Some otherwise fine and decent people have recently complained about fireworks, on their facebook pages, not being the type who like loud noises.
In my home state of IL, there are leech-like government parasites twenty levels deep in every area of human endeavor. Yet, the poor and middle class mexicans in my neighborhood have the balls to set off totally illegal fireworks, in open defiance of their illegality. This DOES, in fact, send an important message to our police state, and the police who enforce it: "This far, but no further."
And this heroic sentiment is why the gadsden flag is flying outside my residence, this 4th.
The louder and more illegal the display, the more resolutely the busybodies are being told (and shown): "THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER. ...YOUR TIME IS GOING TO COME."
And when I'm asked why I'm blowing things up, there are a few different answers I might give:
1) I'm celebrating the last time that people openly gunned down police and politicians in North America, and got away with it.
2) I'm celebrating the Camden 28's jury, that set them free for the destruction of government draft cards, in open defiance of the law. The jury found that the draft cards were "property that had no right to exist." (If only they had made that discovery before 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam!) ...I'm also celebrating every other jury that had the balls to resolutely hold fast to a vote of "not guilty" even though the accused had clearly broken the law --setting an innocent person free, even though the prosecutor and judge had violated all of their rights, trying to pressure them into sending an innocent person to an undeserved punishment.
We all celebrate for different reasons. Some legitimate, others less so.
The high treason that has reduced our freedom and our lifespans so horribly sometimes makes it unclear that we have this remaining freedom. Government (and government-protected cartels') interference with medical freedom has cut all of our healthspans in half. Restrictions on basic property rights abound in every state. Our paper money makes us all indentured serfs of the Federal Reserve.
...But so long as we're alive, there is freedom to choose, and freedom to act.
We should never forget that it can get a lot worse, and it WILL get a lot worse, if we don't stand up for ourselves, and draw a line in the sand.
The earth-shattering, window-pane-rattling, bang of a "concussion grenade" (an airborn M-80) exploding 150 feet in the air is a wonderful reminder of what it sounds like when a .308 round is fired from a rifle at close range.
...It's a fearful sound. Let the politicians cringe, indoors. Let them bemoan the fact that the public is not minding their bogus laws.
And let the common man realize that the laws are written to be enforced selectively. Let him look up the amount of prison time that he could receive for the things he's done today. Let him figure out that his bloated and unconstitutional government is not his friend.
And let him make a private, personal, patriotic oath to himself:
1) The redcoats will never take me alive.
2) If I am called for jury duty, I will tell the prosecutor what they want to hear, and I will be seated on the jury. I will then absolutely refuse to convict anyone who has not aggressed against another person. I will vote "not guilty", even if it means that the jury is hung.
3) And, there is that one thing, that one line which the state may not cross. That private line is known only to me. That line is different for every man, but every man has such a line. Well, I am a man, and I know where my line in the sand is. If that line is crossed, I will declare war, and no force on earth will stop me from extracting my revenge on those responsible.
So, in my opinion, the Fourth of July is a good reminder that in order for true freedom to exist, THINGS MUST GO BANG!
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Monday, July 4, 2011
Sunday, March 14, 2010
I Am Deeply Angered By "The RAVE Act"
"The RAVE Act":
An act of Congress that allows the DEA (Drug Enforcement Assholes) to fine (and possibly jail) party promoters $250,000, not for drug use of any kind, but for providing the music venue and promotion itself, if drug use should occur at the venue. In short, it makes the venue promoters into unwilling police/drug agents/snitches, under threat of cruel and unusual punishment worse than anything that King George III was ever guilty of when the American colonists rebelled against him, using force of arms. (Amazing how "hipster" Obama simply allows this immense tyranny to continue, when he could easily put a stop to it. I guess once we have fascism in place, no elected fascist wants to impinge on any prior fascism --especially not the fascism promoted by his VP choice.) ...Another example of government retarding the arts, entertainment, human freedom, and progress.
A full description of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/
Legislative history of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/legislative/
and from
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/antirave/
---from the above---
"Senator Biden was one of the original drafters of the legislation that created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an anti-drug office of the White House. In addition, Biden helped to craft the original crack-house statute designed to punish owners of properties on which drug offenses take place and co-sponsored legislation that created federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Then Biden turned his attention to ecstasy and raves, most likely in response to media hype about the "dangerous drug parties" corrupting our nation’s young people. His reaction may have been in order to win votes, to keep his constituents happy or because he truly fears for the lives of America’s youth. Most likely it is a combination of all these factors. Politicians are known to react viciously when faced with new "dangers": for example, "crack" in the '80s."
An example of the human suffering that the Rave Act causes:
http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v05/n1536/a05.html?236823
Dave Kopel (an expert on gun rights) notes that Tom Daschle is the author of the language itself (although Biden pimped it and pushed it through the legislature):
http://article.nationalreview.com/267798/feel-like-dancing/d-kopel-g-reynolds
Let's unite the gun rights crowd with the drug rights crowd: they have much in common. The very first step towards doing this is to bring a xeroxed copy of "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" by John Ross (from the collection: The New Prohibition ed. Bill Masters, Accurate Press) to every gun store you visit, and to every electronic music specialty store as well, with the article linked immediately prior attached. Anthony Gregory writes a similar essay here, for the libertarian "Future of Freedom Foundation" titled Gun Control and the War on Drugs
Unity in defense of freedom prevails, over time. Fellow Gun Owners of America, let's unite with those who wish a change to our nation's intolerable drug laws.
OPTIMAL SOLUTION: The singularity does not save or extend Joe Biden's natural lifespan. I look forward to attending a "rave" over Joe Biden's grave. In fact, I hope a wealthy billionaire instigates a grand jury investigation into Biden for treason, eventually bankrupting him, and forcing him into a pauper's death (Grand juries everywhere have this power, and should take note of it! http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com ). After that, I hope his publicly-villified, vitrified remains (minus the brain, which should be cremated by Alcor technicians) are placed under the entrance to an electronic dance music hall, with a notice that says "Here lies the pathetic, ruined corpse of Joe Biden, 20th-century-era petty tyrant and opponent to dance music, property rights, and individual freedom." --Anyone who is a screenwriter may also use this idea, but noone may copyright this idea. This idea is hereby "copylefted", so that it can appear in multiple pieces of fiction and entertainment. If life imitates art, poetic justice will have been served.
An act of Congress that allows the DEA (Drug Enforcement Assholes) to fine (and possibly jail) party promoters $250,000, not for drug use of any kind, but for providing the music venue and promotion itself, if drug use should occur at the venue. In short, it makes the venue promoters into unwilling police/drug agents/snitches, under threat of cruel and unusual punishment worse than anything that King George III was ever guilty of when the American colonists rebelled against him, using force of arms. (Amazing how "hipster" Obama simply allows this immense tyranny to continue, when he could easily put a stop to it. I guess once we have fascism in place, no elected fascist wants to impinge on any prior fascism --especially not the fascism promoted by his VP choice.) ...Another example of government retarding the arts, entertainment, human freedom, and progress.
A full description of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/
Legislative history of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/legislative/
and from
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/antirave/
---from the above---
"Senator Biden was one of the original drafters of the legislation that created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an anti-drug office of the White House. In addition, Biden helped to craft the original crack-house statute designed to punish owners of properties on which drug offenses take place and co-sponsored legislation that created federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Then Biden turned his attention to ecstasy and raves, most likely in response to media hype about the "dangerous drug parties" corrupting our nation’s young people. His reaction may have been in order to win votes, to keep his constituents happy or because he truly fears for the lives of America’s youth. Most likely it is a combination of all these factors. Politicians are known to react viciously when faced with new "dangers": for example, "crack" in the '80s."
An example of the human suffering that the Rave Act causes:
http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v05/n1536/a05.html?236823
Dave Kopel (an expert on gun rights) notes that Tom Daschle is the author of the language itself (although Biden pimped it and pushed it through the legislature):
http://article.nationalreview.com/267798/feel-like-dancing/d-kopel-g-reynolds
Let's unite the gun rights crowd with the drug rights crowd: they have much in common. The very first step towards doing this is to bring a xeroxed copy of "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" by John Ross (from the collection: The New Prohibition ed. Bill Masters, Accurate Press) to every gun store you visit, and to every electronic music specialty store as well, with the article linked immediately prior attached. Anthony Gregory writes a similar essay here, for the libertarian "Future of Freedom Foundation" titled Gun Control and the War on Drugs
Unity in defense of freedom prevails, over time. Fellow Gun Owners of America, let's unite with those who wish a change to our nation's intolerable drug laws.
OPTIMAL SOLUTION: The singularity does not save or extend Joe Biden's natural lifespan. I look forward to attending a "rave" over Joe Biden's grave. In fact, I hope a wealthy billionaire instigates a grand jury investigation into Biden for treason, eventually bankrupting him, and forcing him into a pauper's death (Grand juries everywhere have this power, and should take note of it! http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com ). After that, I hope his publicly-villified, vitrified remains (minus the brain, which should be cremated by Alcor technicians) are placed under the entrance to an electronic dance music hall, with a notice that says "Here lies the pathetic, ruined corpse of Joe Biden, 20th-century-era petty tyrant and opponent to dance music, property rights, and individual freedom." --Anyone who is a screenwriter may also use this idea, but noone may copyright this idea. This idea is hereby "copylefted", so that it can appear in multiple pieces of fiction and entertainment. If life imitates art, poetic justice will have been served.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A Huge Victory For Jim Crow Gun Laws Today!
Wednesday, 07/22/2009: In news that will bring happiness to the hearts of racists, tyrants, Demopublican voters, and klansmen all across the USA, the Senate struck down a bill that would have prevented police from arresting traveling firearm owners and ruining their lives in the unconstitutional "court" system. (Court is in parenthesis, since proper jury trials have been done away with in favor of "voir dire"-rigged juries, high-pressure plea bargains, interest-conflicted bar-licensed defense attorneys, and unlawful judicial instruction.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.
And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.
The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)
This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?
Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)
Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."
No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)
But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).
Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.
Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.
Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.
Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).
All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.
But that was too much for your little minds to handle.
So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".
Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:
What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...So,
Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?
I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".
If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.
And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.
The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)
This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?
Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)
Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."
No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)
But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).
Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.
Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.
Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.
Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).
All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.
But that was too much for your little minds to handle.
So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".
Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:
What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...So,
Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?
I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".
If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.
Friday, October 31, 2008
A Wise Quote From Jacob Sullum on the Major Party Candidates' Views on Gun Rights:
Jacob Sullum writes: 'What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne', Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American’s constitutional rights depends on where he lives.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/081006-sullum-gun-owners.php
This comment of Obama's should be repeated, far and wide, by libertarian candidates. After which, perhaps the candidates can point out that the first gun laws in the nation were 'Jim Crow' laws that prevented blacks from owning weapons of self defense, in the post-civil war South. Lynchings abounded when Southern whites were the only people capable of carrying shotguns and pistols. The decentralization of individual power (via the equal application and enforcement of the law) is necessary to maintain freedom and peace!
Police harrassment and arrests of blacks drastically outnumber those of whites in the current drug war, in Chicago, ...where Obama is from. Is this what Obama thinks "works"? The war on gun owners and drug users is still dramatically, overwhelimingly racist. But sellout socialist blacks like Obama don't mind sending young black and mexican men to prison for things that aren't even crimes in the neighboring suburbs of Indiana and Missouri.
Is the life of a black man living in Chicago worth less than the life of a white man living in Cheyenne?
...And McCain is no better. He still champions "upholding the existing gun laws", and was the author of the "McCain-Lieberman Act", which would have de-facto banned gun shows (by requiring gun show promotors to maintain a SSN database of all attendees, even those selling only books). Moreover, both he and Obama are against even the ability of organizations like http://www.gunowners.org , http://www.jpfo.org , and the NRA to speak out against the track record of individual-rights-hating politicians like themselves. McCain-Feingold is a gag order on dissent, just like Obama's flirtation with "the fairness doctrine".
These Demopublican parasites have interfered with our gun rights, but they can see that we won't give up our guns, unless our voices are silenced!
If you bother to vote at all this election, you should withold your support from Obama and McCain. Vote Libertarian, or don't bother to vote for president at all. If you vote for every down-ticket office and don't vote for president, you are still sending a strong message. You are sending the message that "NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE" ---which is a very pro-freedom, very libertarian concept, in itself.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/081006-sullum-gun-owners.php
This comment of Obama's should be repeated, far and wide, by libertarian candidates. After which, perhaps the candidates can point out that the first gun laws in the nation were 'Jim Crow' laws that prevented blacks from owning weapons of self defense, in the post-civil war South. Lynchings abounded when Southern whites were the only people capable of carrying shotguns and pistols. The decentralization of individual power (via the equal application and enforcement of the law) is necessary to maintain freedom and peace!
Police harrassment and arrests of blacks drastically outnumber those of whites in the current drug war, in Chicago, ...where Obama is from. Is this what Obama thinks "works"? The war on gun owners and drug users is still dramatically, overwhelimingly racist. But sellout socialist blacks like Obama don't mind sending young black and mexican men to prison for things that aren't even crimes in the neighboring suburbs of Indiana and Missouri.
Is the life of a black man living in Chicago worth less than the life of a white man living in Cheyenne?
...And McCain is no better. He still champions "upholding the existing gun laws", and was the author of the "McCain-Lieberman Act", which would have de-facto banned gun shows (by requiring gun show promotors to maintain a SSN database of all attendees, even those selling only books). Moreover, both he and Obama are against even the ability of organizations like http://www.gunowners.org , http://www.jpfo.org , and the NRA to speak out against the track record of individual-rights-hating politicians like themselves. McCain-Feingold is a gag order on dissent, just like Obama's flirtation with "the fairness doctrine".
These Demopublican parasites have interfered with our gun rights, but they can see that we won't give up our guns, unless our voices are silenced!
If you bother to vote at all this election, you should withold your support from Obama and McCain. Vote Libertarian, or don't bother to vote for president at all. If you vote for every down-ticket office and don't vote for president, you are still sending a strong message. You are sending the message that "NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE" ---which is a very pro-freedom, very libertarian concept, in itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
