How to interpret subtext.

CCDL et. al. had their day in court on Tuesday.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to be precise.  Arguing against the imbecilic new anti-gun laws our ruling children passed in a snit after Sandy Hook.

You can read the local (I wouldn’t even use it as) fish wrap’s take here.

I’d like to draw your attention, however, to one of the statements made by the state’s AAG Maura Murphy-Osborne:

“Many semiautomatic pistols sold for and used for home protection had [magazines that] … exceeded a 10-round clip?” he asked Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Maura Murphy-Osborne, and mentioned the “common use” standard.

“We don’t think that the Second Amendment is driven by a consumer preference,” Murphy-Osborne replied, and said people could use revolvers for home protection instead of semiautomatic pistols.

So go over that a few times, and tell me if you can taste the underlying flavor.

But nobody wants to take your guns away, right?

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

How Libertarianism is precisely like Communism.

I concluded a long time ago that Libertarianism suffered from the same critical flaw as all of the various statist ideologies.  I just hadn’t come up with a way to explain it that didn’t take eleventy hours.

Until now.

First off, before you have an aneurysm, I’m not saying that the ideologies are similar at all.  The flaw is not in the ideology, at least not the flaw I’m talking about.  It’s a fundamental flaw, rooted in the most basic assumption upon which both ideologies are built.

That flaw is the belief that humans are perfectible.  Humans are tribalistic by nature, and there’s no way around it.  Communists think they can eliminate “class” and create a homogeneous society.  Libertarians think that everyone can coexist peacefully in a purely cooperative society.

And the reason they are both wrong is that tribal behaviors are emergent.  Put a large enough group of humans together, and they will factionalize.

This is why the strict Constitutionalist arguing against the existence of political parties is pissing into the wind.  It’s why Stalin’s “New Soviet Man” never came to be.  It’s why the modern Progressive movement keeps eating its own.

The brilliance of the Founders was that they knew parties were going to happen, even though they wished fervently against them.  Which is why the government was kept weak.  And it’s why the only form of governance that’s stood the test of time is some form of Constitutional Republic or Constitutional Monarchy.  And when the emergent factions decide to set the Constitutional limits aside, it collapses — as we are seeing in the US now.

You create a form of government that fails to account for human nature at your peril.  You can’t subvert thousands of years of evolution with platitudes and ideology.

On the importance of defeating Malloy

I always talk about chess, how about we play some?

Let’s start with the board set thus: Malloy has won, and the Democrats retain control of the Senate.

Their opening move: get rid of the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners and make Connecticut a strictly may-issue state. No, you won’t be “suitable” either.

What’s our counter-move? Impotent rage?

Their next move: yearly permit renewals, subject to “suitability”.  No, you’re not “suitable” any more.  Because.

And we don’t have to go any further. And within two years of that going in to effect, the number of permits in CT falls through the floor.

Do I have your attention now, fence-sitters?

Science, motherfucker! Do you speak it?

The left is always droning on about how they “love science”. Well, let’s put that to the test, shall we?

Science is, at its core, the search for “how”. Science doesn’t care why, only how.

The Scientific Method works thus:

  1. A thing happens.
  2. The thing is observed.
  3. A hypothesis is formed as to how it happened.
  4. An experiment is created by which the hypothesis may be tested.
  5. A result is reached.

Repeat steps 4 and 5 until a statistically significant measurement of the validity of the hypothesis (yes or no) is achieved.

If the result of this method does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is set aside, and you return to step 2 to observe some more.  If the result does support the hypothesis, you ask others to attempt to repeat your results. If they fail, you go back to step 2.

Only once your hypothesis has been confirmed, and your results have been replicated can you begin to claim you have something that rises to the level of theory.

Now that we have the scientific method in a nutshell, let’s tweak it a little for political and social phenomena.

  1. A social ill is identified.
  2. The social ill is discussed and studied.
  3. A policy to correct said social ill is proposed.
  4. Said policy is put into effect and enforced.
  5. A result is obtained.

Now, if that result is the reduction of the social ill, then the policy can be called successful.
If the result carries with it new social ills, or the exacerbation of other existing social ills, then not so much.  This can be chalked up to a poor experimental design, or one that didn’t eliminate enough variables.

And if the result is either no improvement or things get worse, then the policy is a failure.

Where politics departs from science is what happens when the result does not support the policy.

If the response is the further enactment of similar policies, then it can be inferred that the actual desire is not to ameliorate the social ill, but to exacerbate it.

Which brings us around to one of my pet bugaboos — gun control.

Our friends on the left tell us that more gun control, and perhaps even a broad confiscation of private firearms is just the thing to get us to nirvana.  They point to England and Australia as shining examples of how well gun control works to prevent “gun violence”

And when you point out that more people are murdered with guns in both places now than before the gun bans, they change the subject.

I think we can safely assume that the left do not “love science”.  No, they just want meaningless sex.

Why it’s pointless to try to win an argument with a progressive

Win an argument with a progressive on Facebook, get a 12 hour ban.

This is how they work.  They are free to insinuate, accuse, lie, insult, attack, belittle, and harass anyone with impunity.

And when you dare to point out their lies, correct their errors, or destroy their argument, they report you and you get blocked for violating the “community standards” and there’s no appeal process at all.

So from now on, any time a progressive starts with the attacks or lies, it’s reported for hate speech.

No more mister nice guy.

Connecticut – stagnant since 1991 for your convenience.

Forbes asks: “How Did Rich Connecticut Morph Into One Of America’s Worst Performing Economies?

I can answer the question in one word: Democrats.

The people of Connecticut bear 100% of the responsibility for this.  We used to be the precision manufacturing capital of the world.  Until the people of this state elected Democrats.

When the state didn’t recover from the 1991 recession, they elected more Democrats.  When a so-called independent shoved an income tax down our throats, they elected more Democrats.  When the Democrats, tired of his continued vetoes of their millionaire surtax, finally ousted John Rowland, they elected more Democrats.

When Jodi Rell (R) ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility (and won, oddly enough) the people sent enough Democrats to the General Assembly to give them a veto-proof majority.  I wonder why Rell decided not to run again.

And after all that, they elected an imbecile Democrat for Governor who gave them the highest tax increase in CT history.  And having voted for him, they have the gall to complain about taxes.

You people did this to yourselves!  I didn’t vote for any of those clowns in Hartford, YOU DID!  But I’ve gotta suffer for your idiocy.

There is only one way to save Connecticut.  Get rid of ALL the Democrats — including the Republicans like McKinney who vote like them on everything.

Otherwise, we’re going to end up like that other Democrat bastion – Detroit.

Communism and Libertarianism are a lot alike.

How?  Simple.  They both fall apart as soon as they meet Humans.

The false assumption underlying all collectivist beliefs is that Men will willingly give up their own desires for the good of other Men.

The false assumption of all anarchist beliefs is that Men will willingly not seek power over other Men.

The fundamental flaw with both is this:  There are only two kinds of people; those who believe individuals must be controlled, and those who do not.

And this is why these systems (which I shall call Utopian) are doomed to fail.  Men cannot be perfected.  If you are a Christian, you believe that all Men are fallen.  If you’re like me, you believe that MPAI (Most People Are Idiots).  In fact, if you’re anything but a Utopian, you believe in the maxim “Power corrupts.”  But no utopian system can ever bridge the fundamental gap between people.

Functionally, there is no difference between an all-powerful central government and no government at all.  In either case, the weak are completely at the mercy of the strong, and there are no fundamental rights at all.

Thus, we have the Constitution; a document that was crafted by men who were wise enough to understand that Men respond to incentives.  A document that enshrines at once the competing needs to limit the powerful and to protect the weak.  Through sloth, we have allowed the original concept to become corrupted, and we have ceded too much of our individual liberty to bureaucracies because it’s easier than actually being in control. But solace will be found neither in collectivism nor in anarchy.

Only by dismantling the bureaucratic state we have allowed to come about can we ever hope to return to a properly free society.

Karl Marx is DEAD!

OK. I want all of you climate-change cocksuckers to read this. I want you to read it AND UNDERSTAND IT.

Look at this graph: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

LOOK AT IT!

You have been lying to yourselves and us FOR THIRTY YEARS. You knew it. We knew it. But you had the politicians, the schools, the media. You thought you had finally won one for The Great Socialist Revolution.

Science is about coming up with an explanation for a phenomenon, developing testable hypotheses, and performing experiments to test them. If a hypothesis fails, it is thrown away and another is developed. If no testable hypothesis can be found, then the explanation is dismissed, and the search begins anew.

Unless you’re a socialist. Then you come up with a political end-state. You develop a non-falsifiable explanation, offer up hypotheses that either nobody can test, or only people receiving government grants will test, and then offer the fraudulent “settled science” as a reason to steal liberty from the people.

Progressives! Your God lies broken before you, his feet of clay melted by the unending drumbeat of truth.

Who’s the denier now?

What are the limits of the second amendment?

I’m always annoyed when some lefty gun-banner throws out this bon mot: “Well, what are the limits, then?  Should people be able to buy rocket launchers?  Nuclear missiles?”

Just because I like to see their heads spin, I say “Certainly.”  I never bother to explain it to them because they are incapable of understanding.  But you?  You’re different.  I can tell.

Ralph (commenter at TTAG) gets it.

Basically, the Second Amendment was intended for two things – repelling an invading army over land, and overthrowing tyranny.  So if you look at it in the spirit in which it was written, at the very least it covers personal arms and crew-served weapons.  So yes, the Second Amendment would cover a howitzer.

The nuke issue gets tricky, but not for long.  See, nukes are VERY expensive.  And they aren’t safe to be around, so on a private property rights basis most people won’t be able to keep them in their residence.  And they’re useless without some kind of delivery system.

So we’re talking a couple BILLION dollars to have one nuke with the ability to use it (excepting suicide bombers, but hey, how likely is that given how big a nuke is?).  So there’s maybe a dozen people in the world who could afford it.  And they all have a vested interest in the world not getting nuked.  No, the real threat of nukes is from nations like Iran and North Korea with nothing to lose.

So I think I can say with 100% confidence that there ought not be any limits on the second amendment.  Anything our infantry can carry and use should be on the shelves at the local gun shop.