Some still awaiting return of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 5, 2018)

For decades I've had my doubts about whether America is still the land of the free. With rules and enforcers everywhere you look, it doesn't seem so.

I've been wrong. Most Americans are free-- as free as they want to be.

I prefer liberty to freedom. Liberty means having the freedom to do everything you have a right to do; freedom is simply doing whatever you want, without regard for others.

This is why, for most Americans, America is the "Land of the Free". They are doing what they want.

They tolerate checkpoints because they make them feel safe. They comply with the airport "security theater" gauntlet, pretending it's fighting terrorism. They are content to beg for licenses as long as they can usually buy the license they want. They are fine with economically crippling taxation as long as they can imagine the money is spent on necessities. They are happy to see the "borders" locked down, not realizing this traps them more than it protects them.

They are free as long as they have smartphones and video games; free to eat, vote, and watch sports. Free to control the lives of others. Free, because this is what they want.

You'll never reach people who are content in their chains while their chains have enough slack to let them do what they want.

So they are free. Free to be cattle. Free to comply; free of unwanted responsibility. Free of fear. They want more of this kind of "freedom". They want to be free of consequences, free of hard decisions, free of everything which makes them human.

They are also free (and encouraged) to look down upon those dangerous lunatics who don't value this "freedom" as much.

They don't want to do the things they can no longer legally do, which previous generations could. Those who complain or fight the limits on liberty are to be feared, laughed at, or even hated. They should be happy with their chains like everyone else.

Few care about their lost liberty. But the Remnant does.

Somewhere out there, mostly silent and unnoticed, the Remnant listens, learns, watches, and waits. These individuals know what has been lost and will never be satisfied until they get it back.

The Remnant has been patient, but the patience will run out one day. If something can't continue forever, it won't. That will be an interesting day for the political class and their oppressive bureaucratic puppets whenever it finally arrives.

May liberty then be restored.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Wilson's Dan Wesson revolver

Justice is something you won't find associated with government.

"Wilson" was accused by a guy he knew of being involved with the guy's wife. The guy came to Wilson's house carrying a shotgun and yelling threats. Wilson met him at the door with his revolver held down at his side. A nice Dan Wesson revolver that he really liked. Seeing Wilson's gun, the other guy decided to just yell at him for a bit, then walked back to his vehicle. But as he left he fired a shot from his shotgun into the air.

Someone, either the shooter himself or a "concerned neighbor", soon called the cops about the "shot fired".

An hour or so later, the cops showed up at Wilson's door, arrested him and stole his revolver. They didn't care about the fact that Wilson wasn't the one who fired the shot-- they didn't want to hear it. They never checked up on the other guy. They had "the perp".

Fortunately for Wilson, the jury didn't buy it. They found him not guilty.

So Wilson asked for the return of his revolver. He was told he would have to file paperwork to get it back. He jumped through all their flaming hoops, and waited. And waited. And kept asking. And waiting.

A year or more later he was finally told his gun had "disappeared", so "too bad". He was told there was nothing he could do. The state wasn't responsible for replacing (or paying for) the revolver.

Wilson was pretty sure who had taken his firearm. The prosecuting attorney had made comments which suggested he liked the gun and wanted one like it. Sure, this is circumstantial, but obviously the guy was crooked or he wouldn't have been a prosecuting attorney in the first place. Later he became the district attorney (or something like that over that whole quarter of the state). I still remember the guy's name because of the hatred Wilson felt-- and expressed-- for him. I shared his opinion.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Theatrics on display

I was sitting in the waiting area of the local tire shop yesterday, and they had a TV going. For entertainment, I guess. Usually, it is tuned to a "news" network where you can watch people angrily disagreeing over politics.

This time it was tuned to some sports network and there on the screen were people angrily disagreeing over sports. Or, is it all an act? I can't tell.

My first thought was that people surely couldn't care that much about sportsballing. They had to be putting on an act in order to excite and divide their large studio audience (unless the audience was CGI). Are they trying hard to create drama where none would otherwise exist?

Then I realized I usually feel the same when I see two extreme statists angrily disagreeing over how you and I should "best" and "properly" be violated by government. They are on the same side; taking the side of government against liberty. Are they really so blind they can't see that? Or are they putting on an act in order to excite and divide their audience? To create drama where none would otherwise exist?


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

AnComs, climate activists, and me

Excitement! Followed by disappointment and disillusionment.

That's what I experience when I hear someone claim to be an anarchist, but then they start advocating communism.

Or when someone expresses an interest in science but then begins talking "flat Earth" or demanding I devote my life to "Climate change" (AGCC).

There's the promise that a person is sensible and someone I can relate to... and then they expose their "but".

How often does that happen to you?
And what issues do you experience this with?

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No, that's NOT what Louis CK was doing

People are having a fit about Louis CK making fun of "Parkland survivors". Is that what he really did? No. He was doing what I have done; he was making fun of the handful of nasty little anti-liberty bigots who used their attendance at Parkland as a springboard to promote their mental illness and demand we all adopt the same. The rest of the survivors-- those who didn't become social parasites-- were spared his ridicule; he didn't even mention them.

I'll ridicule David Hogg, his barefoot sidekick girl-- I forget her name, and the other "survivors". They are absurd and deserve all the ridicule they get. They are promoting slavery. They picked the fight and then whined when people struck back. Like the entitled children they are.

And wasn't the vile little Hogg actually at home when the shooting occurred, rushing to the school so he could claim "victim" status and become a Big Deal? Whether that rumor is true or not doesn't really make a difference. He wants government to molest me, so he's fair game for any and all ridicule.

So, whatever else Louis CK said may have been rude, but while making fun of those particular "Parkland survivors", I support him.

I listened to the routine. Some of it was hilarious. He seems to have a good sense of humor about his own foibles and the resulting trouble. Some of the routine wasn't funny to me personally. But I couldn't really get offended by it. He was making jokes. I'm not a delicate little old church lady who gets bent out of shape about jokes.

A lot of other people are. They should rent a sense of humor if they don't have one of their own.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Happy New Year!

Now go out and do something you want to do, something you have a right to do, whether it's "legal" or not! Live your liberty.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Popular doesn't mean right

I'm sure this will come as no surprise, but I was never one of the popular kids. Popularity wasn't ever something I wanted. I was too different to care what others thought (and I thought most of the "popular kids" were kind of dumb and dull. Still do).

In elementary school, at recess, when we were supposed to be playing some form of sportsball, I would be sitting on the ground looking under rocks to see what interesting lifeforms I could find. Hoping the ball wouldn't come toward me.

My family moved around too much for me to make any friends who would have the time to "get" me.

In junior high I missed the entire first semester after a nasty bike wreck, and was never able to socially recover. Although the chance that made much of a difference is slim.

In high school, I was known as a nerd. Even worse, I was the nerd who would eat acorns and weeds, wore a survival kit on my belt, and drove the weird electric car. I had one main friend and he was known as the genius who was also a "pothead", and it was suspected I was probably also smoking the wacky tobacky with him. I can neither confirm nor deny those rumors.

I never did fit in. And it's been the same for me as an adult.

The only taste of popularity I ever got was during my 3 or so years in Pennsylvania-- during karaoke nights. Then I knew what popularity felt like. I admit, in that context I enjoyed it.

Now I'm back to my normal.

But, the point of this is, I understand liberty is not popular. Why would it be? I value it.

I have a small audience for this blog, but I value you all. I may not be popular, but I'm on the right side. And that means you are, too. We are awesome... Liberty is awesome... whether anyone else appreciates it (us) or not. The rest of them can join us or they can continue to be wrong. It's their choice. Their problem. They are the "interesting lifeforms" I find under rocks. I still observe them; try to understand them. But I am not inside their heads. And truthfully, I don't want to be. The sacrifice would be too great.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Free market means individual choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 28, 2018)

I love the free market. The market, liberated from government rules, subject only to the choices of individuals.

One of my choices is to not shop on major holidays. If I knew for certain the store let employees volunteer to work on the holiday it would be different. As it stands, no sales or discounts can entice me to shop on Thanksgiving or Christmas when I know the employees were probably coerced into working instead of spending the holiday with their families.

I'm also not willing to fight crazed crowds for "deals". It's not an experience I enjoy.

That's my choice; yours might be different.

I would oppose laws making it illegal for stores to open on major holidays, just as I oppose laws which make Sunday alcohol sales illegal. Those laws are arbitrary and silly. I am responsible enough to make my own choices of what to buy and when to shop. I don't need a babysitter holding a gun on shop owners to make certain they do what the babysitter believes is right.

I'm not boycotting anyone. It's not a crusade. I'll go to those stores on other days. I won't ask anyone to join me. It's just me, as an individual, making a personal choice. My meager spending won't be missed, but I feel better not encouraging businesses to use their employees in ways I don't like.

I care about people; that's why I'm libertarian. I believe all human interactions should be voluntary. If a business (or any other institution) can't survive through voluntary association, I believe it should die. Customers and employees are equally important.

There would be employees who would choose to go to work rather than spend the day alone, or with family they want an excuse to avoid. It might not result in a full staff, but if you put off the sales for one day it would be fine.

When I owned a business I chose to open one Christmas day. I wasn't able to be with family, so I was completely alone. I had nothing else to do, so instead of sitting and watching television or something equally pointless, I decided to work at the store and flip the sign to "open". I got some things done, even while feeling sorry for myself. I had one customer all day; I still remember what he bought. He didn't comment about my store being open on Christmas. At least I was busy and productive, and it was my choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Wilson, the stingy

"Wilson" was the stingiest person I ever knew... with his ammunition.

In his mostly unfurnished house, he had built a "wall of ammunition". He had stacked the little boxes of 7.62x39 and the bigger boxes of .40 S+W so as to build a "wall" against the back wall of his living room. It didn't actually cover the whole wall, but it was about 3 or 4 feet high and about 6 feet long. It continually grew. I don't know why he didn't find a better way to store it.

But when we would go out shooting, he would only shoot one firearm that day. He would either shoot his carry pistol or he would bring along his SKS to shoot. He would never shoot both on the same outing. And he would only bring 3 to 5 cartridges to shoot. That was it.

The first time we went out to shoot his SKS I offered to buy a box of ammo from him for us to shoot. (He always bought every round the local shops would get as soon as they came in.) But, no, he wouldn't do that. He was convinced he might need it later.

When I ran into him years later and miles away he told me he had gotten married, but it went bad and his angry wife reported him to the cops for abuse. They came to his house, cuffed him on the floor at gunpoint, and stole his guns and all his ammo. He said he never got it back. I have no clue if he really abused her or not. It's possible-- he could be a bit excitable. Doesn't sound like she was without issues, though.

__

If you enjoy personal stories like my "Wilson" series, you might also like Grant McGee's blog. He used to write in the paper here and has pretty interesting tales to tell.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

People who need to get out more

I've not been online much this past week, and I apologize for the sporadic posting. Lots of family holiday stuff, plus I got a special gift this year because my son and his girlfriend surprised me by moving within visiting distance just a few days before Christmas. Which is awesome!

But, what I have seen online makes me unsure whether to laugh or shake my head in disbelief. Maybe I shouldn't have turned on the computer after all.

Did I seriously see that people still admire Obama more than any other man in the world and that Michelle Obama is supposedly the "most admired woman in America"? What kind of nonsense is that? If that's true, people are dumber than I suspected.

I'm against presidents, ex-presidents, and other such ectoparasites as a matter of principle. To admire politicians is terribly misguided... or worse. People who admire these professional molesters need to get out and meet more people. They really need some sort of hobby.

_______________

Reminder: I could still really, really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No government employee is "essential"

With regards to the fake news about a "government shutdown", where they give the "non-essential government employees" an unscheduled paid vacation (because it will be paid sooner or later)...

All government employees are non-essential. Every single last one of them, from the president on up to the contract janitor who scrubs Ruth Bader Ginsburg's office toilet.

If they were essential the market would be doing their job and the government "job" would have never existed in the first place.

Or, the market would be doing the job if the government didn't artificially step in with "laws" or other ways to prevent the market from filling the need. Which it often does.

Government is a net negative in everything.

Send them all home forever. No back pay. No retirement. No paid medical care. Nothing. Burn all the records-- I'll do it if they just get out of the way. Just go away forever and ever.

That would be a real government shutdown. One I support without the slightest reservation.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Happy Winter Solstice Holidays!

Merry Christmas!
Happy Festivus, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Newtonmas, Yule, Government "Shutdown", etc.!

I sincerely hope your Winter Solstice was a good one, and that all the remaining Winter Solstice holidays-- whichever of them, if any, you celebrate-- are great for you and yours!

I love you guys!

.

I'll keep my loopholes, thank you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 21, 2018)

In those moments when my skepticism falters, the recent midterm elections threaten to give me a little hope. It doesn't last long. A Congress divided between Republicans and Democrats brings the promise of sweet gridlock, but they always seem to find a way to work together more than is healthy.

I am naturally skeptical of those using theft and aggression against the individuals who comprise society-- even when they call the theft and aggression "government" or "the law".

As bad as partisanship's reputation may be, bipartisanship is far worse. When working together, the old, fossilized political parties make it clear it isn't "The Right" vs. "The Left"; it's government colluding against the rest of us.

Back in 1866 Judge Gideon J. Tucker observed: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” It has only gotten worse since then.

The best hope for the survival of your liberty is eternal gridlock preventing Congress from doing anything. While they are fighting each other they may not be paying as much attention to you.

Those who want government to "do something" are calling for your liberty to be crushed bit by bit until none is left. They consider any remaining islands of liberty in a rising ocean of government to be "loopholes" which they want closed. In spite of everything they might claim, this is never for your benefit.

I don't want Congress, or any branch of government, to get things done. There is nothing legitimate for Congress to do.

Laws were discovered; legislation is invented. All real laws were discovered centuries ago; no new laws are needed or even possible. All the real crimes have always been crimes in any civilized society. All attacks on life, liberty, or property are wrong, whether laws criminalize them or not. They are still wrong when laws say they are OK if done by government employees "just doing their jobs".

Anything Congress imposes on the population will be legislation; fake "law". These counterfeit "laws" look like laws to most people. They use legal language and are treated as though they are laws, but they lack the ethical foundation which distinguishes real law. In fact, they violate real law by endangering your life, liberty, or property.

The last thing I want or need is for the houses of Congress to work together, with the president, to impose more legislation. I'll keep my loopholes-- my liberty-- thank you very much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Prohibition-- not just wrong, but evil

I hate the current anti-opioid campaign.

Not for myself, fortunately, but on behalf of those it is harming.

Yeah, I understand that people can harm themselves by abusing opioids, and I also understand that innocent people can be harmed by those who abuse opioids. That doesn't justify this insane push to make society opioid-free. Nothing can.

I realize that some time in the future I could be in the position to need the pain relief of opioids, and the government might just prefer I suffer and die rather than "run the risk" of addiction. I hope not, but if it happens it's MY choice, not some idiot bureaucrat's.

A few years ago when I was hospitalized with a kidney stone I was given morphine a few times. The experience was bad enough and would have been so much worse without effective pain relief. At least it was temporary. Just imagine those whose pain isn't temporary.

It's things like this that make me see the evil that is government even more than the rest of the archation that is committed in its name. There's no excuse good enough to do this to people. The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs must end. Prohibition is always wrong; it is always evil.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wilson and the accused informant

"Wilson" was a little paranoid. We spent a fair amount of time together, frequently wandering trails (and off-trail) on foot in the nearby wilderness area. I knew he didn't trust easily. I was to discover that what trust he did have was shakey and easily upset.

There was this guy he sometimes spoke to in town. I had seen the guy around, wearing old camo clothing and a backpack-- I suspect he may have been homeless-- but I never met him. Which is odd because he claimed to know me and he caused Wilson to lose his trust in me. Which could have ended badly.

I stopped by Wilson's house one afternoon and he approached my car with an odd demeanor. I noticed his hand was on his pistol. I didn't get out of my car, but asked what was up. He told me this guy, who I didn't know and had never spoken to, had warned him I was a police informant. Supposedly I was spying on Wilson's activities and reporting to the cops. He was telling me all this using colorful language.

I got very uncomfortable very quickly. I honestly expected to be shot at any moment-- and my young daughter was in the car with me.

(A few years later I got the same sort of feeling when a different friend told me he "knew" I was a Martian who was controlling his mind, but that's another story. I'd rather be a Martian than work with the cops.)

Wilson loved to buy ammo but hated using it. I've never seen anyone so stingy with ammunition. Maybe that worked in my favor that day.

I told him I wasn't a police informant, and would never do that. Not to anyone. I told him emphatically that I had never worked with, or helped, the police in any way. Never had and never would. He knew how I felt about cops, or at least I thought he did. He questioned me for a few minutes, and I guess he was satisfied enough with my answers. I left on somewhat calmer terms. But it was a few weeks before we were back to normal.

For a long time I wondered what the guy had actually said to Wilson about me. What he had against me, and how he was even aware of me. Had Wilson mentioned me and the guy just decided to accuse me? Did he have me confused with someone else? That seems unlikely because I was sort of "unique" in town, but it was a town of misfits and maybe he mixed me up with someone else. Or, was that guy an informant who didn't like me speaking to Wilson and keeping him less volatile? At this point, I'll never know.

Eventually the incident passed and was never mentioned again. Once I regained his trust I never seemed to lose it again.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Voluntaryists are good folk

I just got the chance to meet another of my readers (along with his lovely partner). I'm always impressed with the quality of people I meet through this blog when we meet in person.

Impressed, but not surprised.

I know that those who live Voluntaryism are likely to be people who are just good folk. How could it be otherwise? And this has always been my experience so far.

By my count, this is only the fourth time I've had this opportunity. Quality over quantity, I suppose. I am somewhat out-of-the-way; far from the interstates. Not exactly in the bustling center of ... anything. Crops, dairies, and feedlots aren't that thrilling and don't draw crowds. That can be good and bad.

I'm glad I got to meet another couple of good people.

I look forward to the next time I get this chance.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Common ground with Putin?

Something interesting happened the other day. I discovered I may agree with Vladimir Putin. At least at a personal opinion level on one topic; not on what (if anything) should be done about it.

Does this make me a Russian collaborator?

Putin wants to "control" rap in Russia. This seems to indicate he doesn't like rap and believes it has a negative effect on young people. I agree with him on both, even as I disagree that government should get involved (in anything).

I can separate my personal opinions from what I believe should be done. And I understand what someone has a right to do and what they don't. No one has a right to ban a type of self-expression just because they don't like it.

I hate rap. It's just my opinion based on my personal tastes. I don't like pit bulls, either. I don't want government banning or "controlling" either one. Not on my behalf or for any other reason. That's just my feelings on those things. Every pit bull I've met has been gentle, but I still don't like the breed, and I understand that rap expresses some useful "anti-establishment" themes, but I still don't like it.

I have noticed a negative effect on my daughter's psyche since she was first exposed to rap. Yes, it may be correlation rather than causation; she's reaching that hormone-saturated age, after all. I know banning it from the house would be authoritarian. And pointless. All her friends and frienemies listen to (and live) rap almost exclusively, and she's much more peer-oriented than I ever was. Still, I would have to be blind to not see the effect it seems to be having on her (and the other kids). For that reason, I have asked her to avoid it (and anything else dark and negative) until she seems better able to handle the exposure without evident harm.

This could get "interesting".

The topic will probably keep coming up in the house for the foreseeable future. No, I don't have the parenting thing all figured out.

But as much as I hate rap, I wouldn't support any "law" aimed at suppressing it.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"
That was actually the first sentence to an introduction to a TED talk (screencap above), and it illustrates a big part of the problem with Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) fanatics. Their condescending need to preach at the rest of us is annoying, as is their conviction that we could be won over to their side.

First of all, climate changes. Very few people seriously doubt that. The Earth has been both a snowball and a sauna in the past. I completely "believe in" the evidence that this has happened and will continue to happen. That's not what they are talking about when they say "doesn't believe in climate change".

They are talking about the fact that intelligent, informed people don't necessarily worship with their cult of AGCC belief and their preferred social agenda, and they can't bear it. That's it.

The best way to "talk" to someone who "doesn't believe in climate change" is ... don't. Stay quiet. But if you can't mind your own business, and you ignorantly (and unwisely) broach the subject, maybe you could at least listen to the reasons why they aren't in your cult. If you can't do even that much, then drop the religious devotion to your cult before opening your mouth. No one wants to hear it.

Second, it would help if you would recognize that what you are promoting isn't science. AGCC believerism is partly science; mostly collectivist politics. When you mix politics with science (by funding it through theft, for example) what results is less science than politics. This brand of politicized "climate science" cherry picks data, relies on completely unreliable models (computerized guesswork which is never, NEVER reliable), ignores economics, and violates ethics-- all of which would need to be taken into account for AGCC believerism to be credible enough to be taken seriously. They ignore all the inconvenient factors, which is why they aren't credible, no matter how much they posture and preach. No matter how much they try to talk down to those who aren't falling for their violently imposed "solutions".

I believe the Earth's climate changes over time. I accept that it is possible human activities have changed the rate of change by adding atmospheric carbon dioxide. I don't doubt there is some amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide which would be trouble. I acknowledge that it is possible, although unlikely, that this climate change is entirely negative, with no benefits at all. I am more open-minded and scientifically oriented on this topic than any AGCC believer. And yet I'm not one of them and can't support them in any way. That offends their feelings.

I doubt their "solutions" are solutions. I know they aren't ethical-- more government control never is. If they get their way more problems will be created, yet they won't be held accountable. You can't let the perpetrator of the greatest amount of environmental damage-- The State-- tell everyone else what they are allowed to do. Not on this planet or any other. Denying this reality is science denial.

I am completely in favor of businesses and individuals finding ways to reduce pollution of every sort. It's dumb to foul your own nest. I am not in favor of imposing "solutions" at the barrel of a government gun, no matter what someone imagines will happen otherwise.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Late responders

If someone starts shooting innocent people in your presence, would you respond, or just look on slack-jawed?

If a fire breaks out would you do something, or just sit there in a daze?

As long as you respond, you are the first responder when something happens in your presence.

But what about those who show up in response to a 911 call? They are "delayed responders" or "late responders", not "first responders". Some of them may even be helpful good guys, as long as they aren't police. But they aren't first, even if they respond to the call.

Calling them "first responders" is a lie designed to brainwash you and prevent you from thinking. Or acting. "Leave it to the professionals". Ha.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Concealed carry key to safety for all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don't do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared-- everywhere you go-- in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and accurate.

In one case, the loser chose his victims based on a delusion that their religious group was responsible for killing his people. It's a common type of delusion, but most people don't decide to murder because of their hallucinations.

In the more recent attack, the loser said, in social media posts he made around the time of his murders, that he was bored and didn't understand why mass shootings kept happening.

Mass murders happen when losers like him make the choice to murder people. It's not hard to figure out. And if your cure for boredom is to murder twelve people, you are evil.

Misguided people will blame the losers' guns, but you know what was missing, don't you? Guns in the hands of the right people; not identifiable security guards, who are easy targets. Widespread concealed carry is critical to your safety.

If something happens in your presence, you are the first responder. No one else is. The moment a crisis begins, no one else is in a better position to defend your life and the lives of those around you. Any law which makes it harder for you to do so is making the problem worse.

These murderous losers make me angry, but I get just as angry when political activists start clamoring for more anti-gun laws which can only guarantee the success of these losers.

There's no safety in hiding behind laws. Losers with murderous intent will not be stopped by laws-- even if you could magically make every gun vanish. Look at other parts of the world where similar losers choose knives, bombs, or cars for mass murder. You might as well make it illegal for the Sun to zap the Earth with X-rays; people intent on murder will pay just as much attention. Each situation is different, as is each loser's motivation, but other than trapping everyone in their own padded cell, there is no way to solve this with laws. The best cure is a commitment to defense.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com