Quote of the Day 2014-04-08: Tam on the Mozilla CEO affair

Her original post is good, but she hits a home run in the comments:

Let’s say there was a company in Jackson, MS some time ago. This company was well-known for its lack of discrimination in its hiring process and corporate culture, and was recognized in the industry as someplace where the color of one’s skin was no bar to advancement.

Let’s say they hired me in as senior management and I wound up getting named CEO, the leader of the company… and then someone found out that some years back I’d been writing checks to the Decent Citizens’ Anti-Miscegenation League.

Would I then be able to continue as an effective leader in that company?

Bingo.

END OF LINE

A surprisingly balanced article on gun control

At the Roanoke Times.

About 30 years ago as a young reporter in Florida, I was assigned a series on gun control in response to gun violence, which had peaked in the U.S. in 1980.

I began the series with profiles of three gun users, including a woman who had killed her would-be rapist, the owner of a sport shooting club and a convicted murderer on death row at the Florida State Prison in Starke.

Most dramatic was the woman, who was attacked as she entered her apartment after work one evening. She had just moved in and boxes were stacked floor-to-ceiling, nary a broom nor a pot to use in self-defense.

In her panic, she suddenly remembered the small derringer in her purse, which still hung over her shoulder. Already, the man had her pinned against the wall. Reaching into her bag, she grabbed the gun, pressed it to his side and, boom! He died instantly. To my question, she replied: “Hell, yes, I’d do it again in a New York minute.”

Or words to that effect.

Most chilling was the murderer, whose name I no longer recall. I do remember that his fingertips were oddly flared and he pressed them together, expanding and contracting his hands like a bellows. No doubt aware that I was nervous, he seemed amused by my questions.

“Sure,” he chuckled. “I’m all for gun control. Because that means you won’t have a gun. And I will always have a gun.” [Emphasis added - Jake]

I may not agree entirely with the author, but it’s at least a balanced and fair article, without the normal heavily anti-gun bias the Roanoke Times usually publishes. Go read the whole thing. It’s worth it.

END OF LINE

[Source: Roanoke Times article, retrieved 9/20/13]

Quote of the Day #2 – 2013-09-12

By Robb Allen:

There’s a sickness in the belief that only a gov’t can keep everyone safe via regulation, regulation, regulation.

‘Nuff said.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-09-12

From Vladimir Putin, of all people:

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.

And on the 12th anniversary of the day terrorists murdered almost 3000 innocents, our government openly acknowledges that it is arming that same terrorist organization in a bid to put them in charge of a nation known to possess chemical weapons.

I am certainly alarmed.

END OF LINE

[Source: Yahoo! News article, retrieved 9/12/13]

A Second Amendment Epiphany

Linoge linked to a couple of articles last week, and one of them – once I finally got around to reading it – tripped one of those switches in my brain that said “Oh! Now I get it!” regarding the deceptively clumsy phrasing of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

The relationship between the two clauses, and how or even if they cause the Right to relate to militias, has been debated for at least a century. A popular argument among those who favour gun control – whether outright bans on all guns, or bans of “assault weapons” – is that the 2nd Amendment is preconditioned on membership in a militia, and that the National Guard and/or the advent of professional police forces has superseded the founder’s model of local militias. As a result, they argue, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to ordinary citizens, only to police and National Guard members.

While this argument certainly ignores the fact that the unorganized militia is still embodied in US law, it is flawed on a much more basic level – the 2nd Amendment clearly and specifically assigns that right to the people, not to the militia or members of a militia. This is the classic dependent/independent clause argument – that the reference to a “well regulated militia” explains the necessity of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but does not limit that right to membership in a militia.

But there was a point in reading that article where something else clicked for me, though I can’t point to any one sentence or paragraph and say “this is where I understood”. It’s a surprisingly simple concept.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that they may quickly and easily form a militia should the need arise.

When the Right for each and every citizen to own, possess, and carry arms is restricted, a militia cannot be formed without those people first going out and obtaining arms. If the government is allowed to restrict how, when, and if a citizen can purchase firearms – yes, even military weapons – then the government can restrict or prevent the formation of any militias.

But why, you ask, in our modern society, would anyone need to form a militia so quickly that they couldn’t wait for the government to approve it if it truly was needed?

Leaving aside the assumption that the government a) would approve it in the first place, and b) would do so quickly enough to do any good, it also ignores the speed in which bad situations can develop. A perfect modern day example of this is the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, and the events that took place in Koreatown during those riots.

With the police overwhelmed (and, by all accounts, not terribly motivated to intervene in that neighborhood anyway), it fell to the citizens there to defend their homes, livelihoods, and their lives themselves. They banded together in small groups for their own defense – the very definition of an unorganized militia. Once the riots started, they didn’t have time to go to a store and buy a gun. They didn’t have time to sit through a background check. They were dependent on the guns they had at the time.

Without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, Koreatown would have been destroyed by the rampaging mobs.

What would have been more effective in Boston last month – unarmed citizens cowering in their homes with the police and National Guard imposing martial law (lite! with only half the jackboots!) while searching house to house, or armed citizens standing watch over their own neighborhoods while directing the police towards any suspicious activity?

I’ll say it again. The Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms does not depend on membership in a militia, it is what allows us to form militias where and when they are needed.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-04-02

From Sean Sorrentino, in a comment at Shall Not Be Questioned.

Because Compromise is the process where you lose slightly less of your rights than the anti-rights crowd asked for, BUT YOU STILL LOSE.

This. It’s what the anti-Rights cultists have been doing to us since NFA ’34. The best illustration of how it works is LawDog’s Parable of The Cake. They continually talk us into a “compromise” where we lose yet another little bit of our Rights and they lose nothing, and they consider it a win because they can always come back later to push us to “compromise” again, and again, and again, until our Rights are gone.

No more. As the anti-Rights bills move through Congress and your state legislature, tell your Representatives, Senators, Governors, everybody, “No more compromises.” Enough is enough.

It’s my cake, dammit. They’ve had too much of it already.

END OF LINE

Legislative Update (Federal) and Quote of the Day – 2013-03-13

Sebastian has a post up with some information on the federal “background check” bill that was voted out of the Senate committee yesterday. It’s bad. Very bad. Go, read the whole thing, follow his link to the actual text of the bill, and decide for yourself how unbelievably bad it is. Then get on the phone and computer to call and email your senators. Let them know that their vote on this bill will be remembered, and that a vote against freedom will not be forgiven.

Which leads me to today’s Quote of the Day, by jdrush, in a comment to Sebastian’s post.

Wow, they really aren’t coming for our guns. They are coming for US.

This looks to be the real point of this legislation – make gun ownership so fraught with legal dangers that it actively discourages people from trying to own firearms. Make teaching others how to shoot so difficult to do legally that it discourages people from trying.

Their aim is to strangle gun ownership with such a dense web of laws that are easily unintentionally broken, in order to choke the Right to the point that it is so weak that it can be excised out of American culture entirely.

Call and write your legislators. Kill this bill, before it can kill us.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-02-05

From an anonymous comment at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money:

It’s not about the DEER, it’s about the BOXCARS !

Also, take a moment to watch the video in the original post. It’s one of the most angry public meetings I’ve seen that didn’t end with somebody being hauled off in handcuffs.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-02-01

From Joe Huffman:

Background checks to prevent some people from gaining access to firearms is like checking ID to prevent underage drinking and smoking.

How long does it take your average high school dropout to find a way to light up while drinking a beer?

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-01-30

From Roberta X:

And I’m done listening to calls for “compromise.”  The antis don’t really want compromise.  They want whatever they can get now and they’ll be back later for the rest of your firearms rights later — followed by the rest of the Bill of Rights, already plenty nibbled-at.

It’s well past time to say “enough” — and to keep on saying it, by whatever means it takes to get ‘em to hear.

This. A thousand times, this. They keep wanting more and more of our cake, and we’ve “compromised” again and again for so long that all we have left is half a slice and some crumbs. Now they want that half-slice. No more. It’s beyond time that we tell the Anti-Rights cultists to go bugger themselves.

By whatever means are required to make them listen.

END OF LINE

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: