Category Archives: Firearms

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.

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.

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.

So, what is to be done then?

Ok, so you’ve internalized the horror of the last post.

Good.  What’s to be done if prevention is out of the question? I’m glad you asked.  Mitigation.

You may not be able to save everyone.  But you can come close.  It took 20 minutes for the police to get to Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I blame physics.  So, that makes the adults already on site the first responders.  It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine what that means.

So, that aside, let’s look at the kinds of people that are engaging in these acts of mass murder and self-destruction.  Mostly, they’re losers.  People who have concluded that their life sucks, so they’re gonna go out with a bang, make a statement, and be on the tee vee so they’ll be Internet Famous when they get to hell.

All of these mass murders have something else  in common besides the basement-dwelling loser status of the perpetrators.  They all happened in so-called Gun Free Zones.

I’m pretty confident that if we get rid of “Gun Free Zones” that these atrocities would simply cease because the losers wouldn’t get the infamy they crave.

They’d just get a bullet in the brain.

Something Must Be Done.

The refrain we hear every time something bad happens.  This time it’s the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

And we are told that Something Must Be Done to prevent the next mass shooting.  And all the predictable “solutions” are proffered.  We’re told that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their rights in the hopes that someone might be denied a particular method for causing mayhem.  We’re told that we must surrender our property to the government so that it may not fall into the “wrong” hands.  And we know that it won’t work, because it never has before.  But that won’t stop the politicians from trying.

Why?  Because they are unable to accept the truth:

There is nothing we can do to prevent the next mass murder.

Say that a few times.  Until the horror of what it means wears off a bit.  Internalize it.  Accept it.  Because in your heart, you know that it is the truth.

No law taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is going to prevent a lunatic  from slaughtering innocents.  No invasion of privacy is sufficient to prevent it either. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

I’ll have more later.  But for now you need to understand that one horrible sentence.  Read it aloud until it has been imprinted upon your soul.  Only then will you be ready to move on.

On Liberty

I’m going to put this as simply as I can, because it needs to be said.

When you start a “discussion” by asking me why I need this or that thing, you’ll notice that I get agitated. You honestly don’t get it, I realize that. In your mind, you’ve asked a perfectly reasonable question. But once it gets to my mind, it isn’t reasonable at all.

Because this is America. This country was founded upon the principle that all men are equal, and therefore nobody is endowed with the ability to determine what I am to be trusted with. We don’t have a gentry class in America that is charged by God with guiding the peasants to the most productive use of their lives.

No, we fought a war that started in 1775 with the attempted seizure of arms and powder at Lexington and Concord for the sole purpose of throwing off the yoke of an appointed ruler who ruled by decree in a manner arbitrary and capricious for the benefit of the gentry class.

Americans are unlike any other people on Earth. We are inherently distrustful of authority, and we hold in contempt those who try to run our lives based upon what they’ve determined to be moral and right.

We are Americans. Before anything else, we are free. We do not accept the authority of government to protect us from ourselves. We do not accept the authority of self-appointed nannies to tell us how we must live so that we may best serve the state. We do not accept having our “betters” tell us what we need or what we may be allowed to want.

I am an American, and my reasons for wanting something are none of your concern. Unless and until I do something to deprive you of the just exercise of your liberty, how I exercise mine is none of your business.