Glad to see space escape government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 4, 2019)

I admit it: I've always been a bit of a space geek. Or, would that be "space nerd"? Whatever the term, I love space flight, and am especially excited to see it beginning to escape the stagnant, innovation-crushing monopoly of government.

I've enjoyed watching the recent rocket launches and the tests of the experimental vehicles. I am pulling for humans to walk on Mars in my lifetime; thinking it's looking more likely all the time.

I resent government agencies pretending to have some political authority over space flight and the companies practicing it, but the nature of government is to get in the way. Government offices are filled with hordes of people unqualified to do anything but issue or deny permits, and they are going to keep asserting control-- fighting the future-- as long as they can get away with it.

I also realize when people move to another world-- whether a planet or a moon-- they'll probably pollute the place with some sort of government.

I wish they'd establish a society instead, but since most people mistakenly conflate society and government they'll probably make the wrong choice.

The most foolish thing they might do would be to accept an Earth government's attempt to govern a colony on another world. And you know they'll try. Gotta keep milking those "tax cows" and make sure the Earth laws are being enforced. Can't allow liberty to get a foot-hold anywhere, or it might give Earth inhabitants dangerous ideas.

I've thought for decades that unless a new, attainable frontier opens up soon, the human race is doomed. Some people are fine with being jammed together in a politically controlled environment, but some of us aren't. This is why humans have always journeyed over the horizon. The first church steeple or courthouse was enough to make some frontiersmen decide it was time to pack up and move to freer spaces. This option has been closed off for too long now, and it's having dangerous consequences.

I doubt I'd go to Mars or the Moon, even if I had the opportunity. Especially not for a one-way trip. I like uncultivated plants, wild animals and free air too much.

Will space, "the final frontier", open soon enough to salvage humanity? Will it be a place of liberty or oppression? I don't know for sure, but it's finally looking a little hopeful for the first time in decades. We aren't there yet, but we're going. It's just a matter of time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Rattling the tin cup

I sure could use some donations or subscriptions.
Check out the options for supporting this blog (its author, his daughter, their cats, etc.) over on the right side, or at the link below.
Thanks.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist logic

We can't eliminate schools or no one would get educated.
We can't eliminate government or warlords would take over and rob and imprison and murder.
We can't eliminate taxation or there would be no one to protect your property from thieves.
We can't eliminate rape gangs or humans wouldn't procreate.
We can't eliminate arson or people would freeze to death in the winter.

And there is the statist argument in its usual form, along with a couple of its unethical, irrational clones.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A hole in my "preps"

As a "prepper" I have a dark confession that puts my "prepper cred" in doubt: I don't have an emergency generator.

Not only that, I've never really felt the need for one. Yes, I think they are pretty cool and feel I should want one in case TSHTF. But I would rather learn to do without electricity than to lean on it so much that I end up with another motorized mouth thirsty for gasoline.

So, I try to have non-electric alternatives or methods on hand (or in mind) rather than being dependent on electricity. I have kerosene lanterns and candles, wind up flashlights, and even a wind-up Victrola-type record player for "entertainment". I can make an evaporative cooler for refrigerated items, and could even bury frozen stuff for a little while. I could cook over a fire until my wood ran out (then scavenge from the park, perhaps).

Not sure how well that would all go in the long term.

I would miss A/C in the summer.

The one concession I made to electrical prepping is that I have a lot of rechargeable batteries (AA and AAA and C and D adapters) and a couple of battery chargers that work with my solar cell USB chargers. And I even feel a little silly about those, prepper-wise.

Of course, without electricity, the town's wells won't work-- I don't know if they have back-up generators, but I wouldn't count on it. So, since there is an utter lack of surface water in this region-- except during and immediately after rare rains (I say this as we've been having heavy rains and flash flood warnings all week!) this area is not a long-term good survival environment without electricity.

So, a generator might not even help me that much, since a reliable water supply is the real hole in my preps.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Competing political gangs and their territories

I took a walk recently, just to the bank. It turns out that's 1.1 miles, one way. On this walk, I crossed a state border. Twice.

Strange. I felt no difference when I crossed, but suddenly a whole new collection of crimes was possible, while other activities suddenly became non-crimes. Just from crossing that imaginary line. Going both ways.

On one side I could have legally been carrying a bowie knife, a sword, or a switchblade. On the other side I'm fairly sure a switchblade would have been punishable-- less sure about the Bowie knife. (The political gangs probably frown on me not knowing or caring much about their opinions.)

On one side of the line Cannabis is legal for medicinal use-- and may be legal for recreational use before long. On the other side, the state and local political bullies are digging in their heels to keep from being dragged into the 21st Century.

The state line corresponds to a county line (obviously) and a line between towns. On one side of the line, in one town, people can keep chickens and other livestock. On the side of the line, where my house is, the political bullies forbid such responsible behavior.

Arbitrary rules based on nothing more than on which side of an imaginary line I happen to be standing, even though I can easily cross back and forth. Absurdity.

Political borders and the "laws" which go with them are total hogwash.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Patriot"

I've wondered before whether I am a "patriot". A cute statist girl called me one several years ago and I wasn't sure whether I should feel insulted. (She later decided she hated me because I don't support "the troops" or the Blue Line Gang, both of which she adored.)

I decided to figure out what makes a person a patriot, but I discovered that the rabbit hole is deeper than I had expected.

Dictionary.com defines "patriot" as:

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

It also says the word is from Greek, patriṓtēs -- fellow-countryman.

I'll get back to #1 in a second.

I guess I fit #2 somewhat. I'm more of an educator and advocate than a defender. And I oppose interference the violation of individual rights by anyone; federal, local, freelance, or whatever. It's the violation that matters, not who commits it or why.

But what about #1? This raises the question, what is a "country"? According to the dictionary it is a state or nation. I unequivocally reject the state, but what is a "nation"? Back to dictionary.com...

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own
2. the territory or country itself

I'm fine with people and territories, but the people are only a country if they want a government "of their own"? No thanks on the shared government. That's just antisocial. I guess this is why I'm not a nationalist; I am not a statist and it seems you can't be one without being the other.

Since I don't support any country's government or its government's "interests", I can't support a country.

So, no, I'm probably not what most people would call a "patriot", and I'm fine with that.

And whatever else they may be, DemoCRAPublicans are partiots-- loyal to their party, their chosen branch of the political cult. If that loyalty supports or defends the country, they are OK with that. But they are also fine with it if it hurts the country. Or if it harms and kills individuals. The Party is what matters to them. I find that disgusting.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Liberty is for everyone

Is liberty "adult content"?

Friday Patreon notified me that my blog had been flagged as "adult content". Readers were forced to affirm they were over 18 to access it there.

In other words, apparently, some statist troll got offended and reported me.

It makes me angry that a troll can flag my blog, Patreon automatically sets it to "adult content" without apparently even checking to see if the flagging was honest, and then was up to me to file a complaint and try to get the error fixed.

Fortunately, after I contacted them, Patreon did re-evaluate my blog and took off the "adult content" flag. I thank them for that!

I have never posted anything on my blog that I would be ashamed to have a kid see or read. In fact, I wish they would. But, obviously, some would rather keep them ignorant.

Soon liberty will be flagged as "hate speech" and "child pornography", too. Whatever it takes to get it banned. It may have no place on the internet.

Some of this is undoubtedly due to governmental pressure-- I wish for a separation of internet and State-- but most of it is just due to anti-liberty bigotry from run-of-the-mill statists. Statists who must suspect deep-down that they are wrong, so they use sneak attacks to silence those who prickle their conscience (if they have one). They have no argument for their position, so they cheat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

How to recognize wrongness

How can you easily tell that someone is wrong?

When they talk as though government is part of the solution instead of accepting that it is always part of the problem-- often the main problem-- they just aren't getting it right.

When they speak as though there's such a thing as "too much liberty" or that respecting human rights is a problem they also expose their poor "thinking".

In either case, they might as well be wearing a T-shirt that says "Ignore my opinion on this topic".

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Learn about subject before you talk

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 28, 2019)

The better you understand something, the easier it is to notice when you're being lied to. Plus, the less likely it is you'll be fooled by the lies.

When I'm watching a movie and I see someone on screen starting a fire by randomly hitting rocks together and suddenly their campfire logs burst into flame I always think "that's not how it works!" Anyone who tries to light a fire this way isn't going to end up with a fire unless someone else builds one for them.

The same thing happens when I hear a non-libertarian person or idea called "libertarian". You can't fool me, but those not as familiar with the core idea might accept the lie without question. For that matter, those spreading the lie may not realize they are lying.

How many people know "libertarian" refers only to those who understand no one has the right to use violence against anyone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another? My guess would be not many.

I also see this happen in debates about guns. Anti-gun activists are among the worst in this respect. Years ago a rabidly anti-gun politician was asked what a barrel shroud was since she was trying to get them banned. She said she wasn't really sure but thought it might be the "shoulder thing that goes up". Hint: it's not.

It was obvious she hadn't bothered to learn what she was trying to criminalize and didn't even understand the basics of the English language. Knowledgeable people are still laughing at her.

If you're trying to turn decent, everyday people into criminals by imposing a new law against objects, you could at least make an effort to learn the fundamentals of what you're talking about. It would be a crime to destroy lives through your lazy legislative ignorance.

It's usually helpful to know what you're talking about before you start talking. Sure, you can use hyperbole for effect-- unfortunately, humans respond to emotion better than to reason-- but if you're not even in the same hemisphere as reality, people familiar with the subject are going to notice and ridicule you.

When you catch someone lecturing on a topic they clearly don't understand, pretending to know more than they do, point it out. You probably won't change their minds, but you might help an onlooker learn enough to not fall prey to the lies being told.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

One habitat which NEEDS to be destroyed

Would eliminating "gun-free" [sic] zones reduce the number of mass shootings?

Probably. It’s long past time to try it.

There's a danger, though. Unless you eliminated ALL of them it would probably just increase the frequency of mass shootings in the few “gun-free” zones that remain.

Anytime you shrink a habitat you concentrate the population which is dependent on that habitat, and “gun-free [sic] zones” are the mass shooters’ natural habitat. It's the habitat they require for their survival and reproduction.

Anyone "preserving" that habitat through anti-gun "laws" or policies is helping them survive. What kind of nasty miscreant would do that?

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Banning 3D-printed guns

Image credit

Scott Adams says 3D-printed guns will be effectively stopped (or severely limited) with "friction" by government "laws" or 3D printer company policies/apps. (You did save the files before the anti-liberty bigots of the U.S. feral government threatened everyone into taking them offline, didn't you?)

He believes 3D printers will end up being manufactured by just a few big companies, as usually happens with products like that, and you'll have to download their approved apps from their app stores to print items. And that they'll simply forbid gun-printing apps. He's probably right.

Yes, he admits hackers might get around this, and some people will build their own printers without this limitation, but this is where his "friction" fetish comes in play. For the average person, this added difficulty will be enough to prevent them from printing guns.

But will it, though?

If guns required gun-specific parts which couldn't be used for other things, he might be right. But they don't. That's why you can build a gun from plumbing.

And, if 3D-printed guns were banned by government or the printer manufacturers, don't you think more effort would go into designing guns which are built from parts no one could possibly recognize as gun parts? Or parts which have other, actual uses.

Print this lamp part, this repair piece for your coffee pot, this game piece, etc., put them all together in this way, and you've got a gun. No gun or gun part was printed. Yet a gun was printed after all. By someone who didn't have to be a hacker or build their own 3D printer, but who just wanted a gun enough to print one. Kind of like the way it happens now.

Does he really imagine the app stores would be able to tell all the parts which can be used to make a gun from the parts which can't?

Yes, it still might reduce the number of guns being printed, and if you start with a flawed assumption you might see this as a win. But that's an admission that you aren't thinking rationally.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Bad choices and shifting the blame

I don't blame manufacturers or retailers for the misuse of their (non-faulty) products. Not even with products known to be really dangerous if used according to their purpose.

When someone buys something dangerous and makes the choice to misuse it, that's where the blame lies.

It doesn't matter if you're talking guns, opioids, cars, or anything else.

If you misuse something it's YOUR fault if you die from it and YOUR fault if you harm others. You are not the victim. I hold YOU accountable. And, if the shoe is on the other foot, as it has been a few times, I accept my responsibility.

Yes, I get it. Where drugs are concerned, people foolishly abuse drugs manufactured by people who just want to make money from addicts. It's easy to say someone shouldn't make something that people can get addicted to. Even though people can apparently get addicted to anything. They don't force anyone to use their products (unlike government). They are simply meeting a want, even though we might dislike that want.

So, being addicted doesn't change anything. To have become addicted, you still had to make the choice to use something known to be dangerously addictive at least once. Unless you are one of the vanishingly rare cases where someone drugged you without your knowledge and you became addicted, you chose the path. I feel bad for addicts, but that's no reason to attack the manufacturers, treat them as criminals, and ignore the voluntary choice the future addict made.

Nor is there any legitimate reason to treat addicts as criminals instead of as people who may need medical help. Prohibition is still evil.

The choice to misuse a product is still a choice, and it's not helpful to coddle those making these choices or to shift the blame to someone else.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Slippery slope" or just wrong?

Scott Adams likes to ridicule the idea of "the slippery slope".

I kind of agree because he points out things always continue going in the direction they are going until something-- some outside pressure-- makes them stop. It's just inertia.

However, he skips over the real problem.

I don't need to be concerned that a slap in an innocent person's face will lead to a punch in their nose, which will lead to a severe beating which will lead to a murder which will lead to a mass murder which will lead to genocide. No. The single slap was wrong on its own. It doesn't have to lead to further horrors in order to deserve condemnation.

Each and every anti-gun "law" is wrong on its own. It doesn't matter whether or not it leads to more of the same in a "slippery slope" kind of situation. Each one is wrong regardless of where it leads. I oppose them all on that basis, not on the basis that one could lead to more on a slippery slope to tyranny.

Also, if you defeat or ignore each and every new anti-gun "law" just maybe the anti-gun bigots will realize they are wasting their time and your non-compliance will be the force-- the outside pressure-- which arises to stop them. If not, they may continue until stopping them requires bullets. Their choice.

Either way, shove it, BobO.

ADDED: On FB someone pointed out to me that the slippery slope is called "precedent" by government judge-types.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Former libertarians"

I've run into several people who used to be libertarians but have kind of moved away from the position over the years.

I used to think there could be no such thing as a "former libertarian", that anyone making this claim was never a libertarian to begin with, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Have they really embraced the antisocial method of politics? Have they actually given up on society and voluntary interactions?

If so, I doubt it's because of new information-- I can't believe anyone has tried to find reasons to reject libertarianism harder than I have. Or, I seriously doubt they have. I am always trying to falsify everything I believe. One bit of counter-evidence tells you more than thousands of confirming points. But even when I think I've found counter-evidence, it turns out to be an error or a misunderstanding on my part. That doesn't mean we all agree, but the disagreements are matters of interpretation, not flaws with the position.

But, the current societal climate is hostile to self-responsibility and liberty. It is hard to continually swim upstream. To just relax and let yourself go with the flow is often tempting. Is this what they've done?

I don't know, but I suspect it often is.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The "guns are bad" assumption

Assuming guns are bad handicaps you. It keeps you from being able to talk about them sensibly.

It would be similar to what would happen if you thought dogs are bad. You'd have trouble discussing them in a reasonable way. Your faulty assumption would creep into everything you think and color everything you say. You might talk about how to register them (or the people who keep them), talk about mandatory dog-owner insurance, or discuss what kinds of dogs people should be allowed to keep. You might claim that government gives people the right to keep dogs, so it can take away that right. I mean, dogs aren't specifically mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as something you have a right to keep, so government dog-owner control is clearly Constitutional. And obviously the founders never envisioned pitbulls, so only whatever kind of dogs they kept are covered by the Constitution. Right?

Of course, it makes no sense. Not realistically, historically, or rationally.

But that's the kind of argument you get over and over from people who live by the faulty assumption that guns are bad.

(There's a good chance my internet will be shut off for a few days until it gets paid up, so if it takes me a while to respond or to approve comments on older posts, please be patient. Thanks.)

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Learning new things challenges you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 21, 2019)

Usually, the more I learn about something the more I appreciate it.

There have been many times when a friend has introduced me to something I knew next to nothing about; something they were enthusiastic for, and before long I had gained a new appreciation. It doesn't necessarily mean it becomes something I'm seriously interested in, but I can still appreciate it through new eyes.

Recently I was introduced to the history of the Three Stooges by a friend who runs the internet's most in-depth Three Stooges fansite. I had never given them much thought, beyond watching them on cable TV as I got ready for school when I was a kid. But learning about them as real people with a real story gave me a new perspective and a whole new appreciation for them.

I've experienced similar things with karaoke, cats, and writing, with some of these things becoming important parts of my life.

Other times I have been introduced to something, and the more I learned about it the more I grew to dislike it; the less I'm willing to tolerate it. Government-- or more accurately, "the state"-- for example.

In some cases, ignorance truly is bliss.

The more I learn about government's origins and its true nature the less tolerance I have for it. I see no reason to pretend it is something other than a criminal mob trying to hide behind a veil of legitimacy and imaginary "consent of the governed".

It doesn't change what something is to make up cutesy names for it. Taxation is still theft, capital punishment is still ritual human sacrifice, "gun control" is still slavery, and police are still a street gang. Supporters can try to justify these things all day long, but nothing changes them into something other than what they really are. Their true nature remains the same.

If these are things you support, own it.

If you don't support these things when done by freelance individuals but have been supporting them when done by government, perhaps it's time you pick a side for the sake of consistency.

It's possible to be consistently wrong, of course, but it's not possible to be inconsistent and be right. If this matters to you, you know what you need to do.

The more you learn, the more you know. The more you know, the more responsibility you have and the more you are challenged. Which probably explains why so many people don't want to learn anything new.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

September 11, 2001

This year I wasn't going to mention "9/11". And I didn't on that anniversary. I thought I had blogged about my own experiences of that day years ago, but apparently, I never have. Ammo.com had sent me their article on the event, and I wrote back saying I wasn't going to mention it this year. But I guess I will after all. Just a little late.

In 2001 I was living in north-eastern Pennsylvania ("NEPA"), working in a small shop which built custom picture frames and framed art for Manhattan art galleries. New York City was about an hour and a half away, according to those who went there (I never did).

The shop sent a truck into NYC every Tuesday and Wednesday evening to deliver frames and framed art and pick up our work for the next week. Our schedule was always tight. On the morning of September 11, we were all working like we did any other morning.

A couple of people had radios at their work tables and one of them announced that she had just heard that a plane had hit one of the towers of the World Trade Center. I commented that it was an odd coincidence that such an emergency (a "9-1-1") happened on 9/11. I had a radio in the room where I packaged the finished frames and art for the truck (my main job), so I turned it on to see what they were saying.

There wasn't really much real news about it-- they would just talk about "the accident" between songs, speculating on what went wrong and what kind of plane it was (there were differing reports).

Then they came back on and said a plane had just hit the second tower. I said to co-workers "that wasn't an accident". We all immediately suspected terrorism. Later they said a plane had hit the Pentagon and more planes had possibly been hijacked; they made it sound like there was a swarm of them (because at that point they just didn't know anything)-- and that there was one "missing" somewhere over PA. I got a little nervous. We were in the middle of nowhere-- literally in a cornfield-- but as it turned out, Pennsylvania fields weren't completely safe either.

The radio stopped even trying to play music and went to constant commentary and reports from the scenes.

I was completely stunned to hear when the towers fell, one after the other-- I hadn't believed it possible. Only a little more than a year earlier I had gotten my only glimpses of them (and the Statue of Liberty) as I flew into, and then back out of, the airport in Newark, NJ, on my first trip to PA. To think that they were now gone was unbelievable.

I can't remember how long it was before we got the first reports of the plane crash in southwestern PA, but it was a while.

At some point during the confusion, they announced that all flights had been grounded country-wide. That didn't seem real, either.

Our manager updated us and said he hadn't heard from, or been able to contact, any of our customers. The lines were either down or overwhelmed-- maybe both. We were working blind. He said to keep working as though the truck was going out... for now.

On lunch break, some of us went outside to eat. I looked up and saw no contrails at all in the sky. Something I had never seen before in that area-- there were always planes visible in the sky. I told my co-workers to look up at the sky and make a mental picture because they'd probably never see that again.

Soon we got word from some source unrelated to our customers that no trucks were being allowed into Manhatten. The trucks weren't going anywhere that day. Or the next.

The mood at work was somber. And we were worried about our jobs.

As it turned out that was the last day I worked until the 13th of December (our workweeks always started on Thursday).

On a tangent: It's almost callous to admit, but those 3 months I was unemployed were some of the most fun months of my entire life. Karaoke 'til 2AM when the bar closed-- then the huge after-party at a friend's house... 5 days per week. Going to bed at 8 in the morning-- if at all. Much debauchery.

Soon after I got called back to work we started getting damaged art to re-frame from buildings next door to the WTC. Truckloads of it-- anything that they thought could be salvaged. The broken frames all had a thick layer (an inch or more deep) of fluffy gray "dust" on (and especially behind) them. (I was as careful as I could be to not breathe it and to keep my hands clean, but I did save some.) The glass was shattered and the plexiglass was cracked. Some of the art had been pierced by flying debris. We kept the art at our shop until the insurance was all settled, then we began the repairs. We delivered the first repaired pieces back to NYC on September 10th or 11th (I don't remember exactly) of 2002.

And there's my story.

9/11 changed me, and not all in a bad way.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Who is "pro-Second Amendment"?

I find it odd that so many people who are anti-gun like to call themselves "pro-Second Amendment". It's obviously not true. Of course, they usually have a big "but".

How can you be for something you willfully misunderstand?

They may believe the Second Amendment "gives people the right" to have guns while misunderstanding that it doesn't. And the Second Amendment doesn't have a "but". Plus, the right exists regardless.

What the Second Amendment does is place guns off-limits to government. "Gun control" [sic] is a serious crime. The Second Amendment doesn't leave room for licenses, permits, limits, registration, "red flag laws", background checks, waiting periods, "taxes" on guns/gun accessories or ammo, or any gun "laws" of any sort. If you don't understand this, to say you are "pro-Second Amendment" is to lie.

And yes, charging a "tax" on anything associated with guns (or the exercise of any natural human right) is an unacceptable violation of that right. This point is important. You can't have a right to "tax"/steal, and doing so to make a right more expensive to exercise-- do discourage the exercise thereof-- is doubly evil.

I am pro-gun rights; pro-human rights. I don't really care if the generally ignored Second Amendment exists or not. And I'm opposed to government employees (and other archators) owning or carrying guns, even though I wouldn't prohibit them from doing so. I'm opposed to them breathing, too, but preventing that isn't my responsibility in most cases, either.

I would be generally "pro-Second Amendment" if it actually did what it was supposed to do. But it doesn't. And it is used by anti-gun bigots as a way to justify their rights violations. They choose to misdefine "militia" (all the people capable of bearing arms in defense of the society) and "well-regulated" (practiced to the point of effectiveness) to suit their purposes. And they love to ignore "shall not be infringed".

The meaning of "pro-gun" is even less clear.

Cops can be "pro-gun"... as long as you obey the unconstitutional and unethical "laws" controlling gun owners. They probably like having their guns, but are often skeptical of you having any gun you want, on you everywhere you go, without getting government permission first. Many "elite" gun owners and fudds are the same way.

Just because someone is "pro-gun" doesn't mean they support your right to own and to carry them. And this is how they justify their sneak attacks on your natural human rights that they really don't like much, while semi-honestly calling themselves "pro-gun".

A "pro-gun" individual could still be against you having a gun on you because they might not be pro-gun-owner; a real "pro-Second Amendment"/gun-owner rights supporter can't be. Not if they are honest. And someone who really respects the natural human right to own and to carry weapons doesn't rely on the existence of the Second Amendment to support the right and doesn't look for ways to violate or limit your rights.

Now, is that person who claims to be "pro-Second Amendment" telling the truth or are they not?

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I can be a thoroughly modern Neanderthal

Well, not an actual Neanderthal, just a primitive sort of person.

I used to cause amusement because I'd be wearing my buckskin clothes with a cordless phone (back in those pre-cellphone days) on my belt. What people failed to understand was that I wasn't playing dress-up. That was me. I wasn't dressing to impress or amuse. Those were my clothes, and sometimes I needed to have the phone handy. The phone was a necessary accessory, appropriate to the era in which I live. Just like the Bowie knife beside it.

There are things I like about the present and there are things I like about the past. I mix them together when it's useful.

That's why I carry a couple of lighters, but I also carry stuff (and the knowledge) to make a bow/drill fire easier. I'll use medicinal plants, and I'll take modern medicines. I like LED flashlights and I like candles and kerosene lanterns. I think it's sad to ignore all the glorious inventions and discoveries of the past just because they are from the past when (and if) they are still useful today. I also don't reject modern stuff just because it's modern. If I find something useful from any time period, I'll use it and I may even like it.

That also means that if some horrible, evil statist said something that's true, it's still true and I'll still respect the words, regardless of who said them.

Be adaptable. Use what's available and useful, without abandoning what's right.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Anti-gun bits and pieces

(I don't intend to turn this blog into Kent's "Hooligan Gun-Rights" Blog. Even if it seems like it at the moment. I tend to focus on what I see as the biggest dangers to liberty right now... the winds will probably change soon. But until then...)

_______

If you don't assume something is bad, you don't look for ways to reduce it.
To seek ways to reduce the number of guns is to assume they are bad.
If you are discussing ways guns might be restricted or "controlled" you are advocating reducing the number of guns.

___

Chicago has strict anti-gun "laws", and they've been getting more strict for a century or so. Some claim this is a reaction to crime, not a cause. So I guess that must mean crime has gone down in Chicago in step with the stricter "laws" being imposed. How much more "gun control" will it take to make Chicago a peaceful paradise? Or, are the "laws" having no effect or making it worse?

___

Yes, you can change the Constitution if you don't like what's in it. However, if you meddle with the Bill of Rights the whole deal is off. Without the completely intact Bill of Rights, no Constitution (it was a package deal, without which the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified). No Constitution, no U.S. feral government. That's fine by me! How do you feel about that?

___

Gun rights don't violate human rights. Gun rights are human rights. My right to own and carry a gun has nothing to do with your right to not be shot. I have no right to shoot you if you aren't violating anyone, but I have no obligation to not shoot you if you are. You can't have the right to archate, so neither can you have the right to archate in safety.

___

If you are advocating (or proposing) a gun "buyback" you are lying. Gun manufacturers can buy back the guns they produced and sold. Gun stores can buy back the guns they sold. Your neighbor could buy back the gun he sold you. However, unless you bought your gun from the federal government, that government can't "buy it back". It can offer a bounty for the gun-- financed by stolen or counterfeited money. But your gun never belonged to the government and it can't go "back" to some mental construct which never owned it.

___

Anti-gun positions are always based on lies or ignorance. Always.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.