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

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

The core belief and assumption of all gun grabbers is that if the government could somehow confiscated all guns in America, legal and illegal, that murders would go down.  This belief is fundamentally flawed as they do not or refuse to grasp the difference between criminal law and prohibitionist law nor the principal of enforceability.

We already know that laws against murder don’t stop psychotic murderers, murderers who are confident in their chances of not being found, or murderers who simply don’t care for the risk (of which these three categories make up a vast majority of all first degree homicide cases).  We simply have these as law as a means of quarantine and rehabilitation (although our system is rather ineffective at that second part).  We get murderers off the street so they can’t murder anymore and hope, with false confidence, that being locked up for 25 years makes them learn their lesson.

The issue is how this translates to certain firearm restrictions.  It isn’t the gun that is getting punished, it’s the person.  Does violating a zoning ordinance make a potential mass killer fear the legal repercussions of going into a gun free zone?  No.  Was the prohibition against creating destructive devices something that gave Timothy McVeigh any moral pause about the illegality of blowing up a federal building?  No.

Can Dianne Feinstein point to one bombing that didn’t happen because bombs are illegal?  No.

Can Chuck Schumer point to one shooting that didn’t happen thanks to a gun free zone?  No.

How can gun grabbers then claim things that banning “ghost guns” is going to prevent homicide with home made guns (something of which I don’t think is a statistical reality)?  They can’t.

How can anyone claim things like banning magazines of a certain size will mean shooters will necessarily reload at the 15, I mean 10, I mean 7, I mean 5 round limit?  Am I supposed to think that the shooter at Aurora, a person who created a bomb so elaborate it took federal agents all day to disarm, couldn’t grasp basic welding and a screwdriver to turn the materials of multiple 10 round magazines into a single +25 round magazine?  They are not elaborate, they’re basically metal pez dispensers.

Laws have different enforceability.

I go 55 on the road because the flow of traffic is that limit, correlating to an established common standard, and because of the reality of getting pulled over for speeding; and I want to conserve gas.  It’s not exactly a nefarious thing to go 70 instead, it’s not even considered a criminal act. Many good people have had instances of speeding.

It’s a gross false equivalence to say that what keeps people from making bombs, from making illegal modifications to guns, and from commuting mass homicide is the fact they are illegal and that people with suicidal tendencies are worried the police may try to arrest them after they act.

by | Categories: Musing | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Gun Control: Criminal Law vs. Prohibitionist Law

Challenge Accepted!

Dec 29, 2013

Cooter Brown wrote: I challenge you to prove the God of the Abrahamic faiths (Jehovah/Yahweh) doesn’t exist.

Yes, the god of the Abrahamic myths can be demonstrated not to actually exist by pointing out fatal contradictions in that god’s alleged character.

There is a contractions between Abrahamic god’s alleged omnibenevolence and his creation of hell. Infinite compassion does not condone or abide infinite torture. This is a fatal contradiction which demonstrates that your god cannot logically exist.

There is another clash with beings claimed to be both intrinsically immortal and omnipotent (all powerful/can do anything). Your god cannot be both, take for example suicide. If your god cannot be killed (immortal) then killing itself is beyond its power, but if your god could kill itself then it by definition cannot be immortal?
It’s been argued that such an example is irrelevant because your god cannot do things that conflict with its nature. This, however, redefines omnipotence by taking "the ability to do anything" and adding "that doesn’t conflict with the beings other properties." By that new definition I am omnipotent as I have the ability to anything which doesn’t conflict with my other properties. By myself I cannot fly or breath water, not because I’m not omnipotent but because they conflict with my nature.

Divine free will and divine omniscience present another contradiction. Does your god know or does it not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If your god knows then it necessarily follows that the individual is compelled to act as your god knew beforehand he would act, the individual would predestined; not free. If the individual were free and could choose to do otherwise, your god’s knowledge must be imperfect. These two ideas cannot both be true, therefore your god cannot logically exist.

A biblical example of this would be the myth of Adam and Eve. An omniscience god would have known about the serpent beforehand, there could be no divine anger as your god would have known they would not obey it and could have prevented it from occurring. It makes no more sense for your god to be angered by and punish Adam and Eve as it would if you decided to drop a brick from head level knowing that gravity would cause it would break something important to you.

The mythical flood of Noah is another example, your god is said to have brought the flood after becoming disappointed with its creation of mankind. Disappointment is the non-fulfillment of what one hopes; an omniscience being does not hope, it knows.

In Genesis 22:12 An angel of god stops Abraham from killing his son saying "…now I know that thou art a god-fearing man…" ‘Now I know’? An omniscience god would already know.

For stories concerning surprise, emotion, and reassessment to be true, divine omniscience must be false. As your god is said have engaged in these contradictions your god cannot logically exist.

Finally, your god is asserted to be perfect. This sets up a problem as illustrated by Matthew 7:18 which says "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." So a PERFECT GOD creates a PERFECT HUMAN and imperfection comes of it? How could a perfect being sin? We can’t say "because it just decides to" Why? What possible need would it be serving, an imperfect need? Where did the imperfect need come from?
When we work backwards to find the transition from perfection to imperfection the problem is unworkable. Freewill or not, perfect beings (human or gods) do not make imperfect choices. To argue otherwise is to argue that a good tree CAN bear bad fruit.

There is more but I’m out of space, needless to say your god is one gigantic mess of self-contradiction. As good as you might feel being deluded in your beliefs, your god cannot logically exist.

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Challenge Accepted!

Now that the proverbial shit has hit the fan about Phil Robertson, a devout Christian, expressing his devoutly Christian views on homosexuals to a writer from GQ Magazine, I would like to take a step back and point out the depressing stupidity of A&E and those who agree with them.

Phil Robertson

After the author writes “He is a man who preaches the gospel of the outdoors and, to my great envy, practices what he preaches.”  He then turns suddenly and writes “…here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable … he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.”  Now perhaps I do not find Bible thumping uncomfortable because I was raised in Phil’s religion but the author is a journalist, his personal feelings are irrelevant.  I suspect he inserted this tidbit to distance himself from the ideas he seems to think are criminal to express.

The author then writes something which, coming from a journalist, is entirely hypocritical.  “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free.”  That’s right, too free, as in Phil’s freedom to express himself has crossed some sort of imaginary line and should be curtailed.  I wonder if the author of the article would appreciate being told that his freedom to write what he wants is a little too free.  This brings me to the gravamen of my case, free expression being trampled by political correctness.

Sarah Kate Ellis – GLADD

Nancy Dubac – A&E

With the congratulatory praise of GLADD, A&E responded to the article by removing Phil from the “reality show” based on his family.  What part of the article prompted this hard-handed response?  Well it wasn’t the creationist nonsense, it wasn’t even his anecdotal denial that blacks were mistreated during the civil rights era, it was the fact that Phil Robertson had the [audacity!] to SAY he thought homosexual sex was revolting to him; that he did not understand why a man would not prefer sex with woman.  Phil merely expressed in words his own ignorance concerning the person sex drive of other humans, not one mention of committing violence against homosexuals, which if he were true to what his religion actually says would be a given, just that he personally didn’t understand why anyone would engage in homosexual coitus.  A view which fits perfectly with the other religious views, nothing surprising about this.  A&E and GLADD would have us think that any dislike or inability to understand homosexuality is equivalent to hate, it isn’t, but that is also irrelevant.

This mole hill, turned mountain, reminds me of a lecture by the late Christopher Hitchens on the subject of hate speech where he recommended everyone take a refresher course on the classic texts on the matter; John Milton’s Areopagitica, “Areopagitica” being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression; Thomas Paine’s introduction to The Age of Reason.  The most pertinent being John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty in which it is variously said that it is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear.

Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.  In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view.  If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.  As Rosa Luxembourg said, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

Archie Bunker – All in the Family

When I first read what was happening the look on my face mirrored that of Archie (right).  I’m an atheist, I don’t think for one second that we should base modern society on the archaic manuscripts which include such things as the death penalty for unruly children or working on the Sabbath.  I think that gay relationships harm nobody and that gay marriages should be recognized and treated no differently than so-called traditional marriage.  I think Phil Robertson, like the fictional Archie Bunker, is a product of the time and place in which he was raised and there isn’t very much anyone can do to change him.  Phil Robertson isn’t attempting to force his personal views on others or calling for homosexuals to be persecuted in any way, his words caused no actual harm.  The appropriate response should be the same as it was with All in the Family.  People laughed at Archie Bunker’s bigotry because bigotry doesn’t deserve serious consideration.  They did not raise hell, complain about being offended and then call for his removal from the show.

GLADD and A&E are justifying the removal of Phil with the claim that what he said was offensive to their LGBT views.  Well I’m with Steven Fry in that “[i]t’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights.  It’s actually nothing more… than a wine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”  Seriously GLADD, what Robertson thinks has ZERO effect on your members.

I’ll close with a suggestion to Phil and his family, stick together.  As a family, refuse to take part in any further production until they reverse their decision.  I may not agree with Phill but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support GLADD and A&E forbidding everyone else from hearing what he has to say.

by | Categories: Musing | Tagged: , | Comments Off on Phil Robertson vs. A&E: I’m Offended! Well, so what!

By: Stephen P. Halbrook                        Published in The Washington Times                 Thursday, November 7, 2013

This week marks the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night of the Broken Glass, the Nazi pogrom against Germany’s Jews on Nov. 9-10, 1938. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.

To illustrate, turn the clock back further and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete. Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.

The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.

By fall of 1938, the Nazis were ratcheting up measures to expropriate the assets of Jews. To ensure that they had no means of resistance, the Jews were ordered to surrender their firearms.

Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered, which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to the Gestapo.

This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.

Under the pretense of searching for weapons, Jewish homes were vandalized, businesses ransacked and synagogues burned. Jews were terrorized, beaten and killed. Orders were sent to shoot anyone who resisted.

SS head Heinrich Himmler decreed that possession of a gun by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. An estimated 20,000 Jewish men were thrown into such camps for this reason or just for being Jewish. The Jewish community was then held at ransom to pay for the damage done by the Nazis.

These horrific events were widely reported in the American media, such as The New York Times. After Hitler launched World War II, the United States made preparations in case it was dragged into the conflict. Just before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a law noting the Gestapo methods and declaring that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by such measures as registration of firearms.

Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.

One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered his firearms at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody? Did he fantasize about shooting Nazis? We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets over his act of compliance.

Today, gun control, registration and prohibition are depicted as benign and progressive. Government should register gun owners and ban any guns it wishes, Americans are told, because government is inherently good and trustworthy. The experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, for that matter, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are beneath the realm of possibility in exceptional America. Let’s hope so.

Still, be careful what you wish for.

Stephen Halbrook is research fellow with the Independent Institute and author “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’” (Independent Institute, 2013).

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on What made the Nazi Holocaust possible? Gun control