The Fluffy Puppies and Prancing Kittens Act

Does giving oppressive new laws pink, fuzzy names really fool anybody? Seriously?

SB 53 is one of seven “gun violence” bills approved on Wednesday. Together, the seven Democrat-sponsored bills are known as the “Lifesaving Intelligent Firearms Enforcement Act,” dubbed the LIFE Act.

I must not tell lies...

I must not tell lies…

H/T to PoL.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Fluffy Puppies and Prancing Kittens Act

  1. Those who wish to be fooled would believe it if their betters said they’d make the sun rise in the west tomorrow. (They’d do this, of course, simply by issuing an Officious Statement that east is west, and west is east*, and of course prosecuting anyone who complains.) There seem to be a depressing lot of folks fitting this description, including many who are otherwise quite intelligent.

    Personally, my own definition of “lifesaving firearm” is pretty restrictive. It’s the one I have on me at the exact moment I need to save my life. (By that literal definition, I have owned three. One of those I still wear frequently, another has been replaced by a more efficient design, and the third–the only one I actually had to fire to extricate myself from trouble**–I traded long ago, again for greater efficiency.)

    Now the definition does have some nuance, since the need to save my life doesn’t come up very often, and I certainly think of whatever I’m currently wearing as a potentially “lifesaving firearm”.

    But, card-carrying members of the Order of the Authoritarian Jackass please take note, the definition itself is not negotiable. I don’t expect you to share it, even though I suspect that my definition and rationale is a great deal more morally defensible than yours, and I wouldn’t dream of enforcing it upon you. (You may note that this latter statement is an excellent summary of what separates us in the first place.)

    My definition, of course, outwardly reflects upon me, and I’m responsible for it: that’s what makes it mine. Yours, similarly, is solely yours, and as long as you’re willing to accept the outward reflection upon you, it can be anything you like. This is what makes reputations, after all.

    You seem to think you will do best by winning over the credulous and attacking the skeptical by using “the political means”. Very well then, duly noted. You may well get what you ask for, since there are a whole lot of the credulous, you seem impressed by numbers, and the political mob you compete to wield certainly has a demonstrable shitload of enforcement hardware at its disposal.

    Whether what you ask for and what you want are the same thing…well, I’m sure you’ve thought that through with just the same analytical facility that brought us the “LIFE Act”.

    _________________
    * Then, of course, the related tax-farming ideas will start to roll in. They could similarly switch “north” and “south”, and then fine people whose toilets don’t swirl the water the right way.

    ** The trouble in this case was a pack of feral dogs trying to get into the SW Texas deer blind I was in, well before first light. I was young and very shaken, but still managed to hit one, on which the others turned, then left before the car came. It was this episode that convinced me to have a pistol and a flashlight on at all times while hunting; trying to connect in the darkness using a traditionally-scoped bolt rifle in one hand and a Mini-Maglight in the other is not easy, and despite being as careful as I was capable of at the time, two shots went into the ground before I hit. I’d do a million things differently now, of course, but the value of the one-hand gun was pretty firmly stamped on my brain that day.

  2. MamaLiberty says:

    “the value of the one-hand gun…”

    Indeed… and the only reason I stopped carrying the .45. I could not control it with just one hand. 🙂 A solid hit (or more) with the 9mm I now carry is far better than any number of misses with the .45.

  3. Joel says:

    That’s funny. One reason I switched from a .45 to a revolver is that dangerous things I’ve shot with a .45 in the desert didn’t always seem sufficiently impressed. I wanted a cartridge that held more powder, and an action that would function dependably with flying-ashtray hollowpoints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *