Category: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Tulsi Gabbard on the Second Amendment
Tulsi Gabbard is quite the political phenomenon: personable, very intelligent, courageous, and sensible in her views. Here she explains how her views on 2A have changed and indeed improved.
Around 9:25 Gabbard quotes from the recently-imploded ACLU: "Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment." That's just insane for so many reasons. I'll leave it to you to work out why. Or else just listen to Tulsi's commentary.
Losertarian Update
A tip of the hat to Dmitri Dain for sending us here where we read:
Libertarian Marc Victor dropped out of Arizona’s closely watched Senate race on Tuesday, encouraging voters to cast their ballots for Republican Blake Masters in his challenge to Sen. Mark Kelly (D).
Polls had shown Victor garnering support in the low single digits, but his small bloc of supporters could provide a critical boost to Masters, as surveys show the Republican only trailing Kelly by a few percentage points.
“Don’t vote for Marc Victor for Senate, vote for Blake Masters,” Victor said on Tuesday. “Blake’s in a very tight race here with Mark Kelly, and I want to see him win.”
Victor met virtually with Masters prior to dropping out of the race and posted a video of their roughly 20-minute conversation.
Hats off to Marc Victor for his good sense. To vote for him would have been utter folly since it is (a) certain that he would not have been elected and (b) certain that he would have siphoned off votes needed by the impressive Blake Masters to defeat the disgusting Mark Kelly.
Once more: politics is a practical game. Without the power to implement your policies, they are nothing but hot air and paper. Don't throw away your vote on unelectables. Don't confuse a political party with a discussion society.
Marc Victor is a local gun guy. Here is one of his videos. Here is another. He talks sense!
Ethnomasochism
Rod Dreher on The Racial Masochism of the Left:
Where does the Left and all its institutional allies — which is to say, every major institution in American life — plan to go with this? Do they really believe that all whites, Asians, and Latinos can be trained to accept brutality from black criminals? Do they really think that America itself is Barnard College? So far, they haven't had any real pushback, so maybe they do.
This is what happens when you abandon classically liberal concepts of justice. This is what happens when you Kendify and DiAngelize policy and discourse. When the backlash comes, it's going to be quite ugly. Understand right now that it will be 100 percent the fault of the Left.
I spoke with a salesman at Sportsman's Warehouse the other day. He told me that before 11:00 am he had sold five AR-15s.
That's not a good sign, my friends.
…………………
Vito Caiati responds:
Regarding your short post “Ethnomasochism,” I was reminded of this observation by Machiavelli in I Principe (Chapter 14): “Molte sono le conseguenze negative che ti provoca il fatto di essere male armato, ma la più grave è che ti rende oggetto di disprezzo. . . .” (“There are many negative consequences brought to you by being badly armed, the most serious is that it makes you the object of contempt”). Your conversation with the gun salesman appears to indicate that many people have instinctively grasped the truth of the Florentine’s point.
To which pertinent observation I had the following. The natural contempt that many people have for the weak and vulnerable is at present aided, abetted, and exacerbated by a society in collapse, a society in which half of the population and most of those who run our institutions think it 'racist' to enforce laws and to enforce them equally. And so the weak and the vulnerable, the loving and the kind, are arming themselves for defense against depredatory elements of the sort that leftists used merely to coddle, but now positively promote. At a recent CCW class I was surprised to see so many sweet old ladies fixin' to pack heat. None of this would be necessary, of course, if government did its job. But it doesn't and anyone who votes Democrat is voting to insure that it doesn't, 'going forward' as journalists and pols like to say.
Citizenry, Government, and Firearms
You say you don't trust the citizenry with firearms, but you do trust the government with them? If "the government is us" as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have said, what you say makes no sense. For if that were so, there would no difference in point of trustworthiness between the governors and the governed. But of course, Barry and Joey were bullshitting in Harry Frankfurt's sense, that is, shooting their mouths off with no concern for the truth, not even the concern the liar must have for the truth given his intention to hide it from us.
The government is most assuredly not us, but it is composed of people like us. And what are we like?
We are a mixed bag of a few saints, many scamps, and a broad mass of moral and intellectual mediocrities. And the same holds for those in government except that in government, scamps, fools, clowns, know-nothings, liars, bullshitters, quislings and the incompetent rise to high posts in a way that is impossible in the private sector.
The current (mal)administration is one of the worst if not the worst in the nation's history. The names say it all: Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas, Granholm, Yellen, Buttigieg, Jean-Pierre, Pelosi, Schumer, and I'm just warming up.
And you are still a Democrat?
Divine Light, Sex, Alcohol, and Kerouac
Substack latest.
Word of the Day: Peritus
Merriam-Webster: "an expert (as in theology or canon law) who advises and assists the hierarchy (as in the drafting of schemata) at a Vatican council."
I was sent to the dictionary by this communication from Tony Flood:
Bill, I remember Lonergan and other Vatican II periti refer[ring] disparagingly (in their writings) to the "theology of the manuals," publications approved for student-seminarian use. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, published the 262-page book in question [Renard's Philosophy of Being] , its second edition (mine is the 7th printing, 1950, of a 1943 book). The title page is stamped "St. Charles Seminary Library, Staten Island, N.Y." and the next page bears an Imprimi potest and Imprimatur. [Edward] Feser refers to Renard's The Philosophy of Being as a "textbook." Structurally sound, no marks on any page, but it wears its 70+ years of handling on its cloth cover (no paper cover).
Tony's unloading from his library. I never unload; I just buy more. There's always space for more books. You make space. Commit territorial aggression against your wife's book shelves; invade her capacious closets; get rid of furniture. Books before bread. "Man does not live by bread alone."
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”
In these trying times, 'lead' is a precious metal.
The Bookman and the Rifleman
You know things are getting bad when a bookman must also be a rifleman if he intends to keep his private library safe from the depredations of leftist thugs who are out to 'de-colonize' it. You cannot reach these evil-doers with arguments, for it is not the plane of reason that they inhabit; there are, however, other ways to each them. The gentle caress of sweet reason must sometimes give way to the hard fist of unreason.
This raises an important moral question. Are there cultural artifacts so precious that violence against humans in their defense is justified? I should think so. For those out to 'cancel' high culture have no qualms about 'cancelling,' i.e., murdering its creators. That is one consideration. But also: haven't the barbarians forfeited their (normative) humanity to such an extent that they no longer deserve moral consideration? Do they form a moral community with us at all?
I am just asking. Or is inquiry now verboten?
Accidental or Negligent?
An important distinction:
. . . an accidental discharge is when lightning strikes your firearm in such a way as to cause it to fire. Just about anything else is a negligent discharge.
Any unintentional discharge of a firearm can usually be traced to negligence on some individual’s part. Not knowing the proper manual of arms for a certain gun. Not focusing on safety while handling it. Using the wrong ammunition. Failing to properly maintain a particular firearm. Leaving a firearm laying around where some unauthorized person might pick it up. And you can think of other examples of negligence that could lead to a discharge that often results in injury or death. Using the term “accident” sort of implies that it was really nobody’s fault, while “negligent” puts it right back on somebody who should have been more responsible.
Which 'somebody' might the author have in mind?
ARs and Cattle Cars
Those who wield the former are less likely to be forced into the latter.
Orwellianisms come naturally to totalitarians. Arbeit macht frei reads the inscription over the Auschwitz concentration camp. "Work makes one free." So you are most truly free when you are worked to death as a slave.
The unarmed man is a defensively naked man.
Now I defend your right to go around (defensively) naked, but only on condition that you defend, or at least not interfere with, my right to go around 'clothed.'
……………………….
Facebook comment:
Paraphrasing Machiavelli: Why should a man who is wrong pay any attention at all to a man who is right, and not armed?
Just so. In the world as it is, appeals to what is right carry no weight unless backed by might. Suppose you are hiking in the wild. You come across a girl being raped by some brute. If you are unarmed, all you can do is appeal to the brute's conscience. "Sir, don't you see that what you are doing is both morally and legally impermissible? Please stop!" If, on the other hand, you are armed, then then you have the means to intervene effectively should you decide to do so. Whether you should intervene is a difficult decision that depends on the exact circumstances. I am making just one very simple and indisputable point: an unarmed man lacks the means to defend himself or anyone else.
Rights and Needs
You can have a right to a thing whether or not you have or will have a need for it. So the best response to the leftist who asks, "Why do you need a gun?" is wrong question! Stop the pointless conversation right there. "The question is not whether I need one; the question is whether I have a right to one." Then explain that the right to appropriate means of self-defense follows from the right to self-defense which in turn follows from the right to life.
Depending on the sort of leftist you are dealing with you could then go on to explain why you do need a gun. But the wisest policy is not to debate leftists. Leftists need to be defeated not debated.
Thomas Jefferson on Shooting as Bodily Exercise
The following, snagged from an outlying precinct of cyberspace, sounded bogus, so I put Snopes on the case:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785
Snopes verified the quotation:
Origins: The passage quoted above is indeed an excerpt from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr, on 19 August 1785, as collected in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. It was part of a longer section in which Jefferson touted the benefits of physical exercise (such as walking or shooting) in ensuring both bodily health and mental health:
Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual … Give about two [hours] every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk. But divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man. But I doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained by the use of this animal. No one has occasioned so much the degeneracy of the human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse, and he will tire the best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your exercise in the afternoon. Not because it is the best time for exercise for certainly it is not: but because it is the best time to spare from your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of the day. A little walk of half an hour in the morning when you first rise is adviseable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good effects in the animal economy. (Emphases and irregularities of usage occur in the original.)
1) Interestingly, Schopenhauer also recommends two hours of walking exercise per diem, but makes no mention of packing heat. He did, however, keep a loaded firearm on his night stand. The two great men also concur that the walker should walk and not pack a book or read. TJ appears to have been an early exponent of situational awareness and would undoubtedly have decried the all-too-common practice of walking about while hunched over a smartphone. The trick, of course, is to use your smartphone without becoming a dumbass.
2) If Jefferson could only see how enfeebled the white man has become these days.
3) Jefferson had his priorities straight: the care of the soul and mind ought to come first in the day and the care of the body only later.
An INDIVIDUAL Right to Keep and Bear Arms
>>In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the District’s handgun ban violated the individual right to keep and bear arms. The opinion clarified that to “bear arms” means to “carry arms” and has no exclusive militia context. And it rejected the view that the right could be dismissed or diminished by judge-made interest-balancing tests.<<
Of course it is an individual right: my right to life is my individual, not collective, right to life and said right entails my individual right to defend my individual life. And of course if I have the right to bear arms, then I have the right to be armed outside my domicile. Obviously, I have a greater need for self-defense outside my domicile than within it.
Will leftists say that this is now 'settled law'? Or will they say that the 2008 ruling can be overturned? If they say the latter, will they also say that Roe v. Wade can be overturned?
2A and the Origin of Rights
Your right to defend your life with appropriate means is not conferred by the State and would not be affected by repeal of 2A. That right is no more conferred by the State than the right to life from which the right to self-defense follows.
The same holds for all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights.
Many conservatives say that our rights "come from God." I don't deny it. But in terms of political tactics, it is probably a mistake to affirm it. It is enough to say that our rights do not come from the State. For if you bring God into the discussion, you risk alienating those atheists who are otherwise open to persuasion.
If I want to persuade you of something, I will get nowhere if I employ premises that you do not accept. So if my otherwise open-minded interlocutor gets the impression that the affirmation of natural rights will commit him to the existence of God, if he gets the impression that if rights do not come from the State, then they must come from God, then we risk losing an ally in the fight against our political enemies.
We need all the allies we can get. The Coalition of the Sane and the Reasonable must be broad and big-tented to defeat the forces of nihilism.
Tactically, it suffices to say that our rights are rooted in rerum natura, in the nature of things, and leave it to the philosophers to wrestle with the question as to what exactly this means and whether there can be natural rights without divine support.
A Gun is not a Talisman and a ‘Liberal’ can be a Bigot
A gun is not a talisman. Its mere presence won't protect you. To paraphrase Col. Jeff Cooper, owning a gun no more makes you armed than owning a guitar makes you a musician. You will need to get training. In the course of this training and numerous trips to the shooting range and gun stores for ammo, etc., you will find yourself associating whether you like it or not with rednecks, country folk, blue collar types, cops, ex-cops, military, ex-military, church-goers and other subspecies of the people Obama derisively referred to as "clingers" and Hillary as "deplorables."
The danger here for 'liberals' is that they will learn that, in the main, these are decent people. 'Liberal' bigotry fueled by hate and ignorance will stand refuted by experience. This may cause such painful cognitive dissonance that they may no longer be able to remain bien-pensant 'liberals.'
They have been forewarned.
Real or Fake, Leftists Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste
The Left not only exploits real problems for its political gain, it also manufactures problems for the same purpose. COVID-19 is real and so is Putin's war against Ukraine. But both are being used by the left to advance its agenda. We may reasonably differ about the extent to which these unfortunate developments have been and are being exploited by leftists, but no objective and fair-minded observer of the passing scene could deny the fact of the exploitation.
When the Left runs out of real crises, it creates more out of thin air. Our distinguished president recently informed us of the terrible threat posed by 'ghost guns.' Here is a definition from the reflexively left-leaning Brady site:
Ghost guns are unserialized and untraceable firearms that can be bought online and assembled at home.
This definition makes no sense. The (proper) parts of a firearm are not firearms. If I buy a kit of unassembled parts, I have not bought a firearm, and if I by a firearm, I have not bought the unassembled parts of one. But I am famously charitable and so I offer the following coherent reformulation:
Ghost guns are unserialized and untraceable firearms the parts of which can be bought online and assembled at home.
Is there a problem here? If there is, it pales in comparison with the problem of our unenforced and wide open southern border across which all sorts of things and people are flooding to the detriment of the Republic. Among the contraband: guns.
You would have to be quite blind not to see that the Biden bunch is deploying one diversionary tactic after another.