Mac Slavo had this to say about the recent listing of gun owners by a local newspaper.
He points up that the list is effectively a list of unarmed households, suitable for a hot burglary (one where the burglar enters while the people are there).
What he doesn't point up is that such a list also provides a list of targets where a burglar might find a gun, and also indicates tactics a burglar might want to use.
This makes everyone a little less safe. Security of any kind is largely based in keeping would-be attackers in the dark about capabilities of intended victims, or it could be listed as opportunities and threats in the target environment.
There is a saying that society is safer when the criminals don't know who has guns. It's true. It's usually used to support concealed carry, but it applies just the same to households containing guns. The long and short of it is that in his risk calculation, informal as it may be, the criminal will, if uninformed about who does and does not have guns, have to guess, which increases risk.
HOWEVER, even more than that: look at what happens when guns are registered! This is just the tip of the iceberg. History bears out that such lists also constitute hit lists for the bigger criminals: those who have co-opted government to instill tyranny.
For anyone who might think NRA or any other gun-ownership-supporting organization is "nuts" for opposing registration and licensing, behold: they were on target, weren't they!
It's time to pressure state legislatures, Congress and whomever else you can think of to dispense with even the first vestiges of licensing for guns and gun owners, and to make concealed carry legal without any licensing whatsoever.
28 December 2012
25 December 2012
Mercantilism Is Fascism Is Feudalism Is Illegal in U.S.
I'm adding this several days after writing the rest: Tibor Machan explains how socialism (and I would argue any centralist approach) ends up with an elite, and why it is counterproductive. It's just that good.
Once upon a time, only certain people, feudal lords, could own property, and it was a grant of some king or other. Everyone else rented. If a renter grew wheat on his little plot, that was fine, and he could use the milled wheat to pay his rent to the land lord who owned the property.
But the land lord, with the power of law (his law, his enforcers) forbade one's milling of his own wheat, and owned the only mill that the farmer was allowed to use to mill his wheat. And of course, the lord charged for the use of the mill, and this also allowed the lord to know how much grain the farmer had grown and thus how much "tax" to apply to the farmer in addition to rent and milling charges.
If you had a good lord, who understood how to keep a balance... understood how to use this system sustainably and hadn't overdrawn his own accounts with his overlord(s), then perhaps you had a good life and could prosper.
But, as history has born out, few lords with this kind of power are thus good; as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And this was why several colonies of upstarts insisted that the government could not justifiably and, as they arranged, legally establish people to be lords of this ilk; they said that all men are created equal, that the law was above any individual and had to be the same for all in the society. In the government installed by these upstarts, no government official could become a lord and controller of others, a law unto himself. And the people outlawed titles like "king," "lord," "baron," and so forth.
I am, of course, talking about the colonies that became the united states of America.
Enter the food police: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/salatin1.1.1.html
Once upon a time, only certain people, feudal lords, could own property, and it was a grant of some king or other. Everyone else rented. If a renter grew wheat on his little plot, that was fine, and he could use the milled wheat to pay his rent to the land lord who owned the property.
But the land lord, with the power of law (his law, his enforcers) forbade one's milling of his own wheat, and owned the only mill that the farmer was allowed to use to mill his wheat. And of course, the lord charged for the use of the mill, and this also allowed the lord to know how much grain the farmer had grown and thus how much "tax" to apply to the farmer in addition to rent and milling charges.
If you had a good lord, who understood how to keep a balance... understood how to use this system sustainably and hadn't overdrawn his own accounts with his overlord(s), then perhaps you had a good life and could prosper.
But, as history has born out, few lords with this kind of power are thus good; as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And this was why several colonies of upstarts insisted that the government could not justifiably and, as they arranged, legally establish people to be lords of this ilk; they said that all men are created equal, that the law was above any individual and had to be the same for all in the society. In the government installed by these upstarts, no government official could become a lord and controller of others, a law unto himself. And the people outlawed titles like "king," "lord," "baron," and so forth.
I am, of course, talking about the colonies that became the united states of America.
Enter the food police: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/salatin1.1.1.html
23 December 2012
Weighing In on Sandy Hook
Paul Craig Roberts on his Interview with the now MSM apparatchik RT
I tried to point out to RT Moscow that these news reports indicate that the accused dead gunman, whom no one can interrogate, if he is indeed the culprit, killed the children with handguns, not with an “assault rifle” left in the car, but that the medical examiner said the children were killed with rifle shots.
The discrepancy is obvious. Either the news reports are incorrect, the medical examiner is wrong, or someone other than Adam Lanza shot the children.
This was too much for RT Moscow’s news anchor. She cut me off with her statement that the children were dead by whatever gun. Yet, the focus of the program was on “assault rifles.”
Indeed. We're hearing from the kook squad of anti-gun about how "awful" are those "assault rifles." But Lanza didn't have the rifle in hand; it was in his car trunk, and he had handguns. And the kids were shot with rifle rounds. So, if it is thus impossible that Lanza was the shooter, where did the rifle rounds come from?
I tried to point out to RT Moscow that these news reports indicate that the accused dead gunman, whom no one can interrogate, if he is indeed the culprit, killed the children with handguns, not with an “assault rifle” left in the car, but that the medical examiner said the children were killed with rifle shots.
The discrepancy is obvious. Either the news reports are incorrect, the medical examiner is wrong, or someone other than Adam Lanza shot the children.
This was too much for RT Moscow’s news anchor. She cut me off with her statement that the children were dead by whatever gun. Yet, the focus of the program was on “assault rifles.”
Indeed. We're hearing from the kook squad of anti-gun about how "awful" are those "assault rifles." But Lanza didn't have the rifle in hand; it was in his car trunk, and he had handguns. And the kids were shot with rifle rounds. So, if it is thus impossible that Lanza was the shooter, where did the rifle rounds come from?
09 December 2012
Zeitgeist... Ugh
Another post in Open Letter mode, and is directed to Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist fame.
I just watched Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (yes, I finally got around to it. I also watched Alex Jones Anti-TZM Propaganda Debunked by Peter Joseph - Aug15th 2012.
The issue you have with Jones… Sometimes I’m not thrilled with Jones’ handling of things. But I have to ask you, what indeed would you do with a group, however large or small, of refuseniks?
On to the film:
There were big parts of it that I liked. Your open acknowledgement of existing ills of our social and political systems being the best of it. Of course everyone does that. But you were a bit more thorough.
However:
31 August 2012
The RNC 2012: Exercise in Domination
Will Grigg wrote most eloquently about the RNC here: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w277.html
We had a chance to beat the Democrat incumbent this year, but now it's gone. The Republican Party has clearly demonstrated that it would rather have a globalist-controlled apparatchik lose the election than an independent, grass roots-acceptable candidate who can win—and it will do absolutely anything to assure same.
The Complicit Media have done their part to assure that it will be apparatchik vs apparatchik instead of a real choice. Dirtbags ALL!!
We had a chance to beat the Democrat incumbent this year, but now it's gone. The Republican Party has clearly demonstrated that it would rather have a globalist-controlled apparatchik lose the election than an independent, grass roots-acceptable candidate who can win—and it will do absolutely anything to assure same.
The Complicit Media have done their part to assure that it will be apparatchik vs apparatchik instead of a real choice. Dirtbags ALL!!
17 July 2012
Constitutionalism
I 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.
That is the oath of office for Congresscritters.
Once upon a time, it was nice and simple, like this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." That was the original. You can see that an attempt has been made to enhance its enforceability—a couple of times, actually. The one we have today was put into play in 1884.
The Oath of Office of every other sworn public official in the United States is similar, particularly in holding the official to the U.S. Constitution. This includes state and local officials as well as federal ones. It varies considerably in wording, but it always first swears them to the Constitution, then to the laws and then sometimes to other officials (as in the case with the military Oath of Office). But it’s always the Constitution first—because, folks, it’s the law of the land, above all other laws under civil authority (i.e., not getting into natural and eternal law).
The Federal Government was created using the Constitution. The Federal Government is therefore not above those who thus created it and delegated authority to it. Notice that: the Federal Government has its authority ON LOAN from you and me and our states. It even exists at our pleasure; the states and the people could abolish it if we decided that was a good goal and undertook it effectively. If your boss creates a position and delegates authority to you, you do not become his boss and he does not lose the authority to run things in the area in which he’s delegated the authority to you; and he can remove the authority—and fire you, too. The states and the people built the Constitution, and the Federal Government is not above them. Not legally or morally, anyway. By firepower, it definitely is. The Framers even tried to protect against this latter: that is known as the Second Amendment.
That is the oath of office for Congresscritters.
Once upon a time, it was nice and simple, like this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." That was the original. You can see that an attempt has been made to enhance its enforceability—a couple of times, actually. The one we have today was put into play in 1884.
The Oath of Office of every other sworn public official in the United States is similar, particularly in holding the official to the U.S. Constitution. This includes state and local officials as well as federal ones. It varies considerably in wording, but it always first swears them to the Constitution, then to the laws and then sometimes to other officials (as in the case with the military Oath of Office). But it’s always the Constitution first—because, folks, it’s the law of the land, above all other laws under civil authority (i.e., not getting into natural and eternal law).
The Federal Government was created using the Constitution. The Federal Government is therefore not above those who thus created it and delegated authority to it. Notice that: the Federal Government has its authority ON LOAN from you and me and our states. It even exists at our pleasure; the states and the people could abolish it if we decided that was a good goal and undertook it effectively. If your boss creates a position and delegates authority to you, you do not become his boss and he does not lose the authority to run things in the area in which he’s delegated the authority to you; and he can remove the authority—and fire you, too. The states and the people built the Constitution, and the Federal Government is not above them. Not legally or morally, anyway. By firepower, it definitely is. The Framers even tried to protect against this latter: that is known as the Second Amendment.
06 May 2012
Pet Peeves: "Comprise"
Call it petty or ridiculous, the misuse of the word "comprise" drives me bananas.
Merriam Webster wonders at why it is such a sticking point for some since, according to them, the incorrect usage has been with us for over 200 years.
On the other hand, Merriam Webster also says that usage of the word at all outside of what amounts to science and academia is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Merriam Webster wonders at why it is such a sticking point for some since, according to them, the incorrect usage has been with us for over 200 years.
On the other hand, Merriam Webster also says that usage of the word at all outside of what amounts to science and academia is a relatively recent phenomenon.
29 April 2012
The Age of Reason Citizen
To be an age of reason, the time in reference must be characterized as a time when people in general are devoted to fact and truth above any other fealty. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be room for faith and familial devotion—quite the opposite, actually.
However, it would indeed preclude societies whose claim to reason is based on the leadership of one or a few persons, or of a particular caste of persons—an "elite." That's one reason why I find the Georgia Guide Stones so preposterous—in order to drive the dicta they present, there would have to be a caste that dictated to all others.
Thomas Paine coined the term, "age of reason" by writing a book and giving it that name. The book trumpeted values of The Enlightenment, which placed reason above the dictates of what he considered corrupt or corrupted religion, including the so-called "divine right of kings."
In short, the foregoing puts to its end any call for an age of reason that also calls for demagoguery of any kind, a caste system of any kind, an "elite" to rule the "commons."
However, it would indeed preclude societies whose claim to reason is based on the leadership of one or a few persons, or of a particular caste of persons—an "elite." That's one reason why I find the Georgia Guide Stones so preposterous—in order to drive the dicta they present, there would have to be a caste that dictated to all others.
Thomas Paine coined the term, "age of reason" by writing a book and giving it that name. The book trumpeted values of The Enlightenment, which placed reason above the dictates of what he considered corrupt or corrupted religion, including the so-called "divine right of kings."
In short, the foregoing puts to its end any call for an age of reason that also calls for demagoguery of any kind, a caste system of any kind, an "elite" to rule the "commons."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)