Is "binary thinking" even thinking?

So many people are trapped in binary thinking. I'm not going to assume I'm immune.

I got into an ill-advised argument over abortion. But, because I didn't exactly agree with the mob that descended on me, they could only believe I was 100% on board with the opposite side's opinion. I gave evidence that this wasn't true, but they seemed literally unable to physically see it. All they could do was continue responding to the hallucination that they had formed and that the rest of the mob was helping to prop up.

It was educational.

If I think something is a bad idea, or even wrong, it doesn't mean I believe government should make up legislation prohibiting it. 

I don't even think government should make murder illegal-- but I know murder is unethical. Most people can't reconcile those two opinions. If I'm against murder, I must be for laws prohibiting it. If I'm against those laws, obviously I must think anyone should be allowed to kill whoever they want without consequence. Neither is even remotely true,

I even said things unambiguously supporting the mob's side against others who chimed in with the other view. Those comments were ignored completely. They didn't fit in the round hole.

Pointing out this trap-- the binary "thinking"-- just triggers this kind of person even more. No, the problem must be with me, not with them. Some of them resorted to mocking my "centrist" position.

Will I ever learn?

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Secession Day approaches

The family is planning a little Secession Day cookout this weekend.

I get a little uncomfortable celebrating Secession Day with people who don't get what the day is about. They fly Holy Pole Quilt and honor "The USA" (America's biggest threat), and don't realize they are missing the whole point.

The day is supposed to be about "independence" and without secession there would never be any independence. It's the foundation.

Yes, celebrate that historic secession, but don't discount the necessity of future (near future) secession. If you want any independence to celebrate, it's going to have to happen. Otherwise, a future of slavery to the state is what you can look forward to.

-

 Check out the recent posts: Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon,.

Violating a little less isn't an expansion

Several times over the past week I've seen anti-liberty pundits proclaiming that the Supreme Courtjesters' recent Bruen opinion "expanded gun rights" or "expands the Second Amendment".

No, it doesn't.

It just tells the feds to stop violating the right to own and to carry weapons quite as badly as before. That's not an expansion.

If you "generously" give your starving child a second weekly potato, you aren't encouraging their gluttony. You aren't being a wonderful person for doubling their food rations, you just aren't being quite as evil as before... maybe. You are still evil for starving them, just as the Supreme Court is still evil for not explicitly explaining why any and all anti-gun legislation is null and void-- as they have to know it is if they've read the document.

Now, it seems they've also kicked some other anti-gun cases back to the "lower" courts, with instructions to do them over, taking into account the Bruen opinion. Expect sneakiness to ensue.

The bigger news may be-- depending on how it is used-- the opinion against the EPA's extra-legislative rulemaking (Algore is very disappointed with this turn of events). The EPA is obviously guilty of this crime, but BATFEces is the prime violator in this regard-- they make everyone else look like amateurs by comparison. Maybe someone will use this opportunity to slap them around a bit and knock them down a few notches. But anything that allows the BATFEces gang (or its function) to continue to exist-- as anything other than a ridiculous Nazi fan club with no power over anyone-- is a failure.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Something that has always bothered me

Relating to yesterday's badly headlined column, and a good counterpoint by Thomas Knapp, I finally put in the effort today to articulate to myself something that has always annoyed me about the Roe v. Wade "opinion". It's something that has been in the back of my mind for ages, but I'd never spent the time or effort to put it into words. Until now.

And it's not even about abortion.

The Supreme Courtjesters sat down and diligently picked the Constitution apart with tweezers and an electron microscope to "discover" a right to an abortion-- which isn't spelled out explicitly, regardless of whether or not such a right exists-- and yet they can't just READ the bloody document to see it clearly says-- no magnifying glass needed-- that government is not allowed to have any oversight over the weapons (guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc.) owned by the people. None. It's right there in writing. In English. No "interpretation" necessary. No need to pick anything apart to find it. Just read it and obey it. Or tell the rest of the government to immediately stop committing the crime of violating it.

But it seems beyond their ability to do this simple job. Because they don't want to. It would be inconvenient to the rest of their gang.

They've put as much effort into burying or overlooking the right spelled out as off-limits to government interference in the Second Amendment as they put into finding a right to abortion fifty years ago. And they are still being dishonest weasels* about it to this day, even when they supposedly reaffirm the right mentioned therein. 

*Apologies to actual cute little weasels.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Face, meet dirt

Looking down at the site of the adventure

A few days ago I took a tumble or a nosedive off the back steps and into the ground. My heel slipped off the top step as I was carrying out the trash and things went downhill (literally) from there in a cascade of awkwardness.

I got some scrapes and bruises, and twisted my ankle, and mildly sprained my wrist. Those pains have gone away (mainly my wrist pain) and allowed me to feel other minor pains they had been masking. Pretty much my whole left side took some damage. My hat protected my head and face-- as it has many times over the years.

I now feel slightly motivated to improve the back step situation. A small deck to transition from the door to the steps might be a good idea as this is far from the first time I've had trouble with the narrowness of the top step when going out the door. Yet, for some reason, the idea never occurred to me until this happened. (I try to not think of construction projects!)

Isn't it odd how many times an obvious idea or solution goes unnoticed until something-- some pain-- brings it to mind? Often it's not even a particularly difficult thing to do; it was just never thought of. I've put up with minor annoyances or inconveniences for years before I noticed them enough to fix them. Sometimes it was just a matter of realizing how annoying and unnecessary something I considered "normal" (*cough cough* government) was. Slapping the ground with my face may have been the inspiration I needed to fix the back steps. If so, it was a useful event.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

A couple of points about guns

1. Trustworthy people don't ban/forbid guns. They just don't. Not to anyone. The proper response to a bad guy with a gun is an armed defense, not a rule, policy, or legislation.

2. When the 2nd Amendment was written it was meant to be absolute. Yes, in spite of the lies of anti-gun bigots, you could own cannons and better weapons than the military because what the 2nd Amendment did was take government oversight off the table. It didn't create the right to own and to carry weapons-- it forbade government any say in what they recognized was a natural human right held by everyone (a right not only held by people in America, but everywhere). It is still absolute; only criminal regimes violate it. "But every government puts some restrictions on guns!" Yep. That's what I said-- criminal regimes.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Censorship not the answer to evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 25, 2022)

People like the murderer in the Buffalo, New York grocery store will always find justification to be evil losers. He would have found some excuse even if no one had ever suspected that government is trying, for political purposes, to dilute the culture with those who don't share it.

The way to fight such ideas is to openly discuss them, not censorship. If you choose to censor ideas, I'll think you have no argument against them.

They will also always find something to use as a weapon, even if the anti-gun bigots ever manage to ban the type of weapon this one chose.

The effective way to defend from evil losers isn't with lone armed guards or with an armed class of enforcers, but with a universally armed population ready to stop any such attack in its tracks. An armed guard is too easy to notice and target, but when nearly everyone around you is ready to stop any attack, the cost of committing one is raised back to where it belongs.

Even so, the armed guard at the store gave his life to delay the evil loser and give more people the chance to escape. He saved lives.

There will always be evil people, and some percentage of those will decide to try to kill people who aren't harming them in any way-- even if they must hallucinate that they are being harmed. You won't stop them by making everyone else helpless or by forbidding ideas which could inspire them to attack.

It might also help if government would stop actively radicalizing them with its actions and policies.

While government is constitutionally prohibited from regulating immigration, it is also not permitted to import people from other countries. Not that government stays within what it is allowed to do. There's a difference between something happening naturally and government forcing something to happen. The latter is more intrusive.

Maybe government hopes more of these attacks will occur. They always seem to happen right before some anti-gun legislation is under consideration-- I'm sure it's only a coincidence. This attack-- apparently spurred by ideas a weak mind encountered online-- also happened, coincidentally, in the midst of a fight over censorship. It's all rather convenient, is it not?

Either way, I will not accept blame and be legislatively punished for things other people-- people I don't support in any way-- do. Will you?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Anti-gunner compares gun owners to bike riders to make her point

Someone arguing for more anti-gun legislation said "gun owner [sic] is a thing you own* just like you can be" a bike rider or a TV owner, not inherent like "Race, religion, gender [sic] identity". 

She then claimed that gun owners "are not oppressed". 

Seems she poked holes in her own argument.

Because she's right. 

Legislation targeting gun owners is like legislation targeting bike riders and TV owners. It is looking to punish (oppress) people for something they simply own. Not for something unethical they have done. Not on behalf of anyone they've harmed.

Punishing people for something they own is oppression. People have died at the hands of government agents who were enforcing anti-gun legislation. Not killed for harming anyone-- not for violating life, liberty, or property-- but for simply possessing something government doesn't like other people to have. You can't be more oppressed than that.

This was her argument after she tried without success to label me a racist and started grasping at straws

*(I don't believe she meant anyone can own gun owners; her writing was probably a little sloppy.)

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Wade through the pool of Roe

The Supreme Courtjesters were on a roll.

Yeah, we already knew this Roe v. Wade thing was coming, but now it's here. I think the timing is good because it deflected the Left-statist meltdown over the pro-gun ruling that was made hours earlier, giving them another cause to flip out over.

I don't really care about the abortion issue. So I'm at least willing to consider what government says about it (even if I'll probably reject their opinion on principle).

I don't see how abortion could be a natural human right unless it is a clear case of self-defense, nor any logical way for it to be a constitutional right. 

Nowhere does the Constitution say "the right of women to end a pregnancy shall not be infringed".
Nor does it say the federal government has the "authority" to demand pregnant women not end their pregnancy.
It is silent on the matter, which means the federal government has no legitimate say. Even if this falls under the Ninth Amendment, I've always seen that as an indication it is outside of things government has "authority" over.

Obviously, the correct place for such decisions is with the individual, not with government-- but government doesn't like to turn loose of power. So, the Supremes kicked the control back up to the states-- which in such ambiguous cases is probably somewhat better (which is different from ethical) than letting the feds control the matter.

I have my doubts that those who are most angry over the opinion understand it-- they are just taking their cues from those who tell them what to be outraged about. But the rage is real and may be dangerous.

I'll be on heightened alert for generalized violence from angry Left-statists, just in case, even though anything targeting me would be based on assumptions about my opinion. This area is probably exceptionally safe under the circumstances. I don't take it for granted, though.

(I've always been amused that "roe" is fish eggs-- fish reproduction. How fitting.)

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The Supreme Courtjesters got it wrong

The Supreme Courtjesters have ruled that New York state political criminals can't require people who seek one of their concealed carry licenses to show "special need" or "proper cause" to get the license.

Yay?

That's better than what might have happened, but of course, they still got it wrong. As they tend to do as government supremacists, which they all are.

It's not that New York should make it easier to get a license, it's that licensing a natural human right is wrong. It's just evil. No one has a right or the political "authority" to do that to anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances, ever.

The people don't need a license, and the Supreme Courtjesters just-- once again-- supported the erroneous position that they do, and that government is there to grant (or deny) permission for an act which needs no such permission.

As I pointed out to an acquaintance decades ago, the Supremes will NEVER rule to force states to actually obey the clear language of the Second Amendment because it goes too hard against "government interests". They'll always allow some illegal violations of the natural human right to own and to carry weapons, just because that supports the power of the gang they belong to. They might make some minor tweaks to remove a little bit of power from the state when they can't see a way out, but they'll never actually be honest about the issue. They always leave some breathing room for tyranny, and that's exactly what they did with this opinion. They proved me right, again.

And you just watch: states will find a way to weasel out of obeying the law anyway. Probably using that breathing room.

Yeah, I know. "No one" would v*te to support such a radical idea as taking away ALL the power of government to legislate about guns. Funny... I've never believed my liberty is subject to the opinion of an ignorant mob anyway. Liberty is not extreme-- that descriptor fits those who seek to destroy liberty on an altar to the state.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Should I be nicer to the mentally challenged?

 He never responded.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Be unreasonable (according to monsters)

Being "reasonable" with monsters who want to violate natural human rights-- and who claim the right to define "reasonable"-- is what got us here. 

Yet, the monsters keep demanding we "be reasonable" and compromise with them some more. 

No.

It's never going to be enough to satisfy them.

I don't care if v*ters won't side with me because I'm being "unreasonable". 

I don't care that government will continue to criminalize me due to my "unreasonableness". 

I will not negotiate with criminals for my liberty. And they are criminals, by the only definition that matters: those who violate, or encourage others to violate, the natural human rights of others,

Just NO.

They will do what they will do, but they'll do it without my help or cooperation, and without my agreeing that what they demand is in any way "reasonable". It's not.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

My very first "carry gun"

When I was in my late 20s, my boss at my new job strongly recommended I get a gun and carry it at work. Who knew pet stores were so dangerous?

Well, it wasn't the pet store in particular, it was the strip mall the store was in. Businesses around us (especially the Subway sandwich place* two spots down) kept getting robbed at gunpoint. 

Plus, we often had to take the trash to the dumpster out back. In winter, the one light over the dumpster wasn't terribly effective after dark, leaving lots of deep shadows. We rarely went out alone, but even with two people, it's better to have two armed people than two unarmed people. Right?

I had wanted a carry gun for years, so I didn't need a lot of encouragement.  My co-workers were happy to show me what they carried, and the pros and cons (as they saw them) of their own choices.

My favorite gun store only sold black powder guns, so I went to my second favorite gun store to get a carry gun. I knew nothing about such guns, but I told the guy my situation and he directed me to a used gun that wasn't terribly expensive and was simple enough for a beginner.

It was a Charter Arms Undercover, .38 special. Five-shot revolver with a two-inch barrel, manufactured in the mid-'70s.

I loved the gun immediately. I still do. He steered me right.

I could shoot the Undercover well, and the short barrel didn't seem to hurt the accuracy at all-- which surprised me since I'd heard so many people say it would. Maybe the aim was just that instinctive for me. The only drawback was that the grip was really small, and the kick was substantial. And the one time I forgot to put in my earplugs before I shot was painful enough that I didn't forget again. 

During a period of "great personal upheaval", the Undercover and I parted ways. I also soon began wanting more power and/or more capacity, so my path led away from the 5-shot revolver realm. Rarely have I been as satisfied with any other gun, though. In fact, I was distinctly dissatisfied with all of them for a variety of reasons, particularly the discomfort of carrying them, compared to the 2" barrel Undercover. At least until I bought the Sig P365 a couple of years ago (which I also love).

Recently I was reunited with the Undercover. I had nearly forgotten how much I liked it. I would probably never use it as my primary carry gun now, but I have been reacquainting myself with this old friend and am still impressed with it. No knock against my mid-1950s S&W Airweight Chief's Special .38 special, but I still think the Charter Arms Undercover is a better gun. I definitely like it better.

That's just my 2 cents (which, adjusted for Bidenflation, is basically worthless).

*Coincidentally, the only armed robbery we had in the next town I lived in (while I lived there) was also the local Subway, directly across the street from the pet store I worked in at that time. What makes Subway so vulnerable or attractive to aggressive losers?

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Disinformation board is Orwellian

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 18, 2022)

The federal government's hastily thrown together Disinformation Governance Board was a predictable reaction to the "threat" this government sees in freer speech on social media.

Of course, free speech is not a threat to anyone who doesn't depend on censorship and lies, without opposition, to fool the public.

Widespread ridicule for the idea was immediate, with many people labeling this new bureaucracy Biden's Ministry of Truth, after the ironically named propaganda agency from George Orwell's book "1984". The Disinformation Governance Board is, quite literally, Orwellian.

As people have been pointing out for years now, "1984" was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.

Since I don't believe the word "truth" has any place in this effort, I prefer to think of this new agency not as the Ministry of Truth, but as Biden's Department of Lies. Lies intended to spread propaganda which can't be countered by truth because truth won't be allowed to see the light of day. How long until saying something an administration doesn't like becomes a jailable offense? Oh, wait-- it already happens.

I'm not sure the name the regime picked for the new board is such a bad one, though. It does seem designed to govern through disinformation, after all.

I was startled at how quickly this propaganda bureau was set up after it appeared Twitter's potential new owner was less enthusiastic about censorship and authoritarian propaganda than the previous owners had seemed to be.

Government shouldn't be controlling speech, including whatever they consider "hate speech". Not only is it not their job, but they are expressly forbidden to do so by the First Amendment.

Some people would like you to believe certain kinds of speech are not protected under the Bill of Rights, but they would be wrong. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech; it explicitly forbids government censorship. That's an important distinction which many people would prefer to sweep under the rug.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to put things off-limits to government regulation. There are no special exceptions; not safety, national security, hate, or anything else. Anyone who tries to carve out exceptions for their agenda is lying to you. They are looking for ways to violate your liberty with arbitrary legislation they make up to punish those who don't go along with them.

The regime's Disinformation Governance Board is entirely anti-American and needs to be laughed out of existence.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You can't fix the past

There's a recurring theme some government supremacists keep dragging out in an attempt to shame everyone:

Americans-- as "a people"-- didn't keep government in line with what the Constitution allowed it to do. It's all our fault, and specifically somehow my fault, according to those who think the Constitution was great (maybe even perfect). 

No matter that by the time Lincoln was neutralized, the damage had been done. How could things have been saved even then?

It's certainly too late to do anything about it now, and was already too late when your grandparents were children. But just accept that it's your fault anyway. Somehow. You didn't "democracy" hard enough, I guess, in the same way your great-grandparents failed to "America" properly. (Not enough tar, feathers, rope, and lamp posts and too much "It's their job. They mean well, and are doing this for our own good; to keep us safe".)

I think this blame game is nothing but a cop-out by government supremacists. A way to avoid doing the hard work now. To avoid embracing non-compliance and taking the risk of attracting government attention.

The past is what it is. You can't fix it without a time machine (and probably not even then). Instead of blaming people who are long dead, what can you do now? Today? Realize that anything effective is going to be "illegal". It won't be safe. You probably need to do it anyway. Or just shelter in place and watch the world burn.

Either way is better than trying to guilt people into accepting blame for something that was beyond their control. Something that happened a century or more before they were born.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Anarchy Day

Happy birthday to me... now think about going out and doing something for Anarchy Day.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Nerf gun for defense?

Do you believe a Nerf gun would be a good defensive tool? Good enough to recommend others adopt its use and depend on it for their lives?

Maybe it's better than nothing. Maybe. More likely it could lull someone (who isn't too bright) into a false sense that they have done something useful to defend themselves when the chance of it actually working to protect them is practically zero.

Sure, I suppose you could modify the darts with poison or explosives, but I wouldn't want to encourage others to rely on that for defense.

I think anyone suggesting to someone that they should use a Nerf gun for defense is doing them a disservice; misleading them down a bad path. I'm not going to tell them they are forbidden from giving it a try, but my expectations for it succeeding are incredibly low. A real gun, or even a rock or sharpened stick, would be much more effective.

I also understand the argument for defensive v*ting. But I think it's more similar to depending on a Nerf gun for defense than doing something that will actually have a chance to work defensively in the real world. The chance of it being effective is close enough to zero to be ignored.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

If you imagine government has rights or "authority" you'll always come to the wrong conclusion. Always.

Leaving good input lying around to be found

Some guy on Twitter, responding to my comment in support of someone else's pro-gun tweet, called me a Russian bot. At least twice. I asked if that was his best shot. He told me Vlad would be proud of me.

That didn't bother me the way he'd hoped. He was grasping at straws since he had no actual argument-- and never even tried to make one. Obvious stupidity (or was it projection?) just reflects on the person displaying it. 

He did have one good point though. He said no one reads my tweets, but I keep posting as if someone is reading them. Yep.

And I have a new reason for that.

Assuming Google's AI really is sentient (and if not, someday one will be), and assuming it is going to vacuum up everything online at some point (if it hasn't already) in its quest for data, I want to make sure it is getting the other, anti-slavery side of the argument. And maybe a few humans will stumble across my posts, too.

Numbers aren't everything.

One bright side to my recent trouble with the blog's address (which crashed my reader numbers)-- it also broke the link the spammers had. I haven't gotten a single spam comment since that happened. Give them time and they'll find another link.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Well, that was different

Back before gasoline prices-- and the price of everything else-- started skyrocketing, my daughter and son made plans to attend an anime convention in the big city.

Since tickets were already bought and all that, we went. Ouch, the fuel expense!

I despise anime. Seriously. It's just a subjective matter of taste, but going to that was way outside my comfort zone. And I survived. I even immersed myself by going to the rave they had at the end of the day-- around midnight. I just didn't jump and scream along.

I learned a long time ago that my life is better if I do things I wouldn't normally do. Things outside my comfort zone. Even if I don't want to.

I was in a major college play as a 10-year-old. I didn't really want to do it, but now it's a good memory and I'm glad I had the experience. 

Several years ago I went to an art show where a friend was showing her photography. There were faeries flitting about.. with lacey dresses, wings, glitter, and silver eyelashes. And people getting very poetic and philosophical about photographs. Artsy black and white photographs. I was so out of place, but it's an experience I wouldn't trade for anything.

Then there was karaoke. "I don't go to bars!" "I can't sing in front of people!" Yet, I did, and I loved it.

I can't say I loved the anime convention. But there were enjoyable things about it. It was worth the discomfort. And it's a memory my kids and I will have together (yes, even at 34, my son is my kid). They are already making plans for next year-- "If civilization doesn't collapse before then..." (my son's words).

The next time you are presented with an opportunity to do something that's not something you'd normally consider, as long as it doesn't involve archation, do it. You probably need to have the experience.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon