Gun owners' rights in danger

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 17, 2021-- Just to be clear, in spite of the headline, no one's rights are in danger; everyone's liberty [the freedom to exercise our rights] is in danger. Rights exist no matter what.)

Congress has begun another epic crime spree: they are passing new anti-gun legislation and plotting more in the near future. If any of this legislation passes, President Biden will sign it-- he's been bigoted against gun owners his whole political career.

More dangerous than the legislation itself is how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE)-- a bureau which violates the Constitution by existing-- may interpret and enforce it.

One of the new proposals is to make every gun "transfer" subject to an FBI background check. The BATFE could then decide this means if you let a friend hold your gun you are both criminals unless you pay for a background check. Ridiculous? Yes, but this is the same agency which, in September 2004, declared a shoelace a "machine gun" for the purposes of punishing a gun owner.

The Second Amendment doesn't say which guns or gun accessories the people are allowed to own, how many, or with whose permission-- rather, it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any legislation concerning weapons. The Second Amendment doesn't address the people at all; it prohibits government actions. It is an expression of natural law, above any and all legislation.

Even without the Second Amendment, the natural human right to own and to carry weapons would still exist just the same as it has since humans first walked the Earth. Nothing can make a right go away or be subject to the opinions of politicians or their enforcers.

The Constitution also forbids the states to violate the rights of the people. There is no wiggle-room on this issue.

In a country where government respected and followed real law, those who pass, sign, or enforce anti-gun legislation would be headed straight to prison. Especially since they are committing these crimes more or less in the open without denying it. There's no question of their guilt.

This is what I feared would come with a Biden administration. It's why I would have preferred Trump to win, even though he was no friend of gun owners-- or of liberty in general.

You can have an opinion about the relative badness of competing politicians without supporting either one. Biden is proving my suspicions as to his shady character. I thought he would be a terrible danger to American liberty and he is.

It's coming; you've been warned. If you value liberty, you're in the crosshairs.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Waiting for cops to do the right thing?

People really want to believe in the basic goodness and humanity of others. Even of those who have sold out and rejected their goodness and humanity in exchange for a paycheck and power. A paycheck funded by theft. This includes everyone who lives by the political means, but specifically cops.

They will keep enforcing evil legislation. They will keep stealing, murdering, raping, kidnapping, violating, and whatever else their "job" allows them to get away with, or requires them to do.

They aren't going to rise up and refuse to carry out the schemes of politicians. Not this time; not next time. They will enforce gun confiscations when they are told to do so. They already do this every single day, all over America.

Still, in many people, hope springs nearly eternal. Just the other day, someone said to me:

"I have this fantasy that, at the right time, the cops will wake up. But they won't, will they."

I'm sorry to tell you, but no, they won't. They've had plenty of chances and haven't yet. It's not going to happen. If you were counting on this happening, it's time to make alternate plans.

Those who had any ethics have already quit. The only "good cop" is a former cop.

I've known and had long discussions with cops, former cops, and cops-to-be. Only the former cops have ethics worth anything; frequently making me look like a fawning copsucker by comparison-- they hate what police have become. At least the ones I talked with did.

People who say "Don't tread on me" but who also support "law enforcement" are delusional. They are recognizing the disease while promoting its major fatal symptom. They might as well be saying "Never again!" while praising Hitler, building death camps, and flying the swastika flag.

It may be getting a bit late to change sides. Do you support liberty, or do you support those whose whole career centers around annihilating it? You can't have it both ways. This fence is no longer a comfortable place to sit. Someone is going to topple you from your precarious perch. Which side will you end up on? The cops' side, or the right side?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Fact checking a "fact check" on a fact check

Joe Biden said you can buy any gun you want at a gun show without a background check.

Fact checkers say Biden's wrong because dealers are still required to do unconstitutional (illegal) FBI background checks on all the guns they sell at a gun show.

Scott Adams "fact checks" the fact checkers by making the claim that Biden was right-- you can buy any gun you want at a gun show just by finding a private individual who is selling the exact gun you want. No background check.

Here's why Adams is-- yet again-- wrong on guns.

Do you know what kind of guns you can't generally get in a private sale at a gun show (or anywhere)? The newest gun model, in brand new unfired condition. 

You can get almost anything as long as you don't mind a used gun. You might even luck out and find an older gun in like-new, unfired condition, or a brand new model that someone bought but decided to not keep after firing a box or two of ammunition through it. But the chance of finding a brand new, unfired example of the newest thing is going to be as likely as finding a unicorn.

Do you know what other guns you can't get in a "background-checkless" private sale at a gun show? Anything illegally rationed by the 1934 NFA.

So, no, you can't buy any gun you want, at a gun show, without a background check. Joe Biden and Scott Adams were both utterly and completely wrong. Again. As anti-gun bigots and government-supremacists almost always are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

New flag review

I got a really nice endorsement for the Time's Up flags over at Guns, Fun, Food and More. Check it out!

Ol' Joe Bad'un's "executive actions" against gun owners

Domestic enemy and anti-gun bigot criminal Joe Biden (probably under the control of his emotional support pig*) has announced "executive actions" on guns. 

He lies and says it's about "gun violence". It's not-- it's about violating every ethical gun owner.

He lies and says this doesn't violate the Second Amendment; that no amendment is absolute-- what he means is that he believes no right is absolute. He's wrong. 

The truth is, rights can either be respected or violated, there is no third option. You can't really get more absolute than that. Whether or not a right is explicitly listed in a constitutional amendment is irrelevant (the Ninth Amendment covers all those, anyway). 

Yes, all rights come with responsibility, but he can't choose (or add on to) what that responsibility will entail. The responsibility remains the same, always: the responsibility to not archate. Nothing he can say or do can change this in the slightest way, and in fact, by doing what he is doing he has grievously violated his responsibility. He is stepping beyond what he has a right to do. He has become (well, he has been for decades) the aggressor. The bad guy. Much worse than any mass shooter or freelance murderer. 

He is taking sides with the mass murderers and freelance murderers who will be empowered by his actions. At your expense. This will cost innocent lives.

Remember, executive actions are not executive orders, executive orders are not legislation, legislation isn't law, and law can never violate a natural human right, such as the right to own and to carry weapons. If it violates a natural human right, it isn't law.

Not only that, he put a monstrous anti-gun bigot, with the blood of Waco on its filthy claws, in charge of the unconstitutional, unethical, and criminal BATFEces gang. This feels like a declaration of war to me.

You aren't obligated to comply with any of this, and you have the ethical right to defend yourself from those who try to impose it on you. No, it won't be safe or easy-- doing the right thing rarely is.

If you hold out hope that "good cops" will refuse to enforce his evil will, you are out of touch with reality. 

A better hope may come from the record number of new, first-time gun owners that have been created in the past year or so. I have my doubts that they just spent all that money to give away their new guns if/when ordered to do so. But you never know. 

This could be the dusk of some coming dark times, or it could be the dark before the storm that washes away evil parasites like Joe Biden. The way this goes is up to you and me.

-

*I apologize to the intelligent swine of the non-human variety. I am not the one who began the tradition of calling cops "pigs". Maybe I should have called her his emotional support Reptilian, instead. But, again, I prefer reptiles to things of her sort.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Rights are individual

In the near future, it may become essential to understand this: Governments/corporations have no rights. None. Zero. Only individuals have rights.

The individuals in corporations/government have rights, but they have no right to violate your rights for the sake of their government/corporation (collective). 

Joining forces with other like-minded individuals who also want to violate your rights for their purposes doesn't manufacture this imaginary collective "right". Rights aren't additive-- two people don't have more rights than one has. That would just be an example of "Might makes right"-- might through superior numbers. Also known as democracy or mob rule.

This results in taxation, eminent domain, property codes, licensing/permit schemes ("vaccine passports"?), censorship, mask mandates, business shutdowns, or whatever some collective wants to do to you "for your own good" or for "the common good". None of it is even slightly legitimate.

This doesn't mean it's a good idea to give government the power to control corporations. It's not, just as it's not a good idea to let corporations control government. But I'd rather they be adversaries trying to control each other than allies conspiring to control me. I'd be content to watch them destroy each other. Yes, I realize the hardships that might create. I don't care.

When they join forces you get economic fascism. You get "private-public partnerships". You get cronyism. You get legislation that protects incumbents, the mega-corporations, and "the system" from anyone who might threaten their supremacy. You get corporations that cater more to the state than to the people who are their supposed customers. You get governments that favor the imaginary "rights" of corporations over the actual rights of the people. They both know who really butters their bread, and it isn't you and me.

Anyone saying "corporations have a right to..." or "government has the right to..." doesn't understand what a right is.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I won't accept a "vaccine passport"

I'm already opposed to all forms of government ID. Why wouldn't I oppose "vaccine passports", too?

I realize that no one who makes these decisions is going to listen to a nobody like me. I'm not a government-supremacist so they wouldn't take me seriously even if they knew I exist and I agreed with them.

I wasn't around when most government "papers" were first issued, so there wasn't a lot I could do. They had already been accepted by most people and entrenched in the way things work long before I was born. Although it has gotten a lot worse during my lifetime.

But there aren't widespread vaccine passports yet, and I plan to be as non-compliant and obstinate as I can. And I plan to encourage non-compliance from others, as well. This seems the best opportunity for a clear line in the sand that I've seen.

Maybe, together, we can throw wooden shoes in the cogs. Even if we fail, at least we didn't go quietly.

If you have your reasons for supporting vaccine passports, I would like to hear them. 

I know some people are more afraid of Covid than I am, and there's nothing I can do about that. If someone doesn't see by now that the fearmongering was overblown, there's nothing I can say to convince them. 

But I am not obligated to arrange my life around their fears. Nor am I obligated to quietly comply with new government demands that violate my basic liberty. Not even through some imaginary "social contract" that seems to say anyone can do anything they want to me as long as they call themselves political "authority" and claim they are doing the bidding of society.

For a while at least, maybe vaccine passports won't be necessary when ordering groceries online for contactless drop-off. After the "Unclean" are no longer allowed in stores. So you won't be reliant on some passported person to bring you food. Yet. But eventually, that won't be good enough. They'll want to hurt those who don't comply. What then?

I've said for a long time that libertarians may be headed for a fate of being second-class residents, as the tracking demands get more numerous and more rigid, to a point where more of us simply can't comply. This is just another move in that direction. What are you going to do about it?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Where property rights begin

Since the subject has been brought up again...

1- Things you might possess while in my house-- at my invitation-- that are none of my business unless you choose to make them so (regardless of whether or not I would approve of them if I knew they were there):

• Bad unspoken thoughts.
• Your pink thong underwear hidden beneath your pants.
• The tattoo on your upper back, under your shirt, praising Satan or Jesus.
• Your pocket Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto, or US Constitution that stays in your pocket.
• A non-contagious medical condition (broken rib, pacemaker, colostomy, etc.).
• A baggie of weed in your back pocket.
• Etc.

2- Things you might possess while in my house-- at my invitation-- that are my business (separate from the issue of whether or not I approve of them):

• A sermon you feel the need to preach in my living room.
• An Antifa shirt.
• An unshielded vial of plutonium.
• A parrot or monkey on your shoulder. 
• A contagious disease.
• The Cannabis you are currently smoking.
• Etc.

Your bodily autonomy-- no matter where you stand-- is the beginning of property rights, but not necessarily the end. Hopefully, your property rights don't end there, but for some people, they do. These are the only property rights everyone has in absolutely equal measure. As with all other rights, they will either be respected or violated.

Sure, it is a bubble, but it is no more "magic" than the bubble of property rights surrounding your home and land or your private business. To seek to violate this right, on any pretext, is to enslave someone-- as happens to prisoners in government custody. Without these rights, there would be no such thing as "property rights" of any sort to be respected or violated.

You are perfectly within your rights to refuse access to your property if you can't respect the equal and identical rights of those you invite onto it to be secure and whole in their person.

If I invite you onto my property, I invite you with all your rights completely intact, no exceptions. No matter how many people disagree.

I'm not looking for approval or agreement; just explaining my view of the subject. Your view may, obviously, differ.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You'll always offend someone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 10, 2021)

The Righteous and Holy Arbiters of What is Acceptable now seek to cancel Dr. Seuss. This may be my final last straw with "cancel culture".

Yes, some of Dr. Seuss's illustrations look insensitive today because he and his drawings aren't from today, but from an earlier time. I seriously doubt he would draw them the same if he were drawing today. Even then, someone would be offended. 

His illustrations make everyone look ridiculous in one way or another. Even animals, plants, and gadgets. Most playful portrayals of people are inaccurate and silly. People have traits which will be exaggerated for effect, and people do dumb things which seem funny. Otherwise, what would distinguish anyone from the crowd? Why draw them?

If you eliminate all representations of people of other races (and cultures) which might offend someone, you can't complain if only one bland race is represented everywhere from now on.

Should we get rid of everything which doesn't fit how we imagine people should be portrayed? How rude will current illustrations and writings look in a few decades or centuries? Should they then get rid of everything from our era which doesn't live up to their new standards? Standards which may or may not be better? Do you believe hiding the past is ever a good idea?

When you're offended by something, it says more about you than about the person who did whatever offended you. Everyone is offended by something.

I'm a bit offended by statues of politicians or military figures, but I think it's important to not erase the signs of the past. The next generation could grow up imagining the past was exactly like the present, except for fuzzy notions of old technology. Why bother striving to improve if you can't see proof humans have improved throughout history?

I also find these calls to ban certain Dr. Seuss books offensive-- but since I'm an adult, I don't imagine I have a right to not be offended. Such a right can't exist. Everything is going to be offensive to someone.

I stand with Dr. Seuss. I stand with Lenny Bruce, Colin Kaepernick, Jordan B. Peterson, and even politicians who have offended someone at some time. To do otherwise will cripple civilization and paralyze us into inaction for fear that someone, somewhere, will be offended. Get over it and get on with life. Do something worthwhile. You'll offend someone. Do it anyway.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Cops are dangerous drivers

A couple of weeks ago as I was taking my daily walkabout around this town, I came across a guy trimming a bush and I offered to help him carry the branches to the dumpster.

As we worked he mentioned that the police chief had told him to trim the bush because one of his officers (there are one or two-- I can't keep up) had almost had an accident coming out of the alley beside the bush-- it was blocking his view.

Maybe...

More than once I've almost been hit by a cop car zooming out of the alleys around town. I've had to slam on my brakes to avoid an accident. In places where there was nothing obstructing the view. This has happened when I've been a passenger, too. The cops believe they own the streets and they drive like it.

I believe the cops simply don't want to be held responsible for driving like angry drunks. Probably a cop nearly hit someone and chose to blame the guy's bush instead of his own bad driving.

I could be wrong, but from what I've seen, I doubt that I am.

Cops lie-- it's just what they do. Cops are scum; not the good kind ("rebel scum"), but authoritarian scum.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Kinderprison blues

My daughter is fighting to go back to kinderprison next year. 

She wants to be a part of the middle school girl drama that caused her so many problems over the past couple of years before Covid gave me the excuse to withdraw her from that mess. (Well, it gave her mom the excuse to finally agree to it.)

I've told her there are plenty of ways to get caught up in drama without being in kinderprison, but apparently, she also misses the lack of education that occurs there. It's easier to get by without even pretending to learn anything in the classroom than it is at home.

Somehow, 2 hours or so per day-- beginning at 10 AM or later-- spent on education is more burdensome than being dragged out of bed-- tired and groggy-- at 7 every morning to spend 8 or so hours on schooling. Something she has always hated and not been shy about saying so.

But now that seems better to her than the way she's been doing it?

It's frustrating.

Her mental and emotional health has improved dramatically since she got out. Of course, she gravitates toward online "friends" who bring heaps of drama of their own sort. Middle school girls are a big mess of toxic social contagions. But at least there doesn't seem to have been any bullying.

I'm opposed to simply saying "Because I'm the parent, that's why!" In this case, it's tempting. 

I've been considering some sort of binding deal to offer her. I still have time to work something out. I just hope it's something that doesn't make things worse.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

When "libertarian" gets tossed aside

It seems to me that whenever a person makes the decision to "identify" as a "right libertarian" or as a "left libertarian", their loyalty is never to the libertarian part.

I've watched it happen time after time.

As soon as they are forced to make a choice, the "libertarian" gets tossed aside in favor of the "left" or "right" statist or "social" position.

That seems completely backwards to me. Why keep the trash and toss out the treasure?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Opposition, not fear

People-- smart people, especially-- can oppose something without being afraid of it. Fear doesn't have to be a factor.

I'm not afraid of anti-gun legislation, but I oppose it because it violates human rights.

I'm not afraid of vaccine passports (or driver's licenses), but I oppose them because they violate human rights.

I'm not afraid of snakes, but I oppose putting them in other people's houses without their consent because that would violate their rights. The people, not the snakes.

To imagine that opposition to something must be based in fear is rather ignorant. It may even be a case of projection.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Niche museums for oddball interests

The other day I again visited the International UFO Museum (and Research Center) in Roswell, New Mexico. It's kind of amazing to me that someone could make such a museum and that it stays so busy. But good for them.

I wonder how a Museum of Government (as I have discussed in the past) would fare. 

It would be hard to make it interesting for reasonable people and government-supremacists, alike. And you'd need both to make money on it.

I have lots of ideas for displays, though.

I can picture a diorama in the "Prehistory of Government" room showing some skin-clad fellows realizing it's safer to pose as Wise Men and protectors who are "owed" a cut of the hunt than it is to roam from tribe to tribe killing and looting, thus forming the first political government. 

Another where they are arguing that only they and their henchmen should be carrying stone-tipped spears, while everyone else is only allowed a sharpened stick-- upon their approval, of course. For "safety".

Maybe the statists would come for the laughs, unknowingly wallowing in their ignorance. As long as they paid the admission fee, they can laugh all they want. The joke is on them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

'Law enforcement' not what we have

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 3, 2021)

A couple of local sheriffs claim to be concerned that new legislation makes "law enforcement" [sic] the enemy. If so, they don't understand the nature of legislation.

Legislation always makes someone the enemy. Both those harmed by the legislation-- and make no mistake: all legislation harms some innocent people-- and those who enforce that legislation.

If policing were limited to law enforcement, they would only be the enemy of actual bad guys. When they act as legislation enforcement instead, they've chosen the position they say they don't want to be in.

"Don't hurt people or take their stuff" is the extent of real law, which true law enforcement would stick to. If someone enforces harmful legislation, which is everything else, they're on the wrong side and already the enemy.

Real law respects people's natural right to their body and all the products of their body. Legislation pretends someone else has a right to control what others ingest, how they earn money, how much of their money they can keep, and what they do with their property.

No one has a right to cross the line drawn above. Majority opinion or legislation can't create such a right. Enforcing such legislation or otherwise violating natural human rights is what makes someone the enemy, no matter how they excuse their behavior. It's no different than someone who was drunk claiming this is why they aren't responsible for an accident they caused.

Actual criminals violate real law while also violating legislation. Fake "criminals" only violate legislation. It's the difference between mala in se (actually wrong because it violates others) and mala prohibitum ("wrong" just because politicians say so). If law enforcement existed, this is what it would be limited to. But there is only legislation enforcement-- mostly chasing those who have broken worthless legislation based on nothing more than politicians' opinions.

Maybe they would claim this also coddles real criminals, but it doesn't. Real law enforcement would not protect actual criminals from their intended victims by enforcing legislation. This would do more to fight actual crime than posting a cop at every intersection would; turning New Mexico into a police state.

It seems legislation enforcers care most about legislation when it hurts them more than it hurts other people. They'll try to frame it as a danger to "the public" too. I'm not buying it. I can't fault them for a natural human desire to protect their position, though.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I never want you to be at a disadvantage

"Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless."

I don't know who first said this, and as with most quotes, it doesn't matter; it is true regardless. 

Maybe there's never a danger of you being helpless-- you could defend yourself with a chair or other improvised weapon. But to me, that's not good enough. I don't want you to be at a disadvantage against a bad guy. I want you to have the advantage, but if that's not possible, at least have the possibility of being adequately armed. 

Any legislation or policy which makes this less likely is evil. I would never support such a thing.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"The right to v*te"

It seems a lot of people these days are very concerned about a supposed "right" to v*te. They either freak out in fear that this "right" is being withheld from some people, or they fear that if too many other people do it, it diminishes the value of their "legitimate" v*te.

I don't believe any such thing as a "right to v*te" exists, but even if it does, it's going to have very firm limits that most of its advocates aren't going to like.

If there is any such thing as a "right to v*te" it can't include a right to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else by a majority. 

That means you have no right to encourage politicians to tax anyone, to ban the ownership or carrying of any sort of weapons, to take someone's land and put a sports complex on it, to force people to place their children in a kinderprison, to criminalize the manufacture, sale, or use of any substance-- to do anything in any way that violates natural human rights to life, liberty, or property.

And in today's world, that's about all any election-- a statist mob ritual-- is about. V*ting is the foundation of democracy, and democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right".

The rights of the masses do not outweigh the rights of the individual. Not even if it's a trillion to one.

You have no "right" to gang up to violate rights you don't care about or that you don't like.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"Cool-looking" stuff encourages crime?

Scott Adams suggests that getting rid of "cool-looking" guns would make it less likely that evil losers-- the only kind of people who commit mass murder-- would commit mass murder. 

These evil losers might enjoy imagining themselves-- according to him-- carrying out their massacre holding a weapon that they think looks cool. Maybe even dying with it in their hands. If they didn't have cool-looking weapons to wield, they would be less likely (he guesses maybe 5% or so less likely) to go through with their attack. Why bother if they can't look cool doing it?

Can you see the errors in his thinking?

The coolest-looking gun I own is my original Winchester 1894... at least in my opinion. Or, maybe it's my Hawken rifle. I guess it depends on my mood. The point is, "cool-looking" is always subjective-- it can't be otherwise.

And why only guns?

Would it be a good idea to get rid of cool-looking cars to reduce speeding and traffic fatalities? Again, what is cool-looking? 

My coolest-looking car was my 1975 Citicar-- not exactly a speed machine. And, most people didn't think it looked the slightest bit cool. But I did. (Evidence that I was never cool.)

Maybe get rid of the kind of houses that successful politicians/criminals like and that unsuccessful ones aspire to, to reduce the motivation to commit crime. 

Criminalize clothing that is frequently preferred by people who choose a life of archation-- black hoodies and business suits, for example.

Where does this silly line of "reasoning" end? It ends as it begins-- with violating people's right to private property based on what others believe they don't "need".

Decent people aren't going to intentionally violate others. Evil losers might. How cool a person believes a particular tool looks isn't the issue, and can't really be controlled by fiat. 

If you eliminated all the "cool-looking" guns currently available, some other commonly available gun would become the new "cool" one-- as would some other tool if you were magically able to eliminate all guns. You'd be trapped forever chasing the next cool thing in a futile attempt to make evil losers stop being losers who commit evil.

Should we give up everything we like the looks of in a doomed attempt to discourage bad guys from violating the innocent?

Or, you know, would it be more effective to make it OK again to defend yourself and others from all evildoers, no matter what tool they prefer?

You know my position.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

It's official. I'm balanced.

A few days ago on Twitter, it was all the rage to check to see how "balanced" you are, as far as whether you only get your information from a part of the political realm-- "right" or "left"-- ignoring the rest of it.

I've advocated balance from time to time, and always considered it a good idea. It seems (at least on Twitter, according to Ground News) I practice what I preach. Honestly, I don't see how the results could have been any more balanced.

Of course, when it says I "interact" with those "news" sources, it means I poke them and ridicule them when they say stupid, government-supremacist things. I may be balanced, but I am always biased for liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Mass murder at Boulder's King Soopers

It's hard to avoid falling into conspiratorial thinking when mass shootings happen anytime the anti-gun bigots of government need them to happen.

Like, do these evil losers get their marching orders directly, or do they just know instinctively when to "go hot" to advance the anti-gun agenda?

How much do you want to bet the Boulder King Soopers was a designated slaughter zone? Has anyone seen a photo of the "We don't care if you die" sign by their door?

Some want to say that the cop being killed shows guns wouldn't save anyone. But, an evil loser is naturally going to target the one person he knows for sure is armed first. Then he's free to kill uninterrupted. A universally-armed population would have solved that problem before it even began.

It sickens me that someone could murder that many people without being shot dead in the act by 4 or 5 bystanders. But this is the world anti-gun bigots and their legislation have worked so hard to create and perpetuate. 

As always, the problem was too few guns, with the evil loser having the advantage. But anti-gun bigots want to double down and make this the guaranteed default-- by legislation, everywhere. You can't fail harder than that. They are literally siding with potential mass murderers, making it safer for them to commit evil. 

I've been part of more than one universally-armed society. An armed society IS a polite-- and peaceful-- society. Not, as the anti-gun bigots fear, one where everyone is afraid of everyone else. Maybe one where everyone respects the rights of everyone else, for sure. One where people who might otherwise feel the "need" to violate others are now afraid to do so. Not a bad thing in any way.

A lesson here is that, anytime anti-gun legislation is at the top of the agenda, don't go anywhere unarmed. A mass shooting is coming soon. Maybe more than one. It probably won't happen in your presence, but no one can guarantee that. "It can't happen here, now, to me" is delusional thinking. Be ready. Unlike the anti-gun bigots who blame guns, I want you to be safe, prepared, and responsible. I don't treat you like a somewhat stupid, naughty child.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two