Chinese spammers

The last few days my blog has been inundated with spam comments from (according to my Blogger analytics) China.

While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad.  Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen.  Not that I want to see them.

Are the people getting paid anyway?  Are they basically slave workers?

Are they aware that their spam is being filtered?  Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?

The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.


.

"Primitive" Fire starting

Recently I got into a discussion of bow/drill fire starting with someone.  Not so much the "how", but the "what".

I decided it might be a good topic to add here, to supplement my BrainTan Buckskin post.

In Colorado, I lived right on the river and had a nice stand of willows, some western birch, and narrow leaf cottonwood in my yard. 

The cord on my bow (a curved piece of... willow?) is braintan buckskin. It lasts pretty well unless I try to teach someone else firestarting. (I have been known to make a "practice bow" for them.) I have used elk rawhide for my cord, and if you flex it a LOT as it dries it will be flexible enough to work, and it lasts a good long time. I had one last for years, through making a fire just about every day. Probably well over a thousand fires from that one cord. Maybe close to two thousand.

One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.

I used old, dead standing, willow or similar thumb-thick (or slightly thicker) birch for the spindle. (The spindle pictured is 10.25")  I use a good spindle until it is too short to be comfortable anymore.

The fire-boards I used in Colorado were usually birch. The larger dead branches would often naturally split making it really easy to get a good fire-board just by breaking it off the shrub. If it still wasn't completely split, a whack or two on a big rock would usually finish the job. I still prefer wood that is similar in its qualities.  Just don't try to use evergreen wood (the resin in the wood lubricates, and you want friction, not lubrication, to make heat).

The inner bark of the cottonwood made good tinder, not resinous like juniper, but still easy to light. Big dead branches (or half-trees) were always falling off, and the bark would come off, exposing the fibrous inner bark. I'd collect handfuls of it and fluff it up.  The wad of tinder in the picture seems to be a combination of cottonwood, juniper, and various unidentified fibers. I have a habit of just picking up promising looking tinder as I walk, often not even thinking about it. 

The small bundle below the mass of tinder is a little buckskin bag full of charcoal from previous fires. I sometimes add a bit to my tinder nest if I sense the coal might need a little help. Once that charcoal starts to glow, which it does quickly, you almost can't lose your coal.

For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow.  The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around). 

I also use a square of elk rawhide to catch the coal.

I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.

The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").

Then you put it all together and do this:

Keep your hair tied back; bandanas and stampede strings out of the way, and keep your body over the spindle, with your shoulder directly above the bearing block and your wrist locked against your shin bone for stability.

Good luck ... or better yet: practice.

Since we are on the subject of fire, here are some easier methods.  If you have access to the right materials (a steel striker, flint or chert, and some char), you can make a flint and steel fire.  "Thank you" to one of my regular readers who sent me this good-sparking steel!

What if you have nothing but a magnifying glass (or far-sighted glasses)?

And, you can make it even easier by having some "char" to focus your lens on.  Funny thing is, the glowing part of the char is hard to see in the bright sun.  It catches almost instantly and might catch you off-guard.  Watch me burn my fingers and be amused.



Now, if you want a fire really easy, and I mean "matches and gasoline" easy, try a firesteel (from firesteel.com) and some dryer lint.  It just doesn't get easier than that.  My 5 year-old daughter can make fire in seconds this way (see video at the very bottom)- and has more than once.

There is really no excuse to be without a fire in a survival situation.  Even in wet conditions you can find some dry tinder somewhere, and you should be able to find some method to light it.  Just learn and practice.

There are more primitive, much more difficult (for me) methods, such as the hand drill and "fire plow" (really "rubbing 2 sticks together").  If I ever manage to succeed with either of those methods, I'll post the video.  If anyone wants to come here and teach me those methods, I'm up for it.

Bonus video:

 

.

"I never thought..."

"I never thought, in all my life, that..."

And that's the problem.  Too many people don't think.  They don't plan ahead.  They always think "it can't happen to me, not here, not today".

But it can, and it does.  To countless people every day.  It doesn't mean you need to live your life in fear.  Just be aware.  Observe.  Be ready for whatever might come your way, as much as you can.

And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life.  Special, yes.  Magical, no.

"It" can happen to you.  Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.

.

Sometimes, statists are just...

... well, decide for yourself.

A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race".  Yes, he does- no denying it.  But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.

I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."

He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.

So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."

Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."

OK.  Kidding.  That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.

I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."

I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."

Confused, since I don't deny being opposed to or against coercion and theft, I asked: "'Several things'? What are they? Besides aggression and theft, I mean.
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."

I then linked to "The Philosophy of Liberty" video and explained that it might do a better job of illustrating what I was talking about.

Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"

Yeah, I suppose.  And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too.  What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?

Not all viewpoints are valid.

It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did.  Nope.  Sorry.  Not gonna buy it.

.

.

Clueless about money

There are clueless people out there.  I try to not be one of them.

I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"

Seriously?  Silver IS money.  The "money" the person refers to is fake.  It is only money because people believe it is.  Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money.  And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person.  At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.

.

More laws will not save any lives

More laws will not save any lives 

(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)

In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.

What can be done about that?

Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?

There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?

Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?

What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.

People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?

Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.

Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".

My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.

More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.

Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.


.

"Moral"? "Compassionate"?

It isn't "moral" to use government coercion to make people act like you think they should act.

It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.

It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.

I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts.  I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.

If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.


.

It's not me, it's you.

If everyone around you is an idiot, or is always "out to get you", that may be a hint that "they" might not be the real problem.

If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.


.

"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.

.