Reader (?) response

Here's a response to today's newspaper column:

Dear Mr McManigal and mr [Redacted] (a local Republican activist)
Boy howdy, you two are a pair.
Both of you wear hats in the house (now that is not real cowboy or polite)*.
“Liberty is more important than imaginary safety, or even life.”
I wish you two cowboys would saddle up and go to Ukraine and shoot your guns.

I’m tired of listening to your hunter biden, nord stream conspiracies, or the government taking your home protection firearm.

Now an assault rifle with a clip (semi automatic) is another thing.
I wish both of you to volunteer in the emergency room for a 9mm gunshot wound vs multiple 30-06 wounds.   Both stop an intruder, but you don’t want a kid using either.
A 30-06 is a deer rifle (bolt action) not an assault rifle with a clip.
One bullet one kill…. That’s how it worked in the old days.   No mistakes.

I believe you two “voices” contributors in the newspaper are destructive and you both need to be a little more constructive in our society.
Happy Mother’s Day and pass it on.
Sincerely [redacted]

Here's the reply I sent:

Mr. [Redacted 2],

Mr. [redacted] and I are not generally on the same side. I am the polar opposite of Republican/Democrat.

It's very strange that today if you're against Biden you're MAGA. If you're against Trump you're a leftist. If you're against both you're MAGA again. Politics makes people stupid.

I do not support the Ukraine government. I do not support the Russian government. I support every individual who is neither initiating force nor violating private property.

When have I ever mentioned Hunter Biden or Nordstream? Are you hallucinating? 

As for government taking home protection firearms-- that's the whole point of every one of the 20,000+ failed anti-gun rules (they aren't, and can't be, laws) and the criminal gang of the BATFE. A territory where only government employees are armed has a name; it's called a police state.

Assault rifles are select-fire rifles and have been (illegally) rationed since 1934. They are not semi-automatic. A clip is a metal strip that holds a few (usually 10 or fewer) cartridges together, ready to be pushed down into the action of a rifle. You're probably mistakenly referring to magazines. This is why it's difficult to take anti-gunners seriously when they try to speak as though they know what they're talking about while saying things of this sort.

The term "assault weapons" (which is so ridiculous it seems to be falling out of favor with people more often using the objectively incorrect term "assault rifles" for firearms which aren't assault rifles) was made up by Josh Sugarmann in 1988 in order to fool the public into supporting a ban on semi-auto rifles. His argument was: "Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." So even he knew he was lying for a political purpose.

Your point about the 9mm wounds vs "multiple 30-06 wounds" makes no sense. Yes, the more powerful 30-06 is going to do more damage, especially if there are multiple wounds. So? I haven't even heard of any political criminals talking about outlawing rifles that shoot 30-06 yet. They are focusing on those that shoot little underpowered .223 bullets (AR-15s) right now. 

Both a bolt action and a semi-automatic shoot one bullet per trigger pull. That's all. It's still "one bullet, one kill" if that's your goal. Remember, JFK was killed with a bolt action.

Most of the time, though, the only goal is to shoot paper targets. Anti-gunners must be very violent people to constantly fantasize that the only reason to have a gun is to kill people. I support the fundamental human right for anyone who doesn't want a weapon to not own a weapon, and if you think this much about killing others, you should probably opt out of weapon ownership-- including cars or hammers.

No one has a right to shoot someone who isn't currently attacking them or violating their property. You're arguing a straw man you've constructed.

Why wouldn't I want a kid using a 9mm or a deer rifle? Would I prefer to keep guns a forbidden fruit so they'll not know how to handle them correctly, but will be obsessed with getting their hands on one precisely because it's not allowed? This is like pretending the best way to keep kids from drowning is to make sure to keep them ignorant about water and forbid them to learn to swim, and ignore the fact they'll still be curious about water-- even more so since you've made it off-limits. It's counterproductive and will end up in more deaths.

If you believe this is "destructive", then the problem is within you.

Kent McManigal

*Demonstrating historical ignorance 

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

This isn't the time to beg for more government

The situation happening south of here, where the turf claims of two criminal gangs meet, is 100% a problem created by, sustained by, and magnified by political government. It's a statist thing. It was never something government should have meddled with in any way, and once it started, all roads lead to this situation.

If you blame anyone else you've been fooled by government supremacists.

It's not going to be fixed by politics or by statism-light. 

This isn't the time to call for more government, doing more things that will inevitably make things worse in the long run. Government created the mess, more government isn't going to fix it.

It could be fixed by absolutely respecting private property rights and the fundamental human right to defend life, liberty, and that property with whatever force is necessary. From any threat.

This, of course, is something government will never allow. Government hates life, liberty (especially!), and property unless those things can be made to work in government's favor.

As always, your property-- and your life and your liberty--  is your responsibility. Whether you live in El Paso or in the middle of Wyoming. 

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

You're not under my control

Most things are not under my control. Shocking, I know!

I can't control the weather, the climate, or time. I can't control society, or wars in other countries.

I can't really totally control my health-- although there are definitely things I can avoid doing to make things worse. 

I can’t control what legislation is imposed or which politicians are forced upon me. People who v*te believe they can control this to some extent. I know they do because I used to. 

I would get really upset after every election that didn’t go the way I wanted (which was the vast majority of them). I’m happier now.

I gained much peace when I realized I didn’t have any control over such things-  or make any difference with my v*tes. 

Even outside the political realm, I can’t control other people. People often do things I’d rather they didn’t. Both strangers and people I know. Family members do things I imagine might reflect badly on me. They are not under my control, nor should they be. I don't need to be running anyone's life but my own.

It’s hard to keep in mind that I can’t control anyone but myself— neither the person who does what I think is wrong nor those who come to conclusions about me based on what some other person does.

I can't control the local person who told a family member "I'm sorry" yesterday when they found out they were my relative. I guess they aren't a fan-- which is something else I can't control.

I can't control how people will respond to the things I write or the concepts I introduce. I can't control how people will react when confronted with something they don't want to hear.

What I can control-- or should be able to control-- is how I react to people and situations. I don't always react the way I ought to, but in that case, it's my fault. My responses are what I can control. I need to do better. I think I am doing better.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Government can be useful

You probably never imagined you'd hear me admit that government can be useful. Of course it can. Many things you don't have the right to use, in the specific way you are using them, can be useful. 

Jeffrey Dahmer found knives and big cooking pots useful. He didn't have a right to use them as he did, but they were indisputably useful for his purpose.

So, yes, government can be useful. But it’s always cheating to use it.

If you can't get what you need or want through voluntary exchange, it is useful to have a tool for forcing others to go along. That tool could be a gun or a government.

The thing that makes the government the worse tool to use is that your victim isn't generally forced to buy the gun and ammunition for you to use against him. Not unless you work for government.

No one using a gun to force compliance can pretend to be the good guy, unless they claim what they are doing is "the law". In this case, the real weapon being wielded is government; the gun is just jewelry.

Government can be useful, but if that's the tool you have to use you should probably stop to think if you have a right to do what you're doing. And if you do, why are you reduced to cheating?

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Be a non-complier with tyranny

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 9, 2023- This one had been held in reserve for the occasion where I was unable to come up with a column.)

The last few years have been especially rough for those of us who aren't fans of tyranny. Or who won't tolerate it at all. It seems like the authoritarian control freaks of the world decided they could get away with anything. By the look of things, they might be right.

No, I don't believe they all got together in a secret supervillain conclave and decided this was their chance. I think they just did what they have always wanted to do, and the people let them do it harder than usual, and we ended up here.

People complain and protest, but they don't do the one thing it will take to topple the tyrants: they don't refuse to comply and then refuse to take punishments for their refusal.

Almost everyone complies with every ridiculous demand, even if they protest while doing so. Some, even though they were scared of a new cold virus, knew the mandates and restrictions were wrong, but they were afraid to be seen as disobedient troublemakers. So they went along.

How about you? Do you complain about all the ways government violates your rights and your liberty? Do you comply with the violations anyway? Nothing is going to change for the better until you stop complying.

What difference can one person make? Not much; just all the difference in the world.

One person isn't going to change things much right away. But by your refusal to comply, you'll inspire others to join you. No government is powerful enough to control everyone when the people simply refuse to be controlled anymore.

As long as you comply, it will never end.

It's dangerous to be one of the early non-compliers. You'll stand out and get their attention. The authoritarians will want to make an example of you. Think January 6th. Still, somebody has to do it. Someone has to go first.

On the other hand, those who are skeptical of government have been proven right over and over again. If you still trust what "official sources" and "experts" say by this point, you'll believe anything. If you aren't preparing for harder times to come, after seeing how fragile civilization is, maybe you deserve whatever happens next.

I don't want to believe that of you, though. You are better than that. You paid attention and have found your line in the sand. Maybe you've even been pushed over it. How will you react now?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Pet parrots

Different topic, but I saw a person ask a question about this on Twitter and it's something I have experience with because of 2 decades at pet stores. several years of which were spent at a store that specialized in parrots.

I don't recommend parrots as pets. I could stop there, but people always want to know "why?"

There are some really great pet parrots out there. However, for every great one, there are dozens of miserable parrots who usually also make their humans miserable. Not pets or companions, but captives. I've seen so many get sold over and over because they just weren't what their owner thought a parrot would be.

And even the friendly ones are easily bored.

A bored parrot can (and will) destroy your house. Window frames, door frames, wooden molding, doors, wooden cabinets, chandeliers, sheetrock-- I've seen it all ripped to pieces in a couple of hours by a bored parrot.

They can learn to open just about any latch, and I've seen them break cheap padlocks to get out of a cage.

Cockatoos are parrots that have their own set of issues. Many cockatoos become very affectionate. But, the more affectionate they become, the needier they are. If you can't give them the massive amount of attention they need when they need it, they become emotional; loud, depressed, and self-destructive. You've probably seen pictures and videos of naked cockatoos, and this is nearly always a result of them either becoming upset at not getting enough attention or hating captivity. And they never recover enough to grow their feathers back. At least, I've never seen it happen.

The cockatoos that don't become affectionate are pitiable creatures. They stay terrified and scream and cower and pluck themselves. And they bite. The worst damage I've ever seen from a parrot bite was inflicted by a scared cockatoo. That one died of fear and trauma a few days after biting through a person's hand.

Even those who are generally friendly seem to enjoy biting. At least in certain moods. They seem to like the response it gets. Often there is one person they'll attach to and everyone else gets bitten, but most will also bite their favorite person if they decide it would be entertaining. Or if they have a grudge (they do hold grudges).

Parrots also love to scream. and they scream LOUD. They love the sound of their own screams. Some learn to put their head in a food bowl (metal is preferred) so they can scream and get a good echo back in their face. I don't know why, it's just something they like to do.

Parrots are messy. They scatter seed hulls far from their cage and they poop a lot. And cockatoos (including cockatiels) shed lots of waxy dust from their feathers that gets all over the house.

Most parrots never learn to talk. Those who do seem to learn to repeat what you'd rather not have them repeat, and will say it at the worst time. And, it's hard to get them to stop saying anything they can get a reaction for saying. Most still prefer to scream.

Parrots are smart. but sometimes this is more of a bug than a feature. 

A parrot is more likely to be a miserable, messy, destructor than a pleasant, talkative companion.

On the other hand, government has gotten more and more set against you owning a parrot, coming up with more paperwork, regulations, and warnings every year it seems. Anything government doesn't want you to have might be a good thing to have. Probably not in this case.

I'm not saying there's no chance you'd get a good parrot where both of you are happy. I just think the chances are so small that it's not a good idea unless you're prepared for what you're more likely to experience. I like parrots. I've never owned one myself-- not above the size of a small conure-type, anyway. For most people, a parrot isn't a good choice.

Do with that what you will.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Never a clear answer

Why is it so hard to get a clear answer from a statist?

I watched an interaction where a statist advocated solving some problems with laws. He was accused of promoting violence for this stance and he denied it.

Then, he was asked a very simple question: How are laws enforced?

He deflected rather than answer the question. So, he was asked again. And again. Over and over. 

He wouldn't-- or couldn't-- answer the question. 

So, since he kept ignoring the other person, I stepped in and asked him how legislation is enforced. He claimed he had already answered the question and was tired of being asked. (I'm sure he was tired of it!)

I posted a link (see the end of this post) that would have answered the question for him if he had bothered to read it. As was clear from his subsequent responses, he didn't.

He went into rants saying he doesn't think v*ting for legislation is advocating for violence, and that he doesn't object to being forced to do community service if he is ordered to do so for breaking a law.

I tried to get him back on point.

I asked him to assume I (and the other person) didn't see his answer, and just clearly answer it for me.

He didn't. 

Instead, he posted a screenshot of a partial answer he had given earlier, ignoring all follow-up questions by saying he'd already answered. His "answer" stopped at the non-compliant person being taken to court for refusing to do what government demanded. I asked what happens when the person refuses to comply with the court's ruling.

He said he'd already answered and again posted the same screenshot that stopped with the non-compliant victim of legislation being taken to court.

I told him this was like answering the question "How to bake bread?" By saying "Plant some wheat". 

He couldn't go beyond that step, then started complaining that he didn't see how his v*ting for "expanding healthcare" was a threat to anyone. Oh, and then kept calling me a "Republican"/"MAGA"-- with hashtags and everything!

I try my best to stay civil. I think I did, even when he hurled insults.

It's hard-- or impossible-- for a government supremacist to see where their path leads. They just aren't honest enough to face the reality that every single "law" is enforced with the threat of death.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

The reasonable middle ground that no one likes

An unfortunate truth I've noticed is how often the desire to be empathetic-- kind, compassionate, and understanding-- leads to the opposite result.

That’s how you end up with “gun control”, "equity", and saving bad guys from the consequences of their actions. It leads to homeless camps in town and gender ideology. Really stupid things.

People will bend over so far trying to put themselves in the other guy's shoes that they end up hurting the innocent. Sometimes, killing them.

Of course, the opposite approach isn't any better. Being authoritarian "for your own good" leads to results that are just as bad.

This is how you end up with substance prohibition,  overflowing prisons, and "immigration" control. Really mean things— that are also really stupid. 

It leads to a dystopian police state just as horrible as the one the other extreme leads to. 

Is there a solution? A rational middle ground? Probably. But humans may be incapable of dwelling in it for more than a minute or two.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!