Category Archives: GUNS

‘Gun Violence’? No! Goon Violence

Thinking logically about crime is far likelier to lead to solutions than irrational, mythical thinking. This morning, CNN’s Poppy Harlow—below an amusing thought I once entertained about her—inveighed against the “gun violence” that “took” the life of poor Deputy Darren Goforth, today.

“Gun Violence”? No! Goon violence. A very dark man—safe to say black, from the images—has been taken into custody for the execution-style murder of the deputy, at “a suburban Houston gas station.”

Police have described the suspect as a male with a dark complexion, about 5-foot-10 to 6 feet tall, wearing a white T-shirt and red shorts. Authorities did not say what race they believe him to be. …

It was not an inanimate object that murdered this innocent individual, but a malevolent man with murder in his heart and a weapon in his hand. Grasping that distinction is more truthful and hence more productive than blaming an inanimate object.

Poppy bonus:

If only a woman with the wicked wit of a Margot Asquith—countess of Oxford, author and socialite (1864- 1945)—were around to put slobbering Poppy Harlow in her proper place.

When asked by American actress Jean Harlow how she pronounces her first name, Mrs. Asquith quickly retorted: “The ‘t’ is silent, as in Harlow.”

From “Savoring Hillary’s Vow Of Silence.”

Old South-African Flag Not Nazi Insignia

GUNS, Pseudo-history, Racism, South-Africa, Terrorism

In the aftermath of the Charleston church massacre, US “news” media have been depicting the Old South African and Rhodesian flags as some kind of Nazi insignia, their display always and everywhere a predictor of a disturbed mind. Dr. Dan Roodt, director of PRAAG, for Afrikaner activism, sends this corrective comment:

“The orange, white and blue flag is based on the original European republican flag: It was first hoisted in 1572, after the first Dutch town called Den Briel was liberated from the Spanish Empire. To this day, and in homage to that flag, most European countries, including the Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, etc., all have tricolor flags. Are they then all “white-supremacist” flags?

The orange, white and blue flag was used by the South African Army in World War II when we fought on the Allied side against Nazi Germany. Ian Smith, who later adopted the Rhodesian flag together with the last movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony as its national anthem, was a fighter pilot for Britain during the Second World War. Both South Africa and Rhodesia fought valiantly against Soviet- and Chinese-supported terrorist movements. The policy they practiced towards their black populations, while controversial, was distorted many fold by Marxist intellectuals and left-wing media types.

The Christian and humane principles on which both the old South Africa and Rhodesia were founded, prohibited any form of ethnic massacre. In fact, during Afrikaner history we were mostly the victims of such massacres by either foreigners of other ethnic groups, so we understand the pain and suffering associated with such mass killings.

My immediate reaction was to associate Dylann Roof’s actions with the acts of ANC or PAC terrorists committed in our country, such as the cowardly massacre of church-goers at the St. James Church in Cape Town on 25 July 1993, when the Azanian People’s Liberation Army or APLA burst into the church during a service with automatic weapons and massacred 11 people. If a member of the congregation, Charl van Wyk, had not returned fire with his .38 Special, many more people would have died.

We have a proud military tradition, associated with our flag. We have always abided by the Geneva Conventions. Unlike our enemies who practiced terror against us and who still attack our own civilians on farms and in our homes, we would never think of attacking civilians, let alone in a church while praying to God.”

Regards,

Dr. Dan Roodt
Direkteur, PRAAG

‘Barf Bag’ Briefs: #MichelleO., Conservatives Against The 2nd & The 4th

Barack Obama, Constitution, Crime, GUNS

“I am glad that I and all my ancestors have had all sorts of privileges based on my hundreds of years of owning slaves, etc.,” mocks BAB contributor Myron Pauli, who, as a nerdish, Jewish physicist, has never-never ever-ever been prejudged, neglected, ignored, or been discriminated against. “But our poor-poor First Lady; now that’s an entirely different matter. The ‘race-baiting’ Michelle O. has sometimes been in a department store where the clerk kept an eye on the cash register—Bonus Question: Why do you think a clerk keeps an eye on the cash register?”

Yes, you don’t have to be BAB’s resident genius to know the answer to the question above.

Myron has sent along this two minute, “must-watch” video. “Keep the barf bag ready,” he cautions.

And don’t forget all that “racism” in Ferguson (evil white cop objects to his gun being grabbed by a 6’4” gentleman), and Baltimore (where the alleged perpetrators were 3 black and 3 white cops, employed and trained in a black-run city).

If he weren’t completely burned out by the Baltimore crap, Myron tells me, he’d “probably vent against the police über alles, conservative now going on about Freddie Gray’s ‘illegal knife.’ What the f*** happened to the 2nd Amendment or the 4th Amendment? Do the cops have X-ray vision? Between the “conservatives,” the “race-baiting-parasite politicians,” and the brainless criminal looters, there is little sanity left.”

Gunning For Your Rights: Data Vs. Rights-Based Deductive Reasoning

GUNS, Individual Rights, Natural Law, Reason, Science

When motivating for the individual, natural rights to life and property always proceed from an argument from rights and not from a utilitarian, outcome-based position. After all, individual rights are not predicated on an optimal statistical outcome.

With respect to the Second Amendment right of self-defense: Ample empirical data exist of a statistically meaningful correlation between a well-armed citizenry—i.e., in middle-class neighborhoods as opposed to in gangland—and lower crime rates, in aggregate. New Hampshire is an example of a heavily armed, low-crime state.

Moreover, the benefits of a well-armed population redound to the non-carrying crowd. David Kopel is one of the finest and most respected 2nd Amendment scholars in the country. About these “free riders,” Kopel writes the following in the Arizona Law Review, Summer 2001, Symposium on Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America:

American homes which do not have guns enjoy significant “free rider” benefits. Gun owners bear financial and other burdens of gun ownership; but gun-free and gun-owning homes enjoy exactly the same general burglary deterrence effects from widespread American gun ownership. This positive externality of gun ownership is difficult to account for in a litigation context (since the quantity and cost of deterred crime is difficult to measure), and may even go unnoticed by court–since the free rider beneficiaries (non-gun owners) are not represented before the court.

In other words, the unarmed owe the armed among you a debt of gratitude. We subsidize your safety. Read on.

However, what if this were this not the case? What if, for some weird, wonderful, unlikely and inexplicable reason, arming yourself, commensurate with your right to defend your life, increased the aggregate crime rate in your community? Would this hypothetical empirical data somehow invalidate your inalienable, individual right to protect your life, loved-ones and property?

No! It would so do only if you accept that, de facto, you do not posses an inherent right to life and property.

For, at the risk of repeating what ought to be obvious:

… a right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. Inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same right. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life.
By logical extension, Britons are bereft of the right to life. Not only are the traditional ‘Rights of Englishmen’—the inspiration for the American founders—no longer cool in Cool Britannia; but they’ve been eroded in law. The great system of law that the English people once held dear, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights—subsumed within which was the right to possess arms—is no longer. British legislators have disarmed their law-abiding subjects, who now defend themselves against a pampered, protected and armed criminal class at their own peril. Naturally, most of the (unnatural) elites enjoy taxpayer-funded security details. …