The "Line in the Sand"

Jeff Knox has an interesting follow up to his previous piece, which received so much negative scrutiny from some in the gun rights community.

Knox's central point is that we aren't there yet, and hopefully it won't get there. The goal of our Constitution was to set up a system where folks could debate issues, sometimes for years, until one side or the other finally succeeded in convincing a substantial majority of the rightness of their side's cause. I think substantial here means something like 75 or 80%. I think most of us view guns as a "canary in the coal mine" issue. If they take away guns, what else are they going to take away, and how will we stop them? Setting aside that we have already lost rights we thought guaranteed, some 80% of the population agree we have the right to keep and bear arms. But when you put more meat on those bones, suddenly the percentages go down. Does that mean we have the right to carry concealed weapons? The right to own so called "assault weapons?" What about the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses? In each case, the percentage of folks who agree goes down considerably. My guess, and it is just a guess, would be 40%, 25% and 5% respectively. We haven't made our case to the American People.

Dave Koppel and John Lott are two who routinely write about gun issues in the general press. We need more, a lot more, of those articles and we need those writers to appear more frequently in the general press. Gun blogs that only "preach to the choir" will do little to convince the general public. And if the public thinks we are fighting for the right to keep our "hobby," they are not going to be sympathetic. What we need to do is show that we are fighting for the traditional American values of Life, Liberty, and Property, and that guns support all three.

What we also need is more writers to espouse not just the reasons for our rights, but the principles upon which these are based. Jeff Snyder does an excellent job in the little book "A Nation of Cowards." If people had a thorough understanding of these principles, it would render moot the discussion that Knox tries to illuminate.

Will Atlas Shrug?

In my opinion, Ayn Rand's philosophy is cold and narcissistic. Never the less, she has left an enduring and powerful figure in John Galt. Spartacus asks whether the John Galt class will "shrug" or go to war?

Meanwhile "Peggy the Moocher" as she has been named by Michelle Malkin seems representative of the parasite class. How depressing. I have not seen statistics, but one wonders how many "Peggy the Moocher" types voted with this in mind?

At the same time, Michael Bane reports that sales of AR rifles are brisk. Denise over at the Ten Ring suggests it may be prudent to spend some of your hard earned cash for some reloading equipment and lay in a good supply of components. Sounds like good advise to me.

So,Brack Obama is President Elect

I wish him well. May God Bless America, and guide him to to serve the people and the Constitution of the United States for the next four years. I expect, however, to be one of his fiercest critics during that time. I have to stand by what I said earlier.

That said, we have our work cut out for us.

The Federal Courts have a number of open seats, waiting for a Democrat to come in. We have to make sure these judges are originalists. In the past, Republicans have been reluctant to apply ideological litmus tests, or to vote against any nominee who was too liberal. I think we will have to do both, and to get in the dirt, and bloody ourselves as the loyal opposition. The Constitution has a built-in mechanism for changing itself. It doesn't need judges to reinterpret it. If a person feels, as Obama apparently does, that it needs changing, he seems to have to political capital to do just that. That is the only way to ensure that all Americans are treated equally, and fairly.

We must be prepared to stop any Assault Weapon Ban in the Senate, where it looks like they do not have a filibuster proof majority. Let's use that to our advantage. Of course, then there are all the "common sense " gun laws that will do nothing for crime, but greatly infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Don't wait to register your protest. Raise a storm of protest when they come up in the House as well. Who knows, if we raise a big enough stink, we may just build a big enough coalition to knock these bills down before they get rolling.

In my State, we have a one party system-again. Funny how when the party name starts with a D, that no one yammers on over how having one party prevents the other from getting "needed" legislation through. I plan to start working more at the State level. I have not done enough, and that needs to change.

Liberal Fascism

Jonah Goldberg has his first book out (here) entitled Liberal Fascism-The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Goldberg has studied the topic for perhaps a decade or more, and the resulting book represents both a scholarly effort and a very readable text. Such books, laden with footnotes and trying to be careful not to overstate the case, are usually ponderous, and frankly I can often barely get through them. But with this one, I was on the edge of my seat. I literally read the entire thing in two days. Goldberg's central thesis is:

“Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy.”

This insight illuminates the entire book. The various "isms" of the left are religions of the state. Because they are religions, belief in these causes frees the believer from the normal constraints imposed on the rest of us. Anything that needs to be done should be to bring about his chosen cause. The cause is so great, that whatever means are employed to hasten it can be justified.

The Geek With A .45 has a piece up that talks about the book far more eloquently than I could. Go see here. The Geek points out that:

"These aren't people who seek evil. They are people who seek Good, albeit through dubious means. They are people who blind themselves to the truth that the power for unlimited good is cannot be distinguished, even in principle, from the power for unlimited evil. As such, they do not understand that we oppose them for their means, not their ends, and many believe that we oppose the Good they seek to bring forth, and cannot understand why anyone (other than a reactionary degenerate seeking to preserve a position of oppression based privilege) would oppose such Goodness."

I believe that is true for the typical follower. They are true believers, and really do not understand how anyone can oppose the good they wish to bring about. Their leaders, on the other hand, I believe, have a will to power that most of us would deem inappropriate. In order to secure that power, they invariably create a cult of personality, wherein the followers invest the leader with all their hopes and dreams for the common good. Both sides seemingly get what they want, but one side is being played for suckers. Lenin referred to these followers as "useful idiots."

Last year I attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Louisville KY. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the organizers of the conference, had invited all the candidates then vying for their respective party's nomination. Only Ron Paul had agreed to speak to us. The thing that caused me to recoil was the apparent "cult of personality" surrounding Mr. Paul. But when I first heard of Barack Obama being mentioned as the messiah, as the great unifier who would heal our souls, as sending a tingle up Chris Matthew's leg, I was horrified. No man should be spoken of in these terms. No one can deliver on the promises that have been made. And no one can unify a people when half the population adamantly oppose the methods being used.

When that happens, because they are trying to put in place a religion, that will bring about the common Good, and the ends justify the means, then such ends justify a totalitarian regime to silence those who won't be shut up.

This morning I read David Limbaugh's pre-election piece titled Sorry, but Obama Scares Me.

Me too.

Update: I had originally attributed "Sorry but Obama Scares Me" to Jonah Goldberg. I have corrected it to read David Limbaugh.

The Thought Police

This has not received nearly enough press coverage. Not that anyone is reading my post either, but I needed to get some additional thoughts down.

First of all, the Secret Service was wrong to question her on her thoughts about Sen. Obama. Perhaps the Secret Service (why does America have a police force called the Secret Service?) was probably being hyper vigilant. Sadly, I think threats have probably been made. More about that in a minute. But their line of questioning seems to me to be entirely out of line, and their actions were unprofessional, at best. As civil servants, they should have had to show their badges, give their badge number and their names. When someone comes from your government to talk to you, they should be prepared to stand by what they say to you. You may lie, and that of course is a crime. But they should maintain a higher standard. The woman agent's refusal to give even a card raises the suspicion that they may well be partisans impersonating Federal officials. That, of course, is a crime too.

The recent arrest of two young men in a plot to kill a number of black people before assassinating Sen. Obama was very disturbing to me. Vote, yes. Read all you can, and tell everyone you know. Stand with signs on street corners. March, and demonstrate. Write your Congressmen. But don't make a martyr of this guy. If someone does, we will never hear the end of it. The press will memorialize him, making of him the messiah he is clearly not. A President Biden will announce a package of New Great Society legislation, which will be passed by 434-1 in the House, 99-1 in the Senate, in honor of the One. A generation will grow up thinking that the One was the greatest President in history. But liberty will inevitably suffer, and our children and grand children will grow up under a government that has its jackboot firmly across their throats. Don't let that happen.

Not Ripped From the Headlines (But Should Be)

Another excellent article on the subject by David Codrea of the War on Guns. Mr. Codrea is an indefatigable efforts on behalf of gun owners is hard to over estimate.

For me, this is good news, as I have occasion to drive to Ohio several times a year. In the past, I have not used rest areas precisely because these were "victim disarmament zones" and I had other choices. But there are still too many places where one may not have a choice whether or not to be there, that are defined by law as gun free zones. If the State is going to perform a background check on an individual, and demand a certain level of training in order to grant a concealed handgun license, then the State should also feel comfortable allowing such people armed access to any State owned property. I particularly find it suspicious, and cowardly, when I must be disarmed in order to meet with State Legislators, especially when they may well be armed. Who is working for who here?

On the Meaning of Money

Andrew Tallman had a good explanation of the meaning of money, and it's value, in his column today over at Townhall.com. The heart of the explanation is here:

In truth, it’s simple. The wealthy don’t owe us. Literally, we owe them. That’s what money means.

If I have $50,000 in a bank somewhere, that means that society owes me goods and services in the amount of $50,000. If I spend $20,000 of it on a car, society doesn’t owe me as much anymore because they’ve compensated me in the form of that car. Everyone collectively still owes me $30,000, which I can collect on in a variety of ways.

Money is an IOU from society that we give people when they give us things we desire or do things for us we want. So when a person makes a lot of money, it means that he has done beneficial things for a lot of people. If he accumulates these IOUs in a storage facility somewhere, he is amassing wealth not because he owes society, but precisely because society owes him the value of all those accumulated and uncollected debts.

I had never thought about it quite like that.

Thomas Sowell makes a good point as well when he says that very few people remain in the same station in life over their lifetime. A student may be initially living below the poverty line. But when he gets a job after college, he may find himself among the lower middle class. Later, with more affluence, he may get married, have children, and, as his children go off to college, may find himself among the "Richest Americans," as The One would describe him. After retirement, he may find himself a member of the middle class again, having paid off his mortgage, driving less, and with fewer expenditures for daily living.

What the Obamamessiah is trying to do is to perform works of charity with other peoples money. Charity can only be done by someone giving of himself. When someone takes from others, which is what taxes are, and gives it to someone else, that is not charity. That is cheap and dishonest. Any politician with principles would know that, and would discourage it whenever it reared it's ugly head.

In talking to people about this, a number say, in essence, "Society is already taxed, and money is given for welfare, so this is just taking it a little farther. We aren't going to stop, so if we are already doing it, why shouldn't I get some." Such people tacitly admit that a wrong is being done, but then go one to say we should do more of it! Bah! I have little tolerance for such thinking.