Cats, Guns, and National Security: 2012-01-22

The conversation related below began with a response by me to two issue raised by the other party. Those original responses are in ITALICS immediately under the headers to each discussion, with the other party's original response inBOLD BLACK and broken down. Our blow-by-blow exchange on each point is captured in color-code--RED for me, BLUE for the other party.

The objective here is to relate what I believe is a good back-and-forth between myself and the other party, exploring two views of the same issue in terms of how the conservative/Right ought to approach them.

1. A blog by Emily Miller of the Washington Times about her efforts to acquire a firearm in Washington, DC ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/ ). Upshot: She's an idiot to acquire a weapon, because she knows nothing about them.

I started reading that of the lovely Ms. Emily Miller's endeavor back when she started, but had to quit out of sheer frustration. That broad knows NOTHING about firearms, and thus is a walking poster FOR gun control. Her employer set her up bigtime, and that dumb dame went for it. People need to understand about firearms BEFORE acquiring one, even as people need to understand a topic of the day BEFORE they start demonstrating about it (yes, that's a shot at Teabrainers). Whatever constitutional and philosophical objections I have to "red tape" in exercising Second Amendment rights, in her case it frankly served a purpose, and that, unfortunately, is the message that will carry.

You may be right about Emily Miller. I is.

Okey-Dokey

But she does have Second Amendment rights no matter how ill-informed she is. With rights go responsibilities. The problem is our culture. We need mandatory firearms education and training for all non-delinquent youth in high schools. It's unfortuate to say this on this topic, but the typical "liberty"-centric approach all too common among conservatives is creating both policy problems (how to we keep dumbfucks from being armed) and political liabilities (a libertarian approach opens the way for not-so-libertarian movements to entice "the people" to impose very non-libertarian regulations).

Not disagreeing with you, but if you take your argument further, then not many would be able to drive, have kids, own a home with a yard (I'm sick and tired of all the "Green Acres" types) etc. etc.

Maybe many of them shouldn't: "Sunday drivers" need to get out of my way (I'm tired of driving around them up on the sidewalk) and welfare queens who have a kid should be forcibly sterilized (an idea from my late mother). However, unless someone's redneck yard ornaments (e.g., cars with no wheels) become truly an eyesore (simply stupid doesn't qualify), what people do for landscaping is already sufficiently regulated.

Ah.....but who decides what an "eyesore" is? One person's junk is another one's treasure. Regardless, you see where I'm going. Where do you draw the line with the regulations and qualifications?

By "regulated," I mean issues like sewage drainage and similar issues which impact on others. The "eyesore" point is a concession to the need to act when "freedom" is abused and taken to the absurd. Remember, I am NOT a libertarian.

I don't think anyone could accuse you of being a Libertarian ;-) As for me, I don't understand why people can't just take personal responsibility for what they do, whether it's decorating their yards or buying a gun.

It's not you that's the problem. It's the other guy. A fellow called libertarian Neil Boortz's show once saying, "I promise to be responsible," and thus didn't need the courts, etc. Boortz pointed out he'd be grateful for those courts when a business customer screwed him over. It's the problem I've pointed out over and over--conservatives think from self-perspective, and thus miss so much. (Of course, the fellow was probably really thinking he'd just carry out some personal justice in that case, but he couldn't say that. Nonetheless, the point was made.)

That said, I understand your point, which is why it is essential that such power only be in the hands of the right people. The weakness of democracy is that the people tend to appoint the wrong people too often.

Yep....that's why the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic. And we're even screwing that up!

The Founding generation, by some estimates, only had about one percent eligible to vote. "One percent". Sound familiar?

Wow - we could go in a whole other direction here, but maybe another time. Suffice it to say that I really think there should be tests for people to be able to vote and we should also have strict voter ID laws.

I would have to see what kind of tests are used (academic facts tests would be bad for conservatives). But reducing the democracy in our democracy is good.

Frankly, showing all the steps and red tape she needs to wade through is enlightening for a lot of people - The only redeeming part of the whole thing, BUT: A. It's DC, which is exceptional; and B. It's insufficient.

Sure it's DC.....but don't think the anti-gun folks wouldn't LOVE such rigmarole for the rest of the country.

See below.

I would guess that most Americans think you just go to a gun shop, fill out a form, and buy a firearm. In Missouri, a free state, that is all there is to it, plus the NICS check phone call taking all of a few minutes.

See above

See below.

Not so - In most states, it is so. And in a private deal, it's even less--buyer gives money, seller gives gun, deal is done. You've been living in the pseudo-state of Hawaii too long.

See above

See below.

we already have tons of checks on the law books (of course they vary by location) so do we really need more? If I were to seriously suggest something "more" that is needed, I would suggest, maybe, KNOWING SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS!

Also, see below.

That should be the take-home message. 1. It won't be, not with the way she carries on in the early parts. 2. "Should be" doesn't matter nearly as much as "will be."

When people read about all she had to go through to get a gun, you don't think it will make them think "Gee, Marge, that's a lot of red tape!"

It's a classic "half-full/half-empty" disagreement: You see the typical regular American's thinking ability as half-full; I, on the other hand... Also, I was considering how her little venture can be played by anti-gunners (like, say, most of the common people in both DC and Hawaii--I would love to restrict people to the basic gun laws of their home jurisdiction, so a Missourian with no permit could carry concealed in their vehicle and hotel room legally in DC, but the bums there couldn't even if they are passing through a state where no permit is required for anything! HEE HEE). In my opinion, if that hottie's employer wanted to send a pro-gun message, he outsmarted himself by (almost) half by sending a gun-ignorant noob. (Note I only said, "Noob.")

The half-full or half-empty concept isn't really relevant here. Frankly, it's more like all or nothing when it comes to gun rights. I agree that people should be bound by the laws of their own state/jurisdiction regardless of where they are. But I also think that the way the anti-gun folks are changing the laws in so many states almost make that a moot point.

"Half-empty/half-full" has to do there with the mental capacity and aptitude of the common person. Plus, there are some restrictions on gun ownership I support, most notably restricting non-military and uncommon calibers in the interest of militia efficacy. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, fancy collections, or indulging personal preferences, but rather about enabling private citizens to kill people. As for "the way the anti-gun folks are changing the laws in so many states," if you track the matter, PRO-gunners are advancing in virtually every state and nationally. Carrying in national parks and transporting firearms on trains, etc., has returned. National CCW reciprocity may very well become a reality. Again, you've lived in the pseudo-state of Hawaii way too long.

I take issue with you calling Hawaii a "pseudo-state." It's actually "The People's Republic of Hawaii."

"Pseudo-state" comes from the fact that Hawaii is not part of "America"--the tectonic land mass composed of North America, South America, the Caribbean, and nearby islands. Politics and demographics have nothing to do with it.

Actually, we're both accurate on this one. Hawaii was a kingdom for so long and has only been a state for 52 years. The "plantation mentality" of being taken care of by those in power is so strong here I don't think it will ever go away.

MY SUMMARY: "The problem is our culture. We need mandatory firearms education and training for all non-delinquent youth in high schools."
Sounds good to me! Let's go tell Chuckie Schumer ;-)

BTW, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution authorize Congress to provide for "training... the militia". This action is thus within explicit constitutional authority.

===

2. The stupid econo-centric politics of conservatives.

Good to see you talking about something that's NOT "the economy." I have so fed up hearing about it I almost would love to see it crash just to irk the Tea Party.

As for the economy, in order to be a strong nation (most notably militarily) we need to have a strong economy.

1. The economy is useless without the ability to protect it.

We can't protect it without a strong military...we can't have a strong military without a strong economy.

Chicken-and-egg, huh. Fine. We can play one of those online "build-your-own-society" games. You spend money to first build an economy, while I spend money to first build a military. Then we will see who wins.

Where are you going to get the money to build your military?

For "money," think whatever resources one has available. If Ugg the caveman uses a tree he has secured (military) to make a tool for getting food out of trees before the brontosauruses arrive, and his cousin Ugg-Ugg uses a tree he has secured (again, military) to make a club, one will end up working to collect a bunch of food, and the other will end up with the food, the tool, and the club. Guess which is which.

I'm not saying your approach is not doable, but it takes time and a whole new change of mindset. Consider my scenario: Kim Jung Illest has triillions of dollars. He buys the best weapons money can buy. Period.

And my point is simply that security should be the top priority. Kim is proof of the law of diminishing returns--too much of a good thing. Of course, in North Korea EVERYTHING with the people is diminishing, except the waistlines of his family members.) Period.

This is why, while some invest in gold and silver, a better investment is LEAD. Here's something to consider which combines both of our perspectives, notwithstanding the nature of the site--"Are Guns and Ammo the New Gold and Silver?": http://lewrockwell.com/slavo/slavo83.1.html

LOVE this idea!!!!!!

2. Alternative means exist for maintaining a military power (barter, confiscation, etc.).

Alternative but not practical or currently in place. It would take years to set up such alternatives.

I speak of when the situation becomes "extreme." In "extreme" situations, things can be set up VERY quickly.

Sure...I'd rather have us not even get there.

On a related point, I conceived of a money-saving plan to use military facilities for dual-use to cut both military training and welfare costs. For example, instead of paying for medical treatment for needy people, we would use available military and VA facilities, with military and veterans getting priority. Simple "free clinic" stuff would be handled by reserve-component medical units as part of their training. On drill weekends, they would set up camp in a town and use local bums for practice giving doing exams, giving injections, extracting an exceeding amount of (checked) blood for use by medical units assigned to our latest war of conquest, etc.--"Oh, you welfare recipients just did your duty for your country, I see. No, you don't look that pale (link). I guess we left you a pint in your system. Such softies, we are." Ditto for veterinary units (though without the excessive blood-taking).

Good out-of-the-box thinking! Actually, if 0bamacare goes into effect, I think I will start going to a veterinary clinic for care. And on a related point.....those who are military veterans or active duty have known for years how 0bamacare would work because it's been the military healthcare system forever. It's rationed care, and very definitely a "who you know" type of system. The care can be excellent, but it also can be horrible. Anyone who knows a little about healthcare and speaks medical lingo gets great service. And yet, the current military system will be like medical utopia compared to 0bamacare.

3. National sovereignty must be maintained at any economic cost. Anything less is self-destructive of everything, including the economy.

Of course!!! I never disagreed with this.

4. Military spending can be a true "stimulus," employing people to build the bombs we drop on sheet heads.

Never disagreed with this, either.

5. Military operations can be for profit--"Nuke the ass and take their gas."

Never disagreed with this, either.

6. Tea Partiers are not thinking, "A strong economy will allow for a strong military," but rather, "A strong economy will make my portfolio better". The economic principle of the profit motive does not work politically in non-economic and not (necessarily) so profitable enterprises as military strength. That's the flaw of Ayn Randism. Its only benefit (barring my suggested for-profit approach) is in how it fuels our military-industrial complex, which is the ONLY thing keeping us free. And that means military spending.

Wrong about Tea Partiers in general (likely holds true for some.) Every Tea Party person I've known supports a strong military....many I know are either in the military or military retirees.

Another "half and half" difference between us. And where was your Tea Party in 2008, when they could have pre-empted so much of it? Too many of those that were involved supported Obongo because they were lashing out at the party in the White House over THE ECONOMY.

WHOA!!!! I don't know any Tea Party person who supported 0bama (of course I'm sure there are some, but they are definitely in the smallest of minorities.)

They didn't consider the effect of the socialism they were actively or passively (by not back McCain-Palin with blind devotion and obedience) supporting. Rather they and others were Teabrained and knee-jerk visceral. I even remember an article quoting a self-declared anti-Black White nationalist in West Virginia saying (paraphrased), "I don't like Black people, but the economy sure is bad." These people were not thinking of anything but their money--not national security, not winning the war, and not even social impact.

Yep...that guy in WV still likely supports 0bama because he grew up a Democrat and will always be one, no matter what (I'd be willing to bet his comment about the economy was not his main priory in voting for 0bama. I was born in WV....I know how they think. YIKES! Did I say that???) Anyhow, many of us Tea Brainers knew about 0bama's Marxist ideas in 2008 and tried to warn people. But how does one itty bitty blogger reach the masses when the mainstream media had deified this guy?

Face the truth. The man explained why he was thinking about electing our first President/pResident from a race he doesn like--"the economy sure is bad." Money over ideology and identity, a hallmark of far too much of modern conservatism.

That may be what he SAID but he was THINKING along the lines of what I described. Trust me. The concept of his Granddaddy and Daddy rolling over in their graves if he EVER voted for a Republican is what drove him to vote for 0bama.

And with that, I close this discussion by giving you your new name: "Cleopatra--Queen of Denial (link)".

"But how does one itty bitty blogger reach the masses...?" Typical conservative error. It's not about "one itty bitty blogger." It's about people sacrificing preferences, thinking collectively, accepting imperfections, and working together for their common direction. That White nationalist needed to forget the economy and work with Black conservatives to support McCain-Palin, regardless of whether the cost of the crosses he burned was going up. The Tea Party of 2010 showed that conservatives can do it--e.g., avowed anti-homosexual pro-lifers worked with Tammy Bruce--but in 2008 they in their materialism blamed "the party in the White House" and reacted Teabrainedly. Money was their care, and they let it work with their political ignorance and individualism to point them in a self-defeating direction. Again, "freedom" served to destroy freedom.

Not sure where you get the idea that people who are now "Tea Brainers" supported 0bama in 2008. Here's the truth that needs to be faced: McCain was a lousy candidate. If Romney had been the GOP nominee in 2008 he would have won. The only time McCain got the GOP base excited was when Palin came onboard. Even still, he and his advisors squashed Palin's enthusiasm - she wanted to go after 0bama in basic ways. Why not talk about his past relationships with terrorists and racists? Why not expose his Marxist tendencies? That simple exchange with Joe the Plumber spoke volumes, but by then it was too late. THAT'S why McCain lost and 0bama won....because McCain refused to fight. When he laid down and played dead, American voters figured "well, I might as well go for the young guy who seems to really want this." Include a complicit media in the mix, and 0bama was a shoe-in.

If the conservative/Right electorate had been thinking and educated, they would have supported Mc-P irregardless (yes, I know it ain't a word). As I told people at the time, those two could have visited my grandmother, slapped her upside the head, and flushed her medicine down the toilet while burning her Social Security check, and I still would have voted for them. Whatever mistakes that campaign made, they could have made up for with 527s, etc. Yet conservatives used McCain's errors or the Palin "wardrobe" hulabaloo as excuses to do nothing. As the subtitle of a newsletter of sorts I put out during the campaign said, "It's not about helping McCain. It's about stopping Hussein!"

Plus, I stand by my criticism of Ayn Randism. When an adherent of Randism who is willing to shell out his own money to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie insists upon shelling more money to correct a statement that the heroine is "self-sacrific[ing]," then you have a philosophy that not only doesn't champion such things as patriotism or any profitless enterprise, but one that opposes the very concept behind the sincerest expression of them.

But your comment does have me thinking: Perhaps with a more for-profit approach, this gap can be closed. See below.

7. With world hegemony, the economy will resolve itself. When no one can seriously touch you, you can do what you want.

Sure sounds like China......

If by that you mean that China is growing to threaten U.S. military, and hence economic, hegemony, then indeed.

Yep - exactly what I mean!

We need to restore/strengthen our hegemony. "If we are to live in a world where the lion lies down with the lamb, it is essential that we always be the lion"--SEN Phil Graham (sp?) during the 1990s "peace dividend" defense cuts. PLUS It is a fact of history that societies compete with each other. Even in the Bible, you see the Judeo-Christian God making provisions for wars which had nothing to do with securing the Holy (Home)Land (Deuteronomy 20). Perhaps we need the enemy to give us some excuse (say, supporting North Korea against our ally South Korea), but in any case, we need to drop this "we only asked for enough land to bury our dead" crap and start annexing conquered territory and exacting reparations and tribute again, modern international sensitivities be damned.

Sounds good to me! But is that possible? I'm a Tea Brainer, after all.

["TEABRAINER" SHOTS OMITTED] Such people should let the experts determine the general policy. "I jes' kinda theenk" may have worked in simpler, less sophisticated times, but not today. When one does not know the area, the best input one can give is often, "I have nothing to add on this matter." By listening to people like John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Brigitte Gabriel, Lee T. Walker, and other comparable experts, such people can do far better than saying, "Weell, I jes' kinda theenk..." and then uttering uneducated, unsophisticated individualism or even knee-jerk emotionalism. And ideally, by establishing a united position, even if imperfect, and then supporting it collectively, dutifully, and yes, at times blindly regardless of preferences--in other words, by learning from our opponents--we can stand against liberals on the Left and Paultards on the Right.

Your comment above about listening to the experts explains perfectly and succinctly how I vote for POTUS. Sure, I consider the individual but more important to me is who that person (if he or she becomes President) will surround himself or herself with as advisors, cabinet members, etc. When 0bama was running, I kept asking people, "what do you think his cabinet will look like? Who do you think his advisors will be?" Most people were oblivious....and that's why the Bill Ayers & Jeremiah Wright relationships were so important. Palin wanted to hit hard on these relationships but McCain refused to go there. Big mistake.

See your "not disagreeing" with Points 4 and 5 above. That is all I'm saying.

Honestly, the more I look at some of the more viable (and less "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-based) conspiracy theories out there, the better some look. Think about it: This alleged conspiracy has brought Westerners more wealth and creature comforts (the only thing most people really care about) than any society in history. In a sense, it really doesn't sound so bad. Rather than a Ron Paul opposition to it (after all, if it exists, then Paul must be an agent of it, or else he would never have gotten this far), one could argue we should work with it to secure that position--"You Trilaterals, etc., can make all the money you want and exercise all the power you want, as long as we in this generation keep our relative position above the schmuck peoples of the rest of the world and our guns." I'm convinced that if the American people were offered this by an aggressive foreign power in exchange for not resisting the takeover of America, most--especially those on the conservative/Right--would go for it (the label, "Tea Party patriot" will forever be an OXYMORON for me (link)). And since private gun sales help feed the military-industrial aspect, they might just go for it.

Not what I want, but with the way Tea Partiers seem to go at times, it might be the best we can get.

I'm not so ready to give up. I also have more faith in the majority of Tea Partiers than you do. Maybe because I am one and I know a lot of them, in various states. Looks like we're back to the "half-full/half-empty" thing again!!!!!

I gave up on the Tea Party movement a long time ago. I simply cannot have faith in a movement dominated by self-centered, material-minded, uneducated, and largely clueless hicks.

Why thanks, Lee. That's one of the nicest things you've ever said to me ;-) However, that Occupy Wall Street group sure has a lot of upstanding people in it, don'cha think????? In all seriousness, the American people will need to decide in 2012 whether they stand with the principles of the Tea Party or the principles of the OWS crowd. That's how things are shaping up. And that's how the media have played all of us like cheap violins. They've set up a showdown for the election - the "haves" v. the "have-nots." Class warfare. The Tea Party will be viewed as the (as you put it) self-centered, material-minded, uneducated clueless hick "haves" and the OWS movement as the poor, downtrodden, compassionate, anti-Wall Street idealist "have-nots." Just watch. In fact, you've already bought into half of the set-up.

I have bought into nothing but the truth. I'd put the education of the typical Occupier up against that of the typical Tea Partier anyday. I disagree completely with their ideology and agenda, but Occupiers probably know how to spell. Lasting stereotypes generally have basis in fact, and this is certainly the stereotype (link--see also Attachment).

Everyone misspells a word sometimes. And I've seen misspelled words on OWS sign as well. This is a side-show and means nothing. What's important is what the movement stands for. While OWS is a bunch of left-wing anarchists with a list of grievances that go on forever, the message of the Tea Party is simple: smaller government, accountability in elected officials, and adherence to the Constitution.

"[T]he American people will need to decide in 2012 whether they stand with the principles of the Tea Party or the principles of the OWS crowd."

Personally, I am neither. I am a principled (non-OWS) and fact-minded (non-Tea Party) man who holds his loyalty (non-OWS) and sacrifices for his principles (non-Tea Party). I am an American Patriot (link).

MY SUMMARY: "[T]he label, "Tea Party patriot" will forever be an OXYMORON for me (link)."

The End.

Thank you all for reading, and have a real nice day!

Cats, Guns, and National Security

Saturday, January 28, 2012

From ACT! for America--Houston: [New post] Denying Islamists Federal Security Clearances

New post on ACT! for America Houston

Denying Islamists Federal Security Clearances

Snippits from George Washington's 1779 Speech to the Delaware Chiefs

Friday, January 27, 2012

From ACT! for America--Houston: [New post] Ten Questions for the Muslim Next Door

New post on ACT! for America Houston

Ten Questions for the Muslim Next Door

A discussion with a Tea Partier on how to approach issues