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.

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!

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. 

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.

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.

Who will you vote for for president?

Does it really matter? I will tell you who I am voting for: NOBODY!!

I don't vote anymore and I never will again. I took the red pill and realized voting is just another part of the con inside the Matrix. It is a fraud and helps perpetrate the ongoing monstrosity we call government.
So what do I have against voting? The proper question should be why would a thinking, moral person even consider voting?
Here are a few of my reasons for not voting anymore:
One, there is no real choice in our two party dominated system. You choose tweedledee or tweedledum. Both will rob you, control you, lie to you, exploit you and if you resist they will escalate the level of violence against you until you submit, are thrown in a cage or are murdered. Every single year of my life, regardless of which group of thugs was "elected" to run things the government has gotten bigger, more oppressive, more corrupt and more intrusive. Believing you can vote to change that reality is simply foolish. They simply play you against each other by telling you they are the answer to all your problems and that if you just give them the power they will undo all the damage the other guy is doing.
Two, I believe voting is immoral. When you vote, when you get right down to it you are trying to have your "way" forced onto others. And others vote to have their way forced on you. I believe neither side(or any person) has the right to force anything on anybody.
Three, it is a fraud anyway. The system isn't credible or trustworthy. Big money dominates politics not right and wrong. Votes are frequently uncounted, disqualified or faked.
The rule of law is dead. And I think it is a poor system anyway. Voting makes no sense when you realize even if a majority voted on anything(which never happens) it is a larger group forcing a smaller group to do things their way.
How is that moral? 6 out of 10 people in a room have no right whatsoever to take the property and rights from the other 4 for any reason.
Fourth, all government is based on theft by force. Theft last time I checked, is in violation of the Ten Commandments and there are no exceptions. God didn't say, "thou shalt not steal, except government". Government isn't an exempt entity because it is nothing more than a group of individuals using power to control and rob others. The ten commandments apply to ALL individuals.
Fifth, when you vote you are supposedly voting to have another person represent you. It is a fact that unless you can write big enough checks to the candidate and the party you will get very little to no representation. You will have no clout or pull with your guy. In other words they will represent you in name only. All politicians use force as their primary tool to effect change and I don't want to force anybody to do things my way or to have my "representatives" rob them and control them and I don't want anybody doing that to me either.
Sixth, If you vote for somebody and they represent you than you are liable and responsible for their actions. That is the definition of a representative. So whose actions do you want to be responsible for? Which murderer, liar and thief is doing what you want him or her to do on your behalf?
And finally if you say they don't really represent you and you are not liable or responsible for their actions(predations) why the hell are you voting for them?
The free market, if allowed has and will provide everything people want at a price they are willing to pay without any force or coercion. And the product will be far superior to anything government is capable of "providing." If you want to cast a vote that matters, vote for freedom and liberty and vote against all government. Quit playing their game and call bull on the whole phony system by not voting.
What kind of mandate can the ruling thugs claim when nobody shows up at their polls?

Down with the Tyrants

I am very happy to see what is happening in Egypt with the overthrow of the u.s. backed thugs who have been ruling, robbing and murdering the Egyptian people for decades. It is encouraging to see people waking up and saying they won't take it anymore. I hope this leads to a domino effect where government after government is toppled by the people they oppress, rob and kill.
It is time people wake up and challenge the myth of submitting to thugs who claim authority over them which is backed only by force. Government is evil and always has been. It is always a tool used by a tiny minority to control the masses and exploit them. Nobody should be ruled by another person.
Supposedly, in this country people got together and created government to protect their rights. That is a lie and nothing more than propaganda taught to the masses by the ruling class to make them compliant and submissive so they would allow themselves to be robbed and exploited by their masters.
If government was created by the people, as their agent, it must logically be accountable to them and they must be responsible for its actions. Also, they could have only endowed it with the power and authority they had as individuals, in order to be legitimate and moral. This government is anything but. It uses theft as its primary tool to maintain and grow power and exercise control. Yet any individual who tried to do the same thing would rightly be stopped and punished for stealing. And the state murders its subjects and "enemies" all over the world and it is perceived as legitimate. How can that be? No individual had the right to murder so how could they have endowed their agent, government, with a right they didn't possess?
The belief that government has a moral, legitimate right to do things its creators couldn't is one of the biggest lies ever foisted on the people in this world.
Nobody has a right to rule, rob, kill or control you for ANY reason. Stop believing the lies and propaganda the monster spits out.