Something Feral

Digging up the flower-beds.


Saturday, October 17, 2009

When in doubt, empty the clip

- Somewhat aged, but as the target flotsam study floats around the confines of the Internet, this should serve to shut down mindless yapping to its affirmative: Eugene Volokh tears into the University of Pennsylvania study claiming that carrying a firearm increases the chances of being shot by 450%.

- Color me unsurprised: the proletariat in the PRK is unhappy with the situation in Sacramento, but is unwilling to remove the persistent source of the problems that plague the state.

- Unpossible; guns are illegal in Chicago! Perhaps if they made them double-plus-ungood-illegal, that would convince those that already disregard the laws to stop disregarding the law.

- Speaking of, guess what has reached a new low?

- It's popular for a reason.

- Wynn is full of win.

- If "recovery" is a new euphemism for "muddled financial cluster-screw", then this does indeed deserve the moniker "Recovery Act".

14 comments:

Elusive Wapiti said...

Good stuff...especially the 2A firearms trifecta!

Erik said...

That gallup poll provides another great reason why women shouldn't vote.

The study on drinking is interesting and deserves some thinking upon as I am a non-drinker myself. Not a teetotaler, just don't drink much.

snizzlephritz said...

And also why nonwhites shouldn't vote, apparently.

Something Feral said...

Universal suffrage is dangerous, no doubt, and there is a reasonable expectation of restriction of voting rights (children are not allowed to vote, and neither are felons). Personally, I favor a restriction based on the ownership of property, as it establishes a necessary stake in the community, and simultaneously reinforces property-rights as a foundation for the law.

Needless to say, the status precludes sex and ethnicity. I have known women I would trust in leadership roles, as well as non-whites, or to echo some of Vox's previously-touted opinions on the subject, gay atheist (add other appellations as needed), so long as they respect the rights due to a free people.

I am aware that I would be unable to vote in such political construction, but I would posit that the ruse is wearing thin, and guaranteed results in favor of secured liberty would be the best possible result of successive elections, given a sufficient number of libertarian-minded folk.

When it comes down to it, securing the right to arms is the right to self-determination, and many that would use others to secure their own benefits at public expense would be loathe to do it if it were necessary for them to collect the taxation themselves on threat of violence. Soft thievery, on the other hand, is a far more palatable subject for the public consciousness.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Re: suffrage restrictions.

I favor, as a good start, anyone who receives money from the level of government in which the election is being held.

For example, a federal election, all them welfare recipients and farm subsidy recipients, pols, and fed gov workers wouldn't be able to cast a vote.

That'd be a good start...taking those with the conflict of interest out of the picture, leaving those who pay taxes with the ballots.

Professor Hale said...

RE: Sufferage.

Let the vote be proportional to taxes paid. You get to cast as many votes as dollars you paid in taxes. State tasex count for state votes. County taxes for county elections, etc.

Bill Gate's vote = huge in Washington state, zero in orlando florida.

Welfare queen vote = 0.

Therefore, the people who are paying the bills get to decide which bills are worthy of being paid.

People who rent are also paying property taxes, they just do it through a third party. It is the mechanism of paying taxes that shows investment in the community, not simply living in the house your mother left you when she died.

MikeT said...

If they just let the Chicago PD go around beating up and killing people who break the law, that would solve their gun problems. Oh wait, they already do that...

Professor Hale said...

...but is unwilling to remove the persistent source of the problems that plague the state.

Mexicans or Democrats?

Professor Hale said...

Re: Guns in Chicago. The reason gun control doesn't work in Chicago (or NYC or DC or Detroit or SF) is because guns are so easy to get in Virginia. Only by making Virginia just like Chicago (and DC and NYC and SF) can the laws in those places really work.

Everybody knows this.

/sarc

Doom said...

I am with Professor Hale. Tax based and some what area based. And, oddly, that would create conservativism in even the largest city. Once income earners realize they don't have to vote a certain way to be allowed to try to keep what little they are often allowed of what they earn, they would really prefer more of it. And then they would vote that way. Let charities become relevant again, and let the government get back to doing what it was intended to do. The only exception I would make would be to military, police, and a few of those types, and those disabled in the line of duty (service related). I would like to see the voting age be raised to 25 or so, with the exception of military, police, and such, personnel.

It would take a few years for people to vote taxes back down, get in people who could do the restructuring, and to get the laws passed and enacted which would create the new world order. There are many leftards who have invaded corporate. But, with the heavy incentive to keep what you kill, that invasion and the taxes, would end quite abruptly after some short realignment and enactment. I wonder how many PR and HR personnel would be axed immediately?

I dream. That I do.

Triton said...

I'm not convinced by the drinking study only because I don't think the behaviour of Norwegians is a reliable model for the rest of us. Scandinavians, in general, are just plain messed up in the head.

Something Feral said...

I'd support a proportional-to-taxes-paid, but capped with a flat-tax (if there must be taxation, let it be implemented thusly, like a membership fee); a hostile take-over of government by means of taxation and payment wouldn't be much better than it is now, which would be mandated bribery.

How does one invent a better mousetrap when the mice are busy gorging themselves on government cheese?

Ugh. States and kings... Samuel was right.

Professor Hale said...

How does one invent a better mousetrap when the mice are busy gorging themselves on government cheese?

You give the people paying for the cheese a say in how much gets bought, instead of asking the eaters how much they want.

If you go to a taxation-based vote, then age becomes irrelevent. Denying the vote to young high-earners or granting it to poor government employees equally undermines the premise that those who pay for the benefits of government get to control how much of those benfits govt buys.

Otherwise, it becomes too easy to add political favorites of one group or another until the value of an ownership democracy is eliminated.

Wonder Woman said...

The whole idea of a loaded weapon make my cheeks flush slightly and pulse begins to race...

I'm SOLD!