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.

Committing crimes to punish non-crimes

A local man was kidnapped by legislation enforcers and charged with "unlawful possession of a weapon conversion device, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and unlawful sale of a firearm without a background check". The evidence: "five rifles, including a short-barreled rifle, two braced AR pistols, six pistols, thousands of rounds of ammunition, multiple magazines, psilocybin mushrooms, and $40,000 in cash", and "switches" were found during a search of his property.

All of these things are within his rights. The State had to commit a crime to find an excuse to molest him.

There's no such thing as a legal anti-gun "law". Nor legitimate drug prohibition. Nor any ethical rule against having cash on hand. If government goons can't find a real violation, with a real, individual victim, then they need to leave someone alone.

To use illegitimate "laws" as an excuse to target someone they want to "arrest" is lazy and dishonest... at best.

He may or may not be a bad guy (and it sounds as though he is), but if you have to commit crimes in order to charge him with something, you're a failure. It makes me angry when these failures then publicize their failures as if they want my applause or something. No, cops: you are failures and you deserve to be treated as pariahs for being proud of your crimes. Even if your victim is just as bad as you are.

This is why I have nothing but contempt for cops, and for those who hold their leashes.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Your starting point matters

In the past few days, I've been exposed to many more of Charlie Kirk's opinions than ever before. Some I agree with, some I don't. But he knew how to debate his views. I wonder if his murderer realized his evil act would have the effect of amplifying Kirk's reach beyond anything possible before. But, back on topic...

I even can see how logical, consistent, and rational Kirk's take on "illegal [sic] immigration" was... if you start with a bad assumption.

You have to start with the communistic notion of "collective ownership" of everyone's (no longer) private property to make it make sense. You also have to start with the idea that rules which are counter to the Constitution are real laws, even though they aren't (you can debate whether that matters, but "them's the rules"). 

And, starting there, it does make perfect sense.

However, that's the wrong starting place. To be ethical (not just moral), you've got to start with individual rights. Always, with every topic or issue, including "immigration". You can't start with non-existent collective "rights" or imaginary political "authority".

Starting in the wrong place, with the wrong assumptions, leads you to make errors in your conclusion- to end up with the wrong position.

-

-

By the way, I recommend that entire video linked above. Thanks to the friend and reader who sent it to me.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The filter selects for rule breakers

Of all the statist arguments that I can kind of understand while disagreeing completely with them, the "borders" thing may be the biggest.

I've even seen a lot of otherwise "libertarian" folk get confused about this one. Even those I admire.

I get it. "More criminals" is a bad thing. 

But, statists can't see how their "border rules" select for people who are willing to break counterfeit "laws", and are then more likely to break real Laws because they don't understand the difference.
Just like prohibition selects for violent criminals to enter the freelance drug market. 

Both "border controls" and prohibition are filters; selecting for rule breakers who don't understand the difference between rules that are valid ("don't violate life, liberty, or property") and rules that are illegitimate ("government says don't do this thing you have a natural human right to do").

It can't be otherwise.

If the State would stop violating your right to defend life, liberty, and property from ALL violators, the issue would go away. Maybe this is why they don't stop. They are using migrants, your fear, and your reasonable and rightful response to being violated as excuses to crack down harder on liberty. Liberty is what government hates and fears the most.

It's been going on for a long time. This isn't a Trump thing, although Trump has used it to his advantage and to get support from borderists.
Back in 2010, I was forwarded an email along those same lines. An email that missed the point. It began like this:

BUTTE, MONTANA

Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home... read the rest of the story, along with my commentary.

I have no idea if the story is true. Or if it happened when it supposedly happened, where it supposedly happened, to whom it supposedly happened. It doesn't really matter.

I'm always glad when archators are permanently"taken out". I don't care who the archators were, where they were born, why they decided to do what they did, or how they might have been mistreated by someone else in the past. I don't care who took them out or how it was done. I also don't care that they didn't ask a criminal gang for permission to be somewhere.
I care only that they decided to violate life, liberty, or privately-owned property (the only kind). That's what a criminal is.

So, when archators get nabbed by archators, or even "deported", it's "Not my circus; not my monkeys". I have a hard time getting too worked up over it.
On the other hand, I don't believe the liars in government when they tell me anyone is guilty of anything. They tell the story they believe will move you in the direction they wish you to be moved. And it's always in the direction of giving government more power over something or someone.

I am also aware that when the government archators get away with doing things like this, it emboldens them to do more of it. And when a large percentage of the population is asking them to do it, even though it's wrong, they'll do more of it with enthusiasm.

The ethically correct position is "property lines, not government borders". But it's a hard sell to people who have been trained to be unable to think about things clearly; without assuming government has "rights" or "authority".

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The view from Down Under

There's no such thing as a legitimate weapon ban. Nor is there any such thing as a legitimate weapon restriction. This includes licenses, permits, background checks, and keeping records of who owns what. It includes exempting armed government employees from the illegitimate rules they expect us to be slaves to.

It's not only certain Americans who understand this: some Australians do too. And I'm sure there are others in other places. Stupid and/or crooked people are the only ones who ban or restrict weapons, or support those who do. In every country or region, it's the same. Human rights don't change at the "borders".

Attacking people with weapons is unethical; nothing more is needed.
Using weapons in defense is the right thing to do. Punishing defense is evil.
It's never about the weapons; it's about what people do with them. Stupid and/or crooked people will try to make it about the weapons.

Bad guys will always be armed.
Smart good guys who ignore the opinions of political criminals will, too.

"America, Do not give up your guns." Good advice.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Things that make you say "Really?"

Curious whether "someone" has made political donations in your name without your knowledge? (Or want to see who the latest wanna-be assassin has been donating to?) Go to https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts and find out.

I was relieved to not find my name anywhere on the list. But I did see something a little suspicious.

One of my relatives seems to have made well over 200 donations in the last year she was alive-- up until 8 days before she died in January of this year. Mostly $3 each (198 of them!), with some smaller, some slightly larger, some amounts of a greater order of magnitude, and a couple of $250 donations. All but one going to ACTBLUE. 

Maybe she did... but it looks fishy.

She suffered a stroke several years ago and hadn't been 100% since then, unable to speak and be understood by anyone but her immediate family, and unable to walk. I'm not really sure how good her mind was otherwise.

It wouldn't shock me to discover she was a leftist, but it shows she made 13 small donations in one day, and on several days she apparently made 5, 6, or 7 donations. 

She probably had the money to do this, but it looks odd to me. There was one other person in this ZIP code with a similar donation profile, also mostly giving to ACTBLUE, but with only about half as many individual donations. This relative of mine beat everyone else in the ZIP code for the number of donations, but not the dollar amount. (One other relative made around 70 donations to various Republican groups and candidates in the past 2 years. This also seems excessive, but as there wasn't only one main recipient, it looks legitimate.)

I'm not going to mention this to her family. As I say, she could very well have been a lefty, and what's done is done. I don't corner people over politics. I can't explain peoples' political behaviors. Plus, it's none of my business. I didn't even intend to see this information, it was an accident as I was looking for my name and didn't know quite how to work the website. It just makes me wonder.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It can't be allowed to continue

Scott thinks he’s listing problems with technological progress while he lists reasons government can’t be allowed to continue.

It's not just him. I see this so often it's almost comical. 

People list reasons why people can't be trusted when what they are actually listing are reasons people can't be trusted with power over others. 

People list the problems with abolishing police when they are actually enumerating problems caused when government prohibits individuals from defending themselves and their property. 

People tell me why liberty can't work when they are really expressing why limited freedom under a government doesn't work. Liberty is all or nothing.

Scott Adams also likes to say there's no such thing as privacy-- he blames corporations as well as government without recognizing they are really one and the same. This is yet another reason government must be abolished for the survival of the species.

When he says insurance companies will be the ones who dictate what we will be allowed to own and do, he's actually pointing out that mandatory insurance, imposed and enforced by government, is how insurance companies will gain the power to impose government's preferences upon us. Another reason government can't continue is thus exposed.

If all the problems you see have a common element, maybe you're blaming the wrong things. Maybe it really is a fact that government is the problem, and you are wasting your time defending the indefensible and shifting the blame away from where it belongs.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Cops are ethically required to die to avoid violating rights

The more information that comes out about that cop who murdered the guy who came to his door holding a gun, the worse it shows the cop to be.

Everything about that incident is horrible. 

The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn't even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone's rights. Don't like it? That's easy: Don't be a cop.

The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn't adequately announce himself-- but even if he had it wouldn't have made a difference because in that case, it's either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It's a no-win situation for the good guy.

Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.

That cop needs to be exposed.
He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of "tax" money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.

Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I'm opposed to revenge,,. so...

There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him.
The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn't a cop with a gun merits immediate death.

Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

How could this have been prevented?

Friday afternoon, the bodies of two women were found in a park I like to visit. One had been shot, the other's cause of death hasn't been released. A 5-year-old girl with serious injuries was found with them. Differing reports say the child might have been shot, beaten, or hit with a car. (They are now saying she was shot.) Also, her 10-month-old half-sister is missing. I'm hoping her body isn't in the nearby pond.

It might be unfair, but in cases like this, my first thought is always that they were probably involved in some activity, or with some individual, that led to this tragic outcome.

So far, in no local case I'm aware of, has this assumption proved to be wrong.

No, I'm not blaming the victims. I'm facing reality. They didn't deserve this, but their own choices might have played a part in it. In fact, it is almost guaranteed.

There have been times in my life when I knew I was around someone who wasn't good for me to be around, or when I found myself in social situations I knew could be dangerous for me. I usually got out of there quickly. Usually.

You can do a lot to increase your safety by staying away from certain people and situations. It's no guarantee, but it gives you better odds. 

It might have also helped had the women been adequately armed (which includes knowing how to use the arms). It certainly couldn't have made things worse for them, considering the outcome, regardless of the standard claims of anti-gun bigots.

The best way to use your keys for defense is to drive far away from bad people and dangerous situations. If that fails, you need a gun.

-

UPDATE: The baby has been found and taken to the hospital to be checked out, and a suspect is in custody.

-

Thank you for reading.  

If you’d like to show your support...

Breaking News! Freedom pamphlet sweeps the world!

Well, maybe not yet. But you can help make my headline true.

There's a new booklet you need to download. Freedom and How To Find It. It was written by frequent commenter to this blog, and all-around good liberty-loving guy, Jim Davies. 

And when you do download a copy, please send a dollar to Jim, and then send copies to people you know might be receptive to the message.

I've been sending out copies myself.

The more liberty there is, the better off all of us will be. Only the bad guys will be hurt by it, and I can't bring myself to care much about their plight. 

I know what liberty looks and feels like, and I want it all. Not bits and pieces-- ALL of it. Maybe this could help reach the goal.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

X

Yes, the rumors are true. I'm on TwiXXer, or "The X Platform" as it is commonly known these days. I've been on it for a while now, not terribly active but present.

But... and this is the tricky part... I'm probably not supposed to be there. So. I'm trying to be fairly quiet, beyond posting my blogs. 

I'm not planning to engage any anti-gun bigots, copsuckers, or political criminals like I did before. Sometimes, the temptation may get the better of me, though.

I went back into my original account that had been locked down because some pre-Musk pinhead said I was doing a hate speech or something (I forget what, and I don't really care). I haven't tried getting into the account I was using when some early Musk-era pinhead banned me "for life" for saying people have a right to defend themselves from people who are blocking their path to emergency medical care. By running over them with their car if that's what it takes. I won't apologize for speaking the truth, even if w0kesters don't like it. 

Yes, I'm so unreasonably violent!

I don't think the ban would have survived personal scrutiny by Musk, had I been a big enough account to get his attention, but I could be wrong. I'm just going by what I see Elon himself posting. I think he would personally agree with everything I wrote in that tweet.

X isn't some bastion of free speech. It's undoubtedly better now than when the US feral gooberment was telling the pinheads in charge of banning whom to ban. It's probably still the best one out there-- although Gab lets users post the most disgusting racist crap I've ever seen online. (But, hey, I appreciate knowing who the bigots are, so I'm all for letting them speak!)

X lost most of my respect (and trust) when I got banned. I still find it useful for giving me ideas to write about. And, I may inevitably test the waters and see what happens.

If you're on X and don't follow this account, please do. If you only follow the banned account, keep following it-- I may use it as a backup when/if I get banned again sometime in the future. Although that might not work next time.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

When an "expert" at identifying cognitive dissonance falls into it

Scott Adams seems to harbor a deep-rooted hostility against libertarians. As do all who want to reserve the option of archating (and worshiping The State) without feeling like the bad guy.

Years ago he claimed to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff"; and he defined the "crazy stuff" as anything that defined libertarians, which he has never understood. Let me say that again: All his anti-libertarian opinions show he doesn't understand the first thing about liberty, and it doesn't seem as though he wants to. It would destroy his bubble if he did, and it's easier to attack the straw men he creates.

A couple of days ago he went on a rather strange rant against comic Dave Smith, a political libertarian who is probably always more correct than Adams on the topic of government.

A few highlights from his video (you can watch the whole thing at the link above): “you don’t need a libertarian country”… "there never has been one and it can’t work"… “Argentina… to me that just looks like capitalism”.

Then we get to the part where he really went off the rails: “you can fairly easily trigger them (libertarians) into cognitive dissonance”.

To demonstrate his point, he showed the opposite happening. 

He quoted Dave Smith as saying, “Netanyahu did not sufficiently defend Israel from the October 7 attack and that perhaps that was intentional as well”. Adams says this is "too far", and is “mind reading”.

Sorry, Scott, your government supremacism is showing. You don't need to read any minds, just look at the actions taken.

Did the Israeli government impose anti-weapon legislation? Yes. They did. This is the opposite of "defending Israel" from such an attack. The residents were made easy prey for criminal scum so they'd be easier to govern. It was intentional-- legislation always is-- and it was demonstrably disastrous. Netanyahu and his minions are guilty, as Smith charged. Facts are facts, like them or not. 

Then Adams allowed it may have been intentional on Netanyahu’s part, to give him an excuse to destroy Hamas at the cost of losing a few hundred innocent people. Smith said this was a bad thing. Adams says if this was the plan, the plan worked. Adams wants to wait and see how it turns out, not considering the human costs in the present, because it might be worth the deaths and suffering in the long run.

Which is a typically disgusting example of pragmatism.

He asked, “Was I making a good point or not?” No, Scott, you were being evil and pragmatic. Slavery was very pragmatic. Democide is pragmatic. They both "work", from a certain point of view. You can excuse anything by saying it "works".

Then Adams starts slipping into his own trap.

Smith replied, “Adams sees no evidence an unprovable counter-factual wouldn’t be worse”. Adams claimed this was "word salad" because he couldn’t understand it. This is not the first time he's claimed "word salad" for something easily understandable by anyone without the motivation to be unable to understand it. I understood Dave's sentence, accurate or not. Yet he claims this shows Smith suffering "cognitive dissonance".

Scott is the one in cognitive dissonance. And can’t see it. Partly because he’s so brainwashed by statism. Partly because he’s being dishonest. Again.

He also claimed this sentence was a quintuple negative (demonstrating an inability to count to five). Maybe he has difficulty reading words-- he dislikes words and their definitions, anyway, calling that "word-thinking". How convenient for him. 

He then started trying to insult Dave Smith for not understanding costs and benefits. I guess Smith isn't pragmatic enough. Would Dave Smith refuse to consider the costs and benefits of slavery before standing up and denouncing it? I doubt it. Adams? I don't think he would denounce slavery if others hadn't already made it safe for him to take that position. Or unsafe to debate the costs and benefits before taking a position on it.

He kept calling Smith a progressive, even after initially admitting he wasn’t one. He then said libertarians and progressives were really the same thing because their ideas can't work in the real world. Well, not in the real world Adams promotes, where rights aren't real; only power matters. Where government can do anything it wants, using whatever excuse dumb people will accept.

It’s interesting to me that anyone who tries to ridicule the libertarian position has to either try hard to not understand or they have to lie. Or both.

Statism is stupid and evil. And statists seem to love acting patronizing to those who are smarter and more ethical than they are.  It's like a spoiled toddler being patronizing toward his dad.

When Adams is right, he’s right. When he’s wrong, it’s generally because he’s a vile statist who is suffering from cognitive dissonance while seeing it in everyone who disagrees with him.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

This is the way. In Israel and everywhere.

I don't necessarily believe "the news" even when it's something I desperately want to be true. 

Case in point: An example of armed defense-- not offense-- when the invaders attacked Israel. And the defenders won. 

If this is true it illustrates perfectly what I've been saying about how you can defeat a gang of bad guys without becoming a bad guy yourself. 

If it isn't true, it's still an illustration of how it would be done. This is the way.

-

This blog is my job. You get to decide if I get paid. 

Please consider it.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Not making the argument they imagine

"You're mad about this, but let me explain why it's already been worse than this for a long time. Get over it."

So many times when government supremacists make the case that you shouldn't be angry that government can get away with violating your liberty, they seem to be trying to make the case that your liberty was never safe from government in the first place. I agree. 

Where I disagree is when they then pivot to saying you need to get over it and just accept the situation.

Instead of looking like a reason you should accept the violations, they are making the best argument for abolishing the State.

Scott Adams, on his Thursday live stream, was talking about the case in which Liberty Safe (which neither respects liberty nor keeps property safe) told the Federal Blue Line Mafia how to get into a customer's gun safe (of course, Scott had ALL the important details wrong). 

As usual, when he's right he's right; when he's wrong it's because of his government supremacism.

As a government supremacist, he apparently believes "law enforcement" [sic] needs to have a way to get into people's safes. That's not a reason to accept this violation of your property, it's a reason to abolish the State.

Then, to keep making his case, he was talking about the fear of digital money and how it is misplaced because government has been able to cut off your money any time they want for a long time. Again, not a reason to accept the situation, but a reason to abolish the State.

He makes the same case about your privacy-- it's been gone a long time, so why are you talking about it?

He's not the only one with this blind spot. It's a defining feature of statists/government supremacists.

I know all the arguments for allowing The State to exist. I have heard and evaluated them all-- I haven't seen an original justifcation in decades. They are all balderdash. They are a child's reasoning.

When even government supremacists admit that the State is there to violate you, but then try to justify it with twisted "reasons", it's a clear indication they know they are on the wrong side, even if they don't want to admit it.

The State has been allowed to molest humanity for too long. Abolish it.

-

This blog is my job. You get to decide if I get paid. 

Please consider it.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Well, that's definitely... "interesting"

I consider corporations a branch of The State-- at least in how The State uses them against liberty. Corporate censorship, anti-gun policies, and COVID collusion being examples that spring immediately to mind. However, I am still free to choose whether I deal--  or not-- with most of them.

The local facility of the consumerish corporation that I sometimes refer to as PlastiCrap World-- where the vast majority of the funds for this household come from-- burned early Sunday morning.

I would much rather it had been a police station, a courthouse, a city hall, a DMV office, an IRS office, or some other completely useless, totally coercive institution destroyed in the blaze. Some office people are forced to deal with, no matter how much we'd rather not.

But it wasn't.

I’m oddly really kind of upset over it. It doesn’t make sense even to me. 

Being a MegaCorporation, I'm hoping they rebuild and reopen soon. Either way, this is another of those "interesting times" we are occasionally cursed with.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

One of the finest explanations of liberty

Soon after I first discovered the liberty community, I ran across this video, posted by someone somewhere as a tribute to the artist who had just died. 

It embedded itself deeply into my mind. 

It's one of the best explanations of liberty and self-ownership I've ever run across. Even to this day. It gets the point across in a simple way. I've never seen anyone able to refute it with counterarguments, no matter how they try. It just is.

Yes, the animation and music are dated now. I've seen updated versions, but this is still my favorite just because it's the one I first encountered.

I'm sure you've seen it before, but enjoy it again.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 

Thank you.

Don't walk behind a sick elephant or you might slip in a Dettelbach

I really don't respect politicians. But... I did enjoy seeing Thomas Massie humiliate BATFEces director Steven Dettelbach with regard to the illegal and ignorant pistol brace rule. And, no, I'm not generally a fan of Massie either, even though he sometimes does good stuff like this.

In the clips I saw on the confrontation, Massie was relentless and the BATFEces trash was utterly outgunned and outclassed.

That slimy puddle of diarrhea-- Steven Dettelbach-- couldn't even explain what his gang is doing or what they think their illegitimate rules apply to. All he could do was look exasperated as he fumbled with his excuses.

If America were still America, Dettelbach would not be working to violate your liberty while you are forced to pay him for his crime spree. At least, he wouldn't be doing this in a safe way, but would have to risk his life like any other crook every time he chose to show up for "work". As it is, that nasty criminal gets to commit his crimes openly without fear of justice.

The recent kidnapping and caging of Matt Hoover/CRS Firearms and Justin Ervin should be the straw that breaks the camel's back and ends the "ATF" gang's crime wave forever.

The "ATF" needs to be abolished and replaced with nothing. And it needs to happen now. There is nothing legitimate they do, they have no "authority", and all the power they wield is stolen from you and me. They are garbage.

I hope this situation doesn't continue. I don't think it can continue in this way. I don't care who ends it or how-- even if it's done by a politician. End the BATFE.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to. Thank you!

2ndAmendmentShirts.com

If you like pro-gun (and pro-2A) and pro-liberty shirts (and flags) you might like to check out the wares at 2ndAmendmentShirts.com.

The store is from the folks at Ammo.com and Libertas Bella. They reached out to me to ask if I would let you know about their products, possibly in exchange for a shirt as thanks. I am glad to do so, shirt or not. I've worked with them, linking to several of their excellent posts, in the past. They seem pretty solid friends of liberty.

I like to see businesses that promote liberty thrive. How about you?

-

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

Too much specialness

"It does no good to be special if no one wants your particular manner of specialness."

That's a sentence I just read from the book, Everyone is an Entrepreneur: Selling Economic Self-Determination in a Post-Soviet World by Gregory Diehl

It struck close to home. That's because it has been the story of my life. 

I have no passion for "normal" things. That means everything I am interested in enough to put forth the effort to do is too "special" to be popular, with the result that (almost) no one wants it enough to pay for it.

I'm very grateful for the exceptions who do pay for it-- and if you get anything out of my writing you should thank them, as well.

Over the past several years I've tried to branch out and find something less "special" I can do that more people might want enough to pay for, but with very little success. I'll keep trying, because what else am I going to do?

Anyway, I do recommend the book I mentioned. It has inspired me to try some new things. It gives me new angles to see things from, and maybe it can help me find a way to deal with inflation a little better before the cats starve.

-

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

I really, truly appreciate it!

Shredding an anti-gun bigot's proposal

It's been a while since I gave "the treatment" to some authoritarian's steaming pile of editorial BS. It's time.

This time I'll dissect this "guest editorial": Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment by Paul Shriver 

"Constitutional Carry": What a euphemistic, "newspeak" concept! 

There's no euphemism (perhaps you don't know what the word means) and it's not newspeak. The Constitution doesn't allow government to forbid (or vet or license) the carrying (or ownership) of personal weapons. At all. In fact, it explicitly forbids government to have any say about weapons whatsoever (which is what you have a problem with). Making government obey the rules which apply to it is just the way it is, like it or not. 

True Constitutional Carry would remove ALL government oversight and control. Every speck of it. It does no good for you to lie about it just because you don't like it.

Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally "logical" step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America. 

I doubt the Indiana governor is honest or ethical enough to do what you pretend to fear he'll do next. I'm sure he's an anti-gun bigot, too, just like all politicians. He's just not quite as fearful and bigoted as you, and that upsets you.

Yes, unregulated firearm ownership is logical, and-- as with all rights-- applies to every man, woman, and child able to exercise that right responsibly and accept the consequences. Every human alive has equal and identical rights. Sadly for you, it's not up to you or any politicians to decide who is responsible and thus violate their rights based on your flawed opinion. Not even if you're a credentialed "expert".

Already, neighborhood and school shootings are "commonplace;" "ghost" gun kits and plastic, 3-D copier "homemades" are becoming ubiquitous; and "doorbuster" big box rushes follow every histrionic media saturation of mass firearm attacks and the Indiana Legislature wants gun ownership to be unregulated. 

Neighborhood shootings are only commonplace in those neighborhoods which seek to violate the right of the residents to defend themselves and their property. School shootings are rare. Very rare. But they are more common than they would be, due to dangerously ignorant anti-gun policies, like those you apparently support, which make sure that they are slaughterhouses full of unarmed inmates where bad guys can kill without fear of being stopped. 

"Ghost guns" are just guns; made the way all guns were historically made: without government tracking numbers and fees paid-- by individual craftsmen. It's what all guns used to be, and what all guns should still be. 3D-printed guns are the same: homemade, non-commercial firearms. It's not evil to make things yourself, but it is evil to try to forbid it.

The media (and anti-liberty bigots like you) feed the fear and demand disarmament which creates the environment and conditions for mass shootings to happen. If you don't like the inevitable reaction, why set it in motion?

Just because politicians don't want to regulate firearms (and thus be guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes) to the same insane extent you wish they would isn't the same as letting guns be unregulated. You're lying again.

Biden and anti-gun lobbyists "pussyfoot" around the only real issue — the "right" itself —while insanities are amok and lunatics run the asylum. We seem precariously balanced on a fragile tipping point. The time seems right and essential for a total reboot as the only sensible solution to the gun violence problem. (Gun violence being a redundancy).

 

The first part of your paragraph doesn't even make sense; it's what is referred to as "word salad". I guess "you had to be there" inside your cramped little brain to get the point you thought you were making.

Tell me, when is the time right-- when does it make sense to you-- to enslave the population? This is what you are proposing.

There is no such thing as a "gun violence problem". There is an aggression problem; the tools used are irrelevant. And violence, with the tools used still being irrelevant, can be the solution to aggression. Self-defense often solves the problem of aggression. If you don't like "gun violence" would you be happier if the aggressors used machetes? If not, why whine about guns? Because it fits your anti-liberty agenda and you hate or fear guns. You don't like people being able to defend life (their own and that of others), liberty (I think you don't know what liberty is and wouldn't approve if you did), and property (it's obvious from this whole editorial that you don't respect property rights) with tools you fear. Maybe this hints at your inclinations.

Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society. Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain or more lethal with less effort than a firearm. No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one's feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to "free speech" or even exist as a "right" on the same piece of paper.

 

Violence isn't aggression. Violence (the use of physical force) is ethically neutral; aggression (the initiation of physical force) is ethically wrong. Most forms of work are violent acts. Homicide, when the dead person was the aggressor, is a good, ethical outcome. Or did you believe "homicide" was interchangeable with "murder", you silly illiterate moron?

Guns are easy to obtain? Have you bought a firearm recently? Not counting the expense, you've got to go through the criminal government's vetting process to be allowed to do something you have a natural human right to do. 

Cars kill with little effort. Drugs kill with little effort. No, government has zero right to regulate those things, either. The amount of effort isn't a real issue. If someone is being attacked by an aggressor, ease of use and lethality is a feature, not a bug.

No reasonable person imagines that shooting a gun is a way to express feelings or opinions. It is a serious matter to defend life, liberty, or property. You don't do it based on feelings or opinions, but on credible threats.

And yes, the right to own and to carry any type of weapon everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking government's permission, is a natural human right. No other right is more important, nor is any other right less important. Rights are just rights. I'm guessing you have a problem understanding what a right is.

The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means. This would include specifics as to legal and reasonable legitimacy of uses, manufacture, sales, types, and related products. 

Repeal the Second Amendment? Go ahead. The right to own and to carry weapons won't go away. It won't even change. Well, it might change to be stronger. The only reason the US exists at all is that the Bill of Rights-- all of it-- was added to the Constitution. It was a package deal. Alter the deal and the deal is OFF. I'm fine with that. Are you?

It's not the Bill of Privileges. It is a list of things the government is absolutely prohibited from doing because they are rights, which means it is wrong to violate them. They do it anyway, so some might say they've already broken the deal.

There's nothing good or civilized in allowing the mob, through democratic means or otherwise, to decide which rights to violate. Bigots like you often fetishize democracy (when it goes their way). 

In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not "re-legalized," eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme. 

This is where you expose your willingness to steal property from others. Just like any common crook. It's not about inconvenience-- it's about rights. It's not about what bigots like you feel is appropriate. It's simply not up to you or those like you. Yes, your proposal is anti-gun. Worse, it is anti-gun-owner and anti-liberty, anti-life, and anti-property. Nothing is more extreme than advocating a mass violation of human rights by an authoritarian government, even if it is empowered by mob rule (democracy).

Personally, I would not recommend self-defense either by pre-emptive or counter attack as an appropriate use, as there are many effective and less lethal options. Of course, under the new laws, it would still be true that if (some) guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns, but non-compliance would make (possibly) you, (former law-abiding citizen) one of them, now wouldn't it? (And good luck with that.) 

If you don't like self-defense, it makes me believe you want to be able to be the aggressor without risk of being stopped by your intended victim or a rescuer. What "effective" options do you approve of? Do they take physical handicaps into account? Is a quill and ink bottle an effective alternative to modern communication methods? Will you decide it is safer for people like you if you get to choose what tools they will be allowed to use?

I would gladly be an outlaw in your gun ban Utopia. If you make me live as an outlaw, what's the downside of embracing it fully? I'd never become a parasite like you, but I might stop caring about obeying "laws" that protect bad guys from the rightful consequences of their behavior. If enough come to the same conclusion, things would become very bad for people like you, really fast.

In closing, I remind the reader of the playwright Chekov's quote: "If, in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired." Also: "He who lives by the (sword) ... etc." Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.

Firing a pistol isn't a bad thing. It can be if the one firing it is a bad guy intent on aggression. If it is fired in defense, it is a good thing. Even something to celebrate when it keeps the innocent alive. If it is fired in sport, then great! Do more of that. Don't be ashamed of firing that pistol.

Having, or using, a gun in defense is not "living by" the gun. Do you "live by" the shoe because you wear shoes? You're a dishonest idiot.

If you believe a gun that is "not very accurate" is "little threat", you show why no sensible person would ever listen to your ignorant, vapid opinions on gun-related matters. Nothing is more dangerous than an inaccurate gun, unless it is a haughty anti-gun bigot who hallucinates the moral superiority to lecture his intellectual betters about guns and rights.

Universal disarmament will never happen. Humans have never been totally unarmed and never will be. Even if you magically eliminated every firearm on the planet, people would find or invent new weapons, or they'd pick up sticks and stones to use as weapons. Weapons are a necessity of life. The attempt to eliminate guns or weapons will never result in peace or good will. The opposite would happen. I hope my kids and grandkids are never unfortunate enough to live in your authoritarian "Utopia". 

You are an ignorant, dishonest monster of the worst kind.

-

If you agree with me, or just enjoyed the post, PLEASE subscribe or donate.

I would really appreciate it!