Monday, December 7, 2015

Quickies: There’s That “Security” Business Again

     If you thought I was kidding about “national security,” I suggest that you take a look at this easy-to-digest summary of The Won’s most recent TV appearance:

     [Obama] made yet another pitch for barring anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list from purchasing firearms. He simply ignored any of the objections, whether it’s the lack of due process or judicial review, the arbitrary, foggy nature of how someone gets on the list, or the fact that 280,000 people with no recognized terrorist group affiliation are on the list.

     He ominously declared, “this is a matter of national security.” Yet for some reason, all of those people on the no-fly list and the terror watch list who allegedly represent a national-security threat aren’t being arrested. Earlier today Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at the Department of Homeland Security also “were on the terrorist watch list.”

     At this point in our national devolution, any time a politician invokes “national security” for his purposes, we should reach for our pitchforks and dip our torches in some fresh pig fat. There hasn’t been a single sincere use of that shibboleth since January 20, 2009...and damned few before that.

     The policy change that would most conduce to Americans’ security in any sense would be the complete repeal of every gun-control law – state or federal – and an absolute ban on any new ones. Likelihood? Somewhere between all the air collecting in one corner of the room and Angelina Jolie demanding to have my love child.

     Terrorism being a diffuse, decentralized threat, the only imaginable counter is a diffuse, decentralized defense: an armed populace. But don’t expect any politician to propose that; it would weaken the miasma of fear he and his ilk need to maintain control of us. No, what we’ll hear – and not exclusively from persons on the Left – will be garbage about “gun violence,” as if the little darlings could wander the streets reaping lives while their owners sleep.

     We have another year of this to suffer. Stay staunch.


Brinster said...

Francis, we, the readers of conservative/libertarian blogs, are, for the most part, arriving at the same place at the same time. We're fed up.
As for me, it's been a fairly slow buildup. I didn't buy my first gun (a .380) until after I turned 60. Why? When I saw the occupy wall street bunch terrorizing school kids, I thought "if they're going to do that to school kids, what are they going to do to me?"
Since then, I've gotten two 9 mm handguns.
Will any of those guns be used in self-defence? Not likely. Will I be prepared if the situation arises where one human is doing harm to another? I sure as hell will be.
Obtaining a concealed carry permit has, oddly enough, had a calming effect when I'm out in public. Strolling through the local Walmart, for instance, negotiating through the throngs of the inconsiderate, isn't quite as anger inducing as it used to be.

John said...

I would say the 2nd Amendment already nullifies every gun-control law and provides a ban on new ones. The SCOTUS has been slow to agree, however. While I have a NY carry permit, since NY gives counties the 'right' to add their own additional requirements, I am not actually permitted to carry, since Westchester requires a judges approval to get a permit (not sure how that fits into my right not being infringed) and the judge stipulates that the permit can only be used for target shooting at a range or hunting. So I can carry my gun to and from the range or to go hunting (or on my property). So I have some degree of protection at my house, but I am not permitted to carry the gun elsewhere or to work or into the city. This combined with the fact that ammo is almost impossible to buy in lower NY and internet sales have been restricted, my actual right to keep and bear arms is not so much. (I can still bare arms though and I do look good in a t-shirt). So if I ever encounter an event like San Bernadino, my permit will do nothing to help me. And while those types of events are exceedingly rare contra NYT, I am also not able to defend myself from far more common street crime either. And this is for a permit that took almost a year to obtain. But hey, legal guns are as easier to get than birth control - it must be true, the NYT says so.

Reg T said...


Just a suggestion: carry anyway. I traveled extensively across America, coast to coast several times, and up and down the Eastern Seaboard, since I retired in 2008. I refused to leave my wife unprotected simply because my CCW permit was not accepted in every state we entered. It was impossible to visit family in New England without driving through New York, and I know I violated numerous laws concerning guns and knives in Massachusetts as well.

Was I at risk? Certainly. Had it proved necessary to defend my wife or myself, I might have ended up in jail and/or prison (if I wasn't able to quickly leave the scene), but my wife would have survived. Yet here I sit, un-arrested and otherwise unscathed, back in G-d's country (the mountains of Montana), where a permit is only needed if you want to carry concealed in a town or city.