An Ironic Turn of Events

A scumbag broke into somebody’s home then called 911 because he feared the homeowner had a gun:

Chapek locked himself in the bathroom and made an emergency call, police said. He said he had broken into the house, the owner had come home, and that he was concerned the owner might have a gun.

That just puts a smile on my face. One benefit of an armed society as we have in America is the fact you can’t know whether or not somebody has a gun. If the thug in this story knew for sure the homeowner was unarmed he may have decided to attack him instead of barricading himself in a bathroom and calling 911. I’m also impressed with the following fact:

Police with dogs took Chapek, 24, into custody “without incident,” they said. He was booked for criminal trespass.

They did not say if the homeowner did in fact have a gun.

The police didn’t report if the homeowner had a gun. The problem with reporting if the homeowner had a gun is the fact that, if identified, the homeowner could become a target for thiefs wanting to steal guns.

The Other Side of Unions

With the recent problems in Wisconsin people have been proclaiming unions as the greatest things in the whole wide world. If I take what some people are saying seriously I have to believe unions are actually unicorns that shit rainbows and happiness. The fact of the matter is unions have a much uglier side than most people realize with his very well explained in this Mises Daily article.

I’ve stated before my main gripe with unions is employees at unionized workplaces are forced to join the established union. This negates voluntary participation and forces employees to fund things that they may or may not wish to. SEIU for instance pays massive amounts of money to the Democrat Party which I would never give a single nickle to. Yes if I worked in a unionized workplace I’d be forced to fund the Democrat Party via my mandatory union dues.

Of course the article on Mises has many explains of the problems of unions. If you thing unions are great things you need to read that article and understand the other side of the coin (that way you can understand the arguments of those who oppose unionization of everything instead of just spouting off personal insults).

Why Are Anti-Gunners Still Using These Argument

So the BBC has a writeup on America’s liberalization (term used in the classical sense not modern sense) of gun laws. Obviously being the BBC they give more time to anti-gunners such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

“They’re hell-bound to try and put guns in schools,” he says of Mr Gould and his Republican colleagues.

“If they’re successful in my opinion at some point in the future there’s going to be a ‘Gunfight at OK Corral’ in some classroom.”

Emphasis mine. Anti-gunners have been claiming there will be “blood in the streets” since right to carry laws started being enacted. The problem comes from the fact this still hasn’t happened and we’ve had right to carry laws for quite some time now. Continued use of this argument is a side effect of the fact anti-gunners have no argument to stand on. They’ve been proven wrong time and time again yet are so scared of inanimate objects with triggers that they refuse face reality and admit they are wrong.

I’m still baffled at the fact that anti-gunners don’t get the fact that criminals ignore laws. Saying a place is a gun free zone doesn’t stop shootings as noted by school shootings. The best thing we can do is give people a fighting chance and that can only be done by allowing them equal force to the criminals.

Of course Brady Campaign shill Colin Goddard has some input on the subject at hand:

He says he’s not opposed to the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, but he doesn’t like the idea of concealed weapons, especially on campus.

“That is not a right, that is a privilege that we grant to certain people who meet certain requirements,” he says. “And I’m saying those requirements are very low.”

Of course he mentions the United States Constitution:

“The second amendment is the only amendment with the word ‘regulated’ in it. And I’d say that’s there for a reason.”

The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice that regulated appears in relation to the militia but there is a comma which delineates a separation of thought. The amendment then says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed means what it states. Another thing Mr. Collins completely ignored is the Arizona constitution which is covered in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) article:

Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

No mention of “well regulated” even appears in Arizona’s Constitution. Too bad so sad Mr. Brady shill. Until you anti-gunners can demonstrate a gun control law actually preventing murders your argument is completely irrelevant due to the fact we can demonstrate liberalized gun laws haven’t increase violent crime rates.

Why I Carry

I carry a gun to give myself a better chance of survival in a self-defense situation. The thing most people fail to realize is self-defense situations can occur anywhere and any time. Take for instance the recent shooting at a Bloomington IHOP:

Three men from Minneapolis were shot in the parking lot of a Bloomington restaurant early Monday morning and authorities are seeking suspects.

I’m not saying those three people would be fine if they had firearms but this is certainly a situation where having a firearm would be a good option. The thing is you never know when bad people will intersect with your life. Even if you are unwilling or unable to carry a firearm you should have a plan of some sort.

The world isn’t all sunshine and lollipops and it’s ignorant to believe it is. Be prepared and have an idea of what you will do if you find yourself in a bad situation.

Stealing Vehicles with Tow Trucks

I’ve often wondered why nobody used tow truck services to steal cars but as Bruce Schneier points out they do:

Stealing cars has apparently never been easier. Criminals aren’t using fancy tools or new technology; they’re just calling the tow truck and having cars towed away.

I’ve had to have my truck towed a couple of times and I noticed I was never once asked for proof that I owned the vehicle. Due to this I figured calling a tow truck on a vehicle you want to steal would be a good idea. The only potential downside would be the tow truck driver knowing where the vehicle went but by the time anybody thought to contact the tow truck driver the vehicle could be long gone.

Of course few people keep the title to their vehicles inside of their vehicles (because it’s a stupid idea). Thus there really is no way to provide proof of ownership when you have your vehicle towed which makes this situation a bit tricky.

The Beretta Mx4 Storm

I have a Beretta Cx4 Storm in .45 and absolutely love it. Beretta released the Cx4 Storm as a “patrol rifle” (the label given by police for rifles incorrectly called “assault rifles” by anti-gunners, it makes the polices’ rifles sound less scary) and shares magazine commonality with similarly chambered Px4 Storm pistols. I’ve always been curious why Beretta hasn’t released a select fire version of the Cx4 Storm as it would make a sweet little submachinegun. After long last they have released one, the Mx4 Storm.

I think it goes without saying that I want one. Sadly as a lowly peasant I can’t legally own such a rifle.

Operation Gunwalker is Getting Popular

The media sure loves a good scandal and it seems the United States government providing guns to Mexican drug cartels is popular enough to warrant coverage overseas. It also seems the Mexican government is curious about the United States latest shenanigans:

Mexico has asked the US for detailed information on a law enforcement operation that allegedly allowed guns to be smuggled across the border.

The request follows media reports that US federal agents allowed hundreds of guns to be smuggled into Mexico in the hope of tracking the weapons to drug cartel leaders.

Some of the guns were reportedly later used in crimes including murder.

US Attorney General Eric Holder has already ordered an inquiry.

This is what government is good at, creating problems and then claiming their necessity to fix them. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) created a problem by smuggling guns into Mexico that demanded emergency powers in order to correct the issue. I wish I could create problems at work just so I could fix them and be considered awesome for doing it. Of course if I did that I’d be fired and rightfully so. You also have to enjoy the irony in this paragraph:

The ATF reportedly allowed 1,765 guns to be smuggled into Mexico over a 15 month period, including assault weapons and high-powered sniper rifles.

Of those guns, 797 were recovered on both sides of the border.

Many are thought to have been used in crimes, including two that were recovered at the scene of the killing of a US border protection agent in Arizona.

Wow the ATF is busy if they trafficked 1,765 guns into Mexico. Then again I’m sure they don’t have to explain to the border guards why they’re smuggling 100 guns into Mexico so it’s probably pretty easy. Likewise it’s ironic that the weapon used to kill the border agent was supplied by the very government that employed him. With friends like that who needs enemies.

The Difference Between The State and The Mob

What’s the difference between the state and the mob? The mob is honest about their intent while the state tries to hide behind the term “justice.” Although I’ll save you the specifics I will mention that I received a parking ticket on Sunday. First of all St. Paul needs to get their shit together because nowhere on the ticket does it state how much money they are trying to extort from me. How am I to pay them without knowing how much money they are demanding?

But this isn’t about the fine, it’s about the system. You ultimately have two options; pay the fine or fight it. If you pay the fine you are admitting guilt as stated on the ticket. If you try to fight the ticket you must use the same system that issued you the ticket to fight it. Basically you either are admitting that you’re a criminal or you have to deal with a massive conflict of interest.

In this situation I am against admitting guilt as there is no victim and thus I see no crime to admit guilt to. On the other hand if I try to fight the ticket I will have to take time off of work and possible pay a court fee (thus I will likely pay them either way which is why I use the term extortion). Either way I’m going to be out money and this is exactly how the police department wants it. The only reason all of these parking ordinances exist is to fill the coffers of the local police departments. There is no legitimate reason why my parking on a publicly owned and tax payer funded street should garner a fine of unknown amount.

Likewise there is a giant conflict of interest in having to ask an officer of the same precinct to determine a ticket as invalid. If I write you a ticket you should not have to beg me to rule it illegitimate. This is a problem right up to the Supreme Court where the legitimacy of federal laws are determined by the federal government.

Either way the system is stacked against the accused. Even if the ticket is ruled to be illegitimate I am still punished. My guilt matters not as I will receive the same punishment regardless of the outcome (an unknown monetary loss). The police have found a means of practically guaranteeing income by writing fines that are expensive to fight. I’m sure they are aware that a majority of people will pay the fine and accept the accusation made against them not because they feel themselves guilty but because it will cost them more to fight it.

Of course I have to wait at least three business days in order to fight it. I was under the belief that all these computerized systems would allow a ticket to be instantly filed with the court but alas I was incorrect. Apparently it can take up to 10 days to file a ticket with the court and you can’t fight it until it’s been filed. It’s nice to see they are held to no real schedule yet I am as if I don’t pay the fine within 21 days they assess a late fee.

Becoming the Enemy

Through social circles that I am a member of I’ve learned that a fascist is coming to Minneapolis. In of itself this is completely unimportant but what is important are the actions of those who are opposing him. Apparently there are groups of “anti-fascists” who try to organize against this openly fascist person. The problem is these “anti-fascists” have destroyed any legitimacy they could have generated by using fascist tactics themselves:

They were so effective in disrupting the event that police had to escort attendees out. The same happened a day later in NYC, where the event was not only disrupted, but both Irving’s tour manager Jaenelle Antas and neo-Nazi friend Alex Carmichael were pepper-sprayed. Faced with humiliation and defeat, Irving was forced to cancel his next few scheduled appearances, but the chaos did not end there. Days later his Chicago event was shut down when dozens of masked anti-fascists stormed into the Edelweiss restaurant turning over tables, destroying his merchandise, and assaulting attendees, while Irving and Antas locked themselves in a supply closet in a magnificent display of cowardice.

Emphasis mine. I despise fascism, socialism, and communism for the very fact that none of them can work unless violence is used to coerce the members of those societies. Fascist, socialist, and communist states generally make laws against criticism of the state in order to silence those who oppose them. They use the threat of violence to silence all opposition.

These “anti-fascist” demonstrators are using violence to silence those who disagree with them. They have become that which they claim to fight against. As much as I hate fascists they do have a right to say what they are saying. Having laws that protect freedom of speech are usually enacted to protect a minority whom speak against what is socially accepted. Although I despise the KKK, neo-Nazis, and authoritarians I would never consider using violence to silence them.

I’ve explained my hatred of hypocrisy before and these “anti-fascist” demonstrators are a great example of why. When you act hypocritically you destroy any legitimacy your movement has. There is no way to claim you are opposed to something while you are doing it. It’s the same as when your parents would tell you to “do as I say not as I do.” I’m not sure about yourself but whenever my parents said that I scoffed and felt their “reasoning” to be flawed.

The problem lies in the fact that there is such a thing as fighting an enemy so long that you become the enemy. When you focus on a specific goal you will eventually justify any action you take to yourself as correct so long as it opposes those you are fighting. Guantanamo Bay is a classic example where the United States has been fighting an enemy so long that the forfeiture of rights has been justified. There comes a point in any conflict where you have to take a step back and reassess the situation. You must examine your actions and prevent yourself from becoming what you are fighting.

These “anti-fascist” demonstrators have become fascist themselves by attacking those who they disagree with. The use of violence to silence your opposition is the tactic of an authoritarian. If your opponent brings violence against you then by all means defend yourself but if they are simply saying things you disagree with then you have no grounds for cause damage to their person or property.

I like the motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute which is “Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.” It’s Latin for “Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” By using violence to silence those you disagree with you have given into evil.