I am TJIC

I criticized Corcoran on the comment section of his article on the day of the shooting. However, on Jan 12, he posted a "flow chart" (his website is down, but you can see it on the RSS feed):

TJIC: Next question: do you think that a schizophrenic individual shooting up a politician, a judge, and a dozen civilians in Arizon served any purpose at all, or advanced civil rights in any way? If you answer “yes”, stop here. Your conception of “useful” differs radically from TJIC’s. Step 6: Congratulations – you agree with TJIC that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy, of which no good will come. Next question: do you think that an armed revolution, including assassinations, is morally legitimate in the US today? If you answer “Yes”, stop here. If you answer “No”, congratulations, you agree with TJIC.

If he had said that on the day of the shooting, I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment.

Radley Balko: "But he isn’t remotely libertarian, an ideology where the non-initiation of force is a pretty fundamental principle."

As I've argued here and elsewhere, I think the most effective action at this point is time is massive, non-violent civil disobedience. Not because I think that violence against particular individuals in government is an aggressive initiation of force—as has been documented on this website and elsewhere, many in the government have been employing the use of force against people who have done nothing to hurt anyone else—but because (1) such an act will be widely perceived as an initiation of force, ignoring what the government has done to people, and (2) the net result will be a pointless waste, accomplishing nothing positive. But at some point, if the government gets sufficiently awful and if peaceful attempts fail, I will change my mind about engaging in violence, as was done in the American Revolution, so long as attacks don't involve the killing of innocents. I hope like crazy that we never get to that point in my lifetime. With that in mind: I am TJIC.

Political Violence

In response to the ghouls who are trying to exploit the mass murder at the political gathering in AZ, blaming the politicians and pundits for the tone of their rhetoric being too combative:

"Yes, the quality of political debate is abysmally bad. That is a direct result of how the exercise of political power has more intensely affected the lives of citizens. Voters recognize how all the government programs, laws, regulations, taxes, etc. are dominating their lives and threatening their futures more and more each day, so they are understandably alarmed and getting more desperate to stop the “other side” from taking advantage of them.

"All of this is the predictable result of putting moral questions up to a vote, of rulers making election contests into mock battles, pitting one “side” against another. (Warren mentions the “Coke vs. Pepsi” mentality, which is spot on.)

"Around the 2010 election, I read somewhere [added: here via Beck] that an election is nothing more than two or more armies getting dressed up, marching to the battle field, then counting which side has the most soldiers and awarding the spoils of victory to that side without actually drawing blood. And, as Billy Beck has pointed out for many years: “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”

"My solution? Stop voting. Stop giving your permission to politicians to wield power over your neighbors. Work with your neighbors to solve problems via reason and persuasion, instead of resorting to force. Government, by definition, is the use of force."

(My comment here and here.)

Bill Clinton paraphrases Billy Beck

When I first read the "hatriot" section of Bill Clinton's speech, I told my wife that he was quoting Billy Beck (well, almost). Apparently, Billy didn't miss that, nor did the many people who sent him e-mail about it.

Bill Clinton waves around Timothy McVeigh corpse

At Balko's place:

Bill Clinton waves around Timothy McVeigh to demonize critics of the Democrats.

They’ll fine you if you don’t buy health insurance, jail you if you don’t pay the fine, and kill you if you dare not to submit to them trampling on your rights. That’s all OK to Bubba. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

But if you dare to point out that they are trampling on our rights, election or no, you’re feeding into the mentality of monsters who blow up buildings with children inside.

P.S.: Damn, I mentioned Bill Clinton and destroying a building with children inside without even catching the irony.

Some Background on the Window War

A comment at the Walls of the City blog:

I, too have been following Vanderboegh in real time, before his Sipsey Street Irregulars website came into existence, via David Codrea's War on Guns website (which chronicles daily a dozen or more stories of police corruption, particularly with regards to gun laws--the sheer number of articles itself is a very bad reflection on the state of law enforcement) and the Western Rifle Shooters blog.

Vanderboegh wrote about a fictional Window War a decade or so ago, by his reckoning. It was a cautionary tale about gun control in the twilight of the Clinton administration. His repost occurred Feb 2009, just after Obama's inauguration, during the uncertainty of a gang of top administration officials who were far more leftist than anyone before in such high office, who brought with them the brazenly corrupt Chicago-style political thuggery. Couple that with the rotten, power-drunk federal law enforcement agencies, who even during the Bush years were already running amok, and anyone paying attention quickly saw the potential for more Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents (which occurred or started during Bush 41, before Clinton upped the stakes with the scary-looking gun ban).

The Window War has been in the works for a long time. Personally, I believe Vanderboegh is a principled man who is not itching for a fight.

Vanderboegh on Colmes

Go listen.

Nomination for "Whip of the Week"

Beck ought to consider this one:

He should have just called the police. I’m sure they would have been happy to shoot his dogs for him. Then we don’t even need to waste time with a trial; the P.D. can just release a statement that the officer acted with courage and professionalism and that’s the end of it.
  —comment at Balko's place

Another contender: Via Politico:

As Friday’s debate dragged on, Republicans asked the House to observe a moment of silence for Americans who would lose their jobs as a result of the bill. Democrats objected.

Calling Intelligent Use of Tools Pathetic

I previously commented about a good use of deadly violence by a victim of a home invasion. In the comments at Balko's place, I toss in a response to a commenter who seems intent on shaming rational people:

wallster: You are not ‘tough’ because you own a gun. By owning a gun, you prove that you are the one who is pathetic and scared. Get over yourself

By owning a car, does that prove you are weak and slow? Do you carry everything you need on foot, to make sure no one thinks any less of you?

There is nothing pathetic about being afraid of people who are willing to break into your home, rape, and murder you. A person who takes charge of her security by owning the most efficient means of protection is not pathetic or cowardly, but rationally intent on keeping her life (not allowing herself to be murdered), liberty (not allowing herself to be raped or prevented from coming and going as she sees fit), and property (not allowing thieves to take her things). The same for a man.

Expecting a 911 call to protect you isn't brave. Considering the number of examples of victims whose call to 911 didn't save them, why would you try to shame people into being that stupid?

No one has any obligation to give up anything which is theirs to murderers, rapists, and thieves. Furthermore, one is not obligated to rely on one's body, foregoing the use of efficient tools (guns, door locks, guard dogs) because some simpleton might consider that "pathetic" or cowardly.

Good Violence

An armed college student killed a would-be murderer and rapist and chased away the bad guy's partner. Anyone who would prohibit the good guys from carrying an effective use of self defense would rather have the 11 good people raped and murdered, in the foolish belief that the two bad guys who were willing to commit mass murder would somehow have been afraid to break the gun prohibition law.

This is a case where there was a good use of deadly violence. The violence was in reaction to an attack. The violence saved the lives of 11 innocent people.

Contrast that with the bad use of violence that the invaders were threatening to do on these people. That violence was aggressive, an initiation of force.

Why can't gun control fascists discriminate between good and bad uses of violence? Why do they want people to be unthinking drones, incapable of using their minds to tell the difference?

(via Balko)