Any time I see or hear the phrase "Critical Race Theory" my mind automatically inserts the word "Conspiracy" before "Theory": "Critical Race Conspiracy Theory". That makes the phrase a lot more honest.

Will it make any real difference?

I'm assuming the Texas governor is going to sign the "constitutional carry" bill like he said he will. Yes, I know taking a politician at his word is stupid.

I'm wondering whether this new legislation will make an actual difference in the legal ability to carry a weapon. 

Judging by the fact that almost every business in this region already has "We don't care if you die!" signs posted, I'll bet it won't.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Even though it doesn't really impact my life, I love seeing Cannabis advertised on billboards.

Sometimes, but only a few times per day at most, I feel that the biggest mistake I ever made was not wandering off into the mountains when I was about 20.

Won't sacrifice liberty for worst of us

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 5, 2021)

There will always be some members of the population set on killing each other over petty squabbles and imagined slights. Nothing you and I can do will ever change this; nothing government can do will stop it. Some people are just determined to be uncivilized. They may even prefer living this way, and wouldn't change if given every chance. You will be more free once you realize this truth.

Maybe the best outcome is for them to do society a favor by culling their own herd. How can you prevent them from harming anyone outside their culture while killing each other?

One way to help guarantee this is to make sure everyone is adequately armed. Unfortunately, all legislation imposed under the excuse of disarming these people will only disarm those who have no intention to commit murder.

People who are willing to murder aren't going to stop short of violating firearms rules. Even if you somehow managed to magically remove all their guns, they'd stab, club, strangle, or drown each other. It's simply what they are determined to do. Making the rest of us vulnerable isn't hurting them a bit.

You shouldn't structure society around this type of person. This gives them the power to control society by their own rules; for their own benefit.

Instead, society is for those of us who respect the life, liberty, and property of all others. Those who refuse to live this way will be continually removed from society by their own actions if we let them. It's their choice. It's a service, not a tragedy.

You probably think I'm being harsh. Do you prefer the alternative: to give them the power to dictate how you will be allowed to live. I don't.

I used to feel bad for this sort of person. If there were a way to get through to them, I'd be for it. More legislation and harsher punishment haven't worked. Imprisonment has been a complete failure in changing their behavior. I wash my hands of them. My concern for their welfare and quality of life is used up.

I will not sacrifice my liberty because of how the worst among us choose to act. I don't accept blame for their behavior. I will try to avoid them, knowing they can't be trusted to act ethically; to respect the rights of others. Stay ready to deal with them when they won't let you avoid them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The majority of my adult v*ting life, I v*ted for Republicans. And throughout that time I noticed I was only getting stabbed in the back when the Republican won. Now I'm seeing Republicans telling libertarians they'd better v*te for Republicans because libertarians will never win anyway. I didn't "win" when any Republican got elected. Yes, often Democrats are even worse, but even if I were going to v*te, it's not going to be for some (perhaps) lesser evil.

Asking someone to "prove" that liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" that not being sawed into pieces while alive and conscious of what is happening is better than suffering that fate. If someone can't understand the "why" of it, you probably won't be able to prove it to them.

Sticking to the script

In every publicized and politicized shooting, both sides-- the gun owner rights side and the anti-gun bigot side-- just repeat the same things they always say in response. I include myself in this. There's nothing new to say.

The thing is, when the anti-gun side says the same thing over and over like a recording, what else can you say in response? Each lie is going to elicit the same response it always elicits. For each and every lie, there is a truthful response. I mean, how else can you respond to the claim that the Earth is flat other than by pointing out how you (and they) can know it isn't? You don't start talking about the kinds of cat food you recommend, because it is irrelevant to the topic.

The anti-gun bigots have their list of ways they want you violated. They whip out whichever "solution" they feel fits the situation the best (which sometimes leads to comedy when they pull out the wrong one because of their festering ignorance). 

The "solutions" they demand have always failed in the past. They are failing now. They'll continue to fail into the future each and every time they are tried. That's because they aren't really intended to stop shootings. They are intended to make sure you can't defend yourself from shooters by shooting back. They may even be intended to enslave you.

Their "solutions" certainly work to protect the evil losers who murder. Maybe this is because the shooters are a protected class-- it's probably no coincidence that aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- legislation and guns-- against the innocent) empathize with aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- guns, knives, etc.-- against the innocent). They are birds of a feather. Oh, sure, the murderers are demonized, but only in words. The actions taken in response-- to blame people who didn't do it and look for more ways to hurt them-- speak louder than the disingenuous words.

A "gun-free" zone will only be "gun-free" until some evil loser wants to take a gun in there to kill people. To allow (or require) him to face no opposition is evil.

Kids who have been intentionally kept ignorant of guns-- and the ethical imperative of zero archation-- will get ahold of guns and will likely harm someone. Demanding that kids, therefore, be kept even more ignorant of guns, under threat of punishment, will only make matters worse.

A ban on certain kinds of guns-- based on looks or even on functionality-- will only change the weapons used, not save lives. Do these people really imagine it's less bad to be killed with Gun B than with Gun A... or with Tool C? What kind of stupidity is that?

Background checks will not catch the actual bad guys, but will keep good people who want to obey illegitimate legislation from acquiring the proper tools to defend life, liberty, and property.

Whichever type of weapon is used, it will be presented as too dangerous to allow common people-- anyone who isn't an armed government employee-- to possess. If the weapons weren't dangerous, there would be no point to them. Bad guys respond to danger to their lives and bodily integrity, but not to appeals to their humanity.

You can ignore these anti-gun monsters if you want. Their bad opinions don't affect your rights even a little, but can affect how dangerous it is to exercise your rights. Responding to them probably won't change the course of society as it becomes less and less social and more political. But sometimes you just can't sit quietly while someone is telling lies that are going to hurt people. So, the same old things will be said in response to the same old lies they keep parroting.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

If someone says "we" when talking about something the government or "country" did, or says "my" (or worse: "our" or "your") when referring to government or some government agency or agent, my opinion of their intelligence usually plunges-- unless I believe they are using those words sarcastically. If I'm feeling less generous, it may only affect my view of their ethics... by making me decide they have none.

Violence is ethically neutral because "violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Self-defensive violence is ethical; sometimes you've got to use physical force to "hurt, damage, or kill someone" to keep from being violated by them. Aggression-- initiated force-- is violence which is unethical.

Fauci's emails

I haven't bothered to read Fauci's supposedly incriminating emails, because I don't really care about his opinion and whether he lied.

I already knew he's a government-supremacist and as such can't be trusted. Did anyone not know this?

The government-supremacists who are right-statists are celebrating the emails, saying they show he was lying all along.
The government-supremacists who are left-statists are either ignoring the emails, or are saying they see nothing incriminating in them.
So, just more of the same from all those people who put politics over truth. They can be ignored since they can't think outside their box and add nothing to what is known.

Government-supremacists see nothing wrong with lying (or killing) to prop up the state-- at least the kind of state they want. To them, it's for the "greater good".

This hasn't changed in my lifetime and I doubt it ever will. 

Even if there were nothing in those emails I would disagree with, and no politics disguised as "science" for the gullible, I still don't trust Fauci. It's not about one thing he said or did, it's about his approach to life. His actions show he places the collective State above the good of individuals. Of course, he'll frame this as the collective State being good for individuals.

Instead of saying "There's a new cold virus, it seems to be slightly more dangerous than others, and here are some things you might consider doing to protect yourself, but we really don't know much for sure yet", he went all ... well, government-supremacist... on society. Advocating mandates and rules; encouraging using government violence against those who didn't do what he thought they should-- or at least giving rulers the excuses they needed to do those things without any pushback from him. 

Now some are saying the emails are new evidence he lied to get the response he wanted to the narrative he was selling, and that he did other wrong things, too.

Would it be surprising to find out he did? Not to me. He's political, and ALL politics-- all statism-- is based on lies and doing wrong. Why would this be the exception? 

Why would I read through lots of someone's emails-- or see someone else's biased (that's not a criticism, just reality) interpretation of them-- to find out that nothing in them is going to make a difference to me one way or the other?

But that's just me. Others may be more interested and might have good reasons to be. If you want to read through those emails and tell me your impression, go ahead. Maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe there's something in there that you'll find and think I should know because it might change my mind and how I live my life. Stranger things have happened.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government is paranoid

I doubt there's any group as paranoid as political government-- any political government. And, it's why other groups get infiltrated so easily by the kings of paranoia in government-- other groups just aren't paranoid enough.

But maybe government is.

Government employees have to know their power and position are illegitimate. They'll deny it, but this is where the paranoia comes from. If they weren't so paranoid I might think they actually believed their own lies.

It's why they spy on us so thoroughly. On our emails, our online activity, our snail-mail, our phone calls, our credit card purchases, our guns, our health status, our location, etc. It's why they infiltrate other groups.

It's not to keep us safe; it's to keep their unearned power safe. 

I'm not saying their paranoia is unjustified. If you're a criminal gang, you probably ought to be paranoid. Someone probably really is out to get you. The crown rests uneasy, and sometimes, the head that wears the crown rests uneasily on the neck, too. I just can't get too worked up when bad guys' paranoia turns out to have been justified. Death to tyrants.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I've never encountered a litterbug who didn't also have other serious problems with being responsible.
Also, I consider legislation to be litter.

That's one risk I'm not willing to take

I have no plans to get the Covid "jab". Not unless it looks necessary, and has been shown to be safe, in 20 years or so. Then we can discuss it.

I would rather not catch Covid and die-- or have lasting effects.
I would rather not get "the jab" and have a reaction and die-- or have lasting effects.

But, for some reason, and I know it's not rational, I would rather take my chances with the virus.

At this point, I would feel dumber for getting "the jab" and having a bad reaction (since I feel it's something I shouldn't do) than if I caught the virus naturally (assuming there's anything natural about this virus). 

I was exposed, intensely, several times during the first year of the virus. Now, I feel (and I could be wrong) that I either had some natural genetic immunity to it or caught Covid and didn't know and developed some immunity that way. I have seen nothing to convince me that immunity (if any) conferred by "the jab" is superior to natural immunity.

I'm not the slightest bit worried about catching Covid, and certainly not of catching it and having a serious problem from it. The only person I know personally with lingering ill-effects from Covid has never been what I would consider a healthy person. And I know others, personally, who caught it and recovered with no ill effects even though they were riddled with co-morbidities.

If I got "the jab" now and had a bad reaction it would feel like I took an unnecessary risk. A dumb risk. Almost like I was asking for trouble.

Why fiddle with what seems to have worked? If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

--

A friend-of-a-friend in California (I'm making an educated guess that she's a radical left-statist) is still so terrified of Covid that she won't stop masking, has been fully "jabbed", still avoids people, and is skipping an important (to her) memorial service (a Covid-delayed funeral) due to her terror. 

If you ask me-- and you didn't-- this is evidence of psychological abuse. Who is to blame? Politicians, her politics, the media she consumes, society, or some combination? 

I wish someone had the guts to try to deprogram her and give her back her life. If I knew her, I would try. But sometimes you get what you v*te for.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Solutions are not on the agenda

I was reading a couple of opinion columns in our little weekly local paper-- the one that's not online, where I used to write my Liberty Lines columns on occasion.

The two remaining opinion columnists are solidly "conservative".

Reading their columns, you'd think the only real problem with America is that "liberals" exist.

They are quick to list their gripes, and blame them all on "liberal" politicians (or those they've influenced). It all because "we" aren't tough enough on "crime". They can't see that "their side" is just as bad for liberty.

They beat around the bush when discussing their problems with government, but they avoid the core issues and avoid mentioning anything like an actual solution beyond more government violence. Why? Because you can't solve problems caused by too much politics by bringing in more politics. Especially not with more authoritarian politics. And they apparently love politics as long as "their side" has the upper hand. They don't want to stop using the political means against others. Solving problems is less important.

So they'll never do anything other than carefully avoid a solution to the things they complain about. And continue to hallucinate that it's only "liberals" making the mess. If only everyone would lick the boots of the police and the military, enforce all the right "laws", go to the right kind of church, never use any intoxicants that are "illegal", etc., America would be all better again. A nice, quiet, police state where they get the kind of government over others that they like, while their enemies plot how to turn it against them in the future.

They plow around the stump in their field, even as it grows larger, because to get rid of it entirely would take away their option to use it against someone else, later. And sticking it to the "liberals" is more important to them than is living in liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Saying "you're free because you're allowed to..." defeats your argument that freedom exists.

Liberty under attack

I'm not a gun blogger. I'm a liberty blogger. But I tend to focus on whatever is most under attack at the moment. Very often, that's gun owners and their guns. And that's the case right now, too.

Years ago I saw L. Neil Smith call the issue of "guns" an X-ray into a politician's mind. You can tell how much it (the proper pronoun for a politician) respects all your rights by how much it (the politician in question) respects your right to own and to carry weapons. I've never seen that fall too far from the truth.

Even "pro-gun" politicians are universally against getting government completely out of your holster, and they are all in favor of violating other natural human rights, too. Absolute scum.

I wish a day would come when I didn't feel the need to ever blog about guns again. A day when no one was out there scheming against this natural human right. If this happened, I'll bet your other rights would be a lot safer, too.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Computer problems damage my calm

I'm in a horrible mood today.

My computer developed a near-fatal problem overnight. It says it can't find a "wireless device" anymore. I am writing this sitting in the hall, connected to an ethernet cable-- completely blocking the hall so no one larger than a cat can pass unless I get out of the way. This isn't going to work for anyone-- except the cats.

I may try to find longer ethernet cables, or connectors so I can make a cable long enough to at least get out of the hall. 

I can post in a limited way from my phone. 

Until/unless I can get this solved, I may be mostly limited to posting "Blips".

This is going to be a huge problem for writing my columns.

If anyone wants to chip in so I can afford more options to fix this, I'd appreciate it (my birthday is coming up in a few weeks, so you could just call it a birthday gift). If not, that's fine. I'll survive.

UPDATE: Thanks for the help. I am up and "running" again. (And thanks to scheduling posts ahead, I didn't even miss one this morning!)

.

Homelessness and responsibility

Whenever I go to Albuquerque for a rare visit I see more homeless people than I've ever seen anywhere else. I'm sure there are worse places, but I haven't seen any in my limited experience.

I looked for a photograph to show what I saw at Albuquerque's Coronado Park and vicinity since I forgot to take one myself, but all of them looked a lot less horrible than what I witnessed this time. Does this mean it's getting worse? So I used a picture I took of the best thing to see in ABQ.

My feelings on homelessness are mixed.

I was homeless for a short time nearly 20 years ago. Instead of hanging out in a city park looking for handouts and doing drugs, I lived out of my car, in the woods, visiting a small town park daily for tap water and an electrical outlet. Wilderness survival skills are great, even when you aren't exactly in the wilderness, but staying "acceptable" for polite society sometimes requires a little more. If I'd been anywhere near a part of the world I cared to stay in, I probably wouldn't have bothered making the effort to stay "civilized" but would have just walked off with what I could carry.

I'm not sure if I was trespassing while homeless-- I didn't cross any fences nor did I see any signs, but I may have been. Either way, I took great care to not make a mess or damage the property-- or to even leave any sign I had ever been there when I left. Then, as soon as I could (I had a job the whole time) I got myself out of the worst of that situation. Almost an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation, but here I am.

So I do have empathy for the homeless.

I can't imagine choosing to stay in a city once you become homeless. But then, I'm not a city person. I suppose those who are can't imagine abandoning that familiar landscape for the woods.

The homeless situation in Albuquerque is a whole other mess. And, yes, "mess" is literally what I mean. The way most of them behave, you can tell addiction or other types of mental illness are a major part of the problem, not just a lack of a job or a house. 

I saw very few women among the homeless in ABQ. That might mean they gathered elsewhere, or dressed to blend in with the men, or were inside their makeshift shelters and tents. But maybe women have more opportunities for getting help, or are more likely to accept help than are men. Or maybe I just wasn't observant enough to see the women right in front of me.

This time, none of them approached me to ask for handouts. That was different. They also seemed to be more contained at the park than in previous visits-- whether by their own choice or some other factor. 

As long as they aren't trespassing or damaging private property, nor aggressively demanding handouts or robbing others, I don't have an issue with leaving them alone to live as they prefer. Even in a city park.

But the mess they create doesn't stay put, and a chainlink fence doesn't solve it. I hate the litter and filth that I see the homeless in ABQ causing. They sure don't seem to mind making the world filthier for the rest of us. I can't even begin to understand this.

Litter is a private property violation, no matter who does it or where. It doesn't stay put but blows in the wind. You can't litter without violating the rights of others. No matter who you are. 

There's nothing about being homeless that requires you to be irresponsible; to litter and mess up things. But, among these ABQ homeless, I don't see responsible behavior. I see lots of irresponsible behavior. Of course, as with everyone, the bad ones get all the attention... if there are any good ones in the background. Maybe the responsible ones are all out in the woods.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Cowardly, violent anti-gun bigots don't realize that the right to own and to carry weapons of war (actual weapons of war, not just the AR15s they lie about) will still exist with or without the 2nd Amendment. Nothing can change that.

Craft Holster Breathable Belly Band review

Recently my friends at Craft Holsters sent me another holster to review. This one is their Breathable Belly Band. Actually, they sent me two of them: one of their old style which they have discontinued, and the new version which replaced it.

I put both to the test to compare them. This review took longer than usual to conduct, and is longer to read, since there were two holsters.

Some background: I used to wear a belly band all the time. For years. Of course, back then I was carrying guns not well-suited to carrying, so that was where my only problems lay. No more of that! I remember now what I liked so much about belly bands, even under less than optimal circumstances.

First, here's the older version (which has been discontinued).

 

Belly band holsters obviously aren't as pretty as the fine leather holsters Craft Holsters has sent me. But they aren't meant to be. Functional is good, too.

I got the medium length, and it is 3.5" wide. Besides the gun pocket, it has two magazine pockets and a hook & loop-closure ("velcro") pocket on the back for hidden money or papers. If you need to get into that pocket during the day, you might want a trusted friend to access it for you. (Years ago, I traveled around for 6 months or so and kept thousands of dollars in such a pocket on a belly band-- but one that didn't seem as secure, so I loosely stitched it shut every morning if I needed to get money out-- and only transferred to my wallet what I thought I would need that day. So it's not really necessary to get into it during the day except in an emergency.)

This belly band fit me really well, and retained my Sig Sauer P365 perfectly-- at least when I wore it right. It has an elastic band with a tab to hold the firearm in place. It worked as designed. It does seem to be breathable-- I didn't get the slightest bit extra sweaty under it. This is a big improvement over the old styles I've tried over the years that felt a little like wrapping a strip of blanket around your belly. You can actually see through the band at the lighter stripes in the pictures; that's where air can circulate. 

As with all belly bands, it takes a bit of trial and error to get the holster positioned correctly. If you don't, it can be less comfortable and less secure. One day near the beginning of my test I had it positioned so poorly my pistol fell out. Twice! At least I was able to keep it from falling out of my vest (and wasn't around nosey people anyway), but it was a warning to pay more attention to how the band was positioned. I never had any issue with losing the gun after that one day.

The one and only issue I continued to have was that the odd-shaped P365 magazines kept working their way out of their pockets. P365 magazines are pretty slick and tapered a lot near the feed lips, making the whole thing nearly wedge-shaped. (A less-refined person might compare the magazine shape to a turd.) Putting them upside down into the magazine pockets meant they were always wanting to "squirt" out over time as I moved. These are the only magazines I have with this shape, and I don't think others would have the same problem. (I tested a Ruger P95 DC magazine, which has a similar but less pronounced shape, and it didn't try to fall out.) I found a "velcro" strap with a snap in a drawer and I installed it on the belly band (and only carried one spare mag thereafter) and I had no more trouble at all. You can see what I did below.

I wore this belly band holster for nearly a month and loved it more every day. I almost didn't want to put it away to try the other one. But I made a deal, so...

I switched over to try the new style Breathable Belly Band. 

This one is significantly wider than the other-- 4.75"-- which I've found is usually better for comfort than narrower bands. This one is comfortable, but not noticeably more comfortable than the 3.5" band. Maybe after a certain width, additional width doesn't make much difference.

On the new style, the elastic loop pistol retention has been replaced with a "velcro" elastic strap. It feels much more secure, but it is also a bit harder to draw from. The strap can be stretched over the back of the pistol fairly easily (replacing the pistol into the pocket while wearing the belly band is a different story on both styles-- you've got to take a little care to do so correctly). One thing is for sure: this one isn't going to let the pistol fall out even if the belly band isn't positioned well!

Instead of the money pocket, the new version has a pouch which has a hook & loop strap closure. I'm guessing this is to hold a wallet, as well as whatever else you think of. It's not on the back, but on the left front, which makes it easier to access. I tucked the strap inside when not in use. One of the magazine pockets is beside it, on the left side of your body,, more toward the front/center. 

This belly band is almost covered with pockets, from end to end. Only lacking them on one end and where the logo patch is positioned. I kind of like that versatility.

I still had issues with the P365 magazines wanting to work up and out of the magazine pockets in this belly band, too. It didn't seem quite as bad as with the older style band because you can seat them a little deeper (due to the extra width), but it's still not something you want to happen. I tried the Ruger P95 DC magazine again, carrying it all day, with no problems. I switched to the P365 magazine and it fell out within 30 minutes-- different shape; different result. Exactly how the band is worn does make a difference; how high and exactly which position. But it's really hard to replicate exactly from one time to the next. I just don't think P365 mags are going to stay in place without something over the top holding them in. I can fix that. 

And I did. With velcro straps again. No snaps this time, I just stitched the end of the hook side inside the magazine pocket and stitched a little rectangle of the loop side on the front of the belly band and didn't have any more issues. I fixed two magazine pockets this way and carried two spare magazines with no problems from that point on. I only had white velcro so it's not as attractive-looking, so I won't be sharing pictures of that modification.

Closing thoughts-- Both were really good (other than the magazine problem) and comfortable. It is easy to adjust them to find your sweet spot. They were breathable as advertised and didn't give me any problems, even during some long walks/hikes.

If you like belly bands-- and why wouldn't you?-- I think you'll like the Breathable Belly Band holsters from Craft Holsters.

I'm going to have a hard time deciding which type of holster to use as my daily wear now. It's a good "problem" to have. Options are good, and good options are even better.

Thanks again, Craft Holsters!

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Missed my chance, and I'm not even sad

I spent last weekend in Albuquerque with the extended family. I'll have more to say about that in days to come.

While I was there someone in the family saw on social media (or the "news") that the city was having a "gun buyback" [sic]. To "fight crime". LOL. Idiots.

Anyway...

My first thought was that if I had known, I have a completely inoperable and irreparable single-shot (well, technically, zero-shot) derringer that I could have brought with me to trade for some money (I'd obviously want to find out whether the money was stolen or donated before doing the trade). I didn't have it with me, though. 

Then I discovered they weren't even "buying", the guns, but only trading a gift card for them. Forget that! I'd rather keep my useless piece of wood and metal. At least it's cute.

(And if I'd had the money to offer people for their unloved guns-- offering actual cash rather than a gift card-- I could have done that, instead. That would have been even better.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Is it surprising that a mass murderer like Chip"man" would project his own failures onto other people? Most people aren't as evil as he proved himself to be. When I have a gun in my hand I don't wantonly murder women and children. Or even help carry out the murders. Don't even want to,

All countries, being political, are vile. That being said... Taiwan is a country. Equal to and exactly as legitimate (or not) as China. Never apologize for telling the truth.

Any time I hear of another mass shooting, my first thought is something along the lines of "Did a gun-free zone just kill again?" And, usually, that is exactly what turns out to have happened.
Yeah, I know-- the evil loser who pulled the trigger has ultimate responsibility, but that doesn't absolve those who literally handed him the opportunity and gave him a pool of potential victims to murder at his leisure by forbidding guns in some space.

If you believe the problem with police killings is that the dead person "resisted arrest" you are unqualified to ever sit on the jury of a rape trial. You're too biased in favor of the aggressor.

The idea vs the reality

Many times I come up with an idea of something to make, and often I can't get it out of my mind until I make it or at least give it my best shot. It might be a jacket, a knife, a model, a painting, or something else. I'll plan it all out and figure out exactly what I want before I start making it.

What I end up with is rarely as good as what I originally thought of, but usually, it's still pretty good. Often I've even made certain improvements over my original idea. But some features always end up being slightly beyond my ability or the capabilities of the material I am working in. You don't really know this until you try.

My first idea for the project was somewhat Utopian, and maybe not entirely realistic, but I'm not too disappointed by what I ended up with. It's better than nothing, especially if my original idea got me to push the boundaries of what I thought was possible.

The same is true of liberty.

You might as well plan out what you really want, then start working toward that. No, you'll never get Utopia because that's just not an option. But without that Utopian roadmap, you'll never get anywhere worthwhile. You'll never push the boundaries beyond what other people say is realistic-- which is never quite true anyway. Most people are scared of anything beyond the status quo unless it is based on their own idea.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Crypto is a shark trying to shake off the remoras or a dog trying to shake off its fleas. Don't be a remora or a flea.

There really aren't many unique questions related to human behavior. That's why there aren't many unique answers to what people should do in such-and-such situations. "You always have the same solution to everything!" Yeah, because you really can approach every question by simply respecting liberty and rejecting coercion, theft, and aggression. Some people believe this is a problem, but that's their problem.

There are rules which good people follow so they don't violate others.
There are rules which bad people impose and follow so they can violate others "legally".
I hate it when anyone follows the second kind of rule. I respect the disobedient among us who ignore and willfully break such rules.

By any other name...

Non-consensual bodily penetration. It seems people were against such a thing, once upon a time.

But in recent years the thugs of the state have claimed it is necessary for "public safety". Either to penetrate your body to steal something from you or to occupy your body with something you'd rather not host. This makes it worse than a mere stabbing, since it either intentionally steals something or intentionally leaves something behind, inside you.

How did it become "normal" to support or advocate non-consensual bodily penetration?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Time to right marijuana wrongs

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 28, 2021)

Once the marijuana rules have changed, everyone with marijuana charges on their record should get a clean slate. At least where marijuana is concerned. Then they need to be paid the restitution they are owed by those who harmed them.

People arrested or fined for a crime which is no longer a crime deserve a break. Those who were jailed over marijuana were wronged. Those who were fined need to be repaid the money which was taken under phony pretexts. All for a "crime" which, finally, after nearly one hundred years of false claims and shoddy justifications, is recognized as not actually wrong.

Would you still consider runaway slaves criminals, with a record, after slavery was abolished? False claims and shoddy justification were used to excuse that evil institution, too.

What you ingest has never been government's business. Pretending it is doesn't make it so. Punishing people for ignoring the arbitrary wishes of politicians is wrong. Those who do wrong-- even if someone else has told them to do it-- owe restitution to their victims. "I was only following orders" has never excused such behavior.

Something can't be wrong one day and not wrong the next, or OK one day and illegal the next; based only on the opinions of smug politicians. Situations like this are why I have no respect for legislation. This exposes the absurdity of the whole system.

It seems silly to keep punishing people for past marijuana offenses, which is what is happening if those offenses stay on their record.

Even if the arrested individuals did something which will still be technically illegal under the new rules, it's long past time to let prohibition go. It's no more sensible than the witch trials of the 1690s or the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Everyone who once "waged war on weed" looks as bad as those who came before them, and in the future may even look worse.

If you're going to insist on having police and government courts they need to focus only on those acts where someone's life, liberty, or property has been harmed. Beyond this is where any legitimacy ends. It's not a fuzzy gray area; it ends hard at that line. If they violate anyone's life, liberty, or property in the course of doing their jobs, they've become what they claim to be fighting. Prohibition is one example of them having done exactly this.

It's time to make it right.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The consistency of liberty

Liberty is completely consistent. But those who decide to reject it won't see the consistency because they don't understand what they are seeing.

Years ago a good friend of mine made the argument that gravity isn't consistent. She said gravity works on Earth but not in space. She also claimed that airplanes are defying gravity when they fly. She thought this showed that gravity doesn't always work.

She was no dummy-- very smart and in her mid-80s.

I tried to explain that gravity is consistent everywhere (even though its strength varies from place to place in the Universe due to the uneven distribution of matter), but due to different conditions, it looks different in space than it does on Earth. 

I tried to explain that "zero gravity" in orbit is just the result of falling around the planet. A "downward" falling path that misses the ground and keeps going around. Orbiting wouldn't be possible without gravity. (Deep space would be a different situation.)

I tried to explain that without gravity, airplanes couldn't fly the way they do. Gravity holds the air to the planet so they can use it for lift and thrust.

She wouldn't have any of it. To her, it looked different under those different conditions and she didn't understand the physics behind it, so that was the end of it. Gravity was inconsistent and unreliable, in her view.

Those who don't (or won't) understand liberty are much the same. They see different situations, and imagine that it looks like liberty is different in those situations-- that it doesn't work in every circumstance. But that's only because they don't understand what they are looking at.

Is it possible to explain it to them? Maybe not, but it works the same regardless of whether they accept and understand it or not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government doesn't unify people, it divides them

I wonder why so many people seem to be under the impression that political government unifies people. The opposite seems to be the case, and it seems obvious to me.

When I see people suggesting a global government, the excuse they often use is that it would "unite humanity". Well, it would give us a common enemy, but I don't think that's the idea they are pushing.

Political government divides. Whether it is two opposing governments dividing the people living under each, or one government dividing the people it seeks to rule. In the second case it makes me feel at odds with others who want to use that government to violate me in various ways. If I were political, it would make me believe I need to use that government against them in defense.

I can govern myself just fine. I don't feel the need to govern you. If this is a problem which needs to be solved by imposing the same political government on us both, I guess I'm on the wrong side.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Anarchist government?

In one of my recent "Blips" I wrote:

Is anarchy "a system"?
It comes down to what someone means by "system".
If "system" means a general way to do things, sure.
But if they mean an institution with someone "in charge" who imposes their will, no.
Same word, used in different ways, depending on the motives of the user.

It's the same way the word "authority" is used to mean two different concepts: a political bully or an expert.

A government-supremacist was whining that anarchy isn't a system of government-- and that's apparently all he cares about. That's the objection he kept harping on. It's why he kept claiming that others were describing anarchy as though it were a system while at the same time indicating that it wasn't a system of government. It was a distinction he couldn't grasp for some reason.

So, yes, anarchy can be used as a system. It can show you a path to successful consensual interaction with others.

No, anarchy isn't a system of government, but there is one system of government which is consistent with anarchy: You govern yourself and no one else. It's the only legitimate form of government, being removed from politics.

Anarchy, as a system, means as long as I follow it I am not going to try to rule anyone, nor will I accept anyone's attempt to rule me. It means I alone am responsible for my actions. It means I will respect the life, liberty, and property of others.

But there is no room in there for me to claim anarchy while trying to govern you. This use is outside of the "system" of anarchy. Completely. It's as far from anarchy as slavery is from liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I'm not a fan of face masks as a way to fight viral disease, but if a business requires them, it's not usually a line in the sand for me.
I'm not a fan of Covid-19 vaccines or experimental gene therapies, but if a private business or a corporation (which is government) says "no unvaccinated person may enter", I'll shun them and take my business elsewhere. Yes, I think they are being foolish, but I have no control (with a mask or otherwise) over whether a virus will be released from my body if it were to be present in me, so it is their business, even if their fear is silly and hysterical.

Like a cool drink of water in the hot desert

Yesterday someone wrote and told me a little story of a recent experience of theirs that my writing may have-- in a general way-- played a small part in. You don't even know how happy this sort of thing makes me. Even if I'm vastly overestimating the part my writing played in what happened, it is a great feeling.

I've gotten similar notes from people several times over the years and it never gets old.

If anything I write gives you ideas for standing up for liberty, I'm more successful than I ever dreamed I could be-- whether I'm financially successful or not. Honestly, if I had to choose between monetary success and inspiring others, I'd choose inspiring others nearly every time. (Only having second thoughts about this choice when I'm in a bad financial situation.) Which is why I am where I am.

I get the same kind of rush when people write to gush over my Time's Up flag design-- or even buy one or more. It's a validation that I never really expected.

But I am grateful and I thank all of you.

I'll keep on keeping on as long as I feel I am contributing something. Hopefully, it's not an empty feeling.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I don't care what the CDC says even when they say something I like. They lost all credibility with me decades ago and they aren't going to get it back.

No matter what else happens in my life, no one can take away that I "celebrated" the roll-over from the year 1999 to 2000 sitting at a campfire in the snow, down by the river, in my buckskins, firing off a blank shot from my Hawken at midnight-ish (judging by the other celebratory noise drifting up from town). I wish I had more ideas as good as that one. It felt like pure liberty.

Is anarchy "a system"?
It comes down to what someone means by "system".
If "system" means a general way to do things, sure.
But if they mean an institution with someone "in charge" who imposes their will, no.
Same word, used in different ways, depending on the motives of the user.

Antisocial diseases

It is so puzzling to see people praising politicians. No matter how bad they are, they all have a big cheering section that won't stop. And won't stop v*ting for them.

People fall all over themselves to praise Bidump (either incarnation) in ways that make absolutely no sense to me. They ignore his flaws, or downplay them, and praise his political actions. Political actions... crimes. And they praise them.

What?

It's as bewildering as the people who can't let go of politicians after they are out of office-- they hate them and are still so obsessed with them that they can't get on with their lives just because that presidency happened. Someone has to pay!

Imagine if people were still looking for ways to punish Obama supporters. (If they are, I haven't seen it.)

Some people care way too much about the politicians who infest civilization. Politicians are a disease. Treat them as such. Cure the sickness and move on.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Twitter feed: "Scientists and public health experts say that vaccines are safe for most people"

Me: Yeah... and so is COVID-19

I had a strange TSHTF dream last night-- or a dream about the beginning of TSHTF-- and it wasn't even a little scary or unsettling. I was just approaching it like "Well, this is what I need to be doing next..." It was very interesting and detailed. I would have liked seeing how it turned out.

Good outlaws are good people

Whenever I see any mention of new legislation that is being plotted, my only thought is that whatever they do, I'm done complying. And I have this thought a lot these days.

Sure, if the legislation respects liberty a trifle more, that's good. But if it doesn't, which is generally the case... well, I'm OK with being an outlaw. Aren't you?

The origin of the word "outlaw" is said to have meant the person so labeled was declared to be "outside the protection of the law". I'm assuming they meant "legislation" (or those who enforce it) rather than "law", since no human can decide another is beyond the law.

How long has it been since you felt legislation protected you in any way? I can't remember the last time I felt that was the case, if ever. I may have always felt I was "outside the protection of the law" and it doesn't bother me even a little.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government owes business an apology

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 21, 2021)

After this past year, government owes business an apology.

Not just empty words, but a meaningful apology. An immediate suspension of all taxation on any economic activity whatsoever and a suspension of all business regulations would be a good start.

If you imagine I just said businesses should be free to poison or maim customers, you're hallucinating. I never said any such thing. If you harm someone (including harming them with government actions)-- on purpose or accidentally-- you owe them restitution. Responsibility doesn't hinge on government regulations but on the market. In fact, government is more likely to pretend such a reckless business only needs to pay a fine to set things right rather than make things right with the individuals who were harmed.

What about the taxes? Only someone completely ignorant of business economics could imagine businesses ever pay any taxes. They don't. They can't. Just like every other business expense, all business taxes must be passed along to the customer-- which is you and me, in case you aren't clear. I can't afford to have the businesses I patronize keep paying for government I neither want nor need. Can you?

This hands-off policy should continue as long as government insists there's a pandemic and won't allow life to get back to normal because of it. At a minimum. Better yet, it should be permanent.

I'm calling for a separation of economy and state.

Anyone should be able to start any business they want without asking government permission. No licenses or permits, no fees, no bribes, no zoning, no taxes, no handouts. If people don't want the business to survive they won't spend their money there and without any government handouts to keep them going, this would be the end of it.

I'm not claiming this would solve everything.

It may be too little, too late for some business owners. Their livelihood was destroyed by government's Covid-19 overreach and their spirit has been crushed. Along with their finances. This would still be the best chance of making things right with them. Maybe it would give some of them a way to start over.

I would love to see every empty storefront filled. Can you even imagine the improvement to your quality of life this would bring? It could be done, but government has to stop preventing it.

Government owes us this much at least. It would be better than a measly stimulus check.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"Conservatives" ("right-statists") who imagine they are substantively different from left-statists are deluding themselves. Are you letting them fool you, too? Statism-- all statism-- is toxic and unethical. It doesn't matter much how it is imposed. It will only get worse over time.

Storm's a-comin'

As I write this post I am under a severe thunderstorm warning. If I step outside I can see dark, ominous clouds towering in the southwest.

There are reports of hail and high winds hitting the closest town in that direction.

I've put buckets over the tender garden plants (that also got pelted with pea-sized+ hail yesterday). I brought in all the plants on the back deck. I've moved the food for the stray cats under the front porch overhang and made sure the vehicles are under the carport the best I can manage. 

The clouds are now close enough I no longer see the tops. The sky is getting darker. I hear the thunder.

It may, as these things often do, somehow miss me. There's a mysterious weather-blocking force around this small area-- storms usually split and go on either side while missing us completely. But I am not going to depend on that happening.

In the same way, I see dark storm clouds of authoritarianism on the horizon. I'm preparing however I can, with the knowledge that it may a false alarm. I'd rather be ready for a storm that fizzles than be caught off-guard just because I believe it won't happen here.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

When people fight and die for liberty, who do you think they fight? It isn't muggers, deer, or rapists-- that's for sure.

Government rules can never remove or alter the human responsibility to own and to carry weapons.

Political government is never really held accountable because it has fooled people into believing only it is allowed to hold itself accountable. There's no situation in which that can work. If you or I try to hold government or its employees accountable we would be called "terrorists" or "assassins". This is why a free society, unmolested by political government, would be superior. If anyone acted like government acts today, you and I could hold them accountable and no one (other than the guilty) would bat an eye.

Rulers need to get out of our faces

How nice of the rulers to finally allow at least the fully vaccinated people to go maskless.

I'm going to continue to do so regardless of their wishes. As I have been doing all along.

Yes, I usually wear a mask (unless I forget) inside businesses which request/require it, since viruses (if I were infected) wouldn't stay inside my body, but would leak out onto other people's property, therefore being someone else's business. Not that I believe a mask would make that much difference, but if someone is that scared of it... whatever. If I know I'm sick, I'll probably stay home and not rely on a mask, anyway. It has never been important enough for me to make it my line in the sand.

But I have never worn one outdoors, or on my own property, nor inside my car. I certainly didn't wait for permission that still hasn't come for those like me who aren't vaccinated.

Do I think it is smart to require a mask? Nope. Do I think masks work? Don't know and don't care. It's the wrong question. The right question is "Who has the right to force anyone to wear a mask?" and the correct answer to that is "Not politicians!"

Do I like wearing a mask? Well, maybe a little-- sometimes. I confess I like the whole outlaw vibe I feel behind a mask or a bandana-- not enough to wear one when it isn't required by a business, but if they want to help thwart facial recognition software, I'm OK with that.

Any politician who imagines I am waiting for their permission to do anything is going to be very disappointed, because I'm not. Not on the issue of masks or anything else. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Once someone is trapped into seeing everything through a statist/government-supremacist lens, it's difficult-- if not impossible-- for them to free their mind to see it in any other way. I'm sure you've encountered these brain-damaged individuals. Instead of anger or frustration, feel pity.

I guess if you surrender your kids to kinderprison-- government indoctrination centers or "public" [sic] schools-- you shouldn't be too surprised when they are taught false things like statism and Critical Race Conspiracy Theory.

Do masks work? That's the wrong question, but...
Do bandaids work against mosquito bites? Sure. A mosquito is unable to bite you where the bandaid is.
Does this mean you should wear a bandaid to reduce your risk of mosquito bites and mosquito-borne disease? Or dozens of bandaids? Biden and Fauci would apparently say Yes.

New candidate for Statist of the Year

It's almost as though statists have a force field that prevents information from getting through.

On Twitter, a statist was arguing against anarchy. One topic he kept obsessively "circling back" to was that without the state, children would have no one to protect them.

Person after person chimed in to say they, personally, would step in to protect a child who was being victimized--even under the current "system" where doing so brings the risk of "legal" punishment. Even asking this guy whether he would just sit by and let children be victimized without stepping in (which he kept ignoring).

And yet, every other tweet this same guy would come back with "So you're admitting there would be no protection for children". Literally the opposite of what was being said repeatedly.

Is he just stupid or can he not read words that refute his twisted worldview? Your guess is as good as mine. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The ATF (BATFEces) are some of the most disgustingly horrible and crooked government goons ever created. Anywhere on the planet at any time in history. Truly reprehensible vermin. I used to have a friend who had an uncle or something who worked for them, and I told her as much (No, this didn't end our friendship, I moved away). Joining that gang is more unforgivable than becoming a Blue Line Gangster (which is unforgivable enough).

 A couple of months ago I saw news items about how much energy Bitcoin mining took, and how much heat it produced. 

I thought to myself "Someone is trying to destroy Bitcoin". Now it looks like I was right.

Regardless, I've done what I wanted with Bitcoin, so whatever happens, happens. I'm happy.

How not to get a broken finger

Last week I was at the outdoor (but semi-enclosed) garden center of a chain hardware store on the New Mexico side of my territory. I wasn't masked, and wasn't even thinking about it. By now, even the silly Branch Covidians have largely admitted that masks are pointless outdoors. Still, there were masks on some faces.

Then, as I stood in the checkout line, an older guy walking past, wearing a mask, poked his finger at me and asked my daughter where my mask was. He seemed to be good-natured about it-- he winked as he said it-- but I'm not thrilled about being approached that way, or poked at (he didn't touch me).

I said "We're outdoors" and he gave a bit of a nod and went on his way.

I'm not sure what reaction he was looking for. Did he expect me to apologize and mask up? Or was he pointing out that I'm a free thinker who doesn't follow the crowd? I couldn't even tell for sure whether he was disapproving or approving.

As in every encounter of this sort, I have to wonder if he recognized me from my newspaper column picture. It happens a lot, but he made no reference to it.

Whatever his intention, I don't recommend following his example with random people in public. Other people might not be as calm as I am. If you don't want your finger broken, don't go poking it at random strangers. This is how you get your finger broken.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tools don't have rights

When speaking of gun-owners' rights, sometimes the phrase "gun rights" is used. But guns don't have rights; people do.

This is important because of another thing that is often said. People frequently discuss whether or not government has a right to do this or that. No, it doesn't. Ever.

Government has no rights. Government can't have rights, and nothing can make it possible for governments to have rights. 

Rights are a feature of individual humans; not of tools. Nor of a collective. 

Political governments are tools created by humans-- built of a collective of humans-- for a purpose. Chairs are tools created by humans-- built of various materials-- for a purpose. Chairs aren't usually imagined to have rights, but somehow governments are. 

Governments can no more have rights than chairs can have rights. And no one can have the right to use a tool they possess-- a gun, a government, or a chair-- to violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

Each individual comprising government has rights equal and identical to the rights had by every other individual human-- no more, no less. New rights aren't created by grouping lots of people together. Just like no rights are created by making a tool. You still have the right to use the tool you made or traded for-- in non-political ways-- but the tool itself has no rights at all. Whether it is a gun, a chair, or a government. So, "does government have a right to...?" No, it doesn't. It can't.

A slightly better question would be "Do I have a right to use government to...?" Substitute "a gun" for "government" and ask again and you'll probably have your answer.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Problem handled-- without gangs

An acquaintance recently had a problem with an eBay package. 

It was one of those UPS shipments that gets handed over to the USPS for final delivery. 

The UPS tracking number didn't show any problems during shipment, but when it was handed over to the post office in the Big City, someone put the new USPS tracking number on the package along with someone else's name and PO box number. (Does UPS make the new label or does the USPS? Seeing as how the label has the new USPS tracking number, I doubt UPS prints those-- but I don't know.) She knew nothing of any of this and kept watching for the delivery.

Saturday, the tracking said the package had been delivered the day before, but my acquaintance hadn't gotten it.

The post office here is closed on Saturdays, but she went and knocked on the door and they answered. She asked for her package but was told there was no package. Checking the tracking number showed it had been picked up by someone with a completely different box number. They said they'd look into it on Monday, but maybe that person would realize the mistake and return the package.

Not being content to let things sit for two days on a package worth over $100, she used the box number given by the post office and an internet search gave her a name and address. A further Facebook search showed the person had one mutual friend, Contact was made. (A lesson about the privacy-killing internet.)

The person with the package said yes, she had picked up a package, but her name was on it, so it was hers. She denied it contained what my acquaintance had ordered, but cautiously avoided saying anything incriminating about it. She even supplied a photo of the label with the tracking number; her name and box number included.  She ended by saying "Good luck finding your package".

Monday the post office said the package was in the other person's name, so that was the end of it.

My acquaintance notified eBay that she hadn't received the package, but they quickly denied the claim, saying the tracking number showed it had been delivered.

This is where I came in. She wanted to turn matters over to the police-- I said that since the other person's name and box number were on the package, that would probably be pointless (and I always try to discourage involving the Blue Line Gang anyway). So she gave me a chance to handle it and I wrote her appeal for her. 

I looked over every document and message back and forth. I gave eBay every bit of information available, including the name and address of the person who had picked up the package, saying that they were unknown to the purchaser and refused to return the package, saying that since her name was on it, it was hers. I offered to send photographic evidence if they'd tell me where to send it.

This made eBay relent and refund her money. I count this as a double win. My acquaintance got her money back and I found out where a person I probably shouldn't trust lives. I just hope the eBay seller didn't get charged unless the mistake was somehow theirs.

Is this how things might work in a free society where calling the cops isn't an option? Seems like it could be.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two