forth.

Whether English language construction or basic logical reasoning and common sense, the right belongs to the people, themselves, not the organized militia or those calling it forth and organizing it.

Anonymous said...

Those of you who watch "South Park" will no doubt see similarities to The Underpants Gnomes. For those of you who don't:

1. Peoples' underpants are disappearing
2. Someone catches a gnome red handed in their underwear drawer.

When questioned about the theft of underpants the gnome relates this plan

1. Steal underpants.
2. ?
3. Make a whole lot of money.

Questions attempting to pin down how step 2 is going to work bring only stares.


1. Repeal the Second Amendment. Note that the gnomes were actually stealing underpants. They had a working process for step one. The Second Amendment Repeal Gnomes haven't suggested how they intend to get the repeal through all of the hoops required by Article 5.
2. ?
3. End gun violence in the U S A.

Note to the Repeal Gnomes: Steps 1 and 2 need a bit of work.

Anonymous said...

"The best way to destroy the "militia" argument is to present the simplicity of this statement."

Perhaps. The way I prefer is to quote the United States Code (USC) which is the sum total of all federal laws. To whit:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Also: Well regulated? To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Shotguns who have both barrels hitting the same point of aim are "well regulated". No action by any legislature required. WWII fighter planes had their wing mounted machine guns adjusted to fire a particular pattern at a particular range. After that process was complete, the guns were said to be "regulated". Again, no action by any legislative body. The most popular wall clock in the 1780's was often labeled "The Regulator" because it divided time into "regular intervals". If you're suffering a particular type of digestive malady you're suffering from "irregularity."

In fact, the term "Well Regulated" in The Second Amendment probably refers to the ability of a firing party to follow the drill common to infantry units of the day where each rank in turn would fire when ordered, then fall back to just behind the rear rank and reload at the metronomic orders of an NCO.

All this reminds me of the time when the Congressional Black Caucus got all outraged because some official used the word "niggardly" in public.

It would make Inigo Montoya right proud!

Anonymous said...

Alas,an inherent right, one endowed by our Creator, one that preexists government itself, cannot be relegated to a matter of code. The right to arms belongs to all Citizens, from birth. I BELIEVE making the argument you do concedes needlessly the rights of those under the arbitrarily assigned age of majority. Rights delayed are rights denied. If a right "doesn't apply" until age of majority then it cannot be inherent, it cannot be CREATOR endowed.

Regarding your following the common drilling comment. Of course. With Citizens already familiar with arms themselves, such fundamental training wouldn't be necessary.....organization could move directly into tactics and strategy.

My own personal feeling is this -
Today we find ourselves arguing with abject idiots and must actually tell them the simplest of logical conclusions. Like this - You can be "against war" all you want to be, but there comes a point where war becomes necessary. ( Some would simplify it to "Some people just need killin')mI submit to you that the opening clause of the Second Amendment was meant to send that same message to the peaceniks.....The right to arms and their use is simply necessary.

I simply cannot square an age limit assigned to a inherent right. I relent to the guiding light of parents regarding their children, but to pass that latern to government....well.....that decision gets us exactly what we have now......a few generations of libtards who try to make the rules about guns when they have never even held one.