Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty not subject to majority rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2026)

My experience, gained from years of talking with many people, suggests that when most people talk about freedom, they mean "the freedom to do as I please, and the freedom to prevent others from doing the same"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Fish don't need bicycles, or government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 1, 2026)

I don’t like things which are bothersome, unnecessary, and intrusive. It's even worse when those same things are harmful and are forced into our lives.

Like government is.

It’s said a man needs a government like a fish needs a bicycle. I think it’s worse than that. The situation is more akin to telling the fish he can't survive without the bicycle, forcing him to buy one, tacking him to its seat to force him to ride it, and then demanding he thank you for the bike you've provided.

It’s crazy.

If that’s what you want, that’s your business, but don’t force it on the rest of us. It's bothersome, unnecessary, intrusive, and harmful to life, liberty, and property.

America's founders, who fought for the liberty of Americans, would be fighting again today. There's no way they'd tolerate what the US government, with its subordinate governments all across America, has become. The levels of taxation piled on top of taxation, and the meddling in every aspect of our lives. The constant control, intrusion, and surveillance. They'd find it intolerable; much worse than a mere 3% tax on tea.

The British government of King George was far less tyrannical and annoying than the US government has become today. An ordinary American during those days could have gone months- or longer- without noticing there was a government ruling his life. Now you can't go a day without having to comply with some arbitrary governmental annoyance.

Yet, I'm supposed to pretend that the people who see nothing fundamentally wrong with this, who only think they need to elect "better" people and enforce different rules, are the patriots? Nonsense!

Those who support this all-encompassing government and want it to have even more control are as functionally anti-American as any Iranian Ayatollah or old Soviet Premier. Or worse, because they don't realize it and would never admit it.

It's frightening that so many confuse the US government with America, and have chosen to support government instead of the principles America was founded upon. Principles their government is scrambling to make illegal.

Liberty is essential to America, and it's time to ditch the bothersome things which get in liberty's way.

For those who still crave a police state, there are plenty of options for you around the world. Liberty is harder to find, and it's time to stand up for it in America before it's lost forever.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Socialistic hate and envy is stupid

Socialists are dumb and/or dishonest. 

They are having seizures over Elon Musk saying he wants to reach a net-worth of $10,000,000,000,000. They pretend this means he wants a Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold.

That's not what "net worth" is.

That's how much the companies he owns are worth to us. The value he provides. His private property and bank accounts are a small part of the picture, and those don't even seem to concern him very much.

I like spaceships, Cybertrucks, and Starlink. If these socialists have their way, we'd have none of that. They are envious turds.

I have my issues with Musk, and I have detailed them many times, here and on "social" media. But I'm not so ignorant or dishonest that I make the socialists' mistake.

Their bigger mistake is that they want government to steal his money for itself. That would be an absolute waste. Every cent government gets and spends is wasted. I wouldn't want my worst enemy taxed, because government is worse than any individual. Any individual!

How much money does Elon Musk owe me? None.
How much does he owe the State? None.
I'm better off if he keeps his money out of the State's grubby claws. Even if I get zero direct benefit from his money. At least, in that case, it isn't funding The Ancestral Enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Self-destruction by ambition

I suspect that every new "law" and every new form of surveillance crammed in our faces and under our beds ratchets us one step closer to the collapse of the current government. They are dooming their own scam and don't realize it.

Their own ambition is killing them.

They think they are gaining more control. They think they are making us more controllable. And, in the short term, they probably are. I don't think it can last as long as they imagine.

"Forever" stamps are unrealistically optimistic.

I would like to think enough people have matured beyond the infantile need to be governed and to want others governed on their behalf that the species can stop making this same old stupid mistake, but chances are, we'll have to go a few more rounds, sacrificing a few more generations to this false god, before enough people catch up and catch on.

Whatever comes, I still see every new surveillance tool and every added "law" as another nail in the coffin of the State.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Left, Right equal enemies of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2026)

It’s wild how people pretend “Left” and “Right” are mortal enemies. They’re not. They’re two bowls of the same authoritarian slop: theft and enslavement sold as “the greater good”...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Government should expect no privacy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 25, 2026)

Privacy is important. Not because you have anything to hide, but because it's no one's business. Otherwise, let's get rid of restroom doors, curtains, or anything else which might shield our activities from everyone else's eyes.

Companies that help government spy on the people are doing wrong. Digital ID. Flock cameras. Age verification. TSA scanners. Government's co-conspirators are not the good guys.

Not all surveillance is a bad thing, though.

You should know everything about anyone who holds a government office. At the same time, they shouldn’t be able to learn anything about you. As long as those offices are allowed to exist- and they shouldn't be- the standard should be that while you hold any government job, your life is an open book. Everything you do is subject to scrutiny and disclosure. No secrets at all, not even those you feel government is entitled to keep from the people. Because those don't exist. Privacy for government and none for the people is exactly backwards.

National security is no excuse. Public safety is no excuse. “For the children” is the most dishonest justification ever.

Author L. Neil Smith once wrote that keeping government secrets from the people is the only crime for which he would support capital punishment. I tend to agree, but we know government will never hold itself accountable.

If I’m forced to fund you, you don’t get to keep secrets from me. But the people have the right to keep everything from government.

Some people say the days of any expectation of privacy are over because government and its corporate partners already have the tools to watch everything you do. They are right. Don't expect to have any privacy. Someone, besides your intended recipient, is reading every text or email you send, evaluating everything you read, and watching everything you save on a phone or to your computer. They have technology which can see where you are inside your home- and possibly more. They have capabilities they won't tell the public about.

This is no reason to be paranoid. It's a reason why you, I, and everyone else should live so freely that we overwhelm the bad guys. Drown them in worthless data and rub your liberty in their nasty, nosy faces. Remember, too, this cuts both ways. They can't collect all the data about us without the same data being collected on them. If they collect it, we can find it and use it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Laws I don't like"

When I pointed out that cops cause crime, a statist complained and pretended he didn’t understand.

So I told him that cops enforce taxation and benefit from it.

I pointed out that cops enforce anti-gun rules, which empowers other criminals.

Crime is the act of violating rights, which cops do by their existence.

The statist objected, saying he prefers the state's definition of "crime"; acts which are "illegal".

The statist then said he interprets my definition of "crime" to mean "laws I don’t like”.

No. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. It would have been an entirely different conversation. 

Some counterfeit “laws” even cover things I would agree with being "against the law" if I were lacking in principles. It isn’t about what I like or dislike (that's how statists think); it's about what people have a right to do. and what they have no right to do 

Only a statist could be so wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Are statists getting dumber?

Recently, the quality of statist debate seems to have plummeted noticeably, while the quantity has increased a lot.

I'm not sure if statists are getting dumber, if the entire species is getting dumber, or if "the AlGorithm" is funneling the most pathetic examples in my direction. It does seem like something is going on, though.

I'm seeing it everywhere, on every topic: guns, war, taxes, politicians, "laws", cops, prohibition, and even mailboxes.

In the mailbox example, someone was trying to argue that something called "Just War Theory"* means you can't fortify your (frequently destroyed) mailbox because it might hurt the next vandal. That protecting your property is less important than respecting the well-being of the vandal.

No.

If someone chooses to vandalize private property, I really don't care if their actions cause them harm. Fortunately, that defender of vandalism was taken down by hordes of people taking the same position I take. This time.

It reminded me of an argument from years ago made by a (probably former) "libertarian" (probably a socialist now) who was arguing in favor of shoplifting because "who owns the box of mac and cheese?" The only relevant answer is "Not you, until you pay for it".

Advocating for theft, vandalism, disarming the people, and other acts of archation is what makes statism the most unethical ideology out there. It's a popular position, but they are getting worse at making their case. It seems like this should be good for liberty, but I don't see it paying off yet, which makes me think it may be our entire species in cognitive decline.

Time will tell. If statism is still as, or more, popular in a century or so, we'll have the definitive answer.

-

*"Just War Theory": "a moral and legal framework that balances the need to prevent unjust aggression with the ethical, restricted use of violence." So, rather than being about defense, it's mostly legalistic statist drivel to justify collective violence. Trying to apply it to the mailbox problem, where the only aggression (in the form of property damage) was coming from the vandal, was quite a stretch.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

If you're forced to pay, it's theft

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2026)

Taxation is theft. People are free to disagree because everyone is free to be wrong. You might debate what kind of theft it is; whether extortion, a ransom, or an armed robbery, but it's theft.

We used to know it...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Government protects thieves- trash protects trash

Killing a thief caught in the act is not a "murder", regardless of whether you think it was justified or not. Maybe, depending on the situation, it was too much in your opinion, but not "murder". I'm not speaking "legally", but ethically. So be careful, because unethical governments (but I repeat myself) take the side of the bad guys and punish the good guys.

If you're a prosecutor who charges such a victim with murder or attempted murder for daring to try to protect his property, you're the bad guy. Maybe even worse than the thieves.

All you're doing is rewarding thieves and making it safer to be thieves. You're encouraging thieves and potential thieves to steal more. This is the opposite of what you ought to be doing. Your worthless "job" is to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who are where they have a right to be, doing what they have a right to do. Not the thieves.

If there are to be "laws" covering such things (there shouldn't be, but there are), they should be similar to the "law" that charges a bank robber with murder if one of his thieving associates dies during the robbery. If a thief is killed while committing theft, the fault is his and his associates'. No one is forcing any of them to be thieves. It's a choice, and choices have consequences. Too bad, so sad.

If I'm on the jury (Ha ha!) for a defender being charged with murder in such a case, he's either walking free, or there will be a hung jury. I will never v*te to convict someone for shooting a thief. Not even if I personally dislike the defender or believe he could have chosen to not defend his property as effectively as he did.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip? 

If not, that’s OK.

Learn from modern parables: lessons in fake "news" stories

You can get mad about the tsunami of fake stories, or you can use them as modern parables to illustrate truths.

The (probably fake) story of the 9-year-old girl who shot an intruder in the leg would have a happier ending if not for government.

We can pretend for a moment it's a real event. If not, there's still a lesson in it.

Someone took to the comments to complain about a 9-year-old being left home alone with access to a gun. But if not for the gun, she'd be a tragic statistic, unless the story also included magic. 

I was left home alone (with easy access to guns) every day as a young teen onward, with my younger sisters. I was lucky that I never needed to protect myself or my sisters from criminals, but if I had needed to, I could have had a fighting chance. 

As unfortunate as it may be, it is sometimes necessary to leave kids home alone. Largely, thanks to government destroying the economy and inflating away the money, but that's another lesson.

As I've said in the past, don't "childproof" your guns; train your kids. That's the best way to prevent tragedies, such as bad guys getting in and victimizing your family.

This parable shows the differences in how people think. Those who believe the solution lies in government ("get better judges", "lock up bad guys", "keep kids away from guns", "don't let parents leave kids home alone", etc.), and those who know personal responsibility is always a better path because government has no obligation to save you, and has no real interest in doing so anyway.

This is just one example. Nearly every fake story I've run across has lessons to teach and exposes how different people think. They are educational and illuminating.

Whether the story is real or not doesn't change the value of the lessons that can be learned from it. Change how you think of the fake stories. You might as well learn from whatever source is available, especially since they aren't likely to go away. Right?

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Be defiant

Beyond mere non-compliance, there is defiance. Defiance is more "in your face" than non-compliance, and is more dangerous, but you can be smart about it.

Practice non-compliance until you get comfortable dipping into defiance. 

Storming a government building only works if there's a big enough crowd, and they don't simply go home to be hunted down later. It's the same with refusing to be taxed, refusing to have illegal gun rules imposed on you, and rejecting all licenses and permits. There's safety in numbers. 

If you go first, you'll be a martyr- and "normal people" will hate you. The media will lie about you, and most people will believe the lies.

For some people, it's worth the sacrifice. You'll have to decide that for yourself. As long as you aren't archating, I will respect your defiance. If you are archating, you're really no different than the government you claim to be defying, so don't be that way.

There's a tipping point at which defiance is less dangerous because of the number of people participating. It's not here yet. Until then, you can at least work toward reaching that tipping point.

"Attend" TOLFA and practice its lessons. Even reading something like that could be seen as defiance, but it will also inspire you to live your liberty more fully, which is definitely defiant. And inspirational.

Get your kids out of govschool. Don't preach liberty at them, but let them see you live it. Make it the default. Cause a generational shift to counter the generational shift that the Statanic opposition is bringing.

Participate in the gray and (ethical) black markets as often as possible. It's good economic sense.

Don't respect those who haven't earned it. Don't speak of them respectfully, but let your contempt shine through. If you're speaking to them, use your judgment. 

Defy counterfeit "laws" when you think it's important. Accept that there may be consequences, and only do this if you are willing to risk them. It's best to do this in areas where you know the terrain- figuratively and literally.

I wish you the best in your defiance. Everyone who defies political criminals effectively empowers liberty just a little bit more. I need more of that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Be non-compliant

Our friend Jim Davies, in response to a blog post, asked what non-compliance achieves and about ways of exercising it that I would recommend.

He points out that non-compliance enhances self-esteem. It does that for sure! 

It's also good practice for being responsible for yourself in other areas. Don't wait for someone to tell you what to do. You're an adult; figure it out. You know how to run your life better than some bureaucrat does.

Non-compliance isn't safe. It carries risks, as do most important acts. Acknowledging and accepting worthwhile risks boosts maturity.

Refusing to comply is like a muscle that humans need to exercise. It's a habit to form, so that it gets easier to do.

I'm no expert on non-compliance. You can probably find ways that fit your life better than anything I could recommend. But I do have some ideas.

When there's not a cop watching you at this moment, get in the habit of ignoring arbitrary rules. This may be one of the safer ways to develop the habit.

I personally think it's an act of non-compliance to refuse to participate in political drama. Things like listening to speeches, or v*ting to rule your neighbors. 

Along those lines, stop pretending politicians are anything other than criminals who have dumb opinions.

If there's a "mandate", like those of the Covid drama, ignore it. Don't agree to be anyone's guinea pig unless it's something you want to do for your own reasons- not just because you are ordered to participate. If you know something isn't good for you, don't do it. 

Act dumb or procrastinate if that's what you need to do. Often, if you procrastinate long enough, the problem evaporates- like most of the aforementioned Covid mandates.

My dad, who is a statist, is also great at doing what he wants and acting like he didn't know he was supposed to do something else. Or acting like he didn't know he was supposed to ask permission and get a permit for some project. I approve. "Forgetting" often works better than getting in their face and saying, "We don' need no steenkin' permits."

Personally, I ignore the census. 

Respect is earned, and politicians and their henchmen haven't earned it. Do the minimum to keep from being murdered by them, but don't act as though they are respectable.

Read stuff that government wouldn't like you to read. Not all of it will be right or smart, but you can figure that out for yourself- and it won't be worse than the government-approved stuff.

Be a prepper. Stockpile.

Your circumstances will offer you opportunities I can't even think of. You'll have to decide what risks you are willing to take. Or, if some things are really even a risk at all. But, non-compliance is probably a good habit to start getting into, in your own way.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

The government never stops growing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 15, 2026)

Why does government continually grow in size and in power? If you look at a roster of things it meddled with a century ago compared to today, you'll notice today's list is much longer and more comprehensive...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

We can't afford U.S. government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 11, 2026)

I can't afford the government I'm saddled with now; I certainly can't afford extra government. Military strikes on other countries always result in more government at home, at a higher cost.

The current foolishness in the Middle East has already caused local fuel prices to spike, which will drive up the price of everything else.

I warned people during the first round of Covid "stimulus" handouts that it would cause higher prices. I was right. Are you doing so well you can afford to pay even more for everything you buy, just so the US federal government can strut around, cosplaying as a police force for the whole world? I'm not, and I can't. I'll bet there are more people in my position than not.

If you've fallen for the propaganda, you're probably angry at me now. Take that as a sign you need to engage in some quiet self-reflection.

The US government really wants you to believe Iran, or the next designated enemy, is the greatest threat to you and me, but it isn't. If they hated us for our freedom, they would be our best buddies now. The US government has been doing their job for them.

The US government, with its state and local affiliates, is a much greater threat to your life, liberty, and property than any foreign power in the past century. This includes the old Soviet Union. Which one takes a large percentage of your money before you even see it? Which one then takes more of your money every time you buy something, or demands it in ransom so you're allowed to keep what you already own? Which one makes and enforces arbitrary rules about the way you're allowed to live?

I'll give you a hint: it's not Iran's evil government.

Right now, I'm not extorted to prop up an Iranian government, but if the US government wins this fight, I will be. Just as we are robbed to fund other former enemies and historical allies. It's an unsustainable and criminal system.

If you want a government which goes around the world, intervening in everyone's business, making enemies who are willing to travel here to hurt Americans because of the meddlesome US government, and dictating how you live, then you pay for it without anyone else's help. I don't want it, I can't afford it, and I haven't been brainwashed enough to tolerate it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Robocops are frauds

I oppose archation.

Therefore, I oppose government.
Therefore, I oppose legislation (counterfeit “law”).
Therefore, I oppose the existence of "law enforcement" (police).
Therefore, I oppose traffic police.

If traffic cops are to exist anyway, even though they shouldn't, then they must not be allowed to make contact with anyone who cannot be clearly seen with the naked eye, driving dangerously. 

If the "offense" relies on technology such as radar, traffic cameras, or a breathalyzer to detect, it's not real. It's certainly not worth robbing or killing people over.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.