They're not “tough on crime”, they’re a criminal who is tough on liberty. An enemy of human rights.
When I come to the defense of the 14- (or 13-) year-old Scottish girl who chased away molesters with a knife and a hatchet, some people take this to mean I am opposed to migrants.
No, I'm opposed to archators.
I am opposed to governments that protect archators.
I am opposed to governments that import people (human trafficking).
I am opposed to governments that treat defense from archators as a "crime".
I am opposed to governments that regulate tools.
I am opposed to governments that punish defenders.
I am opposed to governments because governments are always archators.
If the story is true as I read it, I am in 100% support of her right to use weapons in defense of herself and others against freelance archators who enjoy the protection of government archators. No matter where those archators were born, or what they believe is the proper way to treat 12-year old girls, like this brave girl's younger sister. Only a criminal government would seek to punish her for her act of defense.
Scottish girls, of any age, have the equal and identical right to own and carry weapons as every other human on the planet, regardless of the worthless opinions of the regional political criminals. And they have the right to use those weapons in defense of life, liberty, and property against all credible threats.
This right doesn't come from America's Second Amendment. It comes from being born human. No government legislation can overrule it. All the Second Amendment does (or tried to do) is make it a crime for the US government to impose any rules concerning weapons. It created no rights, only an obligation to respect a right that has always existed everywhere and always will. Including in 2025, in Scotland.
Any government that behaves like the Scottish (or UK) government behaves in example after example like this (a credible threat) needs to be overthrown immediately, in whatever way is necessary.
You need to control yourself. You don't need to control anyone else.
It's hard. It's frustrating! I struggle with this myself.
Reality is that other people are going to do things you think they shouldn't do. They might even be wrong- but so might you. Even if they are wrong, your responsibility ends at defending yourself (and other innocents) if necessary. You have no responsibility to control those you see doing the wrong thing; either unethical acts or just individually stupid behavior.
By constantly being frustrated because someone isn't letting you control them, you're messing up your own life. I can't control you and make you stop, but I can point out how you're damaging yourself and your peace.
What happens next is up to you.
It's true.
As long as this is true, States have no incentive to stop being warlike. To stop inciting war. To stop violating life, liberty, and property.
To change this, States have to be the ones to suffer from war. Not farms, peasants, storekeepers, homes, or infrastructure. States- government employees, generals, bureaucrats, politicians, and Deep State creeps. It has to hurt them more than it hurts "the regular people" whom they are willing to sacrifice to make war.
This means the only possible legitimate target in war is the politicians and government "assets". When this becomes the reality, States will stop pushing for war. Because then it will cost them more than they are willing to pay. Not before.
European governments have imposed censorship "laws"- in addition to their copious victim disarmament rules. The US government has no obligation to negotiate with these anti-liberty bigots. There's no reason to try to find a middle ground that works for both.
Americans also have no obligation to coddle or appease the US government because it is scared of liberty. And it is scared of liberty.
Anti-liberty is ALWAYS the wrong side.
When you point out the rights violations inherent in “immigration [sic] control” they’ll pivot to arguing that you don’t care about government importing foreigners into a small town and overwhelming the population.
When you point out the rights violations inherent in anti-gun rules, they’ll claim you don’t care about murdered children.
Neither of those straw men are on the same page, or even on the same map, but that's where statists have to go because they can't address the actual issues without losing. Fast and hard. Statism is empty and illogical.
They simply can’t face any issue with honesty because that wouldn’t support their story.
Government protects stupidity and evil from facing the natural consequences they have earned.
Government imposes harsh consequences for doing the right thing and for being smart.
Government's existence encourages stupidity and evil by making them safe choices, and makes it dangerous to be smart and ethical.
This doesn't end well if it continues. Which it will as long as government is tolerated.
When that doesn't work, and it won't, they'll go after something more obscure.
When even that doesn't work- and it won't- they'll always find something else to ban or "control". Not because "Weapons!" But because they mean to control you!
No one has a right, or the imaginary "authority", to ban or "control" your tools/weapons. Not for any reason.
If you allow them to do it anyway, it's not going to reduce crime, so they'll have to try something else. Since they don't want to try something that might accidentally work, they'll keep doing the stupid things. The evil things.
Here's a secret: They aren't trying to make you safer; they are trying to make you helpless against them and their plans for you. So, no ban will ever be enough as long as you aren't a helpless slave, relying on them for everything you need, and handing everything you own to them for "the common good". This is what they lust for. Don't give it to them for any reason.
All of these people are evil; some are also idiots. None of them are on your side.
Do not comply.
"Liberals" love government, self-flagellation, the false sense of safety, and self-destructive "fairness" more than they love liberty.
It's an uphill battle; swimming against the current. But liberty is the correct choice anyway. Every time, in every situation.
If they are bad guys, as he indicates he believes they are, they won't obey the "laws" he wants to impose on us all, anyway.
As someone else pointed out, any "laws" he would want enforced against them would be turned against him. And you and me. It's always that way. This means that the bad guys will still have their guns, but the stupidly compliant good guys will be disarmed and helpless.
Conservatives are dumb. About as dumb as their Leftist opposition. They are being political and politics makes people stupid.
I will also tell you that if the above-referenced individuals use their weapons to archate, I hope they get Darwinized without mercy.
Me: The cops who are enforcing this anti-gun "law" are criminals.
Him: While I agree, it doesn't stop corrupt [sic] government from arresting and prosecuting people for exercising their rights despite unconstitutional laws.
Me: Criminals do criminal things. That’s what makes them criminals. Criminals will always exist- they’re a fact of life.
Him: You're welcome to carry an AR-15 into DC openly and see where that gets you. Bet it won't end well, though.
Me: Because the local criminal gang (Blue Line Mafia) will molest or kill me. I’m not arguing that they won’t. If you believe I am, you’re hallucinating.
They are enforcing a counterfeit "law".
Him: Whether or not it is counterfeit doesn't matter at this point. The law in DC is "no concealed carry without a permit and no open carry". Do either and get caught, you will be prosecuted. If you want to do something about it, then get off the internet and get into city hall, where you can actually voice your concerns and be heard.
Me: I’m not going to act as though their counterfeit “laws” are real laws (they are crimes), nor do I ever have any reason to set foot in DC.
But v*te harder or beg the criminals to change their ways if you think that’s helping.
Him: Take it up with the lawmakers. I don't get why you think arguing with random people on the internet is gonna change anything.
Me: I agree. Arguing with random people online won’t change anything. To change things, stop asking permission from political criminals and their henchmen to exercise your liberty. Once you act as though your rights are subject to their opinions, they’ve beaten you. Legislators and courts don’t matter at that point. You’ve handed them everything they crave.
Him: Whether you like it or not, you will be jailed if you try to exercise those rights in certain jurisdictions. Lucky for me, I live in a Constitutional carry [sic] state, so I don't have to worry about what laws DC chooses to enforce. But by all means, go ahead and test the fences.
Me: Again, I don’t disagree. Criminals do criminal things. I wouldn’t expect the Blue Line Mafia to act in an ethical way because they are criminals. Criminals kidnap, rob, and murder because it’s their nature, whatever excuse they use.
Then there's the other conservative path...
Me: You shouldn't support criminals (the cops enforcing the anti-weapons "laws").
Him2: I don't (right after arguing that it's right to arrest people for carrying without a permit).
Me: If you’re supporting those enforcers targeting/arresting people for carrying firearms, you do.
Him2: I support law enforcement. Permits are required to carry in DC.
Me: Those permit requirements are illegal. Imposed and enforced by criminals who ignore the law. If you support them, you’re supporting criminals. Period.
Him2: Challenge them in court, then.
Me: You would have supported slavery until the “laws” changed, then. Good to know.
Him2: Injecting race is a Democrat talking point. ("Don't inject even one marijuana or race!")
Me: Seeing that as racial is hilarious.
And these exchanges demonstrate, yet again, why I can't be conservative. I don't like the taste of boot polish enough. Nor can I get my mind to twist that hard.
I'm so glad mosquitoes find me unpalatable. It has made me the envy of companions (who were covered in mosquitoes) on several occasions.
Also, it may appear to average observers that they really did “win” because the person who knows what they’re talking about can be stunned into silence, and the audience doesn't understand any of it. I understand the stunned silence.
I mean, what can you say to someone who is obviously missing the whole point, but is acting like they just won a Nobel Prize in internet reasoning?
I've watched this from the sidelines many times. Rarely getting involved beyond a "like" because there's no point. But it almost makes my head swim sometimes.
There are a couple of great debaters- dare I call them Master Debaters?- on X that I love watching totally destroy those who (try to) argue against them. It's shocking how often the one who has been destroyed declares themselves the "winner" and seems to honestly believe it. It's kind of funny, but it does prove Unfortunate Truth #1.
Basically, for doing more of what his predecessors were doing. The argument is that this has threatened the traditional "truce" between the factions.
Have you seen what passes for "political norms"? They need to be violated, torn down, shredded, and burned.
Politics should have never been normalized. It's criminal. It's cheating.
Using government against your enemies, whatever lipstick you put on it, is evil. Whoever you are and whoever your enemies might be. To expect that this won't be turned against you at the next opportunity is spoiled-toddler-level stuff. Now some of those spoiled political toddlers are crying that it's their dirty diapers in the crosshairs. Before you know it, the roles will reverse again, and the whining will continue.
I don't want a truce between the bad guys. I just want the rest of us to stay alert and avoid the crossfire.
I understand the excuses for making it a "crime", but to criminalize it in any way just gives criminals, like congressvermin who made up the rule, an advantage.
Everyone can have extra knowledge and information about a specific stock or industry. It's not wrong to take advantage of that, unless you're a congressvermin who is able to do things with legislation that manipulate (disrupt and damage) the market. Which they do all the time.
If it's to be criminalized at all, it would make more sense to criminalize it for congressvermin only. The exact opposite of the current situation. But since there's never a way to single someone out without hurting the innocent, government just needs to keep its filthy hands off.
Legislation makes things worse every time it is tried. So just don't.
Even though I can usually see both (or more) sides doesn't mean I think both sides have equal validity. One side is usually more right than the other. Usually. Not always.
Often one side is completely lacking any principles whatsoever. Or they are operating from a broken and worthless morality. The other side may have flawed principles and a sketchy morality, but still be slightly more right than their opposition. Or sometimes one side may be operating from bad information or a misunderstanding that's not completely their fault.
I can normally see their side, though. Especially if I can see why they believe what they believe.
Acknowledging the point of one side doesn't mean I think they are the good guys. It may simply be that the others are a little worse. Either way, I often get accused of agreeing with those I don't agree with. This is why it feels like a curse.
I can live with it.
