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

For "safety"!

A "law" to keep people safe isn't even an option. Any attempt will have the opposite effect.

That's why anyone demanding legislation to keep kids safe from guns is working against what they claim to want. 

Any legislation to protect Supreme Courtjesters from their victims will do nothing for their actual safety.

You can hope and wish the opposite were true, but it doesn't make it true.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Neither side correct on court leak

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 11, 2022)

The recent Supreme Court leak is all over the media. People on both sides feel compelled to speak out loudly and passionately for whichever side they support. There is no debate; just a fight. For days it was as though hyperbole had become America's official language.

I even allowed myself to be drawn in. Getting involved didn't improve my life in any way. Engaging with this subject makes me miserable, like sticking a nine-volt battery to my tongue (please don't do that!).

This is the one topic, which everyone is talking about, where I don't like either side-- even the side I might be inclined to agree with otherwise.

Every person who commented on the issue made me dislike their side more than I disliked it before they weighed in. There aren't many topics which have this effect on me. Yet, this specific issue has affected me in this way throughout my entire life. I dislike both sides of the fight more than I can express.

Neither side seems honest; both are emotionally manipulative and ignore the scientific method in picking sides. Or, I should say, they cherry-pick through science to find things to bolster the side they've already decided to support, based on their other beliefs.

Very few people avoided becoming the enemy of the side they were trying to promote.

Even many individual libertarians were passionate about opposite sides. So much so that it felt as though they, too, were trying hard to push me away from agreeing with them.

Wanting government to step in and force your opinion-- through legislation and enforcement-- on others who do not share your opinion is an authoritarian approach. It is anti-social and thus anti-libertarian. No matter what your justifications are.

Libertarians aren't always able to be put into one of the tidy boxes made to hold public opinion. Most of those boxes are labeled "Republican" or "Democrat", "Left" or "Right", "Conservative" or "Liberal". Often one box is more correct than the other paired box, but too often both completely miss the point. That's when you need the ability to rise above the boxes to see inside both, find the few gems in each box and discard the rest of the garbage. This is the advantage libertarians usually enjoy. For this to work, though, there needs to be something worthwhile in the boxes. Sometimes, there is nothing there.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The needs and wants of the state

Government supremacists imagine that the needs and wants of the state-- order, democracy, legislation, "safety", control, etc.-- outrank liberty.

They couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Someday the survivors will understand just how wrong they were.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Welcome, ALL responsible gun owners

I can hardly believe how many times over the past week or so I've seen some anti-gun bigot claim "Let black and brown people start arming up and you'll see gun control [sic] tomorrow".

I shouldn't be surprised that a bigot is bigoted in multiple ways. But it's still shocking to see it expressed so openly.

The discussion never goes the way they imagine it will, though. They are very slow learners, which is why they still advocate for anti-gun legislation. The gun owners who welcome new (or old) gun owners of every type absolutely swamp the comments, and the anti-gun bigot usually goes silent quickly.

That's because most gun owners want more gun owners. They don't want to be an exclusive club. They don't really care who joins them in becoming self-responsible. They only mind if someone is arming up to commit crime and mayhem. And a few gun owners would actually probably welcome that, too. Finally allow everyone to "drop the charade" or some such thing.

I've been around gun owners of every skin color and ethnicity. The only two I was a bit worried about (due to their lack of safe gun handling skills and resistance to education) were both "white".

There has literally never been a time that I thought "if [black/brown/whatever] people started doing X, then the legislation I want would suddenly be supported by those who don't support it now!"

Are we even the same species?

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

 

Helplessness isn't something to be proud of

Does it seem like many people today see their own helplessness as a badge of honor? Maybe as a sign of how modern and sophisticated they are? In today's world, if they need something done they'll just call someone else to help.

And it's not just about guns.

I saw where someone had asked people if they carry a knife, and how often they use it if they do. So many people responded that they don't (or claimed they can't) carry one. That they never need one anyway. That they can ask someone else to use a knife if they need to.

There was no awareness that they were depending on others for a common task they should be taking care of themselves. In fact, those who questioned why anyone would ever need a knife seemed to think they were more evolved since they didn't need such crude things as a knife on their person.

Yet, even they often admitted they had to ask someone else to open things for them with a knife. Why not just be responsible and carry your own tool? Why outsource it?

Is it partly because so many have been fooled into seeing knives as only weapons? Believing the government lie that weapons are "not nice" and good people don't carry them (unless you are doing so as part of your government "job")? That you should "leave it to the professionals"?

Doing a little mental inventory, I think I'm currently carrying five knives. And I'm not wearing anything I don't wear every day. Of those five knives, two get used constantly; one is used several times every day and the other at least once per day. The others include two on my hobo tools and a SOG key knife on my keychain. 

I can't even imagine the inconvenience of not having a knife on me when I need it. I even have one clipped in my pajama pocket at night.

On a bit of a tangent-- I've learned to never lend a knife to anyone. The times I did that resulted in broken blade tips since so many people think of a knife when they need a crow bar. My dad included, as my mom's kitchen knives can attest. If you need something cut, ask me to cut it. If you need something pried, I might be able to help with that, too. But I'll not be handing you my knife.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

A typical exchange with an anti-gunner

Here's what one type of typical exchange with an anti-gunner looks like.

"Owning a gun isn't a natural human right."

Yes, it is. Self-defense (and possessing the proper tools to exercise it effectively) is the most fundamental human right there is.

"If guns were only used in self-defense, I would agree."

There is nothing in the world that is ONLY used for good. If good people give up their guns, you've eliminated all the benefit.

"Every other country in the world disagrees."

Did no one ever ask you "If all your friends jump off a cliff, will you do it, too?" Following "everyone else" is often the dumbest possible thing you can do.

"But I have the right to not be shot."

Yes. And it's your responsibility to exercise your right of self-defense to try to make sure it doesn't happen. Maybe even help others also not get shot. No one has the right to shoot you as long as you aren't violating anyone, but that's what makes a bad guy a bad guy: they do things they have no right to do (like shoot you or make up legislation) and violate you in the process. It is your responsibility to prevent them from doing so. If you refuse to take responsibility, don't blame others when you face consequences you don't like.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

Medical update-- I'm a mystery

Yesterday I went for my follow-up appointment. (To catch up: link and link)

I apparently don't have the benign syndrome I was hoping for, since the battery of tests found another issue that is underlying the problem they originally found. However, I have none of the risk factors that typically cause that issue, so they took more blood to look for an auto-immune disorder or something.

I'm a medical mystery. Again. Which now makes me wonder whether the Rat Bite Fever I suffered 25+ years ago might be somehow related. Maybe I should mention that to the doctor... if I haven't.

Anyway, the doc claims she'll call me in a week with the results, and I have another appointment in early/mid-July. I hope I can still afford the 12.5 gallons of gasoline it takes to get to the appointment and back by that time. Otherwise, I might be inclined to just let it go.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

The real reason behind the anti-gun frenzy?

Why do you suppose government is trying so hard now to get your guns these days? It's not for the reason they are using as an excuse.

Government knows a collapse is coming (probably because they are causing it). They don't want desperate people to be armed. Not because they might shoot each other-- although that's the excuse they'll use. They just don't want anyone to shoot them. 

They sure don't want anyone who would refuse to comply with all their "emergency policies" to be armed. That would make it so much harder and more dangerous to corral, brand, and sell the human cattle.

They-- the authoritarians of the State-- are and always have been the Ancestral Enemies and they are afraid that what they've earned will be paid in full.

The right to own and to carry arms-- of every kind-- has never been more essential for you to exercise than it is right now.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

They are lying. It's not about safety.

The fastest way to show the world that you're a gullible idiot: advocate for "gun control".
The fastest way to show you're also dishonest: call it "gun safety". 

Gun safety is important. Critical even. The best way to ensure it is to follow the gun safety rules that have been understood for centuries. Sending armed goons to steal people's guns isn't safe for anyone. In fact, I hope it is completely unsafe for the goons and I hope they all die in the attempt.

If-- as mentally declining anti-gun bigot Joe Biden claims-- the 9mm is a "weapon of war", then it's essential to have them when he has declared war on you. 

However...

Anything is a weapon of war when someone declares war on you. You use what you have. I'd rather have something a lot more destructive than 9mm bullets out of a pistol if I'm in a war. But that's just another lie from the anti-gun bigots. 

It's informative that anti-gun bigots have to lie to advance their agenda. The truth isn't on their side, and it looks like they know it.

Even if guns aren't safe, and banning them would save (net) lives, liberty trumps even life, every time.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

Musk may help end liberal narrative

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 4, 2022)

My Twitter account was shut down during the dark days of censorship, but I made a new account a month or so ago. Just in time to see all the fun and drama over Elon Musk's buyout of the platform.

The celebrations on multiple sides, and the meltdowns on one side, were entertaining. The melodramatic handwringing-- over fears of Musk doing to "their side" what they've supported doing to everyone else for years-- was great comedy.

Elon Musk became their new Donald Trump.

Modern so-called liberals have turned on one of their own because he still values the formerly liberal cause of free speech. What a mixed up world. This is how you know they aren't liberals anymore.

"Liberal" is supposed to mean open and generous. They are the opposite. They are authoritarians, just like the worst of the "conservatives".

Musk has warned everyone that he's not a conservative and will do things which anger conservatives. He explained that he only seems conservative now because the leftists moved so far left while he stood his ground. This left him closer to conservatives than to his former allies.

In some ways, Elon Musk leans libertarian. Not in enough ways, though. He's still better in this regard than most famous people, even many who call themselves "libertarian", but he has a long way to go.

Elon could be a libertarian if he'd stop pandering to the state-- to political government and the politicians who dwell within it. I get it, though. To run a successful business-- or three or four-- there are things you have to do to keep from being violently shut down, robbed blind, and caged by armed legislation enforcers and other government agents. He plays the dangerous game because it's how he stays in business. It's part of the reason he's a multi-billionaire and I'm not.

There's a twisted side of me, of which I'm not proud, which loves seeing the people who have relied on censorship and bullying to keep the opposition in check watching as their control of the narrative slips away. They may get it back-- I hope not.

I despise censorship of any kind, so I don't want them censored or bullied, either. I want their narrative exposed to the light of day so everyone can see how thin and worn it is. I want it to rip to pieces, and it looks like Elon Musk might just help this happen.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Rights or power?

Government-supremacists would like you to believe there's no such thing as rights, inalienable or otherwise. Only power. 

Scott Adams recently made this argument again on his podcast. As I've said before, when he's right he's right and when he's wrong it's because of government-supremacism.

Because if that's the case, on what basis would he criticize Hitler? He did what he had the power to do. If there are no rights to violate, he did nothing wrong. 

Which is part of the reason I recognize and respect rights. 

Even when someone has the power to violate rights and get away with it (at least temporarily), like Hitler, Trump, Trudeau, and Biden, those rights still exist unchanged. Either political criminals are right in everything they do because there are no rights to be violated and they are just doing what they have the power to do, or government supremacists are wrong.

If someone says rights don't exist, it's probably because they want government to do things that would obviously violate someone's rights (like anti-gun legislation) but they don't want to feel like they are the bad guy.

Government does have the power to violate rights. This invalidates the argument that government is necessary or good, not the concept of rights. Without rights, try to have a functioning society.

If power is all that matters, then government needs to have its power taken away. All of it.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

A glimpse into the inclusive future

I just got back from a trip into the future, timed so I got back only a second after I left so I wouldn't be missed.

Anyway, I got a sneak peek at the future "pride" flag. 

Quite a sight, isn't it.

Actually, they had tried to level up the inclusivity even more, but from a distance, it just looked white and the w0kies balked at flying a white flag for multiple reasons, so they stepped it back a little to this version. 

I think we can agree this flag says-- and celebrates-- it all.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

Not a prediction, just an observation

The Democrats need to get rid of Biden. Some might argue against that assertion, but I think it's obviously true.

Authoritarians want more excuses to go hard against gun ownership-- the bigger and more shocking the excuse, the better for their anti-liberty cause. 

One stone; two birds.

If you imagine that anti-gun bigot political criminals wouldn't do something like that if they believe it will advance their cause, you haven't been paying attention. They are probably grooming a patsy right now.

Biden ought to be very suspicious of his own side right now. I would not want to be him.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

It's heading right for us

It looks like hard times are coming. And I don't only mean hard economic times. It looks like full-blown tyranny, in the form of anti-gun rules and other things, is on its way. The political criminals-- those terrorists in Congress and elsewhere-- feel emboldened by the acts of some of their soulmates.

They can't stop the signal, but they can kill a lot of the messengers. Remember what happened to Mr. Universe.

Which brings a question to mind.

What's the best way to deal with what's coming? Stand and resist, or hunker down and weather the storm? 

I wish I knew the answer. 

Maybe the answer depends on each individual's situation and temperament.

I'm not going to criticize either choice today. I don't know which choice is right, smart, or... better. I don't know which choice will save liberty for a brighter day sometime in the future. Do you?

-

If I've earned your support, PLEASE consider subscribing or donating.