My friend, armorer, fellow author and blogger Michael Z. Williamson, known in various and sundry circles as “Mad Mike”, “Crazy Einar” (see the T-shirt!) and other appellations, has written two OUTSTANDING blog posts that I think deserve the widest possible circulation.
The first is a succinct takedown of gun control dweebs.
Gun control’s only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)
So then the bleat is, “Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an “Agenda”(Because obviously, there’s zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?
Well, that’s easy. It doesn’t matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren’t even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building. That’s like saying. “I wasn’t in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!”
No, not really. Science matters. Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.
There’s more at the link.
The second, longer article is a truly magnificent rant against the hard-left, progressive liberal activists who are trying to shut down free speech and put Big Brother in power. He compares them – instructively – with Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. It’s a very profane rant, littered with f-bombs and the like – and it’s spot on.
The modern American “liberal” is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.
The modern American “liberal” is a statist ****sucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent. They claim to be “tolerant,” but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don’t have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party. They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.
. . .
There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it’s true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.
Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They’re pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors.
Again, more at the link.
Go read them both. They’re highly entertaining – and despite the hyperbole, they’re pretty accurate descriptions of the sort of idiots we saw in Washington last weekend.
Thanks, Mike. You made my morning!
I wouldn't have thought it possible, but Mr. Williamson has outdone himself again.
I have only one, very minor, disagreement with a point in his second post: the Canadians probably really should apologize for Justin Bieber, if only as a matter of good manners.
Facts don't count for much in a propaganda campaign.
Which is why there aren't any, Rob.
I'd comment on Mr. Williamson's post over at his site, but that would mean I'd have to join FakBuch to do so, and that ain't happenin'.
His gun control stuff is pretty much spot-on, but the example he brings up of the Army ignoring "laboratory experts" is just… Wrong.
What actually happened in the post-WWII Army was that the "lab experts" weren't ignored–They were the ones who made the decision to go with the full-power 7.62mm cartridge. There was a faction of the Infantry Board who agreed with them, but there was also another faction, consisting of men who'd had experience facing the German StG44 and MG42, that wanted more firepower and an intermediate cartridge for the individual weapon. They got overruled by the lab boys and the other faction, most of whom had not actually, y'know… Seen combat.
Too, part of the reason all this took place was that a huge majority of the actual combat-veteran officer class got out right after the war, and a lot of people thought that the Army was nearly obsolete for everything except constabulary duty after we dropped the bomb on whoever we were fighting. So, the idea that we'd need to fight as conventional infantry, and needed better small arms…? Waste of money, so it got sidelined. By the time they figured out, post-Korea, that nuking everyone we had problems with was a non-starter, the institutional knowledge of how we'd actually fought as infantry in WWII was gone, and most of the people in decision-making positions about small arms were the Courtney Massengale types who thought that Camp Perry and the National Matches were the ne plus ultra of what was needed for infantry combat marksmanship. Which was how the 7.62mm/M14 combo came to be procured: It was really the ultimate rifle to take to the National Matches.
Most of the guys who knew better, out on the line? They were either in civilian life, wanting to forget the whole messy business, or they were not part of the political power structure in the Army.
Other than that, Mr. Williamson writes an excellent essay. Would that it had more widespread dissemination in this sadly diminished nation of ours.
I think that Larry Correia wrote one of the very best rebuttals of the claim that gun control laws are the answer back in 2012. How sad that it's been ~6 years, and people are still so stupid.