Oy vey. 
A Clover named Mamba (aka “rene”) continues to send me his Cloveritic “reasonable” rationales for forcibly disarming people who’ve never used a gun criminally or recklessly. Herewith the latest, my comments in bold type:
So, the store has 2 options then when this occurs:
1) Have a potential shootout occur in the store.
2) Hand over the few hundred dollars in the register.
Now from an ACCOUNTANT’S point of view, which do you think is the cheaper option? Risk potential lawsuits from dead and injured customers, cleanup from bullet damage, having to show up in court after the incident, mitigate the PR disaster as both sides then weigh in full force on the gun issue, etc…
Clover/Rene assumes the armed thug will be generous and not murder the storekeeper, or others in the store. How easy it is for Clover/Rene to be glib with other people’s lives.
…or just hand over the few hundred bucks and call your insurance company to get it back? And by restricting the guns, they can then assume that those who DO show a gun is by default a criminal, making it easier to prepare.
Clover apparently doesn’t understand that if a business is an easy mark for armed thugs once – it will likely be an easy mark for armed thugs twice. And thrice. Insurance will soon become exorbitant – and customers scarce, once the store becomes a frequent target of armed thugs.
Come on, this is a mindlessly easy decision for the store. No conspiracy here!
Forget gun rights, this is just business sense now. And they do have the right to refuse to have deadly weapons barred from the store, or pretty much anything for that matter…it’s their store. If they want to ban hoodies they can, regardless of the legality of them. Private residence and all.
-Ren
No, Clover. The “mindlessly easy” decision is to be in a position to defend oneself against armed thugs. And to oppose waterheads such as yourself who would render decent people defenseless against armed thugs.
France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49: this makes France the most successful military power in European history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Armed_Forces
Why is it, meriKans feel some kind of perverse superiority for being so much more militarizied and state indoctrinated? France is almost twice as popular as the next closest tourist destination in the world. They truly know how to live and enjoy life.
What, exactly is a singer of “Proud to Be an American” actually proud of ? His hand me down cultural artifacts from England and Western Europe. McDonald’s? Dumbed down Cricket and Rugby for mouth breathing morons?
you like value bucket
Even when France was Vichy France, they didn’t seem to help the German war effort all that much.
I’ve also always marvelled at the way France uses a French Foreign Legion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion
Only a quarter of the personnel is French. They can literally hire their would-be enemies and competitors to serve in their armed forces, and potentially die fighting for them. It’s genius really.
ironically, the newspaper didn’t want me to “rob” them of their content without me being a paid subscriber. Well played, internet.
http://abc30.com/news/2-wanted-in-attempted-armed-robbery-at-fresno-jewelry-store/150323/
thug life – I found another “free” source. That’s why I say I’m at least a partial anarchist, I “steal” from the rich and propertied class as long as its safe and low risk to do so.
– 800 anarcho voodoo words do not change the facts of the matter, it’s a broken system where almost everyone is “taking” from everyone else. The productive and the well versed in pilferage both make out about the same #AnCapRealityCheckTime
Um, yeah, if the crook had no qualms about facing murder charges then he can shoot the staff dead as soon as possible. That way even if one was carrying a gun he wouldn’t have time to do anything about it.
Clover, as usual, you assume the right to play with other people’s lives. You don’t know whether an armed shop keeper (or customer) would be able to respond to a deadly threat in time.
The fact is, armed citizens frequently intervene to save their own lives – and the lives of others. A fact you and your kind ignore.
No, I take that back. A fact you seethe with contempt for. You loathe the idea of free men being able to defend themselves. You pine for supine, dependent masses, who look to “heroes” – state costumed praetorians – for their “safety.”
Eric & CloVerMin,
here’s a perfect recent example in Fresno. The jewelry store owner had a shotgun, which totally ruined these two armed robber’s plans.
Contrary to what statists tell you, robbers are nearly indistinguishable from other people. They want to obtain value for their ~value~ implied threat (“labor” and valuable “consideration” of not harming you), and then get out of there.
They don’t enter businesses trying to interact with the staff at all. They intend to grab the loot, and then scoot.
failed robbery attempt in Fresno
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c2_1404359110
mainstream propaganda version of armed heist
http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/07/01/4005615/southeast-fresno-jewelry-store.html
As usual, the clovers are exactly wrong.
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”
Clover,
Thugs who commit armed robbery not infrequently kill their victims, too. If the victims ate armed, they at least stand a chance of emerging alive.
You and your ilk would deny them that chance.
Dear Gil,
Um, yeah.
Not your call, got it?
His life is his. Your life is yours. His life is not yours. Your life is not his.
Did I go too fast for you?
Take your time. Think about it. Obviously you haven’t given the matter of whose life belongs to whom very much thought before.
This has got to twist a clovers mind into a knot: At Colo. restaurant, menu comes with armed waitresses
I think I’ve been a victim!
Maybe you guys know what I don’t?
I thought that the Colorado magazine ban applied to All magazines (that’s what I gathered from reading from others) but then I saw an article discussing how it was Only magazines made after such-and-such a date, which is why they said it was un-enforceable.
Does anyone have a clear idea of the so-called “law” they could post to enlighten me? Clover-law is difficult to navigate. The bastards.
I’m keen on the the idea of only obeying those laws a person finds tolerable, but I do try and avoid a fine when I don’t have to pay one Or spend the day in jail for a non-crime. And that state seems like a nice place to move to, minus the bullshit.
Now this is a clover story that’s good for a laugh:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/how-janet-yellen-ruined-neighborhood.html
Janet Yellen’s cloverian neighbors are none too happy about her security detail.
Money-Grabbing Clover’s Latest
Spending money on self bad. Spending money on control freak schemes good.
One simple way to reduce the tyranny of taxation and only affect commerce for the few, would be to simply revert to previous methods of only taxing the extremely wealthy.
Especially taxing property itself. Income no matter how high, if it is consumed within a year, remains in the system, and doesn’t need taxation to make it available. The best system is no tax. Second best is only property of the highly wealthy.
Yes, this will be bad and oppressive for those who are well off, but at least they will have some means at their disposal to defend themselves. At least until they’re ruined and bankrupted.
– – – –
Cock-Blocking Clover’s Latest
Men are all terrible. Women are all great. Repeat 1,000,000 times as needed.
The Truth About Maleficent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLiS1n2GqU4
In Oz, we had our guns taken away by stupid “amnesty”. Now only the bad guys have weapons – cops included. Unfortunately, our country never had a Constitutional right to bear arms. Neither did Russia. But there are service stations in Russia that do their trade through a fence and a long box out the window for transfer of money.
There are many service stations/7-11’s in this country that have been robbed at gunpoint several times. If the store owner pointed a gun in the face (or shot) the bastard the first time, he’d not be robbed again. However, the idiot cops here (in authorative voice of course) state on TV that it’s best to do what the thief says!
That’s just an invitation to come back.
Rene, is it any wonder guns are only used on the defenceless?
(comments on the bold (message wasn’t even for you eric, remember?) then you all can have your fun being smarter than me. )
Actually I don’t assume he won’t murder people, I assume that a criminal isn’t going to risk MURDER ONE charges and a manhunt rather than risk the relatively minor charge of stealing some cash. Who would do something that stupid…unless forced into a shootout by bystanders? In a shootout, that makes YOU the one who’s glib with lives here. The store expects the guy to leave with the cash and no shots fired at all.
As for targeting of stores, I actually agree with you on this one. Like all bullies, they will take on the weaker one. The store obviously looked at the rate of crime, and determined it’s STILL cheaper to just give the cash. we may agree, but I’m still right. Remember this is an accountant’s POV, not a security one.
As for the last bold point, defending means to save lives and save cash. The store determined that banning the guns does both better in the long run…probably after having a few gun incidents in the store. Accounting POV, not security. You are debating defense, but the store is not thinking of defense.
If it helps you wrap your brain around this, the store gave up on trying to stop the criminals and instead focused of managing the damage when they occur, and they figured this was the cheapest option. does that make them defenseless cowards? Maybe, but the accountant still shows profit and the body count drops dramatically, and that’s all they are about.
Debate freedom and security all you want, but that’s not what THIS is about. It’s just profit for the store…pure and simple. Not spite to gun owners, business sense. For all you know, the store owner’s a gun owner himself!
So, you assume criminal thugs are rational? Future-time oriented? Empathetic? That they never “get rid of witnesses” – or just blast away because they’re – you know – psychopaths?
Again: What gives you – or anyone, for that matter – the right to decide “acceptable risk” for other people?
Your deceptiveness is what gets my back up, Rene. You’ve repeatedly prefaced your urge to forcibly disarm peaceful people who’ve never harmed anyone with a gun (or otherwise) because some other not-so-peaceful people (a small minority) have harmed people with guns with disingenuous claims that you aren’t “anti-gun.”
That’s true – but not the way you mean it.
You’re anti-rights.
You believe it’s ok to do violence to others – or threaten to – because you’re “concerned” about what “someone” might do.
“And they do have the right to refuse to have deadly weapons barred from the store,”
This guy can’t even say what he means, he’s a waste of time.
I actually agree with what I think he meant – that store owners as private property owners, have the RIGHT to ban weapons. But I very much disagree that it is the sensible thing to do.
Remember, all the school shootings occurred in ‘Gun Free Zones.’
BTW, no home schoolers have been killed or injured in “School Shootings.” One more reason to keep your kids at home.
@Phillip – No gun free zone in Rifle, CO. restaurant.
In Rifle, this grill packs some heat
By Glenwood Springs Post-Independent
Posted: 06/29/2014
RIFLE — When waitress Ashlee Saenz takes your order at Shooters Grill, she not only carries a pad and pen — she also packs a loaded Ruger .357 Blackhawk handgun holstered on her leg, Old West-style.
It’s loaded, and she knows how to use it.
Saenz and her co-workers, along with customers who come into Shooters, are encouraged by Shooters’ owners to pack heat in the restaurant, as allowed by state law.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26054390/rifle-this-grill-packs-some-heat
Dear Gary,
This Colorado restaurant is exactly what we need.
It’s the diametric opposite of Eric Holder’s “We have to make guns uncool” propaganda.
The more the Colorado restaurant example spreads, the more the public will be deprogrammed. No more “He’s got a gun!” alarmism. Instead, “So he’s got a gun. So what? I’ve got a gun too.”
@Bevin – Irony not lost. As Ayn Rand was either preparing to or writing Atlas Shrugged she visited Ouray, Co. She said that gave her the image she needed for Galt’s Gulch. Rifle is less than 150 miles from Ouray.
Dear Gary,
To me, most mainstream “political activism” is bullshit. And it isn’t only that I disagree with their concepts. It’s more that they fail to zero in on those human factors that will actually result in change.
The open carry movement is a happy exception. I consider it a political strategy that absolutely hits the mark, to use a shooting metaphor!
The reason is that it works on a level more fundamental than ideology. It works on the level of the gut and heart. It’s not just a head trip.
The 2A was never the source of America’s “gun culture.” It was a reflection of it. Culture trumps politics, every time.
Nathaniel Branden spoke about how psychology was actually more critical to transformation than politics. During one psychology workshop I took with him, he argued that “Psychology is the technology of Ethics.”
He explained that developing self-esteem was effective at defeating the ethics of altruism than philosophical lectures. Only individuals with sufficient self-esteem have the emotional wherewithal to “Just say no!” to altruist/collectivists who would guilt trip them into accepting forced redistribution.
The open carry movement has the potential to work extremely well for similar reasons. If open carry is normalized, people will not easily be guilt tripped into apologizing for their membership in the gun culture.
@Bevin – Funny you should bring that up. As posted at Lew Rockwell today:
Gary North is out with a short essay, There Will Be No Revolution. I am tempted to call it the most important essay on advancing liberty since Friedrich Hayek’s The Intellectuals and Socialism, perhaps even more important.
I have long argued here at EPJ that direct confrontation with the government makes little sense. I have also argued that the problem with most revolutions is that generally what occurs is that one bad actor is simply replaced with another.
North in his essay argues that this is the nature of revolution. He writes:
Revolutions centralize power. In order to fight centralized power militarily, you must centralize power, and this only leads to a shift of loyalty to a new group of centralists….
Revolutionaries have to have a centralized agenda. Either it’s open, or it isn’t. But there is always a centralized agenda with every revolutionary movement. Every revolutionary always thinks his revolution is going to be the last one. Every revolutionary thinks that when he gets in control of the hierarchical chain of command, things are going to be different. Yes, they will be different. There will be a different set of looters skimming off the productivity of the victims.
Until conservatives stop dreaming about capturing existing hierarchical systems of power, nothing is going to change.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/robert-wenzel/revolution-is-not-the-path-to-liberty/
Dear Gary,
North is correct!
Larken Rose makes the identical argument.
Anyone who studies history can testify as to truth of this thesis. The French Revolution was a perfect example. One dictatorship replaced after another in swift succession.
The Ancien Regime was replaced by a constitutional monarchy, which was replaced by a republic, which was replaced by the Reign of Terror, which was replaced by the Thermidorian Reaction, which was replaced by Napoleon’s s French Empire, which was replaced by the July Monarchy, which was replaced by the Second Empire, which was replaced by the Third Republic. All between 1792 and 1870.
The players changed, the script remained the same. That’s because none of the revolutionaries were revolutionaries in the thinking. Not really. They merely replaced one form of “authoritay” with another. They didn’t repudiate “authoritay” altogether.
Lest we pat ourselves on the back, the ‘Murcan Revolution was also a failure. It just took longer to fail. Two centuries from Washington Obama.
Rene,
Criminals commit murder all the time, especially now with “Three Strikes” laws.
Better to just kill potential witnesses. You have (1) Armed Robbery, (2) use of a gun in comission of a felony, (3) assault [and battery/with intent] frequently occur as well.
When the store is GAURANTEED gun-free, it’s what we call a “target-rich environment.” See, what he’s done so far? that’s THREE STRIKES, MANDATORY life sentence. How is murder a big deal? It only HELPS, by eliminating witnesses and clues.
Furthermore, the statistics on resisting a criminal? Pretty good. You resist, even only vocally, and criminals want to be elsewhere. They want EASY victims.
Stats showed if you “just give them what they want” – you have about a 10% difference in risk of injury, compared to resisting in any way.
Examine: http://thedailycoin.org/?p=3245
I don’t vouch for the source, but the citations should give you good leads.
The mistake a LOT of people make is Projection.
I have a VERY hard time explaining certain things to my boss. He is a good, moral man. He does not see his employees and coworkers as expendable.
He doesn’t believe, therefore, that management WOULD see all of us as expendable and infinitely replaceable.
Someone who is willing to break the “social contract?” already is existing OUTSIDE the “laws” you believe are sacrosanct. These people – sociopaths, or psychopaths, now – don’t think the same way you do. They DO, however, understand they must be inside the herd, must look like everyone else – or the herd will destroy them. They go to church, say. Marry and have children. Coach little league. They are pillars of the community.
And they sell/run drugs, using the delivery trucks they operate. Or they commit an armed robbery with the gun they “borrowed” from Uncle Bernie, because this is a lean month, and they need to make rent. Or because they want a cadillac…. Motive is irrelevant.
They WILL kill you. And the more they’ve blended in? The more they have to lose. To the point of wearing makeup on exposed skin and talking with an accent. Using unusual words, or diction. Or speaking…. With…. an odd… Rhtyhm. Just to … throw…. of your…. Abili – ty…. To patTERN – … the …. Voice. (So they SOUND different, too.)
Might sound silly, watch the film, “The Prestige” for the concept. It’s also used in “Kick Ass” by “Big Daddy.” Extra breathy, stacatto, speech while in costume; socially awkward, nasally voice out of costume, say. Over time, it’s conditioned into the psyche.
Real life? OK, look at Ms. Clinton. She’s SLIPPING these days. (I mean the older one.) The mask is slipping. She’s getting ANGRY about being asked REAL questions. Like the reality of Bruce Wayne / Batman: Bruce Wayne IS the mask. Batman is the PERSON. Big Daddy WAS the person, the “normal” man? A mask to facilitate B.D.
SHitlary? THAT is the reality. The lawyer/politician trying to get elected? THAT is the mask. Say anything, DO anything – to get elected. Then rape, murder, pillage, and steal – while protected by armed guards and “force of law” against any reprisals. And her proxies do violence on her behalf, while she is “living proof you don’t need guns!”
And she’s no different from any other parasite that came before her. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al. Or the others who wish to “lead” by looting the public treasury: McCain, Feinstein, Rush, Dole, Brown, Holder, Koch, Bloomberg, Whitman, Keene, Warren, … All the way to Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton. (I believe Franklin was not part of the set, but haven’t done enough research to know. But one who WAS fixated on freedom, Patrick Henry, DIED A PAUPER. So you can see what happens to those who are NOT lookign to exploit the system. and I know it from personal experience, since I’ve had to actually, you know, WORK for a living: Submit a proposal where you don’t visibly gain anything, and it gets shot down. Everyone is comfortable with theft; they’re not comfortable with you if you want to make the overall place better. Gordon Gecko’s line rings true, “Greed is good…”)
Think it over: It’s actual economics, instead of the perverted things our “justice” (just us) “system” allows, encourages, even.
Spill coffee in your lap? SUE!
Rob a 7-11? Go to JAIL! for 5-10!!! (But bilk the taxpayers out of their MANDATORY retirement savings, aka Social Security? NO PROBLEM! And if you “forget” to pay taxes? The IRS doesn’t mind, if you’re one of the ELITE…. But you’d better not be a CONSERVATIVE!!!!! )
A father who earns $2,000 a MONTH, assessed $4,000 a month in child support? JAIL for non-payment: he MUST have the money! He’s a DEADBEAT!
But even if he makes the payments – if she never lets the him see the children? No money in that, so f_ck off, LOSER.
If she murders him? She was ABUSED!!! (And walks away….)
If he RAISES HIS VOICE, he can go to prison for domestic violence. Or, if he doesn’t talk to her. Walks away during an argument. Leaves the house. Controls the finances. Tries to control her spending. DOES NOT control her spending. Takes the children. DOESN’T take the children. Pays the bills. DOESN’T pay the bills. Has a job. DOESN’T have a job.
Take off the rose-colored glasses. The immoral don’t see things the way you do. Psychopaths are not reasonable.
But then, Liberals are psychopaths, too. They never grow up and take responsibility for themselves, let alone others. They just mandate that OTHERS must take care of them…
Example: Teachers. Teaching is NOT actually a productive profession, even leaving aside lunacy like teaching Communism in grade school (f*ck American history, it doesn’t matter.)
If a child wishes to learn, they can do so. Most “teachers” today are baby-sitters, and the students who care? Quickly become grist for the grinder. Why give a F*ck if all you can do is wait for the dumbest in class to understand? I was reading the Wall Street Journal – COMPETENTLY – before I got to Kindergarten. Why should I have to wait until Forrest Gump can memorize “See Spot Run! Run, Spot, Run!” to move on? Why should Liebniz have to wait until I understand Algebra to move on and develop calculus? Or Adam Smith wait for me to understand futures and derivatives before writing “The Wealth of Nations”? (BN, at the time of Smith’s writing, there was no such thing as futures and derivatives. Used as an example.)
No, we plan for the dumbest of the dumb, and have built a civilization around that “ideal.” And MOST of that civlization revolves around wearing a mask in public. [Go watch, “The secret lives of women” for more examples than I care to know about…]
You want to pretend the mask is real, fine.
DO NOT pretend EVERYONE acts that way.
The entire world would have to be filled with clones of YOU, all with the same life experiences, all the same age, all the same genetics, all the same biology, all the same hormones – and you’d STILL have fights at “that time of the month.” Wish it were different, it’s not…. (and men have hormonal fluctuations, too – every hour!)
Jean, I really enjoy reading these TWIMFC – towhomitmayf’ingconcern pieces, don’t feel there’s anything I can add to them and the many others that are likewise unique but in the same vein, they’re really well done, just wanted to say that.
That Prestige movie, lot of insider stuff I think. Tavistock. Fabian Socialism. Like Nolan’s other non-linear films Memento, Batman DK, it leaves you in a disturbed frame of mind. For some,so disturbed they start shooting strangers for no discernible rational reason.
The Prestige plays with the dichotomy between perception and reality.
The Violence of Creation in “The Prestige”
http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/viewFile/58/120
The film offers a way of seeing beyond the illusion of time itself, beyond the idea that tomorrow might offer a viable solution to the suffering and loss of today.
And yet, at the same time, it demonstrates that sacrifice inaugurates a transcendent space otherwise inaccessible. The Prestige reveals a beyond but forces us to recognize that we are already there.
Inception: Film, Dreams and Freud
http://offscreen.com/view/inception_dreams_freud
Inception is at its core the symbolic rendering of the psychoanalytic process through the representation of the dream world, which in a manifest form, functions as the narrative of the text and is the very architecture and location of the world Nolan creates.
It turns psychoanalytic ideas into a tangible narrative in order to explore them in a new way. In doing this it loses a good degree of the nuance, complexity and psychologically challenging aspects of psychoanalytic theory, but nevertheless Nolan produces a rather compelling case for the concepts of Freudian theory via such a creative, clever and ambitious work.
Dear Jean,
Patrick Henry. Yes!
Also, Thomas Paine. Another good guy.
The rest? Not so good.