Monthly Archives: December 2010

For our brothers and sisters in occupied Wisconsin

Wisconsin is one of two states that has no provision for concealed carry of a handgun outside of the home. Twice a Shall Issue law has passed, and twice it was vetoed by the anti-gun Governor. In the last election, the Republican Party won both houses of the Wisconsin State Legislature and the Governorship. So Shall Issue should be a lock, right?


Here’s a better idea.





Why beg permission and pay a fee in order to exercise your rights. If you are in (still) occupied Wisconsin, have a chat with your elected representatives about Constitutional Carry. Tell them about how it works in Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska.


ht The Truth About Guns

The truth will out

Remember that I said japete banned me because of my insistence that most murderers were criminals before they escalated to murder? And she freaked out because I wanted to find out if her murdering brother-in-law was also a criminal?

Well, well, well. It looks like he was a well known wacko and had a criminal record. Go here, and read from page 131. There are pages deliberately left out. I have bought a copy of this book and will be reading it.For those of you who have not yet been banned, you might want to read it and ask her some questions about it. The book seems to say that his only arrests involved shoplifting, but that there was significant concern that his wealth and power got him out of a larger felony fraud charge that landed the other two principals the longest prison sentences handed down in Minnesota history to that time.

I asked Joan about it in her comments, and for some reason she posted the comment. Then she reiterated her ban. Her comment has since disappeared, but I am subscribed to the post’s comments by email and this is what showed up in my inbox.

Sean- you have now crossed a line. Are you sick? What is with you? This is disturbing that you are obsessed with this. Soon enough, this will be called harassment and I will have to report it as such. Stop commenting on my blog. This is the first warning.

Since she has stated that she regards any further comments on her blog as harassment, I will not attempt to communicate further with her.

As I was finishing up here, I received another comment, replacing her previous deleted comment.


My previous comment was deleted so thoroughly that there is no trace of its existence. As I said, I will not make any further attempt to contact her in any way.

Revolt of the fat old guys

Patriarchy is the way the United States runs. Well, at least if you listened to your Women’s Studies professor in that mandatory class you took in college. The world is run by men.

To a certain extent, they are correct. One of the few groups of people that is not generally found on the streets protesting things is the older, generally fatter, men. We’ve got jobs and families and responsibilities, so we really have no business overturning the social order. It’s hard enough to keep a job and pay the bills without getting arrested for rioting in the streets. That’s why the mobs are populated mostly with idiot teens dressed in black. They’ve no responsibilities, and are safe in their assumption that dad and mom will feed them after the riots. The old fat guys assume that life is set up mostly the way it needs to be in order for their needs to get met. They see the police as allies against criminals, and generally see Government as the least intrusive way to get the roads paved so that they can get to work in the morning. They see themselves as part of the system, not outside of the system.

Since I used to work customer service, I am a huge believer in the 90/10 rule. 90% of your hassles in life are caused by 10% of your customers. This probably holds true in politics. 90% of people just shut up and deal with the situation as they find it. Government is not set up to deal with anything worse than that. What happens if a significant fraction of that normally quiet 90% decides to stop being quiet? The system, which is set up to deal with the small number of troublemakers through either punishment or bribes, cannot keep up with the larger number demanding their share of the pie.

What happens when the old fat guys decide that the system is corrupt and the quiet 90% is being treated like milk cows for the troublemaking 10% and their champions inside the government? What happens when these ordinarily quiet men decide to challenge the system?




What I think is happening is that for 30 plus years we have been told to shut up and get along. At the same time we see the criminals, the lazy, and the morally repugnant prospering with the support of the Left. They get all kinds of rights, and freebies, and support, and we get to pay for it all. Now we have to decide if we want to continue supporting this system. Why does an out and out criminal thug get every Constitutional right that the Left can dream up, but the random old fat guy with a gun gets the shaft?

I think that’s coming to an end. The old fat guys have had enough, and with the internet, they have communication with all the other fat old guys who’ve had enough. They’ve realized that they are not alone, and that the system is rotten. They aren’t photogenic, but they’ve got numbers, and increasingly, nothing left to lose.


UPDATE: I just got an email from my father. He says “This old fat guy has had enough and I will not go quietly.  The way I see it is they not only pissed off us old fat “GUYS” they have pissed off a bunch of old fat ladies as well.”


The system is unable to deal with mass refusal to cooperate. What are you doing to expand your rights?

So japete finally loses it and bans me.

Joan Peterson, the poster child for proof by vigorous assertion finally decided she could no longer take me contradicting her when she says that most killers were perfectly law abiding citizens before they lost their heads and slaughtered innocent people.

Here’s what started the latest round and round, my comment about murderers 

Her response:

After she had her sadly predictable reaction, prompted by another commentor, she posted
               

So I propose to do EXACTLY that. All data taken from the Department of Justice, find that report here
Here’s the DOJ on murder defendants

•54% have at least one felony conviction

Table 11. Number of prior arrest charges, Percentage of Felony Defendants, With Prior Felony Conviction, Murder (Total) 54%,  (1 Felony conviction) 26%, (2 to 4) 20%, (5-9) 3% (10 or more!) 4%




•70% have at least one conviction
Table 11. 100% – 30% with no prior conviction = 70% of all murder defendants have at least one prior conviction.




•56% have two or more felony arrests
Table 9. Total murder defendants with prior felony arrest, 30% + 15% + 11% = 56% 

67% have at least one felony arrest
Table 9. Total murder defendants with prior felony arrest.







81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record
Table 8. Number of prior arrest charges, Percentage of Felony Defendants, With Prior Arrest, Murder, 81% 





 So what do you think? Are ordinary law abiding citizens suddenly snapping and slaughtering their innocent friends and neighbors? Or are career criminals doing the killing? Who needs to be more carefully controlled, the criminals? Or the decent law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun?

I have two

Some of you are slacking off here.


I have a rifle and a pistol. That means our family is at the 1.0 guns per person mark. Someone out there isn’t keeping up with his share. Now, if anyone is in this category


I have the solution to your problem. Send me your money and I will purchase your share and keep it for you. Remember that it is important for you to carefully honor your societal obligations, and religious objection is not an excuse for leaving society unarmed and unprotected. It’s for the children.

Plus my birthday is coming up.
/snark

What I am doing right now

I am off trying to shoot one of these



Wish me luck.

Brian Aiken

I was going to post on this but No Lawyers Only Guns and Money beat me to it. Go read and watch it all. Video at the link

Why the gun grabbers are outnumbered

When the gun grabbers tell you about how many people agree with them remember this story:



Make sure that if you are a shooter, you keep these hunters on your side. They may not understand that failing to support our handguns and “assault weapons” now will mean that their “sniper rifles” are on the block next.

No rifles that shoot 100 meters. That’s the deer rifles that were out in the woods in the last month or so.

Brian Anse Patrick – One man quote generator, Part 7

The so-called gun control paradox highlights the logical irreconcilability between surveys and political reality. Many authors, including myself, have cited it, probably because it provides a compelling hook to introduce a book or article on guns. Why, goes the paradox, is there not severe gun control in America or a mass movement for gun control, seeing the public so desires gun control as evidenced by surveys since the 1960’s? Answers offered by antigun advocates and scholars are often variants on a stereotype. Accepting gun surveys at face value, they blame organized “special interests” such as the NRA and other gun groups for sabotaging democracy, the public interest, or the greater good with “influence,” as if it were a violation of the American social contract to organize via free association and to petition the government. For a particularly hyperbolic example, the Brady Center has published a report called “The NRA: A Criminal’s Best Friend”. Along this vein, various political science professors discussing gun politics have on various occasions recited to me the maxim, “An organized minority always beats an unorganized majority.” This again implies a lapse in democracy, a majority treated unjustly be a “special interest,” the “gun lobby.”
A far more elegant way to unknot the paradox, however, is to recognize it for what it is: a chimera visible only to those who reify survey artifacts into something they would call a “majority.” The seduction of survey research is, of course, the promise of primary-source mass data that are easily quantifiable. But these beguiling numbers do not necessarily equate with political reality and certainly not with any social movement, viable policy, need, or tangible demand, despite the insistence of those charmed by survey methodology. Antigun advocates and scholars assume proxy authority on behalf of this abstraction. The lack of any American mass movement or mass membership association for gun control underscores a general invalidity of these measurements.


So when the gun grabbers tell you that surveys show that “most” Americans support “common sense” gun control, tell them that you will believe them when they can put together a paid membership organization with more than 50,000 annual members. Or fill the State Capitol rotunda on a Tuesday.

Brian Anse Patrick – One man quote generator, Part 6

More reliable traces of the racial intentions and social practices behind many gun and concealed carry regulations are preserved in law, court reporting and legal decisions. Citing only a few of the many decisions of this type, Florida Supreme Court Justice J. Buford, in a 1941 opinion dismissing the concealed carry conviction of a white man for having a pistol in his vehicle’s glove box, writes, “I know something of the history of this legislation… The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.” Continuing, regarding related clauses of legislation restricting Winchester repeating rifles, he writes “…there has never been, within my knowledge any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested”

Brian Anse Patrick

The operative word in “Gun Control” was never “Gun.” It was always “Control.” You will note that the Judge doesn’t seem to give a damn if unconstitutional laws were applied to minorities. We live in a much more egalitarian society. Now the judges don’t seem to give a damn if unconstitutional laws are applied to everyone.