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

Gun control [sic] based on lies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 14, 2021)

If you have a better idea, share it and convince people it's a good idea. If you can't convince them with the truth, that should be the end of it.

If you can't let it go, and decide to force everyone to go along with you, you'll use politics to make them do something you couldn't talk them into doing. In other words, you'll cheat.

There are different ways this can be done. You can let Congress make up new legislation, but this is hard and takes a long time. These days a president will often just declare "It is so" and skip all the constitutional safeguards, which-- truthfully-- don't often protect your rights from government anyway.

Presidents like this method because it gives them the power to impose their will unilaterally. There used to be a word for political rulers who did this, but it seems to have been removed from public conversation since January.

Executive orders, and their pale cousins-- executive actions-- are how recent presidents have managed to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without bothering to go through the (still crooked and unconstitutional) legislative steps.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (which should be the name of a convenience store, not a government office) uses a similar trick.

The Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to make up any rules about weapons. Since courts are controlled by government, they usually allow this crime to go unchecked. It doesn't excuse the criminal act of "gun control" when courts allow it to happen.

Congress, the president, bureaucrats, judges, and all other political people are forbidden to violate any of our natural human rights. They do it anyway, and they get away with it almost every time. They cheat and lie until they get what they want, and most of the public is OK with it. People get scared and don't understand the issue because of the lies told by the national media corporations and politicians.

All "gun control" is based on lies. It doesn't make anyone safer. It isn't the government's job to tell you what you are allowed to own or how and where you can carry it. There is no authority for government to require background checks or permits or licenses. Those who do it anyway are cheating. They are cheating you out of your rightful liberty. Why put up with it?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Calling things what they aren't-- "Constitutional carry"

Texas politicians are debating "Constitutional Carry". Except, that's not really what they're debating.

Constitutional Carry would involve removing every single legislative impediment to, and unequivocally recognizing and supporting the exercise of, the fundamental natural human right to carry weapons, in line with what the Second Amendment of the US Constitution requires of them. 

That's not what they are proposing.

Instead of finally "getting right with the law" and ending a century and a half of criminal behavior, they are simply removing some of the counterfeit roadblocks. They'll be violating the law slightly less than before, but still violating it in huge ways.

If there are any exceptions or restrictions, they aren't doing what the US Constitution requires of them. It's better than before, but it most certainly isn't Constitutional.

You could argue that while it isn't in line with the US Constitution, it instead follows the rights violations "allowed" under the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution says: 

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

So, the state allows itself to violate natural human rights illegitimately, and this is what this "Constitutional Carry" legislation does. This is no different than the state saying slavery is legal-- it's as unethical as anything can be.

As I said, it's probably better than before, and I hope it passes. But it's still a big old statist rights violation. Just criminals continuing to be criminals, but being slightly "nicer" about it than before.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Be considerate-- Prep

Do you want to be considerate of others? Then you need to be a prepper.

Prepping is most considerate. 

In the early days of the panic-demic, do you know who wasn't out there competing for the rare roll of toilet paper? Preppers. 

Who wasn't fighting with karens in the grocery store aisles for a can of corn or a bag of dried beans? Preppers.

Prep now so you won't be a burden on society-- on your friends and neighbors-- later. Prep so you leave more goods on the shelf for others. Prep so you aren't adding extra demand and pushing prices higher than they'd otherwise go.  Prep so you can watch the collapse in relative comfort.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You have to pick one or the other

I saw a quote by a right-statist who said "conservatives" want "secure borders and small government". That's so cute, it's hilarious. You can have one or the other, but not both at the same time on the same tax farm.

It's like those left statists who want to get rid of guns with anti-gun legislation and want government-- the same government they admit is a gang of thugs (depending on who they believe is "in charge")-- to enforce "gun control" [sic]... with guns and violence. And they hallucinate that this will save lives! The idiocy is astounding!

Politics makes people stupid and makes them agitate for things that are contradictory; for things that can not coexist.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How much risk is too much?

The amount of risk I'm willing to take depends on how bad the alternative is. And it's completely subjective.

If the danger (or pain) is great enough, I'm willing to do extreme things-- even really risky things-- to alleviate it. It's pure desperation.

If a fireball is chasing me down a hallway I might be willing to jump through a window, not knowing what's on the other side.

Similarly, I would be willing to try experimental mRNA treatment for something like cancer, but not for an over-hyped cold. The risk/reward in the Covid-19 situation is completely upside-down in my subjective opinion.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Skewed, self-selected data

Back in February, I had a routine annual medical check-up. During the course of the questioning, I was asked if I was interested in getting the Covid-19 vaccine. I said I wasn't. 

The doctor asked, "Do you mind telling me why?" My answer was that I just wasn't worried about Covid-- everyone around me has already had it and it wasn't that bad for any of them. 

His response: "Well, my experience has been different. I've seen lots of bad outcomes."

I'm sure he has. Think about it. 

Who is going to come to the hospital emergency room? Those who aren't having problems, or those who are? Which group of people is more likely to have a bad outcome? His data is self-selecting. It's going to give him a skewed view of reality. 

I know someone else who worked in a nursing home during the first several months of the panic-demic, She also is convinced this virus is a really big deal-- and in her limited sphere, it probably was. But that's not representative of the world at large.

Of course, neither is my experience. But it is still my excuse for not being interested in a vaccine experimental gene therapy that won't prevent the disease it is being advertised for fighting, won't prevent those infected from transmitting the virus, and won't confer herd immunity (according to its advocates)-- so getting it won't eliminate antisocial social distancing or masks. Remind me again... what is the point of a vaccination that won't do any of the things normal vaccines are expected to do?

Other people have other reasons, both for getting the vaccine and for refusing to do so. I'm fine with that. I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-mandatory vaccine.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

What are your chances?

I don't have any statistics to prove it, but I'd bet most people have a greater chance of being killed by cops than by freelance thugs-- as long as you do your best to avoid sketchy people, places, or activities.

What do you think?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

NM fumbled on legal marijuana

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2021)

Leave it to government to fumble a chance to do the right thing.

New Mexico has finally decided to legalize Cannabis. This could have been a win for liberty, but they did it wrong. Instead of letting the market handle it, as they should have, they wanted to get their fingers in as deep as possible.

It's good when a government backs off on violating natural human rights, but the state never had the right to criminalize or control Cannabis to begin with. Neither did the federal government, since no constitutional amendment was ever ratified to give them this power.

Cannabis should only be as controlled as parsley; neither should be controlled at all. Plants-- and who grows, sells, possesses, or consumes them-- are not government's business. Quality issues and fraud are the business of the market, and that's where this should be handled.

This change is driven by a hunger for more money rather than any new respect for human rights. Greedy governments get excited over any new source of money. Taxing Cannabis, or anything else, is wrong because taxation is always theft. I don't want Cannabis taxes to help pay for more government-- we already have far more government than any civilized society would put up with.

Like other states which legalized marijuana, New Mexico's government is sneaky. They legalized the plant while setting so many traps with new rules that the chances of committing a crime under the new system will increase. Marijuana will be "legal"-- if you dot all the "i"s, cross all the "t"s, jump through every arbitrary hoop, and hold your mouth just right while hopping on one foot.

In other states where similar plans have been put in place, people have noticed it was less legally risky to use Cannabis before it was legalized, regulated, and taxed.

On the prohibitionist side, there's the fear of more impaired drivers on the road. A reasonable fear, but unnecessary.

If you harm someone's person or property in an accident it doesn't matter if it was because you were drunk or stoned, sleepy, texting, or speeding to the scene of an accident. The responsibility is still completely yours. No regulation is needed to make you extra responsible.

I wish, instead of finding new ways to have more control, government could keep its hands off our lives for a change. This was a chance to lead the way, and it was squandered on politics.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two