Good guys with guns
The Parkland shootings—and the police reaction to them—have sparked predictable responses on both sides.
Here’s the way the liberal position on this seems to work, based on some or all of the following beliefs:
(1) “Good guys” don’t kill people unless otherwise the good guy faces certain death—and maybe not even then.
(2) A “good guy” should never have to risk his/her life to defend anyone else.
(3) Defending with guns is ineffective and dangerous, so best not to do it at all. Therefore, had the police gone into the school, it could and probably would have been even worse than it was. The police would have been killed, and maybe even more kids would have been killed in the crossfire. The same is true if civilians such as teachers had been armed. The fact that both police and civilians have often effectively intervened with guns to stop such violence, as well as the possible deterrent effect to killers like Cruz if they knew they could indeed meet armed resistance from “good guys”, is ignored.
(4) Therefore the only solution is to disarm citizens. That this disarmament is a pipe dream and that “bad guys” will always be able to get guns (or bombs, or other lethal means of destruction) is ignored.
In all of this I’m talking about the basic liberal voter who is susceptible to this line of reasoning. I am not talking about the leftist activist, who has other reasons for wanting to take your ability to defend yourselves away.
For the right, however, Parkland highlights how ineffective (or worse) government is to prevent acts of violence. Law enforcement had plenty of opportunity to prevent this particular event but passed its chances up at every turn, including the Broward police’s final failure to intervene while the killing was actively going on. Parkland proves to the right that citizens must be allowed to carry arms to defend themselves, because the government has been tested and found tremendously wanting.
I tend much more towards the conservative side of the argument, and I’ve written before about the stupidity of gun-free zones. I think the Sheriff of Broward County ought to resign over the failings of his department (and his subsequent politicizing and coverup), but I don’t think he ever will unless forced to. I also think that some sort of red flag law would be good to adopt, because people on record as being as unstable and threatening as Cruz should probably at least temporarily relinquish their rights to possess firearms—although at the same time I realize that (a) such laws would have to be carefully crafted to avoid abuse; and (b) given the way authorities had already behaved in the case of Cruz, I doubt anything would have been done to Cruz’s weapons even if Florida had had such a law in place.
Lastly, I would really really like to know what went down with the four members of the Broward police department who failed to enter the high school as the shootings were occurring. Did they do this (or rather, fail to do this) on their own, or were they given orders to stay back? If so, who gave the orders? What did they learn in training about an active shooter situation? Since Columbine, the general idea has been to engage the shooter in order to neutralize him:
And the final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the “active shooter protocol.” Optimally, it calls for a four-person team to advance in a diamond-shaped wedge. (If there isn’t time to gather four officers, a single officer should charge in alone.) They’re trained to move toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the shooter. Their goal is to stop him at all costs. They will walk past a dying child if they have to, just to prevent the shooter from killing more.
Was the Broward PD policy an exception? If so, why? Columbine was almost 20 years ago. That article I just quoted was written almost 10 years ago. Why did the Broward police fail to do what has become standard? And note how many liberals and the left are backing off from that policy, because they see it as in their political interests to argue that police should not be required to engage active shooters, despite the lessons of Columnbine.
Leftists are enemies of humanity. While rhetoric is effective against them, debate is about as useful as trying to convert serial killers into pacifism by kissing them.
Instead of 1-4 in the OP, I go with the Ymar version of how the Leftist alliance works.
1. The Hierarchy gives out an order.
2. The Leftist alliance obeys it.
3. Repeat as necessary.
4. Convince people that this isn’t how it works.
I would hope that when the reporting rules are changed to get more warnings into the NICS that there is an ability to have due process to release the hold.
Example – there is discord between a couple and one files for a protective order against the other. If the person loses their right to have a gun and their guns are taken, will they have an opportunity in court to get the hold overturned and their guns returned?
Or – you lose your spouse and are depressed. Your doctor gives you a script for an anti-depressant. Do you lose your gun because you are on a particular drug? Once you go off and are cleared of any depression, can you get your rights back?
There could be many examples where a person loses their rights and property.
I am not joking wnen I say every gun I add to the collection means I love you. What do you think I have it for. I care for people. Just look at my toolkit, my backpacking kit, my driving around kit, my chainsawing kit, and by that I mean my my Craftsman tool box full of first aid supplies.
I have to check and see if anything has expired.
I truly believe Democrat voters should be banned from entering the police force because there is a clear conflict of interest between leftist ideology and the duty of police that could potentially hinder their ability to perform the job professionally and successfully. I believe Democrat police have the incentives to intentionally not taking action to stop a crime that there is a heap of tips that it is about to take place from happening if the happening of the crime benefit their agenda. Imaging who benefits the most with a gunless America? the Deep state and enforcement agencies, because they will be the only people left with guns, and they will be a lot safer performing their jobs while still receiving the same high salary with great benefits.
It’s only a slight exaggeration when I say I can rebuild a small block chevy or give you a transfusion with what I carry around with me.
the revelation of police refusing to enter the scene of active shooting presents the perfect argument of why right to bear arms is so important, since you can’t expect anyone even professionals to risk their lives to save yours, right to bear arms gives the self relying means to everyone to fight for their lives in the time of unspeakable crisis.
I won’t say it can’t happen here in Texas because we alway seem to have some strange going on however I do know some law enforcement folks here and I can’t imagine them staying outside and not moving to the sound of gunfire.
Some of the ushers in our church, including me carry a concealed handgun and we have discussed the fact that one or two of us might get shot but if there are enough people who return fire then it is damn hard for a gunman to keep on shooting at innocent people.
We also shoot on a regular basis, I do steel challenge every month and train in-between and one of our setups is called the Mozambique where we fire two to the chest and one to the head in under two seconds. The idea being that if the bad guy has body armor your headshot will be the one that does the job.
I don’t know how the police and sheriff’s office hires people and what training they go through and how they keep their skills up to date, it appears they don’t do a good job. Any time a person, either officer or civilian carries a gun they should make a mental decision that they will be able to shoot and kill in a desperate situation and depending on the circumstances risk their own life to save others.
It kind of goes with the job description of being a cop.
I do not have the parts to rebuild a big block chevy.
OldTexan, you’ll never find me without my K- Bar.
Usually it’s my Becker Necker.
https://www.amazon.com/Ka-Bar-BK11-Becker-Necker-Knife/dp/B001N1CBB6
I have three. One goes around my neck, the other fits in my boot (you can get a boot clip), and the third fits everywhere. But when it’s convenent it’s the old-fashioned WWII type.
I googled becker necker boot clip.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4a/66/63/4a6663ffc45b9ec586409865b091c084.jpg
And here I was, thinking myself original for the parachute cord wrap.
Liz:
That’s why I said the law would have to be very carefully-crafted, because it could be abused.
The mere taking of an anti-depressant most definitely ought not to activate the law. Dangerousness—serious repeated threats and/or reckless behavior—such as Cruz exhibited prior to the shooting should be enough to activate it, however.
neo, the devil is in the details. The thing is, I’m tired of being lied to. I don’t know if you own guns, and I strenuously doubt you hunt. I hope you can be sympathetic to my position. Oft when the gun grabbers talk about universal background checks they use the words transfer to mean any time you hand a rifle or shotgun to someone else.
This happens a lot in hunting, when you cross a creek or a fence. It’s the safe thing to do. So they would write the law to mean I coudln’t hand my shotgun to someone I know to cross a fence. Or, in other words, to make hunting impossible.
And, they hope, you won’t read it carefully enough to understand it. Or care.
If police shouldn’t have to engage the shooter and teachers should never be allowed to engage the shooter, who should engage the shooter? Is everybody supposed to just wait around until the shooter gets tired of his/her murder spree and decides to go home like Forrest Gump? Insanity!
I believe it was Sheriff’s deputies that stood by outside the building, not the police. Some people can act during these events, some are frozen, some cower in fear– and I’m not sure it’s easy to know who will act which way.
I suppose the military or the police have an idea which type of person will act which way– and I suppose it’s the training that’s supposed to make action overcome the fear.
We had a school shooting in our little town in 1996, two students and a teacher killed and a third student maimed. The shooter was disarmed by a teacher, Jon Lane, that entered the room after hearing the shots in the room while walking down the hall. I think the shooter had a hunting rifle (bolt action) and a pistol which may be why Jon had the time to get to the kid.
Didn’t the football coach at Parkland sacrifice his life shielding a student/students? I’m not sure how you predict that type of bravery– and even armed whether the average person would have the courage to act.
It does make one pause about the AR15 type rifles with large magazines. A bolt action with a five shot clip would definitely slow down the shooter.
Didn’t read the other comments, so maybe it was already mentioned, but the policies in place in Florida, particularly Broward County, were to ignore or handle administratively criminal conduct in the schools to “reduce” crime and the disparate impact of arrests and suspensions given to minorities, particularly boys. Those officers were more than likely following orders to not engage.
Steve57:
I do worry that such laws are a slippery slope. But the sort of law I’m talking about would be one that temporarily took guns away from legal owners like Cruz who had demonstrated clear evidence of dangerousness. I also believe he should have been arrested (for threatening a school, which I’m pretty sure is a chargeable offense) or involuntarily committed and evaluated properly.
It still might not have mattered, but it should have been tried.
Doug Purdie:
Their “logic” is that if you ban guns there will be no shooters in the first place.
neo,
I agree that careful crafting is necessary. The shrinks have to step in here and provide a list of dangerous behaviours. Obsession with firearms and other weapons should be on the list, as should animal cruelty and threats.
There is a good piece up at City Journal that describes how the interaction between school, social services, and police screwed up, probably influenced by Obama-type thinking on not giving kids a record with the police. Why don’t these do-gooders understand that you can’t fix most kids at age 17 if they have had problems all their lives? It’s like Michelle’s thinking that kids will eat what the cafeteria serves them when they have never had a balanced meal including vegies with their families.
And note how many liberals and the left are backing off from that policy, because they see it as in their political interests to argue that police should not be required to engage active shooters, despite the lessons of Columnbine.
neo: David Hogg’s arguments at The Blaze link were extraordinary.
I mean, who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15 even with a Glock [handgun]? And I know that’s what these police officers are supposed to do, but they’re people too. They need to worry about theirselves as well as all the other students.
Well, me neither. I didn’t like working 12+-hour days when there was a deadline, but that was the job. If my job included stopping a mass shooter in mid-act and I had trained for it, I daresay I would have done that as well — especially if there were lives at stake.
I’ve debated anti-gun folks before over school shootings and they only solution they will have is restricting guns as much as possible. It’s all right for Obama’s kids to be protected at school with abundant armed guards, but not less-privileged children.
It’s hard not to wonder if liberals would prefer school shootings to be as bloody as possible until they get their way on guns
Can the congress pass laws to kill people? If one party has the super majority, like if Democrats win 100 seats in the senate, all the seats in the house and the presidency, can they abolish the Constitution and pass a law to execute all white people? I don’t care about how small the probability is but the technically does the possibility exist?
Time to face facts. Liberals do not want to improve safety in schools. They want to ban gun ownership and they are more than willing to use dead kids to accomplish their goal.
This article was in today’s newspaper
http://newsok.com/former-edmond-high-school-student-suspected-of-making-death-threats-never-charged-fbi-classified-reports-for-months/article/5584765
Over 6 months, the student made threats that the FBI investigated. The last one was from school computer. Since the threats were to kill Zionists, the info was deemed to be classified. At one time, the federal prosecutor told the FBI to give the info to the OK County lawyers, the FBI told them about it but refused to give the information to be able to prosecute. The FBI never told the school district until after the kid graduated and left the country.
Neo and Liz:
Sundance has posited that the way “restorative justice” has been implemented in public schools starting about six years ago has morphed into the schools under-reporting otherwise criminal behavior by minority kids to the police. Pressure was coming from the civil rights community when stats were showing a higher percentage of minority kids were getting susupended than were reflected in enrollment numbers. Solution was “don’t tell the cops.” Maybe even hide the evidence. That didn’t deter the bad behavior, but it got the school system off the hook. Problem was bad behavior continued, without any effective deterence.
Expat:
Define “obsession with firearms.”
Better yet, tell me who should define it? A Supreme Court which held that the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was a “tax?”
In 1.) 2), 3) & 4) neo succinctly described rationales divorced from reality in pursuit of an agenda.
Whereas on the right, neo offered facts, logic and reason.
If we allow the inmates to run the national asylum, as they do in nearly every major city, the metasticizing cancer will kill the patient.
BrianE,
Cops who freeze, cowering in fear are not cops. They are cowards pretending to be cops. The difference between a coward and a brave person is not the absence of fear. Self-preservation before all else is the coward’s primary motivation.
Doug Purdie,
Apply that metric nationwide and you’ve laid out the conditions that result in a conquered people.
I don’t know how the police and sheriff’s office hires people and what training they go through and how they keep their skills up to date, it appears they don’t do a good job.
For the most part, no. I’m guessing they have to graduate from a law enforcement academy of some sort, pass the qualifiers for a particular department and/or position therein. My understanding is that the only time they’re required to shoot is when they go to get re-certified.
This ain’t the Marines, were everyone is taught to be a rifleman, even if one’s MOS in anything but infantry.
You and your fellows (and ladies?) go out to the range for fun, and improve/keep your skills. Most things that work on muscle memory need to be practiced or they’ll degrade and be lost.
Thanks and gig ’em.
I worry about the careful crafting. All anyone needs to say about me is “veteran” and PTSD.” I’m locked up for life.
And I don’t even have PTSD. Which is to say, bad stuff happened and you reacted normally.
I like to point out that gun ownership in the USSR was prohibited. There was a total gun ban. The USSR claimed that socialism had eliminated the causes of crime but crime statistics for the USSR were never published, they were state secrets. However with the collapse of the USSR we got a look at their crime statistics and they had a murder rate twice the US rate. It was like Chicago, a gun ban and a high murder rate. A lack of guns was no impediment to murder.
OK maybe I do have PTSD. Bad stuff happened.
“obsession with guns” What is that? I’ve made various points over the years having to do with guns. Am I under threat?
I grew up in a neighborhood of new homes for young guys starting out. By the age, pretty much everybody’s father was a veteran of WW II. So were the uncles, scout masters, many male teachers.
We won WW II every third recess. Would we have been considered obsessed?
Guys live for deer hunting….. Maybe have three rifles.
Problem is that anything is problematic if the shrinks say it is and one indication of danger is the interest in buying a gun.
Does anybody think politics will stay away from the shrinks doing this evaluation? Me neither.
No, Ray. The Soviets would let you own guns. As long as you were a solid Bolshevick.
They wouldn’t let you own this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_153_Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon_(SMAW)
The Marines let me fire one or two.
The liberals will not stop at the bolt action rifle vs semi-automatic rifle divide. With training a Lee-Enfield 0.303 caliber (7.69 mm) SMLE (bolt action stripper clip 10 round magazine) will deliver sustained fire 15 aimed shots per minute, and 20 to 30 per minute if you are really good, The bullet fired by the SMLE is much more powerful than a 5.56 mm AR-15.
Regarding what would constitute an “obsession with firearms” I would guess that would be up to one of the nine of the black robes, who as in the case of pornography couldn’t define it biut would know it when he/she saw it.
The USSR claimed that socialism had eliminated the causes of crime but crime statistics for the USSR were never published, they were state secrets.
Ray: USSR state secrets…
A man was arrested after running through Red Square shouting, “Brezhnev’s a fool! Brezhnev’s a fool!” After a brief trial, he was sentenced to ten years in jail: five for disturbing the peace and five [years] for revealing a state secret.
–Jokes of the Brezhnev Era, “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?”
I do appreciate liberals are coming out of the closet — at probably the exact wrong time — that their real agenda is to ban all guns and take out the Second Amendment.
Trump’s election, though I didn’t support him, shows that half of the country won’t be bullied by liberal sneering, name-calling and emoting any longer.
I say, Good.
om,
I am a boly and lever guy. I have an Enfield Mark IV chambered in 308. It is by 10 round detach mags, I have 5 mags. The action of the Enfield is slicker than goose shit on wet grass. 50 rounds can be put down range in about 90+ seconds with a bit of practice.
First they will come for all semiautos, then revolvers, then bolt and lever rifles, then pump shotguns, and then double and single shot shotguns. Next knives with certain characteristics. Finally you will be required by law to flee your home rather than defend yourself or your family. That is their agenda.
Concerning the importance of engaging the shooter, I once went to a lecture by Lt. Col. Grossman, the psychologist that wrote On Killing and On Combat, which was well attended by local law enforcement.
Part of the lecture covered Belsan. 334 deaths. And the Moscow Theater Crisis. That is why you don’t wait in these situations to establish a nice perimeter.
If the shooters are organized and bent on maximum destruction, you’re just giving them time. Belsan is the worst case scenario playing in the back of my mind whenever I hear a school shooting is in progress.
Now that the rats are leaving Islamic State, trying to reenter Western Society, I think it is more likely to occur than ever. I read in the Spectator this week that more British Muslims volunteered to fight for IS than are presently serving in the British Armed Forces. Something to think about.
dexiansheng: Interesting blog you’ve got there. Pity if anything happened to it…
https://musingsarchcon.blogspot.com
No, that’s an old Monty Python joke. I enjoy your comments. Hope to hear more from you.
Those that posted about BSO not arresting for crimes committed by HS students, this was a *program* crafted by the Obama administration that gave financial rewards to districts that could lower their arrest rate, what better way to get cash coming into your department then to *look the other way on crime* & earn money for not policing. More Liberal logic 101.
I forget where I learned this about the (non-terrorist) mass murderer/active shooter situation, but it seems crucial knowledge: the killer’s intent is to kill as many people as possible, quickly. One result of his mindset is that he is not really prepared for, or interested in, the phase where he himself is attacked. Hard-won experience has shown that as soon as the shooter is confronted with a real threat (ie another person with a gun), the shooter stops his hunting/killing behavior and turns all of his attention to his own end game. Suicide, surrender, or attempted escape. So it is extremely important that a shooter be confronted ASAP because it seems to completely stop his killing of the chosen victims.
Until the US forces enforce the laws on the books, giving them more laws for the FBI and whatever to screw us over when they feel like it (Margaret), isn’t such a wise choice.
The State lacks competition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqlVL26jrCA
As for rifles… I would first check how many Demoncrats in Congress own or have relatives in the rifle making business. Are they trying to divert and manipulate the stock market and mutual funds, the way HRC and others do all the time? You know that Congress has a guaranteed income, with a higher rate of return, on their mutual funds than other people. It’s easy, all you have to do is to invest in a company after the vote on a bill puts that bill into law, which is advantageous to the company. Insider trading is a necessity to gain secondary income and pocket change for the Representatives in congress. And if one is lucky, one can ban fluorescent bulbs while also investing in CFL bulbs, before anyone even realizes the law is on the books.
Half the people in this country is going to become corpses that when stacked like cordwood, will reach the moon.
If a hero king like Trum could safe this slide, then it might have been useful to jump on the band wagon. However, there is no human power able to stop the fate of the US now. Maybe if people had killed the Leftist alliance a bit sooner, but who knows. Trum can buy a lot of time. Hope people know how to use it.
The full text of Scot Peterson’s statement released through his attorney today is here — an excerpt:
Parker:
That’s how they played the agenda in Great Britian.
Not just a coward. A liar too.
parker Says:
February 26th, 2018 at 9:16 pm
First they will come for all semiautos, then revolvers, then bolt and lever rifles, then pump shotguns, and then double and single shot shotguns. Next knives with certain characteristics. Finally you will be required by law to flee your home rather than defend yourself or your family. That is their agenda.
* * *
Some places, you are.
That’s what aggravates the Left about the spread of the Stand Your Ground laws.
I have included pro, con, and snark posts, so we can claim to be fair and balanced.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/11/why-we-need-stand-your-ground-laws/
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-stand-your-ground-laws-are-dangerous
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/19/obama-says-stand-your-ground-encourages
https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/gun-control-activists-need-to-learn-a-little-sympathy/
“In 2013, 107,000 crimes in the United States were committed with a gun. There are 330 million people in the United States. If we assume every one of those crimes was the work of a different individual, then .03 percent of all those who live with a gun in the United States used that gun in the commission of a crime.
That’s not 3 percent. That’s not one-third of a percent. That’s three-hundredths of a percent.
There are approximately 120,000 schools in the United States. If we use the term “school shooting” in the most capacious way, there have been 145 incidents since 2010. That means .12 percent of all schools in the United States have suffered the horror of a school shooting.
If you are the sort of person who believes guns are evil objects no one should want to possess, or that semi-automatic weapons are especially monstrous devices no one should be allowed to own, these numbers won’t matter all that much to you, or at all. In your mind, the very fact that guns are used in crimes, especially in mass shootings, invalidates any arguments on their behalf.
…
You scoff at the tired line that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. You have likely assigned moral meaning to the ownership of a gun. And you have judged those who own one to be suffering from a moral flaw, and those who own many to be fetishistic monsters.
…
What you have to understand is that while you believe you have all the moral force on your side, you cannot make a gun owner believe that he is the Parkland shooter. Because he isn’t. And let’s face it – somewhere, deep in your heart, you think he is.
So if you genuinely want to alter the trajectory of America’s gun culture, stop thinking of yourself as a moral paragon and the people whose rights you are seeking to curtail as potential mass murderers and start thinking of them as fellow citizens you have to convince.”
* * *
But convincing people is haaaard.
Better to just shout them down, shun them in coffee bars, and shoo them off your planes and rental car lots.
That’s really gonna get them to change their ways.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/25/florida-shooting-yet-another-government-failure-keep-us-safe-glenn-reynolds-column/371372002/
“But the bigger question is this: We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before. Yet failures like this keep happening. The FBI, after all, missed the Tsarnaevs (who committed the Boston Marathon bombing) despite being warned by the Russian government. It missed the 9/11 attacks even though it was investigating Zacarias Moussaoui – agents investigating Moussaoui hit so many roadblocks that they joked that Osama bin Laden must have had a mole in the Bureau HQ. And, of course, the San Bernardino shooters and Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen escaped the net as well.
People are being asked to trust the government to keep them safe, when the government is patently unable to do so. And then, when the government fails, it engages in blame-shifting deflection. Why should people listen? Increasingly, they won’t.”
https://ricochet.com/498051/a-tale-of-two-shootings/
“On Tuesday, January 23, there was a shooting at Marshall County High School in Benton, KY. Two students were killed (with 19 injured) by a fellow student. Less than one month later, a shooter killed 17 students (15+ injured) at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL.
I live in Nashville and watched the Kentucky shooting play out on the national news (though much more on local news, obviously) and I did the same on the day of the Florida shooting. It’s been startlingly obvious that the national media reaction and public frenzy has been decidedly different from the Kentucky shooting and I’ve been wondering why for the last few days.”
* * *
A very good analysis of media reaction and hype.
Bravo to the Kaintucks for their handling of the situation.
From Neo’s RCP link about Peterson,
“… he did a good job calling in the location, setting up the perimeter and calling in the description [of Cruz],”
What? How did Scot have a description on Nik?
______
I saw that states that have already allowed armed school staff are: TX, CA, SD, and OH. The ones I know of. CA just terminated it some months ago.
Haven’t heard of any: school shootings, negligent discharges, students accidentally shot, or students grabbing guns; in these schools but I might have missed it.
I believe SD requires 40 hrs. of training to get into the school prog., and 24 hrs. of annual training thereafter. The NY State Troopers require 90 hrs. of initial firearms training, but only 10 hrs. annually to maintain their qual. The last number is not impressive.
______
Parker. The lever action rifle is still sold in some considerable numbers even though the design is some 150 yrs. old. I looked up the intro. to the old TV show “The Rifleman” on YouTube. Chuck Connors (or his stuntman double) fires about 13 rounds out of his lever gun in 4 seconds flat. Of course, there is no quick replacement magazine. However, revolvers can be reloaded extremely quickly.
@Dave:Can the congress pass laws to kill people? If one party has the super majority, like if Democrats win 100 seats in the senate, all the seats in the house and the presidency, can they abolish the Constitution and pass a law to execute all white people? I don’t care about how small the probability is but the technically does the possibility exist?
A Congress that would do that, would have been elected by a populace that was already okay with it and had been doing it for a long time.
The Constitution is paper. It has no power over a populace that rejects it.
@neoneocon:Here’s the way the liberal position on this seems to work, based on some or all of the following beliefs:…
Sadly, no. The leftist position is:
Conclusion: the people should not have access to firearms.
Premises: Whatever will support the conclusion, regardless of anything else I believe or have ever said.
There is no reasoning with them. It is will to power.
Frederick:
Did you see this part of my post?:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/dimwit-florida-sheriff-israel-proud-member-team-obama/
BY JACK DUNPHY FEBRUARY 25, 2018
The byline should say enough for readers here.
This may answer some of Jack’s questions that have been raised in this thread also.
https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/02/26/broward-sheriffs-office-protocol-not-require-engaging-active-shooter/
Dave and Frederick:
See this.
Another story on “procedure” causing more problems than it solved.
(PS – does anyone know how Cruz was able to drift away with other kids; why didn’t anyone realize and point him out?)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26/florida-emergency-medical-teams-frustrated-over-delay-in-parkland-school-shooting-response.html
“Three Florida officials confirmed to Fox News that the emergency response at Stoneman Douglas apparently went against standard EMS training in which EMS teams typically go into emergency situations right behind police as soon as possible.
“We’re trained to go in behind the advanced team to engage the shooter. We’re trained to get in behind them with a security contingent of law enforcement. It’s my understanding that it didn’t happen right away,” a high-ranking fire official told Fox News. “There was a delay.”
Mike Moser, the Division Chief of Fire Administration for Coral Springs-Parkland Fire Department, which was on scene that day, released a statement in response to the growing requests from reporters about the Rescue Task Force mode – which would have paired up paramedics with law enforcement to enter the building.
Moser said RTF was presented to the commanding officers of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, but the request was denied because the type of response was not appropriate at that time, since the location of the shooter was not known. RTF can be employed only when law enforcement can clear an area for EMS.”
https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2018/02/26/im-african-american-nra-member…heres-want-know/
“Most NRA members are just regular people like me.
I’m not a “gun nut” or some yahoo with a thirst for blood. I don’t even know anyone like that, NRA member or not. The media storm surrounding this issue has boiled down all of the nuances of our social interactions to frustratingly simplistic notions of each other. “If you are a member of the NRA you’re evil. If you’re not, you’re good.” The NRA has over 5 million members. Chances are you know someone with a membership. Most of us have pretty average lives. We work with you, socialize with you, laugh and cry with you. We’re related to you. There’s no monthly NRA meeting where we all get together and talk about giving guns to the mentally ill because HEY WE JUST LOVE GUNS SO MUCH. It isn’t like that at all.
An NRA membership doesn’t come with a cold, black heart.”
Someone else talking about the kind of non-activist gun-hater (“the basic liberal voter who is susceptible to this line of reasoning”) who really hasn’t thought things through. Because we know what the agenda of the activists is.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/24/many-gun-control-arguments-sound-absurd/
(after excerpting another blogger)
“Cunningham is right.
But his observation is also why gun control advocates sound outright insane to so many of us. The very people they vehemently distrust — the government they accuse of being “literally Hitler,” and law enforcement — are the only people they want to have firearms.
How does that make sense?
Couple that with their pie in the sky ideas that somehow another law will suddenly make it impossible for mass shootings to happen, and it’s not hard to see why it’s impossible to take them seriously. They’re not interested in listening to alternatives. They’re not interested in open, honest debate. They simply want to push new regulations into existence.
Meanwhile, the rules we do have simply aren’t working. The Sutherland Springs shooter should never have been able to purchased his guns, but the NICS was flawed. And the FBI had ample warning about the Parkland shooter, but didn’t follow the proper protocol. In both cases, the system failed us.
If any positive change is going to happen, we needs to start with reforming our current system and enforcing existing laws, not enacting new ones that only hurt law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.”
Gosh, there sure are a lot of stories going around.
Crowd-sourced journalism: ain’t it grand?
Here’s an as-yet-unbroached-topic, but one that I think will provide some schadenfreude moments in the future, judging by the “reverse boycotts” of Chik-fil-A and the real boycott of Target, when the SJWs intimidate companies into forgetting they are just salesmen, not Moral Guardians of the Galaxy.
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/02/26/google-eliminated-shopping-results-various-guns/
“Google has seemingly shut down the ability to search for AR-15 rifles, as well as various other types of firearms from their search function.
Typing in “AR-15” and then hitting the “shopping” tab brings back a complete blank screen. The same can be said for companies such as Glock or Colt.”
General queries such as “rifle,” or “handgun” also come back completely blank.
However, Smith & Wesson still comes up with results, as does searching for AK-47’s or 1911’s.
It’s not known whether Google began doing this as a result of the Parkland shooting or sooner, or whether or not this is Google’s way of helping prevent further atrocities from being committed. If it is, it’s not exactly a move that will put too much up on the scoreboard for the gun control crowd.
Bing is also following along by not showing search results for the AR-15, however searching for various handguns will grant you search results for accessories.
Google or Bing engaging in censorship of shopping results may be a gesture of good will toward the gun control crowd, but it will do little to stop anyone from purchasing a firearm if they want one. Not only that, it’s a moot move. All purchases must go through an FFL anyway, and trying to make sure people never find their way there on the internet is like trying to stop the tide by throwing a rock at the waves. Even a rock as big as Google.
One thing’s for sure. If Google is trying to halt harm from coming to the populace, they’re not doing a very good job.”
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/24/companies-severe-ties-nra-amid-gun-debate/
“I can understand why these companies are making this move, though I’m not going to excuse it.
Both companies are getting a lot of flak right now over their ties to the NRA, an organization being described as “pro-slaughter” despite absolutely no evidence supporting the claim. They’re getting hammered, and it seems to them that bowing out will help them back away from the controversy.
However, they shouldn’t be allowed just to slink away. Yes, they have a right to make whatever decisions they want, but they also need to be reminded that the firearm community is massive and that we aren’t appreciative of being thrown under the bus like this.
The truth is that despite the anti-gun rhetoric flying around the airwaves right now, the NRA and gun rights activists aren’t responsible for what happened in Parkland, Florida. The only person responsible is a snot-nosed thug who decided to take a modern sporting rifle to his old school and declare open season on children.
Others made mistakes, but none of those mistakes would have mattered if the 19-year-old madman didn’t act. It’s on him and, ultimately, no one else.
These companies, however, are acting like the NRA is responsible. They’re feeding into the hysteria that paints millions of Americans as somehow responsible as well.
What they aren’t thinking about is that gun owners aren’t school children. We’re people who travel and rent cars or use credit cards. We also tend to be people with long memories. Hell, how many people do you know that still won’t own a Smith & Wesson because of the deal they signed with the Clinton-era HUD? I know of a few.
Gun folks aren’t likely to forget this betrayal. We’re not likely to ignore it or pretend it’s all better without a damn good reason to do so.
While companies have a right to sever ties with whoever they want, so long as they’re contractually able to do so, they need to remember there are potential ramifications for doing so.”
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/26/list-companies-severing-ties-nra-grows/
“What’s hilarious is how many of these people who are blasting the NRA don’t yet recognize that the organization represents the more moderate gun rights crowd. Look at how readily they threw bump stocks under the bus following Las Vegas, for example. They’re the gun rights organization that’s more than willing to try and play ball with the gun grabbers.
There are a lot of others who are far more radical in our belief that the Second Amendment should not be infringed. Those are people who may well be looking to sever some ties of their own, not because of any innate loyalty to the NRA, but because they can see when a company is embracing anti-gun hatred.”
neo-neocon Says:
February 26th, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Dave and Frederick:
See this.
March 24th, 2010
Unhappy historic anniversary yesterday: the Enabling Act of 1933
“The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag.”
* * *
At the moment we have a situation where the effects of the Enabling Act are in operation (executive bureaus making regulations with the force of law but without Congressional approval) and judges who validate the resulting deviations from the Constitution, without any formal amendment of the Constitution.
Maybe we should make it a National Holiday, to remind people just WHY there is a Second Amendment, and why people get excited about attempts to nullify it.
I wondered how long it would take the “tin foil hat theory” to make it to the mainstream media (City Journal is the good mainstream, not the bad mainstream).
https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-did-parkland-shooter-slip-through-cracks-15741.html
A little more circumspect than the full-throttle posts from earlier.
https://constitution.com/school-shooting-plot-exposed-wont-believe-set/
A common-sense response to dealing with school shootings.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/964614619523362816.html
What the anti-NRA corporate actions are meant to accomplish.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/opinion-laundering-in-parklands-wake/
“Why are they suddenly so eager to punish Amazon and Roku for hosting the streaming channel NRATV, which nobody had heard of until the New York Times discovered it in a whip-up-some-hysteria piece on February 21? The Times offered no evidence that the NRA’s channel, one of some 1,800 available on Roku, has much of a viewership.
4
Policy proposals aren’t the real aim of the anti-gun crowd. What they’re thinking is: We must strike a blow against gun culture. We must punish gun owners in general by doing something that annoys them. This is the Democratic obverse of Trumpian bully culture: It’s public policy reduced to public shaming. It’s insult theater. The politics of id. Is America really going to be made safer by shaming the First National Bank of Omaha into no longer issuing an NRA-branded Visa card? How is forcing through an increase of from 2 to 10 percent on the price NRA members pay for a United or Delta flight to the group’s annual convention supposed to decrease gun deaths?
These petty slights are all meant to redefine the NRA as outside the mainstream, activists say on Twitter. It seems more likely that NRA members, and gun owners in general, are going to perceive a concerted attack on gun culture and vote accordingly. Progressives don’t have a plan for stopping mass shootings. So they’re falling back on venting at gun owners, and they’re using the children of Parkland to do it.”
Although I do not own a firearm, I share Neo’s take on the issue and abhor the MSM’s predictably senseless slant in favor of gun restrictions. After seeing and hearing a couple of MSM reports crowing about the NRA boycott, I joined the NRA yesterday.
If they are such pacifist peace loving humanitarians, why are the progressive democrats in my neck of the woods behaving like sharks smelling blood in the water? (Rhetorical question.)
I’m not asking them either. I’m doing the social version of duck and cover– while wondering if my name will get in a public database if I join the NRA.
I agree with liberals that having semi autos only is futile against a tyrannical government when the inevitable civil war 2.0 arrives upon us, I am all for repealing the ban on fully automatics to make the fight more even.
I also agree with liberals that handguns can’t beat nr15, therefore I support arming all teachers with m16s, that will make sure losers like Cruz who attempts mass shooting at schools with only semi automatics have no chance of winning, ever.
Re: my obsession with guns remark. This should obviously be included as part of a psychological evaluation of someone like Cruz. He was not talking about guns with some hunting friends or ROTC types. He was a loner who fought with classmates, dressed up as an ISIS follower, and killed animals. It is just one aspect that should be considered in determining whether a person is a danger to himself or others when he is referred for testing because of violent behavior. I don’t know how Shrinks make their decisions when they are doing 3-day evaluations. It is possible that some are ignoring such behavior when evaluating people like Cruz. And there are probably plenty of schizophrenics and bipolar types who don’t get mental health treatment because they aren’t considering suicide or being a school shooter. That doesn’t mean that their problems should be ignored. And just because meds seem to work doesn’t mean a person will continue to take them. This is a big problem. Families are often left alone in dealing with them while attention is given to college students who feel triggered and need teddy bears.
Right now neo must be wondering what we did to her site.
I just want her to know, and everyone else, and if you’re a hunter you already know, I love ducks. And deer, and antelope. It’s why I buy books about them. And subscribe to organizations.
https://www.amazon.com/Deer-North-America-Leonard-Lee/dp/1592284655
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/361922.Antelope_Country
And of course Ducks Unlimited. I don’t know what else there is to say, but for some strange reason people who don’t hunt think hatred is involved. Do any of you know anyone who fishes? I fish.
Interesting metaphor, isn’t it…trigger.
How many university students have genuinely gone through such a traumatic experience that listening to Ben Shapiro will cause them to relive a traumatic experience?
It’s a great invention of theirs, allowing even more of them to play at being victims. I remember in high school. Some thug had murdered the elder brother of a classmate of ours. Her brother was a shoe designer or something. His car was full of shoes, and they robbed and shot him for them.
At that time, we were supposed to read Death in Venice. But our teacher, quite progressive, thought better of it. When a friend of mine, who had already read the book, heard, he said it was an idiotic decision, mere posturing.
I suppose I ought to read it. I never did.
A Death in Venice, neo already covered that
OK, who here upon hearing explosive bangs at a school thinks, “It’s probably just firecrackers.”
It was just a car, backfiring.
When’s the last time you heard a car backfire? In my case I think it was in the 1980s. Early 1980s.
Firecrackers have NO WHERE near the volume gun shots do.
Living in a deep blue city (Cleveland) that has been bludgeoned into a Holder consent agreement, let me post this question:
Have the police been turned into social workers with badges and guns?
Neo, you attract sheepdogs, not sheep! Is this an all-time high for comments?
If there are firecrackers going off in a school I would think the security guard would run to catch the person lighting them in the act, not stay outside and wait, for something. One of many lame excuses.
The newest today is that law enforcement was not to enter the building because they did not have body cameras. Also the Emergency Medical folks responding were held outside while the police cleared the building and some of the kids bled out. Seconds are critical in a shooting situation and there are very effective ways to stop the bleeding, put in IV’s and have a chance of saving a person who has been shot.
What a first class screw up that almost makes me think they wanted a higher body count. I really don’t think they planed to screw up this bad but every step of the way they handled this sad event from the start months ago is wrong.
Now, to cover their butts they are blaming the rifle and us NRA folks.
@neo:Did you see this part of my post?:
In all of this I’m talking about the basic liberal voter who is susceptible to this line of reasoning.
Yep, I saw it.
The “basic liberal voter” was not reasoned into that position, and reason is not what keeps them in it.
In fairness, most people are not reasoned into positions. In my own case I can think of only a handful of times that facts and evidence actually changed my mind.
In each case, it was because it was there was something I desired to see happen, which I thought the facts showed could be achieved with reasonable effort, and further examination revealed that they showed no such thing.
And this can be done with someone who has most of the same values you have and can evaluate facts in the same way you can.
The “basic liberal voter” does not want guns outlawed to keep kids safer, or reduce crime, or to make cops safer, or any other reason. He wants them outlawed because they are bad and only bad people would want to have them and keep them legal, and because good people are against them and he keeps the good opinion of good people by being against them too.
This is most obviously demonstrated by their astonishing lack of knowledge regarding firearms. For example, we saw, even in “conservative” outlets that should know better, the nonsensical statement that a bump stock “converts a semiautomatic to an automatic”. We saw the gun used at Parkland referred to as an “AK-15”.
cont: Anyone who could be swayed by evidence, and has such a strong opinion about firearms, would be interested enough to know some basic facts about firearms.
Ken White of Popehat has the best explanation of this:
Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog?”
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.
You: Can we?
Because I’m just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can’t articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?
I actually had this conversation last week with someone I know. Lots of us have.
The simple fact is liberals WANT dozens of (other people’s) kids killed by these crazed school gunmen. In order to make their gun confiscation demands effective, they need to trot out the corpses of dead innocents. If one of the security guards shot Cruz dead before he went on his massacre, the usual suspects would have made a quick whimper for gun confiscation, foxnews would have run a few segments on the hero guard, and the story would fade into the ether after a single day.
The very people they vehemently distrust — the government they accuse of being “literally Hitler,” and law enforcement — are the only people they want to have firearms.
How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense, if one believes or suspects the Deep State is instigating events behind the scenes. Is that to disarm the people and up arm the Leftist alliance? Not necessarily.
The DS could be merely trying to stir chaos, using the FBI and LA as tools and cut off puppets.
They make the school shootings worse, contributing to both Leftist hysteria and NRA/Patriot hatred of the Left. This hatred comes from a slight amount of fear, a similar thing that propelled Trum to power.
Fear+hatred makes for good controls on Normals in the USA. Also in the world.
Almost nobody has an objective view of Sheriff Israel and Peterson now, because their minds have been controlled by the propaganda, whether Left or anti Left, gun or no gun.
So when the Leftist alliance tries to fight the US patriots, armed with nothing but the few amounts of weapons their guerilla kill team cadres have provided them, what is going to happen? The US patriots are going to wipe out the LA, but also suffer chaos and casualties, and the US Constitution will be dead.
Who is going to be left to replace it? The Deep State, having preserved 99% of their power, while everybody else has expended more than 50% of their reserves.
This was once given to the Leftist alliance as Cloward Piven, Blue vs Red, Alinsky Freezing, divide and conquer, with a dose of Gramsci march through the institutions. The Leftists are mere zombies serving the necromancers, the true powers that be. They are puppets. It doesn’t matter if they get wiped out, so long as they are useful in causing chaos and war in the US. That is why it was necessary to get rid of the mas fast as possible. Because the USA cannot fight the Deep State, the Leftist alliance, and the Left’s allies Islamic Jihad at the same time.
I don’t care how many Americans think they are superpowerful and exceptional… you can’t overthrow supreme logistics and strategy using tactics.
The Leftist alliance, FBI, and everybody else in the US, are obeying their orders. It’s all coordinated by one or more hierarchies. Of course, they believe they are the elite rulers. They are wrong. They are the puppets, not the rulers.
Most of the shootings where people were able to defend against well, the MSM doesn’t even report at all. The local media might report it, but the national media were ordered to ignore and bury these things. Only if somebody famous goes on twitter, like Trum, does that not work so well.
They were told to manipulate things in order to incite for more gun control, yes. But that also has the consequences of pissing off the gun owners. And if one pisses the gun owners enough, they will fight back. This Kaos, is very useful for the Deep State and other organizations, foreign and domestic.
This is standard Divide and Conquer strategy. The two factions fight themselves and waste all their energy, while a third looks on ready to take advantage.
Reviewing the evidence of those previous events, I also found some other interesting things that the FBI did or did not do.
But let’s look at a basic evidence presentation of the timeline. There was a website that had stored the MSM reports of these incidents, which was great, but will have to find it later.
For people that have only heard about 2001 9/11, the status quo narrative was the only thing they have heard.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Page 40
I Kind of remember that, while watching tv at the time. The amount of time before they could the suspect identities and put it up on tv, and 9/11, was very short to my recollection. This sounded like the government, if they were incompetent before 2001, was at least galvanized to do something. There’s a problem with my thoughts at the time, since I didn’t know all the details. Few people did.
It’s not the government being incompetent, although that is also so. It’s more like, they are not responsible for the “chain of evidence”. They were being supplied conclusions and evidence that they didn’t find with their own FBI agents. Somebody, and it’s probably the Deep State, is manipulating the FBI’s results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML8CJp9Ha14
For those that want to remember what happened back then or just see it the way the rest of us saw it, watch the video. The government and MSM didn’t tell me any of this stuff. Probably for a good reason now that I think of it.
A lot of people didn’t buy Waco 2’s narrative, but it was less than the ones who refused to buy Waco 1’s narrative. And the ones that refuse to buy the FBI and LEO narration of this recent shooting fiasco, is even more than the previous FBI fiascos like Fast and Furious.
Things are getting to a point where a lot of things that the State or government or FBi or traitors have told us from DC… was not exactly the truth. Ignorance is bliss. It’s time to wake up, Americans.
There was a very successful defense attorney in TX named Richard “Racehorse” Haynes who was addressing an ABA meeting that included many young lawyers. He was making the point that attorneys too often limit their strategic defense options in court. When evidence inevitably surfaces that contradicts the defense’s position, lawyers need to have a backup plan. He said,
“Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you,” he told the audience. “Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit.”
His final defense, he said, would be: “I don’t have a dog.”
________
Does this remind you of anything? Perhaps Neo’s example points (1) – (4)? The vast majority of Dem. pols are law school trained. In court, they only need to peel off one vote. In politics, the numbers are much larger, but peeling off even a very small percentage can be useful. Accurate, logical analysis is to be avoided, and facts need to be dodged.
I’m not trying to malign all lawyers, just the opportunistic and ethics free defense attorneys and politicians.
Frederick:
The basic liberal voters I know do indeed want to keep people safe, and that is their motive.
They vary in their relationship with guns. Some liberals I know actually use guns to hunt, etc., and don’t think guns are intrinsically bad, but they still are against more gun control.
Lurch:
No even close to an all-time high. Over the years, I’ve had many threads well over 100, and some over 200 (although the latter are rare).
I was surprised about the response concerning bolt action vs. semi automatic– that bolt action rifles can sustain a fairly rapid rate with a trained operator.
The fastest bolt action can’t match the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle, but that probably wouldn’t do as much good as limiting clips to five rounds.
Those that think owning large magazines will make their fight against the government any more successful are living in a fantasy. While gun owners are arming themselves with assault style rifles– the government is arming local police with true military grade weapons. The success of a civil war won’t hinge on a 15 round clip.
I understand the reluctance of conservatives to give any ground on the issue. While some liberals might be content on finding practical solutions to reduce the rate of fire, giving victims and responders more time to escape/engage a shooter, it’s also true the left won’t be satisfied until we go full Australia.
It’s a shame we can’t find some middle ground.
As an aside, when I go over to my sisters where her family usually gathers on Sundays after church, I’m comforted to know there are probably a minimum of 5 pistols scattered around the house. All of her kids carry and most of her grandkids. The great-grand kids, not so much– but then they’re not of legal age yet.
Well, bullets first, lasers next.
The crux of the issue is an anthropological one. That is to say it’s a matter of what is called a philosophical anthropology; or, a well developed view of the nature of man and his reality; and following therefrom, what social rules, laws, and commands, are capable of being inferred from and justified by this “nature”.
The left, implicitly, or explicitly, has a radically different view of what constitutes man; and what is therefore good relative to man, than does the traditionalist.
It’s not just a matter of expressive individualism, but an entire complex of propositions concerning the nature of reality and the meaning of life in that context, as well.
Probably one of the more instructive illustrations of this has been found in Great Britain, where for many years it has been doubtful whether there remains any real, legally indubitable, right of self-defense.
This problematical situation does not arise simply because sensitive persons flutter their hands at the thought of the harm returned violence entails, but because of a revaluation of moral responsibility, and the reassignment of victim-hood status to the perpetrator. This, as well as a denial of the presumptive a priori inviolability of the individual – that is to say the denial in principle of an absolute right of the individual not to be molested, which stands prior to any particular socially announced concession to the same effect.
Liberals on the one hand, and conservatives and libertarians on the other, inhabit different moral universes. Quite possibly as a result of irreconcilable biologically determined life-way strategies.
Just to amply the implications of my previous comment, and its implied relevance to Neo’s title, “Good Guys with guns”
Although progressives will use the terms “good guy” when it serves their purposes it simply does not have the same depth of meaning nor implications the term carries when a conservative or traditionalist uses it.
The progressive/liberal preference for the therapeutic and managerial state are obvious clues that in their view there are no real and objective “goods” , but just felt preferences that are “balanced”, as they see it, in the ongoing process of social and cultural, and even biological, evolution.
Some oxen and interests will be inevitably gored, and some populations consigned to the dustbin of history, by the social shapers and managers as they express their own “evolving” preferences.
No one on this view is really “responsible” in the old fashioned metaphysical sense, and no one is therefore good” in any but an instrumental sense.
It’s just power relations for progressives, as we have all heard, and most of us have remarked, before.
There are no good guys. There are visionary social managers, there are society’s unfortunate victims of neglect, and there are self-interested bourgeois populations which have to be managed out of their self-serving, petty, exclusionary and socially retrograde practices.
On this view then, on the progressive view, there is no one and no thing that is intrinsically good … nor any one nor any thing which is the intrinsic bearer of value or possessor of rights: just this or that condition or situation which conforms to or offends the sensibilities of this or that locus of social power.
Re: training. These are comments from a police officer in a southwestern city of ~1/4 million population. I thought it might be helpful to discussion to hear what his department’s training experience is:
“We actually train on active shooter stuff a couple times a year as a department. My boss is ex-SWAT so we probably do way more than the average street cop. We just had a big training at Walmart where they cordoned off some of the store for us and used a bunch of their employees as “victims” with varying injuries from an active shooter incident with two bad guys.”
“We’ve trained for different numbers of officers entering for an active shooter. They make it pretty clear that it’s your job to save lives, but stop short of ordering you to enter when you’re by yourself. They say its a decision that will vary from cop to cop based on their mindset and level of training.”
“If SWAT is getting called out then the situation has stabilized somewhat and officers will keep perimeter positions. This usually occurs when there’s a barricade situation where no one is actively being hurt and the bad guy won’t come out.”
Q: What else is important for understanding LE response per Parkland or similar?
“That cops are different and no one really knows how one will respond when that critical incident happens. I’m guessing the Parkland SRO that failed to enter probably never received any good reality based active shooter training so he did what he thought was safe.”
Brian E. above, good talking points. Number one is yes bolt actions can be fast and they push big heavy bullets at fast speeds. I have a sporterized .303 British Enfield, an 1890’s design with ten round magazine and with stripped clips a person can get off 20 to 30 rounds per minute. That is shooting a 180 grain bullet that has been very effective since the Boer War. In WWI the Germans thought the Brits were shooting machine guns when they came under fire from experienced rifle men. So much for bolt actions which can be reloaded rapidly.
As for full auto-machine guns, I am glad to mentioned the difference between machine guns and semi-auto rifles. I had a long discussion with my great-nieces husband who has recently gone from active duty to national guard after serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during his 12 years active. The only machine guns that he thought were effective were the heavier mounted belt fed machine guns. The current US Army uses a gun that shoots single, on trigger pull or 3 round bursts which are thought by many to be a waste of ammunition.
As for US military and police being used against US citizens, the rank and file of those organizations are typically conservative and as the sheriff of my county told me one day, we will never be taking your guns because we will be standing beside you against anyone who thinks they can do that. Of course I live less than an hour West of the Alamo and we have a tradition and saying in this part of the world, “COME AND TAKE IT” which was the flag Texans used in our successful revolution.
Heaven help us if any of this stuff ever comes to an armed confrontation but the millions of AR and AK type guns we have and the hundreds of millions of other guns in private ownership will never be given up. Don’t ever tell me what other countries have done because the USA is not other countries and we quit being subjects and started being citizens in the latter part of the 1700’s. I am not sure if those who want to control us understand the difference.
Brian E:
Although most bolt action rifles are used for hunting that will not matter, since the are based on military designs – Mauser ’98 action for instance. After all, they were designed for killing people originally, so of course they should be banned also.
It’s amazing how many people have, and have a favorable opinion of, the Lee Enfield; despite the generations of publicity advocating for the superior strength of the Mauser style action and bolt.
I agree. For all practical intents and purposes, apart I suppose from dangerous game and where one needs a wildcat or magnum built up on a surplus military action, the Lee Enfield with its smooth and rapid operating cock-on-closing action, and very moderate recoil, has, in my estimation, got them all beat for ease of operation.
Lots of guys, who upon discovering the speed with which the bolt can be operated, and having a spare box of rounds to waste, will go on discover for themselves that the middle finger can be used as the trigger finger, and seemingly speed firing even more.
I have no strong opinion on how accurately this can be done, though.
And for whitetails? As old time sports writers observed long ago, most men using classic military style actions, go into the field way over-gunned.
The only problem with it, is the awkwardness of mounting optics.
Old Texzn:
Your grand nieces husband probably mentioned the difference in fire discipline between US Armed forces and the opposition. Full auto, going cyclic is generally a sign of desperation in a soldier, it’s truly “hit the fan then.” At least thats what I’ve been led to believe. I would cite “Weapons Man,” but he passed away last spring.
Banned Lizard Says:
February 27th, 2018 at 12:06 am
I joined the NRA yesterday.
Esther Says:
February 27th, 2018 at 12:13 am
wondering if my name will get in a public database if I join the NRA.
* * *
You will be in good company.
IF the NRA membership list gets hacked or “legally” revealed, and members get doxxed and harassed, there really will be a CW2.
Cappy Says:
February 27th, 2018 at 8:40 am
Have the police been turned into social workers with badges and guns?
* * *
Short answer: yes.
I will put my Browning BAR .243 up against any bolt action out there. Any time!
I have the perfect solution to solve school shooting, abolish public school system and put all student on home schooling. With all the social media and technology we have that can bring the school experience to every home there is no reason to gather around all these children in a place for mass shooters to slaughter. Think outside the box.
There won’t be a compromise on this question. Nor on the questions of Global Warming, wilderness or any other environmental hoo haw, or immigration. That’s because Democrats/Leftists/Liberals/Progressives can’t be trusted.
Regardless of the agreement, they will be right back demanding another step in their direction. Or a lawsuit. Or another ginned up public relations campaign. It will never be enough until they gain total control.
The slippery slope is real and they continue to grease it.
IF the NRA membership list gets hacked or “legally” revealed, and members get doxxed and harassed, there really will be a CW2.
My analysis has it different.
CW2 will officially begin similar to how CW1 started.
First, there will be some ideological and political differences. Then one faction will consolidate their position using free votes, totalitarianism, and religious controls. Then they will find a dissident faction, like the Latter Day Saints, and try to start a war with them, before secession. Then when the enemies weaken themselves by fighting each other, the real operation will kick off.
Then and only then, will it be feasible to light up the Ft Sumter operation.
The more I look at it, the more the War of Utah 1857 was a brilliant operation conducted to weaken the Union, by getting the Union involved in a war with a US territory, Utah, that hadn’t become a state. Once that happened, the idea of other States liking the Union will decrease, as they will be afraid that their State will be next. Even if it failed, which the war did as Brigham Young had some kind of in depth brilliant tactical response aided by diplomatic and strategic long term payouts, it was still known as Buchanan’s Blunder. And it still pulled an entire Union division off the front line of the DC, Virginia, fields.
That is a brilliant strategy worthy of Lucifer. It’s hard to believe frail mortal humans came up with that all on their own. The god known as YHVH also has his hand in this, apparently. There’s some freakishly strange coincidences that tend to happen in this country when the gods fight amongst themselves for their believers, using proxy wars.
The entire Leftist alliance are patsies. Both the SJW cannonfodder at the bottom and the elite whores at the top. Even if the US patriots kill off all of them, they won’t win the CW2. Unfortunately, the reason is because there are other factions waiting to backup the Left or to reinforce the war.
The Islamic Jihad, surely people haven’t forgotten who HRC’s AIDE WAS.
The Deep State, surely people aren’t naive enough to think that the Leftist alliance is stronger than the DS.
Just to clear up some common misconceptions.
Lucifer is not a created being.
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-commandments/the-ten-commandments/10-commandments-list/
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
If the author of the 10 commandments was a fool, then it would be interpreted as “you shall have no other imaginary beings than me”
“You shall not make portals and altars to imaginary beings”
Does that mean it is okay to make idol portals and star gates to real entities?
There’s a whole lot of things “religion” has suppressed and distorted over time.
pre feminism when men did the job, heroes were the norm, dying for the public was the norm, etc
once women entered the force, then that changed, like in UK
health and safety were the order of the day.
the men cant run in, the women would look bad
so the norm was to wait, dont engage, etc..
trump is old, he remembers when police wer emostly men and would die to save you…
the young dont rememer that, and certainly dont see women running into things to save people… do they?
they used to record shootings by officers and the number of women on the force… more women, safety higher, more civilian shootings (not by the women but in total)
oh well..
DNW:
Sounds like an allusion to the great Bill Whittle’s musings on r/K selection theory.
I gradually came to the point of confronting this view as a possibility over a number of years; but not through evolutionary psychology.
It was more or less the result of the study of psychology, of “philosophical anthropology”, and the reading the writings of Marx and trying to grasp his [and socialist types in general’] view of human nature.
Toss in the “sexual revolution” and its proponents, and how some decades of experience have revealed that people do tend to sort out as promiscuous or not; look also at the value some people place on emotional rather than economic expression, on inclusion rather than on freedom, on “positive liberty” taken as a smorgasbord of socially provided choices for fulfillment, as opposed to negative liberty which allows one to act on nature unimpeded; and therein you have what looks like almost two different moral species.
And if you waste[d] enough time debating the right to keep and bear arms with those who are opposed to it, and if you persist in trying to get to their deepest motivating presuppositions, then, you begin to see that particular question, as just one of the flashpoints in a deeply seated conflict over life-way strategies and preferences. And basically, what people see as intrinsically rewarding and worthwhile.
Now, what further conclusion is one likely to draw if one takes seriously the progressive’s own pronouncement that ethical statements are reducible to mere expressions of emotion or reflective of subjective “tastes” only?
So, I guess trudged a long and dreary road gathering up clues here and there from philosophy and politics and the writings of progressives themselves; when I could have just spared myself a couple decades of slogging and waited for psychologist Jon Haidt to come along … LOL
This should be response 101 according to the number when I pulled up the post today.
Do I get a prize? 😉
DNW:
(Don’t know if anyone’s still reading this thread, but what the hell.)
I’d be really interested in a study that sought to determine if there is at all an ethnic correlation to these different moral frameworks (or sides of the r/K coin, etc. etc.).
The frame of reference being the postulate that the grouping of humanity into nations is not happenstance; that there are real differences between nations/nationalities with regard to such things as moral philosophy; that for this reason the existence of different nation states is critical to each nation realizing its full potential without infringing on other nations’ abilities or rights to do the same; therefore, the forging of a uniquely American national identity is doomed unless a particular moral philosophy is decided upon and agreed upon as its basis; this was arguably done in the Founders’ generation but has since been neglected rather than cultivated.
All of the above just sort of came to me now; apologies if it’s not too coherent…