Court taking small correct steps

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 29, 2022)

To those of you who are mad at the Supreme Court over two of its most recent rulings, let me agree with you. To a point.

I also agree-- to a point-- with those who celebrate those rulings.

I don't consider the Supreme Court to be credible, and haven't for years. Not since I recovered from the brainwashing I endured as an inmate in "public" schools.

The Supreme Court stole for themselves the power to be the final say on what the Constitution means back in 1803-- this power wasn't theirs to exercise, but belonged to the people. They didn't like this state of affairs so they changed things so they'd have more power. The public was fooled into going along.

Sometimes the Court gets things partly right, even under these conditions.

The Supreme Court was correct to strike down the illegal New York state regulations on concealed carry licensing, but then carved out too much breathing room for tyranny. The Constitution doesn't allow any restrictions, or even any government oversight, on gun ownership or possession. The Court wasn't honest on this point. They still support the imaginary political authority of politicians-- and their stormtroopers in legislation enforcement-- to do things they are clearly forbidden to do. The excuse that they've done similar things for a long time doesn't hold water. Historical rights violations are still rights violations and need to end immediately.

Political criminals screaming about "gun safety" and vulgar reasoning ("common sense") are lying for effect.

Then the Court's overturning of Roe v Wade doesn't mean what so many seem to believe. The government was, nowhere in the Constitution, directed to allow abortions, nor empowered to prohibit them. The document is silent on abortions, as it is on most things which don't (or shouldn't) involve government. An earlier court created that "discovery" out of thin air to please their side. Something which isn't addressed in the Constitution must be left up to the individual, but leaving it up to the states may be a small step in the right direction.

I still dislike both sides in the abortion wars more than I can express in polite company. I am not pro-life; I am pro-liberty. Without life, there is no liberty... but you won't miss it and won't care because you're dead. Without liberty, life is a hellscape.

As long as it stays out of your life, government is tolerable. When it meddles, it isn't.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

A ray of happy sunshine, in video form

I tend to focus on whichever liberty concern seems to me to be most under attack at the moment. Right now, this is the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

I hope it's something else next week, but I won't be surprised if it isn't. 

You've probably seen recent videos of BATFEces criminals flagrantly breaking the law. No, not the one who was illegally photographing every page of the sales records at a gun store, with her personal phone. I'm talking about those thugs going door-to-door demanding to see the resident's guns.

If that bothers you as much as it bothers me, you might enjoy this video as much as I did. Now, I don't support cops, but I do like seeing enforcers pitted against each other-- gang warfare. So, here's how to deal with BATFEces goons at your door. (Let me know if the video gets deleted and I'll try to describe what happened-- I sure hope it doesn't! I can't figure out how to download it from Twitter and can't find it at the original site.)

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

They are not your masters

I've seen several pro-gun people saying-- concerning the D.C. house of Reprehensibles' v*te to pass another "assault weapon" [sic] ban-- that they are "v*ting our rights away".

Not at all. 

They are v*ting, ganging up, to violate the natural human rights of the people. Your rights. But the rights won't go away. They won't even change.

Even if this counterfeit bill also passes the Sin-it and becomes legislation, it won't be legitimate. You'll have no obligation whatsoever to comply (liberty carries risk, so be smart).

Let's be honest about what happened. What these worthless skin-sacks actually did was v*te to enslave you to their gang. They v*ted themselves to be your owners and masters. They declared you to be their property to be used as suits them. 

Are you going to take it and let them believe you believe it's true? Or will you declare that you are no one's slave and reject them, their opinions, and their power grab?

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The worst approach

I'm against pollution regardless of whether it changes the climate. 

I'm against murder regardless of the tools used. 

I'm against bigotry regardless of who it targets.

It seems statists aren't able (or willing) to understand any of that. If I don't want government to coercively tax, legislate, and enforce to "fight" things I'm against, I must not really care. If I don't want government to "do" something, they think this means I don't want anything done.

If it is important, a voluntary solution will be found. I'm for cooperation, not the state.

To me, "caring" means you don't destroy human liberty just because there's a problem. That's the worst possible way to "solve" anything.

I'm for liberty, regardless of whether it is safe.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Rolling out the welcome mat

I saw a video from Austria where a news report from Germany was being read. It said that a German supermarket chain was announcing that it was advising its employees that if things get bad there, and there is looting and stealing, to do nothing. Nothing. Just stand aside and let it happen.

If the report is true-- and I have no insider information that it is-- isn't this just inviting bad people to go rob and loot those stores? Doesn't this place the employees and customers at greater risk? People who will loot and rob are going to be less likely to have any ethical compass-- will they draw the line at robbing and looting? Can you be sure?

I understand that a company might not want to suggest to its employees that they should fight back. Liability and all. But to tell them to just stand by and do nothing? It seems like that is just opening them up for a dangerous situation when looters and thieves hear they've been given permission.

I'd have to quit that job or shop elsewhere.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

It's that time again

 

I find myself needing to ask for donations. 

I understand if you can't, don't want to, or whatever. You owe me nothing. And those who regularly help out should ignore this, anyway.
Otherwise, if you want to, and can, consider subscribing or donating.

Thanks.

Responsibility keeps you moving

The past two days have been filled with the hot, dusty, and exhausting work of maintaining a couple of yards. My own and that of my parents. Yards that haven't really been enjoying the hot, dry summer (and dry year).

The weeds find a way to grow anyway, even without water, which is only an issue in my own yard, not my parents' yard. They water their (mostly weedless) yard, at least a little, so their grass still needs to be mowed. Except for all the dead spots.

I'll need to do their yard again in a week or so, but I may not need to do much to mine for a month or more. Unless it rains. So the additional work won't be an issue for a while.

I would like to catch my breath and rest, but since someone in the house has the newest version of Covid, I haven't really had a chance. Maybe if I catch The 'Rona I can use that as an excuse to take a day or two off. 

Who am I kidding? The cats will still need to be fed, litter boxes still need to be cleaned, and non-cat-related things still need to be done around the house, no matter how I feel or how tired I am. At least it keeps me from getting lazy or using sickness to justify sitting around. Responsibility keeps you going when you'd rather not. That's one reason having responsibility is better than having none.

Added: I had a dream last night about how much more yardwork I still had to do before I was done. I was very relieved when I woke up and didn't have that hanging over me!

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Poor choices can be entertaining

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 22, 2022)

Do you ever get to the point where you feel like sitting back and watching the show while people suffer the consequences of their bad choices? I do, and I remember the biblical story about Jonah having the same impulse. It's human nature.

There's one show I won't be watching, though. I can't think of a worse waste of time than watching the January 6th Congressional clown show. Congresscritters are wallowing in their self-importance while the disasters they've unleashed on us are making it hard to afford to fuel our cars; making it harder for us to afford food and everything else.

I'm not saying there's anything they could do about it at this point-- the damage has been done. Anything they did now would make it worse. But to try to distract the public with this theater and pretend it's important? Unconscionable politics.

Two years ago I warned of inflation on the horizon, due to the stimulus checks and wanton government spending. Some people took this as a cue to tell me how wrong I was instead of heeding the warning as an opportunity to do things to protect themselves. They decided a better use of their time was to attack the messenger.

I wonder if they've learned anything since.

Then, you have groups parroting the claim that guns are society's biggest problem. Some area teenagers emphatically demonstrated it's not the tool; it's the people who choose to violate another human so badly they end up dead.

I guess the anti-gun activists would say it's a good thing those teens didn't have guns because it would have been worse if they had.

As with any claim I make, you are free to listen, or not.

I'm not telling you what to think. Instead, I hope I set your brain gears in motion so you can think your own thoughts-- thoughts based in reality, not on wishful thinking and bad assumptions.

One bad assumption I see is the assumption that political government is the proper tool for solving problems. If you can get people to accept this groundless claim, you can keep them from even considering actual solutions. There's a problem? What legislation or rules can be imposed to fix it? You won't find a solution there. This assumption will keep people looking in the wrong place. This is choosing to fail even before you've begun. Poor choices have bad, but entertaining, consequences.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Another possible application of the Bubble

I think it's possible to use my Bubble Theory to resolve another thorny situation where rights seem to conflict.

It may be a way to better address, or view, abortion. 

My view is that at conception the zygote isn't yet an individual person, but at some point between conception and birth-- at least by the time the fetus could survive, with help, outside the uterus-- it becomes one. At that point in time, whenever that is, a "bubble" of bodily autonomy-- individual rights-- enclosing the fetus comes into being inside the pregnant woman's equal and identical "bubble" of bodily autonomy. Inside her body; engulfed in her property, but not her property.

She can no longer claim ownership of what's inside the fetus' "bubble", even though it lies within her own body. She is responsible-- a steward, but not an owner.

After that point, ethically, only if the fetus/baby becomes a credible threat to her life, liberty, or property can she forcibly end the threat.

There would still be plenty of room for those who simply want to fight over the topic to quibble over exactly when the fetus' bodily autonomy "bubble" appears, to complain that this involves "mental constructs" (as does everything above concrete physical objects), to argue over what constitutes a credible threat to the woman's life, liberty, and property (and whether it matters), to keep them entertained.

My view that political government and legislation have no place in our lives remains unchanged either way.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The reason my traveling days are behind me

Other members of my family travel. Some of them just took an Alaska cruise and others are about to go to Europe. They frequently fly around the country, visiting places like New York City, Las Vegas, NV, and California.

I don't travel far. Not because I don't want to. I might not choose the same trips they take, but I would like to wander the Australian Outback.

It's not just the fact I couldn't afford the trip since I refused to take a government job like most (but not all) of my relatives did. I simply have no interest in going anywhere I can't be adequately armed. That includes the airplane flight to get there. Which, in this current backward era, is a problem.

Airport security is a tyrannical joke. And these days there are even more roadblocks, like mask and shot mandates, and all that goes with sickness psychosis.

No one's assurances of how safe I would be make any difference to me. I don't rely on legislation or policies (or other people) to keep me safe; I see them as an added danger. It feels like bungee jumping with obviously sun-rotted bungees because that's all that's available. You'll probably be safe, but why take the unnecessary risk?

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

One of these things is not like the other

When things are different, but someone claims they are the same by way of analogy:

"Me carrying a gun onto your property when you've said I can't is no different than me breaking into your house while you're gone and settling down on your couch to watch your DVDs on your big-screen TV. Even if I bring my own popcorn, and even if don't damage the lock on your door when I break in, and even if I leave a quarter on the dining room table on my way out to pay for the electricity I used, and even if you never know it happened, I'm still stealing from you. That house and that TV and those DVDs are yours, not mine." [link]

1- "breaking into your house". Not invited, even provisionally. Entering a private space, through a locked or closed door (or window) meant to keep out everyone but the property owners, without even the awareness of the owner. 

2- All the activities described involve wear and tear on the property. Damage; a reduction in the property's value/life span, even if minimal. Even if unnoticed.

3- Physical damage is theft; mere physical presence isn't theft.*

So, "no different"? Really?

If you don't want to respect people's bodily autonomy while they are on your property you have every right to close that property off to others-- as the homeowner in the analogy did. Slavery-- claiming property rights over the bodies of others-- isn't OK even if you "only" do it while they are on your property, or as a condition of them entering your property.  Yes, the best way to deal with such horribly untrustworthy people is to shun them.

If I am worried about what might be in your pants while you are on my property I will simply not open my property to you. I will not invite you onto my property at all, rather than claiming I have the right to dictate what's in your pants, unseen and not causing any physical damage to anything of mine. If I invite you onto my property, either my private property or my business property (which I presumably want "the public" to use), I will absolutely respect all your natural human rights, without exception. I struggle to imagine how someone could do otherwise and claim any sort of moral high ground.

*The claim that mere presence is theft is similar to the "Intellectual Property" claim that an idea can be stolen. In neither case is the thing itself damaged or harmed in any way. It is still there, unchanged, for the owner to use just as before.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

So you want to be a hero...

The guy who took down the evil loser in the Indiana mall is a hero. No doubt.

If the news is correct (never bet on it), the evil loser fired 24 rounds and hit 4 people, killing three. Supposedly he carried 100 rounds, so if his shooting had been consistent throughout you could expect at least a dozen victims killed. At least. Had he not been stopped. Which he was-- decisively.

Again, if the news is correct, the hero fired 10 rounds from a distance of 30 to 40 yards, hitting the loser with 8 of them, ending the shooting spree 15 seconds from the moment the evil loser came out of the restroom-- about the time the first shot was fired. Impressive!

Now he is being hailed-- rightfully so-- as a hero... other than by the mass-murder groupies who can always be discounted as evil idiots.

Lots of people would like to be seen as heroes. Being a hero requires a few things to align. You've got to be prepared and capable. You've got to be in the "right" place at the "right" time. You've also got to have a bit of luck. You can't plan to be a hero. Having a gun on you is not even close to being enough. 

I just hope people who want to be a hero don't skip a few steps in their quest, or it's not going to work out well for them or for bystanders. 

Just strive to do the right thing in all circumstances. If you manage that, you're a hero even if no one else notices.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Stay mad, monsters

The unhinged reaction of the despicable anti-gun bigots to one of their boys being stopped before he could rack up a high enough body count shows why I can't take them seriously.

They are actually mad this time because a 22-year-old had a gun in the mall (oh the horror!) and shot the evil loser before he killed more people. Not mad at the evil loser, mad at the guy who saved lives with his gun.

This is how you know it's not about "gun safety". It never has been. It's about disarming you.

No one, Shannon. No one "needs" to hear your worthless opinion on this event. Or any other. He wasn't illegally carrying. His age isn't an issue. Killing a mass shooter and saving unknown numbers of others isn't something a good person would condemn. And prohibiting government from preventing this type of mass-saving event is exactly what the Second Amendment was written to do-- among other things you also wouldn't like. It's no wonder you soon deleted your ignorant, bigoted, and downright nasty words.

The anti-gun bigots are blood-dancing mass-murder groupies. Either stupid, evil, or both. They are not on your side. They are not on society's side. They've chosen instead to side with evil losers, both freelance, like mass-murderers-- and professional, like politicians.

-

Tobbles on Patreon

You can't aim a government

I saw a "progressive liberal" (his words) claim that government and guns are both just tools. If you can be anti-government, you can be anti-gun. This was in the context of claiming that libertarians could be anti-gun (by which he implied they could support anti-gun legislation, not just have a personal preference).

There are a couple of problems with this.

The government he described is not merely a government, but a state. A political government. States are not defensive. You can't use a state for defense without harming the innocent-- "collateral damage". I recently saw another statist-- a "conservative" one-- claim that this is just because states-- political governments-- are a "necessary evil".

He then posted a link to an essay describing how civilizations and societies form and grow, not realizing that society is the opposite of the state.

Bad guys will use a gun or a state to violate others. A good guy will only use a gun defensively and will accept responsibility if he inadvertently harms the innocent in the process. A good guy can't use a state without harming the innocent, and wouldn't be able to pay restitution to all those he harmed by doing so anyway. So, would he use a state at all? If he does, can he still be considered a good guy?

Trying to use a state defensively will fail because it can't be aimed, it doesn't hit what you're aiming at even if you try, people are forced to pay for this tool and ammunition against their will, and it is "illegal" to defend yourself from those using a state against you. It's like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of a smattering of Nazis in a city. It might work, but only an idiot would believe it's the right thing to do.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Government crushes individuality

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 15, 2022)

Everyone has their own unique personal preferences. This is probably a good thing since it makes life interesting and keeps us from all fighting over the exact same stuff. Think how boring it would be if everyone preferred identical things. Variety is the spice of life.

As long as everyone remembers their preferences are only preferences, not a matter of one being right and the other being wrong, there's no problem. It's only when people try to impose their preferences on everyone that it becomes an issue.

It's the difference between preferring the color yellow and forbidding the color blue; making the demand that everyone else pretend to prefer yellow, too-- or else.

This is the difference between having your own individual preferences, without acting like a tyrant, or trying to control others. Guess which path politicians prefer.

I try not to mistake my personal preferences for an excuse to tell you what to do or not do.

It's why I can think abusing tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs is unhealthy, and prefer you not harm yourself with them, without believing it's ethical to allow government to have the illegitimate power to regulate any of it in any way.

Live how you want; be who you are. Give others the same respect and it's no one's business.

Forcing others to ignore their own preferences because they differ from yours is not right. It's the opposite of giving others the same respect you probably want from them. Stealing from others, attacking them, or forcing them to give you special treatment is the same. In such a case you need to meet a stone wall of resistance until you back down and become civil.

As long as you don't try to use violence-- neither individual nor the collective violence of government-- against those whose preferences simply disagree with yours, there's no reason to stand up to you. The moment you do, standing up against you is the right thing to do.

If you are encouraging tax-funded government schools to manipulate the preferences of a generation of impressionable little kids against the wishes of their parents, you are imposing your preferences coercively. You're on the wrong side even if you are certain your preferences are better. You are crushing their individuality and, in the long run, making the future less free and less colorful than it could be. You certainly aren't helping the kids.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon (new post)

Not the same thing at all

I find it amazing how many people can't-- or won't-- see the difference between "Naturalization" (becoming a member of a club) and simply being physically present among members of the club. 

Yes, government ignores the differences too, when it suits government power (and this is what causes the problems), but there's still a difference. Especially for people who don't buy into the fable of government legitimacy.

-

Please support the Tobbles Rescue Project on Patreon

Gun safety

This is gun safety:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger 'til your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified. (link)

This is the polar opposite of gun safety: Any and all anti-gun legislation, promoted by political criminals and their minions.

None of their policies do anything for safety-- it's not even the real goal. In fact, those rules will make you less safe. Unless you are a political criminal, then you are probably safer if your victims are disarmed. But that's not a benefit to society.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Keepin' it clean

There are members of my family I can't introduce to some of the best liberty advocates' ideas because of the language used by so many of them. George Carlin for example. He had some great points that need to be heard. But some people simply wouldn't listen past his first "$%&#".

I think it's a shame that they won't hear him out because the ideas expressed are valuable.

So many times I've wanted to share a post with someone in my family, but didn't because I knew the language would be all they focused on.

On the other hand, they still resist those I can share. For a variety of reasons. 

Still, that's why I try to "keep it clean", even though I'm not bothered by words. Of course, I'm not really a cusser (OK, not externally) so it's easy for me.

Of course, others are probably turned off by something I do, or the way I say things, and would prefer someone else's approach. That's fine. There are enough options that there's someone for (almost) anyone.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Let go of what doesn't work

I accept when things I want to work, don't. 

Rechargeable batteries are great. I use them for lots of things, but I have stopped using them for certain things because they just don't work very well. In a SHTF situation, they'll get me through when the better options run out, but for now I'd rather stick with what works better.

My electric car was fun. It worked adequately for most things. It wouldn't work at all for other things. There wasn't any point in denying it. With recent gasoline prices, I have wished I still had that car for short trips, even with its shortcomings.

A few years ago I decided to try shampooing with baking soda and apple cider vinegar. It sounded like a good idea. I gave it a year, then went back to commercial shampoo because the baking soda and vinegar didn't actually work very well, even though I really wanted them to work. Maybe if you had nothing else, it would be an alternative.

I've given up on certain CC guns and holsters, I have given up on particular gardening strategies, I have given up on specific relationships, I have given up on so many projects that couldn't get any traction, and I have given up on many dreams. I'll give it my best try, but if something just isn't going to work, I can face the reality of the situation and move on.

I'm not so attached to things I want to work, that I can't face it when they don't. If liberty didn't work, I would ditch it and try something else. 

Statists don't seem capable of giving up on something that doesn't deliver what was promised. Maybe what they promise is not what they really want, and it delivers what they want. Maybe, it "works" for them even though it doesn't do what they claim it will do because that's not even their desire or goal. In that case, they could just be honest about it. But they won't because statism is based on lies.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

I'm in favor of the whole public swarming all parts of the Capitol (and every other government building) all day every day. There should be no doors to close, and no security, at any government facility.
Your objections are duly noted and dismissed.

Health mystery update

(part 1, part 2, part 3)

I had my follow-up appointment Monday, which is why I don't have anything else written for today. 

Still no definitive diagnosis. Can someone please bring in Dr. House?

I passed every test, yet I still have a "condition" (which I can neither see nor feel, but which could kill me if it gets worse).

However, the doctor does suspect it may have roots in the Rat Bite Fever I had nearly 30 years ago. She says its known effects could have caused my current issue, but there's apparently not a lot of information on the long-term effects. (Can we call this "Long Haul Rat Bite Fever" and chalk it up to confirmation bias?)

So, for the foreseeable future, I will get blood tests every 6 months, and a scan every year to make sure things aren't getting worse, where more serious measures would be necessary.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Infestation

I have a small mesquite bush in my yard. Every summer for the past few years, it gets covered-- literally covered-- with Giant Mesquite Bugs. I like the mesquite; I hate the bugs.

I've vacuumed them off with a shop vac. I've sprayed them with nicotine, bug killer, and soapy water. I've netted them, covered the bush in black trash bags, and probably several other things I can't think of at the moment. 

I got the best result from the bug killer (no surprise), but that only resulted in a few hours of fewer bugs, and a thick layer of dead bugs under the bush that has been there 2 years so far. Only a few hours later, there were just as many bugs as before.

So this year, I gave up. I ignore them-- or at most, kick the bush from time to time to set them all abuzz. Just because it is satisfying. Yes, I get covered with the bugs and I always end up transporting a few into the house with me. 

These bugs are like politicians and their legislation. Right now, I'll just have to deal with the infestation. If they get thinned out, they (or more like them) come back again. But, for the most part, I could ignore them if I choose to. I don't have to fight them or try to get rid of them. Not really. They don't actually impact my life much. They are only a problem because (or if) I let them annoy me. If I could choose, though, I'd choose the bugs over the political pests.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

People's rights are not negotiable

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 8, 2022)

Politicians speak most passionately about things they understand the least, like guns. This is especially dangerous when they talk about what they believe your rights are.

President Biden has recently shown he doesn't understand rights-- he confuses them with privileges and he's plotting to violate our rights because he doesn't like them.

This is criminal behavior from him and should be treated as such.

Recent events caused emotions to run high, which leads to foolish threats from authoritarian politicians. It doesn't change what our rights are, nor does it excuse the threat to violate them.

The rights of good people can't depend on what bad people do. Especially when our rights are all that stand between us and letting the bad people do anything to anyone at any time without opposition. Such as happens in schools, hospitals, or any place where your right to defend yourself (and others) with effective tools is routinely violated.

You've now seen the bumper sticker come to life: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or an hour or more. Assuming they are inclined to help.

Some politically minded people like to claim there are no such things as rights; it is only about power and who has the power to do what to whom. If that's true, then no one has any reason to complain about anything anyone with power does. Putin had the power to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian people had no right to not be displaced or killed, so all is fine.

The same could be said about every other dictator who caused holocausts. If rights aren't a real thing, people should just shut up and take it, whatever "it" happens to be.

I don't believe this is reality. Society can only exist if we each respect the rights of those around us and stand up against-- with effective tools of defense--  those who refuse to do so, whether it is the grimy mugger from the alley or the mentally compromised occupant of the Oval Office.

Rights are non-negotiable and must be defended, regardless of the opinions of those with power. When those with power try to make it so you are unable to effectively resist them, then it is doubly important you do so before it is too late. Do you want to sentence your grandchildren to a life of slavery, or is liberty worth the risk? I know where I stand.

PS: Also in the same issue is this item about a planned anti-gun march. Notice the lack of awareness the organizer of the march demonstrates. Is he really that clueless or is he a liar? I don't know.

-

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

Why you can't debate a "gun con-troll"

"Gun control"? No. We're done. We're taking it all back-- all our natural human rights.

Those who advocate for anti-gun legislation always lie. They have to. They have nothing else to fall back on. Not history, logic, rights, or ethics. Only lies. Lies based in government supremacy. 

"Gun control" is a lie; those who call for it are liars. Or worse.
At best they are nothing but trolls trying to con you with lies about guns: gun con trolls.

They are completely unreasonable trolls, too.

Trying to be reasonable with unreasonable trolls is setting yourself up to fail. Expecting them to be able to be reasonable will bring nothing but disappointment and betrayal.

There's no possible compromise. There's no actual discussion even possible. They are what they are. If we gun owners were what they claim, they'd all be dead by now. But, gun con-trolls are liars.

-

Please support the Tobbles Rescue Project on Patreon

How to identify a good cop

People tell me about "good cops" and scold me for not believing in them. I've never seen any evidence of their existence, but I know what one would look like if I saw it.

A good cop is one who never gives tickets (traffic tickets, seatbelt tickets, etc.) to anyone who didn't cause actual harm to an individual or their property. Even those who do cause harm don't owe anyone but the person harmed (they never owe government). I'd support the giving of tickets only if all the money was given to the victim.

A good cop would never hassle anyone about a weapon of any sort, unless it was currently being used to violate an innocent person. Then, it's not about the weapon but about the act. No "weapons charges" at all, ever. If they can't be legitimately charged with a real crime, let them walk.

A good cop would never arrest anyone on drug charges, and never take anyone's drugs. Yes, this means addicts would die. Some innocent people would also die (which prohibition hasn't prevented anyway). That's a price of liberty.

A good cop would never confiscate property that wasn't stolen and being immediately returned to its owner-- would certainly never participate in the staged photo-op table covered with drugs, guns, and money after a "bust".

A good cop isn't going to care where a person was born or what government paperwork/permissions he possesses.

A good cop will not enforce any "tax" or help punish anyone who didn't pay one. Would never help steal anyone's property over a "property tax" issue.

A good cop will never help enforce "eminent domain".

A good cop would not patrol looking for trouble, but would wait at the station until explicitly called for.

A good cop would abide by "no victim, no crime", no matter what "the law" said.

A good cop would obey the Constitution to the letter where it enhances individual liberty and utterly ignore it any time it doesn't. No "law" which violates individual liberty can ever be legitimate, no matter who wrote it.

You find me this person and I'll concede that you've found a good cop. Otherwise, you're a government supremacist living in a statist delusion I want no part of.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Preventing evil loserism

Is it my imagination or do the recent evil losers look unusually effeminate and/or weak? (As do many of their cheerleaders.) With the parade shooter being practically a parody of the "type".

Or, is that just the current condition of the species (in America) and any random sample of young males would look the same?

But then, there are also the "masculine" bullies (another type of evil loser)-- who are probably a large piece of the puzzle triggering the shooters. Does everyone have to be only one or the other? And how does it make the problem worse that so many girls have rejected boys (or being girls) altogether? It was already hard enough for anyone who wasn't a star athlete to find a happy relationship, but now?

Would you be doing the world a favor if you tried to reach out and befriend anyone who looked this way-- especially if they also seemed angry? Or would you just be putting yourself at unnecessary risk?

I don't know an answer that will be widely respected, since all the loudest voices prefer to blame the tool and punish those of us who didn't become evil losers-- and they refuse to hear or consider anything else, no matter how many innocent lives are lost on their altar.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Not the way I wanted to start the day

 

R.I.P. Tobbles.

Happy Secession Day!

I approve of every act of secession, from the one that created America, to the individual today seceding from the state completely. Even if I disagree with their motivation for doing so. Break it up.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

New laws won't solve problems

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 1, 2022)

Senseless aggression toward innocent victims enrages me. No matter who is harmed or who commits the act. But to intentionally target children? Rage doesn't begin to describe what I feel.

Are you ready for some hard truth? Some of you are; those who aren't should probably read the comics instead.

You'll never stop crime with new legislation and harsher enforcement. You'll never even reduce crime that way.

In fact, even if you imagine this tactic would prevent some crimes, you'll have to ignore all the crimes it unintentionally causes. Directly. Which it will do. No legislation only affects the bad guys. It affects those who generally try to obey the rules much more... which has a negative effect.

What good is making up some legislation which prevents one crime if it causes five other crimes which wouldn't have happened otherwise? "If it saves one life" is the mantra of activists who wear blinders.

Knee jerk legislation giving government added power, created under the stress of tragedy, is never a good idea. It always works out badly, having devastating unintended consequences down the line. We are seeing the unintended consequences of that kind of legislation happen now, while politicians and activists are theatrically trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong.

People can't be forced to be good or responsible. You can't improve society through authoritarian tyranny. Turning society into a prison is never the right thing to do, even if you imagine safety will be the result.

All that will happen is you'll contribute to making things worse for everyone, not better.

Yet, it's what politicians want to do and it's what the loudest activists demand from them. It's not "common sense" in any sense of the phrase, but anti-liberty politicians hope you won't realize it.

What you can do is to decide to be responsible. Decide to be part of the solution, regardless of what rules are imposed on you.

Don't comply. Don't let anyone make you feel bad about refusing to go along with your own enslavement. Understanding, respecting, and exercising liberty doesn't make you a bad person. What they want to do to you-- what they intend to do to you-- makes them the bad guys. Their political acts will guarantee crimes like this will continue to happen again and again. You know it. Don't let them forget it and show them you aren't fooled by their easy and popular lies.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com