January 25, 2013

“The State shall take, the State shall give”: the Marxist subtext of gun control

David Mamet, on liberty and gun control.  Happily, he hits many of the same points I’ve hit over the past several weeks — which I note as “happily” because it makes me feel smart and urbane to be on the side of the estimable Mr Mamet.  That, and it suggests that somewhere down the road I might be able to write a really cool screenplay about some elaborate con, and maybe even swap cleverly fraught asides with Rebecca Pidgeon:

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.


We need more armed citizens in the schools.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me

Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.

Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.


The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

That last would appear to be a rhetorical question. But to a leftist, there’s an alternate answer:  because I can.

I think it’s time we disabuse these leftists of that idea.  If only to stop the abuse of perfectly good rhetorical questions.

Go through amazing self help books and
comprehensive do it yourself books to learn how to solve different issues.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 4:50pm

Comments (101)

  1. david mamet outlaw

  2. Striding confidently out to offer yet another rhetorical query, would a leftist allow themselves to be disabused of a deeply held, cherised irrational belief by means of rational argument when they know full well that they do not desire to be disabused?

    I think we know the answer, and if we do, then any practical disabuse of a leftist’s beliefs must be given in some form other than mere argument following a reasoning mode. Though it may be, the mere reflection on this circumstance might be taken by a leftist as a species of warning: that they might think again before they’ve no time to think at all.

  3. David Mamet has brass balls.

    Have some coffee, Mr. Mamet.

  4. cherished

  5. Court to Barack: Bring it.

  6. “because I can.”

    That would also be the exact same reason

    that dogs will lick their nether regions.

  7. Burma Shave

    See Rock City

  8. proggtards on parade

    Gun-Control Activists to March in Washington Tomorrow

  9. It will get coverage that this one didn’t.

    Hundreds of thousands turned out in DC today for the March for Life. Early estimates on social media believed numbers around half a million, more than last year’s 400,000.

  10. The only protesters that count are progressives. Everyone else deserves nothing but to be actively ignored.

  11. Complete text of the Feinstein bill is here. Found link here.

    While there are no Republican co-sponsors to this bill, the Washington Post reported today that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is working with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on other gun control measures.

    The full text of S.150 is not yet up on the Library of Congress’ Thomas server. However, a full text copy have been loaded on Scribd and can be found here. Appendix A lists a large number of single-shot, double-barreled, pump, bolt-action, and some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that would be expressly exempted from the provision of S.150.

    To be frank, Appendix A reads as if some staffer sat down with old copies of Gun Digest and started copying names. For example, it exempts the Ithaca Model 87 pump shotgun but makes no mention of the Model 37. The Model 37 was renamed the Model 87 for a brief period of time and then reverted back to the original name of Model 37.

    So Sen. Joe Manchin may have flip-flopped once again. Stupak stupid that one is.

  12. no amendments up or down vote

  13. get it back to the “budget” asap gop losers.

  14. Manchin is a bad, but Rockefeller is even worse, he is Feinstein stupid.

    And am I reading that right, they are trying to ban the Model 37 Ithaca?

  15. beemoe, that’s the list of exemptions, I think.

  16. And the Model 37 isn’t in it but the Model 87 is which is what the 37 was named from 1987 to 1996.

  17. So the gun I have hunted with for 40 years is now an assault weapon.

    Fucking hell.

  18. Presentdent Zero’s minions slacking off:


    (via Insty. Warning: buzzfeed link).

  19. Pingback: The "New" Gun Control ...

  20. oh crap I’m consorting with known terrorists

    I don’t know you people I’m just here looking for some journalist friends nope they’re not here

  21. I think the list of “approved” guns is copied from this one[pdf], pages 12 to 25, in the 1994 ban law. That is why they list the Model 87 in all variations but not the model 37 which was the name of the same arm before 1987 and after 1996.

  22. oh crap I’m consorting with known terrorists

    Who are you calling “known?”

  23. remember how Mr. psycho went away Mr. McGehee

    he was wicked precognitive, that one

    I think he resolved to fly under the radar of fascism

    probably just cause he’s curious how it ends

  24. i miss him

  25. I don’t miss you.

  26. i miss carbs

  27. You mis ogynist.

  28. Of course, the joke is that one needn’t be “known” as a terrorist; if the little god-king designates you as one, that is sufficient.

    In which case the error is in being known at all, period. By name, by association, by whatever.

    This is why I have always rejected the idea that government should “care” about me. If it cares, it’s because it knows I exist. And that never ends well.

  29. Of course, the little god-king can already proscribe you and kill you without a trial anyway.

    And yeah, that didn’t end well for the Roman Republic, either.

  30. Good article, but the part about machine guns being “illegal” is absolutely not true. Heavily regulated (NFA) and expensive at this point, but certainly not illegal. The number of transferable Class III weapons was fixed under the Machine Gun Ban of ’86, and prices have gone through the roof over the last decade or so. There was actually a transferable Dillon mini gun around about 5 years ago, iirc. $175,000 and you could be the proud owner :). I saw an MG42 at a local gun show last year for $40,000. An M16 beater will run you about $15,000 these days. So, it’s become a rich man’s sport at this point, but if you have the $$, and live in one of the 40 or so Class III states, you can get something with a happy switch.

  31. Shrewd political bloggers from across America’s entire political spectrum think that if they can keep the front-page discussions focused on gun-related topics (like numbers of children killed-by, types, ammos, uses, laws proposed against), then they can keep readers milling in a tight bait-ball in their blogs’ comments long enough to deliver a concrete voting bloc in elections.

    But, the truly shrewd also know that the packed, teeming school of commentators coalescing on their blogs is a variegated mosaic of America’s several, other tribes. This must compound political blogs’ reflexive “niche” approach to political branding and bloc-organizing.

    The facts as a marketing professional might see them are: 1. as a signifier predicting a person’s tendency to vote against Progressive agendas, gun-ownership’s statistical weight is nearly nil. Witness gun-states’ like Colorado’s steady Europeanization if you require evidence for this. And 2. As a signifier predicting a person’s likelihood to retaliate against Democrats’ efforts at gun-control by voting FOR Republican candidates, gun-ownership’s value again is nil.

    My observation is Americans of every political stripe own and use guns. But, that this tells you nothing about their predilections at the ballot box. For example, some fire-arms owners do not recoil at proposals for new government controls in the arms markets. Not everybody with a blunderbuss under the bed is a 2nd Amendment purist – and of these “hedgers,” it’s probable a majority of them of every political stripe can be drawn-in to voting to restrict others’ access to guns .

    Furthermore, a citizen may not own a gun (and may even support bans on high-cap clips and AK-type weapons), but he might have still voted for the Republican candidate, John McCain, in 2008. And even more confounding to the marketer looking for clues of partisanship, a citizen may own an Abrams tank, an RPG, two shotguns and a rack of Kazakh shoulder-fired missile launchers, and still have voted for Obama in 2012. A Citizen’s use of guns and her support (or lack there-of) for enacting gun-controls do not translate directly into predictable partisan gains on election day.

    This does not mean that the issue does not have political utility. But it does indicate it is not the monolithically-vectored one that many presume it to be. And its handlers will need to be gentle with it: any coalitions forged around gun-issues will be fragile and rip easily, like wet crepe-paper in a Chinook wind.

  32. Great piece from Mr. Mamet. Watching the shock and dismay of lefties as one of their own betrayed them so, was a glory to behold :-)

  33. National Review Institute Summit Panel: What is Wrong with the Right?

    Moderator: Reihan Salam, National Review Online
    Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard
    Yuval Levin, National Affairs
    John Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine
    Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’
    Ross Douthat, New York Times

    Fish in the sea. And there’s their answer. Impossible to see.

  34. hey that panel ain’t got no boobies

  35. Funny. I don’t see anything but boobies.

  36. Will Sen. Ted Cruz smack this collection of numbnuts upside their thickened heads? We’ll see. But it’s a doubtful prospect, isn’t it?

  37. They call people like that pannel tits in the UK.

  38. And he doesn’t. He chooses instead to cheerlead. Sad, when one considers the opportunities pass one after another, and the Republican establishment turns away from looking at itself (or being forced to look at itself) each and every single time.

  39. Scarborough logged the most speaking minutes and landed a handful of laughs and applause lines. Scarborough consistently cited National Review founder William F. Buckley, and urged party leaders to embrace the “pragmatism” and prudence in governance that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) lobbied for earlier in the day.

    “It’s not just brand purity,” he said. “We’ve got to show…how we’re different from the Democratic Party….we have to make our core message relevant again to middle class Americans. The reason why Romney lost…it took about three minutes of listening to Mitt Romney talk about economics to realize he didn’t get it.”

    And what better way to show you are different than a ‘rat than to appear on MSNBC daily attacking conservatives.

  40. Romney lost for a plethora of reasons

    but I think mostly it was just that people didn’t like him

    he was snotty

  41. “The reason why Romney lost…it took about three minutes of listening to Mitt Romney talk about economics to realize he didn’t get it.”

    That is fucking hilarious.

  42. Romney lost because we have too many stupid people voting.

  43. Mitt Romney is a nice man. He is just not a man for these troubled times.

  44. some people just have to learn the hard way

  45. I bet he thanks his lucky stars that he didn’t win. Things are fixing to get right ugly.

  46. Of course, the little god-king can already proscribe you and kill you without a trial anyway.

    I’ve been thinking for a long time this scenario looks familiar.

  47. me i also think a tipping point is near

    anyone with half a goddamn brain can see our piece of shit country has no fucking intention of paying back all this money it’s been begging off people

    and I’m a thinking there’s gonna be consequences

  48. OT: In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Aren’t People.

    This little number rolled across my tumblr dashboard a couple of nights ago, along with the predicted screeching about Catholicism not caring about repro– actually let me copypaste the dribble that accompanied it exactly.

    “Because laws that limit people’s reproductive choices are only good things when it *doesn’t* cost you money, apparently. The Catholic hospital’s lawyers are arguing that, since the unborn are not people with legal rights under Colorado law, they are not liable for their deaths (the case is a wrongful death suit for the mother, who was 7 months along with twins). And they are correct. A fetus does not have the same rights as a born human being. But Catholics, come on. Either you ideologically believe fetuses are people, or they aren’t. You don’t get to decide which is which when it suits your fancy. Pick one.” — The inestimable stfuconservatives

    To which I replied:
    “Are the lawyers Catholic?

    Because if not, they’re doing what any lawyers would do: argue from the standing laws of the land and legal precedent. Their clients’ morality may not even enter into it. If Colorado law says fetuses don’t have rights as persons, then a wrongful death suit can’t stand per Colorado law.”

    And got no response except for props from an uninvolved party on producing a logical argument.

    The more I’ve been thinking about it, though, the more this seems like it may be an incredible subtle tactic on the hospital’s lawyers’ part. As the article above states, Catholic hospitals have been lobbying for a long time to get the legal definition of personhood changed to include the unborn. If these deaths had occurred at anything BUT a Catholic hospital, there would be barely a ripple in the press about the malpractice suit–they happen all the time, after all–and the legal team’s “fetuses are not people” defense against liability for the unborn twins would be unremarkable. Similarly, as it DID happen at a Catholic hospital, if they’d simply folded on that part and said “well, legally you can’t sue is for wrongful death for the fetuses but okay we’re Catholics we’ll give that to you,” it would also be largely unremarkable (and stir up the usual HURR HURR HURR CATHOLICS laughter from the usual quarters, especially if it resulted in the hospital losing physicians due to a lack of aggressive protection against malpractice suits).

    HOWEVER, by arguing per Colorado law that fetuses aren’t persons, the hospital’s legal team is putting the prosecution in charge of proving that the unborn have rights equivalent to the born. Which means that win or lose, the Catholics ultimately still win–because a loss in the case means legal precedent that challenges Colorado law. Granted, the decision may only be that “viable fetuses that could survive outside the womb with reasonable help count as persons,” but that still moves the line back from “if it’s not born, it’s not murder” to some time pre-birth. Additionally, it opens up a whole other can of worms involving fetal death. The article bemoans the precedent set for “viable fetuses” if the prosecution can’t make their case (because right now, it looks like the hospital’s legal team has carried the day), but what about the precedent set for all fetuses if they CAN?

    If a man’s female partner aborts their child against his wishes, can he sue her for the fetus’s wrongful death under this precedent? More importantly, why are we still extremely worried about the morality of other people when it comes to their legal defenses, which generally have nothing to do with what’s moral and everything to do with what’s legal?

  49. Also, I am sorry for the massive OT there. It’s been rolling around in my head for a couple of days now and I needed to get it out somewhere it wouldn’t be subject to the screeching harpies of SJW.

    happyfeet excepted, though he’s not so much a screeching harpy of SJW as, well, happyfeet.

  50. What’s “SJW”…?

  51. San Juan Whapistrano?
    Silly Jell-O Women?
    Stuff (that’s) Just Wrong?

  52. Oh cute, stfuconservative’s sidebar includes:

    “One of the 90 Best Tumblr Blogs of 2011” -Buzzfeed

    Recipient – ThinkProgress’ Inaugural Golden Thinkr Awards

    Aren’t you sick of liberals being nice? Me too.

    STFU, Conservatives.

    And a beg box for donations to support “small journalism”.

  53. SJW = social justice warriors/social justice wank. Sorry! I will clarify my terms next time.

  54. I am doing a social justice today in about an hour!!

    my green carder pal F is coming over and I’m a help him get his resume together for so NG can put him forward for my old job plus she can get a bonus if he’s hired so that’s a whole nother social justice!

    (that makes two social justices)

    look at me go

  55. If only.

  56. this is okay social justices

    i’ll see your smiley banana-scented sticker and raise it

  57. National Review Institute Summit Panel: What is Wrong with the Right?

    If the panel consisted of the following, I’d walk across broken glass to see it:

    Mark Steyn
    Jonah Goldberg
    David Mamet
    Glenn Beck
    Mark Levin
    Jeff Goldstein

  58. Oo, count me in on that theoretical panel, too.

  59. That is, to see it. I don’t qualify for a spot among such luminaries.

  60. I think this is a very clever strategy, Pellegri.

    SJWs need to be careful what they wish for. They have opened up a can of whoop-ass on themselves.

  61. I’d just like to observe that you don’t need video games to waste colossal amounts of time on the computer.

    You just need to be fascinated by a particular color.

  62. Di, suddenly I have an overwhelming craving for peach yogurt. And I don’t even like peach yogurt.

  63. you wouldn’t dare

  64. I’m hip.

  65. Okay, I’ll bite: why is that particular color called ‘peach’?

    I mean, I’ve had peaches. The tasty inside bit tends toward a warm saturated yellow, and the fuzzy outside bit is usually a nice light-yellow to dark red gradient. Nary a shade of “pastel pinkish-orange” to be found anywhere on the damned things.

    Or are there other types of peaches, some of which are ‘peach’-colored?

  66. Pelligri, I’d ask the nitwits you’re arguing with if they think the law doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t agree with it. If so, I’ma start making a list of laws I don’t have to pay attention to.

    Also, are they aware that not only has Stodghill lost twice in court on the wrongful death of all three, but that he’s been ordered to pay the hospital’s legal fees to the tune of $118K? I have all the sympathy in the world for him, but Earth does not owe you a fat check when bad shit happens. Also, his wife was ginormous and it’s not shocking that she had a massive heart attack. He might could sue McDonald’s next.

  67. “It’s not just brand purity,” he [Scarborough] said. “We’ve got to show…how we’re different from the Democratic Party….we have to make our core message relevant again to middle class Americans. The reason why Romney lost…it took about three minutes of listening to Mitt Romney talk about economics to realize he didn’t get it.”

    Not true, Romney got it (everyone remembers the 47% remark, right?). What he wouldn’t do is bend to it, or assign blame for it. Because that would be too much like setting his hair on fire.

  68. Because that would be too much like setting his hair on fire.

    exactly. reagan liberty park 1980.

  69. Ernst, how cold is it there at the haus? I saw some parts of Minnesota are -50.

  70. black dude for gov’t slavery

    Charles Rangel’s Case for Conscription

  71. StrangernFiction says January 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Yup, it is happening here.

    Fuck. They aren’t even trying to be subtle.

    Going to be an interesting four years.

  72. We haven’t been anywhere near that cold in my part of frozen tundra frosty prairie leigh. Right combination of minimal snowpack, clear days, overcast nights, and God hates Scandis.

  73. For a glimpse of the light at the end of the freezin’ ass tunnel of winter, I can vouch that Spring is gesprungen down here in Sw Fl.: the maples are putting out tender new leaf growth and the migrant passerines are being knocked out of the sky with every passing weather front to stop and feed awhile.

  74. I’m glad it isn’t completely iced over, Ernst.

    My crocuses are up, the idiots. Sure it’s warm this coming week but they’ve been through this drill before. Next, the ice storms cometh.

  75. CROCUSES????

    Where exactly do you live? And by exactly, I mean which USDA zone?

  76. It was 75 today here in SW Louisiana:-( Had to turn the a/c on for awhile.

  77. Oh, hat tip to the ONT.

  78. Zone 6. We’re in a microclimate area, too.

  79. There is truth, presented with charts, facts, and logic. Then there is “low-info truth” for which you need a side show barker to hook the newest born crop of suckers.

    Some people find their true calling very late in life and then wallow in it.

  80. winter is something you flee from

    100 billion birdies can’t be wrong

  81. By some accounts I’m in a zone 7, but we’ve had the ground covered with snow for a month solid, which helps the fleurs sleep nice and long but I can’t see the noses when they first begin to come out.

    Usually Noses Out for me is in early February. Who knows about this year.

  82. Pelligri, I’d ask the nitwits you’re arguing with if they think the law doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t agree with it. If so, I’ma start making a list of laws I don’t have to pay attention to.

    stfuconservatives herself gets the credit for that dumbass opening line. She’s a ThinkProgress baby though, so I can’t really expect much except HURR I MAEK NOISE.

    (I’m also amused by the implication in the sidebar that liberals have ever been “nice” about anything, at any time, ever, when it comes to dealing with ideological opponents. GEE I THOUGHT CONSERVATIVE BRAND WEAKNESS IS BECAUSE WE’RE ALWAYS NICE.)

    Also, are they aware that not only has Stodghill lost twice in court on the wrongful death of all three, but that he’s been ordered to pay the hospital’s legal fees to the tune of $118K? I have all the sympathy in the world for him, but Earth does not owe you a fat check when bad shit happens. Also, his wife was ginormous and it’s not shocking that she had a massive heart attack. He might could sue McDonald’s next.

    Nope. Wasn’t even mentioned in the article they were linking, above–the impression I got (obviously wrong) from reading it for the first time through was that this only just failed and was being taken to a higher court, not that the guy had already lost twice. It is incredibly sad, but bad things do happen without anyone being at fault, legally or otherwise.

    So the newspaper’s doing the predictable bad job of actually delivering the news in favor of bellyaching about those damn uppity Catholics and their politics.

  83. http://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA

    I found a good thing on tumblr, though. Some of her statements are a little risible (like paleolithic food distribution among hunter-gatherers favoring ~the ladies~ instead of the hunters), but mostly it is grade-A stuff.

  84. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  85. The Hill: *** Feinstein said Sunday that the Newtown, Conn. shootings was an “epiphany” for her, and that the country has reached the point where “enough is enough.” ***

    But let’s stop to think, Mrs. Feinstein, which is a thing done quite apart from the pleasing endorphins coursing through your smug self-congratulatory brain, your container of delightful and sudden fantasies.

    What if, Mrs. Feinstein (can you think it?), other Americans also had a forced realization regarding the circumstances in Newtown, a realization directly tied to the slaughter of the children and teachers of Sandy Hook, yet a realization 180 degrees counter to your pleasing but fantastic vision of a peaceful utopia brought about by quashing your fellow American’s fundamental Constitutional rights with your ridiculous “law writing”, a law-writing which makes a necessary violation of those rights as plainly written in the terms “shall not be infringed.”? Can you stop to think Mrs. Feinstein? Try to think of a vision in which, in the wondering minds of these Americans, there dawned the rather obvious thought of the likelihood that had the Sandy Hook Elementary School not been a ‘gun-free’ death zone, but a place where responsible adults chose to protect themselves and their young charges through the conscientious decision to carry concealed fire arms, and that these responsible adults on the scene may have put a stop to the murderous rampage of a madman before so many had been slain?

    That rather than “do something!” which fruitlessly plumps their overblown and preening visions of themselves in their virtuous greatness, as you would do (and would do regardless that the doing wouldn’t have the least effect to prevent future such massacres), they should choose to do something determined to actually have a chance of preventing gruesome slaughters in the future, whether by means of mere preemption, because the potential murderers to come will think they must meet resistance to their deeds, or in the worse case, by means of physically stopping the killers in their act through the prudent use of firearms themselves? We may concede it is hard for you to think, Mrs. Feinstein, and most especially so when you are in the grip of your epiphany, not to mention when the thinking may not conduce to the further accrual of power in your hands, but we yet urge you to try.

  86. Feinstein said Sunday that the Newtown, Conn. shootings was an “epiphany” for her…

    An epiphany, huh. I am betting it was really just gas.

  87. How many epiphanies does she get? She had one when Mayor Muscone and Harvey Milk were killed and another after Columbine.

    None of her proposals and gun grabs have made a dimes worth of difference.

    Maybe she’ll have an epiphany that she doesn’t know wtf she’s talking about.

  88. if she introduced unpassable fascist laws everytime she had an epiphany

    that would be a shitload of unpassable fascist laws

  89. If it only confirms a pre-existing belief, it’s not an epiphany.

  90. I think she confuses the meaning of the words “epiphany” and “opportunity.”

  91. Huh, and here I thought Obazma’s imaginary son Trayvon did play football, right up until he tried to beat another fella’s head in.

  92. The only “epiphany” is each “epiphany” is the same “epiphany.”
    Deja “epiphany”, an Alzehimers “epiphany.” Rinse repeat, and always leave out the Model 37.

  93. The score so far: Hubris 2 Nemesis 0. But anything could happen in the second half Joe…

  94. But anything could happen in the second half Joe…

    Sometimes, as in the NFC Championship Game, Nemesis doesn’t even show up until the game is well underway.

    And still wins.

  95. “. . . it’s just that, they can, but it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that green-house gas that’s being emitted.”

    Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas