Freedom

Why we’re losing

/ hsoi / 10 Comments

I can go check out the economic experiments in Chile or Hong Kong or Puerto Rico, stick a piece of plastic in the wall, and cash will come out. I can give that same piece of plastic to a stranger who doesn’t even speak my language, and he’ll rent me a car for a week. When I get home, Visa or MasterCard will send me the accounting— correct to the penny. That’s capitalism! I just take it for granted.

Government, by contrast, can’t even count votes accurately. Yet whenever there are problems, people turn to government. Despite the central planners’ long record of failure, politicians promise that this time they will “fix” health care, education, the uncertainty of old age, etc., and people believe. Few of us like to think the government that sits atop us, taking credit for everything and taking our money under threat of imprisonment, could really be all that rotten. And look at all the good things around us! What, besides our unique government, could have brought us such plenty?

But it’s not from the $3.8 trillion a year in spending, the 80,000 new pages of regulations a year, or even from democracy that we get such wonderful options as flexible contact lenses, Google, cellphones, increasing life spans, and so much food that even poor people are fat. We get those things from free markets. Government gets credit for good things even when it does little to bring them about.

– John Stossel, “Why We’re Losing” in Reason magazine’s June 2012 issue.

How does the saying go?

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, and I’ll continue re-electing the jackass?

As I read Stossell’s article, I couldn’t help but wonder why people keep turning to government for solutions? It doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, both of those groups do this very thing. They complain about how horrible government is when it comes to X, but then when they want Y they turn to government as if they think it will give it to them. Then Y gets all screwed up, and along comes time for Z and they keep going back for more.

I mean, most people seem to realize if a restaurant sucks and you get crappy service, you don’t go back. I don’t know people who would say “the food sucks, the wait staff was rude, the drinks way overpriced, but I’m making that my regular weekend hangout!”.  But that’s precisely what happens when people keep turning to government to solve their problems.

I just don’t understand that behavior.

But maybe it’s that “definition of insanity” thing… where you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?

On the flip side, we are surrounded by the successes of free market, of privatization, and yes I think Stossel’s above example of accounting is a perfect demonstration. Not to mention the computer or smartphone you’re reading this on. But I guess he’s right… we just take it for granted and so we don’t really realize what we’ve got.

And so… we’re losing.

Give Stossel’s article a read.

Response to: The Perils of Open Carry

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

On her Facebook page, Kathy Jackson shared this link about “The Perils of Open Carry“.

Given my recent open carry oddness experience, a few things about the article struck me enough that I wished to comment.

Before I start out tho, I should say that I’m not really an open carry advocate. Do I find it odd that it’s illegal in Texas? Yes I do. Do I wish open carry was free and legal here in Texas? Yes I do. If I could legally open carry, would I? Probably not, but I appreciate having the freedom of choice because sometimes it may be the right choice.

1) Open carry will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.

Yes I can see this being a reality today, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve come to believe it’s something that has to be done to allow for change.

Let’s say the wording was changed to “Openly allowing black people to walk around will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.”  Sure that was the case years ago, but today? It’s not perfect, but it’s better. Should we keep black people, or gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or women under wraps because it will cause hassles and eventually involve the police?

How about instead we let people freely live their lives, and work to spread education and knowledge?

2) Criminals are not deterred by openly carried guns

Yes they are. There’s the Waffle House case back in 2010. There’s also numerous stories in the Chris Bird book “The Concealed Handgun Manual”.

But I will grant, it does change the game for a criminal. The author presents a story that showcases that the crime in fact seemed to be motivated by open carry! He wanted to steal the open-carrier’s gun!  So it didn’t just not deter him, but it also was the prime motivation for the crime itself!

3) Getting your gun taken is a likely possibility!

It’s possible, but when we talk to private citizens about how retention holsters aren’t necessary, it’s backed by many years of looking for a case where this happens. We might see more now, and certainly we will change our stance if we see this is in fact an issue.

But that all said, the author is right. You don’t have magic abilities nor are you Billy Badass enough to keep all criminals from ever getting within 10 feet of you. Shit happens.

4) Most people who carry guns have crappy holsters and no weapon retention skills

This is the one that struck me most, given what I saw the other day. Two people with guns on their hips in crappy holsters. I have no idea if they have any retention skills, but the crappy holster alone was enough. And it may not be just the holster, but their whole equipment system, such as a really cheap belt.

I don’t totally agree with Mr. Ellifritz’s reasoning, but I’m not in total disagreement with him either. I know this can be a controversial and passionate subject for many, even within the “proud gun rights advocate” community. My personal preference is to minimize abridgement of good people, of maximizing freedom and choice. But always remember, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s the right nor best thing to do. Legality doesn’t equate to moral or right or just or good or sound. I would just prefer to have it as a legal option, because the more choices a good person can have, the more options responsible people can work with, the better decisions they can make.

Ain’t politics grand?

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

This was posted at the McMilian Group International Facebook page (h/t to Rog and Dock)

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.

I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.

Kelly D McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
www.mcmillanusa.com

As if you need another reason to leave Bank of America. Or for some, I’m sure it means a reason to bank with BoA… but hey, you enjoy your victim-rich zone.

But they won’t listen to him

/ hsoi

Kip Hawley, former head of the TSA, “has said that the country’s airport security system is a broken mess making travelling ‘an unending nightmare’ for passengers.”

How refreshing. From the full article:

Kip Hawley, who was head of the TSA from 2005-2009, has argued that the system would be more effective if it embraced more risk including allowing passengers to bring almost anything on board including knives, liquids and lighters.

Hawley criticises the current procedure for reducing airport security into an ‘Easter-egg hunt’ where TSA officers look out for low-risk prohibited items, such as lighters, rather than focusing on disrupting terror plots.

And that it has. Countless stories of people getting lighters confiscated but more “deadly” items getting right through. Where’s security in that? But some politician feels better about it.

If you read the full article at the WSJ, it goes even deeper, and with a reasonable conclusion:

To be effective, airport security needs to embrace flexibility and risk management—principles that it is difficult for both the bureaucracy and the public to accept. The public wants the airport experience to be predictable, hassle-free and airtight and for it to keep us 100% safe. But 100% safety is unattainable. Embracing a bit of risk could reduce the hassle of today’s airport experience while making us safer at the same time.

That’s right. 100% safety is unattainable. But if perhaps if they can focus on major risk instead of Easter Egg hunts, if the citizenry can accept that you can’t live life in a protective bubble and perhaps are willing to accept some self-responsiblity for one’s own safety… maybe we could make life a little less hellish again.

Been there, done that

/ hsoi

Sammy DeMarco, a student at Eastern Michigan University, writes about his change of heart:

Concealed weapons should be allowed on campus. There, I said it. After years of believing weapons should not be allowed on university property, I have flipped my position. I can no longer find a valid reason as to why law-abiding citizens who attend and work at Eastern Michigan University or any university campus should be left defenseless.

I know where Sammy is coming from. I too flipped my position some years ago. I gave up on my ignorance and my emotion, and looked at logic. I was convinced by logic because well… some things are just hard to defend, once you take your fingers out of your ears.

The EMU Public Safety folks are some of the most professional authorities I’ve encountered. I have no doubt they are highly capable of handling a situation similar to what happened last week at Oikos. But we cannot expect police to be on every corner, in every parking lot and every classroom every minute….

Many students live off campus, have night classes and walk home. We regularly receive emails and texts alerting us that yet another classmate was robbed or assaulted while walking home.

So, not only are citizens not allowed to defend themselves while on campus, they are left defenseless going to and coming from the university, too.

We don’t deny that police and other people whose job it is to “bring safety” can do their job, but the reality is they can’t always be around to do their job. Look around right now… is there a police officer within arms reach of you? And is that police officer always there? If the fact we have police is sufficient to stop people from being assaulted or mugged, then why do we have so many assaults and muggings? Obviously having a police force is not sufficient to get the job done.

Consider where people live vs. where they work or go to school. Maybe we can have useful tools at our disposal at some time, but then due to certain laws we cannot. Why should law-abiding citizens have to reduce their ability to stay safe? Isn’t the general argument towards increasing safety? So how is telling that 5′ 4″ 105# woman she cannot have a gun to fend off a rapist or crazed ex- going to make her any safer? Restraining orders are just pieces of paper and really don’t stop people hell-bent on doing evil. So why should she have to choose between her personal safety and getting an education?

I realize many people will say we need stricter gun laws, not less strict, to deter crime. That logic goes something like this: We need to restrict law abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons. This in turn will reduce the crime that criminals commit on those very law abiding folks.

So, out of all the laws criminals break, we think the one law they will obey is not carrying a concealed weapon? I’m having trouble reaching that conclusion.

That’s pretty much the case. In fact, many criminals are repeat offenders. They’re already felons, legally prohibited from having a gun. Yet they do. The law hasn’t stopped them, it won’t stop them (it sure didn’t stop them from committing their original crimes), so the only people abridged and hurt by the law are the law-abiding good people. Why are we doing that? What logic is there, other than perhaps someone having an agenda… or just being ignorant.

Sammy sums it up:

Self defense should go beyond law; it’s a right by nature. Denying someone a right to defend themselves against his or her would-be attackers is immoral. The reasons opponents give for supporting restrictions is not supported by data. The restrictions criminalize the good guys and empowers the bad ones. Police cannot be everywhere at once. Ultimately, there is only one person truly responsible for your safety: you.

That’s the thing. When you look at straight data, it’s there. Oh some will say it’s all statistics that the NRA provided to help further their “bloodbath agenda”. But that’s the funny thing… when folks like Howard Nemerov study data exclusively from anti-gun or neutral sources and the factual data and interpretation of it supports that gun control doesn’t work, how can you continue to argue against the facts? unless you just like to argue or are unwilling to accept the logic, reason, and hard fact.

It took me years to arrive here, but here I stand. It’s time we’re allowed to defend ourselves with more than a pen and a sharp tongue.

Sammy, it took me years to arrive here as well, but here I stand and stand with you. Don’t give up your pen and sharp tongue tho… keep spreading the word.

How could the answer be “no”?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

I read about this CSM quiz on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

For giggles, I started taking the quiz.

But I haven’t finished it.

I answered question #5:

5. What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?

That’s the Heller case.

After you answer each question, it of course says if you’re right or wrong and gives a blurb expanding upon the answer. #5’s blurb was this:

The Heller case left open the broader question of whether the constitutional right to possess arms for personal protection extends beyond the home to include a right to carry those arms in public places.

That is correct, the Heller case did leave that open. I read the quiz blurb, clicked forward to the next question, but then hit my browser’s Back button because something about reading that struck me.

If we make it a yes or no question: “can/should people be allowed to possess arms for personal protection outside of the home, a right to carry them in public places… yes or no?” I cannot see how someone could answer “no” to that question. That is, if you understand the realities of life and the world we live in.

I speak with a lot of people on this topic, and so far I’ve yet to encounter someone against the notion of home defense. Home is very personal to us, not just because it’s where we keep all our stuff, but because it’s our little slice of the world, our sanctuary, our refuge. It’s very personal when our homes are violated, and I don’t know of anyone that would deny others the right to protect themselves and their posessions within the grounds of their own home. But then some of those I have spoken with that are fine with protection in the home feel that doesn’t extend outside the home.

And I don’t understand that line of reasoning.

Wife was outside our home when she was sexually assaulted. Are you saying she has no right to defend herself?

When I think about the almost 60 students of Tom Givens that have been involved in personal defense incidents, just about all of them were not in the home. They were in parking lots, parking garages, sidewalks. If the majority of assaults and violent crimes against people are not in the home, how can we say personal protection doesn’t extend outside the home! That’s where most of the incidents occur and thus where you are most likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Why are we denying that to the law-abiding citizenry?

Then you say people could use something like pepper spray, or a taser/stun gun. Before you go recommending such tools, you probably should increase your understanding of those tools, their applications, and their limits. They aren’t what you think. A gun is a lot more effective. It’s like saying we should still use carrier pigeons and pony express to communicate around the world, instead of the Internet. We have better technology, we have more effective technology, and we are happy to use it. So why are we discouraging the use of better, more effective technology when it comes to personal protection?

Remember, I wasn’t always a gun guy. Once I took my fingers out of my ears and started listening to the logic, I changed my stance. Once the ugly realities of the world pressed themselves upon me and I accepted them as unavoidable fact, I changed my stance. I’m willing to be swayed, I’m willing to be persuaded, because the only thing I keep a stake in is finding Truth. If that means I have to abandon everything I know and based my life upon, then so be it. I don’t want to be right, I want to know Truth. So if someone can present me with facts and logic as to why we should be denied the right to preserve and protect our own lives, and to do so with the best technology available, I’m all ears.

Our home may be personal, but it doesn’t get any more personal than your own person. Your home being violated is bad, your body being violated is worse. Society encourages us to protect our homes: alarm systems, big dogs, adequate exterior lighting, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers. Why does society fail at encouraging us to protect ourselves?

That’s a good question

/ hsoi

RB: If you could ask President Obama one question, what would that be?

PJ: What good things do you think the government should NOT do? What do you trust us to take care of ourselves?

— PJ is Penn Jilette

Full story here. It’s just a quick set of questions, “if you had 5 minutes with the President, what would you discuss with him?”.

Go read. It’ll take you less than 5 minutes.

Wither free speech

/ hsoi

One thing that seems to transcend political bounds is the notion of free speech.

We all consider free speech to be important. And folks sure love to use it as their defense or justification to say what they want.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t get what “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” actually means, and the intent of the amendment.

You see, the main purpose of that amendment is to protect unpopular speech. We don’t need to protect popular speech, but we do need to ensure that people can say things others might not want to hear. Unfortunately, a lot of those folks that tend to be the ones that rally behind “free speech” the most also seem to be the ones that want to silence the things they don’t want to hear.

You know… offensive speech. Or other types of unpopular speech.

When politically motivated fundamentalist Christians campaign to remove books from school libraries, or when they speak out against rappers and rock musicians who glorify violence and hedonism, the free speech advocates in the art and entertainment community are the first ones to stand up in their defense. They loudly condemn those who would pull books from libraries as closed-minded fools and defiantly proclaim “I read banned books” on bumper stickers and buttons.

But there is a serious and jarring disconnect in this community. They seem to understand that the First Amendment isn’t about protecting popular speech. It is actually about protecting the right of the people to express the most unpopular of ideas. The problem is, a staggering number of these supposedly free-thinking folks are quite willing to step up and openly advocate censorship and the stifling of free expression, even by force in some cases. Of course, in their view, they are not advocating censorship at all, because censorship is when the government shuts someone up. When they do it, it’s called “creating a safe environment for x” or “raising awareness of x”. The unnamed variable “x” is whatever progressive social cause they feel like inserting at the moment.

This group uses language as a subtle, yet powerful weapon to tilt the playing field of debate before any ideas are ever in play. Their favorite buzzwords are the aforementioned “awareness”, followed by “tolerance”, “acceptance”, and “sensitivity”. They treat these words with reverence. In their minds they are holding aloft the banner of enlightenment, boldly marching against “hatred”, “intolerance”, “bigotry”, “ignorance” and “racism”. So before anyone has even begun to discuss a given issue, the progressive protectors of “free speech” have rigged the language and set themselves up as moral superiors, whose opponents by definition are backwards, hateful bigots. They clamor to shout down anyone who dares to think outside of the intellectual/philosophical boxes they have constructed as morally correct ideological packages. And they are consistently winning. Censorship is in. Ask Tracy Morgan.

Read the whole article.

It rubbed me the wrong way.

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Last night I read this article in the LA Times (h/t The Gun Wire) regarding Virginia working to repeal their “1 gun a month” restriction.

Some statements in it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Supporters of the bill, who included most of the Legislature’s Republicans as well as some Democrats from rural areas,

Some implied stereotyping?

“Virginia has had more than its share of horrific tragedies perpetrated by criminals with easy access to firearms,” said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was one of 25 people injured in the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, which killed 35. “It’s a sad day when our legislators purposely make it easier for gun traffickers to do their dirty business.”

They aren’t making it easier for criminals to be criminals. They’re making it easier for law-abiding citizens. For you see, criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. They’re already trafficking high numbers of guns and the change of this law doesn’t affect them. It does change things for the law-abiding, and allows them to buy more freely.

We don’t restrict people to buying one car a month, one knife a month, one bottle of alcohol a month. Heck, we have giant warehouse stores dedicated to people who wish to buy in huge quantities. What with drunk driving, what with obesity, why don’t we start limiting what else people can buy? Because these things can kill people too. The logic doesn’t stand.

I am convinced that this law had a significant impact in reducing gunrunning,” [Richard Cullen, a Republican and a former U.S. attorney in Virginia] said

Data please.

But the choice quote was the last one… and of course, positioning it as the last one was intentional on the part of the LA Times writer, so it’s the tone and impression the reader leaves the article with:

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, a Democrat who opposes the bill, said allowing people to buy more than one handgun a month wouldn’t make Virginia any safer. Anyone who had bought a handgun a month under the current law would have amassed 240 guns during the law’s 20-year span.

If you need more than 240 handguns, then I would submit something’s wrong with you,” he said. “Something’s gone wrong in your life.”

It may not make Virginia any safer, but where will it make Virginia any more dangerous?

Just because someone CAN buy more than 1 a month doesn’t mean someone HAS to or will buy more than one a month, every month. Perhaps I win an elk hunting trip in Colorado but I don’t have a rifle suitable. I might want to buy 2 at one time so I can have a rifle and a backup. I’ve had a rifle fail on me in the field (well, the scope did) and I was happy to have a backup rifle. Why should it take me 2 months to make these purchases?

And if I want more than 240 handguns, why does that equate to a problem in my life? People have hobbies and collect large amounts of things all the time. Someone with less than 240 stamps or baseball cards or comic books doesn’t have much of a collection. But hey, thank you for your assumptions… I guess we can’t all be like you. Even if something has gone wrong in your life, is that any reason to deny a person?