"From my cold dead hands?" Ha!

"You can have my guns when you ...." Wait.  No you can't.

You never have my permission to have them.  I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.

If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.

If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.

If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death.  And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.

It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns.  It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office.  You can never "have" them.  Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.


.

The "gateway drug" of "gun rights"

Gun rights are a primary gateway drug for liberty.  For some people religion fills that role.  Or something else.  Everyone has their hot button.

For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.

But, back to gun rights.  What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights.  Liberty can't be dissected.

The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".

What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State.  (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well.  If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either.  And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway.  End tangent.)

Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people.  "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?"  And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything.  They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.

.

Chris Dorner

Strange, but really... I feel nothing.  While I feel sorry for any innocent people who are being harmed, everyone knows the score.

We already know cops are a public nuisance under the best of circumstances, and a lethal danger under the worst.  So, I'm neither surprised by Dorner, nor by the LAPD's dangerous, overwrought response.

For all the good people out there- stay out of the way and assume any cop you see will shoot you to enhance "officer safety".  And remember that just because you look nothing like him, and you are driving a vehicle that is nothing like his, it doesn't guarantee anything.  Someone poked the hive and the hornets are blind with rage and have completely lost any semblance of a mind they may once have had.

Let's just watch this thing play out and try to come out alive on the other side.  And, with that goal in mind, remember who is targeting random individuals rather than specific corrupt targets.


.

Liberty Lines 2-7-2013

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Feb 7, 2013)

I have really been enjoying the articles on nullification that Will Anderson has done such a fine job on.  Nullification is an issue dear to my heart- not just nullification on a state by state basis, but down to the individual nullifying "laws" that he or she knows are wrong (which is most of them).

There is a one-thousand year-old right and duty of jurors to refuse to convict people who are charged under "laws" that the juror believes are overreaching their authority, no matter what the judge may instruct them to do.  Judges used to inform people of this duty- now they generally hide it.  Look up "jury nullification" or check out fija.org for more information.

I am not as optimistic about the chances of a state government doing the right thing, so I don't hold out much hope for Texas or New Mexico nullifying unconstitutional anti-gun "laws".  After all, they have been enthusiastically enforcing these anti-constitutional edicts regulating guns for the federal government since 1934.  Plus they have dreamed up plenty of their own- such as the Texas prohibition on "open carry"- that even the feds haven't yet managed to impose.

The Bill of Rights says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" (that means to own and to carry guns, swords, and Bowie knives) "shall not be infringed".  That means every single anti-gun "law" that has been enforced since 1934, and especially since 1968, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.  It means that anyone enforcing even the most "reasonable" anti-gun "law" is a criminal.  It means there is no authority to issue permits, do background checks, or to ever arrest anyone on "weapons charges".

Don't try to excuse anti-liberty positions by quoting the part about a "well-regulated militia", either.  It doesn't mean what the "gun control" advocates want it to mean- "well-regulated" means "fine-tuned" and well-practiced, and the militia is everyone capable of handling a weapon in defense of self, territory, life, and liberty.  That is YOU.

The power of nullification lies in each of us.  It's time we start using it again.

.

Equivalencies, right and wrong

Here some equivalencies that a lot of people don't quite understand.

• Government = mafia
• "Patriots" = neighborhood residents that support the mafia and its acts
• Military = mafia "protection"
• Sniper = hitman
• "Taxes" = protection money
• Drones = UniBomber parcels
• Land mines/IEDs = "Shotgun tied to the doorknob" booby trap
• "Collateral damage" = murder
• War = gangland fight for control that kills and destroys the innocent

And here are some of the reasons statists can't understand liberty.  They seem to be confused and believe:

• "Freedom"/"Liberty" = permission to do what we allow you to do
• "Hero" = "someone who did something we like- don't tell us the truth!"
• "America"/"USA" = "Always right, never wrong, God's favorite, the only nation that matters- kill everyone else if they don't swear allegiance or anyone who looks at a US flag sideways!"
• "Constitution" = The document that is Holy, and that makes it legal to kick "liberals" out of America, unless it doesn't authorize the feds to do something we want them to do, then... well, "It really does, but you just don't understand it like we do."

.

Town Bully

Suppose there was a bully in your town.  You knew he constantly assaulted people and stole from them.  You had even witnessed it yourself on several occasions.  Maybe you had even fallen victim to him a time or two.

But, then one day your kid fell down a well, and Bully helped you get her out.

Is that any reason to decide that Town Bully should become an honored role?

Because that is exactly what cops are.

Thinking of police as "necessary" is just as ridiculous as supporting the institution of Town Bully.

When real problems occur normal people can always handle it- because cops have no superpowers.  Their only "power" is an artificial one propped up by counterfeit "laws" that only hobble you by prohibiting you from doing the normal things humans have always done to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for yourself and the people around you.

Cops are not "above" you; you have been "legally" enslaved to make it appear that cops are elevated.  Pushing everyone down to give cops "stature" makes society much worse off.

It's silly beyond words.

.

State should stay out of parenting

State should stay out of parenting

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 4, 2013)

Should parents have the final say in raising a child? How can you protect children without violating their rights, or the rights of their parents?

Everyone who isn't mentally or emotionally damaged wants to protect innocent children, but how far can you go to protect them?

I think parents do have the last word and the ultimate responsibility in raising their children- and I don't use the word "their" as an indication of ownership, but of relationship. Slavery is wrong and children are not the property of their parents. That also means children are not anyone else's property, either, nor do they "belong to society".

But what should you do if you know of mentally challenged parents who leave a baby home alone while running errands? Or what if parents high on crack cocaine share some with their 6-year-old? What about parents in a cult who give their children to a charismatic leader for his twisted purposes? How about parents who give their children too much access to junk food or television before they are mature enough to know what's best for them?

What is your responsibility if you know of these things happening, and you think the parents are endangering the kids?

In cases of imminent physical harm you can intervene; just as you could if you see a person getting mugged. As in the case of a mugging, you are then responsible for your actions and any consequences which come from them, even if you believe those consequences are not fair. Intervention doesn't necessarily mean using force, but could mean offering a helping hand.

What constitutes abuse in your opinion may not to others, and you may do things which horrify someone else. For example, I think it is critical to familiarize young children with guns and the safe handling thereof to prevent tragedies later; just like water safety doesn't happen by keeping children ignorant of swimming. Yet, some consider it abusive to let kids be in the same house with a gun. Do you really want anyone to have the power to step in and forcibly take over your child's life because they disagree with how you live?

If you think a situation is critical enough to take action, be responsible enough to do it yourself and personally accept the consequences. The greatest danger to families comes from having a government employee act on your behalf. They are rarely held accountable for their mistakes and the lives they ruin. Plus, they are paid out of "taxes" which are collected through coercion. You can't do the right thing in the wrong way.

.

Hooray for our side!

A while back on War on Guns, David Codrea was commenting about an anti-liberty bigot and pointed out that the guy's city council profile listed his favorite book as "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

David characterized the book as claiming that "...Western Civilization is just a fluke and we all lucked out,..."  He then went on to offer this alternative explanation "...the first people to apply the scientific method on any kind of consistent and large scale reached the path to advancement first."

I recently finished reading the book and didn't get that from it.

What the book's author seemed to me to be saying was that humans are all the same species.  We basically all have the same potential (but there are individual differences in intelligence and personality traits), at least averaged over the population.  But, location and circumstances matter.

"Western Civilization" wasn't a fluke- it was the natural consequence of certain natural conditions. It doesn't matter where it happened to begin, or who it began with.  At least, not to me.  I don't get the objection to that.

I would be living a very different life had I been born in the Australian Outback, without electricity or abundant food and water, rather than in the "American Outback" where those things are currently common.  I can't begin to pretend that there is some property of "me" that would have the same skills and use the same technology and have the same opportunities no matter where I happened to be born and grow.

Because a population of humans did "luck out" and live in an area where food production could be made less time-consuming, their time was freed so that they could learn to apply the scientific method instead of spending their time worrying about where the next meal would come from- if it came at all.

So, while it may have been "lucky" that some humans were from an area where there were abundant domesticable plants and animals, and those domesticates were able to spread over a wide geographic area due to the orientation of the continent, that isn't a judgement on anyone else.  I can't even claim it is "better" to be technologically advanced.  I like it, but that's just me.

I would have just as much value as a person if I lived in a cave and wore animal skins.  I might even be just as happy, although probably not as comfortable.

Opportunities matter a lot.  Even though I am not convinced that agriculture was a good thing in the long run, saddling humans as it did with a professional class of thugs and thieves who enjoy a (temporary) veil of legitimacy.


.

Surprising allies

A while back I had a somewhat pleasant surprise.  My daughter's kindergarten teacher (curses be upon government schools) had a lengthy letter to the editor published in the local weekly newspaper (reproduced below).  It was surprisingly anti-government.

I can't really say it was pro-liberty since she didn't do much besides point out the destructive nature of The State's edicts concerning education and the effects those edicts have on family time. But that's a start.

She came at it from the religious perspective rather than from a pro-liberty stance, but it led to the same place: these government rules are harmful to individuals.  That we can agree on.

I gave her a copy of one of my books; perhaps it will make an impact.

Now, to get her to talk about that repulsive ritual they engage in each day.

_

Sniper Chris Kyle: Live by the sword...

...Die by the sword.

A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper.  Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely.  That is the tragedy.  The lesson is to shun murderers.

And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.

Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.

What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level.  He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders.  He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me.  He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet.  He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent.  He was not "brave".  He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.

I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.

Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum.  It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.

Good riddance, Chris Kyle.  One less monster in the world.

-

PS:  Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.

I responded:

Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.

However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.

Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.

I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.

PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork.  I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.

"A well-regulated militia..."

Wow, I get so tired of reading comments by anti-liberty bigots (and other idiots) who grasp at the words "A well-regulated militia" as their excuse to criminalize tools of self defense.

It has been explained- I'm guessing- thousands of times.  They don't understand because understanding doesn't fit their agenda.

But, I'll explain again so that there will be yet another place to read it.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean.  It means "fine-tuned".  "Practiced".

And, of course, "militia" meant all males between the ages of... well, that doesn't matter since I hope America is past the ageism and sexism of the past.  Now, the militia is EVERYONE capable (not necessarily enthusiastic about) holding a gun and using it in defense.  It is NOT the "National Guard", or the Marines.  It is YOU and ME.

So, get out there and fine-tune your skills, because YOU are the one the Second Amendment is talking about being well-practiced in the skill of tyrant shooting.

And, it doesn't matter at all whether the Second Amendment gets repealed or legislated away (which happened way back in 1934)- the right to own and to carry defensive weaponry existed long before the first government was dreamed up by the first control-crazy pervert, and it can not be abolished by any State, ever.  Not now, and not in the distant future.  Suck it, anti-liberty bigots.

.

Libertarianarchist

Libertarianarchist.  That's me.  But it is also redundant since an anarchist is just a libertarian with all the inconsistencies stripped away.  A libertarian in full bloom.

The "libertarians" who dispute that always have a big "but".  They are libertarian, but... there is some "service" The State provides- through coercion and theft- that they just don't believe can be provided voluntarily.  Maybe "justice"/"courts", or "copyright", or roads, or "security" or "national defense".  But there's always something.

Get rid of that "something" by realizing that if it needs to be provided, there is always a better way than by allowing a government monopoly to provide it through theft and coercion.  And get over your fear of the word "anarchy".

You'll be happier in the long run.

.

This ain't your father's AK-47 (re-run)

(With all the recent hysteria over "assault weapons", I figured it was time to dust off this old post from August 10, 2009.)

My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.

Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.

Still, if you live in one of those freedom-destroying cities and don't wish to break even counterfeit "laws", this could be a fun option for you. A way of flipping the authoriturds your "digitus impudicus". I'm sure that the localities which try to forbid toy guns would frown on a flintlock of any kind as well, as the recent incident in Bloomberg's own private prison demonstrates. Find your freedom where you can and, as long as you don't harm the innocent, have fun with it.

.

Striking at the Root or re-painting leaves?

Protest proposed anti-gun "laws"?

Get out and vote?

Write your congresscritter?

Sorry, I can't get too worked up for all that.  I don't buy into the idea that gun owners who don't speak out are "doing nothing".

Sometimes people just realize that political action is equivalent to trying to use a trash can lid to hold back a landslide.  I'll spend my energy doing things that might work.

It's always going to be something- you'll spend your life in a dither trying to put out each brushfire of tyranny if you keep seeking a political "solution".  The State- government- is illegitimate.  That is NO WAY to deal with other people.  Accept it and move on to more productive pursuits.

Unless you just happen to enjoy the frenzy of reactive political action- and some people do.  In that case, do whatever makes you happy, but don't pretend your path is the Only Way.


.

The Assumption of Aggression

It is very hard for most people to think of a way to consider methods of interacting with others that don't involve using The State in some way.

Think of "liberals" and you think of the "laws" they impose on the rest of us.

Think of "conservatives" and you think of the "laws" they impose of the rest of us.

Think of "libertarians" and most people think of the "laws" that the Libertarian Party members want to get rid of or change, through political activism.

Think of "anarchists" and most people think instead of communists who want to use The State to impose their desires on everyone else.

Few people think of people interacting as individuals on their own, without using The State.  So, for the people who have their preference but don't seek to use coercion or theft, the round holes of assumed "political action" are a non-fit from the beginning.

.

Euphemisms don’t change ethics

Euphemisms don’t change ethics 

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 28, 2012.)

Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.

Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: don't start a fight by throwing the first punch and don't take other people's stuff. It really is that simple.

It's only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren't there.

Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child's understanding. They are told that they can't fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught that they aren't really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way. They are told that stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called "sharing" even though it isn't voluntary.

You can't raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.

Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.

Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don't steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along. For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily-acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.

The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes "taxation", "property codes", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain", while attacking the innocent becomes "sobriety checkpoints", "immigration control", "gun control", and "homeland security". The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.

I hope that the new year brings you in contact with lots of people who relate to you as if they are libertarians. I hope, too, that you will try to return the favor. Happy New Year!

.

Do origins matter?

I really despise the "Pledge of Allegiance".  I know too much about its origin to respect it at all.

I know this puts me in a suspected minority.

But it makes me consider an idea.  How much does the origin of something matter?  Something that had a bad origin can turn out to be good and something that had a good origin can turn out to be bad.  Just look around you to see the truth of this.

In the case of the hated "Pledge", it can be judged by its fruits today: nationalism, war-mongering, blind devotion. and obedience.  All disgusting, rotten, poisonous fruits.

But, just because it was created by a nationalist/socialist doesn't automatically make it bad- judge it for yourself by how it is used today.  If you still think it is a good thing... well, give yourself to any ideology you want, but leave me out of it.

"Media and Politicians Firing Blanks"

Media and Politicians Firing Blanks

by Brian Wilson

Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)

How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?

In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific

(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault
Weapons"?)

What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a
sentence.

Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?

(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)

If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?
00Buck?

("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)

Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored
components?

If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?

How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?

(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last
year?)

To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?

Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?

Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?

With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?

If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?

The above was forwarded to me by MamaLiberty

I have a couple of questions of my own to ask anti-liberty bigots:

Are you completely insane?

Are you totally ignorant of human nature, history, ethics, physics, and the difference between right and wrong?

.

The silliness of "borders"

Borders.  Imaginary lines.  I can understand them to a certain extent.  Private property lines are the borders that trump all others.  And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity.  Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around.  As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".

What I don't understand are "legal borders".  I mean the kind that derive from governments saying  "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there.  Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money."  And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to.  "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.

To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil.  For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil.  So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".

And the short answer to that is: neither one.

Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad.  To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.

It's not about "open borders".  It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.


.

I need more exciting dreams

Sometimes I have odd dreams.

Recently I dreamed I was watching an in-depth video presenting the best arguments for conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and pure anarchism.

Each position was laid out by the best proponent of each philosophy.  No, I didn't dream who each of those people might be.

The video ended with sci-fi movies showcasing libertarianism/anarchism.  I guess in my dream, the conclusion was a foregone conclusion as to which philosophy was going to be discovered to be the best.


.