Armed Children

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 03 Nov 2002 13:00:00 GMT
From Quotes of the Day:
"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact." -- George Eliot

From samizdata:

"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." -- Frédéric Bastiat

From smith2004:

"Not only has John Ashcroft misplaced his copy of the Constitution, I'm not sure he ever read it." -- Tamara Millay

Arthur Hagen at a Usenet news group - Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? - The interesting part of this message is the list of British words and their American counterparts. Don't read if the "F"-word bothers you. Do read if you want to laugh out loud over some of the other "translations". Hahahahaha. In case it disappears there, Adriana Cronin copied it to Samizdata here. [samizdata]

Rosalind Bentley at The Star Tribune - More refuse to yield to road rules - an article about bad driving etiquitte, but I'm linking to it for the joke below: [samizdata]

State Patrol Lt. John Nagel knows a thing or two about that. He recalled a recent traffic safety demonstration he did for his 6-year-old niece's class. To reach his audience, Nagel used props. He pulled a red scarf from a hat.

"What does this mean?" he asked.

"Stop!" the kids yelled.

A green scarf was next.

"How about this one?" Nagel asked.


Then Nagel yanked out an amber scarf.

"OK, what does this mean?"

"Go faster!"

Said Nagel: "I turned to the teacher and said, 'Now I know how their parents drive.' "

Kim du Toit - Gratuitous Gun Pic for 11/02/2002 - Each day, Mr. du Toit, the inventor of National Ammo Day, prints a picture of a gun with some commentary. Yesterday, he covered my favorite rifle, the Springfield M1A.

Steven Yates at - The Two Antiwar Movements - the libertarians and the socialists. [lew]

The first antiwar movement opposes invading Iraq because its members really doubt that doing so is in this country's long-term best interests, or expresses our best ideals as a Constitutional republic. Their writings can be found on sites such as this one and They have no problem admitting that Saddam Hussein is a villain, but wonder what substantial evidence connects him to 9-11. They wonder why Osama bin Laden, who was Public Enemy #1 during the first few months after the 9-11 attacks, has simply dropped off the official radar screen. Saddam, moreover, owes a goodly portion of his little fiefdom to the U.S.; he was once our villain. The U.S. government backed him in his own nasty war with Iran.

Supposedly, Bush wants to attack Iraq because Saddam has -- or might have -- weapons of mass destruction. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. I don't know. Bush himself admitted to not knowing, "and that's the problem." China also has weapons of mass destruction. This we do know. Russia also has them. Nobody is proposing that we attack China. Or Russia. Nobody would. Both would hit back, and everybody knows it.


Oh yes. That other antiwar movement. The one the dominant media have been reporting on -- at least somewhat. While most of the first antiwar movement's activities have been limited to articles for their websites, the second has staged marches, allegedly a hundred thousand strong, with antiwar placards reading things like "Jobs Not War." Last weekend there were protests both in San Francisco and in Rome on the Potomac itself.

I want nothing to do with this antiwar movement. It seems clear that these people oppose warring with Iraq not because of sincere concern about this country's best interests and certainly not out of any Constitutionalist sentiment but because they hate this country and all it stands for. They hate Bush the Younger's administration not because of anything Bush has or hasn't done, but because he's Bush: a Republican, a mouthpiece for the rich who was "selected, not elected," and all that.

Nat G. Rudulph at Call to Decision Why America Lost the "Civil War" - some grusome facts about the very un-civil war and America's Lenin's response to and responsibility for it. [lew]

Mitch Tobin at The Arizona Daily Star - Killer sends 22-page letter to publisher - Robert Stewart Flores Jr., who last Monday killed three nursing professors and himself, sent a long letter about it to the Daily Star. A look into the mind of a man pushed past his breaking point. [lew]

Eric Raymond at Armed and Dangerous - Armed children - a good exploration of when it is OK for children to be armed.

It's worth bearing in mind that most decisions about using a firearm in self-defense are pretty simple. They don't tend to involve complicated ethical abstractions -- the relevant question is usually "Am I or a defenseless person I am responsible for in imminent danger of being assaulted, abducted or killed?" If the answer is no, you don't even draw your weapon.

Of course, the capacity to make those judgments varies from child to child. I have known intelligent, precocious children as young as eight years old who I would sooner trust with my .45 than, say, an adult alcoholic with an impulse-control problem. In fact, I wouldn't consider most adult pro-gun-control voters as trustworthy as the children I have in mind; people who project fear of their own behavior with weapons onto others make that spot between my shoulderblades itch.

At the other extreme, it's pretty obvious that pre-verbal children don't have the apparatus to make even the simplest ethical decisions about lethal force. They don't know enough about the world yet. The standard models of childhood development tell me the same thing as my experience of real kids; the on average, possibility of ethical competence sufficient for self-defense decisions opens up at around twelve years old. It is not invariably present at that age, but the possibility deserves to be taken seriously.

Al Barger at Culpepper Log - Happy birthday, sleazeball! - birthday greetings to one of America's freedom fighters, Larry Flint. [culpepperlog]

However, Larry Flynt deserves substantial credit for advancing and protecting our freedom. He has been a hero and near martyr for the First Ammendment. In his own self-interested way, he's done more to promote and protect vigorous free speech than, for example, the worthless blowhard Walter Cronkite. Whereas the most trusted man in America worked tirelessly to sell the cheapest corporate liberal worldview, and block the expression of any other, Flynt was just doing his own sleazy thing, and running roughshod over any judges or do-gooders who tried to stop him.

You May Be Next! is covering the patent lawsuits being filed by Pangea Intellectual Properties against "infringers" of patents which they claim cover basically any electronic commerce application. Slime-sucking low-life sub-human lawyers! May they choke on their own bile. [pournelle]

"Lazarus" at - "Rights" vs/ Public Safety? - very good piece. A right that can be interpreted by the government is not a right.

A Well Regulated Militia is "the only interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Unorganized Militia." Suggested gear, militia contacts, links, and discussion forums.

Mike W. Smith at - Well How About That... - time to stiffen our spines. [firearmnews]

Now the media is attacking the Firearm Company that supposedly sold the weapon to these mass murderers. This just adds to the irresponsibility of the media, and it's vile socialist agenda. Lets see, if I sold a car to some deranged person, without the foreknowledge that they were deranged, and he or she used that car to intentionally kill as many people as they could, would I be responsible for selling them that car?


We are poised to lose the Second Amendment. When this finally happens, and I believe it will happen very quickly when it goes from this point on, we will have given up and surrendered ourselves to the same dictators and tyrants that have held positions of power from the earliest recorded times of history.

Add comment Edit post Add post