Comments on: Two articles on gun control, one pro, one con. Only one makes sense. Guess which.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:38:23 +0000

Karl, your take is spot on.

There’s such a heavy element of magical thinking in liberals’ perceptions that it doesn’t surprise me that they have all sorts of incantations they use to avoid actual thoughtful discourse. “We agree to disagree” is one of them.

Disagreement signals a lack of agreement, no? So the statement, “We disagree,” is sufficient to describe the situation. The liberal amendment, intended to flaunt a sort of amorphous civility, shows a lack of willingness or ability to actually explain or defend why there is disagreement.

By: Karl

Karl — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:53:20 +0000

I had a bit of a chat on Facebook about ten days ago, where I cited that Correia's article. Karl: @********: Are you willing to read this piece? It actually addresses your points.<http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/> ********: I did read the piece. I still disagree. I also have that right and am free to do so. Karl: OK, do you have a specific response to the justification for owning semi-automatic weapons, or does your vocabulary shrink to "I disagree"? (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) ********: I also do know how to shoot, have owned guns, and respect that my brother-in-law has guns locked up in his home gun safe. I just have a difference of opinion when it comes to semi-automatic weaponry. And now I'm done with my part of the discussion, because as much as you won't change your mind, I won't change mine. You all have your opinion, and I have mine, and we can all agree to disagree. Another fantastic freedom afforded to us all in this country. At this point, the appropriate response to this person's "I disagree" seems to be one recommended by Dennis Prager: "So what?" OK, you disagree. So what? You seem to have no particular reason for disagreeing. you just disagree. Why should that matter to me?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:50:35 +0000

What will really work, I think, is if we use the Left’s weaknesses and rules against them. This is a chance to hit police unions in the head as well as the education bureacrats. Breitbart could easily scoop up some dirt and corruption about how much union dues are pulling from the local teachers and the local police. Use that and then tell the people that this is where the money goes, and that This Is the Reason they refuse to pay for police on schools. The money is going into the pockets of people like Obama.

The people have never, and will never, care about who is “Right”. First they must be given a target, the cause, then they will find a solution to that problem. The Left has managed this process by always giving them a convenient cause of the problem: namely, the Left’s enemies in the US. It then becomes trivially easy to propose the correct Leftist “solution”. Conservatives are too much feeding off the PR illusion of the Left when they talk about how to “solve the problem” without ever mentioning the fact that the Left has never and will never be interested in solutions. They determine what the problem is, mostly because the problem comes from the Left itself, and then they control what solutions, meaning which of their crony’s bank accounts gets filled with taxes drawn form the peasants.

So far the American people haven’t heard why the Left is evil, why it is the source of the problem, or anything of that nature in great detail. Unless it comes from ‘extreme right wing kooks’ as they deem it.
It’s not enough to let people “figure it out for themselves” by asking leading questions bout the Left. I disagree fundamentally on the tactic there. Make them and lead them into the correct solution, by giving them the problem, without any vaccination, hesitation, or bipartisanship compromised mercy. Describe the problem of gun crimes, violence, as coming uncritically, directly sourced, from Leftist antics and corruption.

People will never get the solution correct when they think their problem comes from manufactured lies that they don’t seem to be aware of. That’s not to solve problems. That’s an easy way, and convenient for the Left, to get people killed.

Then again, the Left’s actions here are not as horrible as people may deem it. Because this is only the things You Know About. There are plenty more things the Left has done, in this country and elsewhere, that few if anybody knows the full extent of the problems they caused. Imagine that for a moment.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:42:10 +0000

Well, the approach we saw AQ take in Iraq was that they told us they were violencing the populace because unclean infidels were on Muslim holy soil. That excuse got kind of old when the people on those holy lands kept seeing their children blow up instead of American service members, most of the time because AQ detonated a market bomb. Whether the “bomber” was “willing” or “not” to detonate it himself. These Gordian knots are never as uncuttable as people may assume. Though one reason the Left tried to make it harder was because such methods to clean out insurgencies and terror regimes perhaps hit a little bit too close to their urban fiefdom homes, and second of all, even if it succeeded, they would get no political or religious reward out of Iraq becoming safer and more prosperous. Any more than the Left would gain political or religious rewards if Democrat blacks became safer and more prosperous.

Propaganda is very effective, up until the cold hard tyrannical boot lands on your child and smashes the jaw of your daughters. Then it kind of disappears as the illusion it always was. America’s primary issue is that we are still more prosperous than 90% of the world, we are still safer than 99% of the world’s denizens, and it’s all too easy to “forget” the evil so called Americans visit upon citizens, foreigners, and immigrants alike. All too easy. Until they come for you.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:22:44 +0000

And you and Indigo Red have hit upon one of the dead give-aways there that they are not serious, which *might* possibly be useful in attempting to reason with some of those who are not completely hard-over gun-grabbers:

“Why, Mr. Moderate in the Middle, if the Dems are indeed serious about solving the problem at all costs, are they dead-set against armed guards in the schools? Especially when they liked the idea when it was proposed not by the NRA but one of their own? Why do they not like an ‘all of the above’ solution?”

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:38:49 +0000

Spartacus, even if they had the courage, the Left knows where the bodies are buried to the point where many Republican politicians work for the Left, whether they know it or not.

They are against the NRA idea because they don’t want a solution. If their enemies are seen as proposing a creative/positive change, some of the slaves might bolt for the enemy. But if they make the slaves more afraid of going off the plantation (there be white devils out there), then they can more easily control the populace.

The totalitarian dictatorship that uses fear to control the population is well and here now, but unlike former regimes, the Left has figured out that the carrot is a lot more effective than the torture stick. But never forget that the torture stick is still there for the Left to use, if not directly, then indirectly via their madmen like proxies.

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:43:45 +0000

The NRA is being excoriated by anti-gunners for proposing armed guards or policemen in every school, that this is a really dumb idea. How quickly it’s forgotten that Pres. Bill Clinton put armed cops in school after Columbine and funded the initial program with $120 mil back in 2000.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:19:23 +0000

Y-Man,

That, of course, is precisely the problem. The Left wins and election, and they install all kinds of locks on their power and tilt the entire system to the left. Then the kinda-sorta “Right” wins an election, and accepts that status quo as the new baseline, instead of having the courage to pass bills that basically say, “All policy changes resulting from the Clinton [Carter, Johnson, etc.] are hereby repealed.”

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:11:03 +0000

Any policy that’s good enough for our children is good enough for our public servants, right? How about a Gun Free Government Zone Act, removing all armed security from the US Capitol and White House? Find a Republican to introduce that one, and grab some popcorn for the shrieks-and-howls show.

Double standards? Inconceivable!

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:33:29 +0000

“while Correia, who has first-hand knowledge and actual facts (as opposed to feelings and historic rewrites) can only rely upon word of mouth in the blogosphere.”

I started to believe that democracy wasn’t all it was cracked up to be in America when I realized how many literal (I’m not kidding) fiefdoms we have in American cities. When I really realized how many people voted in whomever they were told to vote in, in return for food and protection (from being whipped by the master), the idea of “democracy” and “elections” being the “solution” for American problems became more and more distant. I already knew at the time that Iraqis, foreigners, had their own problems with democracy and elections. Namely nepotism, misunderstanding the system, and various ways to crack it, take advantage of it, and so forth. But that was a third world nation, I thought. America was a first world nation, and thus different. It wasn’t even Europe, with its tradition of serfs and servants. Until I realized just how powerful the Left is in America, and had historically been growing stronger over the decades, even centuries. It didn’t so much “shed unnecessary components” as add in new ones, often times by force. The Democrats, if they weren’t Leftist to begin with, became part of the alliance later. Feminism, if they weren’t Leftist to begin with, became part of the alliance later. Black Civil Rights, if the yweren’t Leftist to begin with, became part of the alliance later. Winning elections, losing elections, didn’t matter. That was not affecting the real source of the Leftist alliance’s power base. The base still grew up. The extremists, as people are wont to call them, are in charge of every single grass roots organization in the Left, yet most people think the Left is composed of moderates or least the extremists “aren’t in power”. By power, they mean the elected seats of office. I would beg to differ. The seat of power in America has never been the “office” but the people. And the Left has been crapping on people and making them slaves, while the rest of the nation hasn’t done a damn thing about it. The last guy I can clearly remember doing a damn thing about it was Abraham Lincoln, and today most blacks think he is a Democrat. A fing Democrat, I tell you. It’s not like it doesn’t matter who is evil or good, so one might as well be evil and get the rewards from it. 1984 was actually an optimistic picture of things compared to present day America. At least they had to fing torture people to obey in 1984. These days, you don’t even need torture for people to obey Obama.

Until loyalists of the American Republic break the back of the Left’s power, you ain’t seen nothing yet if you think one single school kid massacre is the worst of the Left’s excesses. You ain’t seen nothing yet with Obama in 2008, and you won’t have seen the worst in 2012, nor will you see the worst in 2016. Evil is progressive in many ways.