comments from L. Neil Smith, struck me as interesting

[alan]

Catch Twenty-Three

by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, here's a little scruples quiz for you ...
Imagine you're a fireman in a small town where you know everybody. You rush into a burning hotel, and there, unconscious on the floor of one of the rooms lie a pair of people you know to be a politician and a prostitute. You're by yourself, and you can only rescue one of the two.

Question: which one do you save?

Hint #1: one the two potential rescuees works long, hard hours and faces a great many dangers, to support herself by providing a service that, while it is illegal, some individuals in our culture want and are perfectly willing to pay her for. Hers is sometimes called "the world's oldest profession". What she does for her customers may only last for a moment, but in some cases it's the only moment of happiness and comfort they will ever know. She may even pay her bills promptly and in full and collect no welfare or any other sort of government handout.

Hint #2: the other person lying on the floor may never have earned an honest dollar in his life. He survives -- more handsomely than most of us -- by having money stolen from his neighbors by armed thugs. He talks a great deal -- especially whenever there are television cameras pointed at him -- about helping people, but in the final analysis, his only real thoughts are focused on extracting even more money from his neighbors, and extending his employment past the next election. It has become a folk-saying that you can tell he's lying because his mouth is moving.

Which one do you save?

Obvious: save the prostitute.

This question arose because, during any election season, a lot of comparisons are invariably made between politicians and "ladies of the evening". Some individuals with different values than mine might call me a square, I suppose, but I have never sought nor ever employed the services offered by the latter. Knowing history and human nature as I do, however, especially the history and nature of politicians -- and keeping in mind all of the tragedy, destruction, wastage, and death for which even the least of their ilk is historically responsible -- I have always believed that such comparisons were a grave insult to prostitutes.

Consider: did a prostitute ever show up on your doorstep demanding that you fork over a significant fraction of your income, whether you want her services or not? Did she have an entire bureaucracy of goons to threaten you and make sure you pay up? Has a prostitute ever thrown you into prison or stolen your house or car because you wouldn't pay her?

Has a prostitute ever told you what religion to practice or how to practice it? Has she ever threatened to censor you or punish you for something you wrote or said? Has she ever shut down a single newspaper or radio or TV station? Has she ever demanded that you purchase a license from her to hold a meeting or a march, or put you on a list of suspected terrorists just because you wrote her a letter she didn't like?

Politicians do that sort of thing all the time.

Probably more to the point here, did a prostitute ever promise you that your individual right to own and carry weapons would be just short of sacred -- and then spend the next two hundred years trying one different dirty scam after another to strip you of that "sacred" right?

Perhaps you believe I exaggerate. Let's look at just a tiny slice of history. In 1934, the socialist Franklin Roosevelt Administration, using "gangsters" as a boogie-man to frighten gullible idiots exactly the same way "communists" were used by politicians in the 1950s and George Bush is using "Islamofascistic terrorists" today, violated the highest law of the land by banning -- indirectly, at first, through the application of confiscatory taxes -- certain weapons it didn't like.

Interestingly, many of these weapons -- machineguns, and shortened shotguns and rifles -- were the very weapons most useful in resisting illegitimate authority. Banning them was probably a pretty good idea for an authoritarin regime that planned to steal people's livestock and crops (and destroy them in order to increase their scarcity and therefore their market price) along with every scrap of gold they possessed.

In 1939, the federal gun law was tested before a Supreme Court ill-prepared to understand the issues. By the time the case -- which involved a shotgun that was too short under the new law -- actually got to them, the defendant was dead and his lawyer apparently didn't even mount a defense on principle. The court ruled that only military weapons (presumably capable of overthrowing an illegitimate regime) were protected by the Bill of Rights, and that a sawed-off shotgun not being a military weapon, its possession by the defendant was therefore illegal.

Go to: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm

There were lots of things wrong with that ruling. Nobody came down on a flaming pie to tell the Supremes that the Second Amendment only protects military weapons. It may be the notion that gave rise to the myth that only states' rights states are protected by the article in question.

And what about the part of the law that banned machinguns? Even the idiots on the Supreme Court must have known they had military applications.

Another problem: this ruling was arrived at only twenty years after the end of the First World War, and Supreme Court justices tend to be Old Guys. Apparently they were the sort of chickenhawks that run the government now, and found various alternatives to defending their country "Over There", since none of them seem to have been aware that short-barrelled shotguns -- called "trench brooms" -- played such an important role in that war that the Germans complained bitterly about them.

But the point was made: the Second Amendment protects military weapons. So why is it that the politicians and media hacks in the victim disarmament camp today have been whimpering for at least the past couple of decades that the black ugly guns they can't stand the sight of and want to outlaw -- mostly the Second-Amendment-friendly items I am learning to call "sport-utility rifles" -- are "weapons of war"?

Banned if they're not military, banned if they are military.

Let's call it "Catch Twenty-three".

Could it be because, lacking the scruples of a common prostitute, to which they are so frequently and unjustly compared, politicians will exploit any excuse at all -- reason, logic, or established legal principles be damned -- to get what they want, which is you and me, helpless?

Could it? --

[Pat H]

Another outstanding essay by L. Neil Smith, gotta love him.

His books are a good read as well.

Recommended:
1. The Probability Broach
2. The American Zone (sequel to the above)
3. Pallas

[cool hand luke 22:36]

More alarmist, paranoid crapola from L. Neil Smith.

Let's look at just a tiny slice of history. In 1934, the socialist Franklin Roosevelt Administration, using "gangsters" as a boogie-man to frighten gullible idiots exactly the same way "communists" were used by politicians in the 1950s and George Bush is using "Islamofascistic terrorists" today

I guess the author missed class the day that they discussed the Rosenbergs, and has been sailing offshore since September 10, 2001.

[Fremmer]

So this guy is from JPFO? That's too bad. He makes JPFO sound just as nutty as the GOA. This is the kind of stuff that makes me appreciate the NRA. At least the NRA doesn't write weird revisionist-history essays. About prostitutes.

He does sound like he knows a lot about prostitutes, though. I'll give him that.

[Pat H]

Fremmer, why don't you and Luke up there, comment on the content of the essay?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Fremmer

At least the NRA doesn't write weird revisionist-history essays.

OK. I'm gonna call ya on this one. What parts of the above are revisionist history. Not the literary license he takes on some of it, but the actual revisionism.

[SteelCore]

Superb essay. I fully agree that, with some exceptions, a prostitute is more honorable than a politician.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is only one credible threat to the freedom of Americans, and that is the US government at all levels. Only the government makes and enforces laws that are intended to limit the freedom of Americans. As bad as Saddam and Osama were, neither of them has ever passed or enforced a single gun control law in the United States.

Common criminals pose a threat to our safety. Al Qaeda does too (albeit a tiny one in comparison with common criminals and other mundane dangers). Other nations, such as China, could one day do us harm. But when it comes to our freedom, the US government is the one and only serious threat at this time.

Interestingly, many of these weapons -- machineguns, and shortened shotguns and rifles -- were the very weapons most useful in resisting illegitimate authority.

I don't believe these weapons are really indispensable for resisting tyranny. Full-auto is greatly overrated IMO, and I'll take a 16-20" rifle barrel over an 11" any day. But the message these bans send is very offensive. And if Americans allow semi-autos to go the way of full-autos, then it's game over. If we make that compromise, then we don't deserve the Second Amendment anyway.

[Fremmer]

What parts of the above are revisionist history.

In 1934, the socialist Franklin Roosevelt Administration

using "gangsters" as a boogie-man to frighten gullible idiots

the same way "communists" were used by politicians in the 1950s and George Bush is using "Islamofascistic terrorists" today

I must be wrong about the revisionist part. Because organized crime was not using fully automatic weapons to commit crime and to kill police officers. And there were no communists in the 1950s. And there are no crazy islamic nutballs who like to blow up buildings and as many innocent civilians as they can. It was all fake. The Mob was actually using muskets, the Soviet Union was actually a freedom-loving government, and all of the people who've been blown up by planes and by suicide bombers, well, that stuff is all made up, too.

[Pat H]

I must be wrong about the revisionist part. Because organized crime was not using fully automatic weapons to commit crime and to kill police officers.

Yes, you are wrong. In fact, by 1934, the fact that prohibition had mostly ended two years earlier, was seeing a marked reduction in gang murders nationwide. A precipitous drop. So the use of the propaganda that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was to be used against gangsters who killed law enforcement with automatic weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns was a lie.

And there were no communists in the 1950s.

The Communist Party of the USA was a hollow shell of what it had been in the 1930's by the 1950's, most Americans were on to them, and they were not threat to America at all. They were used, however, all through the 1950's and 1960's by the US government to enable huge military expenditures for weapons systems that weren't needed and enabled the Soviet Union keep its citizenry frightened and cowed as well.

And there are no crazy islamic nutballs who like to blow up buildings and as many innocent civilians as they can. It was all fake. The Mob was actually using muskets, the Soviet Union was actually a freedom-loving government, and all of the people who've been blown up by planes and by suicide bombers, well, that stuff is all made up, too.

The attacks on September 11th, 2001 were enabled by government incompetence and hubris. The attackers were mobilized by the enormous blowback from US government meddling in the middle east for over 60 years and unrestricted aid to Israel.

L. Neil Smith was spot on in his essay. He usually is. Here's his archive of Lever Action Essays.

[Garand Illusion]

Let's take a SANE look at the 2 people on the floor:

One is a woman of unknown history who has chosen a life of crime, breaking laws set in place by her community for the good of the community. Chances are she has spread around many diseases, and very possibly a deadly one; people may have died because of her work. Working as a criminal in a criminal organization a large percentage of the money she works goes to violent people who do nothing for our society but make our streets less safe. Her income enables them. Anywhere she chooses to work is immediately devalued and becomes a place a respectable person would not want to be. By feeding the weaker instincts of some men she has broken up families. Confused young men, looking for their first experience with love, have come to her believing she has something to offer them. As a result their first experience with sex was with a woman who stank of the streets, cared nothing for them or what they got out of it, and as a result their views of women, sex and love are forever corrupted.

The other is a person who has devoted his life to public service. Many in his professional are known to be corrupt; whether he is or not we can't know by just looking at him. What we do know is that it is his profession that keeps us all going. It is thanks to him that we have the finest infrastructure in the world; fine quality roads, an excellent school system, police and fire. It may have been his office that helped a wounded vet sort out issues with the VA. He may have cast the deciding vote that enabled shall issue CCW, or stopped an anti-gun measure from passing. It is his class that keeps us from sliding back into tyranny.

So the question is ... which would you save?

The filthy whore who spreads disease, crime, corruption, violence and threatens the very fiber of our culture? Or the politician who works in a noble field and at least has the potential (as do all of us who are NOT criminals) to do great good. Or great harm.

[Fremmer]

I don't know that any part of the essay is "sane." I'm just glad the guy's not a firefighter.

Argue about history? No thanks. I'll just get a million links to more revisionist history and "blowback" articles. We could argue forever about communists, organized crime, and terrorists, and none of it would change anything that is happening now.

[kjm]

I'd save the prostitute. I may some day be glad I did, but I certainly wouldn't be glad I saved the guy who jacked up my taxes and took my guns away.

[Garand Illusion]

I'd save the prostitute. I may some day be glad I did, but I certainly wouldn't be glad I saved the guy who jacked up my taxes and took my guns away.

Politicians raise taxes. They also lower taxes. We need politicians and taxes to have government, and we need government to not live in anarchy -- whether you believe in strictly local government or world government, there are too many people not to have government of some kind.

Why would you someday be glad you saved the prostitute? Last chance to avoid dying a virgin? (j/k)

Seriously ... we need less prostitutes and more honorable politicians. I realize the latter is in radically short supply, and always has been, and many bad one have corrupted things ... but only good ones will fix things.

Perhaps my views are tainted by the fact that I've never had to go to prostitutes so I see them only as a drag on civilized society. YMMV.

[kjm]

I think we need more prostitutes than politicians. I've seen very few honorable politicians... If we could reduce the politicians, the prostitution would take care of itself.

[Garand Illusion]

For all comments above, BTW, my assumption is that this is your streetwalking prostitute in an area where prostitution is illegal -- like most places in the U.S.

If this is in Nevada and the woman is a legal worker ... though I think it's sad she's chosen this line of work, obviously she's not the drain on society I said or doing anything inherently illegal. In that case if I knew the background of the politician to be a negative one I would save the prostitute.

[Let it Bleed]

If the author was seeking to write a hackneyed article replete with hyperbole that presents a disingenuous moral dilemma, then I suppose he did an excellent job.

[SteelCore]

No one is saying that prostitution is good -- though it should be legal, since adults own their own bodies and have the natural right to do as they wish with them.

So the question is ... which would you save?

The filthy whore who spreads disease, crime, corruption, violence and threatens the very fiber of our culture? Or the politician who works in a noble field and at least has the potential (as do all of us who are NOT criminals) to do great good. Or great harm.

Politics is a noble field?! LOL

No prostitute has ever done the least bit of harm to me or my freedom. I have nothing to do with them, and they have nothing to do with me.

Politicians are in almost universal agreement that my natural rights, and my legal rights under the Constitution, should be limited beyond what is necessary to have a functioning society. They spend my taxes on things that don't benefit me or my countrymen in any way. They seek power over me and ego gratification. Sure, they'll tell you it's all about "public service," but what do you expect them to say?

Nothing insane about it. Better to save one prostitute than 100 politicians of the ilk in Washington today.

If this is in Nevada and the woman is a legal worker ... though I think it's sad she's chosen this line of work, obviously she's not the drain on society I said or doing anything inherently illegal. In that case if I knew the background of the politician to be a negative one I would save the prostitute.

Why does it make a difference whether it's illegal or not? The harm or lack thereof is the same either way.

Just because something is "the law," that doesn't make it right. Laws are made by men to control other men. The human beings who make them are entirely fallible and often stupid and/or corrupt. Therefore, laws can range from perfectly reasonable to idiotic and tyrannical. If someone breaks one of the latter kind of laws, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. In many cases, it's downright admirable to break the law (though I wouldn't place prostitution in that category).

Yes, prostitutes can spread disease. But adults are old enough to decide what risks they wish to take. If someone remains in a monogamous relationship, then he has no need to worry about catching a disease from a prostitute.

[Let it Bleed]

What if it were Ron Paul?

[Fremmer]

I don't care whether Ron Paul is a prostitute; he still deserves to be saved by the firefighter.

[SteelCore]

Let it Bleed: I did say "with some exceptions" in my first post.

Ron Paul's not the only exception. There are other politicians whom I think are okay (Bob Barr comes to mind). But for the most part, I view them as power-hungry opportunists and domestic enemies of the Constitution who repeatedly fool a gullible public into voting for them.

[Let it Bleed]

I don't care whether Ron Paul is a prostitute; he still deserves to be saved by the firefighter.

That's funny on several levels.

Let it Bleed: I did say "with some exceptions" in my first post.

That is my point.

[Fremmer]

Glad you appreciated my juvenile attempt at humor, Let.

Just to be clear: I was just kiddin', RP folks. Ron Paul is most certainly a politician, and I know that darn well. Like I said, just kidding around!!!

Besides, Ron Paul would be one friggin' ugly prostitute.

[Pat H]

Let's take a SANE look at the 2 people on the floor:

One is a woman of unknown history who has chosen a life of crime, breaking laws set in place by her community for the good of the community. Chances are she has spread around many diseases, and very possibly a deadly one; people may have died because of her work. Working as a criminal in a criminal organization a large percentage of the money she works goes to violent people who do nothing for our society but make our streets less safe. Her income enables them. Anywhere she chooses to work is immediately devalued and becomes a place a respectable person would not want to be. By feeding the weaker instincts of some men she has broken up families. Confused young men, looking for their first experience with love, have come to her believing she has something to offer them. As a result their first experience with sex was with a woman who stank of the streets, cared nothing for them or what they got out of it, and as a result their views of women, sex and love are forever corrupted.

The other is a person who has devoted his life to public service. Many in his professional are known to be corrupt; whether he is or not we can't know by just looking at him. What we do know is that it is his profession that keeps us all going. It is thanks to him that we have the finest infrastructure in the world; fine quality roads, an excellent school system, police and fire. It may have been his office that helped a wounded vet sort out issues with the VA. He may have cast the deciding vote that enabled shall issue CCW, or stopped an anti-gun measure from passing. It is his class that keeps us from sliding back into tyranny.

So the question is ... which would you save?

The filthy whore who spreads disease, crime, corruption, violence and threatens the very fiber of our culture? Or the politician who works in a noble field and at least has the potential (as do all of us who are NOT criminals) to do great good. Or great harm.

Sorry, the whore gets saved again. Politics isn't a noble field and never has been. It's not public service, it's servicing the public. Particularly since I, and most others, know that it was the politician who made prostitution illegal in the first place, making it difficult for her to get medical assistance to treat any condition she may have.