Saturday, June 18, 2016
Would a few more than the current 20,000+ gun laws already on the books have stopped this? Really?
What finally ended the mass murderer, Omar Mateen's, bloody shooting spree? Was it a law? Nope.
It was a bullet, wasn't it? A bullet fired from the gun of another person who put an end to the killing of even more innocents. In this case it was fired by a cop, but in tens of thousands of other instances the killer was stopped by an ordinary person who had a gun and knew how to use it.
There are very few cops and they can't be everywhere, can they? Nor should they be. Everyone has a right and a duty to defend their own lives and property. And history has proven, irrefutably, the best tool that exists on the planet to defend against a violent aggressor is a gun. A gun in the hands of a cop or in the hands of an ordinary person. Both face the same risks, don't they. How many cops got shot here? So who really needed to be armed the most? The cops or the victims?
A gun is the greatest equalizer there is. What would have happened in the Pulse nightclub if 4 or 5 or 10 or 20 of the other people there would have been armed and proficient in using a gun? Would 49 people still have been murdered? Or do you you think Mateen might have been stopped before he could only murder more than a few people?
Look, he was stopped by a bullet wasn't he and how long did it take for that bullet to reach him? The cops got there pretty quickly but they didn't stop Mateen for three more hours. How many people were murdered in that time span? What would have prevented their deaths? More laws? More infringements on inalienable rights?
Or more guns in the hands of the victims and the people inside?
This isn't rocket science. It is simple common sense logic.
If bad guys have guns then good guys have to have them also. At the same time! Otherwise the good guys will always be the victims.
As long as there are bad people, more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are the answer and always have been no matter what your rulers tell you.
If laws alone stopped criminals we wouldn't have criminals, would we?
By definition a criminal is someone who ignores and disregards laws, right? And what gives any law teeth? A "good guy" with a gun, right? All laws are backed by and enforced by people with guns one way or another. Cops are called law enforcers, aren't they?
Bad people, people who want to hurt, rob, assault, murder and control other people will always have guns, no matter what laws exist to prevent that. History is absolutely clear on this. Those bad people are criminals, right? They don't care about laws and ignore them whenever they choose. However, they love laws which disarm their chosen victims and make them easier to harm. That is why these massacres always happen in places where the people are known or expected to be disarmed and easy targets. Again, that is just common sense.
4 or 5 armed people in that club would have changed that whole outcome dramatically and many more people would still be living their lives on this earth if they had been "criminals," too.
And do you notice how all the people clamoring for more gun laws, which only serve to create more potential victims for the criminal class, are protected by armed bodyguards? Why do they think their lives are so much more valuable than yours? Why are they such hypocrites? Shouldn't that make you question their motives at the very least? And question their character, integrity and morals for valuing your life and liberty so little? They demand you be unarmed and at the same time they make you pay for their bodyguards.
Face the facts. Ultimately, a gun in the hands of a good guy stopped the bad guy here. And a gun or guns in the hands of more good guys would have stopped Mateen even sooner if there hadn't been laws preventing it. Those laws were one of the main contributing factors to all those murders and injuries. Mateen knew or had every reason to believe he would be relatively unopposed since guns were banned from that bar.
How many mass killings have happened at a gun range? Police station?
Gun show? Why not? Why are they always in places known to make having a gun there illegal? Are politicians blind? Can they not see that 2 and 2 make 4? What is their real agenda? Do they want these types of tragedies to happen so they can use them to further their own schemes?
If they think you should be unprotected why don't they set the example by living the same way? Who gets murdered more; ordinary people or politicians? So who really needs protection more?
Whether you want to admit it or not a gun in the hands of somebody good is required to stop a gun in the hands of somebody bad. Just the way it is. It has always been that way and always will.
So, who do you trust more? Yourself or your neighbor with a gun or a cop who may or may not show up in time to do any good and might not want to risk their life even if they do show up in time, to make a difference.
Cities and states with more armed citizens have proven lower homicide and violent assault rates than cities and states that restrict civilian ownership and carry. How do you explain that away? How do the politicians explain that away?
Do you really think any politician gives a damn about you and whether you live or die? If so, why would you think that? Where is the proof any of them really care about the people they rule over?
Are you going to let them dictate how you live or die when they themselves refuse to live by the same rules? Why would you defer to them? Because they tell you you have to? Does that make any sense at all?
Sure doesn't to me.
Look at what this guy decided he needed to protect himself from the same threat all the victims inside faced with nothing. He needed all this yet he would have arrested and thrown in a cage any one of those innocents who were shot or killed who had had a concealed weapon for their own protection. Is his life more valuable than any one of theirs?
Monday, November 3, 2014
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but that is a fact and it is high time for people to wake up and deal with the reality of it.
According to the good old Merriam Webster dictionary terrorism is defined as:
ter-ror-ism noun \ ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\ : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
Friday, October 3, 2014
So why is it theft? The answer to that is very simple. Theft is taking something from somebody else that isn't yours by force, deceit or threat of force. Is taxation backed by force or threat of force? Of course it is. That is so obvious a child can see it. If you don't give up to the ruling class the tribute they say you owe them, what happens? They first threaten you with demands and if you don't comply they send the enforcers after you, don't they? People with guns who don't hesitate to fire them at you if you don't get back into line and open your wallet. And of course you have to "pay" even more for causing the trouble in the first place.
Is the tax system also based on deceit? Of course it is. The system is completely unfair giving breaks and favors to the politically connected and to any group with money. It feeds and breeds inequality, fraud and dishonesty. It turns people into pets and slaves and masters. It promotes waste and inefficiencies. And what is it supposed to do? Keep one safe and ensure ones liberty and freedom, right? It does none of those things if you think about it.
How can you be safe and free when you have a group of thugs living off YOU, who can take everything you have 'legally' because you broke one of their laws, which in all probability harmed no one?
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Answer this question: If government is so great why the force?
What is the purported purpose of government? It is supposed to protect your life, liberty and property, right?
Well that sure sounds good. What sane and normal person wouldn't want those things protected. The answer is they all would.
Government sounds pretty good so far. Seems like an easy 'sell' to me. I want my life protected from thugs, killers, and all kinds of bad guys who would physically harm or assault me. And who wants to be a slave or thrown in a cage? Of course I want my liberty protected as I know you do too. And property protection? Yeah, I want that too. I don't want to be robbed of anything I worked hard to acquire. My property is an extension of my life and the hard work, sweat and expended capital it cost me to get.
So the story is people(well some did) formed governments to protect all those things.
Now lets look at this a different way. Think of government just like any other product you purchase for various reasons like; Its cool, I want it, it adds to my life, it makes me healthier, I need it, I can profit from using it, it makes life easier, safer, funner, etc.
We all buy things all the time which meet those criteria and do so happily and by choice, right?
I buy fire insurance to protect my house. I buy a car to travel and get around. I buy food to eat. I buy internet access to learn, shop, interact with others and to make money. I buy a gun to protect my life and property from bad guys. And all the things I buy are by choice. None of the sellers forced me to buy their products or services. I chose them because they looked like good values to me and I decided they would benefit me, to own and use them.
I'm sure you use the same criteria in deciding what you want to buy and which businesses or people you will buy from. And none of those decisions are forced on you either. And that is the way it should be and the way an economy(a free economy) works best. Lots of different people producing goods and services and buying and selling as they individually determine to be in their self-interest.
So here is a very important question I hope you think about: Why is government FORCED on you? Why can't you just choose for yourself, if the products and services it offers, are worth buying or not? Why do the people trying to 'sell' it to you have so little confidence in their product they resort to force? Why can't you choose something else? Ever thought about that?
Apple seems to be doing real well selling their products, without force. Same with Whole Foods and Walmart. Costco sells all kinds of stuff and has a huge business, all without putting any guns to their customers heads to make them buy their stuff.
If none of them(or thousands of other companies) need to resort to force to sell their stuff why does the government always use force to make you a 'customer'? Maybe their products aren't so hot. Ever think of that? Maybe if the gun was taken away they would sell very little. Maybe they wouldn't be able to sell anything at all because the cost is far to high and the quality is so low. Or the product is just so inferior it doesn't even work or do what it claims to do. Do you think that is possible? ? I do.
You know any government services you think are a bargain? Can you name one product(would you spend any of your money on any of this stuff?) you would gladly buy from them at current costs?
Isn't competition supposed to be good for everybody? Doesn't it lower costs and improve quality and selection and availability? Why doesn't government allow any competition to any of its 'products' and services'? Ever think about that? What are they afraid of?
The sad facts are and the cold, hard truth is government is such an inferior product, on every level and so outrageously expensive, it can ONLY be 'sold' with force and by putting a gun to your head leaving you no real choice whether or not to 'buy' it.
Don't you think we are way past the time to have a 'free market' in government? Just think of all the entrepreneurs and brilliant people who would come up with all kinds of competing products and solutions which would be far better and cheaper than the crap government has been putting out and forcing you to buy. I bet power and transportation and food and protection and health care and education would be completely changed for the better and become much much more affordable, superior and desirable.
But, we will never know as long as people keep obeying authority and the gang, known as government, continues to maintain its monopolies with deadly force and violence.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
As you know there are a lot of bad people in this world and the worst of them live off of and by controlling others. They use various tools and methods to accomplish their evil objectives and I want to discuss one of their best tools, now. That tool is money. You see money isn't just something you earn and spend. It IS or can be a tool of exploitation, theft and subjugation.
Our money, the U.S. dollar is really debt. It is paper issued in collusion by the government and central banks for their benefit and to gain control. It is really the bait in a gigantic trap used to rob and control all who wander to close. When you use their money, the thugs at the top who came up with it, take a big piece of it first and the longer you hang on to it the more of it they take back.
Money is a very important component of an industrial society and its existence helps create almost unlimited goods and services which benefit all. It almost eliminates the primitive practice of barter which also facilitates trade but far less efficiently.
But unless you use and society uses an honest form of money the average person gets screwed over and over again and the bad guys get more power, wealth and control without working.
So just what does money require to be "HONEST" money? Here is a list I think you will agree with:
1. It should be a store of value.
Money you work hard for and don't have to spend to live is money you want to save and have it retain its purchasing power for something else down the road. If it loses its value you got robbed and were penalized for your thrift.
2. It should be scarce or rare.
If it isn't it will quickly lose value and nobody will want it in the first place unless forced to use it.
3. It should be fungible.
Meaning it should be mutually interchangeable.
4. It should be portable.
You need to be able to easily carry it with you when you want to spend it.
5. It should be durable.
You don't want it to get destroyed by the elements, insects, fire, water, accidents, etc.
6. It should be impossible or almost impossible to counterfeit.
This is pretty obvious as what good is working hard and or saving for a long time if somebody else can easily just make out of thin air or even 'print' up your money? Then your money would be worth less or worthless.
So read through these and look in your wallet and see how many of these characteristics of HONEST money yours meets.
By my math it meets only two of those requirements, #3 and #4. Do you agree?
So is there a form of money which satisfies ALL those requirements? What do you think?
In fact, there is and history has proved it over and over again on every continent and in almost every country and culture. Gold and silver coins. That's right. Heck it used to even be money in the good old USA until 1913 and then it wasn't. Wonder why?
Why do central banks still have so many tons of the stuff locked away? What do they know that you don't? Or one might better ask what do they know they don't want you to know? Think about that and do a little more thinking and research and see what you come up with. I bet you will then go get some gold and silver coins for yourself and save them, instead of pieces of paper with numbers on them. I sure hope so anyway.
If you think I am wrong here tell me why.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Voting is immoral. It is evil and it is antithetical to freedom. There, I said it. I bet you are pretty upset right now after reading that. Probably calling me names, cursing me and questioning my sanity. And I am not surprised. After all, you have been conditioned all your life into believing that voting is synonymous with liberty and freedom and that it is your "civic" duty.
Well guess what? That belief is just one of many you have been brainwashed into accepting as the truth when in fact it is a lie. And I will show you why. Lets take a look at what voting really is- First of all, it is an attempt to use force against your neighbor. What? That makes no sense, right?
Or does it? What is the result of voting? What does it really lead to? Simple. . . . . the initiation of force by the state against its subjects and its enemies. The state functions by initiating or threatening violence against people. That is how it operates, funds itself and maintains its control. Take away that force and it would instantly collapse as the majority of its subjects would quit complying with almost all of its threats or as they call them, "laws".
Your vote(no matter who or what you vote for) accepts, condones and approves this use of force. And furthermore by voting, you attempt to direct that force against people who you think should be robbed and controlled and forced to act in a way you approve of. What gives you that right? What gives you any right to try and control another person? What gives you the right to initiate violence against them?
Secondly voting makes no logical sense. Think about this: imagine a group of 100 people in a given area. All those people have their own beliefs, likes, dislikes, goals, hopes and desires, etc. In short they are all individuals who have the right to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't initiate violence against their neighbor.
So lets says 51 of them get together and come up with a plan to form an organization(a gang) called a "government". Allegedly, they want to make things "better" and more "fair" and safer. So they all vote to make some threats (laws) and to give themselves power (power none of them originally even had) to enforce those laws upon ALL 100 people. Even the 49 who didn't agree with their plan or maybe even know about it. And even if they wanted no part of it. Is that logical? Is it fair? Is it moral?
Now do you think those 51 people have the moral right to enact their plan and use force against the other 49?
Do you? If you do and if you want to be one of the 51 then you are an immoral person. You are part of why there is so much evil and misery in this world. You want to control and exploit other people for your own gain. You should be ashamed of yourself.
No person has any moral right to control another person regardless of the intended result. You don't have a right to rob me to buy food for a starving child? You just don't. And you and your friends don't have the right to form a group and then "group" rob me either.
Forming a gang, or an organization or a "government" doesn't magically create new rights and powers. It doesn't make humans into super-humans. It doesn't endow them with rights they never had in the first place. It just gives them an excuse to justify the evil they perpetrate.
Still feel good about voting away your neighbors rights and property?
Thursday, April 25, 2013
I bet you haven't heard that term before, have you?
So what is a cult? Well, most people use the term as a pejorative and that is also the way I am using it here.
A quick definition: Cult. a noun
1. a particular system of religious worship(statism), especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies(elections).
2. an instance of great veneration of a person(presidents), ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers(voters or sheeple).
3. the object(the state) of such devotion.
4. a group or sect(political parties) bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology(Statism and the worship of authority) and a set of rites(voting) centering around their sacred symbols(such as flags, statues, monuments).
The term, "Cult of authority" embraces all these descriptions. It accurately describes the actions and attributes of all people who believe in, worship and revere "authority."
You see most people are afraid to go it alone, to make their own decisions and then to accept the consequences. They are scared of making a bad choice and scared of all the 'unknowns' in life. They want to be taken care of and protected. They want other people making their decisions and 'protecting' them from danger and their fears. Those people become acolytes in the "Cult of authority." They become worshipers at the great altar of authority. They give up their agency and submit to whatever they are told to do and what to believe. They quit thinking and feeling and become 'sheeple.'
Most people who join a cult won't harm you. You probably won't even know they are around. A lot of them separate themselves from society and form their own little groups where they pretty much do their own thing. They merely become dupes of a charismatic person who just wants to control and exploit a few people with relatively humble aspirations of power and control.
But members of the Cult of authority are not so harmless. They are a far different type of animal and they are a much more dangerous group of people. They will do anything for their 'authority' including murder, rape, theft and assault. As a matter of fact robbery, theft and extortion are the basic building blocks of the Cult of authority. That is where they derive most of their power.
They rob and they threaten any 'non-believers' with violence, extortion, kidnapping and caging if they dare to resist.
They also try to spread their cult everywhere, with violence being the main proselyting tool. Either join up or run the risk of losing all your property and your life.
You see these cultists are of the type of people who refuse to leave you alone. Live and let live is not in their philosophy. You are either with them or you are against them and they love to kill their enemies, of which they have many. Why? Because authority tells tells them they do, of course.