The Right to Not Bear Arms

Everyone knows by now my unwavering commitment to the absolute right of anyone and everyone to own any type and number of guns they want. There is another side to that coin that I haven't discussed.

There have been places in the past such as Kennesaw, Georgia which have passed laws requiring households to keep firearms for defense. While this would reduce crime (and actually has), it is as evil a counterfeit "law" as any gun ban dreamed up in Washington DC. Government has zero authority to make "laws" concerning guns. Neither for nor against.

While I believe strongly that each and every person is responsible for their own defense and the defense of their family and to some extent, their community, if you do not wish to own, carry, or use a gun or any other defensive tool, that is strictly your business. I will defend your right to be wrong.

If your house is burning down and you refuse to use a fire extinguisher, I may think you are mad, but I will respect your right to sit and watch your home burn. Unless there is someone trapped inside. Then you had better stay out of the way. Your right to allow your home to burn because of your distaste for the tools of fire-defense just ran counter to my responsibility to help an innocent victim.

It is the same with guns. You have an inalienable right to NOT bear arms if that is your wish. Just remember that you have no right to try to disarm any other peaceable human on this or any other planet, not through force or "law". Shirk your responsibility if you must, but stay out of the way of those of us who accept our responsibilities. Don't be proud that your actions (or lack of them) add to the body count in places like malls, schools, and office buildings where criminal empowerment policies attempt to keep the reasonable people helpless and disarmed.

My Article in Strike the Root

The writing project I was working on has been published in Strike the Root: A Deep Breath of Freedom by Kent McManigal. I hope you like it.

Happy Patriots' Day: 4-19

4-19

Today, April 19th, is Patriots' Day. It is the anniversary of strikes against tyranny such as "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It is also a day which has seen tyranny strike back, with the Branch Davidian Massacre, and the United States (on this date in 1933) abandoning the gold standard . One tragic event on "4-19" which has never been untangled, and probably never will be, is the Oklahoma City bombing, seen by some as retaliation for the Davidian massacre, by others as domestic terrorism, and still others as a US government Reichstag Fire.

"Patriot" has become a bad word in modern America. It means "someone who loves freedom and is willing to stand up for it, against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Since so many of those "domestic enemies" now hold positions in government, patriots are seen as a danger to their plans. They should reject their treason and become patriots themselves.

Make April 19, 2007 mean something. Be a patriot today.

A Day to Reflect

After the events of the past couple of days I need a break. I need to take a breath and look around calmly. Today I will live free. I will not hide from the authoritarians in government, but I will also not bow to them. I will not worry about the mass-murder fan-club known as The Brady Campaign, nor any of the other groups or mouthpieces who lurk in the shadows, waiting to feed off of events like this. I will ignore them. I will grieve for the victims of Virginia Tech's rules; a policy which allowed a sociopath to kill unopposed. I pledge to myself to always stay prepared to act in defense of myself and my community. I will nurture the mindset, not of a victim, but of a free man. A free human responsible for my own life and safety. A free man who willingly takes on the responsibility to silently look out for those blissfully unaware people around me, not out of some sense of superiority, but from the desire to live in a world where civility remains the norm. That is the thing to remember: civility is the norm. Events like massacres get our attention because they are rare. Heroes rise up in every instance of tragedy, just like Liviu Librescu, a Jewish professor at Virginia Tech who gave his life to save the students in his room. It is a shame he was unarmed at the demand of the school and therefore not able to end the rampage completely, but he did what he could with what he had. That is all we can do. Do what you can with what you have, and make certain you have what it takes. In your mind, in your heart, and in your hand.

Call to Arms: Lessons From Virginia Tech

I will probably get reamed for what I am about to say. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is life advice. This is a plea for you, for all of us, to return to being human. Break the "law", please! Carry the means of self defense with you every day, everywhere you go. Be a blessing to society at large and refuse to go along with victim disarmament schemes. Protect the weak in your community by being ready, willing, able, and ARMED. If someone like "Massacre-enabler Larry" belittles and ridicules your desire to take responsibility for your own safety, call his betrayal of human values what it is. Even on private property, what is inside your clothing is not anyone else's business as long as it is not radioactive or contagious. If you don't have the fortitude to ignore inhuman "laws" and policies, go somewhere else. If the cheerleaders for mass murder try to dance in the blood of the latest victims of their policies and call for even more of the same, proclaim far and wide who and what they really are. When the mainstream mass-media start parroting calls for more victim disarmament, don't let them go unchallenged. But mainly: stay armed.

Permission to Murder at Virginia Tech

Here is a letter (from August 31, 2006) I was pointed to from the War on Guns blog that shows that at least one student at Virginia Tech was intelligent enough to recognize the need for self defense. And then here is a rebuttal from Larry Hincker, the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech; the man who sent out the invitation to murder that was accepted yesterday. Well, Larry, will you face the responsibility you share in this massacre or will you wring the blood out of your welcome mat and continue to offer up unarmed victims for the next mass murderer? Will you continue to praise Virginia Tech's "very sound policy preventing" guns on campus? We see the results of that policy very clearly today, don't we?

More Disarmed Victims

As news of the Virginia Tech murders begins circulating let's look back at this article from January 21, 2006: Gun bill gets shot down by panel, particularly these two quotes:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to
carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General
Assembly.

and:

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was
defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General
Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and
visitors feel safe on our campus."

Yep. I'm sure the dead victims felt good knowing that they died to uphold a disarmament zone for the safety of Virginia's politicians and other murderers.

I Hate it When That Happens....

I hate when I make people mad or annoyed. Especially when I do it by accident, such as when my meaning is not clearly understood in a blog entry. (Or sometimes when it IS clearly understood.) When that happens, I go back and read and re-read my blog to see if I made a mistake or if I seem to be saying something that I didn't mean to say. If so, I will apologize, write a retraction, or try to make it right however I can. If after all the re-reading, I still can't figure out why someone reacted the way they did, it really bothers me.

This happened with my previous blog entry about "Tax Day". Someone whom I really respect wrote and seemed very upset, thinking that I had called anyone who pays taxes a "perverted uncivilized cretin". I still don't believe that is what I said. I think that anyone who imposes, enforces, collects, or lives off of taxes fits that description, but not people who feel they are forced to pay taxes. They are the victims of armed governmental extortion.

I guess I need to clarify. What I was meaning was that in a free world, there would be no coercive taxation. If a government is allowed to exist, its financing would have to be strictly voluntary. Anyone who chose to try to set up and finance a government under those circumstances would be evil, and anyone who voluntarily chose to give money to help fund the effort would be evil as well. Obviously this is not the world we currently live in, but is instead a fanciful, fairytale world.

I believe that true civilized life is only possible in the absence of governmental coercion and oppression. Therefore people who would wish to reimpose government on the rest of humanity would be working towards a less civilized condition and would be "uncivilized" in my estimation. Anyone who feels that they own another person is acting against nature and is therefore "perverted" by definition. Government is the way those who feel that they own the rest of us join together to enforce their views.

As I hope you can see, it is those who make the evil choice to steal and control that I have the disagreement with; not those who are forced to live under the corrupt regimes that exist in most of the world. I would be calling myself a "perverted uncivilized cretin" were that the case.

My Writing Project and Other Stuff

For the past few days I have been working on another writing project which has been taking most of my time. I wasn't ignoring my blog. Well, maybe a little. I am finished with the project now, and if it gets published I will link to it here.

Now that you are here anyway: go vote for me in some polls, please. Thank you!

Presidential Election '08

PoliticsOne poll

I updated the links on the side of my blog with some good websites I think you might enjoy. Check them out.

Tax Day

I know that this year the IRS and its enablers have moved "Tax Day" to the 17th, but today, on April 15th, the historically enshrined day of federally sanctioned armed robbery, theft-by-receiving, extortion, and various immoral acts of governance, I thought I would say a little about it.

Taxation is theft. Taxes are money taken from the unwilling, by threats of force by the cohorts of the ones who are allowed to set the rules, and given to those who wish to control every aspect of our lives and imprison or kill those of us who refuse to play along. The only morally justifiable level of taxation is "zero percent" on everything and every action and in every situation.

If you wish to have a government, and wish to finance its atrocities; make a case for financial support, and go out and collect voluntary contributions from like-minded cretins. Don't threaten those of us who recognize you and your government as an abomination and refuse to contribute. Go off and play your perverted game amongst yourselves and leave civilized, non-coercive people alone. You will be healthier for your wisdom in this matter.

What's the "Big Idea"?

Sometimes blogging is so frustrating. I was on my errand this morning when a brilliant idea for a blog struck me. I was turning it over in my mind when I had to pull to the side to let an ambulance pass. Then I saw that it was headed towards the house of someone I know. I didn't see if that is where it went or not... it might have been next door. Anyway, when I got to the computer, my brilliant idea was gone. Evaporated. I have tried to remember for the last few hours to no avail.

Has "The Big Liberty Idea" vanished in the rush of daily life in this same way? Perhaps the kernel of the idea that would have made us all throw off the chains of oppression was just forming in someone's mind once, and then in a moment of distraction, it was gone.

Take the time to daydream a little everyday. Maybe "The Big Liberty Idea" will come to you. If not, you will still have spent some valuable time inside your own mind. That is a good thing.

What Freedom Means to Me

"Freedom" is not having to think about government, its rules, or its enforcers. It is being able to pursue happiness however you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. Government harms others so the practice of governing is not a "right" and is antithetical to freedom.

Governments are established (it has been said) in order to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other reason. If government is not doing its job, it should be fired.

Has the government, at any level, enriched your life today? Has it protected your individual liberty in a concrete way today? Has government gotten out of the way and allowed you to pursue happiness? Or has government and its minions endangered your life by filling our land with badged highwaymen hopped up on "authority" and adrenaline, and forced you to be disarmed for freelance criminals to prey on? Has government taken anyone you know prisoner for the simple act of owning or using something in a non-aggressive way that the government does not approve of? Does government forbid you to do the things that bring joy to your heart, and fill your life with meaning, simply because the majority of lawmakers do not understand your interests? If you have experienced government doing any of these things, in direct violation of its charter to exist, then you have first-hand knowledge of why government must be brought back in line with the laws that apply to it, or if it resists, be abolished. The rules were clear. Government is established for A, B, &C, yet government does -A, -B, & -C. That adds up to zero. Zero government, with individual responsibility, is what freedom means to me.

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". "Initiate", as in "start it". Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to hurt an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence or aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force with self defense force. That is because the authoritards only think that they can properly use violence; against us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their crimes. We must reintroduce the predators among us to fear. Violence in the form of self defence must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.

"Top Ten Reasons Why an Anarchist is Your Best Friend" by Retta Fontana

I have linked to the writings of Retta Fontana once before, but here is another excellent piece on anarchists: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I was called a "hippy anarchist" on one website. A black powder shooter group I used to hang out with had bumper stickers that said: "I am NOT a hippy! I am a well-groomed MountainMan". Maybe we are hippies; with guns. In any case, I am an anarchist. Read Retta's piece and see why.

Donations? - I Need Your Feedback

I am having an ethical crisis that I need some input on. Some people feel that I should accept donations. I have very strong feelings against this for a couple of reasons. I want this to be the first truly grass-roots campaign. I want my supporters to be my campaign staff. I have asked you, my supporters, to spend your time and/or money however you see fit on this campaign. Some people feel I am handicapping my campaign with this stance.

One of the very first promises I made was to not accept monetary donations. I don't want to break a promise. Not without a compelling reason, and not without the consensus of my supporters that it would be the right thing to do. If you think I am wrong to refuse donations, tell me so, and explain why you think I should accept them. I have thought long and hard about this and can't seem to find an answer on my own.

I have two reasons for not accepting donations. The reporting regulations are one reason. The other reason is that I hear people complaining about how donations corrupt the candidates with influence, so I thought that if I refused donations, I could avoid any appearance of "political favor-ism". I didn't think it would be a divisive issue. I can't really imagine that there are that many people itching to donate money to me anyway.

The only reason I have not yet filed with the FEC is that I don't have a "campaign committee" (and the required bank account) or a treasurer or a "guardian of records". Since I wasn't planning on accepting donations, I wasn't too concerned with the FEC. Now it appears that in order to continue the campaign I will need to file. The FEC seems to have no option for "does not accept donations". That really lets you know what the "game" is all about, doesn't it.

Anyway, I have promised to think about accepting donations if enough people really think it is important for me to do so. Please let me know what you think, either in a comment here or in an email to dullhawk@hotmail.com .

Thank you.

Conservative President 2008 Interview

Conservative President 2008 asked me four questions recently. Here is the interview:

Libertarian McManigal Q&A

Thank You LPHQ Staff

I would like to thank the Libertarian Party HQ staff for publishing the interview with me in the recent issue of LP News. Your recognition of my campaign is very important to me.

I have not yet changed my position on accepting campaign donations for myself, but I would be glad to participate in Liberty Decides '08 to raise funds for the LP and their eventual nominee. I feel it is important to build the LP so that it can be an effective counterbalance to the authoritarian parties which get most of the public's attention. The people of America need to know they have a choice. The LP is fundamentally different enough, not being just another flavor of authoritarianism, that it can serve as a polar opposite to "politics as usual" which disgusts so many people. We should all help in any way we can.

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

Washington DC's Gun Ban

I apologize for needing to talk about gun "laws" again. The tyrants keep making it necessary.

The rulers of Washington DC, like any hive of villains, think it is a good idea to keep honest people disarmed against their predations. As I have pointed out in the past, only crooked politicians and freelance criminals fear guns in the hands of ordinary people. No one who wishes to disarm you does it for your benefit, but for their own, so that they are empowered to do things to you that you would not permit them to do if you had the means to effectively defend yourself. "Gun control" is the act of predators taking preemptive steps to protect themselves. That is why it is called "victim disarmament".

Now a court, with an uncharacteristic act of self betrayal, has declared that the Washington DC "laws" against gun ownership are unconstitutional (that means "illegal" in case you missed that chapter in the civics book). It makes me wonder why the court did that. Of course the DC villains will appeal the ruling; they must; it is a matter of life and death to them. The court knew they would, too. I believe that they are thinking that in the long run, this ruling will help them get rid of that "pesky Second Amendment" once and for all. I don't know how yet.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide to look at the case. If they do, there are a couple of things that could happen. They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless. As long as "judges" work for the government and are paid by the government, it is in their self interest to side with the government. (I propose that in cases where the government is involved, judges only get paid when they rule against government interests. But that is another issue.)

The entire concept of "collective rights" is absurd. A right is something that is held within an individual. Like a life. For poetic purposes, sometimes a culture is said to have a life, but to be killed off, it must be killed one individual at a time. A right is the same way. Just as with a life, a right must be individual to have any meaning at all.

Gun Laws Equal Death

Here is a good article from WorldNetDaily, "How gun control trades life for death". The irony to me is that WorldNetDaily conservatives would imprison people who do not bow to the "law". They also worship the Law Enforcement Jackals who would murder us for carrying the means for defending the defenseless. Make no mistake: Victim Disarmament is murder. Under the dishonest euphemism of "gun control" it brings only death and destruction to the innocent. The monsters who propose or enforce these "laws" are guilty of empowering the murderers. Real thinking, feeling, caring humans do not require defenselessness from others nor do they allow themselves to be disarmed. They will strike back at any thug who tries. No honest police officer will ever arrest or harass anyone who is simply violating any gun "law". If they do, they are only a common thug.