Tag: You Can’t Cure Stupid

Be Realistic in Equipment Selection

While I love most aspects about the gun community, the handful of people advocating the utterly ridiculous really annoys me. On this week’s episode of Chris Rants About Random Members of the Gun Community we’re going to talk those who say weapons lights and laser sights are bad news when it comes to tactics. Over at Gun Nuts Media Caleb has a good post covering how absurd some people are when it comes to illumination and target verification. Caleb points to the following quote by a member of the gun community:

Given the warning of the light, and knowing the gun’s aiming point, this is a perfect setup for an armed intruder to edge up to the wall in a crouch, then reach around and shoot upwards. If t’were I doing the intruding, I would aim a little low, in case the gentleperson upstairs was also crouching. Even if not, a pelvic or thigh hit would ruin the defender’s day, and probably give me the chance for a few more shots.

Far better for the defender to wait around the edge of the stairwell, out of sight, listening for footsteps. [I’ve never run into a set of wooden stairs that didn’t creak somewhat.] Flashlight OFF, laser on, but covered by support hand until last moment. Even without a well-aligned laser pointer, a quick snap-shot or two at point-blank range would resolve the issue quite favorably. An added precaution would be for the defender to be crouched as low as possible [prone would reduce maneuverability excessively].

I completely agree on Caleb’s take of this quote:

I see comments like this all the time, and they drive me up the freakin’ wall every time I see them. I don’t know about you, but my position is going to be pretty effectively given away by me screaming at the 911 operator that someone’s in my house and that they need to get cops here most ricky-tick before I have to shoot this guy.

Now comes the harsh reality, while thinking up random tactical scenarios is fun it’s not at all practical. I enjoy sitting down with friends, drinking a few beers, and coming up with outrageous self-defense scenarios. Yet I know better than to take those alcohol induced scenarios and applying them to real life.

Let’s do some advantage to disadvantage weighing. Being able to see your target and verify it’s a bad guy is a great advantage. Giving away your position by emitting light that allows you to see and verify your target holds litte disadvantage. You likely won’t be dealing with Spetsnaz invading your home and if you are then you’re way in over your head and likely died before realizing anybody broke into your home.

Your aggressor is also going to be in the dark so the light that telegraphs your location and harms your night vision is also going to blind that fucker. Here’s the thing though, as his eyes will be adjusted to total darkness while yours are adjusted to the light he’ll be totally blind for a bit while you can see him perfectly. Having a blind opponent greatly increases your odds of winning a fight, just saying.

If you’re that concerned about using a weapons light because you feel it will give away your position while your loud footsteps and yelling as you bang into things while stumbling around a dark house won’t then you’re an idiot.

The Catholic Church Should Stick to Theology

That quote by Rothbard is the first thing that pops into my head whenever somebody completely ignorant of economics brings forth an economic plan. Needless to say that’s the thought that entered my head when the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church brought for their opinion on how the current economic mess should be fixed:

The Vatican called Monday for radical reform of the world’s financial systems, including the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy.

A proposal by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace calls for a new world economic order based on ethics and the “achievement of a universal common good.” It follows Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 economic encyclical that denounced a profit-at-all-cost mentality as responsible for the global financial meltdown.

After reading that I can say with certainty that the Catholic Church should stick to theology and leave economics to the Austrian school. What their plan entails is basically doing the same thing that got us into this mess but harder. Hell they didn’t even get the cause of the meltdown correct, it wasn’t some mythical “profit-at-all-cost mentality” but government constantly meddling in the free market.

The government’s attempt to boost up the housing market was just another failure in a long line of economic idiocy. Let’s also not forget labor laws put into place that makes many laborious tasks in the United States outrageously expensive. Then there are the endless Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that make the construction of a manufacturing facility within the United States almost impossibly expensive. Cheap credit was granted to those who obviously couldn’t pay back the loans which did a huge number of the financial market. I could go on listing various government failures that got us into this mess but I think you get the point.

I believe it is a sign of insanity to try the exact same thing again and expect different results. If you place your hand on a hot stove it’s going to burn every fucking time, and if you allow central planners to meddle with the free market the economy is going to collapse every fucking time. Central planning is what ultimately destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union which caused the entire state to come crashing down. European Union central planners are in a real mess right now hoping the economy of Germany is strong enough to bailout the other member countries. China had to create Special Economic Zones which allow more free market practices to advance their economy.

Creating a “world economic order” is going to take the problems currently facing most developed countries around the world, amplify them, and cause far more widespread destruction than we’re experiencing now.

When you lack knowledge in a specific subject it is best to not offer advice regarding that subject.

The Obama Campaign Blame Game Continues

Members of the Obama Campaign really love to use the three year-old tactic of blaming somebody else for their failures. Take for instance Jesse Jackson’s latest rant:

“President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

“Jackson added that his $804 billion stimulus plan is the only way to solve the unemployment crisis. “I support the jobs plan. I support the president’s re-election. I support Barack Obama,” he said. “But at this hour, we need a plan that meets the size and scope of the problem to put the American people to work.”

No Jackson, the only way to solve the unemployment crisis is to get the government out of the economy. Starting immediately the government needs to repeal every rule, regulation, and control they’ve placed on economic actors and let them prosper. The Federal Reserve needs to be dismantled and this country needs to return to sound money chosen by the free market. Anybody who believes the government can produce jobs desperately needs to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

“We’ve got to go further. I support what [Obama] does. Clearly, Republicans are not going to be for it but if the administration can handle administratively what can be done, we should pursue it. And if there are extra-constitutional opportunities that allow the president administratively to put the people to work, he should pursue every single one of them,” Jackson suggested.

President Obama’s jobs bill was defeated in the Democratic-controlled Senate on Tuesday and has not been voted on in the Republican-controlled House.

Emphasis mine. Yes it’s obviously the Republican’s fault that the jobs bill failed to pass in the Democrat controlled Senate. I’m sure it had nothing to do with Democrat Harry Reid blocking the vote either.

Misleading Titles are Misleading

I love reading through Think Progress because so much of what they post is blatantly wrong. It’s kind of like Fox News except for progressives in that they’ll do and say anything in order to attack their opposition, Republicans. A person I know, who adamantly hates Ron Paul, posted the following story which is titled, “Ron Paul: Greater Access To Birth Control Makes A ‘Mockery’ Of Christians.”

When reading the title you’re obviously lead to believe Ron Pauls stated that greater access to birth control makes a mockery of Christians. Here’s what he actually said:

Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration — not mockery.

While the title leads you to believe he said one thing what he actually said was the arguments against birth control brought forth by Christians should be considered instead of mocked. I know a great number of people who simply hate anything to do with religion and if a person makes an argument based on religious beliefs they instantly reject it as false and start up the old mockery engine. Although I don’t believe religious arguments should be the basis of any policy besides religious ones, there is absolutely no reason to completely ignore an argument simply because somebody is making it based on religious beliefs.

I’m sure we can all agree that murder is wrong and most religions have some kind of dogma against the act of murder. Whether you claim an all powerful deity in the sky told humans not to murder each other or that reason lead most people to the understanding that dying sucks and thus killing each other isn’t productive is irrelevant. The bottom line is murder is bad for society and thus we’ve implemented various rules against the act.

Where’s Darwin When You Need Him

Why is it when we need the ghost of Charles Darwin the most it’s nowhere to be found:

Getting lost in a corn maze is supposed to be fun.

But it turned into a nightmare for a Massachusetts couple who got so lost that they had to be rescued by the police.

It all started late Monday afternoon, when the couple entered a corn maze at Connors Farm in Danvers, Mass., about 23 miles north of Boston.

After about an hour in the maze, darkness began to fall. The couple, who were there with their 3-week-old baby, were unable to find a way out. As the mosquitoes started to descend, they placed a desperate call to 911 asking to be rescued.

The Danvers police released audio of the call.

Here’s an edited transcript:

Woman in tears: Hi, I just called. I’m still stuck at Connors Farms. I don’t see anybody. I’m really scared. It’s really dark and we’ve got a 3-week-old.

Police officer: Your husband is with you?

Woman: Yes. But my baby…

Police officer: A police officer is on the way. Can you put your husband on the phone?

Husband: I see lights over there at the place, but we can’t get there, we’re smack right in the middle of the corn field.

Woman: I don’t know what made us do this, it was daytime when we came in, we thought if we came in someone would come in and find us… We can hear [the police officers]… Oh, my goodness. The mosquitoes are eating us alive, and I never took my daughter out, this is the first time. Never again.

Woman: This is embarrassing.

The family was lost in a corn maze so they decided to call 911… how fucking stupid can somebody be? I’m actually shocked that this lady remember to breathe. Just stop and think about this for a moment, between the woman and her husband the couple didn’t have enough brain cells between the two of them to determine the best way out of the corn maze would have been to pick a direction and start walking straight. Corn isn’t concrete, it doesn’t form a solid barrier you are unable to pass through.

Demands of the Mentally Deranged

Recently an Occupy Wall Street protester posted a list of demands. As I stated in my article covering the local OccupyMN movement these types of protests are composed of a great number of individuals with varying grievances. It is unfair to state any set of demands is attributed to the entire movement but alas the recently posted set of demands are being promoted by a great number of the participants so I thought it would be fun to go through the demands one by one and point out the complete failure of logic.

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org.

Stating that the Mises Institute and Fox News are in any way comparable demonstrates the complete ignorance of the person posting that note. One is a news organization that panders to its neo-conservative audience while the other is one of the few sources of real scholarly economic knowledge and libertarian philosophy.

Anyways we know what level of idiocy we’re dealing with here so let’s move onto the demands:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages.

Oh wow… at least the author presented his complete ignorance from the get go. First of all free trade isn’t the problem with our economy, government regulations are. The author stated other countries have wage and environmental regulatory advantages so the United States government needs to respond by enacting further regulations to offset the disadvantage created by their current regulations. I’m guessing if the author’s house was burning down he’d try dousing the blaze in gasoline in an attempt to improve the situation.

While current economic conditions are one of the most common complaints being presented at these occupations, many of the most vocal complainers obviously have no knowledge in the field of economics. Perhaps they should read some articles on that irresponsible Mises Institute website. Also, why not throw in another rather arbitrary demand:

Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

How did the author come up with $20.00 an hour? Also the author further demonstrates his economic ignorance by not realizing minimum wage laws is part of the reason unemployment in this country is as high as it is. Jacking up the minimum wage to $20.00 and hour would only create one of two outcomes; either it would cause a majority of businesses to fail causing even higher unemployment or it would cause the price of all goods to increase as an offset to the new influx of money into the economy (this is called inflation). Do you think McDonald’s will continue selling $0.99 burgers if they have to pay every employee $20.00 an hour? If they did they would fail, if they didn’t the cost of their burgers would increase drastically.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

This makes sense. Government regulations is what ultimately cause the massive increase in healthcare costs so the author’s solution is to… give the government more control over the healthcare industry? If the author actually knew anything about economics, healthcare, and liberty he would advocate the government remove itself completely from the healthcare industry and allow the free market to find viable solution it did back in the day when mutual aid societies were still allowed by the state to exist.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

If people are no longer required to work in order to survive what will motivate them to produce the goods and services needed by society? Would you work your ass off farming if you knew simply sitting on your ass would allow you to draw enough income to live? Most people would not and this is ultimately the problem with communism. If nobody has to work nobody will work and if nobody is working to produce the needs of society the needs of society will not exist. You can’t eat if nobody is producing food, you won’t have shelter if nobody builds it, and you won’t have clean drinking water if nobody takes care of sanitation.

Demand four: Free college education.

There is no such thing as a free college education, somebody has to pay for it. What the author probably means is, “Force all the people wealthier than me to pay for my college education.” Somebody has to pay the teachers, maintain the facilities, and provide the supplies needed to keep a college running.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

How? The only viable alternative source of energy that will meet the current and future needs of our society is nuclear. Nuclear energy is basically verboten so we continue to rely on the only viable alternative, fossile fuels.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Seriously, who the fuck is supposed to pay for all of this? Where is that $1 trillion going to come from? Why was $1 trillion chosen instead of another arbitrary number? Did the author do a study? If so, where is the study?

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

It’s amazing that the exact same amount of money needed for infrastructure is also needed for ecological restoration. That’s so convenient it must be an arbitrarily selected number that the author thought was sufficiently big to fix any problem.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Umm… it’s currently illegal for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their race or gender. Perhaps the author means we should make all forms of racial and gender discrimination illegal. That would be great because I would absolutely love to receive some maternity leave even though I’m completely incapable of becoming pregnant. We could force white supremicists to converse with minorities at the point of a gun because they wouldn’t further forge their irrational hatred or anything.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Wait… the author wants to restrict free trade but also wants to make it legal for anybody to enter the country and work without hinderance? I love being for what I’m against as well.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

How exactly is that going to fix the problem of election fraud? The primary problems encountered in this country stem from either idiots too stupid to properly fill out the ballot as instructed or straight up fraud via people voting multiple times. Our problems run much deeper than a simple inability to counter ballots correctly.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Instantly all financiers go out of business and those wanting to get a loan for a home, piece of necessary equipment, or to expand their business are unable to. Since businesses are unable to expand they are unable to hire more employees and thus unemployment increases when those involved in the finance market suddenly find themselves without jobs. People who would have become successful entrepreneurs and flooded the market with new and amazing products sudden find themselves unable to start a business because no institution exists to loan them the money they need. Other currently established businesses will then start to fail because a very expensive piece of equipment critical to their operations breaks down and they are unable to get a loan for a replacement.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Why? No, I’m dead serious, what the fuck is this supposed to accomplish?

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Is there going to be an equal right to vote yourself exempt from a union? If you want to voluntarily come together and form a union that’s cool, I full support you in your endeavor. Personally I prefer to represent myself or hire another individual with my own money who exclusively represents me and my interests.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

No, those demands will create a new economic dark age of record high unemployment rates, starvation, and pestilence.

I’m glad to see a lot of opposition to these demands in the comments section. Since I understand the nature of these occupations I realize these demands are not representative of anybody besides the author and the people who decide to sign onto them. With that said the media doesn’t have the same understanding and they are going to take these demands as though they apply to the entire movement. That is to say the media will state these demands are wanted by everybody currently occupying Wall Street and it will discredit the movement as a whole.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad people are finally pissed off enough to stand up and take action. It’s refreshing to see American people doing something besides sitting on their asses complaining about the current condition of the economy, corruption in the government, and disagreements with current socially accepted norms. With that said, the protesters need to realize that the media is going to take anything said by a crazy participant and run with it. When that happens others in the movement needs to loudly declare that no single individual represents the entire movement and statements made by individuals can only be applied to those individuals.

Sometimes Stupid Hurts

It’s no secret that I’m a strong opponent of socialism. Socialism is a social and economic system that can only be achieved through the use of coercion. Yet I read a lot of socialist writings as I’m not one to relegate myself solely to material that support my viewpoint. Usually such material is at least well written and can be said to make an argument. Yet there is material I run across that’s so absurdly dumb that I can’t help but tear it apart. This post is about on of those absurdly dumb writings that I saw and knew right away would be excellent blog fodder.

This essay attempts to argue that jobs are obsolete. Even the most devout socialists I know acknowledge that work needs to get done and thus jobs are necessary; they just believe people will eventually perform jobs because they are socially necessary, not because they are profitable. The essay opens with the following:

I hate jobs. Not just my job – its actually pretty sweet.

This is the authors way of saying, “Hey if my boss is reading this please don’t fire me! My job and you are the only exceptions in the entire universe for my hatred of jobs and bosses!” If your essay states, “Why am I upset at jobs? Because we don’t need them anymore.” then you damn well better not ruin your argument by claiming your jobs is somehow the exception.

This author does something very special, something even anti-gunners seldom accomplish so well, he invalidates his entire argument within the opening statements or the essay:

But now less than 1% of the US population grows food for the other 99% PLUS many other countries. I”d say the days of horse and plow are over.

Although the author claims that jobs are unnecessary he also states that somebody produces food. Food production is indeed a job, and a very necessary one at that. The very fact that there are farmers producing enough food for all is what allows the rest of society to work on other tasks. Famers producing food for the nation is a perfect example of distribution of labor.

I wouldn’t ridicule this part so much if the author gave some kind of alternative to jobs. Had the essay at least mentioned that farming could be completely replaced with automation (which it currently can’t) I would just roll my eyes and move along. Instead the author says jobs are unnecessary while acknowledging that somebody has to produce food. The author’s argument gets more absurd from there:

All recently created jobs are fulfilling artificial needs. The fastest growing industry in the past decade was the financial industry. Completely false and outside our realm of human needs. All jobs created since the 80s are like smoke. They’re here for a little while, hanging in the air, but soon they dissipate. They’re not sustainable because they’re based on artificial, socially created “needs” like an HDTV, 401K, computers or fashionable clothing.

All recently created jobs are fulfilling artificial needs… except farmers, employees of water treatment facilities, construction workers who build our shelters, employees in the medical field, people who invent mechanisms for preserving food so that we have something to eat when crops are not ready to harvest, etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that all jobs created since the 1980s are simply fulfilling artificial social needs.

What the author doesn’t see is the fact that our society has done such a good job of providing for the needs of the majority of people that we have been able to redirect an immense amount of resources towards wants. Although HDTVs, computers, and fashionable clothing are not needs they are wants and those wants are being fulfilled because other people are working jobs that provider for our needs. So, who wants to see the author invalidate his own argument in one line? I do:

And the world only needs so many doctors, police and firefighters. So what are the rest of us to do in our useless, pointless jobs that merely exist to make some rich guy more money? How do we free ourselves?

Jobs are unnecessary because we only need so many doctors, police officers, and firefighters. Wait a minute, those are all jobs. How can jobs be unnecessary and necessary at the same time? That’s like saying a fish isn’t a fish but is a fish. What can I expect from an author who doesn’t understand basic biology though:

Well we could start by realizing that jobs turn our bodies into a debt that we must work to repay. Our hunger, our biological need for a warm place to sleep is used against us.. Our own bodies, our very own biological processes, are used as leverage to FORCE us to work.

Damn ourselves for being biologically dependent on outside sources of energy and a relatively stable environment! The fact that these biological needs are being used to force us into needing food and shelter is a travesty! No other lifeforms on the planet have this problem… oh, wait.

Nobody is forcing you to work (at least in the United States, some countries such as the former Soviet Union actually had laws against showing up late for work or being absent entirely). If you wish to go homestead a piece of land and survive by subsistence farming then you may be able to find a plot of land to do so (if the state allows you to of course). The only person forcing you to work is you, if you committed suicide you’d no longer have to provide for your biological needs and thus would be free from having to work. Still I think the most idiotic statement in the entire essay is the following line:

Now what has happened since the abolition of slavery? We’ve inserted a middle man (money) between us and our access to basic life necessities like food and shelter.

Apparently the author has never cracked open a history book because if he had he’d know that money was in use well before slavery was abolished. Also the following is absolutely false:

By eradicating slavery we’ve actually made ourselves EASIER to control through work and jobs because if one controls the money one controls the labor power of the entire society.

I think it’s quite a bit easier to control somebody using force than by offering them money in exchange for their labor. If I put a gun to your head and told you to either till my garden or die I’d have far fewer complications than if I offered you $10.00 an hour and had to worry about your quitting and perusing a better offer elsewhere. Controlling people through their voluntary action isn’t control at all.

We also have the illusion of choice at our jobs. We think we’re free because we get to pick our favorite flavor of slavery. But that doesnt change the fact that we all NEED jobs to live, to access basic life necessities.

Unless you subsistence farm, then you don’t need a job to live (well I guess subsistence farming is a job technically). The bottom line is somebody has to produce your biological needs or you will die. You can either choose to provide for your own biological needs or exchange your labor with another who will produce your needs while you do something else.

One last point and then I”m out. Prisoners. These people BREAK the law, are a danger to society, yet they get free food and shelter day in day out and dont work a single day.

They aren’t getting free anything, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. I’m not a fan of the “justice” system here in the United States were we incarcerate anybody and everybody who’s done something naughty (as defined by the state). While it’s completely incorrect to say prisoners get all of those amenities for free I will agree that it’s wrong that they get those amenities at no charge to them. Anyways let’s close this up:

If AFL-CIO is gonna fight a fight why not fight to reduce people’s dependence on jobs instead of INCREASING people’s dependence on jobs.

How? Seriously this entire article talks about jobs being unnecessary (except when they’re necessary) but offers absolutely no alternatives. If you’re going to make an argument it’s generally considered poor form to invalidate that argument right away. It’s considered even worse form if you offer no alternatives to what you’re claiming is wrong.

Finally to answer any questions about why I spent so much time writing a rebuttal to an obscure and poorly thought out argument I will say this, it amused me. That’s what this site is about, amusing me. I am glad others find my act of self amusement interesting enough to read everyday though.

Some Good Old Pants Crapping Hysteria

Everywhere there are rights being restored, every place people are regaining their ability to properly defend themselves, there will be anti-gunners there to vomit out a stream of prophecy that has never come to fruition. Days of our Trailers points out another Joyce Foundation funded hysterical article written about Wisconsin’s new right-to-carry law:

No one knows exactly how many people will apply for permits, but it seems likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine that — hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed weapons. Is that supposed to make us feel safer?

Considering every state that has passed right-to-carry laws has seen no notable increase in violent crime and some have even seen a decrease, yeah I think it is supposed to make you feel safer. I can also easily imagine what a state with hundreds of thousands of people walking around carrying guns will be like; it’ll probably be just like my state where tens of thousands of people walk around carry guns. That is to say it’ll be just fine.

While concealed is radical change in Wisconsin, passage of the law was disappointing to many gun zealots, including Wisconsin Gun Owners and the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Pam Galloway.

Their extreme agenda calls for so-called “constitutional carry,” on the theory that the Constitution gives people the right to carry guns any time, any place, with no permits, background checks, or training required.

It’s not really a theory, the second amendment is pretty clear and if you ever spent time reading up on its history you’d know that. Of course you won’t spend time reading up on the history of the second amendment and thus will simply scream about it being related solely to well organized militias even if the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you (and they’re not exactly a bastion of freedom and rights).

Once the new law has been on the books for awhile, you can bet there will be attempts to amend it and eliminate the permit and training requirements.

Yes and if the permit and training requirements are eliminated Wisconsin will notice the same problems as other states that have no permit or training requirements… which is to say those states haven’t noticed any problems at all. Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming all have so-called constitutional carry laws and none of them have had any problems so far. Feel free to come back when any of these states start having problems due to their “loose” carry laws.

Will Wisconsin legislators be strong enough to resist the gun lobby, and the National Rifle Association over the long haul?

What he really meant to ask is if the Wisconsin legislators will be strong enough to resiste the people. Oh, wait he has a survey [PDF] that proves the people are against constitutional carry. Wait a minute this survey was done by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), another Joyce Foundation shill. I could no more trust this survey to accurately portray Wisconsin’s overall opinion on constitutional carry than anti-gunners could trust a survey funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

See the survey was performed by Third Eye Strategies whose website states the following:

A national public opinion research organization, Third Eye Strategies provides strategic guidance to elect Democratic candidates and to help nonprofit organizations advance progressive policies through Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiative campaigns.

Surveys are interesting tools as they can be crafted to get predetermined results. For example I could take a survey with completely neutral worded questions and get desired results by manipulating my sample. For example if I wanted a survey to reflect an overall displeasure with governor Scott Walker I would poll people walking around the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On the other hand if I wanted my survey to reflect an overall approval of Scott Walker I would likely perform the survey at a tea party rally. Seriously how can you trust an organization to be neutral when they have the following statement on their values page:

And most importantly, working for the election of Democratic candidates to local, state, and federal offices.

Getting Democratic candidates elected is their most important value, not providing correct data free of manipulation. Just stop to think about that and realize that anti-gun beliefs are much stronger with the progressive movement. Basically I’m saying that the survey linked in the main article is meaningless. Speaking of the main article lets continue with it:

In the current session, a so-called Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced with 25 Assembly sponsors and 15 Senators on board (although one of those Senators, Randy Hopper, is no longer with us, having lost a recall election last month.) Some call it a Shoot-to-Kill or Shoot First (ask questions later) bill, since it virtually gives a license to homeowners to kill anyone who breaks into their premises and who appears to be threatening them — even if that person is unarmed.

I’m at a total loss as to what is wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to a homeowner in a case where they took defensive measure against somebody broke into their home. The bill doesn’t grant immunity for murder, it simply states that somebody breaking into your home can be considered a clear and present danger. After all if an unknown person has bypassed my locked door and is moving about inside my home what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It’s pretty obvious that person isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.

We are getting closer and closer to the Six-Gun Law of the old West, where your friends did tote a gun.

Considering that the old West wasn’t all that violent [PDF] I’m not seeing a problem with this.

Once again an anti-gunner uses hysteria and hyperbole in a vain attempt to promote a failed ideology. Instead of advocating for the disarmament of law abiding people perhaps you guys would be more productive if you advocating for disarmament violent individuals. After all my gun isn’t a problem for anybody except those meaning to cause me or mine harm.

Thanks Bernanke

Against all logic Ben Bernanke has come out and stated that the Federal Reserve will be performing yet another stimulus plan and needless to say the stock markets aren’t taking the news too well:

US and Asian shares have fallen after the Federal Reserve launched a scheme – dubbed Operation Twist – to help stimulate the flagging US economy.

The Fed will sell about $400bn (£260bn) worth of bonds maturing within three years and buy longer-term debt.

They should have called it Operation Rolling Thunder since the Federal Reserve’s plan appears to be an attempt to bomb the world markets into submission through the use of bad monetary policy. What the Federal Reserve seems to believe is that they can fix the problem they created by using the same strategies that landed us in this depression in the first place. I’m guessing Bernanke doesn’t have a stove in his home since he seems like the kind of person who would touch a hot burner and never realized that touching it again will lead to more pain.

If you guys want to fix the economy then get the fuck out of the way and let the free market correct for your constant interferences.

We’re For State’s Rights, You Know, Except When We’re Not

It’s funny to watch the inconsistencies of the modern statist movement. On one hand they constantly cite the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution to justify using the federal government to force their agenda onto the individual states and people of the Union. When the coin turns however and the federal government’s force appears to be directed at upholding an amendment in the Constitution to protect the rights of the people the statists all of the sudden become in favor of states’ rights. I’m sorry to inform you statist bastards that you can’t have it both ways, you must be consistent with your message or it becomes meaningless.

Case in point the legislation presently on the table that would make carry permits in one state good in every state that recognizes some form of firearms carry. This case is one of those where the statist believe the individual states should maintain their rights:

Some bad ideas refuse to die. Include in that category an extreme proposal percolating in the House to strip states of their authority to decide who may carry a concealed loaded firearm. This gift to the gun lobby, the subject of a hearing last week by a House Judiciary subcommittee, is nearly identical to a provision the Senate defeated by a narrow margin two years ago.

Every state but Illinois makes some allowance for concealed weapons. The eligibility rules vary widely and each state decides whether to honor another state’s permits.

In other words the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution grant the federal government complete power over the individual states… except when they don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America has a pesky little amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that right has been incorporated through a Supreme Court case. Incorporation of a right is a fancy way of saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and state governments.

Even though a Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court case state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms the statists suddenly oppose using the Constitution to force federal government will onto the individual states. You can’t have it both ways; either the Constitution is a document that is supposed to grant federal power over the individual states or the Constitution is supposed to protect states from federal power. Pick one message and stick with it instead of changing that message whenever it becomes inconvenient to your overall agenda.