Statism is childish in the worst way

Statism is childish in the worst way

Statism is rude and childish. It demands that everyone play according to the "one size fits all" rules it imposes, whether they want to or not, and no matter if it is in their best interest or not.

Statism is selfish. It doesn't consider the impact it has on others. It truly doesn't care if it inconveniences or harms you. It always wants "something for nothing", not caring that the "something" is stolen from the rightful owners, and "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

Statists don't doubt the legitimacy of government; only the legitimacy of government when it isn't being used the way they want it used. Any power the government uses for their benefit is OK; any power the government uses to their detriment is bad. Taxation isn't "wrong" unless it is used for things they don't like. Statists are easily trapped by their inconsistencies.

Just look at the statists - the authoritarians - surrounding you if you doubt me. Whether they call themselves "left" or "right"; "Republican" or "Democrat"; look how they fit into this description all too well. In the few places where they vary from the description it is because they have chosen to adopt libertarian views, although they are not likely to admit it.

Libertarianism is the grown-up philosophy. It recognizes that life is never perfect, but a life of freedom is the closest humans can get. Libertarianism respects people. We realize that our own decisions have real-world consequences that we must deal with and that we must protect ourselves from the bad decisions of others. We are adult enough to know we have no right to demand that anyone else make what we consider "the right choice" nor do we allow others to make that demand of us.

Libertarianism recognizes that people are free to make their own choices and their own mistakes. Libertarians don't "take liberties", they give liberties by recognizing the basic human right to live as you see fit as long as you harm no one else. Libertarianism doesn't whine when consequences come due and there is a bill to pay. We don't demand to have others pay our bill for us by "taxing" them. We don't excuse those who do, either. Libertarians don't think that because some people are bad, giving some a chance to have great power over others will protect the innocent from the bad, and make a better world. That would be delusional.

You can't miss what you think you have

You can't miss what you think you have

A common comment I have heard from others who care deeply about freedom is that they are shocked at how few other people seem to care. Why do libertarians feel like they are talking to a brick wall when we try to get another person passionate about freedom?

Most people would claim they prefer freedom to slavery, even while they polish their chains. The reason freedom isn't more important to more people is because they have been lied to for so long by so many and told they are free. You can't miss something if you think you have it.

Look how often we are told by the mainstream media and the government (those siblings of slavery) that we are free. Whether it is MSNBC on the "left" or FOX News on the "right", the only difference is in the particular flavor of slavery they are promoting and which lies they will tell you, or which truths they will hide, about your benevolent "leaders". I mean, the government even goes to the trouble of establishing "free speech zones" for us when the president is in town, don't they?

Until people understand that ALL rights belong to everyone, everywhere, at all times, no matter what the regional Rulers might claim, they will not care enough about freedom to do something about it.

This reminds me of my "parable of the Fire-Ant bed":

Each government must convince its subjects that their country is the best
there is, otherwise the people might decide to make some changes. Change rarely
bodes well for rulers.

Blind fools often say idiotic things like "Love it or Leave it!" Wiser
voices say "Love it and Keep Improving it!" It is often said by government
sympathizers that "America is the best, most free, country on Earth." Perhaps,
but there is always room for improvement.

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see
a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the
lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your
situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you, is a green
meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If
you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is
the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that
there might be a better life, you may believe it.

Tax day thoughts

Tax day thoughts

This so-called "tax day" only matters more than other days (as far as theft-by-government is concerned) if you forget that government steals 87% of the production of the people it claims as its own. You are stolen from under the guise of "taxes, fees, licenses, permits, and fines" every day of the year, not just on the day you are told to write them one of the checks.

Why do people brag about paying "their" taxes? Why is it good to cooperate with your mugger if he calls himself a "tax collector"? Why defend a thief if he is employed by the government?

Is there a TEA Party near you? Lend them your support, and maybe remind them of the truth of the matter. All taxation, even for those things you like, and advocated by those politicians you may support, is THEFT.

What good is freedom if you don't use it?

What good is freedom if you don't use it?

People have a lot of perfectly good freedoms they never use. I am not talking about rights, but freedoms that government still "allows" you to "legally" exercise.

You have the freedom to educate yourself about anything that interests you by reading books or the internet. It will undoubtedly get you put on some "lists", but realize you are probably on a few regardless.

You have the freedom to travel and associate with other people. Now, I admit that the state is trying hard to kill this freedom, but for the most part it is largely intact. At least if you can avoid the highwaymen who lie in wait to accost you on your journey and rob you, or kill you if you resist.

You have the freedom to grow your own food, and even tobacco. You can avoid paying taxes "legally" by reducing your need for money. Remember that the government usually considers an even trade to be a taxable profit all around. Just like when you trade hours of your life for money (a "job"). So trade quietly.

Here in New Mexico and many other states, you have the freedom to openly wear a gun on your hip. Some enforcers willfully cling to their ignorance about this legal freedom and will attack you for exercising it. Watch them as a wise man would watch a rabid skunk.

You also have the freedom to buy gold and silver in order to prepare for the day when US dollars are no more than fancy toilet paper. Actually, that day is already here; only held at bay by the delusion that government's promises have worth. Trade those FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) for something a lot better while you still can.

There are also freedoms that may be "illegal", but the chances of being kidnapped or held up at gunpoint (by the enforcers of the state) for exercising them is slim. Since Examiner writers are not supposed to encourage "illegal acts", I'll let you think of those on your own. I'll bet you can. I'd be willing to bet that you are already exercising a few of them.

You can have all the freedom in the world, but if you insist on acting like a slave, you are a slave. While you still can, live free out in the open. Right under the noses of the tyrants, enforcers, and other minions of the state. Some day you may wish you had.

A simple way to spread the message of liberty

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: A simple way to spread the message of liberty

I'm sure all my regular blog readers are familiar with this, but if you don't mind giving me a page view anyway, I would sure appreciate it.

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians, in the eyes of a lot of people, are the "party crowd"; the "If it feels good, I will do it ... as long as no one else is hurt" people. While some undoubtedly are that way, it isn't necessarily the case. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one.

Libertarians can have very staid personal lives. It's not all "burn gunpowder at the backyard range, smoke a joint, and then head off to the orgy". Some have very deeply held moral beliefs which may seem very familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us.

The difference is that we should know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if we personally find it disgusting, as long as they are harming no one else. We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no individual is harmed, no one is harmed. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. We understand that our personal idea of "immoral" shouldn't equal "illegal" nor form an excuse for punishing people. Possibly most important of all, we understand the value of minding our own business as long as behaviors are voluntarily engaged in.

There is something to be said, however, for being a libertine on occasion.


______________________

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Government has always been bad. From its earliest beginnings- in the minds of the thugs that preyed off of the labor of the tribe in exchange for not violently plundering them, while supposedly protecting this human herd from other thieves who were ethically exactly the same (whether those "others" actually existed or not)- to the 21st Century Super-Police-State, the type of person who seeks coercive control over others hasn't varied.


Fortunately, most humans have a sense of morality, though. Average, normal, non-governmental society has usually had a strongly libertarian component in healthy societies.

Where society has gone bad is where it has gotten away from libertarian principles that were normal in times past. Things like responsibility for ones actions. Individual self-reliance. Honesty, charity, love for your neighbors, and minding your own business (especially where it concerns the neighbors you may not love quite as much). The tragedy is compounded when some individuals cling to the prejudices and ignoble vengefulness that were also common in times past and use the state to wreak havoc on a historic scale.... or on a very personal one.


I hope that you will join me and make an effort to return to the libertarian principles that have fallen out of favor in our 21st century world.


Have a happy spring-rebirth holiday, whatever you wish to call it.

Voting is usually wrong

Voting is usually wrong

Voting has become a sacred ritual in our society. Anything can and will be excused as long as it wins the vote. This is disturbing.

Realize that almost nothing should ever be subject to a vote. Nothing that involves removing consensual personal choices of others. Nothing that involves coercive government approved theft (dishonestly redefined as "taxation"). The only legitimate votes should involve "would you like to be involved with this, and personally pay a part of the expense?" Anything else is not subject to majority wishes.

If every person on earth, except for one, voted to "tax" the one remaining holdout for ... say 10% of his earnings, it would still be just as wrong as if that one man decided unilaterally to "tax" every other person on the planet for 10% ( or 0.0000000....0001%) of their earnings. Mob rule doesn't make anything right.

The only legitimate type of vote is where a group wants to decide something innocuous, like the color they will paint a wall which they all pitched in to build. So, they vote. The most votes go to "white", so those who do not agree to the results do not have to participate in buying the paint or in painting it. If they wish, like if there was an understanding beforehand that the fence would be painted "brown" or left natural, they could even ask to be paid for the time and effort spent building the fence, since they lost the vote.

Voting to determine how much of someone's money will be taken, who will tell them how to live, how their rights will be violated, or what they may do in the privacy of their own homes is never right. In fact, it is one of the most common, and destructive, forms of evil there is.
________________________________

Here's another way of looking at the practice of voting: link


***********************

Are 'free riders' a real problem?

A recent comment (to this column) posed the objection that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire department fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, I suppose you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has still benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Or would you prefer that in this case, your fire department set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? No, I don't really think anyone would want that.

I think the problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If people see a benefit for something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

PS: I just discovered this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The biggest problem I have with the state is that it protects bad people from the real consequences of their actions.

In a free society, "reputation" would probably be much more important than it is now. The reason for this is that you wouldn't be able to slide by, being protected from "freedom of association", by government "laws". Anyone would be free to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason.

That means if you act in anti-social ways, or have a job that makes you act like you have special privileges, you might just face retribution for your behavior or starve to death. That may seem harsh, but that is the way it should be.

Government short-circuits this societal-protection mechanism, to our great detriment.

Of course, the state also declares authority to regulate self defense against the predators, too, but that's another issue.

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

More guns in the hands of honest people makes society safer, and makes the career choice of the criminal more dangerous. That is obvious to everyone ...except for certain people who wish to do things to you which you would not allow if you were able to effectively resist. Carrying weapons concealed gives the good guy a tactical advantage over the bad guy. If the bad guys are unsure who may be carrying, they are less likely to act. They can't watch everyone all the time.

Yet "concealed carry permits" are hideous abuses of governmental authority. A free person does not need permission to exercise his or her rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be "rights" at all, but would be "privileges"; the opposite of rights. Concealed carry "laws" are also ridiculous on many rational levels.

In many places (such as New Mexico) it is "legal" to openly carry your gun on your hip, as it should be everywhere. Yet, in some of those places one simple act can turn you from a "law abiding person" into a "criminal", or even a "felon".

You can be going about your business, fully in compliance with the law (at least in free regions), wearing a gun on your hip. The simple act of putting on a jacket can then turn you into a "criminal" by concealing your gun. Sorry, but that doesn't show me that you are then a bad guy, but it certainly shows that the "law" is nonsense and those who enforce it are committing an evil act. Plus, if a gun is concealed, it means no one can see it. If they do see it, it isn't concealed. Notice the logical disconnect that is necessary in order to hassle someone over a "concealed" weapon?

Every person should be free of legal consequences for the simple human act of picking up a weapon and slipping it into a holster or a pocket before heading out for the day. Anything else only empowers the predators among us.
_________________________________________

To find out how free you really are, visit OpenCarry.org. How does your state stack up?



**************************

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

A "statist" is one who believes that "government" is a legitimate human endeavor. It is a subset of authoritarian who uses the state to impose their authority upon others. One way statists and other authoritarians try to end a debate with a libertarian is to throw up the old "I live in the REAL world, not your hypothetical one" argument. Balderdash.

I assume it is supposed to end the debate right there, and maybe it has worked for them in the past if the only people they have debated are libertarians who are unsure of themselves. It won't work with me. I don't live an a "hypothetical world". I know what works. I know what doesn't. Plus, I see what the authoritarians seem to be afraid of: the failure and subsequent crumbling of their philosophy.

I have never run into a real-world situation where the Zero Aggression Principle failed. I have run into some situations where my human nature would have preferred the short-term satisfaction of violating the ZAP, but to do so would have been wrong, and probably destructive in the long-run. I have never found a situation where a government "solution" is really better than a freedom-respecting solution. Sure, it might be easier to pay for expensive things by stealing the resources, but it is never right. Not if I do it on my own; not if I hire thugs ("elect politicians") to do it for me.

Statism is a failed system. It may not look like it, since it infests the entire globe right at this moment. At one time, you could have said the same about the dinosaurs. We are witnessing the violent convulsions of a terminally ill system. It will get worse before it gets better.

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

There are real-world consequences that occur when individuals (and society) reject principled libertarian positions. I know from experience that the philosophy of liberty is not "Utopian" as its detractors often claim. It works very well for me in my every day real life. Contrary to speculation, I do not live in a cave. I also see the tragedies that occur when people violate these principles in their personal lives and in "public policy".

As an example: When I am out driving and approach an intersection that I suspect to be dangerous, regardless of the state's official signage, I am extra careful. I may slow down or even stop in order to make certain it is OK to proceed. The lives of my loved ones are much more important to me than any schedule or any angry drivers behind me.

In another recently highlighted example, "gun control" laws are always followed by an increase in violence, mayhem, and death. Always. Yet, the victim disarmament crowd refuses to accept reality and back off. They act like campers who feed the bears in spite of the warnings, and then when the bears, conditioned to be unafraid of humans and associating them with food, maul a person, they decide the best course of action is to feed the bears more to try to keep them from being hungry. Absolute insanity! "Gun control", the tactic that should be more honestly called victim disarmament, KILLS. It does this in the real world, leaving a real pile of broken, bleeding people.

On another front, there are lots of things that people do that harm their own bodies. The list includes such things as: chemicals (both recreational and occupational), "extreme" sports, rich food, too much food, taking risks, sex, too little sex, working too hard, working too little, even suicide. Yet, other than showing concern for a friend, you should not meddle. Self-ownership must include even the right to destroy that with is owned. Even if that right offends you. If you go so far as to involve the state in any way, assuming the person has violated some "law", you have probably effectively destroyed the other person's life. What a person does to his or her own body is none of your business. Interfere too much and you will probably only make the problem, if there is a real problem, worse. Remember that the other person may not share your sense of morality. At the very least you will probably lose a friend and have messed up any chance to be a real help in the future. You also lose any chance of that person helping you if you make a wrong choice somewhere down the line. Know the risks; weigh the benefits; make your decisions. Live and let live.

If you know that a condition, place, activity, or person is dangerous, be careful. Use your brain. Don't run whining to the state, asking it to put up more signs, pass new "laws", or increase "fines". Take responsibility for your own safety and stop playing right into the hands of the state. Never blame your deficiencies on "the children". Your descendants will thank you for it.

"Manchurian Shooters"?

Go vote in the poll in today's Libertarian Enterprise. It asks the question "Do you suspect, however reluctantly, that at least some of the mass-shootings over the past two or three decades were deliberately engineered to achieve a political goal?"

I hate to be suspicious and "paranoid", but ...... How many more "Manchurian Shooters" are waiting for their signal?

The libertarian alternative

The libertarian alternative

Most people, except for the worst among us, live rather "libertarian" personal lives. At least they do as long as they want to get along with the people they encounter. They fall back on primitive authoritarian behavior patterns when dealing with the people whom they dislike or feel "superior" to. Few people tolerate being meddled with by some busy-body. Why would anyone make exceptions for busy-bodies who claim the authority to kill you unless you comply?

Most people will probably choose the libertarian alternative - living by the Zero Aggression Principle, not stealing from or coercing others - if they are aware it exists. As long as people understand that it is not OK to harm others, nor to try to thwart their self-ownership with coercion even if you wear the silly hat of government, they will take more responsibility for their own lives and stop worrying so much about the private lives of others. The good thing is that the "uncooperative" aggressors in society don't have to go along to make it work in the real-world. The ZAP allows you to ignore them until they force you to make a decision regarding them. Their act; their choice.

It is very liberating to realize that you alone are responsible for your own life. Your only obligation to other people involves not harming them and not interfering with their lives as long as they mind their own business. That frees up a lot of energy that can be better spent improving your lot in life.

Government, through "schools" and its lap-dogs in the mass media, try to make certain people are not aware of the libertarian alternative. People are trained to accept that there is only the "right" or "left" alternative; which boot do you want on your neighbor's neck until the next election? Never mind that your neighbor is being asked the same question regarding your neck.

Will you continue to fall for the deception, or will you accept your responsibilities?

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

When a tragedy like yesterday's massacre in Binghamton NY occurs, libertarians need to be careful to not say "I told you so" to people who are hurting. It can be hard, because we do keep warning that these things are an inevitable consequence of "gun control". The fewer good people who are armed, the more bold the bad people become.

That doesn't mean we stop holding accountable the tyrants who enable these horrific acts with their counterfeit "laws" against effective armed self-defense. Remember that most people, for whatever reason, can't see the logical outcome of victim disarmament "laws". The politicians and enforcers, however, do know they help madmen kill unarmed innocents. Yet, they keep repeating "don't resist; don't arm yourself. Leave protection up to the professionals". It is almost as if they want you dead. Why would they do that?

Unlike some people, I doubt most of the victim disarmament pushers really want you dead. They want you disarmed for the same reason -the ONLY reason- anyone wants someone else disarmed: to do things to you that you would not permit if you were able to resist effectively. Whether it is to steal your money, your home, your right of transportation or your self-ownership, you might be more dangerous to fleece if you had "claws". They can't keep milking you for "taxes", labor, and votes if you are dead. They need for you to keep lending an air of legitimacy to the established kleptocracy with your vote (even if it is by voting for the lesser of two evils). They also want you to be afraid. They want you to crawl to them for your protection when an event frightens you. They need you to think you need them.

However, there are some who would prefer that you were dead. People who take responsibility for their own protection shine a harsh light of reality on the failure of the state. The minority who doesn't roll over for crazed attackers reminds us all that "give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life.

There is no liberty, no self-responsibility, no civilization, without the people being willing and able to meet the challenge. "It can't happen here." Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of your children, on that? Will you be cowering under a desk, or will you at least put up a fight? Don't look to the government; this is up to you. I am asking YOU.

Massacre in Binghamton NY

Massacre in Binghamton NY

People who are not too concerned with the reality of the way the world works, and don't understand that murder is already illegal (so more "laws" will not stop killers), might think I am psychic due to this: "Gun Control keeps on killing and killing and killing..." They would be wrong. I am not psychic. It is a simple matter of seeing behind the curtain. Next prediction: Watch the blood-dancers start clamoring for more unarmed victims for other evil people to target.

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

I realize all my long-time blog readers have already seen this. It just seemed appropriate somehow.

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

I am a radical libertarian; an anarchist. I recognize that any government is too much and can never really be controlled or contained. It is a cancer. The US Constitution was a good try, but its failure to rein in government should be a lesson to all the minarchists out there. Statism of even the mildest sort is hopelessly Utopian.

Those who are bold get scolded that they "make us all look bad". How can that be? The pragmatists always lose their consistency somewhere along the line. That is where they part ways with the bold libertarians. Somewhere they betray liberty in order to look more like an authoritarian of the "right" or "left". Have they then betrayed their own principles in order to be accepted by some authoritarians? I can't say since I don't know what makes up any other person's principles, but it does appear that way to me.

Is there a place for "pragmatic" minarchist libertarians? Yes. They can follow the bold libertarians who are not afraid of the scorn and ridicule that comes with telling the plain unvarnished truth. As I often say, as long as we are going the same direction -toward more liberty and away from a powerful government- I consider us on the same side.

This struggle is like a tug-of-war, with some pulling harder than others, and all pulling on a very slightly different tangent, but those on the same end of the rope are all contributing in some way. If, sometime in the future, society becomes as free as you are comfortable with, you can rest while others of us keep pulling.

Whether it is "you don't really think there should be NO laws against drugs?" or "but you don't think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, do you?" the answer is always, consistently, that freedom of any sort is less dangerous than authoritarian control- but even if it weren't, liberty is still the birthright of every human. Someone needs to stand up for that.

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".

Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?

Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.

No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.

Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"