Revisiting Anarchy

Coming back to the last stopping point of our discussion, Kevin, a couple of things you postulated (correct me if I misrepresent you) and my responses:

1) Because coercive aggression exists, it should be worked with rather than rejected out of hand.
2) People who refuse to use coercive aggression (anarchists) are utopian and have "given up."

1) The problem with coercive aggression is that it rejects the wisdom of the free market. Where the free market allocates the greatest total satisfaction to all parties, coercive aggression allocates satisfaction only to a select group at the expense of another group. Any coercive action always creates greater discord on a net basis than order, whether or not that discord is directly observable (and it usually isn't). In summary, you can't ever really make things better using coercive aggression, and usually the result is markedly worse.

Furthermore, the idea that cartelizing the functions of force, even on a limited basis, can create some net good is based on two false assumptions. First, that by assuming exclusive rights over these functions, you can eliminate competitors. Competition begets competition, Kevin, by cartelizing coercive force you only stimulate the competitive spirit in other coercively aggressive enterprises (note that I don't dissuade from coercive defense of property). Second, your idea asserts that there is something noble in assuming sole responsibility for (wrongful) acts of coercive aggression. I wouldn't be lauded for being a murderer if my only justifications were that I was applying my murderous ways uniformly and that I had driven all the other murderers out of town. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the end does not ever justify the means. I refuse to become as guilty as those I oppose by sinking to their level.

2) Simply because I refuse to employ methods I detest does not mean I am doing nothing. I am merely "walking the walk" of my beliefs by refusing these methods. In addition, I do plenty to "deal" with the world on a non-utopian, every-day, realistic basis. Right now, I am here attempting to persuade you and others to share my viewpoint; throughout the day I engage in mutually beneficial trade and commerce daily; I enforce my property rights frequently and encourage others to do the same with both my words and my actions; I restrain myself according to a moral code (well, not always); and finally, when I confront a law that directly contrasts with my morals, I subvert it (i.e. if they banned Christianity, I would still worship). All of these anarcho-capitalist actions forward my philosophy in the world as surely as they benefit both me and the people I interact with.

By holding to my principles and refusing to compromise, even when it would be convenient or expedient, I prove that I am both realistic AND nonhypocritical.


And now some things said in the comments by others (again, correct me if I misrepresent):
1) Garvin says that since the optimum set of morals for an anarchistic society cannot be known, my theory is idealistic, incomplete, and unable to achieve its ends.

Thankfully Garvin, we have the free market to determine which is the most advantageous set of morals. Unfortunately, by legitimizing the use of coercive aggression, gov't creates an incentive for people to be immoral (see welfare, Hitler, et al). A free society, on the other hand, necessitates moral rectitude because people are more directly held responsible for their own actions. Of course, with competing desires, there will be competing moral systems and some will work better for one than another. This is not a weakness, however, but a strength, since the "best" moral systems will logically be the most popular.

2) Doug points out that near-anarchist societies existed and failed. Wince asserts that anarchism doesn't work well when you're a bunch of Pre-Enlightenment cannibals.

Wince's argument is pretty easy to refute, that the only anarchistic society to ever have existed was a bunch of cannibals. First and foremost, just as there is no perfectly socialist society, there will never be a perfectly anarchist society. Second, frontier life has always been anarchistic, and people were able to make very good lives for themselves and their descendants, coexisting peacefully with eachother and dealing with it in their own way when violence occured. Even Socialist California was once a free minded state, its citizens nearly lynching the Chief Treasurer of the United States when he came around peddling his fiat money over gold.

Doug seems to think that simply because there are societies that were at one time anarchistic and are now far less so, that anarchism is a failed experiment. This is wrong, firstly because you trying apply a method of comparison suitable for differing systems of coercive order to a concept that eschews any system of coercive order. It's not comparing a Chevy to a Ford, it's comparing an automobile to no automobile. Secondly, where anarchy does promise benefits (by saying it won't get in the way), it most certainly does deliver them through the mechanisms of the free market and cooperative exchange. 19th century Germany, with its many competing city-states, was one of the most liberal and prosperous states of it's time, and was a nexus of culture, scholastics, philosophy, engineering, and invention. Switzerland has been a cornerstone of freedom, private defense and trade since 1291, and its banks are more trusted than any in the world.

"The Vatican said it had no comment." - There's a Surprise

Cache of child porn found at seminary

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said Monday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.

Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, however, dismissing the images as a "childish prank."

Child porn. "Childish prank." That explains the Catholic Church's handling of the molestation scandals, I suppose.

Leaders of the Catholic diocese of St. Poelten where the seminary is located, about 50 miles west of Vienna, spent much of the day in an emergency meeting.

The seminary's director, the Rev. Ulrich Kuechl, resigned along with his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, the diocese said after the meeting. It did not elaborate.

As many as 40,000 photos and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were found a year ago on computers at the seminary, the respected news magazine Profil reported.

But it was just a prank.

It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other, and said others showed them engaging in orgies and sex games. The child porn came mostly from Web sites based in Poland, the magazine said.

It was my understanding that the Catholic church held homosexuality to be a sin.

Hannes Jarolim, a spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party, urged the Interior Ministry on Monday to launch a criminal investigation. Public prosecutor Walter Nemec said police were examining the material, which he said showed seminarians "in perverse situations together with their superiors."

The Austrian Bishops Conference issued a statement pledging a full and swift internal investigation.

"Anything that has to do with the practice of homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests," it said.

Thought so.

Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that "had nothing to do with homosexuality."

This is known as "cognitive dissonance."

"Elaborate prank."

And who was supposed to find it funny?

His nonchalance drew swift and scathing reaction across the overwhelmingly Catholic nation.

"Collecting child pornography cannot be dismissed as a prank," said Thomas Huber, a Green Party politician.

In the mid-1990s, Austria was stung by allegations that Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, who died last year, had molested students at an all-male Catholic boarding school two decades earlier. The affair had prompted Groer to step down.

A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported Monday. Martin Walchhofer, who supervises the alpine country's seminaries, said Krenn ultimately was responsible and "must answer before the church and before God for all of this."

Asked whether he intended to resign, Krenn said bluntly: "No."

The Vatican said it had no comment.

Krenn, 68, issued a statement calling the accusations groundless while conceding that he "may have made some wrong personnel decisions" at the seminary. Rothe, the former deputy seminary chief, was a legal adviser to the bishop.

The Catholic Church has got itself some real problems, and they're largely self-inflicted wounds.

There. Is. No. Defense. Of. Child Abuse.

Edited to add: This reminded me of this Chuck Asay cartoon:

Flashbunny.org Strikes Again!

AR15.com contributor Bastiat runs a site called Flashbunny.org, which I have in my blogroll over there on the left column. He does excellent Flash movies and some damned fine photoshopping.

Well, he's done it again. Check it out.

And spend some time perusing the other offerings. Especially Soldiers of Surrender!

An Encouraging Start

A quick check of Technorati this morning brought me to a new blogger, Pajama Pundit. Only two posts up, so far, but the author is literate, and I like her attitude:

I don't see Americans as valuing education nowadays. Unfortunately, many teenagers and young people I see have this terrible creeping sense of entitlement--because I'm American, in the land of the free, I'm owed something. Then they end up having to work at Wal-Mart, bitching and moaning all the while, conveniently forgetting there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

"Oh yeah?" you might say. "And where do YOU work, Ms. Smart-Ass?"

Currently, I work as a pharmacy technician at a local institutional pharmacy. But for most of the past twenty years, I worked in low-paying service jobs: fast food, retail, delivery driver. This was because I dropped out of school in the 8th grade, although I later got my GED. Finally getting fed up with what I was doing, and realizing I was not getting any younger, I decided to shoot for a tech position.

This involved four months of study, one and two hours a day, for the Pharmacy Tech Certification test. I am not terribly good at math, so this level of immersion was necessary. I studied all on my own, with no help from anyone, and paid for the test myself. And passed it, by crackey! I was rewarded with a substantial raise--in fact, I'm making more now than I ever have. I now have access to good insurance, paid vacations and holidays, 401(k), and easier and more secure employment than I had before. All because I put my nose to the grindstone and decided to make something of myself.

--

You can swallow your pride and take a temporary low-paying job (hey, any money is better than none), and retrain yourself for something else. Screw your age. It can still be done.

I did.

There's more to the post than just that, but THAT is the attitude we need more of.

Keep an eye on this one.

Guest Blogger Announcement

Reader Aaron Gunn has joined The Smallest Minority for a discussion on the topic of the political philosophy of Anarchism. (See post immediately below.)

I hope it will be an interesting conversation! (Or I'll boot yer arse, Aaron!);-)

More on Anarchy

If you've followed the comment thread at No Treason, you'll understand this post. If not, it's going to leave you going "huh?" Because HaloScan has a "feature" of dropping comments after some time, I want to record this exchange in the blog.

Reader Aaron Gunn took exception to my dismissal of the Anarchist position. Here is our comment exchange (to date) on the subject:

Kevin,

It's Aaron Gunn from Phoenix. I read most of the comments on No Treason and I'm on the side of the anarchists (and have been for two years now). I even went so far as to go to the Mises Institute for their Summer University session, and got a nice piece of paper for the trouble.

On your comments at No Treason, I sympathize with your objections but I don't agree with them. Most of them seem to attack anarchism for not preventing things the government claims it can prevent, but is equally powerless to affect (corrupt judges, suicide bombers, etc.). In fact, I posit that it is in any government's primary interest to create as many of these evils as possible, so that it can continue to find fault with any human freedom and guaranty ever more of the ideal.

Anarchy isn't a utopian ideal because it doesn't promise that everything will be hunky dory. An anarchist recognizes that true anarchy is not possible because imperfect man will always engage in aggressive coercion, even in the absence of a formalized state.

Truly the only thing that separates the anarchist from the rest is that he regards all coercive aggression as equally evil, whether it comes from a thug, a burglar, or a formalized state. A real anarchist's goal is to reduce all forms of coercive aggression through private, cooperative (voluntary) solutions (the market).

Finally, on your last comment about most people preferring security over freedom, I can only respond with a Ben Franklin quote that I'm sure you know very well: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

However, Aaron, Wince points out one flaw in the anarchist's theory: Organized crime can and will flourish in the system. And that leads to my objection: Organized crime is just another name for "government."

Government just won't go away. People will allow themselves to be coerced, because when presented with the choice of "yield or die" most will choose to yield, Franklin notwithstanding. Only complete equality of power can prevent organized crime from flourishing, and "complete equality of power" is a utopic ideal.

Since government won't go away, the best option is to have a form of government that is least offensive to the rights of individuals. A Constitutional Republic appears to be that best option.

I think I made it pretty clear that I agree that even in the absence of formalized government, there would exist coercively aggressive organization (mafia, for instance). So I don't disagree with you. However, I do disagree with you that the solution is to compromise those principles that we know to be right (namely, that coercive aggression is wrong).

A society that places voluntary moral limits on its behaviour precludes the necessity for a state. Therefore, my solution to create a society free from both state AND mafia is to encourage everyone around me to adopt higher moral standards.

P.S. ...and also to keep a loaded gun in the house. Almost forgot that part.

"A society that places voluntary moral limits on its behaviour precludes the necessity for a state."

And this isn't a utopian ideal?

Well, just like a perfectly anarchist society is a utopian ideal, so is a perfectly moral society impossible to achieve. Rather, it's a matter of degrees. The more moral society begets a freer society, as a freer society necessitates moral rectitude in its members. It's a matter of degrees.

Understanding that they are complimentary parts of a whole, I move forward to encourage more of both.

That's the difference between anarchism and socialism/communism. S/C requires you to violate principles in order to achieve them (coercion will bring cooperation). Obviously, that is fallacious and disingenious. Anarchism is much harder, because it requires strict adherence to the selfsame principles it espouses.

In fact, this is the source of most Austrians contempt for the general libertarian movement, which more often than not desires freedom from morality, not freedom from coercion.

Let me know if I'm weighing in, or even making sense.

And that's the very point I was trying to make. Because we cannot achieve the utopian ideal of an anarchistic society based on people all voluntarily living under uniform moral limits, instead we end up with coercive rule.

The best option, then, is to make the coercion as minimal as possible. History indicates that we are trending towards less and less coercion, but also that things are cyclical. Each iteration of the cycle seems to produce a "more free" society, and a greater percentage of the total population experiences greater freedom, but the down-cycles are pretty damned bad.

Perhaps, after a few or a dozen or a hundred more cycles the anarchist's ideal might be reached, but I doubt it. Freedom from morality seems so much more attractive than freedom from coercion.

I guess it comes down to differences in perspective. My dad pounded in to me relentlessly as a child that no matter what other people do, it is never okay to use other people's lack of morality/principles to justify violating your own morality/principles. Legitimizing any form of coercion opens the door to legitimizing all forms of coercion, and I won't do that.

On a more every day note, I actually would be okay with small city states, on account of the limited amount of trouble they can get into. My rule of thumb for government is that the more power I give you over me, the closer I want you to live so that I can more freely hand out knuckle sandwiches to those who abuse their position. Grant you, I wouldn't think it was right for them to exist, I probably would just have much bigger things to worry about then.

In that case, it's people like you that should be the ones running the government - and that's the problem. Over time, the power-hungry are the ones who seize the reins and drive the whole shebang over the cliff. That's the part of the cycle we seem unable to break.

I understand that coercive government is a given. Anarchists pine for that utopic people with self-inforced morals who will render such government obsolete, and kick it like a crushed beer can to the side of the road, but I don't. I'm willing to live in a world where coercion is reality, but where I and others do what we can to minimize it. The Anarchists detach themselves from the political process because coercion is illegitimate, so they don't help restrain it. They give up, and just hope things get better after the inevitable crash.

Granted, living in the declining era of a great civilization isn't all it could be, but I don't see it as reason to quit.

Wince Picks Up the Gauntlet

As I noted below, I was engaged in a discussion with the anarchists over at No Treason. Our discussion got redundant, so I withdrew, but Wince from Wince and Nod has engaged - and tellingly, I think.

Let's see: The options appear to be a government, or pure anarchy. The first is evil, because it takes the product of our production by coercion. I grant the evils of government, but I don't sing the praises of anarchy, and Wince illustrates precisely why.

Go read.

Good job Wince.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

I read Doc Russia's blog Bloodletting on an occasional basis, simply because I don't have enough time to read everything I want to read. It's a uniformly excellent blog, too, but he outdid himself with this post.

How does this sound;
We are constantly under siege by the gun-grabbers to take our arms away, and they seem quite content to mess with the 2nd ammendment in order to do so. How about we add an extra layer of difficulty to their efforts.
I hereby proclaim the establishment of the of

the Holy Equestrian order of the Knights of Saint John Moses

Where the ownership, display and use of naughty weapons is part of religious worship.
Where we pray fortnightly at the altar of our blessed lady of holy trigger control.
Where are hung the many tenets of our faith:

Thou shalt not point the naughty end of thine weapon at any that thoust dost not intendeth to pink mist

Thou shalt keep thine finger straight as the lords staff and off the holy trigger until thou ist most ready to release the fire and brimstone of the wrath of Saint John Moses

Thou shalt always treatest thine shooting rod as thou it were loadedeth whether thee hast loaded it or nay

Thou shalt know the design of thine sidearm as the good lord did intend for man to know his armaments; thou shalt know its function and use; thou shalt know its cleaning and maintainance; thou shalt know its ballistics and metrics

Thou shalt always rebuke the devil in all his forms; as Senators from California, and as Mayors from Chicago.

Thou shalt have the sacred honor to carry a holy artifact of Saint John Moses wherever thou walkest that is not the home of another man.

Thou shalt be charged with defence of and true allegience to the faith.

For, in the beginning, God did give a great gift upon Saint John Moses, and He said unto him:

"Go, John Moses, and create what I have designed for you to create. Create Holy Artifacts for the just and righteous to carry by their side, so that they shall not fear wherever they roam for all the days of their lives."

And John Moses did hear the word of our lord and didst followeth His words.

The lord saw, and it was Good.

And the lord rejoiced and sent to aid his servant, other saints.

Saint Samuel, who didst follow the guidance of the lord and made men peacemakers.

Saint Smith and Saint Wesson. Saint Heckler and Saint Koch.

And the lord looked out upon the faces of his servants and said:

"Go forth now, and proliferate your works throughout the earth"

And the servants of the lord did.

The Gospel according to Cyclic rate.

Let us pray.

As it was in the X-ring, now and until the depletion of the magazine,
forever and ever.

Cleared Hot.

Can I get a "Hell yeah!"

While I'm Not Posting Here...

If anybody's interested I'm having a kind of interesting discussion with John Lopez on government over at No Treason.

John's a Spoonerist. I'm a supporter of Constitutional Republicanism.

We are being civil, though.

In Praise of Lileks

Occasionally, not very often, I get a Wayne & Garth urge to drop to the floor, prostrate myself and proclaim "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"

I love the written word. I admire those who write well. I rank James Lileks at the top of his craft, and today's Bleat is a sterling example of why.

Please read.

Bloggus Interruptus

Sorry about the light posting and general lack of content. I'm WAY busy, and when I get home I'm pretty burned out.

Don't expect much for a while.

Had to add this, though: The Democrat Presidential Ticket, Lurch and Opie!

There's an image for ya!

Welcome readers from Instapundit! It would figure that something I just slapped together would draw White Glenn's attention, especially when the last week or so of posting has been, shall we say, less than my normal stellar stuff. Please, check the archives, or the "Best Posts" over on the left sidebar. Really, I'm normally much better than this!

This is Better

According to a poster on AR15.com, the John Edwards VP choice has been described as:

"Breast implants for the Democrat ticket"

That is, he adds to the appearance and makes it look sexier, but adds nothing of substance on the inside.

John Edwards: The Implant Candidate. (Silicone or saline?)

John-John?

Remember the 2000 election? What was the word used by all the media concerning Bush's Vice-Presidential choice?

"Gravitas."

So Kerry has chosen Edwards as his running mate.

Is this an example of "Anti-gravitas?"

One thing's for sure, Kerry recognized that he needed some lifting power for the lead balloon that is his personality campaign.

The S&W .500 Magnum Stops Charging Canned Goods!

More mayhem from rec.guns poster David Webb.

Note in the first clip that the force of the impact on the upper can shatters the cinderblock through the lower can.

Now that's hydrostatic shock!

fruitcocktail.wmv

corn.wmv

applesauce.wmv

chilibeans.wmv

chocolatepudding.wmv

And the wiley Mayonnaise. (It took TWO ROUNDS to bring down this dangerous beast!

mayo.wmv

Right After I Praise Blogger, It Bites Me

I have problems opening my blog, and now my archives seem to have disappeared.

Bummer.

So They've Descended to This...

(From Buzzmachine via Instapundit.)

And John "By the Way I Served in Vietnam" Kerry claims that the economy sucks and all the new jobs are low-wage. Looks like the DNC is hiring, and at $7.50-$12.50/hr. That's not minimum wage for what must be an entry-level position for, shall we say, unskilled labor?

As Jeff pointed out, the really interesting point is that the ad says the job is to "defeat Bush" - not "elect Kerry."

The next election will tell us, I think, just how deeply divided the nation truly is. If it's a squeaker either way I believe that will be notification to us that civil unrest will not be far behind. If Bush wins easily, we may see some activities by the fringe left, but I won't find it too worrisome. If Kerry (or whoever the DNC actually nominates) slides into office on a significant majority, then the forces of socialism will be prevalent, and we can pretty much kiss off our Constitutional Republic. Nothing short of open rebellion will be necessary to restore it, and honestly I don't think the American public has it in them.

Don't misinterpret! I am not saying that BushCo. represents Constitutional Republicanism. As far as I'm concerned, the current administration supports Big Government every bit as much as the Democrats do, and they are passing laws that afford future administrations pretty horrifying opportunities for abuse of power. But there's a difference between opening a few scuppers in the hull and blowing the keel out. At least with option 1 you can run the bilge pumps a bit harder and stay afloat.

Happy Independence day, everybody.

It's Been a Month, Still No Response

Frequent visitors will remember that over the course of March, April, and May I had a long, drawn-out exchange with Tim Lambert, proprietor of the blog Deltoid on the topic of self-defense in the UK. My last post on that topic went up May 30, it was of Den Bestian length, and I informed him that I had posted it at that time. A week later I asked if he had a response. "Patience" I was told. (See the next to last comment.)

Hmm...

UPDATE, 7/3: Tim has renewed his promise of a reply. Well, my last one took a month. I guess I ought to cut him some slack.

ProtestWarrior.com Strikes AGAIN!

This time on NBC's TODAY Show.

Go look. And watch the video! It's classic!

Damn, I LOVE those guys!

Truer Words...

Via AlphaPatriot.

From Hog On Ice about Algore's continuing meltdown:

Al Gore is insane. We already knew he was a compulsive, shameless, artless liar. That has been proven beyond dispute. But he's also batshit crazy.

I've been telling people this since 2000. I wish I could link to a video of the debate where he showed up dressed like President Reagan, with his hair done up in the Reagan style, and with Reagan-mimicking rouge applied to his cheeks. You may not remember. He even did Reagan's signature head-bob while he talked. It was like a sketch from Saturday Night Live, only there was no punchline.

And what about that bizarre moment when he stomped over to George Bush's side of the platform and stared at him with a broad Xanax grin on his face? What was that all about?

It should have been clear right there that not all of Al's delegates were answering roll call, but people are reluctant to come out and say that a Presidential candidate isn't firing on all cylinders. Even for his opponents, it's a hard thing to believe.

--

If we had elected this nut, right now, Joe Lieberman would probably be President, and Al would be on a permanent vacation in a padded chamber at the renamed Camp David Berkowitz.

Ooh! Ouch!

And from e-Clair on why the Right must stand up to the Left and call it on on its viciousness:

Appeals must be made for the return of the responsible citizen who is busy conducting his own life in a respectable manner and who has stepped back from political discourse out of disgust. The responsible, adult citizen must be encouraged to rejoin the fray or we will be left at the mercy of the omnivorous, media-driven gimmie-whimsey of the consumer.


Otherwise we will live in a country run by the decisiveness of Kerry, the compassion of Hillary and the honesty of Teddy.

Can I get an "AMEN!"?

Thanks, AlphaPatriot. I wouldn't have found those otherwise.

I See Mark Moron Morford Still Has a Job

Seen his latest screed phillippic rant primal scream column?

An Uzi Up Your Liberal Nose
Who cares if the assault-weapons ban is
about to expire? The gun lobby can't wait
to blow stuff away

Assault weapons. Aren't they just the cutest things?

And isn't it just so sweet and fall-down uproarious how the NRA and all its knuckle-draggin' right-wing pals in the U.S. Senate are all cheering right this minute, as the much-loathed 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, the one outlawing Uzis and TEC-9 semiautomatics and AK-47s and all other way-cool manly guns that have no other purpose in this world than to annihilate crap at 200 rounds per minute, is about to expire?

Let's see, that's one insult, one lie, and one exaggeration in the mere first paragraph! (I'll ignore the opening sentence and title.)

Because, get this: The ban will not be renewed. It's true. Even if that commie liberal Feinstein somehow gets it passed in the Senate, the NRA lobby has promised to keep it from ever coming up for a vote in the House, and the law will just expire and they will all cheer and slather each other in gun-barrel polish and go off and shoot stuff, because that's the only thing that seems to give life any meaning.

He seems perturbed, doesn't he?

Isn't that great? To hell with logic and to hell with your kids' safety and to hell with even trying to prevent moron gangbangers and terrorist wanna-bes and imbecilic white supremacists from easily getting their hands on a nice AK-47 that can mow down a schoolyard full of tots in 10 seconds flat. Instead: Down with liberal scum who would take away our God-given right to bear nasty ultraviolent weaponry that no one anywhere can justify the existence of. Go, NRA!

Except even gun control groups like the VPC have admitted that the "Assault Weapon Ban" didn't do any of the things Mr. Moron Morford attributes to it. Doesn't he realize that you can buy an American-built AK-47 clone (without, of course, a folding stock or a bayonet lug) right now?

Of course he does. He's just doing his job, trying to scare the poor idiot populace into doing what he wants, like all good Leftists do.

What, too sarcastic? Well, hold onto your sides, because it gets even funnier. Even little gun-lovin' Bushie himself declared during the 2000 campaign that he actually supported an extension of the ban (pretty hard, even for Shrub, to defend Uzis in the wake of Columbine and 101 California, et al.), a law that outlaws 19 types of insidiously lethal weaponry, the very guns most highly prized by jittery meth-lab owners and killing-spree advocates and homophobic militia members deep in the Montana woods. Oh, and also by upstanding, white-bread NRA members. Oh my yes. They need assault weapons. Must have them. Or so they claim.

Well, thank you Mr. Moron Morford. You've done such a marvelous job of associating people like me (I own an AR-15) with homophobic meth-lab owning spree killers. But I live in Arizona. Such awesome literary skills floor me.

But Bush, he is just so happy. He won't have to see that bill at all. He won't have to sign a thing before the election and risk annoying the Bible-quotin' gun lovers of America. The NRA lobby will kill it before he even has to try to pronounce the phrase "high school gun rampage." Oh man is he ever relieved.

I bet he is. There's a lot of us gun lovers. (I don't happen to be a bible-toter, but if Bush signed an AWB renewal, I don't believe he would be receiving my vote come November.) It is good that my NRA dues go, at least in part, towards goals that I support. That's what representative government means! My lobby is stronger than your lobby!

Because to the NRA, the rule is absolute: No gun law is a good gun law, and any ban of any kind is a slippery slope (always, always a slippery slope) until the government stomps in and takes away all your rights to do anything fun at all, and so screw the painfully obvious, skull-crushingly sad fact that allowing assault weapons back into the culture is the equivalent of allowing, say, convicted rapists loose in a sorority house.

Once again, Mr. Moron Morford asserts that which is undeniably false - that the "Assault Weapon Ban" removed anything from "the culture" in the first place. This is most obviously not so. But since it doesn't fit in his worldview, it simply is ignored. If he actually recognized reality, his head might explode.

What, too extreme? Bull. Even "normal," responsible gun owners -- and, yes, they do exist, in huge numbers -- know there is zero justification for allowing Uzis and AK-47s and their ilk back onto the market, just as there is no validation for suddenly legalizing, say, bazookas and flamethrowers and a swell grenade launcher for the Hummer. Dude! Wouldn't that be so cool! Imagine a flame-throwing grenade-launching badass H2 with roof-mounted machine guns, barreling down I-5 and shooting up those goddamn wimpy Priuses and Mini Coopers! Ha! High five! Goddamn liberals!

Hmm...Bazookas are actually legal - like machine-guns they're Class III devices, and so are the individual rocket rounds. Flamethrowers, to my knowledge, are unrestricted. No thanks to the goddamn liberals. I think, if Mr. Moron Morford looked around, he would find that "Uzis and AK-47s and their ilk" are still available all over the country. (Hey, if he can repeat his lie, I can repeat the truth.)

But huge numbers of responsible gun owners happen to own "assault weapons" too. There have literally been millions sold in this country, and the overwhelming majority, like the overwhelming majority of all guns, have ended up in the hands of us (check the scare quotes) "normal" responsible gun owners. So we disagree with the assertion that there is "zero justification," don't we?

Whoops, sorry. Getting carried away again. Hard not to, really. Because you simply have to love that NRA logic. It is pure genius, their insidious small-minded one-note hunk of reasoning that says banning assault weapons is just one step away from the government breaking down the door and taking away their shotguns and their Cheez Puffs and their Guns & Ammo subscription and their secret stash of gay porn.

I'm not sure, but I think the "gay porn" comment is supposed to be insulting. Now, I don't know the man personally, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff of Alphecca had a bit of that laying around, and I don't see it as an insult unless the person writing it has a problem with gays. (Isn't Moron Morford outspokenly gay? Does this mean he hates himself?) Now, the "insidious small-minded" comment is another thing, as that's precisely how I see the gun-control supporters. And since they've been using the "slippery slope" method to achieve gun bans (as the English did) pardon the hell out of us for seeing the "Assault Weapon Ban" as precisely what it is: one great big step down the Slippery Slope that Mr. Moron Morford doesn't want to admit exists, but would obviously be more than happy to shove us knuckle-dragging, insidious, small-minded, CheezPuff-eating, G&A reading gun nuts down.

Fuck you very much, Mr. Moron Morford.

This is the thinking. And it applies to all aspects of the frightening NRA mind-set. What, damn libs make me wear a seat belt in the car? Won't let me breed African killer bees in my backyard? Make homemade bombs out of weed killer and turpentine? Buy cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart? What's next, invading my home and making my kids read feminist lit and stealing my kidneys while I sleep? I knew it! Damn liberals!

Ah, yes. The infamous "cop killer" bullets. Can't have a good anti-gun rant without that old bromide. And you make homemade bombs out of fertilizer and diesel fuel. Don't you know anything?

It gets better. It gets funnier. It gets sadder. Let us note how the current, about-to-expire legislation is already full of loopholes and flaws of sufficient breadth that gun manufacturers can mostly skirt the ban by making simple cosmetic changes to their guns and then selling them as something else, completely legal, even though the gun is essentially the same, ha ha suckers.

So, even though Moron Morford has been claiming that the law "banned" some weapons and removed them from "the culture," and that sunset will cause these banned and removed weapons to be available for consumption by meth-dealers, spree-killers, NRA members and the like, NOW he admits that the law was useless and did nothing that he claimed? Yet it is cruicial to him that this useless, ineffective law be renewed! So that the next incremental step down the slippery slope....

Don't pay too close attention to his writing, folks. You might get whiplash.

And if you are at all sentient and aware and feel even the slightest twinge of humanitarian concern for the spiritual progress of the human animal, a bitter, uncontrolled, fall-down fit of pained hilarity would seem to be the only real reaction you can possibly have.

Here, let me translate that for you fellow NRA members: Anyone who supports the sunset of this stupid law is:

A) Not sentient (that means "thinking" and "self-aware" for you knuckle-draggers) - so Mr. Moron Morford was being redundant (that means "repetitive.")

B) Uncaring about "spiritual progress of the human animal" - i.e. "we hate everybody!

I get the impression that he doesn't like us very much.

Seems only fair as the feeling is mutual.

Because if you don't laugh it off, right now, at the bloody cosmic circus of it all, you will tear out your hair and start popping Vicodin like candy and pound a large nail into your own skull to deflect the pain, and then move to Canada, where they look down at America's bizarre right-wing macho inbred obsession with guns and just go, oh my freaking God what the hell is wrong with you people.

Please, Mr. Moron Morford, take option "B"!! Canada needs more self-inflicted lobotomy patients. You could run for a seat in Parliament!

And the kicker? The cutest aspect of all? There is no effort to hide it. The NRA is making not the slightest stab at concealing how their snide little lobby controls the right-wing side of the senate, nor are those same senators denying how they happily and with full enthusiastic intent suck at the bitter macho metallic tit of the gun lobby.

As opposed to the gun control movement that hides each and every new attempt to slide us down the slippery slope? We're proud and unrepentant because we really believe that the Second Amendment means something, Mr. Moron Morford, and not what you think it means. We're quite happy to live here with our guns. I recall once in a flamewar on the talk.politics.guns group a commenter who said something on the order of "Why don't all of you gun-freaks go form your own country!" To which one quite bright respondent replied, "We did. Who the hell let YOU in?"

So? Who did let you in?

Simply put, they just do not care whether you know. Why? Because the Right, they still have majority control. They still make the rules, and, no matter how many Dems or progressives or commonsense Americans still think the assault-weapons ban is a good idea overall, they just don't give a crap. The NRA is in charge. The sheer force of the gun lobby will make Uzis available again, just because they can. Don't like it? Suck my shotgun barrel, commie liberal tree hugger. God bless America.

I believe Mr. Moron Morford just outed himself as being against democracy when it doesn't happen to agree with his personal politics. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Yes, Mr. Moron Morford, we have majority control. More than that, though, we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and not a democracy, so there are certain fundamental rules that no mere majority can overturn. And that galls you, doesn't it? The Left is constantly thwarted by the great unwashed (but numerically superior) masses that just won't do what you want. We who are so stupid and easily lead, but who you cannot seem to lead to anything. And you are further thwarted by that useless old peice of paper with words written by evil slave-owning rich white men that just can't still mean what it says in this modern age.

And we will continue to thwart you.

Suck on that.

And, finally, here is NRA prez and noted ball of rancid cottage cheese Wayne LaPierre, talking up the sheer orgiastic joy of watching the ban expire: "I'm here to promise you that's the end of [the ban]. It's over. On Sept. 14, the sun will rise and it will never see the light of day again as long as we stay strong." Yes, he's actually comparing buying Uzis and AK-47s to a sunrise. And lo, the Earth shuddered, children everywhere felt suddenly soiled and defiled and lightning, sadly, did not strike LaPierre dead on the spot.

It's gotta be tough when even God Gaia isn't on your side, Mark.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to type this column.

It's that nail in your skull, isn't it?

Please?

I am now laughing so hard at the warped hypocritical savagery of it all, at so many Republicans wailing about, you know, the necessity of war on terror and war on drugs and war on gays and war on women's rights and war on just about everything they don't understand, and then how they turn right around and fall prostrate in front of Mr. NRA Lobbyist and say yes yes, what this country really needs goddammit is to get those Uzis back into the hands of angry Americans.

Those would be the Uzis that you admitted above that the law didn't really remove or stop the manufacture of? Those Uzis? And what about that war on gays? I thought we knuckle-draggin' NRA members had secret stashes of gay porn? Like it's a bad thing?

I was going to suggest that you be consistent, but you're a Leftist, and the two seem mutually exclusive.

Laughing. Laughing so very hard. Oh you poor, sad senators, lobbyists, NRA chiefs, stroking your Uzis and cheering your right to own multiple TEC-9s and not caring a whit for how anyone thinks. Or feels. Or intuits. Or loves.

Sure they do, Markie-boy! Sure they do! Say, that nail in your brain really is affecting you. Don't you remember noting that the Right Wing is in the majority? Why else do politicians support anything? It's the only way they get re-elected! And they know it.

Democracy. Ain't it wonderful?

Do you really not see? Do you really not understand the sad dose of malevolence your agenda pumps into the cultural bloodstream? Do you not, finally, when you go to bed at night, get hit with a white-hot realization of what comical, bleak little clowns you are? No, I suppose you don't.

And to that I have but this to say:

Pot? Meet Kettle.