My Blacklist of Anti-Gun Companies and Organizations

eBay
Why?: Has banned the sale of "assault weapon" parts, bayonets that fit modern-military-style rifles, and 11+ magazines.
When?: Approximately 1/31/13, but not confirmed.
Proof?: Firearms, weapons, and knives policy on eBay's website (see assault weapon).
Extent of Treachery?: eBay still allows the sale of gun components, BUT it is acting like the Feinstein Modern Rifle & Standard-Capacity Magazine Ban for False-Security Bill has already passed. And they don't allow gun sales, anyway.
Rating?: Blacklisted.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Why?: Has threatened to punish firearms-industry companies with procurement restrictions, if gun companies oppose more gun control.
When?: Approximately 2/1/13.
Proof?: Minneapolis mayor's statements to Minneapolis City Council's Public Safety and Civil Rights Committee.
Rating?: Blacklisted. Brown listed? Handgun listed?
 
MORE TO COME
Banks
Etc. 

Growing Pro-Gun Blacklist Bumper Stickers and Buttons @ CafePress.com.

eBay Bans Modern Rifle Component Sales

Big corporations are inventing new anti-gun policies - or are discovering old anti-gun policies - to enFORCE in the wake of the official federal assault on modern rifles and magazines. eBay has followed suit.

eBay's Firearms, weapons, and knives policy. See the assault weapons section.

Big corps are running scared. It is time for some real entrepreneurs to step up their marketing efforts and takeover the business generated by eBay customers that want to sell their property. Here are a few that should benefit from eBay's cowardice.

http://www.slickguns.com/
http://www.gunsamerica.com/
http://www.gunbroker.com/

Thanks to The Truth About Guns for the heads up on this one. I am expanding my blacklist of anti-gun companies.

So, to put a fine point on it. Screw eBay.

Growing Pro-Gun Blacklist Bumper Stickers and Buttons @ CafePress.com.

What agencies have adopted the P95?

return to FAQs: Ruger P95
What agencies have adopted the P95?: There was a lot of excitement in 2004, when Ruger P95 fanatics read that the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command had purchased 5000 KP95Ds (decocker only). The Ruger that was built like a tank would be carried by tank drivers.

Glock G19 later supplanted the P95

But there was something wrong with that story. It was not too long after the USA had defeated Sadam Hussein, and the USA had decided to arm the new Iraqi Police Service with civilized handguns. The move was so quick that the USA needed to procure guns from several different manufacturers to fill the need. So it ended up that one of the biggest issuers of the P95 was not some patriotic law enforcement org, but our vanquished enemy that we were helping to haphazardly renation build.

So were there any other agencies that adopted the pistol? The Federal Bureau of Prisons bought 1750 DAO P95s, per a Ruger press release in March 2008, under a five-year contract (note: the Google date of Tactical Life's copy of the press release is incorrect.).

But you hear about cops carrying the P95? Well, a lot of police departments require the officers to supply their own weapons, and the officers have to complete training at a POST academy before they can apply for a job, and a lot of police academies require the cadets to bring a gun, and the Ruger P95 is a quality, inexpensive service-size and service-capacity gun for a job seeker on a budget.
return to FAQs: Ruger P95

Tyranny or Liberty: Representative Democracy's Failed Promise

Queen and Prince Charles given at least 39 chances to veto government policies before becoming new law

"Secret papers released by Downing Street show the most senior royals have had numerous chances to torpedo bills that could change their powers, including one relating to the Iraq war."
- The Daily Mail
 
1st thought: That's outrageous! 2nd thought: Well, Obama just makes up any old law he wants (legislature and executive in one - tyrant). 3rd thought: I guess that justifies their public-funds stipend, and all that land. 

I hear anarcho-capitalists say all the time that democracy is an illusion, and it sounds trite, but all the evidence is before us. Constitutions and representative democracy were suppose to be a break on the tyranny of the masses and absolute democracy, but instead we have allowed our representatives to become leaders (TINFOIL HAT WARNING: Obama seems ready to form a system of gauleiters). Our sheepdogs, our custodians of our natural rights, have become wolves. But that should not be surprising. In the USA, there are very early examples of even the founding fathers turning on the people (Whiskey Rebellion).

What was the P95 designed for?

return to FAQs: Ruger P95

Ruger P89

(UPDATE: 8/9/18)
What was the P95 designed for?: Well, the first gun in Ruger's P-series pistols was the P89 P85. The Ruger P89 P85 was designed for the service-pistol competition to replace the 1911. The Beretta 92 won that competition and became the M9 (beating out the Sig Sauer, which was debatably the better pistol, because Beretta offered lower overall cost including parts, etc. - but that's another story). The P95 descended from the P89 P85 and was Ruger's first polymer-framed pistol. It appeared to be an interim step, reducing production cost, weight, and using a proven fire-control system. But it also seemed to be a classic Ruger solution - time-tested functioning with advances in materials and production methods. Ruger had created classic firearms with the same methodology, for example the Mark I, Single Six, Blackhawk, No. 1, and Mini-14.

Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle

So to make a long story short and actually answer the question, the Ruger P95 was an evolution of Ruger's entry in the wondernine competition, which combined our military's move to NATO-standard 9mm and  America's law-enforcement organizations move from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. And as part of the evolution of those handguns, not only was the P95 Ruger's polymer offering, but it also was shortened to a service-length barrel of approximately 4 inches from the tactical-length 5-inch barrel - before 5-inches meant tacticool.

Glock G19

And to frame the Ruger P95 among it peers: The Ruger P95 is a basic carry pistol of the approximate size, weight, and capacity of a striker-fired Glock 19, Springfield XD Service, and M&P9, but it's old-school hammer-fired like a CZ-75 P07, EAA Witness Polymer Carry, and Sig Sauer SP2022.

CZ P-07

And it is still the highest-quality offering for a budget-entry, service-caliber, service-size, semi-automatic, new-production handgun on the USED market. (The Ruger P95 was quietly discontinued sometime during September 2013.)

return to FAQs: Ruger P95

FAQs: Ruger P95

What was the P95 designed for?: Well, the first gun in Ruger's P-series pistols was the P89 P85. The Ruger P89 P85 was designed for the service-pistol competition to replace the 1911. continued

What agencies have adopted the P95?: There was a lot of excitement in 2004, when Ruger P95 fanatics read that the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command had purchased 5000 KP95Ds (decocker only). The Ruger that was built like a tank would be carried by tank drivers. continued

The Judge Distilled The Truth

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=323593157742678&set=a.323593137742680.59978.316880428413951&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf
Well, The Libertarian, a UK libertarian blog, posted on its Facebook page that "Such sentiment sounds hyperbolic in stable countries in the west, but all citizens must be forever vigilant."

I was waiting for someone to object the the Judge's words, because I have seen this quote many times over the last few months. But  The Libertarian was not offering a condemnation. But neither were Judge Napolitano's words hyperbole. They are a distillation of the truth. Everyone, everywhere has the right to oppose their government, and if need be by force, if the government oversteps its written and natural bounds. Government does not have a monopoly of force; that is a myth.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

- Thomas Jefferson

I do think that Judge Napolitano's words are dangerous and are an affront to a government that disbelieves them, but then the government is dangerous.

Feinstein: Military-Style Weapons Are For the Police And Military - Not You, the 2nd Ammendent's Intended Bearer of Arms

If someone could sit through this whole video, then I commend you.

Feinstein rails against military-style weapons in civilian hands, but that is what the founding fathers intended. Feinstein plans to gut the 2nd Amendment by pushing the "sporting purpose" definition, while ignoring the THREAT of gun-free zones. There is no evidence that the founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment should ONLY protect the sporting use of arms.

I've gotten 10:31 minutes into the news conference, and there is already a lot of fiction, exaggeration, and lies by omission. www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310581-1

The Founders Couldn't Envision ARs ("assault weapons") Fallacy

The fallacy goes something like this: There were no semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines when the founding fathers were alive, and they did not write the 2nd Amendment to allow them. Therefore, civilians should only be guaranteed the right to own flint-lock, muzzleloading rifles.

So the police, military, and federal-agency statute enforcers will also have muzzleloaders? Well, that would be nice, but there was no intent in the 2nd amendment to limit technology to the people, and they were aware of and benefited from a game-changing technology in their time. The American civilian militia members were using privately-owned rifled weapons to provide accurate fire against the British. The rifle did not entirely replace the smoothbore, because the rifle took much more time to reload, but it did allow small numbers of Rebels to effectively harass soldiers on the move and incapacitate commanders in pitched battles.

Another thing, the 2nd amendment addresses arms. It doesn't say sporting arms or self-defense arms. It means weapons of war, including cannons and tanks (which are still legal by statute to own, not just natural law).

If SWAT has fully-auto arms when they're kicking in doors, or the USA military is carrying them around in our neck of the woods, then so should we. Parity to prevent tyranny.

Firearms: Sporting and Self-Defense Purposes

I could claim a myriad of sporting and self-defense purposes for a semi-automatic, combat-like rifle. I could say something like:

I enjoy preparing for the coming economic collapse.

I like playing Rambo on the weekends.

The Mayan calendar was wrong, but I know it's coming.

I enjoy three gun.

I've decided such a weapon is my best form of self defense.

But I don't need any of those justifications for owning and possessing my property. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. The natural right is not for some arms; it is for all arms.

The founders also wanted to make sure of one additional thing: that the common person would be an integral part of the defense of ones state, of ones military, as a citizen, as a private individual, with ones privately owned arms. A citizen needs an effective weapon that brings parity* with common military arms.


Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show Shoots Self In Foot
I'm glad to see that the major sponsors and vendor after vendor are abandoning the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, because they fail to see that shunning the black rifle or "tactical" weapons abandons the 2nd Amendment for a watered-down, "legitimate"-sporting-purpose privilege.

In the promoter's defense, Reed Exhibitions's markets the show as a "unique celebration of authentic hunting and fishing traditions." But the "modern sporting rifle" - I really hate that term, by the way - the modern sporting rifle has made major inroads into hunting and self-defense uses. Almost every maker of ARs makes a varmint version. Manufacturers of ARs and ammunition have been working for several years to develop systems that are effective for larger game. Some are not as scary looking, because they ironically have fright-disrupting camouflage. For example, there is the Remington R-25 in military-developed 7.62x51mm NATO.

http://remington.com/en/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx

And not to put too fine a point on the legitimacy of using military-style arms for sporting stuff - because we don't need to care - but the deadly-for-humans Springfield 1903 in military-developed .30 '06 bagged plenty of game, whether it was "sporterized" or not.

And not to belabor the point, but hunters putting ARs in the field "normalizes" the use of ARs. And once again, we don't need to care, but "normalizing" is one part public relations and one part "a right not exercised is lost" foil.

Michael Bane, putting it pretty well:

WE ARE UNITED!
I've read today about how hunters and shooters have "different needs," and how the NRA membership is "separated" from the NRA executive. Let me use a simple, easily understood word here:
BULL! 

*A couple firearms Acts put us at a disadvantage, illegitimately.

Closet Beer: Batch Awaiting A Name

I'd progressed through a few batches of cider over the last several months to the stage where my wife - to my satisfaction - stated, "It tastes like champagne." But it's been a while since I had made beer.

So last Thursday, I finally brewed beer again. I used old stuff. A Mr. Beer High Country Canadian Draft canned pre-hopped malt, Booster (corn-syrup solids), and brewer's yeast. I added two cups of European Formula Ovaltine. It's too malty and not chocolaty enough for my kids, so I figured that I'd try adding some to beer. To make sure that it wouldn't kill the yeast, I did a test fermentation of just Ovaltine.

Because I had yeast that had failed with previous batches, I started by proofing the yeast. It took an hour to brew, plus about 15 minutes ahead of time to collect the materials and review the sequence of steps. Well, I must have been overwhelmed by wishful thinking, because the next morning the yeast wasn't active.

So I did what I could. Lacking more brewer's yeast, I proofed and added some rapid-rise bread yeast. I've used it before for cider, so I am hoping with a little aging it won't negatively affect the flavor.

I'll probably bottle by this Saturday. I'll be naming this one in a few weeks, when I taste it.

Next batch? I don't like using corn syrup, so I am definitely thinking all malt. It will probably include some extract, but that would still be a slight advance toward real-home-crafted beer. Or maybe I'll try another cider. The last one was really good, but it required more time to age and clarify. Time to add a step - racking.

Why am I using a lame Mr. Beer unit? Well, I'm closet brewing - not even whole-closet brewing at that. So I am limited for space. Also, I don't know how much more I want to invest in the process, but I definitely want to invest enough to make some good beer - and cider. Like I wrote above, I want to start racking.

Apropos: First Lady's Apocalyptic Fashion Statement

Credit: CBSNews.com/Getty

Frankly, I don't care what the First Lady wears. I don't care if Michelle Obama wore the same outfit from Target three days running; she probably has 10 of everything, anyway. I don't care if she wore a $5000 dress to some ball; she or her cronies have money to burn.

But ... but, when she was trotting down those steps in the Capital building before the President's re-inauguration, I noticed something. It reminded me of something I had seen before. Her coat looked familiar. Ah, yes:

Credit: Memory-Alpha.org

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, when the Enterprise had an encounter with Q, Q chose the setting of a WWIII Earth to put humanity on trial. The soldiers wore uniforms that the First Lady's coat alarmingly mirrors.

Who's In Control?

Heard this on Episode 52 of the Anarchast podcast.

Beware of the military-industrial-financial complex.

- James Turk, reformulating Eisenhower's warning during Eisenhower's farewell address

James Turk is the founder of GoldMoney.com and author of The Collapse of the Dollar.

But is it really true that we are slaves to the money manipulators? This video gave me new food for thought on the subject, and especially gave the USA dollar's divorce from the gold standard in the early 1970s a little extra flavor:


Well, did Nixon really set the stage for our perpetual involvement in (and creation of ) Middle East conflicts by permanently suspending the gold standard, refusing calls by foreign governments to return their gold, getting OPEC nations to accept dollars (petrodollars) only for payments on oil, and guaranteeing Saudi oil-field security?

Was Iraq invaded for dropping the petrodollar? Was the Syrian insurgency started because Syria dropped the petrodollar? Was the Libyan insurgency started because Gaddafi was starting the gold dinar currency, and was dropping the petrodollar? Egypt? Iran is working an alternative currency, and all of a sudden Iran is enemy number one? Not to say that the tyrants don't deserve to be toppled, but why are they toppling now?

Tyranny or Liberty: What are we on the cusp of?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. 
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. 
-- Thomas Jefferson

I Propose a $1-Billion-Coin, Get-Out-Of Debt Scheme

The $1-trillion-coin concept will never see the light of day. The Federal Reserve and the big banks would never stand for the "market stability" created by such a "cut and dry" solution. I think the concept will be whittled down to a $1-billion-coin scheme. Here's why:

The Fed has backed itself into a corner with interest rates, therefor it can't perform as much of its weekly magic of inventing and destroying currency (fake money). In an unholy alliance between the "private" reserve and government, the Fed will transfer some of it's magical powers to the Treasury. The Treasury can mint $1 billion coins weekly, then on every Friday it can announce how many trinkets it is releasing into "circulation" (to the Fed).

A $1-billion-coin scheme would better allow the government and the Fed to "respond to market realities." HA. HA.

Credit: The New York Times

But back to reality!?! Nobel Laureate [for Economics-LOL] Paul Krugman ACTUALLY THINKS the $1-trillion-coin scheme could replace the need for raising the debt ceiling. He really wrote so in "Rage Against the Coin" in his weekly column, The Conscious of a Liberal [What?].

I still think the $1 billion coins have a better chance of seeing the light of d̶a̶y̶ the Federal Reserve vault. They would just be more conducive to money manipulation, because of their  l̶i̶q̶u̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ divisibility.

The Shared Right To Nullify

Nullification - it's not just for states anymore. Actually, it never was JUST for states.

Proposed nullification by a state:

1 AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law
2 which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit
3 the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on
4 firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming;
5 providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.

- State of Wyoming, HOUSE BILL NO. HB0104, Firearm Protection Act

Nullification by a local government:

"My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold." 

- Sheriff Denny Peyman, Jackson County, Kentucky

Nullification by an individual:

"I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and [Diane Feinstein's] misinformation campaign against the American public."

- Cpl Joshua Boston, USMC (Ret)

Today's Tinfoil Hatter is Tomorrow's Well-Informed Citizen

To paraphrase Ron Paul on InfoWars with Alex Jones: What was thought to be crackpot prophecy a decade ago has come to pass in reference to what our government is doing with monetary policy and our person freedoms.


So when there is semi-concern for being a tinfoil hatter on blogs like The Smallest Minority, I am bothered and comforted at the same time. It is easy to see a massive government conspiracy, and it is easy to see plain-old business as usual. The truth is most likely somewhere in between. So be scared, be critical, and keep thinking.

Side Note:
I am still on the fence about DHS and other agencies purchasing so much ammo. Maybe they will shoot it all up practicing. But on the flip side, the Department of Education has no need for SWAT teams. Also, most other agencies have no legitimate reason for LEOs. We have too many agencies running around enforcing statutes (unlaws) for victimless crimes. And if the agencies stop practicing for long enough, then they will have a shitload of ammo.

It's Not A Freedom System; It's ...

Fascism. It's a hot-button word. Dangerous. Divisive. But I can't find another word for what our government is - or has been - turning into.

Socialism? Well, there are socialistic elements to it. The easiest description for the socialism we see in our country today is: socialism - a panacea for the angered masses. Socialism in our current government system is a tool - not the system. National socialism was a misnomer for Germany's style of fascism. And to put a fine point on it, here's what Gerald Celente said on Lew Rockwell's podcast January 4:

The entire game is rigged. I began by saying: "Too big to failed." The big corporations are in control. What is that? ... The definition of fascism, according to Mussolini, is the merger of state and corporate powers. The corporate powers are in control.

But Benito Mussolini provided us with a polite term:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. (Brainyquotes.com)

But there is a problem. Apparently, Mussolini didn't say that. Oops. No matter. What fascism did was incorporate corporations into the state. That's like what the 14th Amendment to our constitution did, when it guaranteed - in a round about way - corporations personhood. Personhood was apparently granted earlier by Supreme Court decision. 

As a side note, states have incorporated marriage into the state by granting marriage licenses.

So what are we left with? Is the marriage of big business and big government fascism or corporatism? Well, it's not freedom. Let's call it statism. And I'll define it myself:

Statism - the marriage of the state with itself in an unholy alliance with any other power that serves the state.

"Elementary" Philosophers - Private Arms

Suggested by Stephen P. Halbrook PhD in "That Every Man Be Armed:"

Pro Private Arms:
Aristotle:
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (quoted on Quotes on the Rights to Bear Arms by Eric S. Raymond) Cicero:
"I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."(quoted in "The Sword & The Tome" by David Kopel) Algernon Sidney:
"Nay, all laws must fall, human societies that subsist by them must be dissolved, and all innocent persons be exposed to the violence of most wicked, if men might not justly defend themselves against injustice by their own natural right, when the ways prescribed by public authority cannot be taken." (quoted in "The Scottish and English Religious Roots of the American Right to Arms" by David Kopel) Also:
John Locke
Machiavelli

Anti Private Arms:
Plato
Caesar
Robert Filmer
Also:
Jean Bodin
Thomas Hobbes

New Year's Resolution: Finding The Good In People

Credit: The Washington Monthly

As one of my New Year's resolutions, I am focusing on finding the good in people. Since I disagree with just about everything Paul Krugman writes, Piers Morgan is a blithering idiot, and I want to ease into this resolution, I’ll start with President Obama.

I can’t for the life of me think of anything good to say on my own, so I googled it. The Washington Monthly, which ironically I’ve never heard of, posted a “comprehensive” list of Obama’s accomplishments back in March 2012. Had to scroll down to #9, since the top 8 are accomplishments that I cannot accept as *good.*

"9. Repealed 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell': Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time."

EDUCATE YOURSELF! That's an Order.

All orders from this pitiful little blog are optional, as should be all orders in our armed forces (flame attraction device).

But I digressed before I started:

One thing, and one thing above all else, that all freedom apologists must do is this:

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

It doesn't take much, and if you don't like to read, then there are podcasts, audiobooks, and tons of YouTube videos. One excellent selection is this speech by Judge Napolitano (retired, I assume):


Now I suspect his past deeds, but he does say in the video that he had sworn to uphold the law. That's his get out of jail card. My get out of jail card for voting for Bush I, Perot, Gore, Bush II, etc., is labeled "Was Uneducated."

Even if you don't believe everything the writers promote, the von Mises Institute is an excellent FREE resource of videos, audiobooks, and electronic books. If you are not technically savvy enough to immediately benefit from their offerings, then educate yourself in computer technology - or blackmail an associate of yours to get the goods.

If you live outside the U.S., then don't despair. Natural law, freedom, liberty, and the market of ideas are universal and available to you no matter where you are or where you're educated (Well, that's also true for us who were brainwashed in USA government schools. Hint: I though Lincoln was a good guy, too!). A special note to those in China: I promise not to mention "aliens" in most of my future posts. I read that your government is scrubbing that dangerous word from your Internet access. (I'll try to do a China version of this post soon!).

So Long Story Short: To defend freedom in our current social environment, you need to educate yourself. (Hint: That's almost impossible to do in any public or private grade or post-secondary school).

So, here are some quick resources to start:

Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom. Under "Free Stuff" there is a hyperlink called "Learn Austrian Economics." As far as I can tell, the resources are all free.

LewRockwell.com for great podcasts. You'll probably be taken back by the anti-government stance, but the more you listen the more it makes sense.

Anarchast.com for great conversations with anarchists.

Ludwig von Mises Institute. For all the great, free books, videos, and articles.

Reason.com. Great counter point to all the liberal media - and the neo-conservativish (like FoxNews) media.


YouTube.com. Search "anarcho capitalism." You're sure to find some unreliable wacky stuff, but most of it is honest-to-god free market gold.

Security is the key to minarchist libertarian thought, and the straw that will break the back of the government's last, great monopoly (false monopoly). An (unendorsed) illustrated excerpt from David Freedman's lecture "Exploring Liberty: The Machinery of Freedom" is a must see about free-market security.

I'll try to update with more resources soon, but I might become distracted.

Natural Rights Fundamentals - Property Rights 1.0

Been reading up on natural rights, primarily "classical" versus "modern[?]." The classical view appears to be that the fundamental natural right is to do what nature intended us to. Therefore, property rights cannot be absolute, but they are still a fundamental component to the fundamental right. Also, the government is not given carte blanche to control resources.

I was happily reading along with classical natural rights. Edward Feser nicely illustrated the classical view and how property rights are secondary (though needed out of convenience and to preserve motivation) to ones right and obligation to fulfill ones nature in Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Private Property on the Library of Law and Liberty website. But I hit a hitch with Feser's example of first-claimer rights in Reply to Block on Libertarianism is Unique on Mises.org. His example - well, the one I stopped reading at - was that under modern natural law a claimant could claim air and suffocate another. If you take any law to it's extreme, then you might find an exception. And who is to say that each person in the example wasn't improving the air by breathing it and that both had claim to it - on those terms?

I got on this issue, because of a conundrum: How can natural rights be preserved in a country like the UK, where a landed aristocracy controls such a huge portion of real property? Well, researching that conundrum actually led me to a new question: Since William the Conqueror took "possession" of all the land, then "redistributed" it to "client" Norman nobility, then can the current owners be legitimate owners? As a side note, technically (apparently) the UK monarchy owns all the land in the UK.

In another side note, there is the right to ramble. In Scotland, they appear to have put a BandAid on the problem by preserving the right to ramble - or roam, Freedom to Roam. It is fair to say that the right to roam is an "ancient tradition" in Scotland, but with the land in so few hands it's a nice pressure value. It's also fair to say that that right has been expanded in other countries. Reminds me of the social-security nets that proliferated after the failed revolutions of 1848. A panacea for those itching for freedom.

So back to my main question. How are natural rights to real property real, when so much land has been misappropriated? In the UK, the Domesday Book could give an idea of who really owns the property, but the 1000-year lag and other reasons that true owners could not be determined would make any dependence on ancient rights another misappropriation. In the UK, the question is real since, apparently, landownership is not fully know, since landownership is only recorder with transactions (How can they possibly collect property taxes? Do they have property taxes?) - or the other land audit, that wasn't very specific, in the 19th century. When does a chain of misappropriation end?

If We Could All Agree To Really Protect and Defend The Constitution

In question of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

- Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

 If we could all agree to really "protect and defend the Constitution,"  instead of just saying the words to get a job, take an office, or be a member of a group, then we would be back on the road to preserving our freedoms.

I, CR Cobb, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. 

 - Federal Civil Servant Oath of Office, 5 U.S.C. §3331

All federal-bureaucracy employees take the above oath - even Census enumerators. It is time for them to abide by it. We all should, even if the "office" is a sales office, a checkout counter, or a machine press.

Even if you think central government - or government for that matter - is a defective concept doomed to failure, forcing it and ourselves to abide by its central tenants would chain it  - not us.

Happy New Year!