A terrified Arizona widow survived a violent home invasion after she disregarded all the hipster anti-gun idiots and armed herself with a motherfuck’n .38 caliber revolver — what gun-phobic fuckwits pejoratively label a ‘Saturday Night Special’ — and hid in her bathroom.  When Michael Lewis — a violent, 20 year old mouth breathing piece of garbage — found what he assumed to be a feeble defenseless woman cowering on 911 he proceeded to try and beat her to death.

Likely hoping she had believed the bullshit lies from delusional gun phobic fuckwits and would be defenseless, he was un-plesently shocked to feel the sudden sting of a bullet pass through his body.  Being the coward he is, and realizing he had bitten off more than he could chew, Lewis suddenly became the scared little bitch all those who beat women actually are.  Being in disbelief he began asking what she had done and apologizing to his intended victim.

“Don’t get up or I’ll shot you again!” exclaimed the now out of breath but victorious woman while standing over her fallen foe.

“OK! OK!” came the response from Lewis, having been rightfully made her new bitch.

And here we have the perfect answer to the demands of those anti-gun dreamers who think a locked door and a phone is all anyone really needs during a home invasion.  A perfect example of the right to keep and bear arms in action, yet a story you will find nowhere on The Young Turks network; which is no surprise as this incident clearly runs contrary to their anti-gun leftist bullshit that in practice would have lead to her death.

Having been shoot by a single bullet — Lewis was not worth the cost of replacing the other four — thousands of dollars in tax payer money was thrown away to treat Lewis for a month in order for him to stand trial.  Lewis — knowing that any decent jury would have him buried under the fucking jail — has since plead guilty to second-degree burglary and aggravated assault for forcing his way into the unidentified woman’s Phoenix home and attempting to kill her.

Watch and enjoy.

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Armed Arizona Woman Shoots Intruder

OPENING SCENE: We see Jesus sitting slumped on his throne, obviously bored, rapping his fingers on the arm rest and looking at his finger nails, when Gabriel flies into the throne room.

Gabriel: Lord, the other angels are curious if they’ll be going down to rapture your followers soon?

Jesus sighs, opens his hand and an IPAD instantly appears with an RSS feed of stories concerning Israel.  After scrolling through all the stories he looks up.

Jesus: Doesn’t look like it Gabe, the Jews still haven’t finished kicking all the muzzy sand people out of Israel yet.

The IPAD disappears and a glass of water appears in his hand.  Gabriel sighs, looks down while thinking for a moment, and then speaks.

Gabriel: Lord, if you’re only going to allow the souls of humans who have blind faith in you to live in heaven while sending the rest to burn forever, and the Jews outright deny belief in you as their Messiah; why are we waiting on them to kick the Arabs out of the area?"

Jesus shoots a displeased eye at Gabriel.  Gabriel clears his throat and corrects himself.

Gabriel: I meant ‘muzzy sand people’.  Why are we waiting for them to kick the muzzy sand people out of that one small portion of land?

Jesus looks at him silently for a moment and rolls the water around in the glass which slowly transmutes into a dark red wine.  Jesus takes a small drink and sets the glass down.

Jesus: There you go again asking logical questions Gabriel.  You’ve been my right hand man for all eternity.  Surely you’ve realize by now that logic doesn’t enter into anything I do.  I merely say and do things because I’m a god and I feel like it.  Take good and evil for instance.  Sure the humans have developed their own definitions through logic, but I say otherwise. I say whatever I command is good and anyone who disagrees or does contrary is evil.

Gabriel raises his index finger to interrupt.

Gabriel: Excuse me Lord, I’m aware of all that, but what does that fact have to do with the rapture.

Jesus looks at him, annoyed.

Jesus: Damn it Gabriel, remember back when I was inspiring random humans to write contradictory accounts of me and you advised me to replace ‘does whatever he fucking feel like’ with ‘works in mysterious ways’ to avoid causing readers to appeal to ‘logic’ and turn against me?

Gabriel: Of course, and it turned out to be some of your best work.  Your believers have used that line ever since to dismiss any logical argument against you.

Jesus: Then damn it, there is your answer your.  There is no ‘REASON’ why!  I didn’t say anything at the time, but I had planned to surprise the humans on New Year’s Day back in 1000 because it was nice round number.  But then I got wasted during the new years party, blacked out and missed it.

Gabriel: Yea, you were beyond hammered Lord. That was one hell of a party!

Jesus: I couldn’t just show up the next day, I would have had to explain why I was late.  That’s when I first heard about those damn Atheist telling everyone I wasn’t coming and there was no reason to think I was real.  So, after I inspired some of my rabid fanatics to torture & kill them, I inspired them to blame other humans for preventing my return.  It was a risky move that defied basic common sense.  ME; A FUCKING GOD!  PREVENTED FROM ACTING BY HUMANS!  AND THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED IT!

Both Jesus and Gabriel laugh hysterically at such an absurd notion.  Jesus finally catches his breath and continues.

Jesus: So yea, I inspired them to think I wouldn’t come back until they remade the Jewish state.  I mean the Jews are still going to hell, don’t get me wrong, but I really didn’t think they would take this long to defeat a bunch of muzzy fanatics.  Remember when I sent you down to fuck with that illiterate merchant; what was his name?

Gabriel: Mohammad, Lord.

Jesus:  Right, the pedophile guy.  I figured the other rock worshipping sand people would just murder him for being a general douche and claiming that I was OK with banging 9 year old girls.  I didn’t expect him to gain so many followers, turns out forcing sex on young girls under the pretext of marriage is a big selling point.

Gabriel chuckles.

Gabriel: That prank really back fired on us Lord.  But didn’t you also OK forced sex on captured young virgins when you were playing Command & Conquer with the Israelites?

Jesus: Yes, but I commanded it then, therefore it was good, right and just; otherwise it’s just gross.

Gabriel rolls his eyes.

Jesus: Where was I?  Oh yes, so I literally had to wait almost a thousand more years, and loose some of my most loyal humans, to wipe out over six million Jews before enough people would get to work remaking the Jewish state for my return.  I had hoped the job would be done with time to spare by New Year’s Day 2000 but NOOOOOO.  Suddenly humans feel sorry for the muzzy sand people I said needed to be kicked out.  What gives with these humans, for hundreds of thousands of years I could count on them to slaughter each other with little provocation.  Then as soon as they discover nuclear weapons they suddenly want world peace.

Gabriel: Its a bummer Lord; was a hoot watching all the mass suffering back in the day and laughing at the fact that everyone fighting thought you were on their side.  It’s ironic that, for all the brain power and reasoning you gave them, even today most of the humans still refuse to use it.

Jesus: We can count ourselves lucky for that Gabriel.  Can imagine if there were no humans around gullible enough to believe we are real? We wouldn’t exist anymore.

Gabriel nods his head in agreement before looking up surprised.

Gabriel: Wait, what?

Jesus covers his mouth and pauses to think.

Jesus: Nothing, it’s not important!  Ugh, go tell the other angels it will be soon and let me know when Israel finally absorbs Gaza and the West Bank.

Gabriel: Understood, but Lord you said…

Jesus interrupts him.

Jesus: That’s all now Gabriel, I’m very busy now, you are dismissed.

by | Categories: Musing | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Sketch Comedy: Jesus and Gabriel on Christian Zionism

In an article published by the British rag ‘The Guardian’ the paper attempted to downplay the debunking of a fraudulent list of school shootings published by ‘Moms Demand Action’ anti-gun group.  In response to the list being exposed as a lie, ‘The Guardian’ dishonestly claimed that gun rights groups were redefining the definition of ‘school shooting’.  A reddit user posting under the screen name Frostiken explained with overwhelming detail just how dishonest anti-gun organizations are in pressing their agenda .  As his response was so through in its indictment of these groups I felt it should be preserves.  The original can be found here.


Is it really still unclear to many people just how intellectually dishonest the anti-gun groups are? They seriously do this every fucking time.

The Violence Policy Center put out a report on ‘how much money the NRA gets from the gun lobby’. They delivered their figure – ~$45 million – and said that that was it. What they didn’t say was that that $45 million was the TOTAL donations over 6 years. In fact, they didn’t even say that. The report says ‘between 2005 and when this report was published’, meaning you have to work to find the range they were talking about. Specifically, they wanted you to assume that the NRA was getting $45 million a YEAR, when the reality is that they get only about $8 million a year (NOTE: That $8 million is using the biggest number they had). What the VPC also conveniently excluded was that that $8 million was barely 3% of the entire NRA yearly operating budget, and that $150-200 million they receive simply from membership dues and voluntary donations.

They constantly try to conflate their numbers. Whenever they want numbers to appear really big, they say ‘gun violence’ and secretly include suicides, defensive gun use, justified shootings, and accidents. Let’s not forget when Bloomberg’s MAIG read off a list of ‘gun victims’ and included Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev and cop-killer Chris Dorner. When they want to make things look really small, they only count specific things, like ‘murders with legally owned guns’.

When they wanted to make ownership of a gun for self defense sound dangerous, they used suicides and the language “your own gun used against you”. Nobody describes a suicide as having “your own gun used against you” to describe a suicide, but they worded it like that because that phraseology makes it sound like someone TOOK your gun and THEN used it against you.

When they wanted to make gun owners sound suicidal, they simply only looked at suicide rates with guns. Since people who don’t own guns don’t kill themselves with guns, therefore there was 100% “proof” that guns make you suicidal. They leave out the part where non-gun owners still kill themselves just as much, because they only are tracking “gun suicides”. Again, the point is to only give you half the information and let you jump to false conclusions.

When they wanted to make it sound like semi-automatic rifles – the only weapons ‘casually’ legal after their victory in 1986 – were ‘weapons of war’, so they invented the term ‘assault weapon’, because it sounds like ‘assault rifles’, which are casually known to most people as machine guns – which they had already gotten mostly banned.

The anti-gun groups wanted to show that kids were being killed and attach a huge number to it. So you know what they did? They expanded the casual definition of a “child” to include 15-20 year olds. In other words, the exact same age demographic that coincides with the group most likely to participate in gang activity. Who’d have thought! 20 year old ‘children’? I have to give you a link to this, because if I don’t you’ll think I’m making it up.

Intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game. I can find a lot of times where the pro-gun side has fudged some numbers and made things sound better than they may have been, but the anti-gun side has, for the last twenty years, lied almost every single time they’ve opened their mouths. With the formation of MDA / MAIG / Everytown, the shrill rhetoric has multiplied considerably.

This latest attempt to define ‘school shooting’ is only barely a stretch away from defining a school shooting as ‘any shooting anywhere that involved someone of school-age’ or ‘anyone who could hear a gunshot from school property’. Nobody hears ‘school shooting’ and thinks about two adults dealing drugs to each other on Saturday night in the parking lot and then shooting it out. Nobody hears ‘school shooting’ and thinks about a kid who commits suicide in the bathroom. ‘School shooting’ has a known meaning, and three people fighting in the parking lot and someone fires a shot in self defense is not anywhere near that. This is just the anti-gun groups trying to redefine words, like they did ‘assault rifle’.

Reddit’s anti-gun group has their own ‘mass shooting tracker’. Literally the first random source I clicked on was to a news report of two pre-teen kids pissing people off with a pellet rifle, and the second sentence was ‘nobody was seriously injured’. It’s probably still on their shooting tracker. Go ahead and look.

But the shitty part? It works. Look at how many people now spout out silly lines about the NRA being a ‘lobby for the gun industry’, because MotherJones spun that ridiculous VPC funding number. Look at how many people believe gun crime is out of control, despite early indicators that show 2013 to have the lowest homicide rates in recent history. Look at how many people believe we have no background checks already, believe that gun shows are exempt from most laws, believe that mass shootings are happening more frequently, believe that I can just buy a machine gun online and have it mailed to my door.

If you have to play this many silly word games and try to manipulate the data and constantly change definitions, waht do you think that says about your goals and motives? If they really had a point to illustrate, if their data was completely conclusive, there would be absolutely no need to keep these deceptive tactics up. I don’t see climate change scientists trying to tweak words and adjust meanings to fit their conclusions. You want to know who does? The anti-vaxxers, the climate change denialists, the marijuana prohibitionists, hell, people who want to prove gay sex causes hurricanes. This continuous decades-long campaign to mislead people is honestly the biggest reason I changed my stance on guns by 180 degrees. When I looked beneath all the stupid shit I had been told, I had repeated over and over, all the hateful garbage I had spouted at gun owners, from calling them small-dicked rednecks to murder-fetishists, I found that my beliefs didn’t fit reality whatsoever.

Make no mistake: the pro-gun side can be guilty of this own shit. I personally have never stated ‘more guns makes everyone safer’, because that can’t be proven either without resorting to the same numbers tricks. My stance is that if you want to take civil liberties away and infringe on my constitutional rights, you had better bring a lot of damn good evidence; and if your evidence requires that we first believe 20 year olds are now ‘children’, you have failed completely and lost my trust.

As a brilliant man once said, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me… you fool me once, you can’t get fooled again.” I have very little trust for our government, and part of that is because they lie to us constantly, and when caught in a lie, they just lie again to cover it up. So when the anti-gun forces say ‘nobody wants to take your guns’, why should I believe anything they say, when they can’t even publish a study about children being injured by guns without including adults to fake the numbers?

I don’t think anti-gun people themselves are all part of some evil deception. I think most of them are honest people who have their hearts in the right place, but at worst don’t fully understand the issue. The problem is, the anti-gun ‘institutions’ and organizations are the ones who are working to make sure they never understand the issue. I don’t have to align myself with the NRA if I don’t like them. There are plenty of pro-gun groups besides them. What groups are there for the anti-gun sides to align with that aren’t willing to engage in this dishonesty? I seriously can’t think of a single one.

Hell, look at the title of this post – ‘The gun lobby’s new tactic’. This tactic was exposed on CNN. CNN OF ALL PLACES, who for a year hosted a British blowhard whose entire job was to cry on air about guns. The other places this was exposed? Here on Reddit, in our subs. On pro-gun websites. On pro-gun forums. All over. But no, none of that counts – we’re just going to throw ‘THE GUN LOBBY’ onto this, because that’s the kind of intellectual dishonesty we’re dealing with here.

If you want to know why there can’t be an ‘honest conversation’ and ‘nobody will compromise’, this is why.

by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Comments Off on Reddit User Explains Anti-Gun Group Tactics

The Isla Vista murders occurred on May 23, 2014, near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara in Isla Vista, California.  The spree started when a mentally unstable narcissistic virgin named Elliot Rodger stabbed to death his two roommates and a visitor in his apartment. He then continued with a series of shootings which resulted in two women being murdered outside a sorority house and one man being killed inside a deli.  Rodger wounded thirteen others through a combination of vehicular attacks and drive-by shootings aimed at pedestrians.  He engaged in gunfire with Santa Barbara deputies during the killing spree and after the second exchange of gunfire with deputies he shot himself whereupon his vehicle crashed.

OPPORTUNISTIC RESPONSES BY THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY

Richard Martinez, the father of Christopher Martinez, the final victim who was shot inside a deli that Elliot Rodger strafed with gunfire from his vehicle, stated that he intended to “capitalize on [his] 15 minutes of fame” granted by the death of his son to angrily blame “craven politicians and the NRA”; asserting “You don’t need three handguns with 400 rounds (of ammunition). That’s crazy. It’s a matter of proportion.”  As if loosing a child to a acts of lunatic entitles him to punish everyone else by demanding we be deprived of our liberties.

Like flies drawn to a pile of shit, the civilian disarmament crowd rushed to see who could be first to frame the Isla Vista killings as somehow caused by a lack of gun control. The problem was that Isla Vista is in California, a state well-known as the gun grabber’s wet dream for pointless anti-gun laws.  Laws that employ new-speak terms like ‘sensible’ ‘common-sense’ ‘gun sense’ and ‘gun safety’.  Not to be deterred they ignored the failings of the current gun control laws and doubled down on calls for more pointless restrictions and regulations.

The Brady Campaign, an old hat at never passing up the chance to dance on the half cold bodies of the dead, issued a statement from their President, Dan Gross, which asserted “Americans are dying every day because of the corporate gun lobby and the politicians it has in its pocket.”  A statement which pretends the millions of law-abiding gun owners who voted those pro-gun politicians into office do not actually exist nor lobby their representative to fight those who attack the 2nd Amendment.

Shannon Watts, the rookie Michael Bloomberg puppet and ‘founder’ of Moms Demand Action, argued that because two of the six California victims were women, “The fact is, women are the target of far too many shootings in America. The story that desperately needs to be told is that the majority of mass shootings in this country are in fact domestic violence incidents.” A somewhat illogical argument as the two female victims had not had any kind of relationship with Elliot Rodger which would be needed to classify their killings as ‘domestic’.

In yet another attention grabbing open letter from the father of a child killed by another mentally disturbed individual at Sandy Hook, Mark Barden asserted that Richard Martinez was now a member of a “family born from the horrible circumstance of losing a child to gun violence”.  Notice how the labeling obfuscates blame and takes attention from the actual killers and places the focus on the GUN VIOLENCE.  Barden apparently places the parents of the three men stabbed to death into a separate, less important family.  After all, those parents cannot help him advance his anti-gun agenda, so who gives a shit where they go.

At least one anti-gun opinion writer at the L.A. Times was honest enough to come out and admit the ultimate goal of the civilian disarmament lobby. In a refreshingly honest piece the author, Scott Martelle, says flat-out that he would “ban [firearms], with a carve-out for hunting weapons.” In his draconian system even the hunters he would ‘allow’ to own firearms would be required to pass a mandatory government training course, obtain a hunting license, which the hunter would then need to register the firearm in the first place.  In Martelle’s gun-control utopia, the resale of firearms would be monitored by big brother to preclude ‘unqualified’ people. Want to pick up a couple of boxes of ammo for that new hunting gun you finally obtained?  Well, since you’re practically a criminal for just owning the damn thing, Martelle would also like that ammo “tracked much like we do sales of pseudoephedrine (an ingredient in meth).” Martelle goes on to describe his authoritarian fantasy further but you get the general idea.  More or less exactly what every 2nd Amendment advocate has known for years but have been labeled paranoid for actually expressing

The one thing all of these people have in common is their shamelessly dishonest attempt to shift the blame from the actual killer toward ONE of the three weapons (knife, gun, car) he used to kill and maim his victims.

HOW GUN-CONTROL FAILED TO PROTECT ANYONE

To understand the utter failure of California gun control laws let’s review exactly what the law requires of just handguns, as this was the type firearm used.

  1. Handgun purchases require a Handgun Safety Certificate and proof of residency.
  2. Approved application to the California Department of Justice prior to purchase. [Only good for 10 days following approval]
  3. 10 day waiting period for delivery of any firearm.
  4. All handgun serial numbers and sales must be registered with the state’s Automated Firearms System.
  5. Handguns must be transported unloaded and in a locked container other than the glove compartment or utility box in a motor vehicle.
  6. It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any [magazine holding more than 10 rounds]
  7. Firearms Carry Permits at the discretion of County sheriff or local Police Chief. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s policy is "no-issue".

Just as everyone with actual common sense – as opposed to the gun grabber newspeak — has explained since these sorts of laws were enacted, not one of these laws prevented Elliot Rodger from obtaining his pistols and carrying out his plans. Rodger patiently jumped through every pointless hoop to acquire his three pistols in the preceding months. He then compensated for the 10 round mag limit by merely purchasing multiple magazines. Sheriff Bill Brown’s lauded policy of not issuing carry permits did nothing to prevent the shooter from carrying his pistols in public, if anything his policy all but guaranteed that Elliot Rodger would encounter no resistance prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

HOW TO ACTUALLY PREVENT VIOLENT CRIME IN GENERAL

Of the utter nonsense contained within the pages of the manifesto written by Rodger prior to his rampage, he actually provided the world with the solution to stopping those like him.

"It came to a point where I had to set a date for the Day of Retribution. I originally considered doing it on the Halloween of 2013. That is when the entire town erupts in raucous partying. There would literally be thousands of people crowded together who I could kill with ease, and the goal was to kill everyone in Isla Vista, to utterly destroy that wretched town. But then, after seeing footage of previous Halloween events on YouTube, I saw that there were too many cops walking around. It would be too risky. One gunshot from a cop will end everything."  (PAGE 118) – My Twisted World – ‘The Story of Elliot Rodger’ By: Elliot Rodger

And so we find that the one thing Rodger feared was not punishment for breaking the law, it was being prematurely stopped by armed police.  I’m going to state a simple fact that makes gun grabbers shriek in outrage every time it is stated. The only thing that stops and deters malevolent individuals from the unlawful use of force and violence on the innocent is for the innocent to use force and violence themselves.

Take your pick from any of the recent mass shooters, such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, they cannot be reasoned with, they have no other rule but force and violence and as such deserve to be treated as any other predatory animal that might kill people if those people were to fall under their power.

Gun grabbers enjoy employing the word reasonable; what is more reasonable and just than that someone should have a right to use force and violence against someone who threatens their life with force and violence? It is a fundamental law of nature, that although human life should be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.  And so we find that anyone may employ force and violence even so far as to kill those who are actively attempting to murder innocent people for the same reason that he/she may kill a predatory animal.

The answer is not MORE pointless government regulations.  The clear answer is to lift the current prohibitions on people being able to defend themselves, to employ force against those who have decided to prey on their own species.  Gun grabbers love to use the term GUN VIOLENCE, if only they would stop focusing so much on the damn ‘GUN’ and take steps to enable people to stop the ‘VIOLENCE’ in whatever form it may take.  Stop preventing the good citizens who wish to carry a firearm from obtaining their permits.   Until enough people in California are able to get past their irrational hatred of inanimate objects and realize the real issue is the person who wields the weapon, nut jobs will continue to succeed at lashing out and harming defenseless people.

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on Isla Vista: The Great Gun Control Failure

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Elitist Antigun Hypocrocy Debunked Once Again

The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the three self-evident natural rights which exist in a state of nature. (not to be confused with legal rights which exist and are defined within the context of a civil society)

  1. The right to Life.
  2. The right to Liberty.
  3. The right to Property (fruits of your labor)

Question: What meaning do rights have if they may be violated or suppressed by another person’s use or threatened use of force and violence? The answer is they have none.  Now because we live in a civil society we have courts of law and officers of the court whose job it is to enforce laws and bring fugitives to justice.  Even though we pool each of our individual authority to use force to the civil authorities, this does not mean the individual has surrendered that authority.  The civil authorities cannot be everywhere at all times and circumstances do arise which require members of a society to reclaim that individual authority to use deadly force if it be needed to halt the use of unlawful force against them or another innocent person.

In the eloquent words of John Locke, “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”

Sir. William Blackstone commented that “Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765)

“A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For no man can transfer, or lay down his right, to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.” … “The right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant [the agreement between individuals to form a government, and the laws enacted thereby] be relinquished.” – THOMAS HOBBES (“Leviathan”, 1651)

It is a matter of established fact that the personal firearm is the most effective tool for preserved the safety of the innocent.  If it were not then those who hold power within government would not surround themselves with them 24 hours a day.  “…for ’tis a wise and true Saying, that One Sword often keeps another in the Scabbard.  The Way to secure Peace is to be prepared for War. They that are on their Guard, and appear ready to receive their Adversaries, are in much less Danger of being attack’d, than the supine, secure and negligent.”Benjamin Franklin

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on The Origin of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Moral Argument Debunked

The person who’s handle is Bannik is a British citizen who is active on a website I frequent and we often but heads on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.  The comment was in response to a video titled Badass Baby.

Bannik wrote,

What does the badass baby expect gun control to do? Eliminate all crime?… plus there is no evidence to suggest that guns actually make you safer… most likely the ability to own the gun by the "citizen" helps the "criminal" obtain the firearms with more ease…

nothing wrong with guns, everything is wrong with EVERYONE being able to own one… owning a gun is not a RIGHT its a privilege, act like it.

In Britain it may be a privilege Bannik, in the United States is it a Right guaranteed by the constitution and constitutional rights may not be infringed except via due process of law.  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias.  Everyone who is born, or becomes a citizen of the United States and reaches the majority age (18) is guaranteed certain inalienable rights.  These rights cannot be suspended except via due process of law.

For example, US citizens have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.  I can’t just walk into someone’s home without their consent and start looking for evidence of a crime.  However if probable cause is found a Court can be petitioned for a warrant which allows me to search and seize anything that may prove that person committed a crime.  Likewise, if there is a trial the Judge can place a gag order which suspends someone’s 1st Amendment right to speak about the trial and even imprison that person if they violate that order.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, if someone pleads or is found guilty of the charge of domestic violence then they forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights.  If someone pleads or is found guilty of any felony offense, then they forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights.  If years later that person has committed no other offenses they may petition a court to restore those rights and expunge their record but what you’re advocating does not involve due process of law.  You see the government must be also to show good cause for suspending the right via the person’s own actions.

Your idea would be to have everyone give the government good cause for allowing them to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way.  In states where people must jump threw hoops and give a compelling reason why they should be ALLOWED to carry a firearm only the WEALTHY and POLITICAL classes are able to obtain carry permits.  Look at Senator Feinstein in California, that bitch has spent her entire political career trying to gut the 2nd Amendment but she herself has a very rare permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Fucking hypocrite.  Rosie O’Donnell is another cunt who calls for more civilian disarmament and it was discovered that she had hired ARMED GUARDS to be near her child while it was away at school.

What you are advocating is that we make what is currently a right and declare it a privilege.  We should convert citizens into serfs.  Nobody likes to talk about it in modern times but the 2nd Amendment is a also a guarantee that the citizens will always have the right to abolish any government which becomes tyrannical.  Now don’t shit a brick, I don’t that is the case now and I hope it never happens but if human history is any measure it seems to happen eventually.

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

(Emphasis Added)

In the grand scheme of things the 2nd Amendment exists as a last resort measure, a guarantee if you will that no ruling class or authoritarian regime can ever rule unchecked over the people, which would also include foreign powers invading the country.  Now you can cry about that never happening and perhaps you might be right but we mere mortals cannot tell the future so why risk it.

In the short term or personal level, the 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee that the most effective tool is available for defense of self, family, home and community against individuals who might engage violent criminal behavior, that is to say, the firearm.  Current law dictates that all able bodied men are subject to being called up by the elected Sheriff during breeches of the peace or during natural disasters.  The militia spoken of in the 2nd Amendment is not the standing military.  The militia is every able body male, between 17 and 45 according to Federal code, who has not renounced their US Citizenship.  How else do you think the draft was legally justified?

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Response to a Brit on Gun Ownership

ONE – Their Title Is Unimaginative & Misleading

Their official name is Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a title so long that it begs for an acronym, but since M-D-A-G-S-A sounds like a Klingon curse word they are stuck with the monstrosity. Ironically the group was founded by a former communications executive named Shannon Watts; one might think that someone with that sort of expertise would have realized a thirteen syllable title isn’t very communicative.  And since when does “gun sense” equate to handing over more of our rights to the government?

No matter how you say it, the title is misleading in that you might assume the “gun sense” they are advocating is actually sensible and rational.  You see anti-gun groups have learned over the past few decades that being open about their real goal of erasing the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t work in a country where the majority of people rightfully distrust their government and value their personal liberties.  Unlike Watts, everyone is not wealthy enough to hire armed guards, affluent enough to live in gated communities, nor politically connected enough to have priority response from law enforcement.

The first stated goal of MDAGSA is to require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.  That is to say that if I want to sell or trade my Glock pistol to my friend for his AR-15 rifle I will first have to seek permission from the Federal or State government.  This is not sensible, nor will it stop violent criminals from obtaining either of these items.  By mandating that everyone seek the permission of the State to engage in otherwise legal commerce, this proposal actually accomplishes their unstated goal of transforming a constitutionally protected right into a state granted privilege.

TWO – They Formed as an Emotional Response to Sandy Hook

According to its founder, Moms Demand Action was founded December 15, 2012, EXACTLY one day after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, ostensibly because Watts did not have the metaphorical balls to tell her then 12-year-old son what had happened.  Was it formed along with a cadre of fellow concerned mothers who decided to study criminal statistics involving firearms, pouring over the research from numerous studies concerning the issue before finally deciding to found an organization to lobby government and advocate for their solutions in the media?  No of course not….

It was founded by one very affluent white woman living in Zionsville, Indiana who claims her son was psychologically afflicted by other shootings in the news and was shocked and appalled by the deaths of children belonging to other affluent parents.  With the median income for a household in Zionsville at $108,420 and a median value of owner-occupied housing units in the town at $355,800; it is a heavily gated community of approximately 14,160 people (as of 2010 Census), 94% of which is also White.  With a police response time of 2 ~ 3 minutes is it any wonder why Shannon Watts doesn’t see any merit in keeping a firearm in the home and/or carrying one on her person?  I guess all the poor brown-skinned children that died before Sandy Hook didn’t bother her son as much and weren’t important enough to motivate Mrs. Watts to get off her privileged white ass.

Are the proposals advocated by Shannon Watts new and original? Of course they’re not, they are the same list of bullshit pseudo-solutions that every other civilian disarmament group is pushing under the false mantra of ‘common sense’.  As is typical among gun control advocates, it doesn’t matter that none of the measures proposed by Watts are based on facts or data showing they will actually have any effect on violent crime. What matters to her is that her intent is noble and that this public display of good intent fulfills her emotional desire to feel good about herself.  Lets not forget that it also looks nice on her résumé along side the other multimillion dollar companies and government bodies for whom she has worked.  I’m sure she also draws a decent income as the head of her very own “non-profit” organization, people like Watts do not give up lucrative careers to chase political pipe dreams for free.

THREE – Their Proposals would not have stopped Adam Lanza

Had the groups proposals been law at the time, it would not have stopped Adam Lanza from carrying out his murderous rampage.  Having totally broken from reality, Adam murdered his own mother and then stole her rifle and handgun, both of which she had undergone a background check to purchase.  The proposed ban on modern rifles which they misidentify as ‘assault weapons’ and standard capacity ammunition magazines which hold more than 10 rounds would have made no difference either.  First, there is no functional difference between rifles erroneously labeled ‘assault weapons’ and other semi-automatic rifles which fire the same cartridge, the difference is purely cosmetic.  Second, ignoring the millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation, the time it takes to switch out three 10 round magazines over a single 30 round is perhaps a few seconds, no difference at all when your victims are defenseless children. The groups proposed laws are not sensible; they are, every one of them, senseless steaming piles of feel-good bullshit.  The only thing that stopped Lanza that day was a bullet to his head. The shame is that it was from his own pistol and on his own terms thanks to the existing feel-good ‘gun free school’ laws that prohibited someone working at the school from doing it prior to him making it to those classrooms full of children.

FOUR – They Censor their YouTube Channel

If you look at the group’s YouTube channel and click on any of the 65 videos you will find that both the ratings and comments section have been disabled.  Why?  The NRA doesn’t censor their videos.  I think that they fear their bullshit being called out and having to rationally defend their proposals.  The group has also been known to demand Facebook remove links to stories exposing the founders personal background.

Among the videos, the channel contains videos entitled FACES OF COURAGE which feature parents whose children were shot and killed. There is never any explanation given of how the group’s proposals would have changed anything for these grieving parents, merely sad music played over a tragic story with the non-sequitur argument that because these parents support the group’s proposals, the proposals must have merit.  Logically this is known as an ‘appeal to emotion’ and although it is irrational it can be effective in the short-term and with people who refuse to think for themselves.

FIVE – They Dishonestly Claimed To Be Victims of Intimidation

When the members of Open Carry Texas rallied in front of a meeting of four members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (imagine Moe, Larry, and Curly, then add Shemp and make them women), many bricks were publicly shat in response.  Using a misleading photograph, Watts and the mainstream media went big on the story.  As you’d expect, Mother-in-Chief Shannon Watts milked the story, casting herself and her Moms as victims of . . . wait for it . . . terrorism. Never forget that the civilian disarmament industry wants to cast gun rights advocates as criminals, thugs and psychopaths and they will lie through their teeth to do it.

Watts and her partners in the media began plastering a photo (above) which appears to show a group of armed individuals posed in an intimidating manner outside the restaurant where the mothers were holding their anti-gun quartet. Using this misleading photo some of the groups members even appeared in shadow to be interviewed claiming they felt their life was in danger.  Oh those poor souls being stalked and threatened by those evil gun owners. But then the truth of the misleading photo came to light when the photos taken face on revealed that there was no intimidation, it was merely a group photo to document the counter protest.

Was the group’s founder called out for her dishonest statements on national news channels?   Of course not, because liberals feel morally justified in lying their ass off in the name of advancing liberal causes like gun control.

The hardest part is only picking five….

by | Categories: Five Foolish Facts | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on Five Foolish Facts about Moms Demand Action

Buzzfeed’s Matt Stopera published an article entitled  22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution which contained photos of 22 creationist at the event, each holding a question for Bill Nye.  As these questions often come up when discussing the issue with creationist myself I wanted to post my own answers.

If we define positive by how well we educate our children concerning the operations of the physical world, how to think critically, and to recognize when supposed answers actually have no explanatory value, then yes.  Whereas other educators are focused on teaching at the high school and college level, well after some parents have crammed their children’s minds with superstitious religious bullshit; Bill Nye is at the forefront of education, introducing young children to the wonders of the real world.

 

Since there is nothing to fear from “creators” that show no evidence of being physically real, then no I am not scared.  I do not fear a divine creator for the same reason I don’t fear the boogie man, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Kruger.  I find this question odd because to fear something first requires a belief in that something.  If there is no reason to believe this divine creator is real then the question seems to resolve itself.

 

Yes, of course it is illogical.  Occam’s Razor tells us that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  The idea Earth was created as we see it today would require your creator god to create all the evidence currently pointing to a 4.5 Billion year old Earth.  That necessitates your god being a dishonest trickster deity which is refuted by the very Bible to which Ham appeals.  Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”

 

No, it does no such thing.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics roughly states that energy can only flow from a hot body to a cold one in a closed system, and that the measure of this is called entropy, which only ever increases.  The argument being that a living cell appears to contradict this by maintaining order in their cellular innards.  Alas living things are not closed systems.  Creationist like to use one thing they don’t understand to explain the others.  The problem here is a misunderstanding of physics.

 

This is a misunderstanding of physics and cosmology.  Living in the same region, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt that her question was with regard to the beauty of the sunset, not how it occurs.  It should be obvious to anyone with a basic education that the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid and sun sets when any surface observer rotates away from the sun.  The beauty aspect usually depends on other factors such as landscape and weather and is purely subjective, not everyone is in awe over the sun setting.

 

Basically the same answer as #4, with a slight twist. At the start, the universe in its compressed form would seem to be at near-maximum entropy — a dense, homogenous gas.  But the “organization” of the universe into its current form also generates disorder.  The solution here is that because the universe is expanding it keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium.  In the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, you can get pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing.

 

What about it?  It is a branch of study concerning the mind and intellect.  The concept is most widely known from a mention in Dan Brown’s novel “The Lost Symbol.” It’s not evidence against evolution nor is it evidence pointing to any sort of god.  The argument would appear to be that the mind is unexplainable without a supernatural creator.  Again we find the old argument from ignorance.  As far as we can tell our mind is a manifestation of our physical brain and not something that is separate from the brain.

 

From many of the same places that you probably do.  But this is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true or not.  Should we not try and shape facts to fit a certain philosophy, or figure out the facts and consider how this affects our worldview?  The hidden argument here is that without a sky daddy there is no meaning to life.  But the meaning granted to us by a religious belief is that we are all slaves created to dedicate our entire lives to the adulation and subservience of an invisible celestial dictatorship, backed up by a threat that refusal will lead to torment after death.  Why would anyone want that sort of “objective” meaning?

 

This is yet another argument from ignorance, otherwise known as the god of the gaps.  The implied argument being that, absent a scientific explanation concerning how life arose, the default answer is to attribute it to a god; this doesn’t actually explain anything.  The question of how the first cell arose is actually irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution via Random Mutation and Natural selection or the Earth being 4.5 Billion year old, the two things which Ken Ham explicitly denies. The chance of life originating on Earth is actually 100% because it has already occurred.  Attributing life to a god only begs the question of how god originated?  Did their god originate by chance?

 

This isn’t a question but a theological assertion which shoe horns a religious belief into the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the Universe.  This assertion is another appeal to ignorance as it is currently unknown what if anything existed or could exist before the initial quantum fluctuation that lead to cosmic inflation.  This assertion requires further investigation such as why and how does god speak?  What did god say exactly and how did uttering this mystery phrase cause physical reality to begin?  The fundamental problem of appealing to supernatural causes in an attempt to explain natural observations is that it raises far more questions than it attempts to answer.

 

The question reads, “Why do evolutionist, secularist, humanist, non-god believing people reject the idea of their being a creator god but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?” This is example of prejudice as we don’t universally embrace that idea, nor are we required to believe aliens designed life in the absence of a magical sky daddy.  The exact explanation of how life arose is currently unknown.  All we know is that there is nothing within the laws of chemistry that prevent self-replicating molecules from occurring in nature.

4  

The argument appears to be that there is nothing in-between Lucy and modern humans, only a few fossils of the hundreds necessary for what this person would consider “official proof”.  I’m wondering if this lady has ever heard of something called Wikipedia?  Perhaps she could start here and see all of the fossils showing the many intermediate forms between humans and our ancient apelike ancestors.  I’m also certain that even with hundreds of fossils this lady would then move the goal post and demand even more evidence before considering it “official proof”.

 

Metamorphosis is not micro-evolution; it’s a series of developmental stages in a single organism. Here is a good article on the evolution of metamorphosis in insects.

 

The idea that diseases are caused by germs is a theory too, yet most medical schools tend to spend much more time on antibiotics and hygiene than on faith healing. Most science classes don’t teach evolution “as fact”; it is taught as a scientific theory. And in this case, “theory” doesn’t mean “a bunch of wild ideas that Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye cooked up after a late night at the pub”; it means an explanation supported by massive amounts of physical evidence and logic, tested and weighed and re-tested and scrutinized by scientists across the world.Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be altered or disposed of if new, convincing evidence arises; creationism ignores or selectively misinterprets existing scientific evidence in favor of preserving the assumption of a divine creator.

 

That definition of theory is wrong as explained in the previous response.  Observation and testing is actually pretty much the entire thing that science is about.

 

So this seems to be a common creationist argument: evolution cannot be real because mutations don’t “add information.”  In their view, it’s impossible to get from a tiny microorganism that has a very small genome to a human with about 20,000 protein-coding genes through mutations.  This is kind of an extension of the entropy argument.  But there are actually plenty of ways that mutations can “add information” to the genome!  A region of DNA might be copied and inserted into the genome due to an error during replication, or by a virus.  Sometimes even a whole genome can get duplicated — many plants are what are called polyploidy, meaning they have multiple copies of their whole genetic library (cultivated strawberries, for example, are octoploids — they have 8 copies of their genome in every cell!)  Duplication is thought to be a powerful engine for evolution.  A creature might retain an original version of the copied gene, while the other copy might undergo some point mutations (changes to a single letter of the DNA sequence). The organism still has the functional, original gene that allows it to keep on trucking’, while the other copy may gain new functionality.

 

Like the 2nd & 8th question, this question is irrelevant to the larger question of whether evolution is true or not.  But this is also a false dichotomy; there are plenty of scientists that identify as religious and don’t see a conflict between evolution and their beliefs.  Does the concept of Salvation really hinge on whether or not humans evolved over time?

This also presumes that salvation from sin is something to be concerned with.  Sin is an affront against god and as yet there is no good evidence to assume there are gods, therefore there is no good reason to assume there is a need for salvation.

 

Scientists have actually found at least nine specimens of Austrolopithecus afarensis (the species “Lucy” belongs to) in Eastern Africa.  This is someone else who hasn’t yet heard of Wikipedia.  Perhaps he should look here if he wishes to see the other pre-human fossils he assumes have yet to be found.

 

Yes, because there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory.  Astronomical observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, and if we trace their paths backward, it looks as though the Universe was condensed into a single, very hot point billions of years ago.  The ratios of hydrogen, helium and other elements throughout the Universe appear to match what we might expect if the Universe was once compressed into a tiny, very hot, very dense point.  We haven’t found any stars that appear to be older than 13.8 billion years old.  The cosmic background radiation permeating throughout the universe is at the temperature that one would expect from an expanding, cooling universe.

 

Ah…. you can add this to the long list of arguments from ignorance.  The non sequitur here being that the world is amazing therefore it must have come about by the will of a god; and I’m going to bet on it being her god.  Most scientists find evolution pretty amazing and beautiful!  It’s exciting to think about how life in all its vast, varied beauty and terror, has changed over billions of years – and how it might change in future eons.  Black holes are amazing as well, but they are also terrifying objects which can destroy solar systems and swallow whole stars.  Did god makes them?  Supernovas can destroy entire planets in orbit around them, some of which may harbor living beings.  Why would your god create something like that?

 

Barring the fact that the Big Bang isn’t quite the same thing as an exploding star—it’s massively hotter, for one thing, and stars explode in space, while the Big Bang created space itself and stretched it — a lot of scientists would like to know this too!One idea*, for example, is that the Big Bang was actually the interaction between two vast objects outside of our universe called “branes.” It’s an important question, and a difficult one to explore – but one of the great things about science is that you can always say “I don’t know”; another is to follow that up with “but I’ll try and find out.”

 

This question is, for lack of a nicer word, as stupid as asking why, if Americans came from England, are there still Englishmen?  Or, if dogs were bread from wolves why are their still wolves?  Humans did not “come from monkeys”, we simply share a common ancestor with all modern primates.  This man might be shocked to discover that humans are currently classified as great apes.  We are Homo sapiens, members of a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea.

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on Creationist Misunderstandings: Answered WITHOUT Genesis