Category Archives: GUNS

UPDATE III: Brother “Noir” Blasts Beyonce/Obama, Sheds Light With An AR-15 (Hollywood Whores)

Celebrity, Constitution, Crime, GUNS, Hollywood, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Brother “Noir” has stepped in to shed light where others shed only darkness. Mr. Colion Noir has provided a much-needed antidote to the kind of anti-Second Amendment treason preached from the CNN perch.

You Know You’re a GUN CONTROL HYPOCRITE IF….
You consistently call a magazine a clip
You think an AR 15 is an assault rifle
You have armed security guards
You are in possession of an illegal magazine while arguing gun control on national television
Your kids have armed security guards
Your kids’ school has 11 armed security guards
You think a .223 is a military round
You think the thing that goes up is a barrel shroud
Your husband used to sell crack
Your husband raps about crack
When you hear the words “fast and furious,” you think, “Oh, great movie.”
You rule a country where a large part of the city from which you originated is a killing zone, even though no one is allowed to carry a firearm.
You’ve never held a gun.
You’ve never shot a gun
You’ve never read the Second Amendment and looked beyond the mere words on the paper. …

“If you’ve ever carried concealed, if you’re Piers Morgan, if you own a knife, if you live in a gated community—anyone in the “Demand a Plan” video—the first thing out of your mouth when you heard about the Sandy Hook shooting was gun control.”

You own a gun-free zone establishment.
You drafted an assault-weapon’s ban but you carry concealed.
You think the NRA is the KKK.

…If you’ve ever used a gun in a movie.
If you don’t know the difference between a high-capacity magazine and a standard capacity magazine

You think hollow-points are cop killer bullets.
You think there’s a gun-show loophole.
Everything you know about guns is from TV and movies.
You think cops are expert gunmen.

[SNIP]

If you ask me, hypocrisy is too soft and imprecise a word for the detritus of humanity described by Brother “Noir.”

UPDATE I (12/31/012): LOTT LOSES. Piers Morgan refuses to allow guest John Lott to speak to the issue of statistical murder rates and gun ownership. But then Dr. Lott does not try to make a point, now does he? Meek and ineffectual is the word when it comes to to the so-called right and its defense of rights.

Here is the “exchange”:

MORGAN: National handgun ban. And it was incredibly effective. Australia, the same thing.
Now, John Lott, your answer is more guns makes America safe, even though you look at the statistics, you have 300 million in circulation and you have the worst gun murder rate of any of the wealthy countries of the world by a massive multiple.
How do you justify the claim more guns makes more safe people in America? I don’t — don’t get it.
JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AUTHOR, “MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME”: Every place that guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up. You cannot point to one place, whether it’s Chicago or whether it’s D.C. or whether it’s been England of whether it’s been Jamaica or Ireland…
MORGAN: That’s a complete lie.
LOTT: It is not!
MORGAN: It’s a complete lie!
MORGAN: The gun murder rate in Britain is 35 a year average!
LOTT: Do you understand…
MORGAN: You need to stop repeating a blatant lie about what happened in other countries!
LOTT: Look, sir…
MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year…
LOTT: You don’t — you…
MORGAN: No, you’re not going to get away with this!
LOTT: No! Just one…
MORGAN: You lied about it the other day!
LOTT: Sir…
MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year in Britain, 11,000 to 12,000 in America!
LOTT: You…
MORGAN: Stop…
LOTT: No! You don’t even understand simple math!
MORGAN: What you say drives Americans…
LOTT: Can I explain something…
MORGAN: … to go and buy weapons…
LOTT: Well, there’s a difference between…
MORGAN: … to defend themselves!
LOTT: … saying something’s low and that it increased. What I say is there’s lots of reasons why murder rates differ across countries. But when a ban is put on, it still may end up being lower than someplace else, but it went up!

What’s so difficult about quickly interjecting a word about the meaningless of absolute murder numbers, absent other demographic data such as total population, where crime is concentrated and clustered—its racial and urban vs. rural complexion, etc.

Demographics simplified is the forte of Into the Cannibals Pot.

UPDATE II: Chopra Chimes In.

The equal opportunity idiocy on Piers Morgan continues. “The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons,” says purveyor of pop spirituality, DEEPAK CHOPRA.

When they passed the 2nd Amendment, they had muskets. It took 20 minutes to load one, and half the time, you missed, OK? The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons, the fact that you can buy them through the secondary market or you can load up on ammunition through the Internet.

So, by logical extension, should the 1st Amendment also be contingent on the extent to which technologies can be used to the detriment of some? During the Founding, I presume, there were no megaphones or loudspeakers. Is Chopra implying that as offensive speech got louder and more easily transmitted, the Founders would have reconsidered the right to free speech? Regulated the Internet? Is anyone suggesting that had the framers, some of whom were inverters, foreseen today’s technological innovations, they’d have written a different document?

Of course that’s what’s implied by a statist like Chopra, whose inspiration is eastern mambo-jumbo, not John Locke.

The Bill of Rights is a document of individual liberties, setting limits on government, not a document meant to recalibrate individual liberties in light of each era’s technological innovations.

UPDATE III (1/2/2013): Hollywood whores. When are you going to boycott their pathetic products?

Diagnosed With … Gun Incompatibility Disorder

GUNS, Individual Rights, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Regulation

Scarcely had the cowardly attack on kids in Newtown, Con., transpired than forces on the left and right began clamoring to restrain “predisposed” individuals before they transgressed.

Any sweeping prior-restraint legal efforts will have “unintended” consequences. Since undesirable outcomes will follow such laws as night follows day—one wonders why they’re considered “unintended” or unforeseeable.

Expect a reduction in the use of counseling services among gun owners. If he thinks that his doctor is likely to pass on information about his mental state to federal or state authorities, how likely is a gun owner to seek help for psychological/marital/familial problems?

Not very likely.

The Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), the Rosetta Stone of the profession, has grown since its inception in the 1950s from 60 categories of abnormal behavior to over 410 diagnostic labels and counting. Many of the disorders described in it are more about trend and niche than science.

In the late 1990s, I told readers of my Calgary Herald column about one Dr. John Ratey, a Harvard associate professor and a well-respected, prominent psychiatrist, who claimed, in his 1997 book Shadow Syndromes, that quirky behaviors were actually mild mental illnesses resulting from brain dysfunction.

The lout who is appropriately obsequious with the boss because he knows where his bread is buttered, but who is less dainty with the wife, even thumping her occasionally, would be a candidate for compassion. He is after all doing battle with what Dr. Ratey terms “Intermittent Rage Disorder”. And the dad who dotes on his children while they are with him, but fails to mail them child support money as soon as they are out of sight, is simply afflicted with “Environmental Dependency Disorder”: He remembers his kids only when they are around. Is there proof for these sub-rosa disease categories? None whatsoever, although this has not prevented Ratey and many like him from coating their pronouncements with a patina of scientific respectability—and then cashing in.

Given the tenuous ties between psychiatry and science, how likely is it that “evidence” for new diagnoses will be marshaled in order to keep more people from being able to defend their lives and loved ones with guns?

Very likely.

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.'”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):

Lead me to the vomitorium.

The Managerial State’s Media and Medical Lapdogs

GUNS, Individual Rights, Propaganda, Pseudo-intellectualism, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Regulation, The Zeitgeist

I had feared that the reaction to this week’s column on the pornography of public grief, now on LewRockwell.com, would be as angry as the reaction to my “Bullied ‘Jail Bus’ Lady: Fearful Fatty, Not A Hero.” Was I in for a happy surprise!

The letters have been overwhelmingly full of gratitude and relief for my having expressed what readers were thinking.

Here is a smattering:

Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:42 AM
To: imercer@wnd.com
Subject: RE: The pornography of public grief

You are a Modern Prophet. You have identified the real affliction that humanity is either willingly blind to, or naively blinkered.

Regards,
JT

Friday, December 21, 2012 1:42 PM
To: ‘imercer@wnd.com’
Subject: Public Grief!

All I can say about your article on public grief is…”AMEN”. … Thanks for your articles. I have always appreciated them, I should have said so before this.

JB, Texas

Friday, December 21, 2012 4:28 PM
To: imercer@wnd.com
Subject: The pornography of public grief

Very good piece.

Interested in you book “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”

Having lived in SA for five months.

John

Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38 PM
To: imercer@wnd.com
Subject: EXCELLENT!!! (THE PORNOGRAPHY OF PUBLIC GRIEF)

Hello Ilana,
It has been several years since we exchanged emails, and it has been some time since I’ve caught back up with your intellectually masterful musings.

Your piece said what I, and I think many others, have been thinking since the awful news broke last week. And nobody has said it better than you with this:
“At the root of it all is the rejection of the existence of unadulterated evil. Rather than accept the reality of evil – s–t happens, live with it and be prepared to proceed against it – misconduct has been medicalized.”

Thank you so very much for your strength to stay true to your moral and intellectual compass.

Wishing you peace and prosperity,

CB, OH

Friday, December 21, 2012 10:00 PM
To: ilana@ilanamercer.com
Subject: Thank you

Your article brought clarity to me of the feeling I have had about the circus and exploitation of the grieving process of the families and friends of the victims. The national media avoids the issues, use any excuse not to make news and create entertainment ghoulish at the least.
Sincerely,
HS

*************

Needless to say, the media as master of ceremonies is sustaining the puke factor. And the ostensible defenders of our sacred right to defend our lives are looking like clobbered seals on ice floes.