Punishment and Justice

Yesterday, I had a short discussion with someone who considers punishment an essential part of justice.

I don't. I consider it revenge.

I understand the desire to punish someone who has violated you-- I've felt it myself many times. But, I now think that feeling goes beyond what I have a right to do or demand. If I punished someone (or had the state do it on my behalf) I would feel I had created a debt.

To me, justice refers to the attempt to restore a victim to their pre-violation condition, or as close as possible. This could include restitution. I also realize some things are beyond restitution, but in those cases, punishment also falls short. It seems to me that punishment is desired because "you hurt me so I want to make sure you, hurt, too". This seems inherently vengeful. Am I wrong? I could well be wrong.

If you think punishment is a required part of justice, please explain to me in the comments why you believe it is and how they are related. I might not be convinced, but I'd like to see the other side from rational perspectives.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Do you believe government should keep secrets?

I think you could consider "government secrets" to be a test for government supremacism. If you justify government keeping anything secret, you have some government supremacism in you somewhere.

L. Neil Smith had said that government secrets should be the only capital crime. Of course, since government is the entity that carries out capital punishment (killing in defense isn't capital punishment), that would never work. Nor do I believe capital punishment is anything other than murder in revenge.

Since I don't believe in the right or "authority" of government to do anything (kill people, keep secrets, exist, etc.), I'm not on board with that, but I do agree that government keeping secrets from its superiors (anyone you could think of) is an unforgivable wrong. 

You and I have a right to privacy from government's prying eyes and probing fingers, but governments have no rights at all-- they can't.

You may point out that what I consider wrong isn't going to change the criminal gang's behavior one bit. True.

Government cares about my opinions exactly as much as I care about its opinions. Still, I think it's a useful observation to make so you know where someone stands-- if they'll stand with you when the chips are down or if they're likely to sell you out because government says so.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

From the archives, on pandemics

I was looking back through old blog posts searching for something on a different topic when I ran across this from 2009. A reader had asked the question: 

How would 300 million of us, as we "governed ourselves" react for instance to... a pandemic?

My response back then was:

With a pandemic, people should be allowed to seek treatment from whoever they trust, using any medications they wish, without government intervention. Government "help" has a history of making things worse by not foreseeing the unintended consequences. 

Innovation is crushed under the government's regulations and by its FDA. No one ever talks about the people who died while the FDA wraps new treatments in a mummy of red-tape and backroom deals. Doctors are rationed by a broken licensing scheme that only rewards the ones who play politics well. Then you have the pharmaceutical company/government partnership. If pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine, many people would choose to buy it. If it really works as advertised, the vaccinated people would have nothing to fear from those who chose other methods. You seem to also be ignoring the fact that wars, the main business of government, are prime causes of pandemics throughout history.

I think that held up pretty well. But, then, liberty always does.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Political goggles make things worse

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 14, 2022)

Have you ever heard the term "beer goggles", where the more you drink, the more attractive someone looks? Politics works the opposite. The more you see things politically, the worse everything looks.

Once someone starts looking at things through the distorting lens of politics, there's no telling what they'll think they see. Even without politics, people see what they want to see, what they expect to see, or what they've been told to see. Politics make this effect worse.

With politics, people see the worst possible interpretation of what's in front of them. Is this how they want to see things, or is the expectation so strong it traps them? Has someone else made everything political in order to manipulate people into reacting a certain way?

If I say I'm against a certain practice, those in favor of it are likely to imagine they heard me say I want government to forbid it and punish those who engage in it. That's political and it's not me. I think most bad behaviors bring their own punishment.

No matter how much I oppose something, I think there is a better way to deal with it than by throwing government at it. Yes, even things like murder.

You might say a unified standard for handling things is necessary, but since rules vary by country, state, county, and city, there is no standard in any real sense, only the illusion of a standard. Often, the rules are completely wrong anyway, so even if there were a standard, it would be more harmful than helpful.

There are many behaviors and practices I consider wrong even though they are legal and widely accepted. When I say I believe they are wrong I am not saying I want them made illegal.

This has nothing to do with a China-style "social credit score", either. Nor does it encourage censorship or canceling anyone. It is me, as an individual, acting on what I see as the wrong thing to do.

If someone does those things I'll consider them a bad person and I will not want to have anything to do with them. I may also be giving a warning that I could feel the need to defend myself if those things are done to me.

Even if I tell you why I am shunning someone, I'm not going to demand you do the same. That would be political.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"You will own nothing..."

The part that gets left out of the World Economic Forum's assertion that in the future "You will own nothing and you will be happy" is that someone will own all the stuff. Just not YOU. 

I guess that's OK in their view. It's only a problem (to them) if you own the things you need to survive. Why is that?

I think we can assume they are assuming they (those associated with their organization, who they would consider "elite"-- better than you) will be the ones owning the stuff they will rent to you... if they determine you are worthy. And if you can pay the price and agree to the terms of service ("Take the jab", "No guns") they demand.

If they own all the stuff, does this mean they are forgoing their own happiness for your sake? I mean, if owning nothing is what brings happiness, that must be it. How compassionate of them.

Unless they are lying.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Vaccine side-effects

I've been called an "anti-vaxxer", mainly over the past couple of years concerning the Covid shots. That has never been true about me, but I am anti-mandatory. 

I am also unconvinced it is a good idea to flood a newborn's system with a cocktail of vaccines, but that's a different issue.

As far as not being anti-vaccine, I present evidence in the form of reminding readers I got the first part of a shingles vaccine back in early October. I got the second part on Sunday.

Both times, by bedtime my arm began to feel like it had been punched hard, repeatedly. Last time, the pain slowly faded over the next couple of weeks, but lingered to some extent for a month. I'm ready for it.

In October, this pain in my arm was the only side effect I noticed (or remember). This time I also have a headache and feel sore and listless. Of course, it may be completely unrelated to the shot. Maybe I'm just having an off day.

I don't want shingles. I've been around people who had them several times. Doesn't look like a good time! I'm more than willing to suffer some discomfort to avoid getting shingles. 

I've said in the past that I'd be willing to get an experimental mRNA shot that looked like it had a good chance of preventing (or curing) cancer, or reversing aging. The benefit (which is always subjective) has to be greater than the risk or discomfort. The shingles vaccine meets that bar; the Covid shots don't even try.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Theft, defense, revenge, justice

People have tried, for years, to make the argument that if it were my kid robbing someone, I would want no one to fight back and hurt or kill him. I would want them to cooperate and let the police handle it later.

No. They don't get it.

If one of my relatives tried to rob a group of people and was killed by a defender, I would be ashamed and angered by what my relative did. I would never defend his actions or seek "restitution" [sic] from the defender who killed him. To do so would make me just as bad, in my own way, as the thief. In fact, I would probably praise the actions of the defender as heroic (if I spoke up at all) even in my pain and shame.

If one of my relatives shot and killed a robber, I would be proud that he helped victims, both current and potential future victims of this robber.

If both robber and defender were relatives of mine, I would side with the defender. No matter which one I was closer to before the event. Choosing to steal, and especially to violently rob people, is a deal-breaker.

I think theft is one of the worst acts a human can commit-- right on the level of rape, murder, kidnapping, etc. I have no issue at all with thieves being killed in the act, and even less so if they are robbing people under threat of harm or death; at gunpoint or knifepoint, for example. Even if it's a toy gun or a rubber knife, unless they are willing to hand it over for you to examine so you can make sure it's real, you'd better assume it's real and act as though it is.

If someone steals your property they are stealing the hours of your life you traded for that property. Parts of your life you can never get back. They don't care. They've made their choice. Sure, some would argue they aren't taking your whole life, and you aren't taking the robber's whole life either, just whatever amount they would have had left after they tried to rob you. It might have even been far less than they were trying to take from you (judging by their poor choices). They might have walked in front of a speeding bus, overdosed on something they bought with your stolen property, or "died suddenly" from clots ten minutes later. That's unknowable. 

Once someone has shown you they don't value their own life as much as they value taking your stuff (which can include your life, and since you can't read their mind you don't know their intent) why would you value their life, in this case, more than they value their own?

This doesn't mean I think you should track the thief down the week after the attack and shoot them as they sleep in their bed. That would be revenge, and I oppose revenge (while understanding the hunger for it). 

Self-defense at the scene of the attack, in the heat of the moment, isn't something I'll second guess. 

But what about justice? Self-defense is not exactly justice; it eliminates the need for justice. Revenge, when the event is history-- including legal punishment through the government-- isn't justice. Restitution is justice. Let peaceful arbitration, and restitution, sort it out at a later date if there is anything to sort out.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Looking back at Covid

When Covid was still just called a "coronavirus", in early 2020, I tried to avoid catching it. Even though I had learned it was just a different cold virus (from WebMD-- before the "coronavirus" entry had been politicized, probably). I wasn't confident about its lack of danger, since it was a new variety. Now, knowing it was probably a modified virus from a government lab, I think early caution was the right reaction, even though I didn't know that at the time.

But, over time, I began to see that it wasn't quite the apocalypse that was being promoted; the only horrors were those being reported on "the news", but I saw none of it in my real world. I stopped doing anything more to avoid it than I would do to avoid catching any other cold.

When I caught it the first time. I felt awful for about 12 hours, if that. Any lingering fear was gone after that.

Later the narrative of "long haul Covid" started being pushed by politicized "medicine". I saw one person who was "diagnosed" with this convenient malady. I knew the person was not experiencing anything new; the doctors just had a new label besides "overweight and generally unhealthy" to pin on the person to explain their (same old) problems. I concluded that "long Covid" is mostly (or entirely) confirmation bias.

Later I caught Covid a second time and it was even less of a big deal-- it was barely even a deal at all.

I'll still avoid exposing myself to a sick person, like I've always tried to do, but I don't even care anymore whether it is Covid or some other cold.

It amazes me that anyone is still in pandemic mode.

I know other people may have experienced things differently, which is why I don't criticize what anyone does, as an individual, to avoid getting sick-- masks, shots, or hiding in their home.

What I do criticize are those who want to use force and mandate that everyone else does what they do. And those who take it upon themselves to go out in public-- wearing a mask to show their gang colors-- and aggressively attack people they claim are threatening them because they aren't maskinated and otherwise paralyzed by fear.

I still occasionally see people who are wearing a mask. I feel bad for them since I assume they are sick-- either diseased,  immunocompromised, or suffering a mental problem. But I don't taunt them or try to crowd them. As long as they don't attack me, it's fine.

People have different needs, wants, weaknesses, and fears. They are free to live according to these as long as they don't try to force their own choices on others. If they want to get endless "boosters" and wear a mask from now on, that's their business. The second they start trying to force their preferences on others, I'm going to push back.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Training away reflexes?

This is something I've thought about, related to yesterday's post.

This is kind of psychological, but obviously, I am not a psychologist so take it for what it's worth.

Most people who aren't career scumbags resist shooting someone. Sometimes until it's too late; this internal resistance is so strong. They'll go right up against that wall, and then discover it's really hard to push through any further to the point of pulling the trigger. 

Until something so extreme happens that it flips a switch in their head and in their muscles. 

Once you get to the point where that switch gets flipped, it doesn’t turn off again easily. You've gone from conscious decisions to reflexes.

That's why people will empty a magazine into a thug when the first couple of shots did the job. It's why they'll fire the final coup de grace into an "obviously" incapacitated bad guy. The switch has been flipped and there's nothing to flip it back. Not seeing that the threat is over and not the threat of government punishment or social condemnation. It's out of the intended victim's hands at that point.

And, again, the bad guy made the choice to put someone in the position where this can happen. 

If I'm one of those being protected from the bad guy, I'm going to be grateful to the defender for making sure the threat has been completely neutralized. I'm not going to care what those who weren't present have to say about it afterward.

It may be "too much", but I'm not going to burn someone at the stake for reflex behavior they didn't choose to initiate.

I can tell myself I would never let this kind of "overreaction" happen to me, but if I unexpectedly touch a hot coal, no amount of telling myself I won't jerk my hand away can change what happens next. The brain is shut out of the loop-- that's what a reflex is.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Overkill?

I know you've probably seen the Houston taco shop shooting video. Lots of well-meaning people are second-guessing the guy who ended the robber's career.

Yeah, I agree. The final shot to the bad guy's head was probably unnecessary-- but I wasn't there.

On the other hand, if the defender had turned his back and the bad guy had raised up to take a shot (had his gun been real), the defender would have carried that guilt for the rest of his life. The smart thing to do, for someone who wasn't suffering an adrenaline dump, would have been to stand watch, with the gun pointed at the bad guy, ready to put him back down if he looked like he was getting up.

However, the defender was undoubtedly not thinking straight at that point. Adrenaline was pumping through his veins and clouding his thoughts. He was running on reflex and emotion.

And the bad guy was 100% responsible for putting him in that condition through his actions, so the responsibility for his death is on him alone. I have zero sympathy whatsoever for anyone who decides to rob people under threat of death, and then ends up reaping what he sowed.

This is why I don't generally second-guess defenders who "over-react" by making sure the bad guy isn't getting up again. Ever.

If the defender had been a cop I would still consider it a good shooting.

I saw a video from Brazil on the TwitBird a few days ago where a bad guy had taken a woman hostage and was running down a sidewalk with her in tow. As he rounded a corner he came face-to-face with a cop, who shot him. He dropped the hostage and began running away and the cop shot him several more times-- in the back-- until there was no way this guy was going to get up again. In the back. As he ran. And I defended the cop's actions in that shooting. (Only pointing out that American cops would have arrested you or me for shooting the bad guy in the back as he ran away.)

It's different from shooting a guy who's not currently violating anyone but is running from someone who arbitrarily demanded he stop. Or shooting a guy crawling on his knees begging you not to kill him. Those shootings aren't justified, but shooting a thug who is in the act of robbing people... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I were called upon to arbitrate this case I might dock the defender a couple ounces of silver for over-reacting in the heat of the moment. Then I would dock the bad guy's estate (if any) for a pound or two of gold for restitution to everyone in the taco shop, including the defender.

I would seriously hope that if I were ever in that guy's situation I could stop shooting as soon as the second-guessers-- who aren't there in the heat of the moment-- think I should. 

Because I can empathize and imagine myself in their place, I'm willing to give others who are in a place they have a right to be, doing things they have a right to be doing, the benefit of the doubt when they are forced into a situation by someone who has no right to be in a place doing what he's doing. When robbers are killed by their victims, I can't care.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

No one has right to violate rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 7, 2022)

Governments don't respect rights.

Your rights don't change when you cross a line; not a state line or a national border. Rights are the same everywhere. Only the ways in which your rights are violated differ by location.

Rights don't change over time or due to majority opinion, either. If something is a violation of your rights today, it was a violation no matter how far back in history you go and it would remain a violation into the distant future. No matter what else changes.

Slavery always violated the rights of the slaves, even when it was enforced by law, and when most people thought it was the natural way to arrange society and get hard work done. No justification for slavery holds up-- it doesn't matter if you can't see any other way to harvest the cotton, if it's used as punishment for a crime or to fill military quotas through conscription.

People who want to convince you that "archaic" rights-- such as the basic human right to own and to carry weapons everywhere you go-- no longer apply are wanting to violate you. They don't want you able to effectively resist, so they'll try to convince you of how backward your values are.

I see them as trying to convince you how enlightened you would be if only you accepted slavery as natural again. It's a lie and I'll never accept their deception.

No one ever has a right to violate your rights-- the very idea is absurd if you think about it. Not based on who you are, where you are, or what year it is. I would also include not based on what you've done, since I don't see justice as violating anyone's rights, but most people prefer punishment over justice and don't like this idea. Restitution doesn't violate your rights since you created the debt by something you did, either through negligence or choice.

Rights can either be respected or violated; there is no middle ground. They can be violated more or they can be violated a little less, but violating rights is how you can identify evil. I don't accept any degree of evil. I've been told this makes me an extremist, as if being extreme about doing the right thing is bad.

If you don't believe in rights, or don't believe they should always be respected, imagine trying to have a functioning society without them and describe how that looks.

-

Please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it!

I couldn't do this without your support.

Range Day Report

This past Sunday I went to the gun range with my son. For Christmas, he had given me a rifle accessory he was anxious to see me try out.

It's a 100-round double drum magazine for my AR-15. He also got himself a similar magazine for his AK-74. He wanted us to test them out.

My only hesitation was that he insisted I run a whole magazine of ammo through it to make sure it functioned well from first shot to last. It did, but OUCH. I took advantage, though, by taking my time and shooting 5 rounds at a time, checking my hits with my spyglass, then making any adjustments if needed. None were needed after the first 10 or 15 shots. The gun is dead-on and shoots way better than my eyes can see (or my skill level, probably).

I completely took out the center of the target at 25 yards, then did the same at 50, only opening up the pattern a little. Still, everything was within a "center-of-chest" circle. There was nothing left in the center to place Shoot-N-C patches on.

Yes, I need to practice at 100 yards, at least. Next time. I don't have a scope (just a red dot) and I doubt my eyes will see the target at that range, but I'll find out. I don't see myself claiming "defense" at that range, anyway, but it's good to know your (and your tool's) capabilities.

I also took some other guns, including my daily carry guns, to get some live-fire practice. That was also ammo-expensive, but that's the point of having the ammo. Right? I used up some .22 LR ammo that was older than I am. Probably by a fair amount.

We were shooting the pistolas at their 25-yard range. Usually, we shoot at the 15-yard range (and normally at 10 yards even then) for self-defense distances. But this time he wanted to see how we did farther out. The facility doesn't have any handgun range with a greater distance than 25 yards. Thank goodness!

I shot two 9mm pistols, a .38sp revolver, and a .22 revolver.

Again, most of the guns shot very well. I had no malfunctions other than two misfires from the antique .22 LR ammo, and those popped just fine after I rotated them. The .22 revolver with fixed sights seems to hit low, but it's not for defense anyway. I adjusted my sight picture and went from there.

We had to wait a fairly long time before they called a cold range and let us set up our targets. It's bad to compare myself to others, but I secretly felt really good about my shooting after watching all those others guys shoot while we waited. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be present if any of them tried to defend someone with their guns. I hope they were practicing to get better, and I hope they do. I stopped paying much attention to them after my target was set up.

One of the range officers asked where I got my spyglass. (Junk store in Grand Junction, Colorado.) He said I was "the talk of the range" because of it. I told him that I was using it because it is always on my belt and I never remember to bring my good binoculars with me.

We spent about four hours there. He managed to staple his finger, and I got a blood blister from getting a finger pinched in a gun case hinge.

It was a good day.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Here's the deal

As long as the US federal government-- which gets any imagined legitimacy for its existence from the US Constitution-- exists, there can be no real, binding law concerning arms (weapons), nor will I pretend there is.

For that matter, even after the US feral government is gone, there can be no real, binding law concerning weapons. No matter where humans or their descendants exist. It's a natural human right for a reason.

I was thinking about this while shooting with my son this past weekend. At least I had a nice range day before the bureaucratic failure of a doctor's appointment on Monday, which I may talk about later when I'm less angry. I hate bureaucracy in all its forms more than I can humanly express, which is one facet of why I hate political government so intensely.

Anyway, "Serenity now"... 

If anyone wants to donate to help me replenish what I sent down range or to help with the porch cats, it's always appreciated, but even more so in trying times.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Would I use force to stop someone?

There are lots of things I think are bad— which I consider wrong— that as far as I can tell don't necessarily violate anyone's natural human rights. I would not personally use force to stop someone from doing these things, nor would I advocate legislation or support sending cops after anyone for doing them. Even if I consider them wrong.

Sometimes people don't understand the distinction. I'll say I believe something is wrong, maybe even evil, but they then assume I'm going to support legislation to punish those who engage in it. Nope. I don't advocate or support legislation, and I'm probably not going to personally use force against those doing it. Especially if I'm too far removed from the situation to know extra factors.

It might not be smart to test the limits on such things with people I care about, though. Because there is a line that could be crossed— even I'm not sure where it is in every case. If it impacts me or someone who matters to me-- or even some stranger in my sphere-- it might be different as far as me, personally, using force to defend them. In the heat of the moment, I could do things I consider wrong if it feels necessary. What is "necessary"?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

If you're negotiating with a robber...

The guy who was advocating a "flat tax" by saying "Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good" justified this by saying this could be compared to negotiating with a robber.

I asked why anyone would negotiate with a robber.

I might pretend I am negotiating with a robber while buying time so I can escape or defend myself and my property from him, but it's going to be an act. In that case, I'm not really agreeing to anything. I'm going to lie to the robber and keep looking for a way to neutralize the threat he poses.

If you're negotiating with a robber you're doing it wrong.

-

Please consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

No patience for cowardly control-freaks

My patience is at its limit when it comes to people who want to control everyone else because of their own fear. Guns, Covid, spiders, snakes, birds, liberty, whatever. 

Even things I dislike intensely such as political government, bureaucrats, and cops-- there's no need to fear them. Fear gives them unwarranted power. Just avoid them when you can, never accept their existence as a given, and work to undermine any power they have over you.

I don't care how you justify it or how you try to convince others to be as scared as you are. Your data is worthless. Your statistics are pointless. Experts pushing the contrary are impotent. Liberty is the greatest good, over even life.

I recently encountered one of these people. She's so terrified of Covid that there's nothing she wouldn't advocate doing to you because of her fear. But, of course, nothing she wants imposed on you would make her fear go away-- it will still be there looking for more ways to violate you.

If you’re scared, you are free to hide. You have the right to hide, but you have no right to make everyone else live according to your fears. Don't keep trying to impose your fear on others through silly rules. Especially counterproductive rules that will have the opposite effect in the real world.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Tolerating evil isn't ever "good"

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is one of the nastiest, slimiest sayings imaginable. It's a warning to anyone with principles.

I’ve never seen anyone use it for anything other than to justify their tolerance of evil or excuse themselves for not doing the hard work. 

It's like insisting that slavery can be improved ("the good") to make it less horrible instead of calling for abolition ("the perfect") which they believe is unattainable in the current situation.

I saw a guy advocating a "flat tax" this way, and saying that the true statement (which he even agreed with) that taxation is theft and thus is never ethical gets in the way of incremental improvements.

It doesn't even hold up to scrutiny anyway: Nothing is perfect and the thing being justified is almost never good.

Usually, it is said in conjunction with being pragmatic or utilitarian-- another couple of things I tend to despise in this context, for the same reasons.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The Statism test

The world doesn’t need to be “run”, it doesn’t matter by who.
Society doesn’t need to be directed.
You don’t need to be governed. 

There don't need to be governing policies to guide the economy, or business, or to prevent "climate change". There don't need to be governing policies to control Covid or other diseases.

The question of who is in charge-- who makes the decisions-- has one correct answer: The individual. And each individual has the right to be in charge of his/her own life, and no one else's life.

You can tell who’s a statist by seeing who disagrees and thinks some government or government-adjacent institution should have control.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Getting shuffled

I'll bet you were expecting an Eastern New Mexico News column this morning. 

Well, as of this week the paper is moving my columns to the Sunday edition. The Sunday paper has a slightly larger circulation. This means more local (potential) readers with more leisure time to soak up the columns and love/hate me (according to the editor).

See you then.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Don't be political and things won't get political

I can refrain from talking about liberty. Really. And I've proved it.

It helps if those around me don't start pushing their Statism. There's only a certain amount of Statism I can tolerate before I speak up.

Over Christmas when we were playing Password (an edition that came out before I was born) and when someone gave the clue "criminal" I guessed "government". That wasn't the word they were looking for. The next clue was "savage" which still fit. But the word we were trying to guess was something else-- that I don't remember now.

Other than that, since no one openly pushed their religion of Statism over the holiday, I didn't feel the need to say anything. Someone even got a gun as a Christmas gift (not me, although I did get an awesome gun accessory) so it was a liberty-friendly holiday.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.