The NRA’s Role in Electing Trump

Fred Barnes argues, very plausibly, that the National Rifle Association played a "critical role" in putting Trump over the top. Of course, the foolish and mendacious Hillary was very cooperative:

"I respect the Second Amendment," she [Hillary] said in the second debate. In the third, she went further. "I also believe there is an individual right to bear arms." But she quibbled with the Supreme Court ruling that upheld that right. She would gut the right by mandating that guns in homes be kept in pieces "to protect toddlers."

The stupidity of this beggars understanding. Apparently, for Hillary, the only safe gun is a useless gun, an instance of what philosophers call a scattered object

Disassembled 1911

Colonel Jeff Cooper’s Situational Awareness Color Codes

Here is a good article on the topic addressed to law enforcement officers, but useful for the ordinary citizen.  

Under ORANGE below read 'if possible' for 'if necessary.' 

Condition White is fine while in your house, assuming your house is well-secured. The minute you step out your door you should move to Condition Yellow, whether you are carrying or not. Train yourself to stay in Yellow as long as you are out and about.

I came close to being mugged in New Orleans' French Quarter in '90 or '91. I was there to read  a paper at an A. P. A. meeting.  Early one morning I left the hotel to sample the local color and grab some breakfast. Striding along Bourbon street, I noticed a couple of black dudes on the other side of the street.  I was wearing a beret, which may have suggested to the loiterers that I was a foreigner and an easy mark. One dude approached and commented on my shoes in an obvious attempt ti distract me and throw me off my guard. My situational awareness saved me.  That, my stern mien, height, leather jacket and purposeful stride.  I gave the punk a hard look, increased my pace, and blew him off.

Profiling is part of situational awareness. Profiling is just common sense, which is why liberal fools oppose it. A couple of black youths loitering in a touristy area are probably up to no good. If common sense makes me a racist, then we should all be racists, including decent black folk.

Cooper-Color-Code

Mike Valle at Big Sticks

Mike Valle and I got together the other day at the premier cigar lounge in the East Valley, Big Sticks, to discuss Grundlagen des Marxismus-Leninismus, chapter 1, Der Philosophische Materialismus.  Mike has read the entire stomping 800+ page tome.  It is an outstanding manual of Soviet scholasticism.   Originally written in Russian and published in 1960, near the height of the Cold War, it appeared in German in the same year in Dietz Verlag, Berlin.  Mike acquired two copies and kindly gave me one.

I had him pose with the cigar store Indian for the following shot.  No day without political incorrectness, as I always say.  And that reminds me of the  Seinfeld "Cigar Store Indian" episode. TRIGGER WARNING!  This smokin' excerpt may cause snowflake meltdown.

IMG_0152

Guide for Liberals Suddenly Interested in Gun Ownership

A lot of you delusional liberals out there who think that Trump is a 'fascist'  are suddenly getting interested in gun ownership.  But before you go off 'half-cocked' and shoot yourself in the foot either figuratively or literally, or end up on the wrong side of the law, I recommend that you do a little research.

Larry Correia knows what he is talking about and I recommend his Guide to you.  Being a liberal, you probably won't be offended by his 'lively' style of exposition.

My Gun Permit

It is called the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Issue date: 15 December 1791.  Expiration date: Never.

Motto: Fear the government that fears your guns.

On this Thanksgiving we have much to be thankful for, including the defeat of the mendacious Hillary Clinton who, while paying lip service to the Second Amendment, had every intention of undermining it.  

Hillary on Heller: She Lied

So what else is new?  That the sky is blue?  The trouble with Trump is that he doesn't know enough about the issues to punch back effectively when Mrs. Clinton lets loose with one of her whoppers. He let her escape several times during their third and final debate.    Sean Davis:

In her answer to a question about her views on gun rights, Clinton said she opposed the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which recognized the constitutional right for individuals to own and carry firearms, because it was about whether toddlers should have guns.

[. . .]

So what was the Heller case really about? It was about whether Dick Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home.

[. . .]

If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. But it gets better: after claiming that the Heller decision was all about toddlers, Hillary then claimed that the Constitution guarantees a right to partial-birth abortion, a practice that requires an abortionist to rip an unborn baby from the womb, stab or crush her skull, and then vacuum out her brains. Because Hillary Clinton’s top priority is protecting innocent children from violence.

Hillary is a stealth ideologue who operates by deception. This is what makes her so despicable. If she were honest about her positions, her support would erode. So not only are her policies destructive; she refuses to own them.  She is an Obamination both at the level of ideas and at the level of character.

Russian Roulette With a Semi-Automatic Pistol

This seems to be becoming an Internet meme.  It comes with the implication that certain death will be the result. (See graphic below.) Let's think about this, just for fun.

Strictly speaking, one can play Russian Roulette only with a revolver.  But surely something analogous to Russian Roulette can be played with a semi-automatic pistol with a non-zero probability of surviving.

Here is one way.  Have 'a friend' load the magazine randomly with live and dummy rounds.  Insert the magazine and rack the slide, thereby chambering a round.  Point the gun at your head and press the trigger.  If you hear a click, then the hammer fell on a dummy round. Congratulations! You are not dead.  Care to press your luck?  Then press the trigger a second time.

Here is a second way.  Pick up a semi-auto pistol and remove the magazine.  Point at head, pull trigger.  If there is a live round in the chamber, you're a goner.  A dummy round or nothing in the chamber and you survive to be a fool another day.  Unlike Terry Kath.

Remember him? He was the blazingly fast guitarist for the band Chicago.   In 1978, while drunk, he shot himself in the head with an 'unloaded' gun.  At first he had been fooling with a .38 revolver.  Then he picked up a semi-automatic 9 mm pistol, removed the magazine, pointed it at his head, spoke his last words, "Don't worry, it isn't loaded," and pulled the trigger.  Unfortunately for his head, there was a round in the chamber.  Or that is one way the story goes. 

Such inadvertent exits are easily avoided by exceptionless observation of three rules:  Never point a gun at something you do not want to destroy.  Treat every gun as if   loaded, whether loaded or not.  Never mix alcohol and gunpowder.

Perhaps I should add a fourth: Never mix dummy rounds with live rounds. Variant: Dummies should stay clear of guns, loaded or unloaded, and ammo, live or dummy. 

Uncle Bill has a fifth rule for you:  Never try to cure someone's hiccups by pointing a gun at him or her.  A Fort Hood soldier availed himself of this method to cure a fellow soldier's hiccups, but ended up 'curing' him of life itself.  (A cock to Asclepius!)  The soldier, who was drunk at the time, said he thought the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.  And now for the graphic, from Diana West via Bill Keezer.

West Screen Shot

Does Trump Incite Violence?

Guns No AnswerYes, but only in the febrile 'mind' of an Hillarious liberal.

You have to realize that when Trump is 'off script,' he talks like a rude New York working man in a bar.  He does this in part because it is his nature to be rude and vulgar, but also because he realizes that this helps him gin up his base.

Let me try to put his point in a more 'measured' way.  His point was not that Hillary's bodyguards ought to be disarmed so that she could more easily be 'taken out.'  His point is that if guns cause crime and have no legitimate uses, then why are her bodyguards armed to the teeth with the sorts of weapons that she would like to make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to possess and carry?  

If guns are never the answer, why are they 'the answer' for government agents?  If law-abiding citizens cannot be trusted with semi-automatic pistols and long guns, how is it that government agents can be trusted with them?

The graphic  makes the point very well.   Trump was not inciting violence.  But if you say he was then you are slandering him and his supporters.  Be careful, the Second Amendment types may 'come after you.' Politically.  

 

UPDATE (9:25 AM).  Here is what Trump said:

She [Hillary] goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. Right? Right? I think they should disarm immediately. What do you think? Yes? Yes. Yeah. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. … Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, okay? It would be very dangerous.

 

Reading Now: Gun Control in the Third Reich

Author: Stephen P. Holbrook

Subtitle: Disarming the Jews and the "Enemies of the State"

Essential reading on the eve of the disaster that is a Hillary presidency.

"Gun Control in the Third Reich, Stephen Halbrook's excellent history of gun control in Germany, shows that, motives notwithstanding, removing weapons from the general population always disarms society vis a vis its worst elements. In Germany the authorities tried to deal with the Nazi and Communist mobs that were shaking society's foundations indirectly, by disarming ordinary people. But their cowardice ended up delivering a helpless population to the Nazis' tender mercies. Halbrook's richly documented history leads Americans to ask why those among us who decry violence in our society choose to try tightening the vise on ordinary citizens' capacity to defend themselves rather than to constrain the sectors of society most responsible for the violence." —Angelo M. Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Boston University; author, Informing Statecraft, War: Ends and Means (with Paul Seabury), The Character of Nations, and Between the Alps and a Hard Place: Switzerland in World War II and the Rewriting of History.

"What good would private arms do against a totalitarian state? That won't remain an unanswerable rhetorical challenge for readers of Stephen Halbrook's calm, detailed scholarly book, Gun Control in the Third Reich. As Halbrook shows, Nazi leaders went to great lengths to extend the gun control laws they inherited from the Weimar Republic. They were obsessed with disarming Jews and other designated public enemies. Potential resistance was not only physically disabled. It was morally and psychologically disarmed. Evil then became irresistible in Germany, not because it was fueled by fanaticism but because shielded by fatalism." —Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

"Even a defense with small arms against a tyrannical regime, if known, can galvanize public opinion which is the ultimate source of all political authority. That is why, as Halbrook authoritatively shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich, the Nazis-despite their massive military force-went out of their way to confiscate even small caliber weapons in Germany." —Donald W. Livingston, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Emory University

Read reviews and order at Amazon.com

Patrick Toner on Concealed Carry

Our friend the philosopher Patrick Toner has a very interesting and highly unusual article entitled Catholics, Chesterton, and Concealed Carry.  If nothing else, it should infuriate liberals, which can't be a bad thing.  I leave it to you to think it through.

Now some thoughts of my own.

Suppose a Christian lives alone, without a spouse to look after and without dependents.  Should he defend with deadly force against a deadly attack, in a home invasion, say, or should he let himself be slaughtered?  I go back and forth on this question.

But suppose you are pater familias with a wife and children to protect.  Should you respond to a deadly attack with deadly force?  Absolutely.  I would argue that such is not only morally permissible but morally obligatory.  But then you must prepare for such an eventuality  by becoming proficient with firearms.  Whence it follows that you must oppose Hillary the Gun Grabber and her destructive ilk.

This is another important reason to vote for Trump.  If Miss Mendacity gets in, it could well be curtains for your Second Amendment rights.

Government and Individual and Guns

This from an Irish reader:

To paint a massive brushstroke, I assume the difference between Europe and America is that in the former the government is seen as a facilitator and provider of peace and security, whereas in the US it seems the individual and the government are at loggerheads, hence the right to bear arms in the Constitution.

Here is the way I see it.

We too think of government as a provider of peace and security. It exists primarily, but not solely, to secure the Lockean triad of life, liberty, and property. Government is necessary to do certain jobs that we cannot do by ourselves either individually or in small groups. National defense from foreign aggressors is one such job of the central government as is the securing of the nation's borders.   Government at federal, state, and local levels is also legitimately tasked with the domestic defense of the citizenry against the criminal element.  And of course there are other legitimate functions of government.

So we Americans also think of government as facilitating and providing for peace and security.  We are not anti-government.  We are not anarchists.  We believe in limited government.  Patently, to believe in limited government is to believe in government.  But we are aware that government is coercive by its very nature and therefore that there  cannot fail to be a certain tension between individuals and groups of individuals, on the one hand, and the government on the other. If you want to say that individual and government are "at loggerheads" you can say this as long as you make it clear that this is true for everyone, American or not, who belongs to a state.  And who doesn't?

Liberals like to say that the government is us.  President Obama recently trotted out the line to quell the fears of gun owners:

You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.

Liberals need to think about the following.

If the government is us, and the government lies to us about Benghazi or anything else, then we must be lying to ourselves.  Right?

If the government is us, and the government uses the IRS to harass certain groups of citizens whose political views the administration opposes, then we must be harassing ourselves.

I could continue in this vein, but you get the drift.  "The government is us" is blather.  It is on a par with Paul Krugman's silly notion that we owe the national debt to ourselves. (See Left, Right, and Debt.) 

It is true that some, but not all, of those who have power over us are elected.  But that truth cannot be expressed by the literally false, if not meaningless, 'The government is us.' Anyone who uses this sentence is either mendacious or foolish.

The government is not us. It is an entity distinct from most of us, and opposed to many of us,  run by a relatively small number of us. Among the latter are some decent people but also plenty of power-hungry individuals who may have started out with good intentions but who were soon suborned by the power, perquisites, and pelf of high office, people for whom a government position is a hustle like any hustle, a hustle in the service of personal ambition. Government, like any entity, likes power and likes to expand its power, and can be counted on to come up with plenty of rationalizations for the maintenance and  extension of its power. It must be kept in check by us, who are not part of the government, just as big corporations need to be kept in check by government regulators.

If you value liberty you must cultivate a healthy skepticism about government.  To do so is not anti-government. 

My reader suggests that the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms reflects the fact that in the U.S. government and citizens are "at loggerheads."  My counter-suggestion is that it reflects the American love of liberty and self-reliance.

By what right does the the government deny me the means of defending myself, my family, my property, my community, against a range of malefactors running from criminals to terrorists to rogue government agents?