Wuhan Flu™

10 March, 2020

Technically inaccurate:  Wuhan “Flu” or Koala “Bear” or “Buffalo Nickel”?

Maybe, sure, why not?  I’m no microbiologist, so I’m grateful for correction, but “CoViD19®” may indeed be from an entirely different genus than influenzae.  So what?  It seems to manifest “flu like” symptoms:  fever, nausea, congestion, respiratory difficulty, death. 

And the marsupial Koala is ursine in no sense other than outer appearance.

And America’s iconic “Buffalo Nickel” is 75% Copper and features a Bison on its reverse side.

Still… so what?  Even if inaccurate, like Lime Disease® and West Nile Virus®, they are apt enough.

But racist?  No. (Or probably. And sexist, too!)

In Defense of the Judge, & of the Submariner, but mostly the Judge

17 November, 2018

I probably don’t like Roy Moore.  I don’t know, but I expect that, like many officers of various courts, he has condemned more than a few peaceful potheads to involuntary prison romance.  Like many of his ilk, he might protest that his “hands were tied” by mandatory sentencing guidelines.  I don’t care; if he purports to be a decent human being then he is obliged to resign such a phony judgeship and recognize that he is merely a robed administrator.  If you are forbidden to use judgment, then you are not a judge.

And that’s not even the defense part.  I point out how awful I think he could be, just as I have elsewhere detailed how awful Submariner, the wicked wicked step-father, was.

I cite their awfulness up front, BEFORE their defense, to illustrate a very important point:  I care more about WHAT’s right than WHO’s right.  If the Judge or the Submariner incidentally adhere to actually decent principles or can narrowly be defined as not an overt jerk in one regard or another, then that’s laudable in spite of other failings.

Roy Moore first entered my world a generation ago, when, as an elected judge, he chose to erect a monument to The Ten Commandments (at his own expense) in the lobby of “his” courthouse.  I haven’t read the relevant County or Municipal charters, nor Alabama’s constitution, so I don’t know if his act was in breach of any of those agreements, hut I suspect not.  None of the shrill complaints surrounding his act of historical citation ever mentioned such, but fully focused on his alleged violation of the First Amendment’s fictional “wall of separation” between church and state.  The First Amendment has no application to the Moore case, unless it is to protect HIS freedom of expression.  As a militant atheist myself I consider about half of The Ten Commandments to be offensive bullshit (the jealous god stuff), but all of it, like the mythology from which it springs, to be hugely significant, historically AND culturally.  It is, for good AND ill, the cornerstone of our contemporary theory of jurisprudence — don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t insult petulant gods (or popular sensibilities).  A modest monument to legal history, on the Judge’s dime, does not seem worth getting overly exercised.  If I don’t like it, maybe I should vote for a different judge.

Years later he makes the scene again, this time amid a flurry of accusations of “pedophilia” and “molestation.”   The charge of pedophilia was both base and baseless.  It was cruel and inaccurate, to the judge himself, because pedophiles prey strictly on the prepubescent, and that’s not Roy, and to actual victims of pedophilic predation, because the dilution of such charges diminishes and denigrates real victims.  Attempts to distort and dissipate such specific concepts as pedophilia and privilege ill serves justice as it waters down precise notions and diffuses legitimate anger.  “Molestation” may enjoy a narrow, legalistic, and technical accuracy, but it withers under objective scrutiny.  Molestation implies an imposition, but Moore’s history doesn’t bear that out.

As a thirty-something bachelor, Moore dated teenagers, with the blessing and permission of their parents.  In the broad historical context his behavior could be described as correct, courtly, and courteous,  Protective parents likely looked on young professional Moore as an “up and coming” good catch,  To many today, that may sound creepy, but too many have been warped by a century of progressive infantilization.  Adolescent apprenticeships have been squeezed out of the market to make life easier for Union Bosses, while hapless students have been sentenced to longer and longer terms of government “education.”  It’s no wonder that so many reactionary do-gooders imagine that a 26 year old “child” would be helpless without Mommy’s insurance.  The invention of the “teenager” was a serious mistake, the residue of which continues to misinform our horror at the thought of historic dating habits or twelve year old drug mules.

I was a twelve year old drug mule, and I was delighted to do it.  During my thirteenth year the Submariner was stationed at the New London Sub Base.  When his boat was in port, he spent most of his Sundays on the couch watching football.  Every so often he would summon me, hand me a buck, and send me to the local QuikkStopp® for two packs of cigarettes plus whatever I wanted with the change.  He and I had our “issues,” but I do not fault his great and assiduous respect for property and agreement.  He soon learned that I shared that with him, so he trusted me with his cash and his smokes.  My older brother, the Thug, he did not, as the Thug had developed a taste for both nicotine, and larceny.  But for me and the Submariner, it was a good deal; he got his fix without stirring from the couch, and I got the latest minty fresh twelve cent issue of Adventure Comics or X-Men or Detective.  Again, what we shared was respect for property.  (The trouble was, he seemed to consider his wife and daughter to be property, but that’s a different and much uglier story.)

During my regular duties as a drug dealer, I will often commiserate with customers who are obliged to show ID before scoring their stash.  I never apologize because I consider myself to be just as much a victim of the regime as are they.  Depending on my mood, I might point out that were it up to me I would cheerfully sell a fourteen year old all the beer, ammunition, and heroin that she could afford.  Or I might relate that story above about the Submariner’s smokes.  Once they get over their shock many might reflect that the world has changed a lot since their own childhoods as well, and not just in the price of cancer sticks and funny books.

How do we make babies?  Your parents should already have filled you in.  Let’s move on.  How do we make grown-ups?  Give children responsibilities.  When they measure up, give them more.  How do we make large hairy children?  Deny smaller children responsibility, shield them from the consequences of their own misbehavior, and “protect” them from disappointment. Eventually you’ll get a generation of discourteous jerks and ignorant savages who believe that the beginning of a request sounds like “I need” or “I want” or “give me.”

Let’s get back to the Judge. We left him with one charge standing, that of “molestation.”  But does it stand?  Was it an actual case of a grown-up creep “preying on children?”  I’d hoped to have dismissed that “helpless child” nonsense by now, but I can still sense heels digging in across time and space.  

Still not buying it?  Dig out that old family bible, the really really old one that your Granny got from her Granny.  Go to the genealogy section and go back four or five generations.  Check the birthdates of respective pairs of ancestors.  I’d be willing to bet real money (Au or Ag) that you’ll find a few fifteen or sixteen year old brides with husbands who are twice or even three times their age.  Chances are your teenaged G’G’Great Gran was G’G’Great Grampop’s third or fourth wife.  The earlier models were all likely teens at their weddings, too, and they probably expired during childbirth (for centuries one of the major killers of women.)  Was G’G’Great Grampop also a child molester creep?  You owe your existence to his (mis?)behavior.  That’s YOUR history.  Dare you change it?

For millennia, thirteen year old boys would stand before their families and communities and declare, “Today, I am a man.”  (or, in the original Klingon: “Eye-yew’ muh-ni’ geh-vill’.”)  They meant it, and the community believed it, and held them to it.  They may not have been as fully respected as their gray headed elders, but they were on their way. They had stepped into manhood and renounced the excuses of childhood.

How to we make children?  That’s too easy. Stop it!  How do we make a man?  Treat him like a man.  Hold him to account like a man.  Reward him, or condemn him, as a man.  As a parent you love your child, and may wish to be his friend, too.  Probably you are, and for years you will likely be the best friend that kid has, but you DARE NOT be his buddy,  Your job is NOT to “raise children” (there are already far too many superannuated children in the world), your job is to transform infants into adults.

update 200425: correspondent EW writes, “[Your story] made me think of how I got EXCORIATED by my wife, in-laws, and even a bit by my parents when I allowed my 7 year old son to walk to the store by himself which was only half a mile away and had 1 big street to cross. When he came back he felt really proud and all that jazz till my wife and his mother convinced him that he was LUCKY that he was still alive. We still can’t even talk about that to this day.”

These comments are sponsored by The Confederate Mint (purveyors of metallic securities in gold, silver, copper, and lead).  For sample sheets of Metallic Certificates (total face value One Tenth Silver Dollar) send One Silver Dime plus a self-addressed stamped envelope; or Four United States Legal Tender Federal Reserve “Dollars” in scrip, check, or money order, to Greigh Area Associates, c/o Gene Greigh //  401 Rio Concho Drive, Suite 105;  San Angelo, Texas;  76903

Monopoly Power

12 April 2002

What governments do that is forbidden to all other entities is to use force to assert its will. An ethical government will use its power only defensively: to protect its borders, to protect the value of its currency, to protect the rights of innocents.

Human rights are not a gift from a loving god, nor are they a privilege granted by a benevolent government. Human rights are an invention of human intelligence, and exist for those who recognize and respect them. They are assumed by default at birth and are preserved by adherence to certain principles. (Children do not yet understand this, but can be taught. It is the responsibility of parents to provide a moral upbringing for their children. Some children are raised improperly, or never grow up, and some are mistreated, but in the absence of overwhelming evidence of neglect or abuse, children are the responsibility of their parents.)

Human rights are retained by those who respect them. When someone commits theft he shows a lack of respect for property, and society may justly require remuneration in the form of restitution or labor. When someone kidnaps or detains without just cause, he demonstrates a lack of respect for freedom, and society may justly deprive him of his freedom. When someone kills another maliciously or gratuitously, he makes clear that he has no respect for human life, and may well forfeit his own.

A free society will never deprive a person of his rights, but a just law may act in response when, by misbehavior, a person surrenders his rights. The principle is codified in our Constitution in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, each stating that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

ANY behavior which is not coercive or fraudulent would be permitted in a free society. As a Member of Congress, I will NEVER act in opposition to these principles.

The most awesome and dangerous power of the Congress is the authority to declare war. Having served in the United States Air Force, and having placed myself voluntarily under the discretion of the Congress and my Commander-in-Chief, I do not take this prospect lightly.

Waging war against an aggressor comes closest to looking like a conflict between respect for human rights and the needs of national survival, but any perceived conflict is fictitious. Whether the example is Dresden or Hiroshima, the question of civilian casualties must weigh heavily on the minds of military defenders. When an enemy uses hostages as shields against retaliation they are already lost. The aggressor always bears the moral burden of placing innocents in harm’s way. A free society has the right to defend itself. Collateral damage is certainly a tragedy, but it is not, in and of itself, a crime.

update 180424: Collateral damage is ALWAYS a crime, but whose crime remains a relevant question. No defender has a duty to die, so aggressors retain culpability for innocent losses.

Many mystics and statists insist that atheists and anarchists CAN’T believe in rights because we don’t recognize their respective alleged grantors. Nonsense! Just as Kepler and Copernicus could build a rigorous astronomy on the observations of astrologers, just as Lavoisier and Priestley could found modern chemistry on the bones of alchemy, we can abstract a rational theory of rights.  (Ethics without religion is like astronomy without horoscopes.)

Rights are those expected reciprocal protocols of behavior — respect for person, property, prerogative, and precedence — that history has demonstrated lead to societies with the greatest degrees of liberty, security, prosperity, and longevity. It is proper to describe rights as being “violated” insofar as respect for rights is a reasonable expectation, and a breech of such an expectation would be contrary to the customs of that society. If you live in a civil society, you reasonably expect certain rights by virtue of that society’s existence.

Though calling them “rights” may have been an unfortunate misappellation. It seems to connote righteousness, moralism, and mysticism. But it’ll do.

I don’t know how I ever managed to type “ethical government” in the first place, but, recreating this file from notes, I had to rely on my “reportorial integrity” to get me through it.

Predictions, in re Notre Dame

  1. The Cathedral of “Our Lady” will be rebuilt to almost exact specifications, as it has been extensively photographed.
  2. The costs of reconstruction will be borne mainly by millions of Catholics worldwide who will dig deeper into their hearts than sometimes their pockets will suggest, and by millions of the French, theist or not, who will give every sou they can to reclaim a piece of the glory of La Francaise. Millions of other contributors will pony up, cheerfully and willfully, believers and non-believers alike, as they cherish the achievements of art, architecture, and Western Civilization.
  3. The French and Parisian governments will make this project more difficult, more expensive, and more time consuming than necessary. (( 190416 ))

update 190420: correspondent MM, in re critics of the aid offered in the aftermath of the fire, seems impatient with leftie hysterics and race hustlers when she asks, “Why must everything be about race?”

Because if it’s not about race, then there’s a very real danger that it might be about integrity, thrift, hard work, or personal responsibility. Because my personal failings can be lain at my personal feet, but my race is beyond my control.

Common Contempt

10 May 2019

Human beings seem to be very fond of criminalizing ridiculous non-crimes. Rather than confess their deep hatred of reason, liberty, and honesty, they endeavor instead to sanctify their bigotry by throwing such incantations as “Sharia Law,” “Mosaic Traditions,” or “Public Order” at them, hoping apparently that the righteous labels might stick to the grimy surfaces of their biases. They are thin disguises that only fool the willingly credulous. Those of us who remain immune to such duplicitous diversions, however, can readily see the nonsense for the fetid fertilizer that it is.

Of all the ridiculous non-crimes that exercise Americans‘ imaginations, perhaps “contempt of Congress” is the most mysterious. What decent honorable human being is NOT contemptuous of these bands of bandits (pick a legislature)?

Contempt for the Congress is so natural and reasonable that it invites a special reversal of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Inspired in part by the Nancy Grace standard, wherein all suspects are to be presumed guilty until proven black or female, the Presumption of Innocence should be provisionally suspended. In the case of Courtiers and Congress-mites, we should all be presumed Contemptuous until proven to be Capo, Stukashi, Snitches, Weasels, or other such sycophants.

In Defense of Elitism

Advanced placement and honors classes cannot be “supremacist” — white or otherwise — because placement into those classes are based on performance and not on appearance
(except maybe for “Advanced Supermodelling”).

On the other hand, true to accusation, they ARE elitist, and we understand that “elitism” is anathema to resentful leftists.
But so what? They’re elitist, too. And so are you.

Don’t believe it? Don’t like the idea?
You don’t have to. It’s still true.

Suppose your cat were sick. Would you take him to a mechanic?
A plumber? The grocer or a tavern?
To the butcher shop or to a taxidermist?
Well, maybe as a last resort, but…
NO! Of course not! You’d seek out one of those elites, a specialist who worked hard to distinguish himself from other tradesmen.
You want a veterinarian for your cat,
not a financial planner or a community organizer!

In fact, we’re ALL elitists! For some reason some people are not only ashamed of it, but they’re also very good at kidding themselves.
191104

curious update 191109: I still don’t know whether the Journal printed this piece. (Why wouldn‘t they? My work is always first rate!) The response (from editor LM), while encouraging simply because it is a response, is nevertheless ambiguous. I’ve been regularly sending stuff to the War Street Journal, Pravda Sivoydne (“Truth” Today), and my local Demoblican mouthpiece. USA Toady has an obedient robot that consistently acknowledges my submissions, conveying editorial’s regrets that they can’t print all they get. Neither the Journal nor Our Hometeam Fishwrap have ever acknowledged any submissions, and as far as I know the Journal has never printed any either. I expect the local’s bar is a little lower than the nationals’ so I occasionally make that scene.

But, alas, still no sign of my work in wider circulation. I can’t be sure. As vain as I am, I’m still cheap. I don’t see those expensive papers every day, and I pay for them even less frequently.

Maybe I’ll never know. This could be LM’s clever way of saying, “Congratulations! You made the cut! Watch for your deathless words in an upcoming edition!” Or maybe I just touched a nerve. In any event, the sentiments of his response, via e-mail, were at least pertinent to my own. And whether or not this is his own composition, he does not say. For all its heralding hopes and joy, it is altogether quite the ambiguous message. Still…

Spurn not the nobly born
With love affected,
Nor treat with virtuous scorn
The well-connected.
High rank involves no shame —
We boast an equal claim,
With him of humble name,
To be respected.

Courting the Backlash Vote?

29 October 2019

I probably wouldn’t vote for this ticket. I expect they are both too deeply enmired in Democrat orthodoxy for me to support them, but they still have my sympathies. And of course their entrance into the race would create serious turbulence in Lefties’ minds, ostensibly dedicated as they claim to be to such notions of “live and let live” (in spite of their opposition to the same principle for those who might stray from their contemporaneous catechisms).

Irrespective of the possibilities of “abusive behavior” or “undue influence” or “misappropriation of public funds” — all legitimate concerns which MIGHT be relevant — I think they both caved too readily to popular bigotry. If legal charges are to be brought, then let them come. Otherwise, about ninety-nine percent of the time, the way you swing your wingwang is the least interesting thing about you.

Frankly I’d like to see more of a fight on behalf of “Keep your face out of my personal business!”

The Identity Offense

7 October 2019 — Nobody “suffers” from Stockholm Syndrome… except those of us who don’t have it. Stockholm Syndrome isn’t the affliction. It’s the hostages’ relief, a palliative, their cure for despair. Those who enjoy its benefits are more at ease. They feel more secure as they align their fates with their abusers’. At its most ardent Stockholm Syndrome manifests itself in concentration camp capo, Soviet era stukashi, and timeless schoolyard snitches. It’s all around us, from the abused spouse to the faithful Demoblican voter, and they will identify themselves for you by saying such things as:
I am Negan.”
“It’s for your own good.”
“They brought it on themselves.”
“In America, We the People are the government.”

18 October 2019 — Could there be a more wholesome or endearing endorsement of a President’s foreign policy than a Bipartisan Rebuke? For decades Demoblicans and Repucrats have been hard pressed to find a hot spot on Earth they didn’t wish to extinguish with floods of American blood or to bury under mountains of native corpses.
And it’s all worked out so well, this regime change paradigm of theirs! Chased the Commies out of Korea and Vietnam. Got rid of Iran’s troublesome Mossadegh and installed that steady satrap Reza Pahlavi. Today Iran remains America’s staunchest ally. Secular despots were toppled in Iraq and Libya and now those states are Models of Democracy.
And things were going just swimmingly in Syria, too, until that peacenik American rabble got wind of it and elected Mr Trump. In other news, NATO ally signals intent to murder Kurds. Following Ronald (“Ol’ Cut’n’Run”) Reagan’s valiant example of retreat from Beirut, Trump declines to assist NATO ally or Kurds.
It may be a pretty thin non-intervention, but I’ll take it over 
Lady MacBubba’s “We came. We saw. He died. Ha ha ha!

“The Identity Defense” (28 October 2019) — What if, instead of blaming an imaginary car-jacker, Susan Smith had simply “identified” as childless? Leftie orthodoxy puts those penis packing proto patriarchs in the backseat in the Wrong and Saintly Susan, in search of her Best Self, in the Right. Clearly, they were never her allies, and they did nothing to help her in her Quest for Actualization.

Austrian Dominance?

7 October 2019

It was with no small measure of surprise that I read (Wall Street Journal October 5&6 edition: “Team Liberty”) that, “by the end of the 20th century, the ideas of the Austrian School would [come to] dominate global economic policies.”

“Dominate?” If I’d read “influence” I probably would not have blinked. The Austrian School’s influence has grown and ebbed over the generations, but I’ve yet to witness its DOMINATION.

Perhaps one could educate this (apparently) poor scholar. I do remember Bubba’s disingenuous claim that “the era of Big government [was] over.” Other than that, what else might I have missed? What globally dominating institution (transnational corporation OR government) has uniformly renounced price controls, tariffs, income and capital gains taxation, prohibition, prior restraint, central banking, or fiat currency?

To the contrary, that litany of crimes is actually contemporaneous orthodoxy.

These comments are sponsored by The Confederate Mint (purveyors of metallic securities in gold, silver, copper, and lead).  For sample sheets of Metallic Certificates (total face value One Tenth Silver Dollar) send One Silver Dime plus a self-addressed stamped envelope; or Four United States Legal Tender Federal Reserve “Dollars” in scrip, check, or money order, to Greigh Area Associates, c/o Gene Greigh //  401 Rio Concho Drive, #105;  San Angelo, Texas;  76903

Thank You for Packing Heat

23 February 2018

I appreciate that Kentucky and Ohio are open carry states. Though I’ve never been a big fan of guns myself, or of cars, explosions, or other loud things, I’ve also never been uncomfortable around them. They’re just tools, after all, like hammers and automobiles. None of them are “dangerous.” With the same hammer you could build a church or cave in the back of my head. One act would be a crime against humanity, the other act simple homicide. Either way, the hammer remains guiltless.

Just like guns.

Still, aware as I am of the hysterical dread that many lefties have of “gun violence,” I like that open carry makes guns more and more visible day after day. By definition, the more something is seen, the more “normal” it becomes, and “normal” is less scary than “weird.”

Normalize responsible tool use.
Carry your piece.

update 180224: Back Fence (correspondent KR) responds,
“#1 Hammers and cars are dangerous. Look up the definition.”
A valid technical point. Toothpicks and teaspoons are “apt to do harm” under the right (wrong?) circumstances, too. Fortunately for the rest of my argument, the dictionary cites no moral component to danger. Please excuse my presentational error in not pointing out that the quotation marks employed were intended to signal the focusing of an otherwise inadequate, but approximate expression. Clumsy of me.
“#2 [G]uns are more dangerous than hammers or cars.” Maybe. Based on body count it looks like automobiles and firearms (at about 40k per year) are just about neck and neck, and hammers (at under a thou) are way trailing. Even so, hammers out kill rifles per se.  Though long guns can make for dramatic front page long range accuracy, overall, the handgun is the favorite for homicides and suicides. Again, checking the Ghengi-meter, it is body count that sways the argument for this actuarial analyst.
“#3 [H]ammers and cars are not built for the purpose of killing. Guns are. …[T]hey serve no purpose in daily life.” First of all, it really doesn’t matter to me that Louisville intended its Slugger to be used for swattin’ horse-hide over the back fence if Negan’s using it to splinter my skull. Second, you are disingenuous or misinformed if you are stating that a gun’s sole purpose is homicide. Not only is it inaccurate, in light of the mountains of evidence showing that the very brandishing of a weapon can be the peaceful solution to an otherwise arduous ordeal, but it is insulting to the great numbers of competitive shooters (of which I am not one, see disclaimer above about “loud things.”). It is even more insulting to the survivors of violence whose prudent foresight saved them or their loved ones (or other innocent strangers) from further abuse. Of course you’re absolutely right otherwise. Violence and the “implements of violence” (those specialized tools designed to advantage the otherwise weaker over would be predators) have no use in daily life. By definition, because attacks of a violent nature are not, thankfully, a “daily” occurrence. The trouble is, emergencies are always unscheduled, so precautions are just sensible. We’re told that God created all men, but we’re also told that it was Sam Colt who made them equal. Whether you are a ninety pound waif or a three hundred pound bruiser, it only takes a few ounces of muscle to squeeze that trigger.
“#4 Using hyperbole (“hysterical”) and pejoratives (“lefties”) doesn’t make it any easier … to engage in meaningful discussion.” –Maybe not, but it does make it more enjoyable for me. Besides, I thought “leftie” was descriptive, an obvious abbreviation for collectivist. But more fun and friendly, like “Greeniac” or “Losertarian.” Most hopplophobes are NOT hysterical, but hysteria is often exhibited in the presence of firearms. There is iconic footage of a burly cop shouting “GUN!” and tackling a little old lady because she was safely holding her pistol and pointing it toward the ground and threatening nobody with it.
[#5] Thank you for leaving your gun at home.” (correspondents EA & AM confer their approval on Back Fence’s comments, but significantly not on mine. That’ll show me!.) Knowing your feelings I would hesitate to bring any guns onto your turf, just as I would not smoke anything in a “smoke free” environment. And not to be toooooooo much of an [jerk] about it, while I respect your rules in your house, in the public school I’d prefer to suspect that there is a .38 tucked into the inside pocket of the “School Marshall’s” herringbone blazer. I know many teachers are averse to the notion, and they are excused. I may not have trusted Mister Math or Professor Sociology with guns, but I suspect that Doctor Agronomy or The Dragon Lady would have handled themselves just fine. (And thoroughly no disrespect intended, because I fucking LOVE MISTER MATH!)
update 180225: Al Assassid (correspondent AM) responds,
“[Y]ou say it yourself… there are those you would not trust with guns.” Correct, but I lean more toward due process than prior restraint. Those who are demonstrably dangerous and unbalanced SHOULD be disarmed, forcefully if necessary, but it’s going to have to be a rare and justifiable event to satisfy my sense of jurisprudence. Al Assassid goes on to posit a scenario in which Mister Math goes nuts and because I let him have all those guns he takes out the glee club. However, because Doctor Agronomy is also present and packing, he stops Mister Math’s rampage short, but not before a few stray slugs leave Doctor Agronomy’s piece and take out a couple of students in Home Ec. Summing up, Al Assassid says, “[Y]ou don’t get it both ways; you can’t have everyone armed and no innocent people dying.”
“[T]here is nothing to prevent Mister Math and Professor Sociology from owning the biggest baddest gun arsenal anywhere except…“ their complete lack of interest in owning firearms. It’s not that I don’t trust their intentions, I just think they’d fumble the task. As for innocents in danger, it’s always very sad, and I always do the math. History has demonstrated the superior efficacy of decentralized networks over the top down hierarchy, and when seconds count the police are minutes away. And sometimes people do make terrible irreversible mistakes. In a union of some 320 millions, horrendous anomalies are going to arise and it’s up to the rest of us to be alert to danger. Overall, six fresh corpses (if it came to that) would be less tragic than seventeen. If we can’t count on Barney Fife pissing himself outside the back window, it’d be nice to know that the retired Ranger art teacher was holding iron.
update 180226: Al Assassid reminds me that “it is really, really bad to kill or even harm anyone.” Oh but dear, karma is so tricky. If we have to use violence or threats of violence to disarm people, we are right back in that wheel. Judgment and vigilance and reason, oh my! I never pretended these were easy puzzles, just that in the real world we have to face some awful truths sometimes. I feel terribly for the victims of violence, INCLUDING the homeowner who shoots the intruder. I expect it must be horrid to live with that. But still… Don’t. Break. Into. My. House.
update 180227: Al Assassid concedes that “it would start a war if the 2nd Amendment were repealed,” but ultimately hopes to “cheer a bunch of teenagers taking down the NRA. Peacefully, of course.” I respect Al Assassid’s peaceful tactics and benign intentions, but do not share her concerns about those wimps at the NRA. They’re the moderates on this issue. For serious victimization prevention advocacy, check out the Gun Owners of America ( https://www.gunowners.org/ ) or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ( http://www.jpfo.org ).

update 180305: Correspondent TW (“Assault rifles are used to kill, period”) takes exception to the notion of “hysterical dread” and asserts that “gun violence” is a fact, but seems to forget that factuality and hysterical dread are not exclusive properties. It is a fact that falls from great heights can ALSO hurt acrophobes, hysterical dread notwithstanding. TW appeals to the authority of an anonymous vet who claims that “an assault rifle is for killing people,” casually insulting the legions of sport shooters and defenders of hearth and home who seem to have found good purposes for weapons other than homicide.  Finally, TW asks, seemingly apropos of nothing, “Which government bureaucracy do we want to pay for — the one that determines who can own an assault rifle… or the one that bans assault rifles?” False dichotomies are as cheesy as straw men. Neither, please. TW continues not to get me. I want to reclaim these Responsibilities of the Unorganized Militia, not bleat for more government interference.

update 190913: correspondent AK calls for a “modern interpretation of [the] Second Amendment,” neglecting the fact that Eighteenth Century English is as precise today as the day it was written, and that it remains the responsibility of the Militia to be at least as well armed as the Occupation. As George Washington counseled, the Second Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution.

AK also complains that “nowhere does [the advocate for safety and freedom] state WHY he needs a gun.” Like do-gooders before him, AK demands detailed descriptions of freedom actually working before he’ll consider loosening restrictions. As for why I may have needed a gun (or a fire extinguisher, or car insurance), that may well be “essential information” AFTER the fact. Beforehand it is usually unknowable. The correct answer to “Why do you need a gun (or a flashlight, or a seat belt)?” is “I don’t know. I actually hope I DON’T, but if I do I’d sure hate to be without it.”

update to update 180224, 190924:
In addition to clumsiness on my part I also suspect insincere nitpickery on the part of correspondent Back Fence.