28 December 2012

See How Gun Registration Is Used...

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.

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

23 December 2012

My World, Described


So well said.

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?

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.