Replies

It is almost as if they were waiting for a reason to roll out the next phase.

“It is almost as if they were waiting for a reason to roll out the next phase.”

...especially when the police HOLD BACK during the mass killings.

They want crime it is their reason for more control

God-given rights like free speech and the private ownership of firearms - or knives, or pea shooters etc. - come with risks. It’s how a nation addresses those risks that tells you about the end-game of the governors.

First, a primer on risks. In the world of investing, there is a concept of risk-minimization whereby you lower your risk of loss or volatility by spreading your eggs across several baskets. However, one risk you cannot diversity away is the "systematic risk" or the risk inherent in the system...call it market risk or whatever, the basic reality is some baseline level of risk will ALWAYS exist, and you can't avoid it.

Now, with that foundation, let’s consider how a nation manages the risks that come with rights.

Laws that support, life, liberty, and property are right and proper. Some laws act as a deterrent and will stop people on the margin from doing bad things...this is akin to diversifying away the non-systematic risk.

However, at some baseline level, in a relatively free society of 340MM people, you'll always have a few pathological maniacs who will kill. Thus, random acts of violence are the systematic risk of a free society.

Sure, maybe some laws can help, but in large measure unless you weld a GoPro to the heads of 340MM people with central monitoring in DC (and even that wouldn't be perfect...after all people in jail still get drugs and weapons), psychos gonna psycho.

It is therefore quite telling, when pathological politicians propose legislation in the midst of a crisis/crystalized systematic risk, that is in truth aimed at the systematic risk. By definition, a nation can't evade/will always have systematic risk.

What does that’s tell us? That the legislators and supporters of these systematic risk “elimination” proposals want to erode the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

Continuing from my “rant” above, notice how a fundamental human right like self-defense is subject to a utilitarian test in Australia and elsewhere. Indeed, The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women is mentioned:

there is no support in human rights jurisprudence – nor in State practice, according to the survey responses – for personal self-defence as an independent right that States are obliged to uphold. Further:

‘Even if there were a “human right to self-defence”, it would not negate the State’s due diligence responsibility to maximize protection of the right to life for the society through reasonable regulations on civilian possession of weapons… The State must consider the community as a whole, and not just the single individual, in carrying out its obligation to minimize physical violence.’11

Thus, the legally enforceable right to guns for self-defence puts the USA at odds with other countries – and with international law.12

The gun control masses deign to lecture America that we are Neanderthals because we are lax about guns in the face of murder and mayhem.

Quite the contrary….it is NOT a sign of Americans’ mental deficiencies, that America still has a relatively free right to keep and bear arms in the face of many “mass murders” and shootings etc.

Rather, it is a bold sign, that rights are given by God, and not up to a vote, in this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

In the movie “Demolition Man” comedian Denis Leary’s character goes on a rant, that’s relevant here - especially the part line:

I'm the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've seen the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Mayer Wiener." You live up top, you live Cocteau's way: what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other choice: come down here... and maybe starve to death.

I’ll take America, warts and all, over Australia et al any day of the week.

Next phase like this...
From 1976.

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.(now rifles)

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — TOTALLY ILLEGAL.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

They want you to feel guilty about resisting their nastiness, just a general form of the derangement syndrome that they are engaging. Sort of like burning opponents at the stake for refusing their concept of religious advancement of their beliefs. They become the victims and you worthy of severe rejection.