Recently I saw a column posted a couple of places, one of them was Facebook. The person that posted it happened to be the President of TZP. He commented that the novel A Clockwork Orange was prophetic. Honestly, I had never read the book, not in school and not on my own. So I read the column and then hit the (occasionally) reliable Wikipedia.
As it turns out a Clockwork Orange is a pretty accurate description. The novel is about a gang of boys who love violence and hurting people. They have their own language, called Nadsat a mix of Anglo-Russian. The characters all sounded like we would be much better off if they spent a loooong time in Sheriff Joe Arpio’s custody.
While searching to find out what A Clockwork Orange was about, I ran across a movie review from Roger Ebert. I kind of doubt Ebert is much of a conservative, but I could be wrong. Anyway, the thing that interested me about his review was how he accepted the anti-hero of the movie, Alex. Here’s a couple of excerpts from the review.
I don’t know quite how to explain my disgust at Alex (whom Kubrick likes very much, as his visual style reveals and as we shall see in a moment). Alex is the sort of fearsomely strange person we’ve all run across a few times in our lives — usually when he and we were children, and he was less inclined to conceal his hobbies. He must have been the kind of kid who tore off the wings of flies and ate ants just because that was so disgusting. He was the kid who always seemed to know more about sex than anyone else, too — and especially about how dirty it was.
Now Alex isn’t the kind of sat-upon, working-class anti-hero we got in the angry British movies of the early 1960s. No effort is made to explain his inner workings or take apart his society. Indeed, there’s not much to take apart; both Alex and his society are smart-nose pop-art abstractions. Kubrick hasn’t created a future world in his imagination — he’s created a trendy decor. If we fall for the Kubrick line and say Alex is violent because “society offers him no alternative,” weep, sob, we’re just making excuses.
Interesting. Because how many movies and video games now have a “anti-hero” as the “hero”? To be honest, I don’t really go to movies. There’s not much I want to see, and I loathe to give some left-wing loon money they are going to use to advance a bully pulpit to work against me and the things I believe in. And, lack of time plays a very small part. But here is a review from 1972, and in it the reviewer is condemning the effort to portray a very bad person in a good light, and to make excuses for his behavior. How often do we see that now? Rachel Madcow? Chrissy “Tingly-leg” Matthews and on ad nauseam? What was decried by a liberal in 1972 has become the norm now.
Trost said police arrived at the station in less than 5 minutes, but that the robberies took place in just seconds.
The gang then retreated in the the East Oakland neighborhood before the police arrived. Those security cameras that track us all and are suppose to keep us safer? Yep, they recorded the whole thing. Didn’t stop it of course, but they recorded it. Did BART then release the video so they could catch those responsible? No. In fact, they didn’t even warn passengers or tell them what had happened. Nor did they release the information via Twitter, Facebook or their phone app or…any of the media platforms they have. They did say it was recorded on the police blotter. Oh well, I’m sure everyone checks that before the head to the station. In the past I guess they have released video with the perpetrators faces obscured, since they are juveniles. How that is suppose to help catch anyone I’m rather unsure. But they didn’t even do that. I’m kind of curious why they haven’t. But one thing we can be sure of, since California is determined to be a gun free “sanctuary” state, all the residents of California can feel safe and secure. Yep, safe and secure.
Do I know these people are who committed the crime? Of course not! But here’s what I DO know, they are out there, somewhere. And always remember, when seconds count, no matter how good they are, the police are just minutes away.
The state of Virginia has an interesting piece of legislation in play right now. HB 1852 allows someone with protective orders to carry a concealed handgun after they apply for a permit. Normally you cannot carry a gun until after you have received your permission slip, and that can take up to 45 days. Days you may, or may not have. The emergency permit is good for 45 days, and you can only utilize the “by-pass” if you have applied for a permit.
The bill passed the Senate by a 27-13 vote. It had already been approval by the House of Delegates.
“Governor” McAuliffe had a chance to help domestic abuse victims with similar legislation last year, but he chose to side with the abusers and vetoed it. His aide says he plans to again prevent victims from being able to obtain life saving tools in an emergency situation this year. Of course McAuliffe is not the only one siding with abusers. A confused Demoncrat named Favola also took a very firm stand against women:
“We already have a victim who’s vulnerable and very concerned and anxious, and we’re going to allow this person to bypass whatever requirements we might have for concealed handgun permits – one of which is training – to go ahead and get the gun,” she said.
“We should base public policy on evidence-based research. Folks who have studied this issue, folks who have advocated for the rights of women, folks who have spent many years evaluating domestic violence situations tell us that it is not wise to interject more firearms into a situation that is already volatile,” Favola added. “In fact, when a firearm exists in a situation of domestic violence, it’s actually the woman who is five times more likely to die.”
I would say probably not if the gun is in HER hand. So this Favola thing thinks it’s far better to allow the victims to remain vulnerable, anxious and concerned. I guess no one pointed out to her there was nothing to prevent the woman from getting her gun and taking it and getting training if she needed it, or wanted more. I rather suspect if a woman feels the need to get a gun to protect herself, she will want to be able to use it effectively. But that thought process may be too deep or McAuliffe and Favola. But they probably have taxpayer funded protection don’t they? They’ve never known that fear, so it doesn’t exist does it?
Prohibit acts of violence, force, or threat or criminal offenses that may result in injury to person or property.
Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner as the judge deems necessary for the health and safety of the Petitioner.
Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner’s family or household members as the judge deems necessary for their health and safety.
Order any other conditions the judge may deem necessary to prevent acts of violence, force, or threat, criminal offenses resulting in injury to person or property, or communication or other contact of any kind by the respondent.
And what does one have to do to obtain such a magical piece of paper?
Several forms must be completed to obtain a preliminary protective order. These forms are available at the civil clerk’s office, and can be completed at the court or taken home to complete.
You must complete the forms on your own, and you must be present to file them.
When all of the appropriate forms have been completed, the clerk will present the petition to a judge. They will review the forms and make a determination whether to issue the preliminary protective order or not. If approved, a court date will be set within 15 days and notice of the hearing will be served on the respondent.
Fifteen days, wow. But you can get an emergency order. They also helpfully tell you what to do in the event that the order is violated:
You should immediately call 911 and tell them you have a protective order and the respondent is violating it. You may also file violation charges with the magistrate.
I guess they mean if you live, then I guess you wait for the police to show up with their guns to save you.
This restraining order thing is interesting.
The Independent Women’s Forum points out how restraining orders can become a tool in a woman’s bag of dirty tricks. By that I mean that some women get a restraining order to gain the upper hand in a contentious divorce. The man gets booted out of the house, possibly loses unfettered access to his children, and it may give her a leg up in court for division of property. It can also cost an innocent man his Second Amendment rights. TV host and liberal wing-nut David Letterman once had a restraining order issued against him. The judge didn’t really think wing-nut had done anything, but the woman had filled out the paperwork correctly.
Security specialist Gavin de Becker says in his book The Gift of Fear restraining orders are “homework assignments police give to women to prove they’re really committed to getting away from their pursuers”, they “clearly serve police and prosecutors”, but “they do not always serve victims”.
How effective are restraining orders? From Psychology Today I learned they work about half the time. They work for people that tend to follow the rules. If the guy is saying “If I can’t have you no one will” he quite possibly will not care one whit about that piece of paper. The victim may or may not be consistent in reporting violations, the police may or may not be consistent in their approach to reported violations. If the victims has been inconsistent in reporting, they will probably be more inconsistent in their response.
The rest I’m going to pretty much quote:
Problem Four: Sometimes the presence of a Temporary Restraining Order makes what was a dormant situation instantly worse. Gavin de Becker says “Sometimes when we engage we enrage.” This means that if the subject has not bothered the victim prior to this point, getting him served in court with a civil stay-away order may suddenly give him a reason to become a never-ending irritant to the victim. “You’re giving me a restraining order? I’ll give you a reason to give me a restraining order!” and then the games begin.
Problem Five: Are the police, the domestic violence advocates, and the victim using a Temporary Restraining Order as the primary placating tool/security blanket, when a better plan exists? Sometimes it makes good safety sense for the victim to move away. When I was a dv investigator, we often told victims to get a TRO, as part of our usual attempts at due diligence and giving them all of their options. In retrospect, it often made the situation worse and created a false sense of security that once the order was served, the police were now somehow waiting right around the corner to help.
Some domestic violence victims participate in their own murders by not reading the warning signs, not trusting their intuition, and over-relying on the ever-flawed criminal justice system for help. The life they have to protect is their own.
Move away? Move away? Someone who is already a victim has to move away from job, family, friends and whatever support system they have? So reality strikes, the restraining order is every bit as strong as, well, a piece of paper.
Another state has a similar bill going through their legislature. Indiana has House Bill 1071 which would allow those who have been granted a protective order to use that order to obtain a temporary permit to carry a gun. Those wishing to use the order as a carrying permit must be 21 years old and must follow all regulations to receive an actual concealed carry permit.
A firearms instructor and attorney, Guy Relford testified that some of the women he has trained have told him that their attackers went away when they saw the gun, they didn’t have to shoot, they went away. Apparently allowing women the means to defend themselves did not cause blood to run in the streets. Then Demoncrat Summers rode in on her unicorn and stated:
“I think that your energies should be in strengthening up that protective order, doing some other things in a domestic violence situation instead of giving a scared to death woman a gun,” Summers said.
Summers did not dismount her unicorn long enough to specify just HOW she could strengthen a protective order enough that a determined abuser wouldn’t blow that off as well. But, well, hey, she’s a Demoncrat.
So Governor McAuliffe has little regard for the lives of at risk women it seems to me. It appears he is much more concerned about protecting abusers as he is also much more concerned about New York than he is Virginia. So McAuliffe with the help of other Demoncrats is starting a “Binder full of women”, much like Governor Chris Christie has a binder of women. Women like Carol Browne who died due to New Jersey gun laws. A binder of victims who were denied the emergency equipment that could have saved their lives. Or like Castle Rock vs. Gonzalesthe children who are victims when the magical restraining order fails.
Perhaps McAuliffe, various Demoncrats and Governor Christie think domestic violence is funny, that’s it’s all like “Goodbye Earl”. But then, they have taxpayer funded security don’t they? Right, I forgot, the fear and danger isn’t real.
Let’s start with that intent. Marcell claims to believe that firearms are simply built to be deadly destroyers of biological life, and that this is a continuing and progressive trend towards ever more deadly weapons. If that were true, there would be no handguns produced, as long guns can project bigger, faster, more damaging rounds than could — effectively — any handgun. If simple killing were the goal, I’d stick to a AR-15 pattern rifle and a vest full of 30 round magazines, and junk the compact polymer pistol in wimpy 9mm which I do carry everyday.
I don’t carry that handgun to kill. I carry it to defend myself (and others, should the circumstances warrant). My handgun was not designed by Ruger to be the penultimate killing machine. It’s designed to be carried routinely and comfortably and to provide basic protection.
Or take this little number.
Does anyone seriously believe that was designed for anything other than punching holes in paper? One could use it to kill, but so could such a determined person bash in his victim’s skull with Marcell’s coffee mug.
Next, consider Marcell’s fear that all firearms will perform the deadly purpose mistakenly attributed to the inanimate gadgets.
According the CDC, in 2015, 36,252 people died by firearm; that includes homicide and legal intervention (such as self-defense) and accidents. We’ll pretend each death was accomplished with a separate firearm: 36,252 guns.
Conservative estimates of firearms in civilian hands in America range from the wildly implausible 265 million to a more likely 500 million, to a possibly over the top 750 million.
If you studied math, rather than Marcell’s “Studio Art” you probably see where I’m going with this.
36,252 firearms were seemingly used in accordance with the “intent” Marcell believes imbued their design. Out of 265-750 million firearms. If Marcell were correct then — conservatively — 99.98632% of firearms suffered gross design failures: 264,963,748 guns failed to kill anyone (as they are allegedly designed to do).
You’d think that if 60-130 million gun owners (estimates vary as wildly as estimates of firearms) thought their guns had malfunctioned, there would be a monumental class action lawsuit wending its way through the courts. As some anonymous Internet wag noted, “If guns kill people, where are mine hiding the bodies?”
Or, just maybe, those inevitable deadly effects are “containable,” because of the intent of the owners.
There is no “intent” conferred upon firearms. As always, intent resides in the person operating it. Yes, even in negligent or accidental discharges, some had the intent to do something — likely stupid — with the gun.
So Marcell missed two points. Did you notice a third point which he implied?
“A firearm, as a tool, is an instrument that was created with the purpose of eliminating biological life— or killing, if you prefer that term.”
“Killing.” He fails to distinguish between murder and self defense. Or to differentiate between murder and hunting for food. Or murder and putting down a terminally suffering animal. Even in “killing” intent varies. Unless one is a liberal arts student incapable of more than simplistic over-generalizations bearing no resemblance to reality.
If Marcell equates all killing to murder, I wonder what our young student eats. Surely not meat, yet…
And you who feed on nothing but plants Don’t hold your pride so high For plants are living, and just might feel And they take so long to die.
– Fisher’s Chant, Leslie Fish
A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city’s synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.
Johannes Pinnel, a spokesman for the regional court in Wuppertal, outlined the court’s decision in a statement.
Three German Palestinians sought to torch the Wuppertal synagogue with Molotov cocktails in July, 2014. The local Wuppertal court panel said in its 2015 decision that the three men wanted to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel. The court deemed the attack not to be motivated by antisemitism.
Now perhaps in a legal sense, the motivation shouldn’t (but probably does) matter. Attack a building because you hate its occupants or attack a building because you hate the policy of a country and the damage is the same — and in this case blessedly light. The concept of a “hate crime” is Orwellian on the face of it.
But Germany, of all nations, ought to recognize an attack on Jews and Judiasm when it sees one. To tell yourself — and the public — and the perpetrators — that torching a synagogue in Germany is a form of legitimate political protest against Israel is delusional. Either that or it’s excuse-making and enabling.
Yeah, I’ll come back to the ___________! A couple of stories caught my eye the other day and got me to thinking. It happens.
So while I was kind of digging around seeing where I wanted to go with this, I ran across some other interesting things to share with you.
One of the things I was looking at was the number of violent crimes against women. And in the course of looking around for this, I ran across some things I hadn’t realized. For example, all around the world it seems in 2016 there was a wave of acid attacks against women. Acid is thrown onto women. This is in addition to the large rise in the number of sexual assaults against women. Many of them perpetrated by recent “immigrants” or “refugees”. The term used depends on the reporting of the country you are reading about. And terms used are important. For example, the “Judge” that decided the young soldier that shot the pieceful Falestinian that had just stabbed another soldier was not a threat. She stated this clearly by saying the “TERRORIST” was not a threat. Jack Engelhard has some pretty interesting commentary on this.
And what you call a person that perpetrated an attack, back to that bit. Well, in some countries you just don’t. The massive amount of sexual assaults last year in Germany was covered up, by the politicians and the media. It now has it’s own wikipedia page. But then the media and the politicians came to their senses and did the right thing by reporting it. Naw, just kidding. The social media outrage, first of the assaults and then the cover up, was huge, then they couldn’t ignore it. Not so much about protecting women as their image. I mean, what paper wants to be thought of as slimy, or in the same class as the NY Slimes? But at least an explanation was finally found. A helpful prominent muslim imam has this to say. It’s all the women’s fault.
In the wake of the Cologne attacks, a prominent Muslim imam, Sami Abu-Yusuf, told reporters women were to blame because they “dress half naked and wear perfume.”
It’s true, the German papers don’t want to warn women by telling them to look out for “Taharrush gamea”. Not that there is much the women could do about it. In fact, German police won’t tell you who to watch out for, because that would be racist. It’s a top level down policy decision. The police on the street in German said they are used to dealing with drunks around the holidays, but dealing with a mass of men that surround a woman or a few women and assault her? They’re seem to be handling it with the “um, what do we do now?”policy. This policy didn’t seem to work, so the German authorities got more aggressive. They began posting signs in different languages telling the new immigrants it’s not okay to grab a woman’s butt. But where they came from it’s fine. What happened to “respecting other cultures” Germany? The Germans also are having to sort out what to do with the influx of immigrants with child brides. While pedophilia is illegal in Germany, where the immigrants came from it’s not pedophilia. Sort of you say potato, we say potato.
It seemed the Swedish newspapers were very critical of the German newspapers reporting such things. Sweden prides itself of being a feminist supporting state. However, when the reports came out about the assaults on the German women, there was outrage. No, not that the German women had been attacked, but that the newspapers admitted, finally, that it was almost all Merkel’s immigrants who had done it. Then stories of the assaults in Sweden started coming out. Some politicians spoke out against the immigrants and in favor of protecting the women. The National Police Commissioner of Sweden came out and said he was so revolted he vomited. No, not about the women being attacked, but the politician that was speaking out against the immigrants. The rank and file police have said they are afraid to say what is happening.
As a result, immigration cannot be discussed frankly in Sweden. If you mention anything negative about refugees or immigration, you’re accused of playing into the hands of the reviled far-right. As a result, even legitimate concerns are silenced or labelled xenophobic.
And so Sweden has a very different idea of protecting women’s rights, or being a feminist than at least I would.
But the HuffPo has an amazing idea of protecting women’s rights. In a story about violence towards women, and attacks on women it praises Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau because he is such a strong “feminist”. Why? Because he supports funding abortion. Huh? By the same token, President Elect Trump was reviled. Partly because he doesn’t, partly because he said something bad and may have even done it. But in my little mind, there is a massive difference between saying something horribly offensive and throwing acid on a woman, gang raping her or killing her. But to HuffPo, well that’s how it is, that’s what they call respecting women’s rights.
So, when a politician tells you they respect women’s rights? Just be aware that may not mean wheat you think it means.
So, solutions. We need better solutions than Ketchup heiress john kerry produces.
One possible solution? The wearable alarm. No, it can’t call 911, but it can be programmed to call a friend or family member to come find you, or your body, as the case may be. But to some folks, this is a very empowering tool for women to have and use.
But then there is another class out there. This is the class that finds a President Elect who said something disgusting and may have done something disgusting to be the biggest threat women face. A fate more horrible than, well, something like living in a town with like, NO Starbuck$. And they have come up with a weapon so powerful, it boggles the mind. And they are fixin’ to deploy it. OH NO! Not the knitted, pink “pussy power hats”!!!!
I’m sitting here thinking “you could be marching to object to crimes against women, or against women being legislated into being defenseless and disarmed. You could be marching against high taxes on firearms and ammunition that prevent poor people in bad neighborhoods from being able to afford the tools to defend themselves.” Yes, they could do those things that would empower women, that would help women remain safer in these odd and changing times and places. But they aren’t. In fact, I’d guess most of them are against such things.
Words matter, yes they do. The judge’s words “terrorist” giving away what they know about the man that was shot. Words that are left out of police reports and media coverage that keep citizens unaware of a dangerous phenomena that has begun because to tell the truth is racist. Vile words uttered that can’t be taken back no matter what, they are out there. Words matter, yes they do.
But NOTHING is as powerful as the knitted pink pussy power hat. Oh NO, NOT the pink pussy power hat! I’m sure the pattern is on the website somewhere…..I think I’ll stick to something else pink in a higher caliber. But that’s just me, and I’d like to think I’m a higher caliber kind of gal.
Ever since the end of World War II, Europeans have had a fixation in some variation of “hate speech”. It may be something as overt as legally banning neoNazi or neoFascist organizations. It may be prosecuting “revisionist” authors and speakers. Or it may be the general growth, supported by leftist political and academic leaders, of condemning anything not approved as “racism”.
Sadly, rather than directly confront these ideas, and dispose of them by shining a light of critical analysis thereon, and perhaps socially shunning their adherents as dangerous fools or thugs, they instead use the force of government to determine which ideas and advocacy is permissible.
Generally, even deprecating humor, like used so skillfully by, say, Mel Brooks, is set aside for ineffectual forms of censorship. Censorship which only serves to enhance the uncritical mystique of these organizations, authors, movements, and ideas. Worse, the various governments, their abiding elites, and usually, a lick-spittle media, fall in lockstep, with this program.
The convergence of inexorable demographic, economic, and political realities and the growing, militant, and insidious, dependent, underclass presented by the so-called “Syrian Refugee” is creating a huge rift between the native populations of Europe, and their respective governments. Most are not from Syria at all, and most are not, as the term is commonly understood, “refugees”, but why dwell on these little details, right?
This rift has grown to invigorate and legitimize a broad range of “nationalistic” movements, to the horror of the paralyzed establishment organs. The establishment desperately repeats the condemnations of popular sentiments, by labeling them as “racist”, when as often as not, they are nothing of the sort.
Witness the threats and machinations in the face of weakening the idiotic supra-governmental European Union, via “Brexit”. The fact is that this organization, (really, like any government) only serves as a broker to victimizing the stronger and more responsible peoples to the benefit of those less so… with a hefty skim off the top, for good measure.
An important bellwether of this farce is the changing status of the European Jew. Those few Jews who remain in Europe, are increasingly split in two camps:
One; the secular. As in all other lands and ages of the last 3500 years or so, they inexorably fade from history’s stage, via low reproduction, assimilation, andintermarriage. Until they are, simply… gone.
Two; the (at least somewhat) observant. Just as in America, (and Israel, for that matter) they adhere to the principles that make them (to the revulsion of many) “eternal”. They reproduce. They marry among their people. They survive, as a people.
Post-war Europe, out of a sense of guilt, mixed with a desperate need for adaptable, smart, productive, citizens, hitched their wagons to, among others, the few remaining (and, as it happens, largely secular) Jews.
Most of the surviving Jews had left for new lives in America or Israel. The only exception were those held captive by Communism, and ground away mercilessly, in the Soviet Union and its satellites.
Now, with the twin prongs of the “Refugee’s” often violent, and savage, worldview, and the utter ineptitude & hostility, of their governments to address it, made worse by those few legitimate threats within “nationalist” movements, the smart Jews are packing up, and leaving.
Those that remain hide their Jewishness from the public eye, withdraw their children from public schools, avoid synagogue attendance, and often re-double efforts to assimilate into multi-culti, generic, Europeans.
In exchange for this loss, Europe is gaining a huge body of young Jihadis, and welfare recipients, with highly suspect ages – backgrounds – intentions. Sweden has become the Rape Capital of Europe. Denmark is barely better. France and Germany are subject to a wide variety of terror attacks by their new “Culture Enrichers”. Ask the British man on the street about Rotherham.
After two thousand years of abusing Jews, as with the First Muslim Conquests, Europe is receiving a very harsh lesson. And there is little sign that they have learned a thing in all that time.
Although America is not Europe, it shares some of its frailties. Our elites frequently ape the Europeans cultural & political fads. Will we make the same kind of mistakes, as well? Will we also arrange deck-chairs, while _our_ ship slips below the waves?
Before I start, let me get a couple of things out of the way. First, I did not vote for Mr. Trump. Second, I am not in favor of a “Wall”, either actual or metaphoric, for a variety of reasons. Third, I do not fit comfortably in either the “Conservative” or Liberal” political camp in America. Okay, here we go…
Over the weekend a video has been flying about on social media. The original poster says he was in the community room / common area of his apartment or condo complex and it shows two others, a man and a woman berating him continuously for over ten minutes over his “wall” shirt, and ultimately everything about him.
He keeps his cool. He does a poor job (about what most of us would actually do, given the inevitable stifled emotions) verbally defending himself. He repeatedly asks the female to stop touching him, and asks them both repeatedly to leave him alone. To no avail.
If this had happened to me, I might have kept my composure through the first two or three minutes. Ten minutes of this? No way. Sadly, no way. I’m not proud of this, but, ten minutes of this crap?
I also would have gone silent after less than a minute. I would like to think that I’d have the presence of mind to simply call the landlord’s security team and ask for assistance. If that did not scatter them, I probably would have quietly closed up my computer, packed my stuff, and then drug those two people out of the building, saying simply, “Learn when to shut your mouth”.
Lots of discussion has centered on this episode (typically labeled as Liberals accosting a Conservative in California) with the usual “us vs. them” elements, and most notably, the anticipated “An armed society is a polite society”, assertion.
One discussion I was in on addressed the “Armed society” aspect, albeit poorly. It is this idea which I’d like to comment on.
It has been my experience that parts of the country one might describe as “Western” are often as not in the West, geographically. Yet, one aspect common to these areas, and the people who inhabit them, is a far more refined sense of the line between being neighborly, and butting into someone else’s business.
Like it or not, humans both want to live in social settings, and yet have a large degree of autonomy. When that balance is struck, we do well together. When not, excuses for creating or strengthening institutions like the State, start to gain credibility. To everyone’s detriment.
The episode in the video above comes about when there is an imbalance between the freedom to act and having to experience the consequences of that act. If those two expressed their displeasure at the shirt (even vigorously) and then went on with their lives, it would amount to nothing.
The problem is that they felt free to harangue him without limit. And they were correct in that risk analysis. The risk of experiencing harsh consequences for their verbal assault, then and there, were nill. The law, if present, would quite possibly go after him. At least they would draw moral equivalence between the bullies and their target.
The presence of guns is not the cause of a “polite society”. It is an emblem of one. It says, especially if carried openly, “I am ready and willing to live as a free man or woman, accept the consequences, and refuse to shunt off my responsibilities on others.”
Personally, and socially, the further we stray away from that, the more likely it is that the scales will be balanced with, often over-reaching, violence.
This post appeared first on TZP’s Monday email alert.
Plans to ban guns based on appearance march on. Late last month, Washington Ceasefire and Ceasefire Oregon announced a joint effort to get “assault weapons” banned in both states.
Specifically, they want to create a “West Coast Wall.” Building on California’s existing bans, they want to make the entire U.S. west coast … um, wait, what do they want to make it? I live here and I don’t even know. More on that in a moment.
The groups say they want legislation that uses “Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons as a guide.”
Whether they chose Connecticut because there’s something they particularly like about that state’s instant-felon creation machinery or because Connecticut = Sandy Hook = emotions overriding thought, I don’t know. At a glance, that state’s AW law seems to focus on banning — very strictly — the usual “shoulder thing that goes up” type features, and standard-capacity magazines, as well as a list of specific firearms and their derivatives.
One thing the Ceasefire activists surely do like is that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld Connecticut’s law, giving them a leg up in the enforcement department if they’re able to impose their legislative will.
But the thing I wonder about is that “West Coast Wall.” What is its exactly? How will it work? One can merely speculate.
Is it a wall as in “blockade”? Do they believe that somehow they’ll succeed in locking the entire west coast of the U.S. so that those eeeevil assault weapons won’t be able to get in past the Golden Gate, the Columbia, or Puget Sound? Or so that, on the eastern boundaries, all those murderous, rampaging weapons will be forced to pile up uselessly at the borders of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, unable to penetrate the True Blue West?
Is it a wall as in prison? I suppose. In a way. Surely they hope (without actually calculating the numbers of felons or the cost of imprisoning us all) to put every violating gun owner behind bars. But hasn’t anybody told them how laughably porous prison walls are when it comes to contraband getting in and out? Can they actually imagine that decreeing guns to be illegal will make them go away?
Is it a wall as in “wall of noise”? Before announcing their big plans in July, the combined state Ceasefire groups polled a whopping 310 people in Washington and Oregon and concluded that 65 percent of apparently everybody favors banning undefinable but obviously scary “assault weapons.” Sixty-five percent is short of the 90 percent that’s become the standard claim for these things. So maybe the activists figure that a West Coast Wall of clamorous propaganda is needed to bump up that figure.
Is it a wall of nonsense? Can we sit down with these Ceasefire people? Can we find out whether they can tell a muzzle brake from a folding stock? Shall we listen to them tell us that magazine bans work because once the “bullets” in the ‘zines are all shot, there are no more magazines left? Shall we ask them how one of those “shoulder things” endangers lives?
Or is it a wall as in “Berlin Wall”? A wall that enables the few to impose their will on the many? A wall that authorizes government enforcers to arrest and kill harmless people, a wall that’s feared but always defied, a wall whose very existence ultimately reveals the failure of the builders’ own philosophy?
“West Coast Wall.” Has a powerful sound, doesn’t it? Nice alliteration. Good meme. The antis have always had us gunfolk beat in the slogan-and-meme department. But what it means, if it means anything at all, remains a mystery.
Will Washington Ceasefire and Ceasefire Oregon succeed in building the thing, whatever it may be? Hard to say. Both states are very blue, but it’s always been a different shade of blue than the benighted mid-Atlantic or even California. Sort of a free-and-easy, here-have-a-latte shade of blue. Both states were sufficiently live-and-let-live to be among the earliest to legalize recreational marijuana. Police statism clashes with the laid-back, outdoorsy, brew-pubby, salmon-and-blueberry Pacific Northwest culture.
In Washington over the years, a few key legislators have held the line on victim disarmament. But in the past activists have turned successfully to the initiative process (as they did in 2014 when, with mega-billionaire funding, they imposed universal background checks).
Washington’s grassroots pro-gun defense has sometimes been weak and compromising. Fortunately, up-and-coming activists (especially the many roused by 2014’s defeat at the hands of the billionaires) are less willing to go along to get along.
Oregon’s grassroots are stronger, but on the other hand, their legislature lacks Washington’s long-time and well-placed legislative gun-rights defenders. Both states have rural, pro-gun eastern sides whose populations are outnumbered — but also getting very tired of being pushed around by — effete urbanites near the coast.
Hard to say what’ll happen. If the banners succeed, it’ll be interesting — as in the Chinese curse — to find out exactly what type of wall they build. Whatever it is, do they really imagine it’ll hold us?
Have you entered to win TZP’s historic Nazi-made, Israeli-adopted Mauser 98? All it takes is a few words and a modest entry fee. Please check it out, then enter today!
Ted Nugent shows protested over singer’s controversial remarks
“The fair reflects the values of the entire county, and having Ted Nugent perform at the fair would reflect tolerance of racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, xenophobia, ableism, and incivility toward people who protest his remarks or cancel his shows,” former social studies teacher Jennifer Vogt-Erickson wrote.