Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

Friday, November 20, 2015

This is Interesting

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature enacted Chapter 180, a gun control law requiring residents to acquire a Firearms ID card before owning any weapon.  "Weapon" being defined as anything as or more potent than pepper spray.  The FID card application cost $25.  There was a pre-existing law requiring a "license to carry."

That cost for the FID was raised in 2003 to $100.  Some time after that, the permit fee for chemical sprays was reduced back to $25, but firearms permits remained at $100.

As a result:
If the intent of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was to discourage the sport of hunting and competitive target shooting and to disarm Massachusetts citizens, it must be considered a howling success. In 10 years since its passage, the number of licensed gun owners has decreased from 1,500,000 to 220,000, an 85 percent drop, according to figures provided by the by the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee.
Of course, supporters of the law made claims like:
"Fewer firearms on the street makes life safer for everyone," said Robert F. Crowley, Quincy's police chief. "The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don't believe has the experience, knowledge, and training to know when and if they should use a firearm."
“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”
The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter.”
Nice to know that the majority of legal gun owners were considered "the clutter."

But the reality?
If the intent was to reduce crime, then that law must be considered a miserable failure. Based on incidents per 100,000, gun-related homicides are up 68 percent, assault related gun injuries up 72 percent, assault related hospital discharges up 160 percent, gun assault Emergency Dept visits up 222 percent and gun assault outpatient observations up 538 percent. Keep in mind that these increases occurred when there were 1,280,000 fewer licensed gun owners in the state.
Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong.
We know better than that. The philosophy cannot be wrong!
But now there's better news:
The number of legal gun owners in Massachusetts is growing. The 22News I-Team obtained and analyzed state data showing how many people have a license to carry from 2009 to September 2015.

378,642 people or one in every 14 adults has a gun license in Massachusetts. Up from 227,612 in 2010. A 66% increase.
Still a far cry from 1.5 million, but things are finally moving in the right direction again.

As always, the stated intent of "gun control" laws is to increase public safety, but the result of these laws is to disarm the general public, and public safety suffers.  After all, the mantra of The Other Side™ is that "the number of guns" in circulation is "the problem."  Therefore "the solution" must be to reduce that number to a level indistinguishable from zero.

Never forget that.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Why We're Winning

Somebody once said:
I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
I think this guy gets it (seen on the streets of Tucson):

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Quote of the Day - Sudden Jihad Edition

From Sean Sorrentino on Facebook:
If we keep pretending to ourselves that this takes "Extensive pre-planning and training," then we fool ourselves into believing that it can't happen. The real limiting factor is finding about a dozen psychos who are so mentally whacked that they think that this is a good idea, but are still composed enough that they can work together effectively. The tools and the tactics are easy to pick up. It's the broken, yet not shattered brains that are in short supply.

Iowahawk Scores Again

The man is a national treasure who should have his own monument on the D.C. Mall.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Yes, This Is a Perfect Representation of Modern Edumacashun

This does explain the recent actions at Yale and the University of Missouri.

Tough history coming, indeed.

Sunday, November 08, 2015

Maryland Scraps its IBIS System

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years.

A surprising admission of reality.

If you're interested in the "Why" behind the (extremely overdue) decision, read my 2005 post, Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (and Won't) Work.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Quote of the Day - War on Women Edition

Seen at Facebook in response to Glamour Magazine's announcement of Bru... Caitlyn Jenner as "Woman of the Year":
Not only do we make better money than women, we also apparently make better WOMEN than women.
But that's not QotD.  My wife's reaction to that comment is:
They DO! They work harder at it!

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Your Moment of Zen

It's been awhile.  Saw this guy's work at an art show/sale this morning - Victor Beer Photography.  He does large-scale hi-res on canvas - looks like photorealistic oil paintings, but they're oilrealistic photographs.  This image does not do justice to the real thing, but it's the best I can do:

Had I wall space, I could see a couple of his pieces hanging in my house.  They really are spectacular in person.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Blocked at

Well, I've been temporarily blocked at for violating their "Be Nice, Be Polite" policy.  Can't post there until October 30.  In the mean time, I guess I can still post here!

If you're unfamiliar, Quora is a site where anybody can ask anything, and anybody who joins up can respond.

Ran across this jewel over there and thought I'd share it.  The question asked was, "What will it take to radically change America's gun culture?"  Like there's only one.

Seems this guy thinks he's struck upon something original.
Avoiding getting dragged into the gun control debate and attempting to answer your original question, I would say there are at least two options, both of which would be lengthy and difficult in application. First, like cigarettes, the government could embark on a long term effort of making gun ownership and gun use difficult and expensive, while propagandizing against equating guns with generally positive terms such as "liberty" and "freedom", instead instilling in future generations the association of guns with negatives such as "murder" and "anti-social". Realizing that a goodly number of people holding social and political power in the US are themselves gun nuts, you can imagine this is a remote possibility. Equally problematic is the idea of revolutionary change in the US which removes all notions of American exceptionalism, militarism and conservative ideology from popular thought.

Summing up, the two paths I see involve public "shaming" of gun people in the same manner as smokers are publically(sic) shamed today, or the active suppression of what I think are really defining characteristics of America: conservative ideology, religious ideology, fierce individualism, a tendency towards conspiracy theory, a preference for violence as a solution to social and individual problems, and mistrust of government. As you might guess, I'm not optimistic.
As Instapundit once said, "It’s pretty irritating, being shamed by people who have none themselves."

He apparently doesn't realize that his prescription is precisely how it was done in the UK.  I have to wonder, though, at what form his "active suppression" would take.  What's most interesting to me however, is what he himself describes as the "really defining characteristics of America,"
  • Conservative ideology
  • Religious ideology
  • Fierce individualism
  • Mistrust of government 
You begin to understand Barack Obama's appeal to people like him when Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

They're ashamed of it.  They hate it. 

So yeah, I do think they're un-American.  They admit it themselves.

Got Law?

Sorry for the hiatus.  Busy, and I've been engaging over at  Got a couple of essays rattling around in the back of my head, but in the meantime, here's Bill Whittle's latest:

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

How to Create a Gun-Free America

I've been playing over at recently.  Sorry I've not updated TSM much, but I do think this belongs here:

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Saturday, October 03, 2015

You Should Probably Say it Now

Bill Whittle's latest Afterburner, "Very Old Men"

The Martian

I saw The Martian this morning with my dad, a former steely-eyed missile man himself.

Matt Damon or not, FREAKING OUTSTANDING film. Howard Tayler (of Schlock Mercenary fame) said of it
I'm now declaring that The Martian, (movie) is the best hard science fiction movie I have ever seen. It is not a perfect film, but it is an outstanding film that speaks the way only a film can, and uses the medium in ways that the very best films do.
I concur.

I will be seeing it on the big screen again.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Quote of the Day - GRPC Edition

I asked "Why would you need to suppress a .22?" and the guy behind me said "So you can get ALL the squirrels." - Genie Jennings, Contributing Editor Guns & Women magazine

Gun Rights Policy Conference - Live Stream

You can watch here.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Quote of the Day - Legal Edition

By way of preface, in 2004 I wrote the post "Game Over, Man. Game Over" which I concluded thus:
Mike Spenis said "the future of our freedom ultimately rests with the court's willingness to periodically reexamine the law," but the evidence is plain that the courts will not do that. They will use obviously flawed precedent so long as it "comports especially well with our notions of good social policy." And even if it doesn't, the courts will often bow, as Kozinski does here, to precedent they abhor. We depend upon the honor and intellectual honesty of the judges who make up the Justice system, yet it seems that those who are truly honest and honorable are outnumbered by those who are "willing to bury language that is incontrovertibly there." The honest and honorable ones abide, under the rule of law, by precedent that is otherwise insupportable. The middling honest ones, the ones Justice Brandeis labled as "men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding" "build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text." And those decisions stand, without review, periodic or otherwise, to serve as the next step down the road to Hell.
Tonight during a short discussion I had with Alan Gura he said something that boiled that paragraph down to a couple of sentences (from memory, so I may be paraphrasing):
Stare decisis is like gun control. It only affects those who respect the law.

Excellent Observation

 photo Dont_Touch.jpg