Weer'd World

I was just pointed to a Sci-Show I missed when I was out of town last year:

First up I’ll note that Hank’s drank the “Climate Change” Kool-Aid (or whatever name the Cult is calling it now), so he’s shown to be swayed by junk science outside of his comfort zone.

That being said he leads with the studies on the AWB and Concealed carry that show inconclusive results.

If you’re an Authoritarian, “Inconclusive” means the government should keep that power.

If You’re a “Progressive” then an “Inconclusive” law is progress and should be embraced!

If you’re a Conservative then an “Inconclusive” law was a mistake and should be repealed

If you’re a libertarian then even CONCLUSIVE laws with a low impact on society should be repealed!

I think Hank leans towards the top two, while I lean well towards the bottom. Honestly we’re talking opinion on all of those. I don’t agree with him, but at this juncture I’m man enough to admit we can BOTH be wrong.

Then he gets roped hard. He essentially cites the Branas study, and a Joyce extension of Kellerman, both we recently discussed here. These studies were intentionally misleading by conflating lawful gun owners with criminals in illegal possession of guns engaging in criminal acts.

I certainly suspect that Hank leans to the authoritarian and “progressive”, but overall I think he was simply mislead by the creative writings by the cult of anti-rights.

Remember this?

Elliot Fineman “Organized” a boycott of Starbucks, demanding Starbucks embraces an anti-gun policy. Notice in the interview Elliot makes claims that the anti-rights cult is so big that they will do severe damage to both the Starbucks corporation, and their shareholders. What was most amusing about it was how desperate and ineffective it was. It wasn’t legislation, and it wasn’t legal policy. So if Starbucks posted “No Guns” signs it A) Would only effect people carrying guns actually IN Starbucks stores, and B) Would only LEGALLY effect people in states where binding signage was law.

Then they “Implemented” the “Boycott”….well Miguel has the laughable results.

So a national boycott that would have had little impact on lawful gun owners failed miserably. Next course of action? DO IT AGAIN!!! But don’t make it so HARD!

So a national boycott that allegedly was indefinite until their demands were met did nothing, but hey just ONE SATURDAY, That’ll work!

They keep claiming they have a “Majority” and such actions will somehow be noticed. Yet National Legislation has been bust, and even their rallies are tiny:

They’ll just keep lowering the bar until they can claim victory!!

This little quote has been making the rounds. Others’ comments can be found here, here, here, and here. and the quote:

The others all have great points. The one I want to expand on is how RADICAL CSGV and their compatriots are. First up you’ll note this is NOT a gun statement. They make no reference the TOOL used to defend innocent life. Sure one can use a gun, as its a VERY good tool when it comes to enacting deadly force. That’s why cops carry guns even tho they have all sorts of other cool tools hanging off their belt.

Still the tool could be a knife, a club, a rock, a stick, or hands and feet. Think about that in the context of this statement.

CSGV is AGAINST JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE! Can you think of ANY nation, high income, low income, first world, third world, or any hemisphere that doesn’t have SOME SORT of law on their books that protects a killer who killed to protect their life, or the life of another innocent person? I sure can’t. I know that in the UK justifiable self defense is VERY difficult to defend, and anything but improvised weapons are deemed by the courts as some form of premeditation. Also they believe in matching the force of your attacker. But you can beat a mugger or a rapist to death with your fists, your feet, or a rock or stick if you’re so lucky and be deemed as justified in your actions by a court of law.

Essentially what I’m saying is that the idea of righteous violence, even deadly violence is an innately HUMAN trait.

This is my point, CSGV and the other anti-rights, anti-freedom cultists aren’t just against the rights of Americans, or Gun Owners, but the rights and nature of HUMANITY.

While the anti-social actions they take aren’t as severe as those who rape, or murder without remorse, their sentiment should be seen as just as alien to any healthy human no matter who you are, or what culture you call your own.

This is how radical they are, and how monstrous they are. Many have pointed out their designs might simply be from selfish self-preservation. Given the threats CSGV has leveled against innocent civilians, I can understand that sentiment. Be it calling for the murder of an innocent man or their thinly veiled threats against bloggers on twitter or even the floor of the US Senate, their actions can be extrapolated to a point where one might be justified in shooting these fanatics to defend innocent lives, and of course that would not be optimal for them.

Still I suspect they are indeed THAT mentally damaged that they can’t even relate to something that is a core pillar of humanity itself.