Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Assiduus Bellum Pro Libertas 1.0: Constant War For Freedom

I oppose the term war like it is a pox upon us. The "War on Poverty" "War on Crime", J. Edgar Hoover's euphemism for his war on individuals, seemed to be the starting point. Then we had "War on Poverty" (instead of a "War in Vietnam"), "War on Drugs," "War on Gangs" (ignoring the previous "Gang Warfare" concept), "War on Cancer," ad nauseum.

Those wars, their earlier connection to a real war, and the empetus to concentrate power in single individuals with technocratic zeal gave us the continued use of the term: czar. 
During the latter stages of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board. This position was sometimes dubbed the "industry czar".
- Wikipedia article, "Czar (political term)"
I know that the term czar is out of vogue, but it was an apt term for a petite dictator charged with enforcing draconian statutes and armed with willing bureaucrats.

credit: Wikipedia
Of course, the irony can't be lost on any freedom-loving individual. In a natural-rights-based, constitutional republic, our government has consistently violated individual freedom with the threat of illegitimate force for collective good and false rights.

So why would I stoop to suggesting another war? Well, if anything is worth winning, then it is freedom. If we have to call the struggle a war to get a little attention, then so be it. And quite frankly, all those wars declared for supposed good were really wars on people violating no true laws or on individuals in the way of progression.

A War on Tyranny, even if it is only rhetorical, is a just war of the utmost moral good and importance. And to state the struggle in positive terms, and to highlight its perpetual status: Assiduus Bellum Pro Libertas.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Proved Illegitimacy of the Federal State

"In Bowers v. Devito, it was stated that 'there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.' Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)" 
 - from As King by Paranoid
Because the Supreme Court is hell bent on abiding by the precedents set forth in its own decisions, then it must abide by its paraphrasing of the bedrock of the limits on the federal state: "The Constitution ... tells the state to let people alone ..." The Supreme Court must get the federal state out of our individual lives and stop the infringement of the full breadth of our property rights.

“We want government to largely leave us alone, protect our personal security, but then to butt-out, leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.” - John Stossel

But again, since the Supreme Court ruled no duty of the state to protect us, then:

"Would you leave us the hell alone?" - Ted Nugent to Piers Morgan

"From a small 'L' libertarian standpoint, leave me alone ... That's what I want from you ... If you want to marry a sheep on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, and you want me to be best man - as long as the sheep is consenting - I'm 100%. I'm there for you. I'll carry the flowers ... For the most part, I don't care what you do. But I do care about you leaving me alone ..." - Michael Bane

The true individualistic spirit that resides in all of us, and which is boiling to the surface in many of us under the incessant onslaught of collectivism and its endgame, deserves the material support of the last federal arbiter of constitutionalism.

And to reformulate an old phrase that has been previously reformulated:
We are all libertarians now.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Air-Rifle Shooting: Great Use of Presidents Day

The night before last, my son asked if he could go to Papa & Nana's farm and shoot his BB gun. So after tutoring sessions for him and his sister, and a little light shopping for spring clothes on Presidents Day, we packed up the three kids, my mom, and all our air-rifle stuff for a short afternoon of shooting.

My son has a Red Ryder that Santa brought him, so we were shooting at targets, cans, and bottles at fifteen feet. He was having a pretty good time, but I really wanted to see what I could hit farther out. I didn't want to stop the fun in order to retrieve materials to place additional paper targets, so I headed out with some empty 8-ounce water bottles. I quickly found my target stands - some dead weed stalks that were strong enough to drop the bottles on.

From 25 yards I was able to consistently hit the bottles with a loud "thwack" and dramatic cartwheeling - at least when the crosswind died down. I don't know if that is impressive or on par for a 25-year-old Daisy Powerline 880, but I sure had fun shooting those little water bottles.

And those little thin-walled 8-ounce water bottles really jump around when hit by a BB launched from my son's Red Ryder at short range. Great fun all around.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

If You're Looking for an Opportunity, Then You're Looking for People.

Joseph Priestley, networked for science 
[B]reakout opportunities are what transform your career. Opportunities do not float like clouds. They are firmly attached to individuals. If you’re looking for an opportunity, you’re really looking for people. If you’re evaluating an opportunity, you’re really evaluating people. If you’re trying to marshal resources to go after an opportunity, you’re really trying to enlist the support and involvement of other people. A company doesn’t offer you a job, people do. Opportunities flow through congregations of people. Those with good ideas and information tend to hang out with one another. You will get ahead if you can tap the circles that dish the best opportunities. In fact, it’s how people have gotten ahead for centuries.
-Reid Hoffman, in LinkedIn post "Connect to Human Networks To Find Breakout Opportunities"
Every word of that is worth reading again.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

My Reasoning for Black Listing Anti-Gun Organizations

Some companies discriminate against gunmakers, distributors, retailers, and firearm shoppers and owners. This is a problem that I have witnessed for decades. While I was living out west, there was a gun dealer that sold primarily black rifles - before black rifles were popular. The local branch of a national bank declined to open a checking account for the company. They settled out of court, and the gun dealer signed a nondisclosure agreement. I almost switched banks, but the bank was convenient.

But since Obama won his first election, the political environment has definitely changed. There were harbingers of a renewed politically correct move against the firearms industry within the last year. I vaguely remember that several months ago after Aurora and before Sandy Hook, Bank of America closed the account of a stock manufacturer, because the bank manager handling the account said that BoA did not approve of what the company sold. But now there is a wave of companies forming new internal policies or discoverying old internal policies that restrict the companies involvement in the free-trade of arms.

I've slowly been accumulating info about such companies. I'm doing so because I've read that some lists, such as the NRA's, are possibly inaccurate, outdated, and incomplete. Also, I wanted more detailed information of the extent of the discrimination against the free market of private arms and the proof for the accusations.

I respect the right of private companies to choose who they do business with - that is their right. But I do have a problem with government entities and corporations discriminating against the private-arms community. And I feel that is it my duty to direct my business away from companies that discriminate against those who are exercising their rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Oly Arms Stops Sales to NY Government Orgs

Another strong response to the NY SAFE Act.

Olympic Arms, maker of ARs and pistols - including some interesting looking pistol-caliber carbines - announced that it will no longer sell or provide services to the NYS government, law-enforcement agencies, and police or other first responders in that state.

In a press release posted on Facebook by President Brian Schuetz, Olympic Arms is following in the footsteps of LaRue Tactical. But Olympic Arms is taking its response one step further. LaRue had stated that they would limit sales to NY LEO to what is available to non-LEO civilians in NY.

Now we just need to see one of the big gun companies follow suit.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Who Has A Monopoly of the Use of Force?

I often hear the quip that "Government has a monopoly of the use of force." Is that true? Really?

Government might have a laundry list of justifications for using force, but other people use force all the time: criminals, citizens defending themselves and others against criminals (and occasionally the government), and private police.

And to be more precise, the aphorism is from Max Weber's Politics as Vocation. He wrote that it was the state that "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." And here's a gem: "private force (as in private security) can be used too, as long as it has legitimacy derived from the state." - Wikipedia.

That sounds nice, but if you believe in rights, then the legitimate use of force does not rest with the state, but in the hands of the individual - for self defense or in the defense of another. No agent of a government has the right to use force to enforce the state's order.

Even if government has created a pile of statutes that violate natural, common, and constitutional law, government has not yet created an illegal monopoly of violence - yet. Good for us.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Florida Sheriffs to Start Monitoring and Arresting State Troopers for 4th Amend Violations

Not really, but they should.

FLORIDA -- Florida Highway Patrol has announced it will be conducting daytime vehicle checkpoints, where they will demand that drivers present their papers, and allow the police to poke around and inspect their vehicles. No warrants or probable cause are necessary in the new America.
- Police State USA: Land of the Checkpoints
Time for Florida sheriffs to start monitoring and arresting state troopers that violate the Fourth Amendment, especially since the Florida Sheriffs Association issued a "Support of the Second Amendment" proclamation:

The Florida State Highway Patrol is taking advantage of the lack of mandated, state-controlled vehicle inspections. I think a notarized affidavit signed by a certified mechanic should be your cop-out-of-car shield. LOL.

Thanks to Statism Is Slavery for sharing this news on Facebook.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Couple People Destroying Arguments For Gun Control

Bill Stevens, Newtown resident, and parent of girl that survived the Sandy Hook murders, speaking before a "working group" in the Connecticut General Assembly.

"I’m not here to cite crime statistics, lives saved with guns, or the economic impact of the proposed asinine legislation – some of these gun control bills you have proposed – I will, however, read from the Connecticut state constitution. Section 15 reads very clearly – we all know what the Second Amendment says – but Section 15 in the state constitution says very clearly 'every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.' There’s no registration, there’s no permitting, there’s no background checks. It’s quite clear."
- Bill Stevens
And then there was Ted Nugent, being interviewed by Piers Morgan.

"I care about all death." - Piers Morgan

"I don't think you do. I think you care about guns. You're obsessed with guns ... Would you leave us the hell alone?" - Ted Nugent
Thanks to Walls of the City blog for the transcript.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Teachers Have Something To Learn

Administrators and teachers at several schools in our country have thrown themselves into tizzies about anything that students might do that might in anyway have anything to do with guns.

Freshman Daniel McClain, Jr. was suspended from Poston Butte High School in Florence, Arizona for having a picture of a rifle on his school-issued laptop computer.

A Kindergartner was suspended from Mount Carmel Elementary School in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania for telling another student she was going to shoot her with her bubble gun.

Etc., et cetera, and so forth.

Teachers and administrations need to learn a little about the nature of reality.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Resistance to New York SAFE Act is Public

Some western New York citizens appear bound to disobey New York State's new draconian gun statutes.

New York citizens asked lots of questions, made lots of statements, and apparently got no real answers from state officials at a meeting in Erie, New York on 1/29/13 about the NY SAFE Act.

When a bunch of regular guys start laughing when a state official says that "if you have an illegal gun or [normal-capacity] magazine then you have to dispose of those things," and when one of those regular guys says:
"When angry people get together they form militias, folks. This country, this western New York area is prime for something like that."
And when the crowd of regular guys cheer and clap in response to that statement, then you know that the NY state legislature has just stuck their foot in a mess of crap. This is a mess bigger than forgetting to exempt police from the new gun statute.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Open Letter To Sturm Ruger & Company

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has informed the public that its member mayors are looking at ways to punish firearms and ammunition manufacturers for opposing additional gun control. I think firearm-industry companies should preempt such discriminatory actions by the MAIG mayors, city councils, and city regulatory agencies.

Here is what I wrote to Ruger CEO Michael Fifer:

February 1, 2013

Sturm Ruger & Co.
Southport, Connecticut

Re: Proposed Procurement Discrimination By Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Dear Mr. Fifer:

First, let me thank Ruger for its effort to make it easier for gun owners and 2nd amendment proponents to contact their elected officials about proposed gun statutes. Though I had already been contacting politicians, I appreciate your effort to help preserve our natural right.

I was disappointed in the past by Bill Ruger’s tacit clear support of magazine restrictions. But I have been and am a proud owner of Ruger firearms, and I was glad to see that Ruger has changed its political stance since that time. I owned an SP101 and 10/22, before I moved to NYC a little over a decade ago and sold my guns, because of NYC’s draconian gun laws. Since moving to North Carolina, I acquired a P95. Ruger makes great guns.

It is my opinion that the gun industry should preempt any action the mayors take based on Mayors Against Illegal Guns’s threat to punish gun-industry companies for opposing additional gun control. I am writing under the assumption that the governments of those cities need the gun industry more than the gun industry needs their business.

I think Barrett did it best.  After California’s .50-cal ban, Barrett told agencies in California that Barrett would no longer sell nor service guns owned by those agencies. I don’t know that the best approach is to be confrontational, but in that vein, I have attached a model letter.

Another alternative, which I think the gun industry should seriously consider, is to actively encourage citizens to purchase firearms – even helping with the licensing process – in restrictive “gun free” cities, and even if it means that the de facto firearms are “double-barrel shotguns”.

Thank you for your time.

CR Cobb
Proud American, NRA Member, and Ruger Owner

cc: open letter


Re: Proposed Procurement Changes By Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Dear Mayor______:

Based on the recent statements by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in your name, [company] has decided to end any business relationship we have with your municipality. Since we oppose any additional gun-control statutes, we accept that you intend to proceed with discriminatory procurement practices against [company].

We are suspending all transfer of goods or services to your city, including but not limited to firearms, components, parts, ammunition, ammunition components, test data, and literature – excluding anything that would comprise a firearm- or ammunition-safety recall or safety literature.

If [company] has a contractual relationship with your city, then we will determine whether we are legally bound to maintain that relationship and proceed accordingly.

Due to our commitment to rank-and-file peace officers, we will continue maintaining relationships with individual officers, if those officers have or will acquire their duty weapons and ammunition privately and maintain private ownership.



Real Time Web Analytics