Month: August 2012

How to Handle Gun Buy Backs

Gun buybacks have always baffled me. First of all the name buyback is deceptive as it implies the person “buying back” the firearm was the original owner. Since the state was never the owner of the firearms it isn’t buying back firearms, it’s simply buying them. It would be more accurate to call these programs gun buys. More and more individuals are beginning to use the state’s “buyback” program against them. Following this proud tradition gun owners in Oregon attended a gun “buyback” and competed with the state by offering more money for firearms:

They were among a group of gun buyers who’d staked out periphery positions as a firearms “turn-in” took place inside the parking lot. The Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation conducted the turn-in for four hours. Gun owners could turn in a weapon to foundation volunteers, who were assisted by Portland police with handling the weapons for eventual destruction. In return for each operable gun, owners received the gift card.

“I believe the majority of people would not show up here today,” said foundation volunteer Liz Julee, “if they did not want their gun removed from circulation.”

Obviously Julee doesn’t understand how markets work. People exchange only when they feel as though they’ll come out better in the end. Many people who turn in firearms at these “buyback” programs value the gift card more than the firearm that they never use. Few, if any, are attending because they want to get guns out of circulation (if that was what they wanted to do they could just destroy the firearms themselves). While Julee’s knowledge on the working of markets is lacking several gun owners used their knowledge of how markets work for fun and profit:

But a minority clearly knew that the price point began at about $80 cash to sell their weapons to West or to a handful of other buyers on the sidewalk. The group did not venture into the parking lot to solicit potential sellers, having been instructed by Portland police at last year’s event to keep their distance.

West, 22, traveled from Medford. One of his first purchases of the day, a Remington Nylon 66 22-caliber rifle, was for $20. He immediately resold it for $100 to another gun buyer, Darren Campbell of Salem, who recognized the firearm as worth potentially triple what he paid.

West and Campbell both said they were purchasing guns largely because of their resale value. Other buyers said they purchased guns on a principle — to prevent the firearms from going out of circulation — but all the buyers interviewed had at some awareness of the firearms’ true resale value.

In the end the seller of the Remington 66 was better off because he or she valued the $20.00 more than the firearm. West was better off because he valued the firearm more than the $20 knowing he could sell the firearm for more than he paid. The final purchaser of the firearm was better off because he valued it more than his $100. In the end everybody was better off, which is why markets are amazing.

It’s great to see the free market working against the state, especially when it comes to gun “buybacks.”

Possible De Facto Carry Coming to McLean County in Illinois

It appears as though de facto carry may be coming to McLean county in Illinois as the McLeon State’s Attorney General has stated he will not prosecute individuals who carry a firearm:

Bloomington, IL (Guns Save Life) – McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier is set to announce publicly today, Monday, August 2o, to the media and residents of McLean County, Illinois, his decision not to prosecute Firearm Owner Identification Card holders who are arrested for merely possessing a concealed weapon in violation of Illinois’ prohibition on law-abiding residents carrying the means with which to protect themselves.

In essence, with Dozier’s decision, gun owners may be able to use their FOID card as a de facto carry permit in that county.

It’s nice to see that there are a few individuals working for the state that have common sense and the backbone to disobey the state’s decrees. Even though this is good news and I commend Dozier for his refusing to enforce an idiotic law the state has many ways to deal with dissidents:

His purpose in making the announcement, he cautions, isn’t to encourage folks to disregard the laws, particular pertaining to firearms, but to send a message to the Governor and legislators “who continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions”.

Now, as we mentioned earlier, word of this announcement has been filtering around. Word has it the Illinois State Police is borderline apoplectic. “We can’t have a bunch of untrained people running around with guns!” seems to be their attitude. We know this statement is nothing but a canard as the Illinois State Police does not support private individuals with training above and beyond the average police officer carrying firearms here in Illinois.

Whether or not the Illinois Attorney General can and is willing to prosecute individuals carrying firearms in McLean Country would be interesting to know.

Carry Permit Holders to the Back of the Bus

Not only is the University of Colorado Boulder segregating permit holders into “separate by equal” housing but one of the university’s instructors has state he will cancel any class that is attended by a lawfully armed student:

The state Supreme Court has made it clear that the University of Colorado can’t stop students with concealed-carry permits from bringing their guns to campus. But the chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly says if he ever discovers that any of his students are armed, class is over.

CU physics professor Jerry Peterson — speaking for himself Monday, not the faculty group he leads — said he wants his students to feel safe to engage in classroom discussions that could be controversial.

“My own personal policy in my classes is if I am aware that there is a firearm in the class — registered or unregistered, concealed or unconcealed — the class session is immediately canceled,” Peterson said. “I want my students to feel unconstrained in their discussions.”

In other words if there are any “undesirables” attending his class Peterson will cancel it. I wonder if his list of “undesirables” includes more than permit holders. Will he cancel class if there are homosexual or minority students present? Perhaps he’ll cancel class if a Jew or Muslim is present. I’m curious to know just how far Peterson’s bigotry goes.

Peterson’s stance should be a boon to students who are unprepared for class. Any student who fails to complete an assignment on time or isn’t prepared for a test need only accuse his neighbor of lawfully carrying a gun, at what point Peterson will cancel the class and the unprepared student will buy himself time (by the way, if you’re attending one of Peterson’s classes I highly recommend doing this).

Brazil Central Bankers Go on Strike

The irony can barely be described in words:

The central bank union is demanding an average pay increase of 23 percent to compensate for inflation since June 2008, Belsito said. The union may call a longer strike later this month, he added.

Brazil’s central bank likes to play many of the same games as the United States central bank. The Brazilian central bank enjoys printing money and fractional reserve banking. In fact the Brazilian central bank recently dropped the reserve requirement in the hopes of boosting automobile loans. Needless to say a drop in reserve requirement is actually a grant of permission from the main central bank to the lower banks to counterfeit more.

Now that the employees of Brazil’s central bank are suffering the consequences of their employer’s actions they are demanding a wage increase. Perhaps they can remain on strike indefinitely, cripple the central bank’s operations, and help prevent inflation from increasing.

Obama Campaign Spending Stimulus Money

The amount of corruption involved in the money given out by the state to stimulate the economy is mind boggling. Untold sums of money found their way into the pockets of the politically well connected but this story really takes the corruption to a new level:

The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.

Obama’s campaign spent stimulus money to air ads for, well, Obama’s campaign. That’s a fairly effective way to get a little extra campaign money without having to raise it from suckers donors. What’s even funnier is that the money failed to create any jobs:

The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.

That has to be slightly embarrassing.

The Republicans Managed to Anger a Higher Power

It seems all of the shenanigans the Republican Party has pulled to prevent Ron Paul from having a fair chance of receiving the presidential nomination has angered a higher power:

A tropical storm forming in the Caribbean could pose a potential threat to Florida next week during the Republican National Convention.

Apparently Thor wasn’t amused.

The Commonality of Statism

On the surface it appears that there is a vast divide between the Republicans (“right”) and the Democrats (“left”). If you listen to the rhetoric of either side you would believe the Republicans believe in free markets, sanctity of marriage, sanctity of life, and gun rights while the Democrats believe in regulating greedy capitalists, equal rights for homosexuals, women’s right to choose, and prohibiting access to dangerous weapons. Republicans believe they are entirely different from the Democrats and the Democrats believe they are entirely different from the Republicans. The truth, as explained by Jeffery Tucker, is that both sides are exactly the same:

We can and will argue interminably about how government ought to be used. Should government prevent gay people from contracting unions or stop private companies from discriminating against people who chose gay unions? Either way, the state is being brought in to tell people what they can and can’t do. In this sense, the left and the right have more in common than either side cares to admit: Both have a plan for how the state can better manage the social order.

[…]

So come November, we will drag ourselves to the voting booth and look at the names and try to remember what these various people promise to do for us and to us if we ratify their right to rule. Having done so, we are told that we’ve made our choice and now we must live with it.

But maybe it is not really a choice at all. Maybe it is time to let go of our dependency and reject the entire master-slave relationship that is the whole basis of the system itself. Fifty Shades of Government has been the best-seller for hundreds of years. It’s time that the governed write an entirely new book.

We shouldn’t be arguing how to use government to manage our lives, we should be arguing why government is used to manage our lives. According to the Republicans they want to legalize gun ownership while the Democrats claim they want to prohibit dangerous individuals from obtaining weapons. What both sides are actually saying is that they own us and whether or not we’re allowed to own firearms is entirely up to them. It doesn’t matter if you vote for Romney or Obama, both candidates believe they own you and therefore have the right to decide what you can and can’t do.

The majority of Americans have become ensnared in the state’s trap. They have been given state sanctioned confines in which to debate and never attempt to venture into territory outside of that. Political choices are illusionary. Whether you ask the state to legalize or prohibit something isn’t a choice, you’re asking the state to control individuals either way. If you ask the state to legalize something you are saying that the state has a rightful authority over that thing, which necessarily implies that the state may later make that thing illegal. If you ask the state to prohibit something you are again saying the state has a rightful authority over that thing, which necessarily implies you approve of the state’s use of violence against those who partake in that prohibited thing.

It is time we stop debating about how the government should use authority and argue against the government having authority.

Compounding Stupidity

Todd Akins basically destroyed his political campaign by saying one of the dumbest things spouted by a would-be politician:

Asked if he would like abortion to be banned even if a pregnancy was the result of rape, the 65-year-old replied: “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare.

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

“But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

I’m not sure if Akins is legitimately stupid enough to believe woman rarely get pregnant from “legitimate” rape (I wonder what “illegitimate” rape is), mentally deranged, or so invested in his moral crusade that he’s willing to outright lie. Since he’s a politician I’m betting the latter is most likely the case but I digress.

After being handed this on a silver platter what do you think Obama does? Makes a hypocritical statement:

Mr. Obama tried to tie the comments more broadly to views of the Republican Party.

“Rape is rape,” Mr. Obama said. “And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and doesn’t make sense to me. What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians – the majority of whom are men – making decisions” about women’s health.

Emphasis mine. All Obama had to say was, “Akins is a fucking idiot.” He could have used those exact words and nobody would have held it against him. Instead he comes out and rightly condemns Akins but then makes a hypocrite of himself by saying politicians shouldn’t be making decisions about women’s health even though he wants the government to control the healthcare market.

Obviously Obama’s statement wasn’t nearly as offense as Akins’s but you would think the president would be smart enough to condemn Akins without also arguing against his own political beliefs. Oh well, it’s just another pointless drama-filled episode of Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers.

Our Side Must Win

I think Reason just summarized every election in the history of the world:

The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies.

Just look at the Other Side’s latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

Read the entire article, it’s solid gold.

Segregation Never Left

People mistakenly believe that segregation was eliminated from our society with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Segregation never left, the targets have merely changed throughout time. Anybody on the sex offender registry, regardless of the reason they were put onto the list, finds themselves cast into areas outside of arbitrarily defined radiuses from school properties. Felons, regardless of the violation that put them on the felony list, find themselves segregated from gun stores and voting booths. Now, as Uncle points out, permit holders wanting to attend Colorado universities are now being tossed into “separate but equal” living spaces:

The University of Colorado Boulder today announced it is amending housing contracts to ask students who live in undergraduate residence halls and hold a Colorado concealed carry permit, or CCP, to forgo bringing a handgun to campus. The campus also will accommodate those who hold a CCP in a graduate student housing complex off the main campus, provided the permit holders store their weapon in a safe within their dwelling when they are not carrying it.

The university also is asking residence advisers and faculty who live in university housing to sign the same housing agreement as a condition of their residence in these facilities.

Emphasis mine. You have to love the language, holders of carry permits will be “accommodated” as if they somehow have differing needs than students that don’t holder carry permits. What is this really about? Control. The administrators of the University of Colorado Boulder don’t like guns or gun owners and, like any good statist on a power trip, demand the students comply with the administration’s desires. After being defeated in court the administrators had to change their tactics. The Colorado Supreme Court merely ruled that carrying firearms on campus couldn’t be prohibited, it didn’t say that students holding valid carry permits couldn’t be tossed into a ghetto off campus.

What can be done to fix this problem? Another court case could rule that students with valid carry permits can’t be segregated but that will merely require the school administrators to find another way to penalize permit holders. The root of this problem is the fact that school administrators can find out which students hold valid carry permits. Thus the real issue here is that a registry of permit holders exists. These registries need to be abolished and the right to bear arms must be acknowledged as an extension of self-ownership instead of a state granted privilege.