“Explaining her potential move to Texas, Cervenka says, ‘I have tons of close friends in Austin, I love the music, I always have a magical time there.” She continues, “The other reason I’m moving, if the creek don’t rise, is that when I moved to California in 1976, Jerry Brown was governor. It was barefoot hippie girls, Hell’s Angels on the Sunset Strip, East L.A. lowriders, the ocean and nature. It was this fabulous incredible place about freedom. Now when I think about California, I think of a liberal oppressive police state and regulations and taxes and fees. I’d rather go someplace and have my own little place out on the edge of town. I’m a country girl at heart. It makes me happy when I see people in Texas open-carrying. It makes me feel safe. I’m not even a gun owner, but I’d like to see a gun rack in every pickup truck, like my boyfriend had when I was fifteen years old in Florida. An armed society is a polite society.'” Exene Cervenka quoted in X’s Exene Cervenka Cleans Out Her Closet [via rollingstone.com] [h/t SA]
HEY! Where’s the original post? Is this website thetruthabout spineless journalists?
It is true; the hippy love generation rebelling against authority, rebelling against the man; are now the oppressive ruling class. They became their parents X 100.
PS to Matt..I’m winning the comment count now!
I absolutely support Constitutional Carry (open or concealed, no permit necessary, carry anywhere). So much that I started Texas Firearms Freedom to try to help get us there. For anybody else who wants to help work toward this goal (or firearms freedom in general) and get more involved politically, check out our site and facebook page. We have training in locations around Texas coming up: https://www.facebook.com/events/1465326287020628/
Carry on!
I’m an old hippie. I hate violence. That’s why I carry a gun. It prevents violence (or, at least keeps it twenty or so feet away).
And no – not all of the kids in the sixties grew up to be leftist oppressors.
I realize I’m nearly a year late into this debate but I cannot resist responding to Alex.
Alex said: “The government can’t confiscate Bibles — or Qur’ans, or The Catcher in the Rye for that matter (or John Grisham novels, but hey let’s face it, the country might be better off) — because of the first amendment, in the same way that the government cannot confiscate guns because of the second amendment.”
I can’t help but read this as meaning that since we ‘might be better off’ if certain books were banned but they can’t be because of the 1A, then we ‘might be better off’ if guns were banned, but they can’t be because of the 2A, as if guns were a necessary evil. Disregarding the deplorable assertion that we as a society would be better off with more infringement of the rights described in the 1A, I believe this position reflects an attempt to reconcile civil liberties and the natural rights of the people with what the author perceives as a wholly negative situation; private ownership of firearms. I would refute that outright in light of the fact that for every study done there is either a decrease or at least no increase in violent crime associated with either the rate of firearms ownership or the lawful carry of firearms (keeping and bearing arms). Further, all evidence indicates that firearms are used in legitimate self defense at a rate so far exceeding their criminal use that any argument against the utility of civilian possession of arms cannot be based in fact. I would challenge the author to provide any evidence at all that we would be better off without guns as a society.
Alex said: “. . .but I feel like this whole narrative of the government actively, strategically working to disarm its citizens in order to be able to oppress them or institute a command economy or gather power unto itself is, well, baloney. It just seems paranoid and far outside the realm of reasonable probability to me — in the same way that it seems like the notion that I face a daily risk of being assaulted by multiple attackers seems overly paranoid and outside the realm of reasonable probability . . .”
Arguing that government at all levels does not, by degree, actively work to disarm its citizens is an absurdity and false on its face and so I will address the remainder of Alex’s statement instead;
The purpose(s) for which government works to disarm its citizens may not be clear. However since all evidence indicates that arms constitute a greater good for the citizenry, one has to wonder to what good end the government would attempt to disarm its citizens. That is, what legitimate concern of government could disarming the citizens serve in the demonstrated absence of social utility?
A review of the history of governments who have disarmed their citizens would suggest that what follows disarmament is tyranny and all too often genocide. Given the historical precedents and the utter lack of legitimate governmental motivations for civilian disarmament I submit that it isn’t paranoia but a fear of the most likely outcomes that suggests itself as the reason to fear civilian disarmament.
Furthermore it’s worth noting that ‘gather[ing] power unto itself’ is what governments do. I challenge the author to give an example of an established government voluntarily divesting itself of power absence intense pressure from outside of government.
The third part of Alex’s excerpted comment above regarding the likelihood of assault by multiple attackers is again a demonstration of the commenter’s inability to reconcile reality with his perceptions. On any given day many citizens are violently assaulted by multiple attackers. While there are riskier locations and behaviors no citizen can say with complete certainty that they will not be so attacked today. Given that house fire is a statistical improbability for any given person one could well say that possession of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers demonstrates a paranoia regarding fire. The decision to arm oneself against the statistically unlikely event of attack is perhaps an abundance of caution but cannot rise to the level of paranoia since a threat does exist and the consequences for ill preparedness (as with house fires) may be catastrophic.
Further the ‘multiple attackers’ inclusion seems to be an attempt to establish a strawman argument. I’ll explore this after the next quote:
Alex said: “The reason you need a gun instead of a taser or knife for self defense is that your attacker might have a gun. Well, if your attacker knows you have a gun, now he needs a BIGGER gun. And on it goes.”
This portion of the comment requires considerable deconstruction in order to clearly understand what is said and seems to be tied back to the use of ‘multiple attackers’.
First it implies that a TASER is a preferable weapon to a gun without giving any indication of why this might be. Given the TASERs questionable performance, limited range, poor capacity, very short lasting effect and ability to be defeated by something as mundane as a coat I submit that it is a grossly inferior weapon to a gun and as evidence note that among its most frequent users, police officers, it is considered a compliance weapon only and is not preferable to the gun when faced with a lethal threat, such as from a knife.
This segues into the next objection; that a knife is somehow less lethal than a gun in the way that a TASER is. According to the US DoJ, non-gun homicides averaged approximately 5,000 per year for the period of 1980-2000, while homicides by gun averaged approximately 7,500 (though the number declined so sharply over that period that by the year 2000 there were scarcely more gun homicides than non-gun. Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf)
Obviously non-gun weapons can be quite lethal and knives are certainly very lethal among non-gun weapons. To suggest that a TASER and a knife are somehow on the same level of lethal potential is to demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the operation of a TASER or else a failure to recognize the lethality of edged weapons, or both. This alone would seem to invalidate any conclusions drawn by the author regarding the nature of violent crime as the demonstrated lack of understanding of its dynamics would cast all further assertion in serious doubt as to their validity and accuracy.
However the author also asserts that “The reason you need a gun. . . is that your attacker might have a gun”. If any doubt remained, this statement alone would preclude any belief that the author is an authority on matters of violence and self defense. As the author himself asserted, one could face multiple attackers, in which case a gun would be the surest method of countering the threat. This however does nothing to address all the other reasons why one may need a gun other than ones attacker also having one. What if the intended victim is disabled, frail, caught off guard and injured in the opening seconds of the attack? What of the elderly, would we have them go knife to knife with a larger, more athletic and younger attacker who also has the advantage of surprise? What of women attacked by men, who statistically have an enormous advantage in both size and upper body strength?
There are so many variables in which a gun is the only truly effective means of defense from criminal attack that to suggest that it’s only necessary when ones attacker is similarly armed is not only false but again demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the realities of violent crime and self defense.
Finally, the author states that with the knowledge that the victim is armed with a gun the criminal must seek a ‘bigger gun’.
This statement is absurd in light of the fact that it ignores several more likely outcomes of a would-be attacker knowing that his intended victim is armed.
First it assumes that the criminal in question has access to a ‘bigger gun’ or in fact any gun at all at the time he intends to commit the crime. Secondly it assumes that the criminal is willing to use a gun to accomplish the goals of the crime AND that he is willing to engage in armed combat in furtherance of same. I submit that it is a rare criminal who is willing to knowingly engage in a gunfight to affect a mugging or an assault.
The statement also implies that the criminal has no option to choose not to commit the crime in light of his knowledge that his intended victim is armed and therefore must seek a greater disparity of force to affect the crime. This is quite obviously untrue and in fact all available statistics indicate the opposite, that a criminal, when faced with the prospect of an armed victim, does in fact choose not to attempt the crime on that victim even when he is similarly (or better) armed.
The statement assumes that all criminals are willing to escalate to murder or attempted murder in order to carry out their crime and this is also demonstrably untrue since the vast majority of criminals do not commit murder or attempted murder.
The statement further assumes that a ‘bigger gun’ creates the type of force disparity that leaves the citizen effective defenseless in the face of attack with such a weapon. I would argue that while disadvantaged by being attacked with a more capable gun the citizen is none-the-less still in a position to defend effectively being that they are still armed with a weapon that can incapacitate at range.
Finally this last statement presupposes an endless arms race between citizens and criminals which is unprecedented in all available data and though highly unlikely, would eventually result in the extinction of violent criminals even if it did exist.
The concept that since citizens have pistols criminals must attack with shotguns, resulting in citizens carrying rifles only to face criminals armed with machineguns and so forth is patently absurd and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of criminality and the current state of legislation and law enforcement couple to an astounding ignorance regarding crime statistics in those places where citizens are in fact armed with pistols (again I challenge the author to present any evidence to support his conclusions, it’s not as if we live in a vacuum where the concept of citizens carrying guns is an academic abstract). While in many locations citizens can openly carry long guns on their person the idea that criminals would adopt the same tactic is laughable in light of the fact that an important piece of their motivation is to avoid detection and that a large majority of violent offenders have previously been convicted of felonies and as such are barred from the legal possession of any gun. I would find it unlikely that convicted felons would take to openly carrying rifles. It also cycles back to the already debunked idea that criminals are largely willing to engage in gunfights in furtherance of their crimes.
I conclude that there is nothing of any substance in the comments Alex made and that moreover they constitute not a reasoned argument against civilian armament but rather a series of confused rationalizations that attempt to prop up an utterly failed position that civilians don’t really need or ought not to have guns. What more, I submit that his position was initially arrived at without either evidence or attempt at logically examining the topic but rather results from an uninformed and wholly emotional plea: ‘I don’t want to need a gun, thus no one should have guns.’
Unfortunately reasoned argument and presentation of hard fact has seldom proved effective in disabusing those who are emotional and irrational on any topic, and I conclude that it’s unlikely to be effective in this instance either.
The courts decision was “PROFFERED???” Interesting choice of word.
I want to see what Jerry could do with one of those fancy tac triggers you had on here awhile ago.
He did not call the cops because his BAL probably exceeded the legal driving limit so he was in a squeeze.
Impaired judgement seems to rear up when drunk.
As usual, I’m a day (or two) late and a dollar short, but here’s my Valentines entry:
http://rich_grise.tripod.com/LibertarianValentine.html
Strange, I haven’t seen this story in the business sections of The Times or WSJ ? Maybe they are waiting for the official announcement as responsible objective publications.
Cause if it ain’t in the NYT then it didn’t happen.
“campuses where there can be abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs.”
NO ONE thinks that the ABOVE is the REAL problem? Let’s start cracking down on illegal activities and leave people’s Constitutional Rights alone.
I have literally given up on New Jersey and am moving to Florida. I have a nicer gun collection than most but certainly not the best etc. All my firearms are of course NJ Compliant and I have suffered because of NJ, i.e. not been able to buy the guns I want nor been able to have commonly accepted features on the guns I do own because of where I live. I was a political science major many moons ago, I was nominated to the Naval Academy, I am very pro-USA and supportive of both police and government.
NJ is beyond hope. It is absolutely beyond hope. I believe our taxes are somewhere like $17K a year (FOR A TOWNHOUSE IN NJ). The laws are absolutely repressive and the politicians here work on some combination of Manifest Destiny and the Divine Right of Assemblymen/Senators. They just decide what they want and in guns, it’s all about deny deny deny, then confiscate confiscate confiscate. And they are NOT going anywhere, it’s going to be much much worse (and not get better.)
I am fleeing to Florida with my family, where my 30 acres in FL would cost a few million here, and I can enjoy my life, enjoy my Constitutionally protected and State upheld rights in peace and quiet, and I can watch NJ ridiculousness on the safe comfort of the information superhighway.
“Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so. ” Where sir in the Second Amendment are law enforcement, qualifications dangerous right mentioned? I believe it reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
The owners who did not register their evil tools are not practicing civil disobedience. They are merely delaying the individual mandate. Y’know, like Obama did.
I don’t need your amnesty Malloy, I am not a criminal. Only those who seek to subvert the Constitution need an amnesty. So perhaps offer yourself one?
If you’re going to worry about what people with tiny brains think you should start with the politicians.
I am not pro gun control but you guys are fucking stupid. You know Glen Beck is NOT pro gun control. By your stupid fucking logic every person including an infant should be able to carry a hand gun. Sure lets put a firearm in every inept unresponsible persons hand and see how many accidental discharges and shootings occur in the first year. You wanna give the gun grabbers fuel we should do this. Training come with the territory. That is the way it has been ever since the first weapon was used. Ever since the first fucking man the first time you picked up a weapon was to learn to use it responsibly. You guys a grasping at straws. fucking pathetic. No better then the far left asholes trying to take the guns.
Who gives a fk what those idiots think or say? Pablum spewers for the masses.
Unfortunately some people do care about what celebrities think(gossip magazine/blogs.) And admit it, we people of the gun almost always give kudos to any celeb that espouses our position.
I have to say I didn’t know who she was before I saw this.
Now that I have, I’m struggling to find a reason to care.
Remember, it was the celebrities that gave us Obama. The numbskulls do care what they think.
I have owned a HP C-9 for about three years. About a year ago I bought a Glock 26 for carry. Everytime I go visit my mother in the country I practice. The C-9 has never jammed or failed to fire. I shoot the cheapest ammo I can find. I did have to do some massive sight adjustments just to hit paper at 20 feet. I probably could have thrown the damn thing and hit my target sooner than with a bullet if it wasn’t so heavy. Then, I changed the rear sight to the ghost ring that came with the gun. Amazing difference. The C-9 is more accurate and will put more holes in the red with a 10 rd clip than the Glock will with 15. I never practice with targets over 30 feet. I have had FTE with the Glock, making me wary about having it as primary carry weapon. In fact, I now carry a Ruger LCP. I would rather have my $550 back that I paid for the Glock than the $169 that I paid for the Hi-Point.
She can sing, that’s what counts (you listening, Kanye West?), and her taste in music has certainly improved.
All she needs is the waft of a little gun smoke in the morning, that’ll fix her.
Pity nobody else came to her garage sale…
Ive been “approached” twice while pumping gas 1500 miles from Chicago. Both times I think my size and loud voice made the possible perps think twice about trying to jack me. Now that my state actually allows me to legally concealed carry, stand my ground and use deadly force, I dont have to use my size or voice as my only means of defense. Gas stations anywhere are prime targets especially at night or after hours when there is no attendant.
I love watching conspiracy theory shows and videos, they are a guilty pleasure. I find them to be very entertaining because they usually take a huge suspension of reality to be believable and stretch the facts to fit the narrative. (Sound familiar?) I think most shows on the History channel are templates. Take a template like “Ancient Aliens” or “Ancient Cultures” and then pick and choose your “facts” to create the 1 hour of entertainment. You can even use the exact same show minus mentioning Aliens and minus a few “experts”.
Is there some conspiracy to strip our guns from us? I doubt it, but there are a lot of individuals who think they are helping and saving the world with their individual or small group actions to ban most or all guns from civilian ownership. They are misguided or refuse to take an objective look at the facts and statistics.
Our issue is not that we care or not about what celebrities think. Our issue as a cause is that celebrities fill a role in Psychological Operations known as influencers. Right or wrong it is a fact. If you cannot accept the fact, seek therapy. If you can get an influencer to sell your idea to the group they influence you exert effort to win over one person but get many others. A simplistic way of illustrating force multiplication. Or in business, maximizing your return on investment.
We need to concentrate efforts on influencers in our culture. Even those we may not see eye to eye with on every subject. We may not even like them initially. But, as you get to know them, they may suprise you. Gain incremental ground in an organized fashion. United we can reverse the current course much faster than the opposition. Stand for freedom. Live values based lives without preaching. Accept others and their differences. Help others feel accepted. Go out your way to educate. Speak to values, not a specific religion or faith. Values are shared in society where religion cause derision. We need to help people think and reason for themselves. The rest will follow.
I recognize there will be a handful of people where this is a perfect solution, but I just can’t see where this would fit in for me personally. The old one seems appropriate for a single stack nine, but I fill that niche with a shield. If I wanted a 4″ barrel it’s not too much more to take a full on XD Service or my G19g4.