December 2012 – Page 3 – A Geek With Guns

If at First You Don’t Succeed Lower Your Standards

People mistakenly believe that the goal of public schools is to educate children. This isn’t the case. In fact one of the top priorities of public schools is to provide circuses for local communities. What happens when continuously diminishing academic standards threaten the participation rate in sports? School boards consider lowering the standards:

The Minneapolis School Board was considering adjusting the GPA requirements to keep athletes interested in school by keeping them in sports — but they have tabled the plan because there are too many unanswered questions.

Though board members had planned to vote on the concept on Tuesday, the meeting didn’t go as planned.

The proposal would have lowered the athletic GPA standard from 2.0 to 1.0, but many board members say they simply don’t know whether the move would hurt or help students in the long run at this point.

“Many of our students slip through the cracks because of a lack of academic support at school and at home,” said Rebecca Gagnon. “National research shows that students engaged in school via student activities and sports do much better academically than their disengaged peers.”

Most school districts don’t have a GPA bar, Chief Commission Officer Stan Alleyne told FOX 9 News — but he said the 2.0 standard sets the school system apart from others in the state.

Perhaps a student with a GPA below 2.0 should be concentrating on something besides sports.

An Offer to Peacefully Secede

A politician from Texas has asked gun owners to punish themselves for something they didn’t do:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Let me get this straight… if I don’t turn in my guns then I’m not part of the solution and therefore not part of America? Deal! If I can secede from this country by the simple act of keeping my firearms then I’m entirely on board. Of course I have some demands that must be met before I sign the contract. First, I must be guaranteed that I won’t be subjected to state violence. I don’t expect the state to “protect” me but I also demand that my secession be allowed to happen peacefully. Second, I will no longer be expected to pay taxes. This is part of what secession means, I won’t partake in state services and the state won’t steal wealth from me. Third, the state must make no attempt to take my property. This agreement is based on my act of keeping property and I demand that the state not attempt to take it by force after the fact.

I’m sure you will find these terms agreeable Mrs. Lee. Please mail the necessary forms to my address so that we can get this underway.

EDIT: 2012-12-27: 11:01: I originally referred to Sheila Jackson as a senator, which was incorrect. Thanks goes to Mike for pointing it out.

The Problem with Determining Need

Gun control advocates like to claim nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle. Their statement implies that the legality of property should be determined by need. A major failure exists in this implication though. Policies based on need ultimately require that somebody decide what is and isn’t needed. If we are to travel down the path of determining legality based on need we have to establish who gets to decide what is needed.

My question is simple, who gets to decide what is needed? I already know that advocates of gun control would like themselves to be elevated to the position of Grand Determiner but under what justification could they claim such authority? They would likely claim such authority by stating they hold a great deal of concern for the safety of others. That justification also works for gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates want to liberalize (using the classic definition of the word) gun laws because they hold a great deal of concern for the safety of others. By legalizing the act of carrying a firearm gun rights activists want to give every individual the ability to defend themselves against a violent attacker. Obviously there is a conflict here because two ideologically oppose groups can justly claim the same authority for the same reason.

The fact of the matter is that an individual is the only person able to determine what he or she needs. Each of us is in sole possession of our lifetime experiences. Because of this we each hold specialized knowledge regarding our own lives that nobody else holds. Who better to determine what a battered wife needs to defend herself against her abusive husband than her? An uninvolved third party cannot know whether her husband possesses body armor or a posse willing to help him retrieve his wife should she run away. In either case access to a semi-automatic rifle would greatly enhance her odds in a defensive situation against her abusive husband. What about the owner of a store that is located in a place of civil unrest? How can an uninvolved third party know the circumstances under which the store owner lives? Perhaps the store owner’s existence is dependent on that store and without it he could not afford to feed himself or his family. Maybe the store owner can’t afford to operate in a nicer area. Should the store owner be put at a disadvantage, putting his store and livelihood at risk, if a rioting gang decides to target his store?

Saying something shouldn’t be legal because nobody needs it is an arrogant statement at best. Somebody making such a statement is saying two things. First they are saying that they know what a third party needs. Second they are saying they know who should be granted the authority to prohibit that third party from possessing unneeded things.

Furthermore polices based on needs are self-defeating. If somebody claims the authority to determine the legality of things based on need I can claim that person doesn’t need that authority. From there another person can claim I don’t need to authority to determine whether or not another person has the authority to determine legality. It’s an infinite recursion problem for which no solution exists.

Plan OM

So far we’ve heard nothing from the National Rifle Association (NRA) other than a short blurb on their website and a promise of a news conference to be held Friday. In their absence individual state gun rights organizations and gun bloggers have been urging members of the gun rights community to mobilize. I’m sure you’ve already heard the call to write and call your senators but I don’t hold any faith in defending gun rights through political means. Even Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned, who us usually rather upbeat when it comes to gun rights, sounds concerned about our possibilities in Washington.

My assumption is that you’re not reading this blog looking for another post asking you to write some busybodies in Washington begging them to spare your right rights. Who comes to an anarchist’s gun rights blog for that? I already mentioned Plan B, setting up decentralized firearm manufacturing and cranking out verboten firearms, but some people may be unwilling or unable to participate in such an endeavor. Realizing this I offer yet another alternative; call it Plan OM for Operation Mindfuck.

For those of you unfamiliar with Discordianism Operation Mindfuck is a project meant to, as the name implies, challenge currently held assumptions by inspiring creative thought. That is to say Operation Mindfuck hopes to change the way people view the world by fucking with their heads. This lofty goal is accomplished by rather subversive means including civil disobedience, practical jokes, hoaxes, and trolling.

Plan B really is an act of civil disobedience to ensure firearms such as AR-15s can never be effectively banned. Beyond civil disobedience there is also old fashioned fucking with minds. Although I’ve not had a great deal of time to think up strategies (which is why I’m posting this project proposal on the Internet, I want input from others interesting in screwing with the gun control movement) but I have a few initial ideas. For some reasons buying some of the most prominent members of the gun control movement National Rifle Association (NRA) memberships sounds fun. I also believe some fun could be had by attending anti-gun rallies dressed up as Nazgûl. Inevitably somebody would ask us what we’re doing and we could make rather entertaining quips about serving the One Right; a task that requires monopolizing power, which anti-gunners do a marvelous job at. There is also the classic move of inducting proponents of gun control into the Bavarian Illuminati.

Operation Mindfuck may not accomplish anything but it serves to be a great deal of fun and is, as far as I know, an untested strategy for fighting gun control. One thing I do know is that we must be flexible and have different strategies available. Relying on the Republican Party to defend our gun rights isn’t a reliable strategy since there is no guarantee they won’t turn around and stab us in the back.

Nothing to See Here, Move Along

What happens when the family of an American citizen who was killed by his government without trial files a lawsuit against the murderers? The murderers ask their fellow state agents in the court system to dismiss the case:

The U.S. Government on Friday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit over the killing of three American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen earlier this year: alleged Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman, and alleged AQAP magazine editor Samir Khan.

If the courts won’t dismiss the case the administration will simply make the problem cease to exist:

The administration also threatened to invoke the State Secrets Privilege if the suit is not dismissed on other grounds. The privilege, which 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama regularly blasted the Bush administration for invoking, allows the government to seek dismissal of a suit if it could expose national security secrets.

Nothing to see here slaves, move along.

Why Marxists Should Oppose Gun Control

I don’t view gun rights as a Republican versus Democrat issue. Instead I view gun rights as an issue that transcends political parties all together. Expanding the ranks of gun rights activists is the only way we’ll be able to stop advocates of gun control from achieving their desires. Although I’m an individualist anarchist, which is a philosophy that doesn’t mix well with Marxism, I will gladly work with Marxists in the fight for gun rights. In fact Marxists have just as much skin in the gun rights game as anybody else:

Second, I am not a ‘gun-nut’, a member of the NRA, or even remotely conservative. I do not believe that guns have mystical qualities or that they grant the owner access to abstract conceptions of honor, courage, or bravery. Guns are only tools of death. A tool I would not want to be monopolized by the capitalist state.

The above statement easily summarizes my entire position. A position founded upon a recognition of class war and the extent of that struggle. To base the protection of gun ownership on a principle of ownership is to set your foundation in erosion. These lofty abstractions are meaningless; especially when they do nothing to challenge the material existence of the status quo. Talking aimlessly about natural rights of gun ownership only reaffirms the poverty of ethics. At most such abstractions are petty bourgeois talking-points with no sense of direction, and thus can be of no service to a revolutionary.By allowing the bourgeois state to monopolize the ownership of these tools, we only hurt the working class. The liberation of the working class must be our utmost priority, for without it, a truly ethical system is unreachable and humanity will forever be subjugated. It is for this reason, not for a love of guns, that Marx writes:

“… the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ” – Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

Most gun owners would find Marxists to be strange bedfellows indeed. It may seem odd that may political ideologies supporting gun rights would have any common ground with Marxists. Generally supporters of gun rights are libertarians, classical liberals, constitutionalists, and followers of other more individualistic philosophies. Truth be told that Marxism, being a revolutionary philosophy, requires that the people be armed. Marxists should be just an embroiled in the fight for gun rights as libertarians are. I know that many gun rights activists hold a great deal of animosity towards Marxists but we should all be willing to put aside our differences when a common goal exists.

I’m quite willing to work together with Marxists, Democrats, Republicans, social anarchists, and anybody else who want to stand against those trying to disarm the people.

So it Begins

Obama has officially thrown down the gauntlet and declared his desire to punish all gun owners for the actions of a murderer (who obtained his firearms through theft):

The president said a “majority of Americans” back changes to some laws.

Those include the renewal of an assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines and an end to loopholes allowing gun purchases with no background checks, Mr Obama said.

He urged Congress to hold votes on those issues when it reconvenes in the new year.

“If there is even one thing that we can do to prevent anyone of these events, we have a deep obligation – all of us – to try,” he said.

This shouldn’t surprise anybody. The only reaction the state ever has to a tragedy is to exploit it in order to grab more power. Don’t bet on the Republicans either, they’re already meeting and it sounds like they will be selling us down the river:

Republicans need to “have a discussion on guns” in the wake of last week’s grade-school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference Tuesday.

[…]

Boehner also told Republicans that they need to be “circumspect” in their observations, the lawmaker said, warning that “it’s not helpful” for lawmakers to call for arming teachers as a way to prevent mass shootings.

They’re looking for a conversation but that conversation won’t include remove schools from the list of gun-free zones and will likely include supporting some form of gun control. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner makes some kind of back room deal with Obama that includes supporting some form of new gun control legislation in exchange for items in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

We won’t hear the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) response until tomorrow but I’m not holding out a great deal of hope that they’ll have a plan other than telling members to write and call members of Congress. Unfortunately this fiasco couldn’t have sprung up at a worse time. Voters can threaten to vote against senators and congressmen but the next election is two years away and the politicians know that a majority of people will forget all about this current crisis and be focused on a different crisis by then. They also know that your vote doesn’t matter. Feel free to write and call them anyways, raising a little ruckus can be a spot of fun, but don’t rely on a political strategy to protect your gun rights.

I’ve also seen some gun rights activists claim that we need to focus on negotiations at this point and try to get the best “deal” possible. I refuse to be a party to such dealings. If you believe negotiating is the only option at this point then I won’t stop you but I will refuse to participate and point out the simple fact that negotiating with the enemy only leads to being stabbed in the back.

I still think our best bet is to flood the market with banned firearms. Previous prohibitions, namely the prohibitions on alcohol and drugs, were pointless. In the case of alcohol prohibition people made their own liquor and sold it to friends and family members. Speakeasies were established and people wanting to head out for a night of drinking and partying could do so. The current prohibition against drugs has been a complete failure. Anybody wanting to obtain marijuana can do so because so many people grow it. Other drugs are also easily obtained. There is demand and that demand will be fulfilled, that’s how markets work.

The nice thing about manufacturing AR lowers is that it’s perfectly legal so long as you don’t transfer it to another owner. Another benefit is that AR lowers manufactured for personal use need not be serial numbered. Without a serial number there is no way for a law enforcement agent to know whether your rifle is “pre-ban” or “post-ban” (which may not matter based on what provisions are put into the new “assault weapon” ban).

That’s not to say things won’t turn out well for us. Perhaps no new gun control legislation will make it through the legislative process. Perhaps any new gun control legislation will be shot down in a court battle. But seeing how quickly the rats are fleeing from the sinking ship I’m not holding out a lot of hope. Companies usually don’t dump profitable endeavors unless they are almost sure not doing so will hurt them down the road.

I Think It’s Time to Implement Plan B

In the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting the rate at which us gun owners are being sold down the river is probably the only thing in the universe that is actually faster than light. Former suporters of gun rights have come out in support of gun control and companies that previously profited from mutual exchange with us are now terminating our mutual relationship. We have been shown that those who enjoyed our support are willing to abandon us to the zombie hordes. Since we cannot rely on others we should band together with one another, we should begin implementing Plan B.

What is Plan B? Plan A was using the political means in order to preserve gun rights so Plan B a strategy to preserve our gun rights by using non-political means. Plan B consists of using modern household manufacturing technology to produce firearms at such a rate that cannot be controlled. Pioneers are making progress in this endeavor and we need to help. Right now gun control advocates are calling for another “assault weapon” ban. The only proper response to such a ban is to begin manufacturing firearms that are prohibited by “assault weapon” bans as fast as possible. Make it so anybody wanting an AR-15 can produce one. Work together with fellow gun owners to create decentralized manufacturing lines of AR-15s. Pool resources to purchase machining equipment. Decentralize production to prevent these manufacturing lines from being shutdown easily. Setup redundancies.

Consider the following. An AR-15 is, legally speaking, an easily reproduced milled out block of aluminum. One can punch out AR-15 lowers on computer numerical control (CNC) machines, which are becoming more affordable every day. If several gun owners pooled their resources together they could purchase a couple of these machines and operate them at separate locations. Designated members of the group could manufacture AR-15 lowers while other members could purchase machines necessary for the production of barrels. Legally recognized firearm manufactures may be prohibited from producing AR-15 rifles but that doesn’t mean manufacturing such rifles is impossible, it merely means production needs to take place “underground.”

Organizing in cells is often considered a tactic utilized only by terrorists but such tactics have also been utilized by radical groups throughout the ages. Radical groups have traditionally developed under tyrannical states. Eventually things become so bad that individuals are willing to risk standing against the state’s decrees to fight for what they believe in. As gun owners we must recognize that we are, in fact, now radicals. We are advocating for social reform, namely the transfer of power from the state back to the people. As radicals we are also future targets of the state’s aggression. Every shooting rekindles the state’s drive to increase its power and reduce our own. Politicians, like vultures, descend on the copses of those killed with firearms and gorge themselves. They know that by exploiting tragedy they can increase their hold on the people by getting a majority of them to voluntarily cede power. What stands between the state and absolute power are those who refuse to capitulate. If we want to have any chance of maintaing our gun rights we must refuse to capitulate, we must actively resist our aggressors. By working in cells we can ensure that stomping us out will be very expensive. By manufacturing verboten firearms we can actively resist the state’s attempt to grab power. In the end we can make gun control irrelevant.

What We’re Up Against

With emotions running high, gun control advocates dolling out death threats, and supposed friends abandoning us we gun control activists sometimes lose sight on an important fact, many of our philosophical opponents are really dumb. I received a screenshot from an anonymous source demonstrating the incompetency of gun control advocates. This screenshot is from a Critical Thinking class discussion board at Hennepin Technical College. After reading this one must wonder how such an individual could not only graduate high school but also get accepted at any form of higher education institution (click to embiggen):

These are supposedly high school graduates. Notice that their grammar and spelling would net a failing grade in any elementary level English class. On top of that the second person stated that the first person’s argument was good but there was no argument, just a long poorly written diatribe typed by an angry college student who appears to be incapable of either mastering the English language or expressing his thoughts in a coherent manner. It’s like stacking stupid onto of stupid. This is what we’re often up against and somehow they find other people that are willing to take them seriously. It’s almost laughable… until you realize that the author is a college student, then it becomes depressing to think about.

A Country Divided

It’s fairly obvious to anybody paying attention to current debates in the United States that this country isn’t as united as its name implies. Numerous ideological camps have developed but they can roughly be divided into advocates of a strong state versus advocates of a weak or nonexistent state. Whenever a debate arises the general answers seem to be either increase the state’s power or decrease the state’s power. Gun control is a prefect example of this divide. After every high profile shooting the gun control debate rears its ugly head once again. One camp wants to the state to increase its power and prohibit private firearm ownership whereas the other camp wants the state to reduce its power and liberalize (using the classic definition of the word) gun laws. The former camp believes these tragedies can be reduced if we just implement one more law whereas the other camp believes these tragedies can only be reduced by increasing the cost of performing violent acts. Little common ground exists between the two camps and their ultimate end goals are mutually exclusive.

As this country has become more and more divided I propose a solution. Those of you wanting to live under an extremely power state should be allowed to do so. I have no interest in preventing somebody achieving happiness. I do ask that you return the favor and consider my happiness by allowing me, and anybody else wanting to, to peacefully seceded from the United States. That’s it. We’ll take it from there. You can have a society devoid of privately owned firearms and we can have a society where individuals are allowed to make their own decisions on what they want to buy. I would like to maintain peaceful relations and maintain a free exchange of ides, travel, and trade but if such an idea truly disgusts you then you can opt out of such an amenable breakup. If treating us like Rome treated the “barbarians” surrounding it brings you joy then who am I to judge?

It’s sad that our differences are so stark because I would really like to live together in harmony or, at least, with an gentlemen’s agreement to disagree by leave each other alone. Unfortunately your side seems determined to rule at the point of a gun (How ironic!). Having a state screaming orders at me while pressing a gun to my temple fills me with unease and is far from preferable. If you would merely do me the service of aiming your state’s violence elsewhere I would be eternally grateful.

I firmly believe that we can work together to make this breakup a friendly ordeal.