All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more

Forging the Hero

by Comrade X

Here’s the deal folks, we all can see the black cloud(s) on the horizon, that is why most if not all of us are here reading this blog in the first place, so the question we all are asking ourselves what can we do when EVERYTHING is so screwed up and I mean EVERYTHING btw

Well it’s sure is depressing and I have friends and family who have just about given up; but me being the Stoic as I am finds me always trying to look at reality as reality and accept what I can do or not. First; all things will come to an end (unless of course you believe in life after death that is) and the Republic or Empire called the US of A is getting there, IMHO the only question in my mind is how & how fast. If you accept that reality as I have than also IMHO it will make it easier to plan your next step and what to do, being that for myself I ain’t one to just take things lying down, that is.

I’m reading a very good book right now that I recommend for everyone; “Forging the Hero: A Tribal Strategy for Building Resilient Communities for Surviving the Decline of Empire” ($45 for print & ebook) by John Mosby.

From his website:

The premise of the book is the same premise that I teach in my Auxiliary and Support Operations Course: surviving the Decline of Empire is not about “saving” the empire, nor is it about “restoring” the empire. It’s about ensuring the survival of those cultural values that made the empire worthwhile in the first place, and the best people to surround yourself with, in order to ensure that, is by looking at the people who you already know share your values. Who is that? Your family, friends, and neighbors.

The problem that often arises, within the preparedness and survivalist communities however, is that everyone wants to create a “group,” whole cloth, out of the thin air of “like-minded” people that they probably don’t even know. Who do you know better, and who, should you trust? The dude you met at the Oathkeepers Rally, who showed up wearing a Multi-Cam soft shell parka, with lots of III% and Gadsden Flag velcro patches, or the cousins and siblings you grew up with, and their offspring?

“But, John, my family is full of sxx%heads that don’t care about the Constitution, or the Bill-of-Rights, or Capitalism. They all support Bernie Sanders, for crying out loud!”

Really? So, you were just a fluke of nature, and nobody in your family shares your values, at all? Where did your values come from? Granted, it CAN happen. I’ve met people who developed values in college or the military that seemed to be diametrically opposite of what their families believed. It’s pretty fxx%ing rare though. Even then, you—presumably—have friends that you’ve had for some time. THOSE people share your values, at least on some level, or they would not be your friends, right?

So what if your family and friends don’t share your concerns about the Decline, right now? If you’re willing to do the hard work, and think introspectively, you CAN find a way to approach them, through your shared values, in such a way to help them understand the importance of preparedness. You can, to borrow a quote, “instruct, especially in fundamentals or rudiments;” in fact, doing so, is “to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point-of-view, or principle.” See, recruiting and indoctrination is THE most important task the auxiliary fulfills in the UW doctrinal model. It doesn’t matter if the auxiliary is providing food, if there’s nobody to eat the dx%ned slop. It doesn’t matter if they’re procuring weapons and medical equipment on the black market, if there’s nobody to shoot the weapons, or that will need to be patched up.

The idea of “winning hearts and minds” is often derided today as unrealistic political bullsx%t, conceived by feel-good politicians with their heads in the clouds, and a total lack of understanding about how to win wars. While it HAS often been misused, and IS often misused, the old meme of “grab ’em by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow,” is just as foolhardy. While it’s demonstrably not true that “you can’t kill your way to victory,” as the bleeding hearts like to whine, it IS demonstrably true that if you start killing people who are not yet dedicated to killing you, you WILL create MORE enemies, in their families and friends.

The fact is, committed foes, who have voiced or proven their willingness to use violence to achieve their aims, are not—generally—going to be convinced by anything outside of overwhelming violence-of-action, to alter their behavior. Those people can only be “fixed” by chopping off their heads, and sticking them on spikes to scare their compatriots. The greater mass of people however, who may hold some egregious views on things, that can be educated as to the error of their ways, absent chopping off heads.

Interesting reading folks (if you can handle the cussing), even with the heads on spike thing there is a time and place for everything IMHO, I hope that time is not in my lifetime but methinks it will be in the lifetime of some of my descendants so the very least of what I can do today is start laying the groundwork to better help their survival when that day comes (& if it comes in my day well at least I will have a leg up on that too & maybe not let my Kilt or Kin find my head on the bad guys spike who ever they may be, you know they have to be bad if your head is on their spike, don’t you).

Well that is where my focus is today and you know something it does make me feel better that I am doing something IMHO constructive and not just being depressed about how EVERYTHING is so screwed up around me and there is nothing much that I can do about that.

It is my plan to attend some of John’s upcoming classes too, which you can find more information about on his website.

Onward and upwards!


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Guns on the Internet; or, Yielding Responsibility

In the wake of Some Asshole murdering and wounding more than a hundred people, the Pope is blaming guns*, while Prezzie Barrycade is attributing the tendency to do horrific violence on information on the Internet.

So, you see, it wasn’t the fault of a sick, racist, homophobic, violent person. That “assault rifle” (which wasn’t) was browsing websites, got hypnotized by machines dispensing jihadi domestic rhetoric, loaded itself up, picked up a pistol, grabbed the car keys, and drove to the night club.

All by itself.

By that “logic,” they should have tried the machine guns, gas chambers, and ovens at Nuremberg.

As a nation, we’ve seriously lost our way. We used to understand that there are bad individuals who do bad things by choice. We held the people responsible for their actions. Not the inanimate objects, the tools.

Now, craven “leaders” would rather avoid alienating a potential voting block, and attack “access to guns” instead of a violent ideology. All in direct conflict with reality: The night club was a gun-free zone. The law-abiding patrons were disarmed for the convenience of the mass killer; something we’ve seen all too often.

If the Obamas and Francises of the world have their way, we’ll keep seeing it.

And the useful idiots like Takei, Cher, Rock, and Moore can pretend all they want. But some day, they’ll be forced to look back, and echo the words of an elderly German man, haunted by guilt, who told me:

“We knew. We told ourselves we didn’t know, because we didn’t want to know.

“But we knew.”

 


* I find Pope Francis’ opposition to access to arms sadly ironic, given his support of liberation theology.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Illegal Marketing?

I’m virtually certain that our regular readers know about the current lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington/Bushmaster. Their odd little legal theory — and seemingly bought by the judge — is that Remington is liable for the actions of Some Asshole because the company improperly marketed a military weapon to civilians (and precognitively knew that regions that buy guns may see thieves stealing them from honest folk).

Sensible people with some grasp of the law know that suit should have been immediately dismissed with prejudice under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA protects firearms business from imaginary liability for the misuse of a weapon by some end user…

…so long as the company obeyed all the myriad rules, regulations, and laws that govern the manufacture and sale of firearms. Companies are still liable for defective products and unlawful actions.

These misinformed moneygrubbers claim that marketing an arm commissioned by the military to civilians is “negligent entrustment,” another exception to PLCA immunity.

We could note that the military didn’t exactly “commission” the weapon design. It was marketed to the military some years after it was designed, and it was a heck of an uphill battle for the military to finally adopt it. So to speak.

[Informed folk can skip a paragraph or two.]

In fact, the military variant, the M16 family, is not the same as the AR family of semiautomatic arms sold to civilians. The military version has some specified modifications not in the original AR, and is is fully-automatic (legally speaking; some variants fired bursts, which the feds still class as “machine gun”).

Every time some ignorant, victim disarming crime-enabler calls semi-auto ARs weapons designed for soldiers in war theaters, I ask them to show the army that deliberately chooses to generally arm its troops with semiauto AR-15s instead of assault rifles or battle rifles.

And every time… –crickets–

Back to the lawsuit. Part of the plaintiffs’ claim is that Remington deliberately marketed ARs to teenage boys. (This ignore the fact that The Asshole didn’t buy the AR he used. He murdered the lawful owner, an middle-aged woman, and stole her gun.

Nonetheless, a moronic Yalie thinks she can prove that claim.

This historian just made it likelier that Sandy Hook parents will be able to take Remington to court
To support sales Winchester embarked on what it characterized as the “greatest commercial venture in the history of this country, probably in the history of the world.” They never lacked for ambition. In 1920 alone, they spent close to a million dollars on advertising.

A centerpiece of this effort was the company’s boy plan. Winchester prepared a letter about the .22 caliber rifle to send to boys between the ages of ten and sixteen. They asked retailers to send a list of the names of boys in their towns, so the company could send the letter to them under the retailer’s name. The company intended to reach precisely 3,363,537 boys this way.

Yes. You read that correctly. TL;DR: The Sandy Hook Asshole was driven to murder, theft, and more murder by the fact that nearly a century ago Winchester did market firearms to boys (back when it was perfectly legal for boys to buy guns, generally unlike today’s legal environment.

Since children cannot purchase firearms from FFLs, it would be silly for Remington to spend millions marketing to them. In 1920, it made sense, but no longer. Much better, more profitable, to market to parents.

Once upon a time, Remington lawfully marketed to a profitable demographic. Now they don’t because that demographic is no longer lawfully accessible.

Can you think of an industry whose products are being provided to children legally too young to use the products as intended? And who is doing it?

Hint: Condoms, and other birth control products. By schools. To children below the age of consent.

I guess it’s OK to protect victims of statuatory rape from the consequences, but not right to allow them to defend themselves against the rape in the first place.

Cui bono?


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Statistics”

You’ve heard that “polls show that 90% of Americans want…” garbage; usually universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, but often any other infringement of your human/civil rights the gun grabbers can dream up. And you’ve wondered where the heck they found that many idiots.

In New Hampshire, the claim by UNH was 93% in favor of UPPYI checks. But I could never find a single person who would admit to participating in the survey. At all. Responding pro or con. The university refused to release their raw polling data. Actual voting (as in electing pro-gun politicians) doesn’t reflect that claim.

In Washington, the Bloomberg Ban Bunnies trotted out the same 90% claim. Granted, when it went to referendum, the infringement passed.

By slightly under 60 percent, as I recall. So where did the the other 30% disappear to?

Yes, the 90% claim has consistently been shown to be low-grade, poorly composted bovine ejecta. Real “polls” — votes — don’t support the numbers, so…

Katie Couric: ‘Silent Majority’ of Gun Owners Want More Gun Control
“The NRA only represents five percent of gun owners, so there’s this huge silent majority, and they represent common ground.”

[Digression: By that logic, the Bloomberg BBs represent — maybe — a few hundred people, so 99.999999999% percent of Americans must want everyone to be heavily armed at all times. -psst- Couric; I’m not NRA, but I’m pro-RKBA.]

See that? Now that the polls are clearly biased, manipulated, and maybe in the NH case, where no data exist, even made up, they have to fall back on the “silent majority” who huddle fearfully under their beds, refusing to voice what they truly want. A silent majority that can’t be verified because they run and hide form pollsters. But who transmit psychic emanations to Couric so she can discern their hidden desires.

Well, that got weird and creepy pretty quick. But that “silent majority” obviously has a thing for submission.

There’s the BBB playbook: Fake the polls; when that doesn’t work, lie. When that still doesn’t work, claim you’re speaking up for those who won’t speak up, or vote, for themselves.

How convenient.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Using the Myth of the Constitution, Part 4: What to do to make the Myth REAL

by Historian

In Part One of this series, I have discussed in broad terms the flaws of the present Constitution, link HERE.

Part Two discussed the specific shortcomings of the US Constitution, and there were a number of thoughtful comments that added significant value. Link HERE.

Part Three covered suggested steps to be taken and touched on the importance of ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Link HERE.

This installment is about making the myth of the Constitution real, about how we can go about actually enforcing the Constitution.

The idea of Constitutional enforcement has been an undercurrent in American politics for a long time, almost as long as the Constitution has been in force. Lysander Spooner in his essays entitled “No Treason” was not the first person to point out this issue, nor was he the last. Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.

Moreover, very few people are discussing what I consider to be the single most egregious flaw in the Constitution. Neither Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention nor Mark Levin in his book “The Liberty Amendments” promote Constitutional ENFORCEMENT, preferring rather to propose adding still more unenforceable amendments to an unenforced, and unenforceable Document. The only person I know that pushes the idea of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the highest law of the land is Neil Smith. Despite endless lip service about Constitutional Government, few people out of government, and nobody at ALL in government seems to actually want to enforce The Document. Why is that? Cui Bono?

Well, not having an enforcement clause sure makes looting the taxpayer a lot easier, and it also makes it a lot easier to “enact a multitude of laws and eat out our substance.” A country like ours, where over half of the people working actually work for one governmental agency or another, either directly or indirectly, does provide considerable incentive for those folks to vote in favor of keeping their jobs funded. Enacting an enforcement clause is going to be damned difficult to do; enforcement of the Constitution will break lots of rice bowls. Both the Demopublicans and Republocrats see significant benefit in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy provided by the present myth.

Oddly enough, however, given the things the ruling oligarchy in this country have recently done, like having our military parade in red high heels and importing large numbers of 7th century barbarians in the hope that Western civilization will benefit therefrom, I’m hopeful that the right combination of stimuli can make the average American politician vote for damned near anything, as long as the carrot of re-election is dangled temptingly enough in front of them. But in any case, before we get hung up on the “how,” let’s think first about what an enforcement clause ought to look like. So what should an Enforcement Clause do? I have been thinking about this over the last two years, and here are my thoughts:

One of the problems we have with the current legal system is that it is a form of guild socialism. That is, if you do not belong to the appropriate guild, and pay the guild tax, you do not get to work in that profession. Guild socialism was common in medieval times, and was an early version of merchantilism, acting to restrain market entry and limit competition. American exceptionalism was due in part to getting away from those medieval ideas, and allowing anyone who wanted to enter the market to do so. Unfortunately, the lawyers managed to maintain their guild after the Revolution, and it still rides us today. As an aside, the last time I checked, I believe that there are only a few states that still allow people to read the law and take the Bar exam without having graduated from an accredited law school, one of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. (see links here and here.)

With regard to the broader issue of Constitutional enforcement, the problem is that it is totally impractical, (in reality not possible,) for a non-attorney at present to act to strike down an unConstitutional law, and the only way to gain ‘standing’ is to break the law and place yourself at risk of conviction. Given that the overall conviction rate for Federal indictments runs in the high 90% range, why would any sane person do such a thing when the deck is so obviously stacked against the common citizen? The 1934 GCA which led to the case of US v. Miller, where the Federal Government won on appeal because the plaintiff failed to show up at the Supreme Court, is just one example of such issues; there are probably tens of thousands. If we are to have true enforcement of the Constitution, we have to be sure that access to whatever mechanism is developed is not restricted to the privileged class of lawyers, and that people who perceive an infringement on the Constitutional limits on Federal authority do not have to place themselves at jeopardy to seek correction. Any American must have the right to challenge the acts of every level of government which purports to have jurisdiction over them.

The second issue I see is that Constitutional issues get bumped up the ladder, taking years of time and gobs of money before the Supreme Court rules on the matter at hand……or doesn’t, in which case confusion reigns for another stretch of time, and the poor suffering taxpayer who got screwed by the government in the first place gets ignored. There needs to be a process that provides PROMPT relief. “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” right? If the determination is made at the local level that there has been Constitutional infringment, or if there is any significant delay, there needs to be immediate action to provide relief from the unConstitutional law or regulation, which according to precedent is now void, but which in practise never goes away. That stay or injunction ought to restrict the government, at whatever level the action is brought, from acting until the issue is finally resolved at whatever level it ends up being resolved. Moreover, if the case is appealed, and the higher court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the stay should be required to be extended to the entire jurisdiction of the court holding in favor of the plaintiff. This puts some teeth into enforcement, and ought to help correct the present tendency of Federal attorneys to do the legal equivalent of the “Rope-a-dope” and to draw out the proceedings and attempt to bankrupt the plaintiff by appealing any time they get an adverse ruling.

The third issue is that nobody is held responsible. There is no personal accountability on the part of any of the myriads of Federal, State, or local governmental elected or appointed officials, agents, or employees for their misfeasance or malfeasance. Those who violate the Constitution do so with impunity. That DEFINITELY needs to change, and those convicted of unConstitutional activity under color of law should suffer for it, both civilly and criminally. On the civil side, the costs of the legal action should be assessed against the person or persons involved in the infringement, personally, and they ought to be discharged from their position and stripped of their wealth, as well as salary, benefits and pension, and any other assets they possess.

On the criminal side, deliberate infringement of the Constitution ought to be a felony, and any such infringement resulting in loss of life, directly or indirectly, ought to be punished severely. One could argue that such subversion of the Constitution and violation of rights under color of Law ought to be treated as treason, with the death penalty available, but in any case, any governmental employee, representative, or agent should be liable for their actions.

So there is my conceptual list of what an Enforcement Clause for the Constitution ought to do. Constitutional Enforcement ought to:

  • Be available to any citizen of these united States;
  • be resolved promptly, with the presumption in case of delay in favor of the plaintiff, and with stays or injunctions against the unConstitutional law or regulation required;
  • Those who promote or enact such rules or legislation should be held accountable for the damage they cause and the costs required to address the issue.

Next time, I will discuss how this might be accomplished. In the mean time, thoughts or constructive criticism of the above are welcomed.

With Regard to all who serve the Light,

Historian


(Originally published at Views from Liberty Hollow.)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Presidential Impact on RKBA

TZP readers range widely in thinking on the political process. Some don’t do electoral politics out of principle, some do. Some simply don’t see a point in voting anymore. Your personal mileage may vary. I’ve seen a great many intelligent, informed, and principled people come to diametrically opposed positions based on facts and reason.

Regardless where you stand, in America, in practice, elected officials can have a negative or positive effect on RKBA. Most often when they absolutely shouldn’t, based on the Constitution.

Currently, there are at least twelve parties worth of candidates and twenty independent individuals who are registered candidates. (I say “at least” because there are multiple “socialist” parties in America not listed on that page, who may be fielding candidates.)

The two automatic ballot access parties have fielded interesting examples. Clinton is running on a campaign plank of illegally restricting rights by executive order. Presumptive Republican candidate Trump (who changes parties more often than I change automobiles), says now that he’s in favor of the Second Amendment and RKBA, but in practice acted and claimed otherwise in the past. And present: Trump buildings are usually gun-free zones.

Socialists being socialists, it’s probably safe to assume they’re all anti-gun. The animals right “Humane Party” likely is, too; Bog knows,they’d need a disarmed populace to impose their visions on America.

The Libertarian Party was once an RKBA bastion, but they lost the confidence of myself and many others with the War-On-(Some)-Drugs Barr/Rotarian-Socialism Root ticket in 2008.

In an age when the President will nominate and appoint federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices who’ve seized final say on what is constitutional — with lifetime tenure, and who can, by executive order, erect or eliminate bureaucratic barriers to basic human/civil rights, it matters who the next President is. I wish it didn’t. If the federal government had magically been limited to actual constitutional powers, it wouldn’t. But it does.

L. Neil Smith described the issue of guns as a litmus test. Why should you trust a politician who doesn’t trust you with defensive arms? Just what is that SOB planning to do to you that he can’t do if you can defend yourself?

As a practical matter, the most likely Prez-to-be is either most hated, anti-gun harridan in the nation; or the anti-gun, anti-property rights Democrat running as a pro-gun Republican (who actually once said he’d consider Oprah Winfrey as a running mate). If Clinton is somehow indicted for the disqualifying felonies she already publicly admitted, the socialist who is promising free stuff for everybody at your expense is waiting impatiently in the wings; I rather think he’ll need you disarmed for all that, too.


It’s safe to assume that whichever rights-violator wins, the Inauguration Day security zone is going to be horrifyingly entertaining… for those of us outside its range. Less entertaining, even more horrifying for those trapped in the District of Corruption area.


Ghu save the nation economy if the Greens win. The other third parties strike me as too small, too disorganized, too irrational, or otherwise unacceptable (or accepting of freedom) to be of any use. Some of them All of the Above.

This would be an excellent time for the LP to locate and dust off their principles, pick a relatively sane candidate, and declare a platform of “We aren’t Trump or Clinton.” Short of the Hope scenario, it’s the LP’s best chance to win a Presidential election. But then there’s the problem of the electoral college that does the real electing…

George Santayana warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Whether you vote or not, remember. Consider not just the candidates’ words, but their intentions, and what those intentions require.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Goose, meet gander

Oh goody. Background checks for reporters.

Secret Service takes on new credentialing role for conventions
For the first time this year, the Secret Service has a hand in credentialing the media; during previous conventions only the Congressional press galleries were in charge of credentialing the media. Members of the media began hearing more about the Secret Services’ role in the credentialing process as they began to attend walk-throughs at the convention sites in Philadelphia and Cleveland, leading BuzzFeed Washington Bureau Chief John Stanton to issue a strongly worded letter to fellow journalists, urging them to speak up about the new processes. In his letter Stanton cited concerns about the background checks, the lack of a clear appeals process, and the involvement of a third-party subcontractor, urging his fellow journalists to express their concern over the process.

What? Suddenly the lamestream muddia doesn’t like background checks to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right? I can hardly wait for the Journalism License, and bans on hi-cap word processors.

I wish I could be optimistic enough to hope this would give them some perspective on the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Do you smile every day?

By MamaLiberty

Everyone knows there is plenty in this world to worry about. Even those who avoid the world and national “news” as much as possible can’t help but note the downward spiral in their own financial situation, especially if they or those they love are unemployed. There is the constant push to destroy natural rights to life and liberty, and increasing efforts to criminalize and control everything. Then there is the cost of everyday necessities, increasing due to the sinking national economy and shrinking dollar. A great many people are seriously worried about their health, and the increasing Obummercare insanity replacing free market medicine and insurance. And so much more. Did you know that stress, worry and fear, are far more detrimental to good health than you might think?

It’s almost impossible to know the truth about the “news” or, often, even what’s really happening in our own area. Even people who are present during disturbances and crises seldom have a grasp on the whole problem, much less the whole solution. And, unfortunately, this creates a sort of vacuum that we too often fill with our imagination, our prejudices and the ghosts of our past. All of which can and will be used by the unscrupulous to direct, or even precipitate the next crisis. Trust, but verify. Don’t expect to know or understand everything. Do you need to know? What could you do about it if you did? Good questions to ask yourself, I think.

No hero on a white horse is going to come along and save the day. Not this election, or any other. And expecting the politicians to limit their evil and restore our “rights” is as empty of promise as intergalactic space. Maybe more so. And hoping to do that by threatening not to re-elect them would be a hysterical joke if it wasn’t so painful to watch good people continue to believe in that insanity after all these years, after watching endless rubber room elections.

What can you do? You may not agree at first, but I think there is something we can do, and it has to start with each of us as individuals.

1. How many times have you asked yourself, “by what authority” do people control my life and property. By what authority does anyone pretend to control my thoughts and feelings? Do you participate in trying to control others? Why would anyone do that if they love liberty and justice? This is an important place to start. Read “The Most Dangerous Superstition.”

2. As much as possible, ignore “the law.” Remember the jokes about the tags on the mattresses? There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of “laws” and regulations, petty rules and even actionable “suggestions” on the books. Take a really close look at that, and ask yourself how many are ever enforced. Take a second look and find out the circumstances in which they are ever enforced. Can you figure out a way to avoid those circumstances? Sure you can. Millions of people do avoid them every day. There aren’t enough cops or jails to go around, so all of those prosecuted are targets of opportunity. Only you know your situation, and how close you are willing to skate toward the edge… but millions of people who don’t even file income tax reports should be proof enough that it isn’t impossible.

3. Laugh at them. No, really! Truly look for and appreciate the politician’s contradictions, implausible ideas, idiot posturing and
stupid blunders. Look for them, and laugh out loud. Remember that they want you fearful, tearful, worried and willing to do anything to make that pain stop. Well, do something yourself to relieve the pain, rather than expecting your torturers to stop. Just say no to the hype, the lies, and the other hundred and one evils directed specifically to control your emotions, as well as your soul. The ultimate answer to kings is a belly laugh.

4. Don’t construct your entire life around the controllers or the “law.” Are you spending a great deal of time and effort working for political causes or candidates? Going to council meetings, writing letters to congresscritters? Reading the full text of proposed “laws” and ordinances? Even protest marches and demonstrations? Why? Your reasons may be very good, but I wonder how many people truly think about them in relation to the effect all of it has on their inner peace and joy.

Instead, I suggest folks center their thoughts and activities on what they need to do to be a person of integrity, non-aggressive, and a part of a cooperative voluntary society. Some may have to reach for this if their indoctrination into the socialist herd is extensive, but it seems it would be a far more valuable use of time and effort, mind and soul than useless worry about what the politicians are trying to cook up next. And then, a serious part of this is the necessity of teaching integrity, non-aggression and so forth to one’s children and other family – and by extension, the community. The very best way to do this is to demonstrate it all in your every word and deed, of course. Learning to be articulate and helpful in discussing it, without becoming didactic or overbearing, is a big plus.

5. Smile, laugh, enjoy life as much as you can. Is there some person, object, picture on the wall that makes you smile or laugh with joy each time you see them? I have orchids in my bathroom. Each time I go in there, I see the blooms and new growth, the shiny leaves and note the smell of flowers and clean soil, and I smile. I have a goofy Welsh Corgi dog that gives me a load of laughs and smiles many times during the day, and the cold nose on my hand first thing in the morning, of course. I’ve filled my house with as many of these smiles as I can manage, and you might be surprised at how many you already have… and have been neglecting. Take a good look, and resolve to smile at the kids, or even just the cat, instead of worry about the world.

6. Go shooting. I smile each time I see my rack of rifles, or strap on my carry gun. Now this doesn’t appeal to everyone, naturally, but it is astonishing how often someone newly introduced to guns and shooting tells me how much better this makes them feel about themselves and everything else, even their relationship to the rest of the world. It is empowering, to internalize the fact that one need not be a passive, helpless victim – even if they don’t actually ever expect to be attacked!

Many of us already understand much of this, but how many really think about it and work to increase that joy? It is also important to seek out and communicate with those of like mind, to share the joy rather than the worry. It is so easy to sit in the office and stare at the “news” of the world, and nibble at your ulcer meds… But why do that? I’ve heard a number of people who complain that there aren’t any “of like mind” near them, but when they are really challenged to explain that, it is usually obvious they never really looked. And some live in places inhabited mostly by those who would love to control everyone else’s lives and property. I always ask them why they stay there… And, of course, that’s completely up to them, but I wonder why people who insist on swimming in a swamp spend so much time complaining about the snakes and alligators.

I understand the urge some people have to remain in touch with government meetings and issues. I look at them from time to time myself, but I refuse to let any of that get in the way of my smiles, or the daily romp with the Corgi. Someone tell me why a city council meeting is better for my peace of mind and ultimate joy than a tug a war with a good dog.

Now go find some things to smile about, do something that makes you laugh and feel glad to be alive. Talk to your neighbors, and then go home to hug your family, or at least the dog.

Originally published at The Price of Liberty.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would lik>e to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

In a word…

Will President Obama Regulate Guns Out Of Existence?
When he was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the sale of handguns and all semi-automatic guns as well as a ban on selling guns within five miles of a school or a park. While the president obviously can’t just ban them, he can use regulations to make their lives more difficult.

… Nope.

Lott never really answers his own question. Being an economist, he examines the reasons Obama’s proposed FFL rule changes are unnecessary and pointless: FFL losses to theft are as much as 51 times less than other retail businesses overall, firearms stolen from FFLs are a miniscule fraction of those used to commit crimes. He finally notes the painfully obvious point that Obama simply looks to regulate the ever-lovin’ bejeezus out of FFLs; to eliminate them by the death of a billion bureaucratic paper cuts.

But he doesn’t answer the question: Will — can — the president regulate guns out of existence?

Alcohol Prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs come to mind. Even in theory (assuming a continuingly complacent Congress and judicial branch, a suitable Constitutional Amendment, and a Putinesque civilian national security force) at most he can regulate lawful commerce in defensive arms into oblivion.

Just like heroin and prescription opioids.

The black markets in weapons would thrive as they do in the gunless Australian paradise. Probably to the point that Mexican cartels would start shipping guns back north of the border.

But that’s merely commerce. Let’s pretend he somehow accomplished what no one has ever managed with a complete ban on weapons or anything else. All commerce — while, gray, and black — goes away.

The existing guns won’t go away, if New York’s attempt to merely register “assault weapons” is an indicator. Australia’s approximately 20% compliance rate should be another hint.

America has the highest number of firearms per capita in the world. Conservative estimates put the number over 350 million firearms in civilian hands. Higher estimates put the number closer to 750 million two decades ago. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between on the higher end of the range.

Still pretending, let’s say Americans generally are more like Aussies than New Yorkers in being compliant. Twenty percent of guns turned in leaves anywhere from 280 million to 600 million firearms in the hands where they belong. Without a black market bringing in more.

The gun grabbers who want to believe that the number of firearms owners is decreasing would have us believe (despite record sales for years) that only 30% of households have guns. (Clearly they’ve never been to Georgia or New Hampshire.) Call it 94 million armed citizens. Twenty percent compliance leaves around 75 million armed citizens. 75 million who won’t turn in their guns, so someone will have to come take them.

You’re going to need a bigger civilian national security force, Barry.

Maybe of those 75 million, only Three Percent(ers) will actively resist. That’s only two and quarter million armed and pissed off folks. They would probably get one or two jackbooted thugs apiece before going down.

Hell, Barry, you may need a draft for your civilian national security force. And Obamacare isn’t going to handle the medical needs of the survivors.

Odds are, ATF kitty-stompers would lead the confiscation teams. Given tactics like that, how long would it take for IIIpers to take the battle to the thugs? Why, some of the (previously) nonviolent resistors might be motivated to participate. That 1 resistor:2 thugs ratio is going to go a lot higher.

The heck with the brownshirts, Barry; you’d need to call out the active military.

Of course, taking the famous Twenty-nine Palms Survey at face value, only around 26% of the troops would participate. Of 2.1 million active and reserve troops, that will hypothetically yield 546,000 thousand door-kicking oathbreakers.

Versus at least two and quarter million pissed-off shooters.

One might wonder what our NATO and other allies are going to do when Obama pulls a Trump and withdraws all those troops to steal guns back home. One needn’t wonder what North Korea’s Kim Jong-un would think, though: “A united Korea!” Daesh now…

No, Obama can’t regulate guns out of existence. But with enough psychotic enablers he can regulate civil war and world conflict into existence.  Because some of us will never forget.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Victim’s Mindset

For decades — ever since I really became aware of RKBA as a political and moral issue, and educated myself on the subject — one particular question has nagged at me.

Given history (Maccabees, Basel, Warsaw Ghetto, and the Holocaust in full, to pick out a few), why and how do so many American Jews support victim disarmament? If any single group has thousands of years of experience with the value of arms, it must certainly be Jews.

The closest I’ve come to understanding this, if only on an intellectual level and certainly not agreement, is expressed by Charlie Deitch. So far as I know, he isn’t Jewish, but this seems to be the same mindset.

Deitch: Fight for gun control now, you don’t know whose life you’re saving
I’m only alive today because she killed her husband 64 years ago.
She felt so certain of her death because she only knew him as an abusive monster her entire young life. Her siblings, the oldest in his teens, had dealt with it much longer. The fact that this was her daddy made her even surer of what was coming.

An account I got later in life, the account I’m inclined to believe, is that [grandmother] got the gun away and took her shot. My grandfather, a World War II veteran and inveterate drunk, was dead; my grandmother was arrested; and six months later a grand jury, who heard the first version of events, ruled the shooting self-defense, according to a news report from the time.

Now some will say, of course, and I’m just waiting for the emails, that a gun actually saved my mother’s life back in 1952. And who knows, maybe that’s how you might think of it if you’re not a 5-year-old with a rifle in your face or her 44-year-old son who sometimes thinks about how close he came to not existing so someone else could exercise his Second Amendment rights. But I don’t see it that way, and most rational people wouldn’t see it that way either.

One man with one rifle nearly ended our entire bloodline in one night.

So the fact that everyone knew him as an abusive monster likely to kill them all means nothing. It’s the gun’s fault.

The fact that his grandmother got the rifle away from the would-be killer, yet still felt sufficiently threatened by the disarmed man to find it necessary to kill her own husband in self defense, means nothing. It’s the gun’s fault.

I’m surprised Deitch doesn’t condemn his grandmother for using that nasty, evil rifle. Isn’t it still the gun’s fault, if guns are evil by default?

No, sir, most rational people wouldn’t see it that way. You’ve confused rationality with your own delusions.

And so, I believe, do the Schumers, Feinsteins, Spielbergs, and Creditors of the Jewish world.

Rationally, a firearm is neutral; neither good nor evil. It isn’t even specifically designed to kill. “Firearms are chemical/mechanical devices designed to direct a projectile at a target. That’s all.” The target is chosen through the intent of the person using it. Deitch, of all people — his mother threatened with a gun by his grandfather, and saved by his grandmother with the same gun — should see that.

And so should should anyone whose forebearers used arms to put off their own involuntary participation in the Holocaust.

In the end, it seems that the answer to my question is that those people are irrational, not quite sane. And one does not help a crazy person get better by compromising with them and adopting part of their delusions.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail