Watch the Anti-Gunners Dance in the Blood

Unfortunately I find myself reporting a shooting at Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech was the location of a mass shooting in 2007 that seemed to fill the anti-gunners with glee as it gave them a reason to proselytize for more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. As of this writing few details are available. What we do know is one officer and one student have been murdered and the suspect remains at large:

During a traffic stop on campus, the suspect shot and killed a Virginia Tech police officer and then fled on foot through a nearby parking lot, officials said.

A second person was later found dead in that parking lot, the university said.

A university alert released after the shooting described the possible shooter as a white male wearing gray sweat pants, a gray hat with a neon green brim, a maroon hoodie and backpack.

Before the anti-gunners start claiming this as a prime example of why we need more gun control I’m going to point out the obvious fact that Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone. In other words it is already illegal to carry a gun there but the law was made irrelevant by the sheer fact that laws don’t stop criminals from acting. No number of laws would have prevented this event.

Hats Off to Kaspersky Lab

I would just like to give kudos to Kaspersky Lab for leaving the Business Software Alliance (BSA) because of the organization’s support of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA):

Security research company and prominent antivirus software vendor Kaspersky Lab has announced its intent to withdraw from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) because of the Alliance’s support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, also known as H.R. 3261).

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) are the software industry’s two biggest trade groups. Since both groups have strong anti-piracy stances, neither directly opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act. Both expressed interest in working with Congress to design the law.

[…]

“Kaspersky Lab is aware of the public controversy and debates sparked by the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Kaspersky Lab is occasionally mentioned in the discussion as a member of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which supports the SOPA initiative,” a statement from the security company said on Monday. “Kaspersky Lab would like to clarify that the company did not participate in the elaboration or discussion of the SOPA initiative and does not support it. Moreover, the company believes that the SOPA initiative might actually be counter-productive for the public interest, and decided to discontinue its membership in the BSA as of January 1, 2012.”

Good on you guys, I hope other software companies follow suit.

What Could Go Wrong

In case you thought our police weren’t militarized enough the federal government has decided to hand out $500 million dollars of free military equipment to United States police forces:

Benjamin Carlson at The Daily reports on a little known endeavor called the “1033 Program” that gave more than $500 million of military gear to U.S. police forces in 2011 alone.

1033 was passed by Congress in 1997 to help law-enforcement fight terrorism and drugs, but despite a 40-year low in violent crime, police are snapping up hardware like never before. While this year’s staggering take topped the charts, next year’s orders are up 400 percent over the same period.

A bunch of people given authority and practically blanket immunity receiving a bunch of free military weapons, what could go wrong? I love how the federal government will take money they stole from the public, use it to buy weapons of war, and then give away those weapons to police agencies but won’t let me have one authentic M-14 for my collection. Unlike many police officers I’ve proven to be trustworthy with weaponry and certainly am not going to use an M-14 for anything devious.

Seriously there is something messed up in this country when the civilian police forces are getting access to fancy wizbang weaponry while other civilians aren’t allowed to even own a machine gun unless it was manufactured before 1986 (or in Minnesota unless it’s on the curio and relics list).

Newt Gingrich Believes We Need to Allow Terrorist Attacks

Do you want to see a walrus stick its flipper in its mouth? If so here’s a video of it:

Yes that was Newt Gingrich saying it would have been smart to allow some terrorist attacks to succeed once in a while to make Americans understand why they need their government. Do we really want such a piece of shit in office?

Truth be told the reason we haven’t had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 is because the only few attempted attacks had been total failures. Some idiots attempted to blow up airplanes using explosives hidden in shoes, underwear, and water bottles only to be thwarted by passengers because they weren’t about to see another 9/11 happen. These weren’t prevented by the government, they were prevented by people willing to take their self-defense into their own hands.

There was the incident in New York which amounted to nothing although it was interesting to see how the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) basically urged the guy to perform the attack and even provided him with all the explosive ordinance to boot.

Shit heads like this guy have managed to be political players for decades. Reflect on that for a bit, a guy who believes the government should have allowed a few terrorist attacks to succeed has held office in this country and is currently being held up as the star Republican nominee. I’d weep for this country but I’ve already reached the acceptance stage of greif.

ATF Planned to Use Fast and Furious to Advance Gun Control from the Start

To quote Spider Jerusalem, “Paranoids are just people with all the facts.” When news of Fast and Furious first broke many in the gun community theorized it to be a plan for the government to advance gun control. Others called those of us who theorized this crazy, paranoid, or conspiracy theorists. Well guess what? Those people can suck on it:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

Emphasis mine. Read that and let is sink in, let it sink in deep. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) were just caught red handed. We no longer have to theorize if Fast and Furious was meant to be a tool to advance gun control, e-mails obtained from the agency prove it. No ifs, no ands, and no buts; just pure proof that this entire scheme was, at least in part, meant to be a tool used by out government to justify further gun control.

Is this what Obama means when he said his administration was looking to advanced gun control under the radar? I’m not sure but certainly would not be surprised if this was the fact.

Let me put this as clearly as possible: your government doesn’t love you. Your government’s only interest is in controlling you and part of establishing that control is disarming the populace. They have attempted to do so openly for most of a century and now that they’re facing strong backlash as people no longer buy into their bullshit about the need to control guns to reduce crime they’re using more covert methods. They lied to you and tried to cover up their little mess when it all blew up. Fast and Furious was never meant to be made public and probably wouldn’t have been if it wasn’t for the unforeseen consequence of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry being murdered with one of these smuggled weapons.

The republic is dead, welcome to fascism.

Finally a Discussion of Economics and Gun Rights Wrapped Up Into One Post

It’s not often that I get to discuss my two favorite topics in one post but thanks to Joan Peterson’s lengthy rambling I finally get to talk about both of these topics. Sadly this makes it difficult to decide what category to place the post in but alas I’ll find some way to manage.

Joan rants for some length about the girl who was harassed by the Transportation Sexual Assaulters Security Administration (TSA) for having a purse with a stylized gun on it. While a sane person realizes the egregious nature of the TSA’s harassement Joan has a bunch of questions that can be easily answered by anybody with even a basic background in economics. As I hold this background I will take the responsibility of answering her barrage of questions:

Why should there even be a purse with this design?

Because there is a market. The beauty of the free market is its ability to fulfill the wants of society. As there are people who want a purse with a gun emblem on it a manufacturer has provided it. It’s really the same reason why very few manufacturers sell anti-gun themed clothing and accessories, nobody wants them. Where demand exists it is fulfilled, where demand doesn’t exist it remains unfulfilled.

Where do you get purses like this anyway? ( in case I want to buy one) I checked here, here, and here with no luck. Oh well.

How stereotypical can one person get? She’s looking for a purse with a gun on it and she checks Lone Star Western Decor, Western Cow Girl, and Country Road Handbags but never stops to consider checking the one place that sells almost everything, Amazon. Perhaps the purse is handmade by somebody who doesn’t have a website.

Maybe she got her purse at this site which seems to be having problems. It says that the site may be harmful to my computer. I wonder what that means?

It most likely means that the site was improperly flagged by Google’s phishing prevention database. This happens with alarming frequency.

But then, here , I may have found something similar to the purse in question in the story. Great. But I digress.

So ultimately you did find it? I’m now really confused what the point of that entire paragraph was supposed to be. Did you want to express the fact that you’re bad at using search engines? That really seems irrelevant to this discussion.

What is the purpose of carrying such a purse around? Is it to provoke people? To make a statement? To let people know that they should not mess with you? Is it just for fun?

The purpose of carrying such a purse is the same purpose as carrying any accessory, because the person carrying it likes it in some way. This enjoyment of the accessory may come from the statement it makes, the beauty of the design, the utility of the accessory, etc. As value is subjective the only person who can properly answer that question is the one who owns the accessory in question.

Why does a young girl think this is a good idea?

Likely it’s for the same reason I wear my shirt with the silhouette of Murray Rothbard and the text, “Enemy of the State” whenever I go through airport security. Agents of the TSA are thugs and one of the few ways we as Americans can rebel against their legalized sexual assault is through free speech. Unlike some people I refuse to blindly submit to force without comment. If I’m ever forced to enter one of those naked body scanners I’m opting out and making the biggest scene of doing so I can. After the TSA agent walks me around the corner I’m going to make obscene remarks to the agent who is tasked with sexually assaulting me.

Follow the motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, “Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

Did her parents know about this purse?

Considering purses aren’t very concealable I’m pretty sure her parents knew about it. If they didn’t they are two of the least perceptive people on the planet.

Who bought it for her and what were they thinking?

Perhaps she bought it herself because she liked the design.

Does it seem appropriate to you?

Yes.

The teen is pregnant so one has to wonder what role model this will be for her young child? There’s a message here and it’s not one of “peace on earth, good will towards men.” It’s the holiday season- just thought I’d throw that in.

What relevance does the girls pregnancy have to this debate? Oh yeah I almost forgot, character assassinations are favorite tools of the anti-gun crowd. When you lack facts to back your arguments all you can resort to is attacking the characters of those you ideologically oppose.

Having flown recently, I am so aware of what I can and cannot put into my carry-on bag and what I can and cannot wear when going through the security area. When someone says that it was a mistake when a gun is found in their carry-on, I say nonsense. If you own a firearm and intend to travel with it, you should know the rules. Even the NRA has good advice for people when traveling with their guns. There are plenty of warnings about firearms on planes for anyone who can read.

Once again I ask what the relevance of this statement is. The girl in question didn’t attempt to smuggle a firearm onboard an airplane, nor was the firearm image sewn onto her purse in any way realistic (if you don’t believe me click the first link in this post, it has a picture). Thus the girl didn’t break any of the TSA’s rules and they decided to arbitrarily harass this poor girl because some agent decided it would be a jolly good amount of fun to be a dick. People need to realize that a large majority of agents in the TSA didn’t take the job because they wanted to help keep Americans safe, they took the job because it’s an easy way to gain authority over other people without actually having to go through the training required to become a real police officer.

From here Joan goes on a long and pointless rant about those of us with carry permits. I’ll save you the hassle of reading it because it’s entirely hysterical and unbacked with any citations.

This statement was funny though:

Haven’t they learned that some of us, the majority actually since only 2-3% carry their guns around in this country, don’t want those guns around in public where we gather?

I’m sorry to inform you of this fact Joan but unless you own the property you have no say in what other people can do while on that property. If you want to prohibit people form having a means of self-defense while they’re at your home that’s your right as a property owner. Thankfully you and those who believe as you don’t have a say in what people can and can’t do while on public property. As I’ve explained before the government can’t rightly own property and therefore has no right to make restrictions upon people carrying while on any publicly owned property (they do make restrictions of course, but they have no right to do so).

Sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to take guns and other weapons or methods of killing innocent people on airplanes or in other public places.

And sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to write a blog and other material or methods of expressing false statements, lies, and slander. Luckily for you, Joan, this country has the right to free speech declared in the Constitution so you can continue blogging. I will also say it’s lucky that there is a Constitutional amendment protecting my right to keep and bear arms otherwise the lies and slander your ilk spew would have likely prohibited me from legally protecting myself.

The fact that the screeners at the Virginia airport wouldn’t allow the purse with a real looking gun in the design get on a plane makes me hope that they won’t miss the real thing when someone has it.

Have you ever seen a real gun before? If you have you should know that the gun on the girl’s purse was in no way realistic.

This TSA blog is an interesting read about what screeners find ( or don’t find) in carry-ons at airports. “Sometimes after reading the incident reports, it‘s as though they’re having a gun and knife convention at the airport. ” Grenades? Loose ammo? I thought these folks who carry their guns around in public were responsible law abiding citizens.

Notice the bigotry. TSA agents note that they’ve found guns, grenades, and loose ammunition on passengers. Joan doesn’t like people with carry permits. Even though the TSA statements never said the people found with those items held carry permits Joan instantly claims they did. That’s like asking a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) who most likely robbed a local store. As the KKK member doesn’t like people of color they’re likely to claim it was a person of African American decent even though they never actually saw who robbed the store nor read the police report.

Lots of Complaining But What’s the Solution LaPierre

Via Uncle I came across a column by NRA president Wayne LaPierre. In the piece he warns about the dangers of Obama receiving a second term and explains many of the potential dangers:

And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 – the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.

I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: “If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?”

And then, we must consider the facts.

[…]

This is why I’m asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year’s election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it’s only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.

That’s good and all but it’s nothing everybody isn’t already vehemently aware of. Here’s my question, what’s the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) solution? Let’s take a look at the last election and consider what ended up happening. Last election was set between John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of which were good news. Even though McCain proved himself to be no friend of gun owners the NRA gave him the endorsement. I’m sorry but there was no acceptable reason to get behind McCain considering his history and the NRA should have either endorsed a third-party candidate (fat chance) or simply said, “Both major players are horrible, we’re ducking out of this and focusing our efforts on a contingency plan.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) moved in with several high-profile court cases that went so far as to incorporate the second amendment. In other words even under dire circumstances SAF found a different route outside of the decision between rock and hard place. Considering the NRA has far more resources available to them they should have been the ones initiating the lawsuits and moving them through, instead they simply continued with the status quo of endorsing the “lesser” of two evils.

So far the Republicans haven’t selected a nominee and there is a chance for the NRA to make a stand. Of the Republican candidates there is only one who will stand up for the rights of gun owners (and everybody else) and candidate is Ron Paul. Instead of complaining about Obama for the entire column LaPierre could have taken a stance and said, “Due to the threat of Obama to the rights of gun owners the NRA is hereby endorsing Ron Paul for Republican Party presidential candidate.” Unfortunately it appears as though the NRA is going to keep playing it’s old game of simply endorsing the Republican candidate.

As it currently stands the Republican Party appears to be setting up Romney to win by simply ignoring Ron Paul and hyping up each other candidate only to have them torn down (so far they’ve done this to Bachmann, Perry, and Cain with Gingrich being the fourth one receiving this treatment). If the election domes down to Obama versus Obama II Romney will the NRA give Romney their endorsement? Will that be their way of fighting for the rights of gun owners?

SAF has the right idea, given the futility of getting true pro-gun candidates into office a new strategy had to be devised and utilizing the court system seems to be a fairly effective strategy. I believe the NRA should drop their tried and false approach of giving the “lesser” of two evils an endorsement and focus on a new and potentially more effective strategy. Perhaps they can start working with SAF from the start of each lawsuit instead of hoping in after all the real leg work as been done and claiming the credit. Maybe the NRA can say, “Well Obama and Romney are both bad for gun owner rights so we’re sitting this election out and concentrating on getting pro-gun Senate and House members in office.”

Yeah this is a rather long rant just to say, “Put up or shut up LaPierre” but I’m getting sick of constant compromises when it comes to my rights. Supporting the “lesser” of two evils doesn’t accomplish jack shit, it merely gives your endorsement to evil. When one strategy doesn’t work you need to be adaptive and move to a new strategy. If endorsing a real pro-gun candidate like Paul isn’t in the works then it’s time for something entirely different.

Yet The State Won’t Relinquish Its Monopoly

It’s probably not news to anybody that the United States Postal Service (USPS) is in trouble. Their financial situation is growing ever darker and now they’re laying off 28,000 employees and shutting down numerous mail-processing centers:

The US Postal Service is shutting more than half its mail-processing centres in a £3bn (£1.9bn) cost-cutting drive expected to shed 28,000 jobs.

Vice-President David Williams told a news conference that the closures were designed to stave off bankruptcy next year.

Out of 461 mail-processing centres across the US, 252 will be shuttered starting from next April.

So what happened?

Customers were increasingly using the internet for bill payment and other communication, he said.

From nearly 100 million in 2006, first-class mail volume was down to 78 million and expected to half by 2020.

USPS is sinking because the product they offer isn’t in as high of demand anymore. Basically we can look at this situation by pretending the Internet is the Ford Model T and mail delivery is a horse and buggy. In our example USPS is a buggy whip manufacturer and instead of moving into the business of manufacturing tires for the Model T they continue to stick to their hopeless belief that this whole automobile thing is just a fad and will go away soon.

Even though USPS maintains a complete monopoly on first class mail delivery they have agile competitors in other areas of package delivery. How often do you receive a package from USPS? Most packages I receive are either from UPS or FedEx (although once in a while I’ll get something from a regional deliverer like Speedy). When I wish to ship packages I find UPS and FedEx are almost always cheaper and less hassle. Now it appears as though they’ll also be quicker to get your package from a drop-off point to its destination since USPS is closing down half of their processing centers.

It’s not entirely USPS’s fault in this case. USPS stands in a precarious situation having to please the demands of the federal government while receiving no federal funds. The federal government demands that USPS pay its employees federal wages, pensions, and benefits while keeping the cost of letter delivery very low. Yet the same government making demands about how employees are compensated for their time are also saying USPS has to be self-sustaining. Were UPS or FedEx subjugated to these same conditions they to would face failure.

They only option to fix USPS’s woes is for the federal government to completely cut the cord. That is to say remove any input into the operations of USPS and let the business be run like a business. Either way USPS is on the slow road to complete failure and the only option the federal government will have is relinquishing their monopoly on first class mail delivery less no letters be delivered upon USPS’s complete collapse. USPS also needs to move into another business, which is likely very difficult when the federal government controls everything you do.

The Biggest Threat to America

Ask the average American walking down the street what they believe the biggest threat to America is and you’ll likely get as many answers and interviewees. Some will claim a nuclear armed Iran is the biggest threat, but they fail to understand that simply possessing a nuclear weapon doesn’t make for a threat if you lack a delivery system capable of transporting the weapon to your enemy’s home and bypassing that enemy’s countermeasures. Other people will claim the biggest threat to our county is the faltering education system, against they fail to see that a faltering public education system is a symptom of a much larger problem.

The biggest threat to our country is the tyranny of our government and Henry Hazlitt called it in 1956:

In spite of the obvious ultimate objective of the masters of Russia to communize and conquer the world, and in spite of the frightful power which such weapons as guided missiles and atomic and hydrogen bombs may put in their hands, the greatest threat to American liberty today comes from within. It is the threat of a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology.

Totalitarianism in its final form is the doctrine that the government, the state, must exercise total control over the individual. The American College Dictionary, closely following Webster’s Collegiate, defines totalitarianism as “pertaining to a centralized form of government in which those in control grant neither recognition nor tolerance to parties of different opinion.”

Unlike potential threats from foreign nations, the threat of ever more tyrannical government isn’t hypothetical but an absolute fact. We aren’t playing a guessing game of “what if” when talking about expanding government power but a game of “how much” and “how quickly?” No doubt can exist that the power the federal government commands is much greater now than any other point in our country’s history, and make no mistake our history is ladened with expanding government power.

The United States government has been on an ever expanding power grab since the start but it really began to ramp up after the conclusion of the Civil War. One the federal government realized they successfully prevented any state from seceding they also knew there was no limit to their power. Gone was the possibility of individual states finding federal laws and regulations unacceptable and withdrawing. While this expansion of power was continuous it really began to ramp up during World War II and has only continued to rapidly expand every since.

The article is an excellent read and should serve as a wakeup call to anybody who doesn’t see the constant destruction of liberty taking place in this nation.

Great Work Now Try Entering the Building

The enviro-nazis at Greenpeace are bragging about the fact they were able to hand signs on a reactor containment building in France. They claim this demonstrates a weakness of national security and, of course, demonstrates the dangers of nuclear power. Let’s take a look at what they actually accomplished:

Greenpeace activists secretly entered a French nuclear site before dawn and draped a banner reading “Coucou” and “Facile”, (meaning “Hey” and “Easy”) on its reactor containment building, to expose the vulnerability of atomic sites in the country.

Police, whom the environmental activist group immediately told of the publicity stunt, took several hours to round up nine intruders who had broken into the power plant in Nogent-sur-Seine, about 95km southeast of Paris, on Monday.

[…]

Activists who tried to enter three other French nuclear sites, in a co-ordinated action on the same day, were prevented from doing so, but Greenpeace said other invaders were still holed up inside other, unspecified, nuclear sites.

They had a 25% success rate, which isn’t terrible. Then again when you look at it all the activists accomplished was getting inside the fence surrounding the plant, they didn’t managed to enter the actual reactor containment building. Now the question is, what did they really accomplish? Not a heck of a lot honestly. Reactor containment buildings are heavily reinforced structures that are literally hardened against high explosives. You could probably stick 10 pounds of C4 onto a reactor containment building and accomplish little more than gouge the overly thick concrete that ensures a meltdown doesn’t end up being Chernobyl II (although if you do like the Japanese and try to prevent a properly melting down reactor form melting down containment will fail and you’ll have a radioactive mess on your hands).

Perhaps you could breech the containment building with a nuclear weapon but at that point I think the entire scenario is a giant moot point. Either way I doubt there is any man portable means of breeching containment of a reactor without gaining entry into the containment building so this entire stunt really proves nothing. If Greenpeace members could have gained entry into the reactor containment building then they would have a point to make.