Automatic For The Free People

The subject of machine guns has come up a few times of late & I thought it'd be useful to have a post to point folks to instead of retyping the same arguments repeatedly. So let's have a brief discussion on what machine guns are & why they're not only important, but vital to a free people. 

Mars Bringer Of War

It's a piece by Gustav Holst from his suite The Planets. I admit I prefer works from the Classical & Baroque periods with an occassional fondness for the Romantic but there are a few 20th Century pieces that I enjoy. The Planet suite is one of them. The opening piece starts off in 5/4 time but shifts to 5/2 & then later 3/4 (told ya I liked uncommon time signatures). Its dissonance & dark haunting melodies have made it one of Holst's most recognizable works & in it you can almost hear premonitions of William's Imperial March from the Star Wars soundtracks. Wikipedia's media section on The Planets' page has the first four movements of the suite (Mars, Venus, Jupiter & Uranus respectively) in "play in browser" as well as downloadable formats. If you scroll down to the 2002-2003 season you'll find The Peabody Institute has MP3's of The Planets suite as well. But for your convenience here's the Toronto Symphony Orchestra's vid of their performance of Mars, the Bringer of War (Part 1 & Conclusion) (& on the right side of the screen you'll see vids of them doing more of The Planets suite if you care to listen - & I do recommend checking out Jupiter if nothing else).

What follows will be about war. One in which we are currently engaged.

Witness Pics



The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.


The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.

Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.




8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps



& this is the first target shot with handloads again.

As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.

For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two

Cult of Personality

Living Colour. Here's the video. Not my favorite tune by them (for example Broken Hearts, Broken Hearts [acoustic], What's Your Favorite Color?, Open Letter To A Landlord, Funny Vibe & Love Rears Its Ugly Head get more play on my music engine) but it is a good example of what they're capable of, & generally I dig their sound cause they're a damn good band.

Without going into too much detail (I am psuedononymous after all) I was someplace doing non-gun nut things & saw a very pretty woman. I viewed her from the back & side at an angle & could tell she was very attractive. She also looked a little lost & I was almost contemplating walking up to her & striking up a conversation (or attempting to). Then she turned around & after I noticed her smile what I saw disgusted me so much I gave up any notion of communicating with her. It wasn't her face or body or the way she styled her hair; she had a t-shirt on with a pic of Hitler. & it was not a satirical thing at all; it seems she admired him.

Now y'all are with me right? It'd be a waste of time to approach her when her "hero" is such a polar opposite of anyone I'd respect. The correct thing to do would be to simply shun her right?

But it wasn't Hitler on her t-shirt. It was another mass murderer who was not as talented at his craft (but was just as brutal) as Hitler. The face on the shirt belonged to Che Guevara.

Paul Berman penned an article entitled The Cult of Che; Don't Applaud the Motorcycle Diaries.

Now why on earth would young people who seem reasonably intelligent wear a shirt featuring "The Butcher of la Cabaña"? Well it's something like the principle expressed in one of my favorite Reagan quotes:

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

What they see in that two-bit wanna-be thug isn't the petty tyrant who used force to impose his vision on his (& other) people. What they see is a man of vision who saw the oppression of capitalism & risked all to fight against it. They see the Time article which grants him the martyr status he always wanted. (you can find it here cause I'll be damned if I hotlink that piece of journalistic tripe http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html )

They remember this:

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."

& not this:

"The great lesson of the guerrillas' invincibility is taking hold among the masses of the dispossessed. The galvanization of the national spirit; the preparation for more difficult tasks, for resistance to more violent repression. Hate as a factor in the struggle, intransigent hatred for the enemy that takes one beyond the natural limitations of a human being and converts one into an effective, violent, selective, cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be like that; a people without hate cannot triumph over a brutal enemy."

Or this:

"I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal. He gasped for a little while and was dead. Upon proceeding to remove his belongings I couldn't get off the watch tied by a chain to his belt, and then he told me in a steady voice farther away than fear: 'Yank it off, boy, what does it matter.' I did so and his possessions were now mine." * Diary entry from Sierra Maestra on the shooting of fellow Eutimio Guerra which he suspected of passing on information (1957)

(All Guevara quotes are from the Wikipedia entry)

Guevara would have been as bad as Hitler or Stalin or Mao if he'd been any good at what he was trying to do. But he was a punk. A brutal punk to be sure but he failed. When he was killed ("murdered" as The Times article puts it) he was trying to get his revolution on in Bolivia. Now according to the Berman article linked above he hadn't been able to recruit any of those Bolivian peasants he was allegedly fighting for.

As Alex Singleton put it:

"...It always seemed odd to me that people wanted to associate themselves with someone they knew so little about. In reality, supporting Che was just about making a statement - of sticking it to companies, America and the West.

Making Che Guevara into someone worthy of admiration is the most successful thing the 'Left' has managed to do in the past fifty years. This is the man who had no shame in murdering innocent civilians, was a major human rights violator, and put gays (who were 'deviants'), religious minorities and other undesirables into concentration camps. Some hero."

But I've seen the following attributed to Guevara (though I cannot find any source or citation):

"I fight not out of hate but out of love"

Bullshit. The only love he fought for one that of his own power & ambition.

Kathyrn Jean Lopez has noticed the trend in Guevara t-shirts & is not enamored with them:

"Is a Che t-shirt on the Christmas wish list of someone you love? If you love truth, justice and basic human rights don't fulfill that request. Give your loved one a quick history lesson instead...a complete Che Guevara portrait would include an executioner's soundtrack. As a biographer wrote: '... Che, as supreme prosecutor, took to his task with a singular determination, and the old walls of the fort rang out nightly with the fusillades of the firing squads'."

Anthony Daniels in an article called The Real Che relates the following:

"With few exceptions, the devotees of the cult of Guevara know little about him or what he actually stood for. This has always been the case. In 1968, only a year after Guevara’s death, a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University, John Gerassi, published a collection of Guevara’s speeches and essays, in whose introduction he relates the impact news of the death of Guevara had upon his students:

On October 9, 1967, the first news of Ernesto Che Guevara’s alleged death reached the United States… . I was approached by a nineteen-year-old coed. She had tears in her eyes and a 'Make Love Not War' button on her breast. 'You don’t really believe it, do you?' she asked. 'I mean, he couldn’t really be dead, could he?' … [T]here were many liberals and many pacifists [in the class], in addition to the radicals. And yet to all … the news of Che’s possible death was very upsetting and very personal. Che had obviously caught their imagination. They respected and admired him. They knew very little about his life… . But they knew enough to know that he was an idealist… . Thus it became apparent to me, as we talked that day, that these liberal and pacifist students felt, incredibly, as if Che had died for them."

& Mr. Daniels makes a very valid point about the film The Motorcycle Diaries:

"...It is as if someone were to make a film about Adolf Hitler by portraying him as a vegetarian who loved animals and was against unemployment. This would be true, but again would be rather beside the point."

Jay Nordlinger also wrote of the real Guevara

The fog of time and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Che. Who was he? He was an Argentinian revolutionary who served as Castro's primary thug. He was especially infamous for presiding over summary executions at La Cabaña, the fortress that was his abattoir. He liked to administer the coup de grâce, the bullet to the back of the neck. And he loved to parade people past El Paredón, the reddened wall against which so many innocents were killed. Furthermore, he established the labor-camp system in which countless citizens — dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals — would suffer and die. This is the Cuban gulag. A Cuban-American writer, Humberto Fontova, described Guevara as 'a combination of Beria and Himmler.' Anthony Daniels once quipped, 'The difference between [Guevara] and Pol Pot was that [the former] never studied in Paris'."

Sean O'Hagan in a piece called Just A Pretty Face? quotes Christopher Hitchens:

"Che's iconic status was assured because he failed...His story was one of defeat and isolation, and that's why it is so seductive. Had he lived, the myth of Che would have long since died."

So more or less what probably explains the fascination with Guevara is simple ignorance. The kids with the Guevara t-shirts simply don't know who the hell he was. they only know what they think he was - a romantically tragic figure who lived & died for his ideals. & that'd be all well & good but his ideas included constructing labor camps for artists & writers who didn't get this whole revolution thing, not to mention putting bullets into people who were not under arms or posing a threat - they just simply disagreed with him.

I have some ideas & principles that'd I'd fight for. Some of them I'd kill over & some of them I'd die for. But not one of those involves imposing my will on anyone else (except the one about imposing my will to live on anyone who tries to kill me, but that's a semantic point). & generally it is good to have ideas or principles that mean more to you than your own well being does. But it's the substance of those ideas that matter.

If you'd kill someone over your desire to have the coolest shoes on the block I'm going to judge you as being morally bankrupt. If you'd die to keep a neighbor of a different ethnicity from being herded into a cattle car by an oppressive government then I'd have some admiration & respect for you.

Guevara - I cannot stress this enough - the boy was a punk. A mark ass ig'nent thug-wannabe scraggly headed punk. He wasn't any different than the guy Capone had running around the neighborhood collecting protection money. The only thing to be regretted about his death is that it didn't come much sooner in his life.

His ideals & goals, if realized, would have enslaved everyone under his dominion. Marxian beliefs when realized afford the greatest tool of the tyrant that modern day man has known. In order to exercise enough power to control an economy to that degree you necessarily have the power to control the individuals within that economy & most people do not have the will power to resist using that control. Sure, they rationalize it; it's just to hasten the ideal state, etc... but they use it just the same. & to the same ends. Those ends are invariably the limitation & in some cases the extinction of personal freedom. Whether it's the main goal or just an unintended consequence is irrelevant.

He is seen possibly as a rebel fighting for the Rights of the people, but in actuality he was a rebel who disrespected the Rights of those he claiemd to be fighting for. Such is the way with most Marxists.

But Guevara lives on the chests of young men & women across this country. There's an anti-Guevara movement (which I understand is especially strong among Cuban born Americans) but it pales next to the cult of Che that seems to spring up anew every year from the colleges.

I must point out this anti-Guevara site complete with anti-Guevara t-shirts. & here's an amusing story from Babalu Blog about wearing an anti-guvara t-shirt in Miami. Here's a site with more anti-Guevara t-shirts.

But perhaps my fav anti-Guevara merchandise can be found here.You'll see it at the top. It says: "My American revolutionary kicked your commie revolutionary's ass!" I’d buy it & wear it the next time I’m in Boulder, but I’d hate to be filmed for an episode of “When Pacifists Attack”.

So next time you see someone, especially a youngster, wearing a Guevara t-shirt, try to take some time & explain who Guevara really was. It's better to believe that these kids simply are ignorent of history. The alternative is to believe that they know who Guevara was & want us (as in us capitalist Americans) to die as badly as he did, which would really ruin my faith in the american fast food system.

Absolutism 301: Felons

You want axe murderers to be able to walk into a store & just buy a gun?"

If you've ever argued against the federal or state laws creating classes of persons prohibited from owning arms then you've heard that sentence (or one very similar) before.

The flippant answer is of course you're more concerned with him walking into a store that may have axes.

The serious answer is you're more concerned with him walking into a store.

Before I dive in here are the links to the previous installments attempting to explain the Absolutist reasoning:

Absolutism101: Prior Restraint
Absolutism201: Principle v. Pragmatism

The Federal restrictions on people owning a firearm are found in 18 USC 922. Start at (b) for the restrictions on whom a dealer may sell to (which covers the age restrictions) then to (d) for the prohibition on those indicted for or convicted of a crime (among other things), then to (g) for the restrictions on possession of firearms of the person whom those above mentioned conditions apply. (i) & (j) covers possession of stolen firearms. (n) prohibits those under indictment (for crimes that carry a penalty of more than 1 year) from legally buying or receiving firearms. (x) deals with juvenile possession of handguns & handgun specific ammunition. (y) defines & lists exemptions for aliens.

18 USC 921 deals with definitions. (a) (14); (a) (15) & (a) (20) are of particular relevance.

In fact, here's (a) (20) in its entirety:

"(20) The term ''crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year'' does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms."

(a) (32) & (a) (33) define the domestic violence misdemeanors & restraining orders used a a basis for disqualification.

18 USC 925 (c) establishes the procedure for getting a reprieve from disabilities on the federal level. It should be noted however that since the early 90's congress has refused to fund this activity, hence no relief from a firearms disability has been granted under 18 USC 925 (c) in over a decade.

& just so ya know, 18 USC 931 prohibits violent felons from possessing body armor.

18 USC 924 deals with penalties for violating anything found in 18 USC Chapter 44 (which encompasses all firearms laws except the National Firearms Act which is found in 26 USC Chapter 53).

So now that that's all on the table let's surmise:

If you've been convicted of a crime that can land you a sentence of one year or more (or in some cases 2 years & excluding certain trade &/or business law violations) or a misdemeanor relating to domestic violence, or if you're being indicted for a crime whose punishment can exceed one year (or in some cases 2 years & excluding certain trade &/or business law violations) or if you're subject to a restraining order pertaining to domestic violence then you cannot legally purchase or receive a firearm in the united States. With the exception of the indictment mentioned above if any of the conditions of the preceding long-ass sentence apply then you cannot legally possess a firearm or ammunition in the united States.

To give you an idea of what kind of criminal activity creates such a disability under 18 USC Chapter 44 we have only to look at 18 USC Chapter 61 Section 1301:

"Whoever brings into the United States for the purpose of
disposing of the same, or knowingly deposits with any express
company or other common carrier for carriage, or carries in
interstate or foreign commerce any paper, certificate, or
instrument purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance,
share, or interest in or dependent upon the event of a lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in
whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any advertisement of, or
list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of, any such lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme; or, being engaged in the
business of procuring for a person in 1 State such a ticket,
chance, share, or interest in a lottery, gift, (FOOTNOTE 1)
enterprise or similar scheme conducted by another State (unless
that business is permitted under an agreement between the States in
question or appropriate authorities of those States), knowingly
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce information to be used
for the purpose of procuring such a ticket, chance, share, or
interest; or knowingly takes or receives any such paper,
certificate, instrument, advertisement, or list so brought,
deposited, or transported, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Now I'm no lawyer (I make an honest living) but if I read 18 USC 1301 correctly then if you get caught & convicted for mailing your cousin that newspaper ad for the Islamabad lottery where the grand prize is 2 chickens & a ferret then you can no longer legally own a firearm in the united States.

I know I've been sleeping better at night after I read that.

It's been said that importing an orchid can get you into the prohibited class regarding firearms. That seems to be the case. It's apparently enough probable cause for a search warrant (more on that incident can be found here & here). So bringing a flower into the country can cause you to legally lose the most effective means of self defense available.

Again, my slumber is sounder knowing those vile flower-mongers will never wield projectile weapons again.

I could go on but honestly it's time consuming & logically exhausting searching the u.S. Code. It's almost like the damned thing was written by lawyers, for lawyers. The point is that it's not merely axe-murderers who are prohibited from legally owning a firearm in the u.S. & I think most people would agree that the category encompasses too many folks who really aren't a danger to society. Of course there are the strict law & order types who assert that any violation of the law shows a lack of judgment & therefore just grounds for disqualification from owning weapons. I'll try to get to those folks in a bit.

What sticks with most folks though is the question that started this post. "You want axe murderers to be able to walk into a store & just buy a gun?"

The obvious answer is of course no. But the problem I have is not the result (axe murderers not able to get a firearm) but the method of achieving it. The problem wouldn't be that he or she could legally purchase a gun after serving time for murdering someone with an axe; the problem would be that he or she is not still serving time for murdering someone.

All murders are not equal. I'll grant that. There could be some circumstances where a lighter punishment than life in prison is warranted. But I cannot fathom why we would be okay with letting someone out of prison in the first place that cannot be trusted with a firearm. If a person is released then in theory his debt to society has been paid & we should assume he's capable of possessing dangerous objects without going on a murder spree.

After all no law prohibits a convicted axe murderer from buying a car upon his release. Bleach & other assorted dangerous chemicals are not off limits. Hell, a convicted axe murderer can, on the day of his or her release walk into any hardware store & buy a friggin' axe! Yet somehow we're worried about it being okay for him or her to buy a firearm?

Laws prohibiting persons from possessing weapons do not prevent crimes; they encourage them. How? By creating a defenseless caste of people. The axe murderer wouldn't have any qualms about stealing a pistol or buying one from the black market if he intended to modernize his particular crime fetish. But the 65 year old man who got off with 3 years probation instead of the 5 years federal time for importing a verboten flower? Odds are he'd not think about obtaining a firearm. If anyone knew this & had criminal intent then our 65 year old flower fiend would be ripe pickins for a robber.

But let's suppose our 65 year old felon who liked forbidden flowers too much for the feds liking realized that he needed some sort of defense for his home. He procures a single barrel shotgun just in case someone breaks in. Well if someone breaks in & he uses it or if the cops otherwise find out then he's a felon in possession & in danger of jail time yet again. All for wanting to defend what's left of his life.

Yes; if we drop the prohibition on felons (as defined by federal law) possessing arms then there will be some very bad people who legally have guns. Axe murderers, rapists, child molesters, bank robbers & the like. But honestly, if they were not reformed do you really think a law that carries a few years jail time to back it up would make a dent in their plans to commit a capital crime such as murder?

I’m not saying that since some people will disobey the law then we should do away with it. What I’m saying is that since the law does not prevent folks with harmful intent from doing harm but it does prevent those without harmful intent from preventing harm by protecting themselves effectively then we should scrap the damned law & try a different approach.

"But it'd be one more charge to throw against them & keep them in jail longer." Well if that's the case then we should make it illegal to wear shirts. That way anyone caught wearing a shirt after he's committed some other horrible crime can have the book thrown at him. Course the problem would be that we all wear shirts & then it becomes a discretionary issue of who gets jailed. Much the same way the laws against owning & carrying arms are used, since I’d wager the majority of “weapons offenses” that lead to jail time are not committed by violent predatory criminals. But that’s what you get when you play that game; the ones you least seek to harm are harmed most while those you wish to be contained just aren’t bothered by the law.

The problem isn't not having enough to charge someone with; the problem is not having stiff enough penalties for the malum in se crimes. The answer is in reforming the sentencing guidelines as well as putting judges on the bench who realize containment, not rehabilitation is the key goal for those who are a legitimate danger to society.

OJ. Let's talk about OJ. Everyone knows he did it right? Well everyone except a jury of his peers. But let's say OJ wants a gun. He can buy one right now (well assuming California, in its infinite wisdom, hasn't banned the model he wants) despite everyone knowing he killed two people.

Now tell me are you more concerned about OJ legally buying a gun or about our fictitious (but based on real models) 65 year old flower felon buying a hogleg nice & legal like?

Most of you would be bothered more by OJ packing than a flower fence carrying a gun. But the way our laws are set up the exact opposite is the case; the feds are more concerned about any felon than they are about a person people just know murdered two others in an act of rage.

For the record neither one of them packing would bother me. That's the beauty of possessing arms - other armed people are my equals & do not have an automatic advantage. But even if I was unarmed for some unthinkable reason, the 65 year old man doesn't seem to have any harmful intent while OJ really doesn't need a gun to kill.

That's the harm of prior restraint laws - they punish the innocent far worse than the guilty. Someone intent on climbing through your window then killing & raping you (in that order) isn't bothered in the least by obtaining arms. Someone who had too much pot on him or who didn't do his taxes or who had ammunition in Illinois without his papers being in order or who imported the wrong kind of flower would be much more inclined to obey the law even when it disarmed them.

It would not be a crime free utopia if felons & other prohibited persons weren't proscribed in their possession of arms. But it would give a few people who had no harmful intent an option in case they were ever the victims of a violent confrontational crime.

The current law & any variation which prohibited people who are otherwise free in society from having arms prevent very few real criminals from being equipped enough to do their nasty work while preventing otherwise decent folks from protecting themselves.

Now let's look at a few cases from SCOTUS on the subject:

BARRETT v. UNITED STATES, 423 U.S. 212 (1976)

Barret held that a felon who did not cross state lines still was subject to the prohibited persons provisions of the GCA because the firearm (&/or ammunition) had crossed state lines & thus triggered the Interstate Commerce Clause's power. This is seemingly contradictory to a 1943 case, TOT v. U.S., 319 U.S. 463 & was mentioned in the dissent of justices Stewart & Rehnquist. Also mentioned by the majority opinion was UNITED STATES v. BASS, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) which found that a nexus between possession & interstate commerce must be proven in order to convict under the felon in possession law, but in Barret it was explained away as dictum.

So the current case law holds that it’s proper for congress to prohibit felons from possessing arms even if they are not engaged in interstate commerce or involved in any harmful activity.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not justify such congressional action as prohibiting a certain class of person from owning arms. I do believe there's an even better argument that the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibits them from performing such actions. But the courts aren’t exactly well known for their constitutional literacy or flawless reasoning.

The problem is one of conditioning. Even gun owners usually say they don't want those danged convicted axe murderers buying guns all legal like. It's simply hard to convince folks that any prior restraint is morally wrong when they've been conditioned to accept it for so long. Likewise politicians, who usually have the moral fiber of a desperate crackhead, don't want to be on the record for "arming axe murderers".

Pragmatically the law does more harm than good. No person who wishes to cause harm is really going to be hindered by it. Black market firearms are all around. But say for some reason it is harder to gain a firearm, there are many other items that can be used to cause harm & even death. Some are even more deadly than a firearm.

Who is hurt by the law are not the axe murderers, but the flower felon & others whose offense was not genuinely indicative of a predisposition to inflict unjustifiable harm. They are denied arms for their own defense because of a standard set by congress which congress arguably lacks the authority to impose.

It's just damned hard to beat a sound byte that says "candidate x wants to arm axe murderers".

Now to the law & order argument. As I mentioned above there are some folks who feel that any felony is indicative of a lack of judgment &/or respect for out laws & therefore it’s just to prohibit such persons from possessing arms.

A love for law & order doesn’t usually motivate such sentiments, but fear. The idea that a person would knowingly & willfully disregard some law scares the hell out of people. It doesn’t matter if the law is a prohibition on murdering children or a prohibition on importing orchids. It scares them that such a person might wield power; enough power to defy them, or what they feel is right..

”Do you really think a person who wrote bad checks & got convicted for it has good enough judgment to own a firearm?”

That’s another argument I’ve heard. The most effective counter-argument (imho) is this:

I cannot say they exhibited great judgment in writing numerous bad checks, but I can say I worry more about the judgment of those who would decide who gets to be armed & who doesn’t. Their crimes are in the past & do not harm me. The power for someone to judge whether or not I may exercise a Right does harm me, as well as society.

There are people I know of that shouldn’t be trusted with dull shiny objects. We all know such folks. But the problem is not in that one person being denied, but that someone would have such power to deny a person. Look at any place where there’s a discretionary permit system in place for firearms possession or carrying. You won’t have to look hard to see abuses of the system, or denials for folks who genuinely mean no harm & would do no harm except in justifiable self defense.

I’m a fairly stable person. I do have a nasty tendency to tell people what I think, even if what I think is that person is an ass. I also tend to run my mouth & not comply when I think a dictate is unjust. Because of those two things it’s very conceivable that someone who does not know me would deny my arms if it was within their discretion to do so. Despite my having been a very safe gun owner for decades.

Further look at what’s happened already. In 1938 we ceded to the feds (actually that socialist bastard just took it) power to prohibit violent felons from legally buying arms. In 1968 that changed to mere felons. In the late 1990’s that changed to include certain misdemeanors & restraining orders. Does anyone wish to bet that the next attempt will be for simple misdemeanors? How about “excessive” traffic violations? After all, if you can’t be trusted to operate a car safely how can you be trusted with a firearm?

By giving the government (or anyone for that matter) enough power to disarm someone who is otherwise free in society we make it easier for said government to disarm us. I mean you & me. That bothers me much more than any lack of trust in any person or persons who are among us in society. I’d much rather risk having the person whom I wouldn’t trust with dull shiny objects being armed as well as the recently paroled axe murderer than letting someone else (especially someone in government) get to decide who is worthy of being able to defend themselves effectively. In the former state I at least have a fighting chance as I’m armed as well. In the latter I might piss off the examiner & be defenseless by law even though the axe murderer won’t be inclined to obey such a proscription if he wishes to continue his bad habit.

Making a mistake with the law is not a true indicator of violent or negligent dispositions. Now robbing a liquor store & shooting the clerk is a good indicator that such a person isn’t ready to meld with the masses. But by attempting to disarm the ones we shouldn’t let out in the first damn place we only disarm those without harmful intent.

It’s a hard sell, & not in the least because we’ve had this sort of law around for 70+ years in some form or another, but it has been & will be a chink in our armor if we continue to accept the idea that some folks are more free than others. Eventually that same precedent will be used to disarm someone you know whom you’re also positive had no harmful intentions or negligent leanings. Even worse it may one day be used against you.

Instead of backing laws that disarm felons we should back laws that keep the violent predatory types separate from society while allowing everyone who we deem safe enough to be free to actually be free.

So the Absolutist position on felons & firearms can be summed up thusly; if a person cannot be trusted with arms, he cannot be trusted in society. Any law that attempts to make exceptions to that, especially if based upon prior restraint, is not a good law in principle or practice.

If a person walks among us freely, then he should be able to defend his life from unjustified attack. If we deem him unsafe to defend himself then we should not release him into society.

Again though we have generations of condition & misapplied reasoning to counter. It's not an easy task, but one we must undertake. After all, the freedoms we preserve may very well turn out to be our own.

ATFU: Gun Owners' Public Enemy Number One

Of Arms & the Law linked to this story about the ATFU hearings in Congress. I think it deserves a fisking.

Shall we?

All That We Are

"Milton Peterson was adamant that he would not leave. The retired 57-year-old said his wife had died earlier this year and that the house was full of too many important things of her's for him to leave. His six grown-up children had already left. They had wanted him to leave as well, but he had refused. He had never been outside Louisiana and he had lived in his house for 37 years. He was ready to lock himself behind the iron bars of his house and wait for the police to come for him. 'I don't know people in Chicago or New York,' he said. 'Why would I want to go there? What do I know about those places?"

From an article called New Orleans: Police go door-to-door to clear out last residents

That is why folks, at least some folks do not want to leave. That is why some folks will resist leaving however best they can.

In the movie Gods & Generals there's something rather fitting. It's a dialogue between General Lee & one of his aids. His aid points out that Fredericksburg, Va. is where Washington was rumored to have cut down the cherry tree & thrown the silver dollar across the Potomac. Lee responds thusly:

"That may be so Mr. Taylor but it has an even greater significance to me. This is where I met my wife. That's something these yankees do not understand will never understand.
You see these rivers & valleys & streams... fields, even towns... they're just markings on a map to those people in the war office in Washington. To us, oh my goodness they're... birthplaces & burial grounds, they're... battlefields where our ancestors fought. Places where you & I we learned to walk, to talk & to pray. Places where we made friendships &... oh yes fell in love. & they're the incarnation of all our memories... Mr. Taylor, & all that we are...all that we are."

Typed words cannot do justice to Duvall's delivery of those lines.

The cops in New Orleans - you'd think they'd understand. You'd imagine they'd have some sympathy. They apparently do not. They look upon people wanting to stay in their own damn homes as a problem to be solved. They are no better than any foreign invader who comes to subjugate a people & sack its lands.

" ...defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic..." heh. Foreign & domestic indeed. We've all heard that, even if just as a throw away line in a movie. Do we really understand it though?

If an army came up from Mexico or Canada & attempted to do these things we'd be pissed; & rightly so. But what does it speak of the nation that the outcry over gun confiscation & forced evictions is only coming from a small community of folks who are typically derided as "gun nuts" or "right wing nutjobs" or "anarchists"? Is it truly any different that it's being done by domestic agents instead of foreign ones?

Yet how many folks have heard any outcry in the MSM? Hell, did anyone hear any conservative talk show hosts raising any sort of fuss about this? It's anecdotal but I have not.

I have seen lawyers & lawyerly minded folk trying to explain how this might be legal &/or constitutional; how the courts are not "equipped" to second guess an official in this sort of situation. I've seen gun nuts counsel that bloodshed would be bad for us & our best hope is to take it to the courts.

Does any of that stop a thug with a badge from pointing a gun in your face? Does that prevent a lowly sunuvabitch from tackling an old lady? Will that stop them when they come across someone who will not lay down his arms?

No; the courts offer little refuge. I would ask those same folks if they advise people to plead before a judge when a burglar breaks into their home? They will undoubtedly say no.

& the "rule of law" crowd - the rule of law is a concept where the rulers are bound by the same laws as the people they rule. In other words if a government does something contrary to law then it's the government who has abandoned the rule of law, not the people who seek to lessen or stop the damage caused by such illegal activity.

Law enforcement apologists for years claimed that should gun confiscations be ordered you'd see a lot of cops refusing to comply or walking off the job. The only cops I know of walking off the job were when looters ruled the streets. They didn't do it in solidarity with the looters, let alone sympathy for the gun owners. Their reasons are their own. But has anyone heard of one cop since then who has thrown his badge down in disgust at the orders he was told to execute?

This is troubling. I am not surprised by the feds going in to steal folks' guns. But the locals? the local cops? In NYC I would not be surprised, but in a city of the South? In New Orleans? Granted New Orleans has a corrupt police force, perhaps the most corrupt in the nation, but is that rot so deep that concepts of home & freedom & property are alien to them? Has New Orleans or America fostered a society so removed that the words Duvall uttered in General Lee's name have no meaning? Do they not understand or care that an old man wants to stay on his own damn property, where his life was lived & the evidence of it provides some comfort?

I'm reminded by the words of that Louisianan that they call Bocephus:

"...if you ain't into that we don't give a damn..."

I'd like to know how the culture can be so removed from itself that the local cops have no moral dilemma in stealing guns & kicking people out of their own damn houses. But in the present it doesn't matter why; it matters what.

There's an old SCOTUS case that says (more or less; excuse the paraphrase) that dispassionate reflection in the presence of an uplifted knife is not a realistic expectation. Knowing the why is nice, but that does not mean you should not focus on the what until there is time to do so.

We can focus on the why. The people whose homes are being invaded & their guns stolen from them cannot afford to do so. The why can be helpful for us as we try to concentrate on preventing this kind of thing from happening elsewhere. It's a diagnostic tool that we should employ.

But right now I simply don't care. I don't find any of the justifications I've heard or thought of so far as being remotely defensible. Why do they want to steal guns from the people? I really don't give a damn; not about them (the gun grabbing public servants) or their reasoning. I care about the folks who are being victimized by them. I care about the rule of law that they are disregarding. I care about the constitutions which they are disrespecting. & finally I care about myself because I know it wouldn't take much for me to be one of those people wondering why the nice officer is beating down my door.

"...[they] do not understand will never understand." As for what happens to public servants who rob & scatter people by force I do not care will never care what becomes of them. The only thing they understand is force. I hope the good people of New Orleans realize this. I hope you do as well.

...So Long As 100 Of Us Can Remain Alive...

On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.

Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:

"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."

The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:

"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."

That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site WalkforWallace.com.

700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.

Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.

Oh Good Grief

This is not directly gun related (though I might play a round of "Six Degrees of John Moses Browning").

Gretchen Wilson is being asked by some ass in Tennessee (actually the AG, or Ass, Generally) to stop using chaw (i.e. smokeless tobacky) at her concerts.

"State officials said
Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, 'Skoal Ring.'
That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said."

WTF??? Exactly how does it violate an agreement miss Wilson was not a party to?

"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts,' Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. 'Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."

Huh. Well I wonder how many "young people" read papers that have asshatted quotes from the AG of Tennessee? Doesn't that impart a duty on him to remove his head from whoever's orifice it's currently entrenched in? After all, we wouldn't want impressionable young folks to start acting like self righteous controlling statist assholes now would we? I mean aren't there negative effects of participating in such behavior, well other than being accused of being a lawyer? (To all my lawyer pals, nothing personal, but damn - jerks like Summers give the other 2% of ya'll a bad rep).

"The landmark $206 billion tobacco settlement 'provided that advertisements such as this would be and should be prohibited,' Summers said."

Hmmm. I am almost certain that "advertise" was used in the sense of compensating a person or company for the promotion of their wares or services. That would exclude the more generalized sense of advertise (i.e. AG Summers advertised both his ignorance of the law & his disdain for private actions not controlled by the state with his asshatted statements).

"U.S. Smokeless Tobacco does not have an agreement with Wilson or any artists to promote its products, said company spokesman Mike Bazinet. Summers said his office is also contacting the company about the use of its products at Wilson's concerts."

Hmm So Summers, being the astute paragon of legal intellect that he is, is claiming that an agreement between party A (the tobacco companies) & party B (the government) is enforceable against party C (miss Wilson). What a brilliant actionable strategy. I know; next why doesn't he make Smith & Wesson sign an agreement - wait, not Smith & Wesson since some still aren't over the last time they did that - let's get Rug...er, Col... Damn. I'm running out of untainted firearms makers. Let's get the firearms industry to sign an agreement with the government saying that none of their products will be "advertised" during a crime. That way should anyone use on of their firearms while committing said crime then the AG can write them a letter telling them to stop cause kids are impressionable.

Asshat.

Disclaimer: I don't know miss Wilson. I've heard one or two of her songs but only in parts. I did hear "Redneck Woman" when I was in the Carolinas, but it was performed by my friends in a band called Latitude not by miss Wilson. (In case you missed it the url was for Latitude; Myrtle Beach's finest Beach, Dance & Party music duo - now hopefully they'll stop calling me about that 20 bucks I probably owe them ;D ) Further I don't use Skoal or any other form of smokeless tobacco. I smoke cigarettes with an occasional cigar thrown in the mix. I am not being paid by miss Wilson, Skoal, or any group generally opposed to asshattery in public orifice office holders.

I am a musician though & the idea of the state even having a freakin' opinion on what I do that is not against any law, legit or contrived, is as repulsive as Tipper Gore's explorations into a new special place back in the mid 80's. I don't care if smokeless tobacco is bad for you. I don't care if fast food is bad for you. Nor do I care if language or subject matter is offensive. If you don't wish to be subject to that kinda of thing then don't go to the damn venue where it's occurring. If you don't want your children to be exposed to that kind of thing then don't let them attend the venue where that will be occurring.

I mean bloody hell, what's next? Banning t-shirts or caps cause they have a picture of a firearm? - oh, nevermind. Or perhaps suspending young children for playing cops & robbers at school? Er, nevermind again. Oh surely some places haven't proscribed the spelling of the word "gun" have they? Ayup.

The root of this (& here's how it does come back to firearms, albeit indirectly) is the desire to prohibit things that aren't thought to be proper. Even when things are popularly accepted there are some who would deny those things to others based on their own beliefs. (Temperence anyone?) It's different in specifics for sure, but the base is constant: someone is doing something I do not approve of therefore I will try to get them to refrain. Now acting asan individual I can tolerate a bit of that. But as an individual I can also tell you to go straight to hell & disregard any entreaties to stop whatever my "offensive" behavior is.

Summers is not acting as an individual. He's acting as an agent of the state of Tennessee. He has not told anyone they must stop doing anything, but the weight of the state is presumed to be behind him if he did so. If he wished to voice his concerns to miss Wilson as an individual then it wouldn't be that much of an issue for me. But to use his office to ask someone to reduce or eliminate a legal behavior because he does not approve of such behavior is a subtle yet brutal strike at the notion of a people not controlled by the state.

Sure, smokeless tobacky might be bad for ya, but it is not the states' place to protect us from ourselves. The states' place is to protect us from each other whenever we try to disparage the equal rights of one another. Anything more than that is more dangerous than any substance in a can could ever be.

Considering the title of some of her songs ("Redneck Woman"; "Pocahantus Proud"; etc.) I sincerely hope miss Wilson does not give AG Summers the typical southern courtesy & keeps the Marlboro red between her lips while she tells him to kiss her country fried ass.

Independence Day. The 229th anniversary of a statement of freedom from a government that impeded individual liberty. (Please note: the holiday is called Independence Day. It occurs on the 4th of July. Unless you typically wish people a happy 25th of December or ask if they have plans for the 31rst of December then please try to refer to the holiday by its rightful name. Referencing it by its date belittles the import of it to just another day that you don't have to work & the banks are all closed - thanks.)

Some are unhappy with the way things are yet hopeful. Some othersare unhappy with the way things are & feel dejected. There is a long list of grievences to be unhappy about for sure. Though unspoken as the cause, it's not difficult to speculate on the nature of some folks depression.

I was thinking about making a big long post filled with links to support the greivences I have against the government - or perhaps more accurately the ones it seems to have against me. The links above do a fine job of that, even if they're somewhat understated. Instead I'll point you to this post on Patriots' Day; this one about the Mecklenburg Declaraion of Independence & the Mecklenburg Resolves; this one on The Declaration of the Causes & Necessities of Taking Up Arms (No Quarters has more on the Document that We Forgot); this one on Independence Day; & this one on Bill of Rights Day. I'll also point you to The War on Guns' Patriots Day post as the pictures sum up things too accurately. Tell Me How Do I Get To My America? is another one I'd ask you to glance at. & it will be much worth your while to visit this post of IsThatLegal's where an Independence Day speech by then AG (soon to be Supree Court justice) Robert Jackson is transcribed.

Today is not a happy one for me. I think of my state & the Republic which she is a member of & I find little comfort or cause for celebration. I won't wax dramatic on you about it but I will say that I have little or no faith in the government & not much more in the people. Churchill said that it's good for an uneducated man to read a book of quotes. I admit I have found this to be good advice for myself at least. Sometimes words from others give solace & comfort to a troubled soul. I will leave you with some excerpts of folk more sober in thought & spirit than I am currently.



"Suppose two-thirds of the members of the national House of Representatives were dumped into the Washington garbage incinerator tomorrow, what would we lose to offset our gain of their salaries and the salaries of their parasites?" - H L Mencken

"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." - H L Mencken

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar" - H L Mencken

"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." - H L Mencken

"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage" - H L Mencken

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights" - H L Mencken

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods" - H L Mencken

"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man" - H L Mencken

"The ideal government of reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone" - H L Mencken

"It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen;it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly." - H L Mencken

“The average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” - H L Mencken

"Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do" - R A Heinlein

"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment" - R A Heinlein

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects" - R A Heinlein

"Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare; most people want to run things but want no part of the blame" - R A Heinlein

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" - R A Heinlein

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it" - Ayn Rand

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims" - Ayn Rand

"Evil requires the sanction of the victim" - Ayn Rand

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master" - Ayn Rand

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws" - Ayn Rand

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" - Ayn Rand

"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off" - Ayn Rand

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" - Ayn Rand

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" - Sir Winston Churchill

"It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required" - Sir Winston Churchill

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government" - Alexander Hamilton

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual" - Thomas Jefferson

"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?" - Harlan Carter

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . ." - James Madison

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

For a few more quotes look here.

Fire On The Mountain

No; not The Marshall Tucker Band song.

There was a made for T.V. movie that debuted in 1981 on NBC. Buddy Ebson played John Vogelin, who had property that the government wanted but he refused to sell. The government told him that he'd be put off his property one way or the other & he told them to go to hell. The movie was called Fire on the Mountain.

I watched it twice (it was re-ran a few years later) when I was a kid but haven't seen it since. It stuck with me though. It struck me deeply at the time & I'm sure I'd feel the same if I saw it again. I recall everyone who watched it with me feeling the same way to one extent or another. In fact I know very few people who wouldn't have been rooting for "ol' Jed Clampett" when the gub'mint tried to kick him off his land. But it was simply a story about an old man who wanted to spend the few years that he had left on his own property & an uncaring government trying to force him off.

It was a good movie. Damn shame I can't find a copy of it now, especially in light of recent events.

I assume that you're heard the sorted details of Kelo v. New London. I also assume that you've seen the reactions. Say Uncle has been following the eminent domain issue for some time & he took things pretty hard (as we all should have). Others had a more defiant way of expressing their disapproval with the notion that all property belongs to the government. Still others are just plain pissed.

Me? I'm disappointed in the courts as I am every time they screw something up. I wasn't surprised though. None of us should have been. This particular part of the path started a long time ago; roughly the time when it was societally accepted that the government can charge you rent impose protection money taxes on your property annually & force you to seek permission for any changes you want made to your property through various zoning laws & building permit schemes. Pissed off at SCOTUS? Ya damn skippy. But no one should be surprised at this. It's just the next logical step in the path we've taken.

Now let's look at some other steps that should be obvious. They're not ideal steps for anyone involved, but I fear they're unavoidable. There will be someone, perhaps several someones at different locations in different times, who simply refuse to give up their homes for whatever reason. The papers will portray them (posthumously of course) as extremists or criminals or in some other negative light. About ten of us will remember them for a few months then forget they ever existed. Kevin pointed out that society is just too apathetic to make a stand.

Mr. du Toit spoke a while back of what it'd take to push people into action. I think he put it correctly that it's not just one thing but several that usually get people off their asses. He also makes the point that property rights are usually at the heart of such actions. but Say Uncle makes an equally valid point:

"...Sure, I made a half-hearted comment about sending guns to Connecticut but its pointless because I can’t send them balls."

Which brings us back to a comment Kevin made to one of his posts:

" 'I wonder how many Carl Dregas it'll take.'
A lot more than there will be.
Remember Marvin Heemeyer?
Pretty much nobody else does either."

I've got another name for you: Andrew Mickel. Ring a bell? He was just convicted in April of killing a cop in 2002. He killed the cop to make a political statement about the infringement of our civil liberties by the government. He issn't right wing though; he seems to be a left leaning anti-corporation type libertarian. & that is probably why you didn't hear much about him in the press - he was too close to being one of theirs.

I don't condone what Mickel did even though I understand the frustration which led to his actions. But Mickel being wrong isn't the point; the point is that someone acted against government (albeit wrongfully) & very few people took enough notice to remember his name let alone consider the merits or lack thereof in his actions.

Randy Weaver. A lot of gun nuts remember him for much the same reason Harry Potter was famous before he even attended the Wizarding School; he was the one who lived. He was attacked by the federal government & he survived (although his son & wife were murdered during the ordeal).

David Koresh & Elian Gonzales also come to mind when we think of heavy handedness by the government, but Koresh was the one who fought back, so we remember him posthumously. & honestly the press carried so many stories filled with allegations of child molestation that many gun nuts don't want to remember him as they think he's a bad mark on us all.

Of course there's also Timothy McVeigh. He's remembered, but as a definite bad example. His actions put the government in the role of the victim with the individual in the role of villain.

But how many folks remember the Bonus Army? Hell, how many people have ever even heard of the Bonus Army? At the time it generated enough public sentiment to be a factor in electing the Great Socialist to office but now I doubt 1 in 100 people would know anything about them.

So any examples of people taking on the government are forgotten, unless they put the government in a desirable role. Let's face it - individuals are losing the PR war. The press is too sympathetic to government expansion as long as it's in line with their way of thinking. If a person who kills a cop or two gets caught with Marx's work in his home then he barely gets mentioned, but if that same person were caught with Randy Weaver's books then he's a right wing extremist.

I think it's safe to presume that any use of force against the government will not generate a public outcry on your behalf. Odds are you won't be remembered a week after you're dead; maybe less time if American Idol is having finals. If you are it'll be because the press succeeded in painting you as a horrible person.

There will be people who do resist government over eminent domain, gun control or a host of other issues. What will happen is when someone takes a stand the papers will run elaborate stories on the brave cop who was brutally murdered & left behind two small kids, & go on to mention how a John Ross novel ("a popular cult author amongst right wing extremists") was found on the same block as the person who senselessly murdered the cop. Just look closely at the news & you may catch a glimpse of them. There won't be detailed stories about the person's multi-year struggle with the government, or the questionable nature of the law being enforced or the method used to enforce them, just all the dirt that can possibly be found or implied on the person in question.

Gun owners don't have a good reputation. We own guns. That's usually enough to put us on the wrong foot with the press. There won't be any PR favors done on our account. So don't look for them. In fact expect the opposite. If you try to protect your life or your property by force against criminals you usually spend too much time reading negative critiques of your actions - & that's against habitual criminals. If the habitual criminal has a government badge then you can kiss your 10 minute spot on Oprah good-bye.

Why am I spending so much time talking about image & public perception? Because I think that half the gun nuts out there believe that if they barricade themselves in their house that word will spread & the Militia will come to their rescue. Hell, I'd like to believe that. I'd like to believe my bank account has several more zeros on the right side of the decimal point than I remember. But wishing does not make it so. The press will have any & all skeletons out of your closet so fast it'd make Paris Hilton look like a slow moving nun. What the press can't find it will allege. & any person who thinks about assisting you will have second thoughts when it hears the anonymous source recount how you told them about your secret desire to rape wounded puppies.

Still certain people will reach a point where they either make a stand or turn tail & flee. About 1 in 1,000,000 will make a stand. & I cannot say that I won't sympathize with them, I just know I probably won't be in a position to materially help them. If I ever reach that point I know it'll be my & my shadow. That's the grim reality we face; divide & conquer is the government's most effective strategy against us both philosophically & materially.

In Fire on the Mountain there was a sympathetic character. He was fighting an impossible battle against overwhelming odds with Right on his side. He died. Anyone making a stand against government would be lucky to generate a millionth of the sympathy that Ebson's character did. But they will most likely die, albeit not as nobly as Ebson's character.

I'm pissed about Kelo. It was a slap in the face to anyone who dared read the 5th amendment's Takings Clause. & there are some things I will take a stand over. But I rent. I rent because I see it as less pretentious. Paying yearly protection money to a government is not "owning" property to me. Neither is begging leave to build on said property & then having my work inspected. I rent because it's honest. It gives me no allusions. I do not own the property I live on just as I wouldn't really own the property I claimed to own. In my case the landlord owns the property I rent, whereas if I bought something I'd be in the landlord's position of thinking I owned it when in actuality the government is merely letting me tend its property for it.

So Kelo won't directly affect me. But it hurts just the same as it takes us one step closer to a Marxist view of property Rights. It's not a surprising step but it's not one I feel good about us taking.

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"

That's from Marx's The Communist Manifesto.

Here's another excerpt from that same piece which may put things into perspective:

"...Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." Check.

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Check.

"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance." Working on it.

"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Working on it; see Asset Forfeiture for more detail.

"5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Let's call this one almost done with just some final tweaking left.

"6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." FCC, FAA & TSA have it under control.

"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." We've got our best people on that.

"8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." Not yet, but we have some ideas about how best to approach those things. See Americorps.

"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." We like to call it "urban sprawl".

"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." Check.

What SCOTUS did with Kelo was merely to reaffirm the goal of Marxism in relation to property while setting Locke into high rpm mode.

It's been very gradual. Incremental is the popular phrase. But I fear that Marx has won. No; we're not completely communist or even completely socialist. But we have all the essential building blocks of such a system in place. We just need a push or two in a few instances to take us the rest of the way.

The main idea of Rand's Atlas Shrugged was that if the ones who society leeched off of the most would go on strike eventually society would become disarrayed. If you’re doing 90% of the work at a company but only getting 2% of the net, by going on strike you force the company to realize your value & hopefully they'll reflect that in their next offer. I feel that Rand was overly optimistic. While there's a desire on some level to say "to hell with it" & let the country get by without my efforts the truth is the government has too much reserve. For the attrition brought on by non-participation to take effect it'd have to be on a massive scale & even then it'd take decades. Similarly a John Ross style revolution would be ineffective. Achieving it on a large enough scale to be effective would prove impossible & ultimately it would just fuel the governments inclination to dissolve any pretense of liberty we have.

So what to do about Kelo? Part of me says to do what I do; rent. Stop playing the real estate game under such rules. But there simply wouldn't be enough people to make any sort of impact. The dozens or even hundreds that sold their homes to rent a place would be quickly replaced by people eager to buy into the illusion of owning something. & chances are with government assisted loans.

Passing laws on the local level has been suggested, but here's the problem: even if you do get an acceptable law passed, the very next legislative term could see it reversed. An acknowledgement of property rights in a constitution is the best bet we'd have against governmental disregard for our property. But that's been tried before. It'd be just as silly as England making confrontational crimes illegal again. If they couldn't read the parchment on the wall yesterday what makes you think they will read it tomorrow?

Go buy a couple hundred rounds of ammo. Then shoot it at a safe shooting range. Try to do this at least once a month if not once a week. While you're shooting I want you to do something that should be very unpleasant. Think about what it would take for you to say "no farther" & defend yourself against governmental intrusion. Don't think about killing some faceless jackbooted thug to protect your children; think about Joe Blow from two blocks over. You went to high school with him & heard he just had a baby girl. Now think about him with the badge on coming to take away your guns, your house, whatever that last straw would be for you. Not because he wants to but because that’s what his job is & he believes it’s proper. He just wants to get it over with quickly & peacefully & go home to see how his new daughter is doing. Now think about it just being you against this friend of yours with a newborn baby at home. Now think about him not just coming with the badge, but a court order & the full blessing of government on a state & federal level. & don't think it'd be just you & him; it'd be just you alright, but with about 5 to 25 others just like your old school chum. That's what you should think about before talking mightily about taking it to the streets. Think about it just once, & remember vividly any conclusions you came to. That's the position you'd be in if you did draw a final line around something. If more than one in ten could pull the trigger on a paper target while merely think about those things & the implications I'd be surprised.

Still, buy the ammo & practice. If for no other reason than it's an enjoyable way to not think about things like Kelo. Course I do have one idea; since prevention is one of the most important aspects of the 2nd amendment we should work with that.

April 15th is Buy A Gun day. November 19th is National Ammo day. Let's make June 23rd American Range Trip day. Bringing some ART into the world would be appropriate, especially on a date which 5 people so artfully dodged the plain text of their controlling document. There’s a catch though - since 2006 would be the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights (if they'd have survived that is) let’s say you must expend at least 215 rounds downrange. In 2007 it’d be 216 rounds & so on with each new year. Any firearm chambered for any cartridge is cool, but I'd be much happier if you had at least one .30 rifle (bolt or gas operated) on the line.

I'm pessimistic about this or any other action having any positive effect on the nation as a whole, but as with too many things in this world, sometimes it's preferable to do something, even if it's in vain, than to do nothing.

Course if anyone finds a copy of Fire on the Mountain on DVD for sale let me know. I could use a good movie right now. I think we all could.