Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Common Sense About Gun Rights Just Ain't So Common

My latest book - Give Guns a Chance
It happens again and again. Someone always posts a list of mass shootings and then rambles off about kids accidentally being shot and how it "just makes sense that if you just got rid of guns, that all these senseless killings would stop. 

Well, they wouldn't. It's never worked before.

First of all virtually all of the mass killings they cite were committed by either kids from liberal families (Democrats), registered Democrats or Muslims.
Perhaps we should ban Democrats and Muslims from owning guns. I could live with that.

The stats on numbers of accidental deaths by guns, for instance, are far outstripped by the numbers of accidental deaths by falls, car wrecks, knives, fire and other such things. Should we ban climbing ladders, driving cars, using kitchen knives, matches or flammable liquids? Should we stop drunk driving by taking the cars away from people who don't drive drunk? After all, a car can kill a lot of people.

No one can debate with liberals, because they already have these self-evident truths of theirs and have ready-made "logical" conclusions based on false assumptions. That said, I'll argue with them anyway. Banning guns will NOT take them away from bad people. Yes, it will reduce the number of deaths by guns, but in every case where it's been tried, the murder rate has risen, not fallen because deaths by stabbing, strangulation, poisoning, bludgeoning, and other such delightful methods have increased to more than compensate for the fewer gun deaths. Part of that is because gun confiscation increases the number of potential easy victims and reduces the risk for criminals and terrorists.

And can you tell me how a 5'2" 120 pound woman can protect herself from a 6'4" 280 pound man intent on raping her? Even if she knows karate or some martial art, she's toast against someone that size who decides to break down her door and come after her. Ask a self defense instructor or mixed martial arts guy. With a gun, the odds are in her favor or at the very least equalized. Guns are the only fighting chance the weak have against the strong and criminal who would attack them.

And peeing on yourself as Liberal Representative Joe Salazar airily suggested would NOT prevent rape. Likely it would only intensify the attack.

Gun ownership was always intended as a bulwark against government overreach. Because a militia is necessary to the public defense, the founders recognized that an army or militia can also be used to coerce the citizenry. A heavily armed citizenry is a lot more difficult to coerce. Will there be accidents? Yes. My brother was accidentally shot in the chest by a friend who was playing with a shotgun. He died. He was 16. That doesn't mean I have a right to attempt to disarm every person in the country. It means, someone's parents should have been supervising them. If they don't care enough to keep their guns safely locked away, why would they take other safety measures? Kids are going to hurt themselves because they don't think about safety. The think they are immortal. Kids are going to jump off roofs with bedsheet parachutes, swim in ponds full of broken glass and shards of steel, and break their necks trying to ride railings on skateboards. That's not about guns. It's about supervision.

A disarmed population is a herd of sheep ready to be loaded into boxcars and carried to the gas ovens. The reason most of the 15 million people slaughtered by the Nazis in WWII didn't resist was because they were disarmed and it never occurred to them that they could resist. Americans think about that because we have a tradition of being armed and prepared to defend ourselves. The second amendment does that.

If you're a proponent of gun control, please check out the book I wrote on the subject. It should answer all those "common sense" questions of yours.

© 2016 by Tom King

Monday, June 27, 2016

BOGUS CONSPIRACY ALERT: UN Armored Vehicles on US Highways

Truckload of made-in-USA UN armored trucks
on Virginia highway being shipped overseas.

Recently a photo of truckloads of UN military vehicles rolling down a Virginia Highway has been posted widely on social media, usually with comments hinting that something nefarious involving the UN was taking place on American soil. Usually something about foreign troops helping Obama confiscate all our guns.

Actually the truth is a whole lot less exciting so far as the Prison Planet/Alex Jones crowd is concerned. It turns out that these armored vehicles are built at the BAE Systems plant in York, PA. From there they are carried on trucks down I-81 to I-77, and then I-95 towards the port of Savannah to be shipped overseas.

And why not? Why wouldn't UN troops want good old American made, heavily armored, gas attack proof, bullet proof, IED resistant trucks to ride around in. No matter where they get sent to, their guns aren't loaded and they are not allowed to shoot back. UN troops with their powder blue, non threatening helmets are the Barney Fifes of peace-keepers.

Only they don't even get to keep that one bullet in their pocket.

Just sayin'

© 2016 by Tom King

Monday, June 20, 2016

Full Tinfoil Hat - Why Do Relatively Intelligent People Go There?

Okay, the answer to that question is "I don't know." It's like people get so thrilled thinking they have some kind of secret knowledge that everyone else is too stupid to understand, that they will overlook glaring truth to accept the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Well, the truth is that in 99% of cases, your secret knowledge is a hodge-podge of rumor, innuendo and facts twisted beyond reconition and you are more than a little naive to swallow that stuff uncritically.

Someone recently posted this monumentally snarky video about how stupid we were to believe the "official" story about what happened to 9/11. These guys are the same ones that in the past few days have been saying the terrorist attack in Orlando was a false flag operation too.
Puh-leeeease! You people make me sick!
So I challenge the video's reasoning and I immediately get this snarky post back from someone calling himself "Steve Forbes". Yeah, right. He's a billionaire ex-presidential candidate.
  • So let me get this right you believe that 19 Muslims who barely spoke English !! High jacked airline jets with box cutters flew around for an hr without being shot down by one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the world , flew at speeds that would have ripped those planes apart , into two high rise buildings that eventually brought them down in there own foot prints ? Oh boy
Yeah, I do - Occam's razor, dude. The simplest explanation is the most likely. It frightens some people to think we're that easy to kill, but the truth is we are. So, since I don't want to have to keep repeating myself to the beanie-with-propeller crowd, here's my response.
  1. The planes did not fly at speeds that would have ripped them apart. That part is made up. It's just an out and out lie.
  2. High rise buildings aren't difficult to hit. After all, the twin towers weren't that hard to hit. They were sticking way above the rest of the city AND the planes were banking like all get out because they evidently lined up wrong on approach. 
  3. They actually did know how to fly - just not to land. And they spoke English. Couldn't have taken the flight courses if they didn't. The fact that they didn't stay for the bit about landing the plane should have triggered some alarm bells, but nobody wanted to be thought of as anti-Muslim so everybody kept quite, except for a couple of guys who were thought to be paranoid and anti-Muslim, who were promptly ignored. All the terrorists had to learn how to do was steer the plane and they took enough training for that in Florida. 
  4. No one on the plane challenged them over the "mere" box cutters because, at the time, we had all been trained to not resist. That training lasted right up until the folk on the plane found out they were crashing planes into buildings. After that the folk on the Pennsylvania flight figured out that this was not a good way to survive and they attacked the terrorists, who promptly dived the plane into the ground so they'd have at least a plane load of virgin credit in Paradise. 
  5. The vertical collapse of the twin towers happened because the top floors pancaked into the lower floors and the buildings were designed to resist side force hurricane winds so they really were weakest only straight down. Building 7 caught fire from falling debris and firefighters were so busy at the WTC that it too burned out and collapsed, it's structure weakened by falling debris from the WTC towers.
  6. As to how they attacked us in our so-called "heavily defended" airspace - the USAF doesn't make a practice of shooting down airliners. The Air Force shares that "defended" airspace with some 102,700 aircraft per day, defending it with a handful of fighter aircraft which are prohibited from approaching civilian airliners except when called to do so. Radio silence (at the time) was not considered enough to scramble fighter jets.
So let ME get this right again regarding the motivation for this expensive and massive plot you think you've uncovered: 
  1.  You believe everybody kept quiet. That 4 or five thousand people cooperated with the president of the United States to murder 3000 people by taking them off airplanes and killing them in cold blood.
  2. You believe the CIA did some magical special effects trick that make David Copperfield look like a schlub. The CIA or somebody in some secret agency created some kind of optical illusion to make tens of thousands of New Yorkers and hundreds of millions of television viewers think they saw two airplanes hit the WTC towers?
  3. Then, you're telling me the buildings were imploded with people in them. You're saying that in the weeks before 9/11 (and it would take weeks if not months to do this), a clandestine team of building demolition experts sneaked into the WTC towers every night and rigged them to implode without anybody noticing the explosives attached to every support column on all 150 some-odd floors. 
  4. Meanwhile back in Washington DC, the CIA fired a rocket into the Pentagon. And then, what? Hypnotized all the people in Washington to believe they didn't see a rocket fly into the Pentagon? That they saw a plane instead AND these geniuses were too stupid to realize that people would expect to see the marks of the wings on the 12 foot thick concrete walls.
  5. Then they scattered all these airplane parts and jet engines and stuff all around the site of both "attacks" in what? Invisible trucks? Jet engines and wheels and stuff are pretty large and heavy. So nobody noticed that they were trucking in this phony evidence while they were doing it.
  6. Then the conspirators were able to convince all the people on the planes to call up their loved ones and tell them an elaborate phony story. This all happened right before the planes were landed, the people taken off and murdered in cold blood by evil government minions?  And what? They paid wives and mothers and 911 operators to record this stuff so they'd have plenty of phony evidence?
  7. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying about the media coverup now. You believe that the entire news media went along with this gigantic coverup - a news media by the way that hated George W. Bush and would have drowned their own grandmothers for a chance to discredit a Republican president.
  8. And you believe that all these thousands of people did this, so that George W. Bush's buddies at Halliburton could make some money? Money that was essentially a pittance; pocket change compared to the other things Halliburton does for money. Bush, whom you all consider to be the stupidest president every, somehow knew he could squeeze a few no-bid contracts out for Halliburton during the Iraq war he planned to start because he knew Americans would be angry enough to let him do that?
  9. And the CIA and the other intelligence serviced HELPED him do it. Let's remember that the Clinton-built and staffed CIA at this time positively hated George W. Bush, so why would they cooperate with him? And George didn't replace Director Tenet till the end of his first term and Tenet really did not like Bush being so nosy about CIA intel. The CIAs doctoring of data was one of the reason Bush never heard about possible terrorist hijackings in the weeks leading up to 9/11. The CIA was telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. He gave them a good raking over the coals for that.
So tell me which scenario makes more sense?

Of course, the giant conspiracy stimulates these people's bulbous naughty places and makes them feel less vulnerable. After all, who doesn't want to believe the only way you can be killed is with the help of some vast government conspiracy? Who knows, Alex Jones might even have time to warn you before they punch paid to your increasingly wacky ticket.

here's video of the plane hitting the second tower which these people want you to believe didn't really happen and nobody really saw it happen despite it's being filmed live from ten different angles.

The truth is there are evil dragons out there and you are crunchy and taste good with a nice white garlic sauce and hummus.

By all means, don't forget the hummus.

© 2016 by Tom King