Assault on SYG Continues

The Washington Post pens a piece that shows the number of justifiable homicides are up in the wake of Stand Your Ground laws. A few questions:

  • During this period, the number of people who have concealed carry permits has risen significantly. Could this be a greater contributing factor?
  • Why is this necessarily a problem? It would seem to me that more people defending themselves successfully is going to be a consequence of more people having firearms. I don’t view this as a social negative.
  • Many of the states listed here have always had no duty to retreat. There are missing states as well. California has no such duty, and neither does Virginia. It seems to me in order for this to be accurate, you’d need to eliminate states that have traditionally had no duty to retreat, which is probably 1/3rd to 1/2 of the states on their list. There are also a number of states which require no duty to retreat when attempting to stop the commission of a forcible felony.

I think if the media are going to go the route of justifiable homicides being a social plague, they aren’t going to find much reception among the public. One reason CD and SYG have been so easy to pass is because politicians are afraid to tell people they can’t defend their homes, conveyances, and have to surrender a place they have a legal right to be in order to be able to claim self-defense. As has been mentioned here numerous times, CD and SYG don’t honestly change much, and in most states, is just adjusting the statutes to match what juries will routinely decide in most of these cases.

A Congressional Solution to Deficits


Social Security Reform Bill Encourages Americans To Live Faster, Die Younger

While this bit of humor from the Onion might be good for a chuckle, it probably wouldn’t be the worst idea actual members of Congress have proposed in real life.

So When is National Review Going to Fire This Guy?

I not only find the rhetoric here to be indefensible, it’s outright racist worthy of the worst the Nazis and eugenicists could be capable of producing. John Derbyshire is a writer for National Review, and my only question to them is when they are going to fire him? I am not at all opposed to honest discussions about problems in the black community. Rates of black-on-black violent crime are a serious national problem, and not a topic that should be regarded as beneath discussion, lest we offend someone. But what Derbyshire has penned at the above link just screams the kind of racism that would make Dr. Mengele proud. The worst part is, when it starts to get really bad, it just keeps going downhill. Here’s a smattering of his advice to his children in regards to race relations:

“Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.”

Well, hell, I don’t know how anyone could attend a meeting of the NAACP, or an evening at the Apollo Theater, and come out alive! I must also be hallucinating that I’ve attended protests where the majority of protesters were black, and protesting against what I was in Harrisburg to advocate, and got not so much as a suspicious look. I had to have dreamt all that!

“If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date.”

Yeah, cause you know, I regularly do this. I regularly plan to go places, but have second thoughts when I call ahead to find out what the melanin is averaging at the location that day. When the folks on the other end go silent like I’ve grown two heads, I know it’s a place to stay away from.

“Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.”

Because we know that blacks never end up in any kind of trouble where they might need help. Just doesn’t happen. Clearly robbery is always the motive with “those people.” Those hapless negroes can take care of their own, right, Mr. Derbyshire?

“If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.”

I’d suggest this advice regardless of skin melanin content, given the word “accosted.” Anyone accosts me on the streets is going to have me in condition red, regardless of whether they are black, white, red or purple.

“The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low.”

And my phrenologist assures me that my skull proportions ensure my just and deserved membership in the master race.

“There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black.”

Because those poor, stupid blacks can only compete with the master race when pity is taken on them? I mean, if this were really true, and you believe in equal protection in the eyes of the law, wouldn’t this justify affirmative action? Shouldn’t arguments against affirmative action be that it is inherently racist, by suggesting people with too much melanin can’t compete unless the playing field is forcibly leveled?

“In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks.”

Not racist at all! Not at all! We can even make “Intelligent and Well-Socialized Blacks” into an acronym IWSB. We’re glad for the intelligent and well-socialized ones. I’m sure Derbyshire’s neighbors compliment him on the same character in his dog.

“Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSB”

“Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.”

Yeah, because the neighbor on the next plantation always gets the best house slaves. He has money to win auctions, you know. Always have to settle for the field hands, because those house slaves are in short supply since they are a “luxury good.”

John Derbyshire’s words here certainly do not speak well of him, and the underlying thoughts they expose are among the worst instincts in human kind. If he still has a job by Monday, my opinion of National Review will take a permanent downturn. There’s a lot of authors I like over a NR, so it upsets me to see this. Taki’s Magazine should likewise be ashamed for publishing this claptrap and NR should be ashamed for every minute they continue to employ this jackass beyond the publish date of this article.

UPDATE: Looks like they’ve done the right thing.

Women Mocking Women

According to the conversation in the Twitter-verse, some on the left have declared that there is an ongoing War on Women because of disagreement over political issues. Amazingly, a column run in a major newspaper mocking a gathering of women who have differing views on issues like the Second Amendment, hunting, and self defense can be run and it is not counted as part of the offensive in this so-called War on Women.

But on April 13 (yes, a Friday), [Ann] Romney, Karen Santorum and Callista Gingrich will join in “A Conversation Off The Campaign Trail” for the ladies of the high-powered National Rifle Association. …

The three—minus Ron Paul’s wife Carol, whose status as an invitee is the subject of some disagreement—will headline a women’s leadership luncheon at the 2012 NRA convention in St. Louis. …

With the format and talking points of the luncheon still being worked out, we are left to speculate on what the wives might discuss.

As Mitt Romney marches closer to the nomination even as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum refuse to quit, will the wives act as policy surrogates? Will they tackle such hot-button issues as women’s reproductive rights, the budget, health care and, of course, gun legislation? …

Will the wives keep it light and chatty, how gosh-darn fun and in touch with voters their guys are?

Will they joke about the rigors of campaigning, while offering helpful hints on no-wrinkle travel clothing, hurricane-proof hair products and staying slim while enduring endless rubber chicken banquets and ethno-regional food-fests? (Thank heavens for elegant culinary interludes such as the NRA luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel).

As an added bonus—perhaps playing into the stereotype that women just love to shop, there will also be silent and live auctions.

Yes, shocking that a fundraiser for an organization will feature auctions.

There’s a lightly mocking tone when items are highlighted like the mink fur teddy bear made from damaged pelts and leftovers from recycled garments using eco-friendly materials. I’m sure the author also used the tone to get a good laugh at the folks from Paul Newman’s Camps for Children with Cancer who used the teddy bear to raise funds. Or maybe the bear used to support the San Diego Children’s Hospital got a hearty laugh out of the folks at the Washington Post. As long as they are mocking those who would fundraise with something as outrageous as a fur teddy bear, the WaPo needs to set their sights upon the Epilepsy Foundation, Make-A-Wish Foundation, and the Albany Symphony.

Amazing how the WaPo‘s Annie Groer picks and chooses from the auction catalog to make it sound as though women from the NRA are mindless bimbos mostly interested in non-serious topics like haircare and shopping. She chooses to ignore the other auction items such as the Sabre pepper spray training classes for the winner and 12 friends or the signed copy of SHOOT: Your Guide to Shooting and Competition by top competition shooter Julie Golob. Groer makes mention of the purses designed to hold a concealed firearm, but chooses to ignore that women might take this right to carry seriously with any number of the 15 handguns on the auction block such as the Smith and Wesson Model 638. And of course the WaPo would never take any woman seriously if she actually bid on the 5 day defensive pistol course at Gunsite.

Overall, the column isn’t anything close to the openly misogynistic Eric Heyl who ran anti-woman columns just before last year’s NRA convention. I am curious about why these columns always seem to appear right about this time every year. It’s amazing how the number of women participating in the NRA Annual Meeting makes the absolute worst of the mainstream media come out when they must confront the fact that women can be independent thinkers on issues like self defense without feeling the need to turn to the gossip pages and opinion columns to find out what they are “supposed” to think.

As a side note, I’d be all over the bid sheet for that mink teddy bear if I wasn’t going to be too busy speaking at the Grassroots Workshop at the same time as the women’s luncheon.

Some Great Company There Pugsley

Hugo Chavez celebrates Good Friday by asking God to save his life:

In a televised speech to the Catholic service in his home state of Barinas, Chavez cried and his voice broke as he eulogised Jesus, revolutionary fighter Ernesto “Che” Guevara and South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.

One a Jewish carpenter who preached love your fellow man, a mass murderer who preached killing your fellow man if he didn’t back the revolution, and a guy who could have been the South American Washington, but decided he needed to be a dictator instead.

“Give me your crown, Jesus. Give me your cross, your thorns so that I may bleed. But give me life, because I have more to do for this country and these people. Do not take me yet,” Chavez added, standing below an image of Jesus with the Crucifix.

You know, if I were God, I think I’d have a little trouble hearing.

Lynch First, And Ask Questions Later

This should be the new mantra of the anti-gun crowd: “Lynch first, and ask questions later.” The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s 501(c)(3) bastard cousin who they all actually work for, funds the “Meet the NRA” web site which profiles “controversial” (in CSGV’s world) things that Board members say by taking them out of context and misleading readers. Lately they’ve been adding to Ted Nugent’s list (a long list, they don’t call him the Motor City Madman for nothing) of quotes, which he speaks against George Zimmerman being tried in the media before he’s even had a fair trial, and all the facts have come out.

I’ll be the first to admit I often find Nugent’s over the top rhetoric to be exactly that, but what’s objectionable with the idea of presumption of innocence, and the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury? I only have to assume if CSGV believes these ideas condemn Ted Nugent, it means they reject these principles themselves. Are the fine with trial by media? Would they fine with just summarily hanging Zimmerman from a sour apple tree as long as enough voices from the mob called for it? I will be the first to suggest political activism is a necessarily ugly process, often disconnected from reality, but presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of a free society. The fact that our opponents seem to be against that basic hallmark tells me all I need to know about the necessity of opposing them vigorously.

CSGV particularly has been quick to summon the ghosts of the Founding Fathers, to suggest we’re all suffering from delusion to believe they would have supported so much gun nuttery. They believe they are the true carriers of the Founders’ flame, and have said so on several occasions. But John Adams risked his safety and reputation to defend the sentries who were put on trial following another public outrage and trial by media, ginned up as “The Boston Massacre.” Adams abhorred the mob, probably more than he abhorred the crown. The justice of the law may not always be justice, but I don’t think the justice of the mob can ever be justice, and organizations like CSGV and the Brady Campaign ought to be ashamed of themselves for not only promoting it, but condemning those who stand up for the bedrock principles of a free Republic.

An Interesting Observation About Signaling

Megan McArdle’s guest blogger, Adam Ozimek,  writes about a concept, in the opposition to “pink slime”, I think is important to understand:

Instead, most of these things are about signaling something else about ourselves. If people’s desire to regulate pink slime isn’t about health, safety, or even taste, then what is it about? Robin would probably suggest that it is about signaling. Pink slime is seen as low status, and even though consuming it is not bad for our selves or our children, we would ban it to show that we care. This Hansonion hypothesis is borne out pretty clearly by a lot of pink slime complaints.

I believe this plays heavily into the motivation for many opponents of gun ownership. They are doing it “because doing so shows that we care.” And by opposing them, we signal to them that we don’t, which makes us evil people. The world would be a much better place if some of these people found more productive means for bolstering their self-esteem.