Friday, October 10, 2014

Special quote of the day

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Malala Yousafzai is someone who can say that guns don't give anyone power.

On the afternoon of 9 October 2012, Malala boarded her school bus in the northwest Pakistani district of Swat. A gunman asked for Malala by name, then pointed a Colt 45 at her and fired three shots. One bullet hit the left side of Malala's forehead, traveled under her skin the length of her face and then into her shoulder.

Let's toss in that Pakistan, especially where Malala is from, is awash in guns.

So, if guns give freedom: explain Pakistan!

And where is the British Genocide?

Anyway, given Pakistan's gun culture, the fact that Malala was shot, and that she is now a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I will post this special quote of the day.


  1. Laci continues to argue against strawmen. We don't say that guns give freedom, but that they are useful tools for defending it. Of course, this requires a culture and a people that value and desire freedom--if a culture is built around a philosophy that does not value freedom, of course it will not arise.

    As nice as Malala's words may sound to you, nice words don't stop people like the ones that shot her. She has an clearly indomitable spirit, so of course their guns have no power over her, but as more people in Pakistan come around and value freedom, they may find that they need guns to defend against people like the one that shot her.

    1. Well, why have the personal freedoms in the United States been eroding steadily for decades? With all the guns, that shouldn't be happening.

    2. As I said, getting or preserving freedom requires a culture and people that value and desire it. We've been steadily losing freedoms because we, as a people, have begun increasingly handing them over for illusory promises of safety--from druggies, from terrorists, from spree shooters, from obesity, from cancer, etc. etc.

      As we've said a thousand times, guns are tools, not talismans. They don't prevent the loss of liberty if we don't actually stand up and demand liberty.

    3. Anon nailed it.

      I know you don't like the writings of Jeff Snyder, Mikeb, but you might find his "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment" worth your time.

      In it, he describes the danger inherent to thinking that to be armed is to be free.

    4. But, why aren't you guys standing up for your freedoms? Because "we as a people" aren't doing it?

    5. Because we have not reached the point where things have gotten so bad that changing them is worth the horrors of that kind of conflict. And yes, there is a case to be made for the notion that "we as a people" should not tolerate as much as we do right now.

      Still, I believe that the likelihood of righting the ship through the peaceful, political process is still greater than zero, and that we therefore must continue to try.

    6. If by standing up for them you mean armed insurrection, Kurt hit the nail on the head--that's not an acceptable option at the moment.

      If you mean why aren't we standing up in general--we've been doing so. I've been on the phone with my congressman, Senators, and State level representatives FAR more often talking about other issues than I have been on the phone with them over guns.

    7. Anonymous, Kurt first said an AWB is grounds for violent government overthrow. When pinned down he fell back on the democratic process. How is that hitting the nail on the head? That's double talking bullshit, typical of blustering gun-rights fanatics.

    8. I was never "pinned down," and stand by my earlier assertion that a new AWB would morally justify as much violence as would be required to depose the regime that inflicted such an atrocity on a once free nation.

    9. Mike,
      Are you referring to some previous conversation? Because I was talking about Kurt's comment immediately above mine, the one responding to your question.

      But sure, go ahead and pull some other discussion in so that you can accuse me of double talking and safely dismiss the whole discussion above.

    10. Maybe you can even throw in some accusations of racism too. After all, since I'm apparently a racist for opposing Obama and Bush on their uses of executive power, I must also be a racist for opposing the violation of the 4th Amendment in Drug prosecutions, opposing Civil Forfeitures, etc.

    11. That is double talking bullshit. Why wait for another? Why didn't you have an armed insurrection the first time, especially since you have said that was grounds for overthrowing the government at gun point?

    12. We overcame and threw off the yoke of the first AWB without violence, Anon. I find that preferable--perhaps you don't?

    13. Kurt, doing his slippery like an eel imitation added the qualifier "new."

      " that a new AWB would morally justify as much violence as would be required"

    14. Kurt, doing his slippery like an eel imitation added the qualifier "new."

      Yeah--well, violence over an obscene, tyrannical injustice that ended ten years ago seems a bit over the top to me, Mikeb. I'm also not planning to kill anyone over the internment of Japanese-Americans 62 years ago. Guess I'm just too forgiving.

    15. You're still twisting it, Kurt. You said violence was appropriate for an AWB. My question is why was there none DURING the last one? Were you less passionate back then? Or, will you finally admit you were shooting off at the mouth like a jerk when you said that?

    16. You said violence was appropriate for an AWB.

      No, I said violence would be morally justified. Not everything that's morally justifiable happens, or is even a particularly good idea, in terms of securing a favorable outcome.

      Were you less passionate back then?

      I didn't give a damn about gun rights then. Hell, I voted for Clinton in '92 (now that's an embarrassing admission). I was in the Army in '94, and if I'd been ordered to take part in mass disarmament of the citizenry, it pains me to say that I think I would probably have followed that order, thus becoming an oath breaker.

    17. Me: "You said violence was appropriate for an AWB."

      You: "No, I said violence would be morally justified."

      And you wonder why I call you a liar so often. This is an example of the equivocating, weaseling kind of lie that you're so good at.

    18. And you wonder why I call you a liar so often.

      Not really--people accusing others of their own shortcomings is a pretty well known phenomenon.

      This is an example of the equivocating, weaseling kind of lie that you're so good at.

      Nothing of a "lie" in that at all--my words are on display for anyone who wants to verify what I said. I say what I mean, and choose my words with some care, to ensure that what I say truly is what I mean.

      That serves me well, and saves me the embarrassment of having to say something like, "We DO want to ban private sales. That's the whole point," and, "Selling a gun with a check, makes it no longer a private sale. Get it?" and then later claim, ""Involving a third party does not stop the transaction from being private. You made that shit up. What stops something from being a private sale is when the seller is an FFL dealer."

    19. Yes, he chooses his words with care. He said he would overthrow the government at gun point if the AWB was reinstated. But now he says he didn't mean that. HA HA HA HA HA HA Why do gun loons lie?

  2. Let's toss in that Pakistan, especially where Malala is from, is awash in guns.

    But how can that be, given this little tidbit?

    And yet, in Pakistan, you cannot possess guns with ease. To obtain legal ownership is extremely difficult and, furthermore, gun permits are strictly limited in numbers.

    Of course, you can illegally get guns but even there, not everyone has the means or the contacts to obtain these. In Pakistan, unless you are very well-connected or living in a completely wild area, possession of guns is not an easy task.

    That's so strange, when one considers the enormous percentage of the world's idiots who tell us that restrictive gun laws will make guns difficult to acquire, and that this difficulty will dramatically reduce not just "gun violence," but violence in general.

  3. "Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history that has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

    Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.)
    Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein

    1. This does reflect your ideology. Murder and violence is the way to settle problems. No wonder mankind can't stop killing each other with guys like you around to profess killing is the way to settle problems.

    2. Well anon, every time you set down at that keyboard and criticize those that are willing to fight for freedom and personal liberties, you should give thanks to all those that have shed the blood of those that had wanted to take those rights away and especially give thanks to those whose lives were lost to make sure you have the right of the freedom of expression. Without that big fight you wouldn't have the freedom to come here and criticize anything, or make your opinions heard without express permission from your king.

      That freedom has been and always will be threatened and without those that are still willing to defend that freedom and liberty, you will lose that freedom and liberty. It doesn't matter if the threat of violence comes from a single individual, a group, or the mass population, that constant threat of insurrection against an unjust law or government has been the only thing that keeps such unjust laws from being created and those that have passed, overturned.

      Just because it is "Murica", doesn't mean its not possible that government wont attempt to remove your freedom and liberties, in fact there are those lawmakers that are still attempting to do so all the time and have been successfully chipping away around the edges for 200+ years.

      How many licks does it take to get to the center? Lets find out. Keep being passive and critical instead of standing up against this chipping away of ones freedoms. The passive masses either don't realize the inevitable end, too stupid to admit that there is an inevitable end or really does want to be a subject of an authoritarian government instead of being a part of a representative republic.

      Being a part of a representative republic absolutely means constant vigilance and fighting for your rights and freedom as well as your liberty. The main fight is always first and foremost by peaceful means and this has been, for the most part, successful. But that in no way means it shall always remain peaceful.

      A just government shall always fear its people as the people shall always remain armed.
      An unjust authoritarian government will never fear its subjects as it has already disarmed them.

    3. Do you always answer for SS?
      Don't give me your military respect garbage. Military thinking is kill. That's what they are trained to do. It's that kind of thinking that has kept man killing himself for centuries. Your lack of intelligence shows when you declare that's the only way, kill.
      Talk about vigilance when this country attacked a country that never attacked us and our leader lied about "mushroom clouds" to get the people falsely motivated to say, OK go kill them. No fight for my freedoms there, just your fake patriotism and love of war.
      Then pour on the government has been eroding our freedoms for 200 years, what garbage. The idea of the founders freedom was legalized slavery, with only white land owning males able to vote.
      I suppose you think Ho Chi Min was going to invade, or even attack the American continent? Like a good little gun loon defend your killing, but don't do it in my name, or claim you are preserving my rights by killing, especially when our wars since 1945 have had nothing to do with securing our freedoms, liberty, or our actual land.
      This country has a history of isolationism. We refused to get involved in WW I and WW II for years after both of those wars started. Only direct attacks changed our minds. And no, Saddam did not attack us and only a sick kill happy person would have invented a foe then killed 100,000's of thousands of innocent people. You can follow your military thinking to the grave. I won't be there to salute you, I owe you nothing. In fact you owe me an apology for killing innocents in my name, or some fake pronouncement that you are saving my freedom and liberty.

    4. "Do you always answer for SS?"

      "In fact you owe me an apology for killing innocents in my name, or some fake pronouncement that you are saving my freedom and liberty. "

      My goodness Anon, so many contradictions in one comment. Lets start at the top of the chain of command and work our way down. You seem to have this vision of soldiers having a beer at the club and deciding to talk the Air Force guys into giving us a ride somewhere so we can go kill people and break things.
      There was congressional approval for invading both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, not a single Senator voted against that bill. Then Senator Biden even voted for it.
      Lets also not forget that while President Bush was in office when every Democrat voted to invade Afghanistan, for the past five years and counting, we have had a Commander in Chief from the Democratic party running things. How come you aren't busting his chops?
      Or perhaps you're suggesting that somehow the individual soldier should make the decision to not kill. They make that decision every time based on what their Rules of Engagement are. Those are the rules telling them when they can shoot.
      Or maybe you were suggesting that they refuse to follow orders to fire? Soldiers are already extensively trained that they aren't required to follow orders they believe are illegal. In fact, they are explicitly told that the "just following orders" defense wont justify their actions.
      It is interesting though how, when someone comes out and states publically that they believe to be illegal, you're right there to call them a criminal. Especially if they're labeled an Oathkeeper.
      And finally, lets look at a more local level. How come you aren't objecting when Laci posts the obligatory videos showing that no one can possibly go up against the might of the US military? Especially considering how the videos seem to feature those "innocents" you speak of being killed?
      No salute required Anon, and no apology coming from this direction either.

    5. "Do you always answer for SS? "

      Nope, and was not making any answer for SS. In fact I was only commenting on your blatant idiocy when it comes to the reasons this, and any other country around the world, take up arms to defend our/their principals when attacked by those that wish to change what our/their people want.

      You are not ever going to stop conflicts around the world, ever. There will never be a one world order. As long as there was man, and as long as there ever will be man on this earth, there will someone that wants what you have and will attempt to take it. There will always be someone to force his way of thinking, believing, worshiping and living on another.

      The problem is when the other doesn't want what is being forced on him and conflict can be violent when pressed too far. Those that want you have can range from the petty criminal, to large organizations to local and federal governments to other countries around the world. And if you want to keep what you have, sometimes you may end up with no choice other than to fight for it.

      " In fact you owe me an apology for killing innocents in my name, or some fake pronouncement that you are saving my freedom and liberty."

      I owe no apology to you, tho you still owe thanks to others so that you can continue on your stupid, uneducated rant of yours and complete lack of intelligence on how this world has turned, is turning and will continue to turn. Its no fake pronouncement, you are proof that the pronouncement of liberty and freedom exist now thru the blood of others is factually present. You are still here ranting and criticizing, aren't you? That's pretty solid proof. If you don't want to accept their sacrifices for you to be free, then throw away your keyboard, move from this country to elsewhere and rant there.

      Just because you don't want to accept what happened to get you where you are now doesn't mean it never happened. It doesn't mean it wont continue to happen. It does mean that you have little to say in the matter as the majority in this country still want to remain free. And will fight for it as well. Don't like it? Move! The question will be where would you move to?

      No salute to me either, I am a mere civilian that has never been in the military. However I will salute SS and all others in the military, if they will accept my salute to them, and thank them for their service to me and this country and honor those that have fallen in the name of this country. No matter how misguided you think this government has been to us or other countries.

    6. I own nothing to those who kill innocent people in the false pretense that they claim they are killing those innocent people to protect my rights. That's why Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and other Bush administration officials are war criminals in many countries throughout the world.

  4. "There was congressional approval for invading both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq"
    Based on a lie by the president of the United States. Gee, it's so wrong for the Congress to expect the president was telling the truth.
    We knew the people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan. Going in to Afghanistan made sense, invading Iraq was just killing innocent people.
    Your quote from the other day says it all. You obviously feel violence is the only way to solve problems, that puts you against all peace loving people, even if those peace loving people have to defend themselves against a REAL enemy, not some fake, made up enemy who did not attack us.
    You do not get automatic respect because you wear the uniform, Boo Hoo for you.
    Now tell me about the INDIVIDUAL soldier who commits murder, rape, torture and other crimes under the cover of being in war.
    Seems a volunteer army attracts those who are to quick to kill and commit crimes in war. They choose to go kill. Killing should be done reluctantly, not with false pride, false patriotism, and glee.
    Explain to me how invading Iraq and killing 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis preserved my rights and freedoms.
    Stop killing with the false excuse that you are protecting my freedoms. Stop demanding that I must respect that killing, or you the killer. Stop sucking off the government tit and go get a job that doesn't involve killing. Do something good for the world. Stop promoting death by being against gun rules cthat WILL save lives.

    1. "Now tell me about the INDIVIDUAL soldier who commits murder, rape, torture and other crimes under the cover of being in war."

      Sorry, war doesn't excuse crimes such as rape and murder. In fact, here is some recent news in that regard,

      "Green was convicted in 2009 of the rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the shooting deaths of her father, mother and 6-year-old sister in Mahmudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad.
      He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a federal jury in Kentucky could not decide whether he should be executed."

      Another little perk of being in the military is that you can actually be tried twice for the same offence. Normally if the offense takes place off post, the military lets the civilian authorities prosecute. However if acquitted, and new evidence is found later, you can be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

      "Seems a volunteer army attracts those who are to quick to kill and commit crimes in war."

      All I can say is Yikes!

    2. Thanks for proving my point.

    3. Thanks for proving my point.

      Ah, so your "point" was that you're a clueless sack of filth? You really don't need any help proving that.

    4. My point was that you are nothing but a criminal that should not own a gun. Now back to your plotting to overthrow the government because you don't like speeding laws.

    5. Now back to your plotting to overthrow the government . . .

      Hmm--"back to" my plans, Anon? You flatter yourself if you think I would find your bleating worthy of interrupting any planning I was doing.

    6. You already have and thanks, that's why I have no problem calling you a criminal.

    7. Mikeb, do gun rights a favor, and give this genius the biggest megaphone you can find. Brady and GIffords were shot in the head--I wonder what Anon's excuse is.

    8. You told us what you were planing to do: You would overthrow the government at gun point if they reinstated the AWB. I don't have to guess.

    9. I don't have to guess.

      You "don't have to guess"? Hell, you apparently don't think you have to read and comprehend, nor use an iota of anything even vaguely resembling logic.

    10. Typical gun loon on this site. Like SS you deny what you say, or twist it to mean something else. The question this site asks applies: Why do gun loons have to lie?