I'm Still Laughing

I stopped over at The Porch, like I do every day, and found this one post that really kicked over my giggle box.

Of course, what made the whole thing even funnier is that I am sure that no leftist troll would ever understand why this is so funny.

I started chuckling at "spaghetti."  Then I laughed out loud at "genetic."

Here is Tam's post:

Once upon a time...

...in a gun shop long ago and far away, there was a bunch of that Indian surplus .303 for sale. Tamara and A Gunsmith Who Shall Remain Nameless were standing behind the counter when a man came in and began looking over the merchandise.

The man saw the Indian ammunition and shook his head and said "You know, this stuff ain't even got gunpowder in it. It's all full of this stuff that looks like spaghetti. I took some apart with a genetic bullet puller." And then he left.

"He needed a genetic bullet puller," said Gunsmith Name Redacted To Protect The Innocent.

"Too late," said Tamara, "There was a kid in the car."

The End.

But Tamara's final observation nearly made me fall out of my chair.  "Too late,"  Holy $ith, Batman!  I'll laugh every time I think of that for the rest of the week. I suppose because it got me trying to imagine what an actual genetic bullet puller would look like, and even worse how it would operate.

You'd have to be somebody who has done at least a little reloading.  Some people might be able to figure it out after clicking on the pink-lettered html links.  At least, I hope so.

Thank you, Tamara.  That's why I am a faithful fan.

Peterson Syndrome II

The first installment of this essay can be found here.

From my studies on language, the government welfare systems, politics, and history, I find that people are pretty much like electricity and water; they take the path of least resistance and they seek their level.  Both of these things are a corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Both of these conditions have never changed in the course of human history.  The founders of the U.S. of A. understood this.  Mankind is not inherently good. Therefore, he needs to be trained in the ways of goodness. The Left wants to believe that mankind is inherently good and because they want it to be so, therefore it must be so. Both cannot be correct.  The proof of this can be found every time one ventures out into the community.  You can easily find one example of the Leftist style of parenting.  It is often hard to find examples of conservative styles of parenting, especially if you live in a large, metropolitan area.

You are in the store, and you can hear the kid wailing, sassing back, just being an all around little jerk in an effort to get his way (girls too).  The reason this is happening is because the parent sees little Johnny or Susie as an adult with all the rights and privileges that they themselves have. Johnny must be negotiated with. Johnny deserves to know that mommy can't afford to buy him that toy. Never mind that he doesn't contribute anything to household income or even know how to balance a checkbook.  The word "No" to Johnny simply means that he hasn't negotiated long enough or used severe enough tactics. This kid has been reared to date under the assumption that Left wing ideas about human nature are true, only to prove that such ideas are nonsense.  This kid has not the slightest inkling of concern over what is good for his family, his mother, or anyone around him.  He wants what he wants and is determined to push the envelope as far as he can to get it.

Once in a great while, you come across a family, often there are two or more children (that's the first clue, and there's a reason for it) where the children are quiet, respectful, and observant.  The older one's might even be helping to tend to the younger ones.  These are kids who have been trained under the assumption that the training is necessary.  Lest there be a misunderstanding, I'm not talking about strict discipline that borders on abuse.  I'm simply talking about loving discipline that helps the child develop into a loving, caring adult.  The conservative understanding of human nature and the subsequent training that results from it, produces people who function well in a society as self-sufficient and contributing to the overall good.  The leftist philosophy of human nature is that of leaving the garden to grow completely untended so that it produces nothing of any value, and we all end up starving.  The only thing that keeps the latter scenario from happening quickly is the reality of human nature that creates the speed bumps on the way to hell.  We just experienced such a kind of speed bump in the 2010 elections, or as P.J. O'Rourke said, "more like a restraining order."

What does this have to do with Peterson Syndrome?  Well, in thinking long about it (and I intend to think more, and refine my thoughts on this), Peterson Syndrome is something akin to Stockholm Syndrome, in that it is induced by outside factors, rather than being something innately organic.  It is my opinion that it is like brainwashing.  Albeit slow and subtle and accomplished by what I would call a "Cattle Conspiracy."  Once a Cattle Conspiracy has fully developed, reality becomes a very inconvenient truth.  This is what we see happening in France and Greece as of this post.  It does not matter that there is no more money to allow government union workers to retire at 55 and continue to collect taxpayer money in the form of pensions. They will riot in the streets until either the government sprinkles more magic pixie dust on the treasury to produce the money, or the government sends in troops to violently squash the rebellion.  This is the fruit of Peterson Syndrome on a large scale.  You could take a classroom full of Greek or French union workers, or for that matter, General Motors union workers and set them all down with charts and graphs and give them a crash course in basic economics and you would be lucky if one or two out of 50 understood that the game was rigged for disaster from the start.  It doesn't matter that the laws of economics have no feelings for their circumstances. They were promised something. Logic and facts be damned. "I have my RIGHTS!"  These people don't even understand the rules that determine whether or not something can or cannot be a "right."  Somebody said  "_____" was a right, and they believe it, and that settles it.  Look for a forthcoming essay on what constitutes a right.

Peterson Syndrome was coined by Joe Huffman about Joan Peterson and her irrational and illogical perception of inanimate firearms and human nature.  I think this became easier for us conservatives to analyze because the firearms issue has statistics that are far less complex for understanding than economics, while at the same time having far more emotional aspects that paint the picture with much more vivid colors.

In the next installment, I'm going to try to show why the promoters of the Peterson Syndrome do what they do.  After that, I hope to delve into their methods.

Okay, I'll Play

This particular questionnaire has shown up on several of the blogs that I read, so I've thought about it and decided I would go ahead and answer them.  I tried to answer them by leaving a comment on this woman's blog doing so, but I couldn't even get to question 12 out of the 20 before I exceeded the character limit.

Her list of 20 questions resembles a "push" poll. Perhaps you've experienced such things. A political operative calls you on the phone to ostensibly get your answers to a series of yes or no questions. Each question lays out a scenario or seems to report some bit of information as true, or states a theory as if it were fact and then expects you to agree with it.

I like most of the answers I found on a Texas Law Enforcement Officer's blog. I suggest you go read his answers as well.  Then go back to the main page and read his further answers to others.  Now, here are the questions and my answers:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?    A:  Your question is silly. It doesn't have anything to do with what you think is a problem. Criminals, and that includes "domestic abusers," don't use legal or legitimate means to obtain firearms. They steal them or purchase them on the black market.  That's like asking if I agree that we should have background checks for buying heroin.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?   A:  Outside of non-violent criminals, those who have committed capital murder, child molestation,  and rape  should be executed. Foreign terrorists should be hunted down and summarily executed after any valuable intelligence has been obtained.  Criminals with a proven history of violence and the dangerously mentally ill, should be confined to an appropriate facility.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?  A: Yes. And if we followed the answer to question #2 we wouldn't need background checks, just as we did not need them for the first 150 or so years of this country's history. Furthermore as answered in question #1, background checks have done nothing to reduce gun violence in cities with the most restrictive gun laws.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?   A: Yes.
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?    A: Banning something just means passing a law.  Kind of like demanding background checks.  See answers to questions 1 - 3.  If you mean "confiscation," I'm not going to give you any helpful suggestions.
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?    A: You would have to ask her.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?    A:  Perhaps you don't get the fact that the reason there is a second amendment is because there was already a first amendment.  If someone is "doing" something to take away my God given rights, then according to the laws of nature and the God who created them, I not only have a right but a duty to stop it.  But under our Constitution people have the right to free speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?   A:  If someone is lying, then the appellation is correct and should be applied.  But your obvious implication is that the people you are aiming this questionnaire at engage in such behavior. Please cite any specific examples.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?     A: If you purposely hide facts, distort facts, or assert things that are not true; oh yes, I will proclaim it in public, to your face, and let you have the opportunity to correct the record.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?    A:  The men who wrote the Constitution were brilliant, well educated men, with tremendous command of the English language.  They specifically wrote the words "shall not be infringed." to convey that ANY restriction was prohibited.  They understood that once you started down that slippery slope we would end up in the mess we are in today. 
11.  Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.   A:  You have two completely different questions there, Sparky.  See answers 1, 2, 3, and 10.  There are too many different gun laws across the country and they are enforced at different levels.  Are we talking about Chicago, IL, or Kennesaw, GA?   You are the one who needs to explain.
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?    A:  Do you mean shoot an innocent person, or a criminal who needs to be stopped?    
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?     A:  What do you mean by "included?"  I think you mean to include every person shot by anybody, including law enforcement in order to push your propaganda.  Just like you include ages of gang-bangers up to the age of 25 as "children."  If all data on gun deaths were broken down into all the relevant categories, the push for more gun control would be seen for the illogical nonsense that it is.
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?    A:  See my answer to #13.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?          A:  All modern firearms designed since circa 1900 have passive safeties that make it physically impossible to discharge a bullet unless the trigger is pulled.  I challenge you to demonstrate or cite a single instance that disproves this.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?        A:    Compared to what?  45,000 deaths in vehicle accidents?  Influenza and Pneumonia kill over 50,000.  Septicemia: 34,000.  Heart disease over 540,000.  But out of the 30,000 gun deaths, how many were drug deals gone bad; gang related; Law enforcement action?  Inanimate objects do not indiscriminately kill people.  They require someone to use them.  Whether or not 50 people were killed via firearm is not nearly as important as WHY they were killed.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?    A:  Prevent which shootings?  See my answer to #16.
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?      A:  Anecdotes are not the same thing as data.  I can use stories about overzealous and out of control government and law enforcement officials as reason for protecting our second amendment rights.  Confusing anecdotes with data does not help your case.
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).       A:  Do you mean like the ATF sniper who shot and killed Vicki Weaver while she held her baby at Ruby Ridge?  The raid on the Branch Davidian compound that was promptly bulldozed and there were no weapons shown as evidence?  The West Point graduate who had a legal concealed carry permit who was gunned down outside a Costco store?
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?        A:  The key word here is reasonable.  The discussion will require that both parties understand logic and reasoning.  Feelings and emotion lead to illogical and irrational conclusions that won't help anyone.  If either of the parties cannot recognize a false premise or a faulty syllogism, then it will indeed be an exercise in futility.