“Common sense” gun control: Be ready to defend the kids in kind against killers and government abuse

Well, the media mouthpieces for more government control over the minds of future voters and serfs for the fiefdoms of statist rulers, they have come out again using the shoot-em-up in Nashville to preempt the obvious fact getting highlighted by some again that the shooting is a good reason to home-school.

The New Yorker points at statistics that seem to indicate children are more at risk from so-called “gun violence” at home than in schools. No wonder President Harry Truman called such numbers, “lies, damned lies, and statistics”. The truth is, historically, government policies and actions have killed many more people, including children. Speaking of which, how many children were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Truman’s own orders to drop the atomic bomb on them?

Secretary of State in Bill Clinton’s cabinet said in an interview that the 150,000 children who had dies in Iraq as a direct result of the Clinton-regime’s actions against the Iraq government “was worth it”. How many children died in Stalin’s Holodomor genocide against Ukrainians?

What about the US government? Does anybody dare say that the citizens in the city-state democracies in ancient Greece were safe from tyranny committed by their own future rulers? Or the era of republics in Rome were safe from their own senators or generals?

Can’t happen here? What about the American Indian children in the town massacred by General Custer and his troops, resulting in the massacre of Custer and his troops afterward? What about the Japanese children held in a war camp by the FDR regime so revered today by defenders of the current regime that wants to ban guns outright, but must do it by steps and by lies, damned lies, and statistics.

For example, I would take a real bet right now, that in a truly double-blind study, you would find that all, or at least almost all, shootings of children in their home would be in households that do NOT home-school.

Liars. Be very skeptical of regime organs that advocate more power for the rulers that obviously don’t care for children in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and of course the children in schools that do not have armed protection like there was in the school in Washington, D. C. where Obama had his children, when he said he was glad they did have five armed security guards.

Advertisement

Democracies and republics

Talk about word games! Hahaha! The people that worked on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution made a BIG distinction between “democracy” and “republic”. Quoting 20th century politicians who conflate the terms with a new definition of “democracy” does not help the discussion. Witness the ridiculous names for totalitarian states like the Democratic Republic of North Korea!!

Lincoln’s definition is itself just word play. Abraham Lincoln had a federal officer return an escaped slave in Illinois to his “owner” in Missouri. He suspended habeus corpus illegally. He hounded one opposition congressman in a northern state who had to flee to Canada for his life. He had his troops shoot live fire into a crowd in New York that was protesting the military draft. Before the war started, he proposed making slavery permanent in the Constitution as a way to keep the Union, thereby proving once and for all that the whole Civil War was fought to protect tyranny by the central government. He had planned on shipping blacks all back to Africa, because the poor things could not compete fairly with whites, so he said.

Forget ex post facto laws. The tyrant went after opponents who violated no laws.

In truth I trust neither republics nor democracies nor monarchies nor any other form of “government” to be fair or to fulfill their defenders’ justifications. Checks and balances obviously have not worked at all in the US or elsewhere. The only fair society promotting peace and prosperity is one where its members practice the non-aggression principle. The outliers, like thieves and invaders, who violate this, in such a society, would be suppressed by the principle of self-defense. Before you say that’s impractical, look at what you already have in every place ruled in history and in the present by any kind of government. They all start their existence based on theft, without which they cannot exist: Pay “taxes” or meet forceful punishment.

Mr. Rogers said it

Mr. Rogers:

https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/status/1614160825157300225

Beware ruling class media organs pushing a new initiative to ban guns

I just watched an NBC special video which was an effort to persuade somebody that the Second Amendment was not about a personal right to bear arms.

The elephant in the room for this debate over semantics and grammar is the following question.

Why would the writers of the Bill of Rights and the state legislators that voted for it bother with any amendment at all protecting the right of any government-owned or government-run militia to bear arms.

That amendment was a direct result of the experience the colonists had with their own government. And yet too many of today’s so-called leftists and fascists claim that the Second Amendment was to protect the state militia, as if it were the same as today’s too-much federalized National Guard.

These gaslighting power-grabbers are gaslighting the public.

The problem with mass shootings today is not that one drug-deranged mental case can get hold of a gun, never mind the most gun-banned jurisdictions in the US are where the most gun crimes happen. The problem is that when they start shooting, there aren’t enough people shooting back at them on the spot and in the act. This fact is so obvious that virtually every movie with a bad guy shooting innocent people is stopped by somebody shooting back.

Somebody might object, what about McGyver, who never carries a gun in the episodes but still manages to save the day? The glaring gaping flaw in that writing is that every time he and his friends are facing armed bad guys, McGyver always manages to rig up something like a homemade Molotov cocktail, or a bazooka made with handy materials, or something that shoots acid at them. In other words, some kind of weapon, often explosive.

What good is “the right of the people to bear arms” if it does not apply to persons living under a regime that does not qualify for the prefatory clause there, “necessary to the security of a free state”. What if the “state” becomes a tyranny?

Besides, that was also in the days when individual states understood the ratification of the Constitution as never prohibiting secession from that Union. After all, that’s implicit in the ratification and in many if not most or all of the legislators ratifying understood it that way.

In any case, the Second Amendment is best interpreted as a written acknowledgement that each person’s right to defend themselves, and by extension, the Constitution, “from all [its] enemies, foreign and domestic“.

Say their names. Again. Again.

Ashli Babbit, murdered by Lt. Byrd.

Roseanne Boyland, beaten to death, murdered by Capitol Police officer Lila.

Ray Epps, protected by the FBI Kangaroo Court and by the Pelosi J committee, the FBI refusing to indict this man recorded on public video telling J6 protestors to invade the Capitol building.

(If they throw Epps under the bus, then future potential informants and useful idiots and agents provocateurs won’t be able to trust their handlers.)

An Internet was forming before the feds got in

There were all kinds of PRIVATE networks popping up everywhere long before DARPA threw its closed network open for all.

On AOL, Compuserve, Discovery (I think that was a Sears-owned network) a similar network service), were growing in the 1980s and 1990s. People could buy stuff, sell stuff, reserve flights, buy tickets, communicate with each other. After DARPA had the protocols matured, presumably for control, they threw open their network (used among various universities and defense departments to share information), it expanded into the Internet. Tim Berners Lee at some point wrote code to handle imaging and that became the World Wide Web.

If the government would have kept its greedy hands out of it, the private companies would have matured just nicely. Take the phone companies, too. Early on, AT&T convinced the government that it would be better to let them have a monopoly. Phone technology took off after upstart companies sued in court to let them provide long distance using wireless.

Once the Internet started dominating, to give it a push, at some point a judge ruled that ISP’s could not charge per hour. What an arbitrary rule. It would have become moot soon enough, as private initiatives had already started, like Netzero, which started with a rule that they would provide free service.

Home schooling facts, Lincoln’s handling of the War Between the States

The numbers are real. It’s not just an isolated fact. Students at Patrick Henry University are big majority graduates from a home-schooled education. Their law department has won moot court competitions in the United States and even won the moot court competition in England using English law.

For years home-schoolers won spelling bees and math competitions until Asians started sharing the winnings, because the environment in Asian homes has parents very much involved in their studies.

For another note, Lincoln’s handling of the War Between the States included:

(1) suspending the constitutional right of habeus corpus, jailing dissenters and protestors at whim without bringing charges,

(2) ordering troops to fire into the crowds of young poor New Yorkers protesting the draft (the rich kids simply hired proxies to go for them),

(3) shutting down opposition newspapers that editorialized in favor of peace,

(4) chasing one pesky Congressmen clear to Canada to escape the order of arrest ,

(5) ordering General Sherman to do a scorched earth operation, meaning burn down houses and torch the crops because even though the North was winning, he was impatient to end it.

And slavery, the big issue they trot out today to justify the hagiography and all the slaughter of that war, was a side issue to him. He proposed a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the Union, in exchange for permanent Union (a ban on secession). Centralizing power in the federal government in perpetuity was his main goal.

Copyright, translations and the Bible

Translations are infinitely reproducible strings of words and sentences. All “intellectual property” is exactly that. Books, designs and formulas and algorithms. I’m a software engineer and can point to “open source” as evidence that that coders and authors and composers can still get remuneration for being the “first”.

Copyright laws first appeared after the printing press invention. They were laws decreed by kings who hated what some books and pamphlets were saying. Those laws were meant for censorship.

That’s exactly why they continue today. At some point the “just because” justification for copyright that banned criticism of the king turned into incentives for creators. But governments still gave themselves the power to decide the rules.

Nowadays, you can get a copyright for a translation, and a second person can get another copyright if a certain percentage of the product is different from the first version.

You can see the corruption that ensues. The best-selling book of all time, including all translations, is the Bible. This is great incentive to produce yet another translation, even with so many versions out there, more than a hundred, included various “paraphrases”. There is even a corn-pone version!

So if a linguist is translating the Bible, he might know the best way to express a chapter, but it’s identical to another translation already copyrighted, he has to make less-than-best. or pay royalties.

That’s only one reason among a great many others for using the King James Bible instead of others, especially the modern ones.

Translations and behemoths

And in a court case they still have to measure how much was his and how much hers. I am a software engineer, and it is absolutely impossible for any software coder to say every single line is originally his. Even the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, said he stood on the shoulders of giants. It’s ridiculous.

Take translations. Copyright laws vary wildly between different countries. Bible translations show the idiocy of it. Every Bible translation of the same ancient documents has to differ by a completely arbitrary percentage from every other translation to qualify for its own copyright royalty demands. I have seem the most ridiculous verses in modern translations, doubling and tripling the verbiage to say something similar. And instead of the KJB transliteration of “behemoth” in Job, I’ve seen at least half a dozen guesses as to the animal referred to, because nobody knows what the original word meant. But oh no, they can’t use the description of the animal for accuracy because it describes a dinosaur.

Who is robbing poor blacks (and whites)?

Every chance you get, point out that it is the Dems who are telling the poor blacks (and whites!!) to take their crumbs and be happy because the billionaires are on the side of keeping them on the welfare plantation.

And. The lockdowns took away their jobs and put them under house arrest.

The masks to make breathing harder.

Closing the small businesses hurt the black-owned shops the most.

And it’s the donkeys that are importing competition for working-class jobs.

Remind them that there are lots more poor whites than poor blacks. When Martin Luther King started including poor whites in his work, that’s when they had him shot.