Sunday, September 15, 2013

Why the force?


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

Do you want honest money?

Ever wonder why you seem to have so little money and why it seems to buy less and less as the years go by? The reason is simple; the money we earn and use to buy the things we need and want is a fraud. It is a scam and it is that way by design.
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

Don't vote! It's immoral.


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

Cult of Authority

This has been on my mind for quite awhile now. It is sad and disturbing to see so many people(the vast majority), all over the world, who have been taken in and become such staunch believers and active members of the "Cult of authority."
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.
Are you an acolyte of the Cult of authority?

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Gun violence = gun control

     It seems lately that the media has picked a new buzz word for their agenda to enact stricter gun controls. The new phrase is "Gun Violence". Sounds scary, doesn't it?
Like there is a bunch of guns out there, lurking around every corner, just waiting to pop up and fill you full of holes. Sounds like a good theme for a 'B' horror movie to me.
     Gun violence. Is that even possible? That would mean the gun actually perpetrates violence. As all of you reading this must know a gun is an object and it can't move or operate on its own. A gun can't build itself or buy ammunition and load itself. It also isn't sentient and has no ability to control others and make them do its bidding.
Therefore the term gun violence makes no sense at all.
     Have you heard of knife violence or club violence? You should know that in 2009, 1825 people died of 'knife violence'.  That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet if gun violence is a problem, which we must address, then we also must deal with knife violence, club violence and bat violence. Right? 1825 murdered people matter, don't they?
     Wonder why this huge threat isn't being addressed by our media friends? Don't they care about all the people who die by "assault knives"? Don't we deserve to have our rulers, I mean leaders, save us from those big black, double-edged knives that are out there making our lives hell? Shouldn't we have knife registration? Shouldn't we close all those knife buying loopholes where people say they are just going to use them to cook with? As if.
     Why are they not concerned about this? Why aren't they protecting us? Why the silence on this terrible danger? ?
     Oh, wait a minute. . . . . I think I get it now. They really don't care about how we die or what kind of "violence" we suffer in the process. But they do care about blow-back. They are concerned about the people who don't like being ruled and robbed and what they might do in retaliation. And they don't care if we have knives, bats or clubs because they have guns. Ever heard the saying, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight'? Well guess what? They have too.
     They aren't afraid of you arming yourself with a knife, a bat or a club because they will shoot you down with almost no risk, if you ever try to defend yourself against them. So they really don't care if you are murdered with those things. They really DON'T CARE!
     The only gun violence out there is their attempts to take your guns away. They use violence against you, while they are armed with guns, to disarm you. They won't and don't hesitate to kill you in order to disarm you. Couldn't that be considered 'gun violence' as they use the term? But the fact is, they love guns as long as they have them and you don't. Gun control is the only real 'gun violence' out there.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Simple question about guns.

                                    Are guns used by 'bad' people to harm 'good' people?
That might seem like a really stupid question when you  look at it. "Of course," everybody is thinking as they read this. So if you can get the guns out of the hands of the 'bad' people will 'good' people then be safer? "Of course," you are probably saying, again.
     But, not so fast. It is much more complicated than that. Let's clarify: a gun is a tool which can be used for good or bad depending upon it's user. Agree so far? Most people love guns in the hands of the state; meaning cops, bureaucrats, other law enforcers and members of the various military branches. They consider those armed people the 'good' guys.
     Where many people start to waver is when asked who else should have a gun and then what kind they should be "allowed" to have. So lets make this real simple. Who has caused the most harm with guns since they have been invented; a civilian person armed with a gun or a statist(government agent) with a gun? See where I am going? If you are being honest with yourself, you know(or should know) statists have killed TWO HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION plus people, since the turn of the last century alone. That is a fact. If you don't believe me start your research here: Democide 
     Now, were all those people killed by guns? No, not all, but without guns the thugs in charge wouldn't have had any of their other weapons either. The guns gave them the power to create all their other more lethal weapons. Guns were (and are) used to threaten their subjects and then rob them to get the resources to create more horrific weapons of mass destruction.
     So looking at the history of statists armed with guns whom should you fear most; your neighbor with a gun or a bureaucrat with a gun? Can you protect yourself from a common criminal with a gun if you have one also? Yes, Statistics show that is done successfully more than 500,000 times(lowest count) a year, most of the time without even firing a shot. And that didn't cost you or I a penny. That was all done by good people who decided not to be victims and took personal responsibility for their own safety. No logical criticism of those people and what they did can be made.
     Now, can you protect yourself as easily from a bureaucrat with a gun as you can a common criminal? This is where it gets much more risky as more than TWO HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION dead people found out? See, the bureaucrats use law, statutes and regulations to prevent you from arming yourself. They then lie and tell you that if you just give them the power, they will protect you. Here's a question . . .  What are politicians(people who hire the bureaucrats) known for? What does everybody expect them to do? You got it?  Yep, you're right!   THEY LIE!!
     If they can be counted on to protect you, if you don't arm yourself, why can't you sue them when they don't? Why aren't they accountable personally? What good is a promise, coming from a known liar, anyway? Any promise? Why would you believe them about anything, especially about safeguarding your life and liberty? Why would you listen to them when they tell you, you are safer if you are unarmed?
    They are all armed, every one of them. And you are paying for them to be protected. Are you satisfied with the result? What would those TWO HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION + murdered people say if they could answer these questions? You think they might say the worst decision they ever made was to trust the state and disarm themselves. Or worse yet to have trusted the state so that they never even armed themselves, in the first place?
     Here's the thing . . . .  If anybody, anybody at all has a gun and you value your life and liberty you are a fool if you don't have one.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

2nd Amendment. Valid argument for owning a gun?


Is citing the 2nd amendment the best argument one can use to justify being "allowed" to own a gun?
Not really. The constitution is a piece of paper created by a few men a couple hundred+ years ago. It isn't a "legal" document you are a party to, or that you even signed. So why would one look to it as a guarantor or grantor of anything? Did it grant any rights? Unfortunately yes, but only the "supposed" right for a small group to use force against a larger one. And it also granted the small group the right to steal from the larger one, somehow.
     But it didn't and doesn't grant you any individual rights you don't already have. How could it? Rights are inherent and unalienable. They are inherent to being a human, born into this world. The constitution, ineffectively, supposedly tried to protect those rights from being encroached upon by others, especially government. If it would have worked we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
     You and every individual living, have a right to life and that right isn't defined by anybody but you. You are the sole "referee" of how that right will be protected and defended. Your rights are your responsibility.
And yes, you are required to actively defend your rights, if you value them. You have the biggest, vested interest in making sure those rights are kept sacrosanct. As you have the most to lose if they are violated.
     Others will try to infringe on your right to self-defense and even dictate to you how you can protect it or exercise it. Those people are evil. They are bad people. You shouldn't listen to them or allow them to influence you in any way. They will try to limit you in your efforts to safeguard your right(s). Ignore them. They want to harm you or use you. They want to control you. They will exploit you, if you let them.
     As the sole protector of your rights don't you think it would be wise to use the best tool and or tools you can find, create or acquire to safeguard them? Did you know the people who want to harm you, rob you or control you almost always choose guns as their tools? Fully automatic machine guns or assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons are all tools they use. They also have tanks, missiles, warplanes, warships and bombs in their arsenals, all of which you were forced to pay for.
     In the last century more than TWO HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION+ people have lost their right to life at the bloody hands of these kinds of people. They were fooled into believing they didn't have the right to defend themselves. They believed falsely, that others would protect them. That others cared about them and wouldn't harm them. That others would defend them. They believed in lies.

They were wrong and they are DEAD!

Don't look to a piece of paper for your rights. Don't waste your time. It is a fraud. What one politician says is your right another can then take away. Laws(really threats) are whatever the ruling gang say they are. These parasites have no legitimate or moral power over you at all. They can only do what you allow them to. The only real power they have over you is what you think they have. Your submission gives them power.  (Great little video about that here): Tiny Dot

A gun is the best tool in the entire world a person can use for self-defense. That is a FACT. It is the ultimate equalizer. An 8 year old kid who knows how to use it becomes superior to the 250lb, 6'4" evil piece of crap who is trying to kill or hurt him. No other tool like it exists. A 95 year old, gun-toting woman in a wheel chair can also defend herself from that very same thug, successfully. What other tool could be used to do that?     It doesn't exist!

If your enemy has a gun you better have one too. If he has an "assault rifle" you need one too. If he has a large magazine on his semi-auto rifle why would you want any less? Why think you are gonna bring a knife to a gunfight and win? Surely you are smarter than that.

Bad people exist. Evil people exist. Most of them are armed. They will kill you without any regret. Why would you not arm yourself with the best weapon, that works for you, that you can acquire? Nobody has a right to tell you what that might be. I sure don't and neither does anyone else. It is for you and you alone to decide. Don't let somebody else dictate what you are "allowed" to have when they don't play by the same rules. That makes you a sucker. It makes you a victim. And if you listen to them, you chose to do so and have nobody but yourself to blame when something bad happens as a result.

Screw the second amendment as your excuse for owning a gun! Arguing over what it means or what it allows is simply stupid. When you go down that slippery road you fall into the trap of the Hegelian dialectic and you will lose! Bad people use the willingness of reasonable people to compromise, for their own evil agenda. Hitler was pro gun control. So was Mao, Lenin, Castro and Pol Pot to name a few. And they all did what they did 'legally' because they made the laws.

Your individual right trumps everything else. Exercise it!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

More on Guns

Let's look at who suffers most from violent criminal attacks and then maybe we can decide who needs to be armed the most? Would it be heavily armed cops or average people? How many cops are murdered in a year by a person using a gun(in 2011 it was 62)? How many average citizens?  Latest I could find was for 2010 and was 11,078. So who needs to be armed more? I would say those 11,078 needed to be armed. How about you? Do you think far more of those would be alive if they had been armed when fighting for their lives? Are their lives of less value than the cops?
Do cops and ordinary people face the same threat of being murdered? Well, cops have never been murdered in a mass shooting? Wonder why? Do you think it is because cops are so well liked and bad people bear them no ill will? Or could it be because they are all known to be heavily armed and could fight back?
Do you think criminals hate ordinary people more than cops? Do they victimize the public in greater numbers than cops just because they hate ordinary people more?  Or might it have something to do with the fact they choose the weakest target? Just maybe, they like potential victims to be easy to victimize. Maybe they like them unarmed. Maybe they like them "under-armed" if you will.
I think I am a reasonably intelligent person and if I was going to rob somebody, I would want to be able to get away with the fruits of my crime without being injured. After all, what good is a couple thousand in stolen jewelry going to do me if I spend thousands in medical bills, trying to repair the damage I incurred taking it? And that discounts totally the pain I would incur and the ancillary costs. And I might even get killed in the process.
I want to be armed and I want you to be unarmed. That just makes sense, doesn't it? And if you are armed, I want you to be 'under-armed" compared to me. I will put my semi-auto or my illegal full auto up against your single shot, knowing the odds favor me.
So, what if nobody had a weapon? Not criminals, not cops and not average people. Would we all be safer if guns didn't exist? In that scenario lets say I decide it would be easier to take what I want from others than to work for it. What would stop me from doing that? Let's say I am 6' 1" and weigh 210 pounds and you are a woman who weighs 120 lbs. How would you reasonably defend yourself from me? Do you think you could? What if I attacked you with a friend? Now what are your chances? What if we decided to rob, rape and then kill you? Think the laws forbidding that would save you? If laws prevented those crimes there would be no rapes, robberies or murders, right?
A gun would be nice to have in that situation, wouldn't it.  A gun would instantly make you superior to the two thugs who want to harm you. You wouldn't even have to shoot them. Just the realization that you could, would likely make them run for their lives. And if they even thought you were armed they would most likely pick a weaker, safer target. 
You see, evil people aren't dissuaded from perpetrating evil by laws. But they are dissuaded by what is behind the law? Which is what?   A GUN!!!!!!  A Gun?  Oh my God!!!   How can that be?
Simple. Without the gun the law could not be enforced. It would be meaningless, useless words on a piece of paper. Without guns, or other weapons which give superiority or at least equality there would be no real threat to perpetrating theft, assault, rape and murder. The threat posed by a gun is the real deterrent to criminals and potential criminals, not the piece of paper calling them criminals. Every law is a gun. Because it is only by force, a law can be enforced. Aren't cops called "law enforcers"? DUH! And how do they "enforce" laws?  With GUNS! 
Take away their guns and any other weapons and who would pay any attention to them? They would be rendered powerless and would be afraid of any contact with "criminals".
And another thing to think about when looking at the logic of banning guns from the public: Do criminals arm themselves with different weapons when battling cops as opposed to battling ordinary citizens? Do they use less firepower when victimizing citizens than cops? Do they put aside their "assault" weapons when they attack ordinary people and use single shot guns to make things more fair? What do you think? Can you imagine a criminal with two different arsenals? A scaled down set to attack you with and a more powerful set to fight cops with? That's silly, isn't it? They are going to use the most powerful weapon they can find which gives them the advantage over their chosen victim(s).

If a criminal attacks me with an "assault" weapon or a semi-auto with a large magazine what tool should I use in response to defend myself? What should I be "allowed" to use? A single shot bolt action rifle? A single shot pistol? A knife? A baseball bat or how about just a really nice plea to go elsewhere and to leave me alone? Would I be exercising good judgement if that is how I chose to defend myself, my family and my property? Would I be helping or hurting society by allowing myself to be such an easy victim? And what if there are two or three thugs attacking me? Or a whole gang? What chance am I going to have without a semi-auto with a large magazine?
What gives them the right to use any weapon of their choice against me and as many of them getting together as they feel like to overwhelm me with? Are they bound by any laws in doing so? Isn't murder illegal? Isn't assault or rape illegal? Isn't robbery illegal(excepting government of course)?   Duh! Clearly laws don't stop crime. If they did there would be no crime. 
And think long and hard about this fact: cops and civilians fight the same bad guys. The cops demand semi-auto weapons at the very least and in many cases even full auto weapons. So if they need those weapons to fight the same bad guys, why wouldn't you? I don't hear that question being addressed anywhere among the media. Wonder why?
Letting your rulers disarm or under-arm you doesn't make you smart. Letting them dictate what you can defend yourself with and how you can do it doesn't make you a good person.
It makes you stupid. It makes you a victim. It makes you a dupe. 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Let's talk guns II

     In my last post I established guns are the best tool any person can use to defend their life, liberty, family and property. That is why they are used by the millions; by cops, bureaucrats, politicians and soldiers. Fact: if there was a better tool they would be using it. Yet it is unconscionable and hypocritical for them to try and deny ordinary people the same choice. But, not at all surprising.
     So let's look at what a gun ban really means. What will be the results of a broad-based gun ban, which is currently  being proposed by many politicians. If you support a gun ban what are you advocating?
First of all, why is this even an issue? We just had another psycho who murdered quite a few people, including many small children with semi-auto weapons. So the outcry is that we need to ban these types of weapons to prevent another instance like this from happening. And a lot of people jump to the immediate conclusion that a ban will prevent this from happening again.
     Will it? Will there be some unintended consequences?
O.k., Lets follow the path of logic and see where we end up. The stated goal is to prevent mass murders like this from happening again. The path to get to that goal means banning all semi-auto firearms from private ownership.
     A quick google search estimates 37.5 million of these in private hands. At a value of $500 each(my estimate) that is almost 19 billion dollars. Where should that huge sum come from? Whose pockets should be picked to pay for this new edict? Or would you advocate the government seizing them all without compensation, and not paying the market value to owners? Just to be clear, seizing them is theft which makes you an advocate for a crime to be committed against many of your fellow citizens. But maybe that doesn't bother you because, "It is for the children," right?
     O.k. Lets go that route. Make them all illegal to own and demand gun owners turn them in without compensation ASAP or face the consequences. And what would those consequences be? What consequences exist for breaking any law? It starts out with a threat, then a fine or tax and then the level of violence is escalated until a miscreant(former responsible, law abiding person) submits, is thrown in a cage or is murdered. Yes, that is what a ban means.
     But wait a minute, You want to ban guns to prevent more violence and reduce murders, don't you? In the latest shooting 27 people, 28 counting the murderer are dead. What would the potential death(murder) toll be if millions, 18 million+ Americans(2 semi-autos owned per owner), are faced with this choice: Give up your property with or without any compensation and consequently give up the best tool that exists for self-defense or get thrown in a cage or get murdered? And incidentally and rather ironically the people who get sent out to enforce this new edict will be armed with what? Semi-auto and even full auto weapons. Why? Because they will be more than likely defending themselves from the violence they initiate and again, those are the best tools for the job. If it comes to a confiscation then we will have absolute proof the people need these weapons after all. The second amendment "loonies" will then be vindicated as you can't conceivably adequately defend yourself with a single shot or bolt action weapon when facing multiple attackers with semi-auto and full auto weapons.
     How many of those millions of Americans will just give up their chosen tools of self-defense, because other people who all have guns or are protected by others who have guns, say they should? Does that make any sense? And more importantly how many will refuse?   Violently refuse? 20%? If only 10% refuse that means at least 1.8 million won't comply? And 1% refusing would still mean 180,000+ armed people who haven't initiated any violence against anyone not complying. And these people now become targets of directed violence. That will end well, right?  And that is only people who own semi-autos; a group making up less than 15% of all gun ownership. 250 million+ total firearms are owned by private citizens. How many cops are there? About 800,00 total. How many will die enforcing this? Do you think less than 27 or 28 people will die as a result of a gun ban?       Seriously?
     Tens of thousands will die on both sides and that is a conservative estimate. Far more violence will come out of following this course than could ever be prevented. And all the tens of thousands of people who use a gun in self-defense every year will now become victims. And life as you know it will change dramatically. 
     Eliminating "gun free" zones is by far the most logical and economical solution to "sandy hook" type shootings.
A known and posted gun-free zone is an open invitation to all psychos who want to perpetrate havoc on innocents. If you don't think so post a big sign on your front door stating you are unarmed and don't believe in private gun ownership. Or better yet post a sign in your yard pointing to your neighbor stating they don't own guns. Bet you won't be very popular. Anybody with a brain would never do that as a solution to self-defense. Yet many of those same people send their kids to a place labeled as such. Is that logical?
     Ever heard of a mass shooting at a shooting range? Wonder why not? Tons of guns with large magazines there. How about at a gun show? Nope, hasn't happened there either.
     Guns equal freedom. If you don't value freedom don't expect a gun in anyone's hands to ever be used to defend you or your property.      You don't deserve it.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Let's talk guns.

Guns, assault weapons, semi-auto firearms and large magazines are all in the news lately after another mass shooting by some psycho. And of course all the usual haters are out in force demanding new bans and increased restrictions. So let's get right down to the heart of this controversy.
First, What does a gun represent? The answer is FREEDOM!! Yep, a gun = freedom. You think I am nuts? You think I am stupid for saying that? Well let me explain. Every person born onto this earth has inherent rights; the right to life, liberty and property. And all those rights are dependent on the ability one has to defend them. Self-Defense requires action. It isn't and can't be passive, as long as there are people who are evil, in this world. Who are evil people, you ask? The answer is simple; People who want to hurt you, control you and steal your stuff. And history is clear that those kinds of people have always existed.
So the question is how does one best defend ones life, liberty and property from the evil people who want to take them away?
Many people who believe in the myth of authority would say government by force is the answer (government by force? ?  Is there any other kind?). Those people believe that other people will protect them better than they ever could. They believe laws, cops and armies will keep them safe. So how many people have been murdered by government in the last century? Over  260 million! Hasn't worked so well has it?
A truly responsible person will realize that their safety is their own responsibility and then figure out how to best safeguard it. What tool or precautions should one employ? Here's an idea; Let's look at what government uses to do that? This might be surprising. They use guns. Yep, they use guns. Those horrible, evil inanimate objects known as assault weapons and semi-automatic firearms. Those evil, metal monsters, they don't want the commoners to have, but which they then buy and employ by the millions.
WHY DO THEY USE GUNS to defend themselves and their interests? The answer is quite simple, actually. There is no other tool on the planet more ideally suited to self-defense than a gun. So if it is good for them why wouldn't it also be good for you? Do you think the people in your government who rule over you are smarter than you? More compassionate then you? Do they have higher morals than you do? Are they more honest than you? Do they care more about you and your friends and family than you? Do they care more about your property than you?    Hardly.
 So, if you trust them with millions of assault weapons and semi-auto firearms with large magazines, why don't they trust you also? Ever thought of that?
Your benevolent masters are surrounded by guns, all employed daily, to protect them and their property. They chose guns as the best tools for the job. Why wouldn't you do the same? Why don't they want you to?
If they really believe guns are the problem let them give up all their guns first and set the example. Isn't that what leaders do? Lead by example? Lets see some leadership on this issue.