Who Watches the Watchmen

Gun control advocates claim that the general populace must be disarmed because they are too irresponsible to own firearms. Meanwhile those very same advocates want to let people like this maintain access to firearms:

A semi-automatic pistol found near the scene of a gun battle in Mexico where five people died, including a Mexican beauty queen, has been traced to a former federal gun agent in Minnesota who was part of the government’s controversial Fast and Furious border gun-tracking operation.

The Justice Department’s inspector general has confirmed that it is investigating allegations that an FN Herstal Five-seven handgun tracked from the area of a Nov. 23 shootout in Sinaloa was linked to George Gillett Jr., who oversaw Operation Fast and Furious from October 2009 to April 2010.

Gillett played a central role in a similar Twin Cities gun sting a decade ago that was shut down after several government-tracked guns were connected to violent gang crimes.

For the record I want it known that my firearms have never harmed anybody nor have I given or sold firearms to violent individuals. Meanwhile the United States government, the same government gun control advocates want to leave armed, has been traffic firearms to violent Mexican drug cartels for ages now. Gillett, the person who provided one of the firearms recovered from the above mentioned shootout, had previously helped arm gangs here in the Twin Cities.

Any claim of opposing violence made by gun control advocates should be summarily dismissed. Such claims are obviously lies since the people making them want to disarm nonviolent individuals while allowing violent individuals to remain armed.

An Interesting Idea

Thanks goes to commenter Matt for letting me know about a new bill introduced in Wyoming [PDF]:

AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.

I would like to see this bill pass just to know that there is one state in the Union that still has a spine. Since the Civil War the individuals states have been reluctant to stand up to the federal state. They have good cause since the last time they stood up they were invaded and hundreds of thousands of people ended up dead. Still, it would be nice to see a few monkey wrenches tossed into the federal state’s machinery.

I’m Starting to Understand Obama’s Hatred of Guns

I’m sure many find Obama’s hatred of guns baffling. After all who wouldn’t want to give each individual the ability to defend themselves and their families? Somebody who has the protection of armed guards 24/7 and will now have that protection for the rest of his life:

President Obama on Thursday signed a bill granting him — along with George W. Bush and future ex-presidents — lifetime Secret Service protection, reversing a 1990s law that limited post-presidency security.

It’s pretty easy to oppose private ownership of firearms when you have a protection detail around you all the time, especially when you’re not the one who has to pay for it.

Everything is Being Politicized

It should be no secret that I hate politics. Politics, in my opinion, is the biggest waste of time that the human race has ever developed. Think about the vast amount of time, money, and effort that is sunk into politics, then consider the fact that politics is nothing more than one set of individuals trying to rule another set of individuals. Yet, somehow, we humans have made politics so pervasive that one can’t even enjoy a trade show for consumer electronics without some jackass taking a stage and injecting politics into it:

12:05 PM yesterday | by Josh Lowensohn
Samsung now rolling a video narrated by Bill Clinton about his foundation and role as Samsung’s Hope for Children ambassador.

[…]

12:07 PM yesterday | by Josh Lowensohn
And the video’s over. Woo back out on stage to introduce Clinton.

12:08 PM yesterday | by Josh Lowensohn
Clinton’s going to talk about mobile technology in the developing world. Clinton comes out with a big smile. And Clinton’s getting a standing ovation from the crowd here.

[…]

12:22 PM yesterday | by Josh Lowensohn
Clinton talking about gun control and the death rate in the U.S. compared to other countries. “I grew up in this hunting culture, but this is nuts,” Clinton says. “Why does anybody need a 30-round clip for a gun?” Half of all deaths have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired, Clinton offers.

I enjoy consumer electronics a great deal. Personal electronics allow individuals to have access to the entire knowledgeable of mankind using nothing more than a device that fits in their pocket. Think about how amazing that is. As you can guess I enjoy seeing the new products being rolled out that are aimed at making my life easier and more convenient. Then, while I’m trying to enjoy myself, things turn from making my life better to making my life worse because some statist wants to disarm me for the crime of doing nothing wrong. Can’t politicians leave me in peace with at least one thing I enjoy? Get they stop infecting every hobby I partake in with stupid attempts to grab power? If Clinton wants to grandstand and declare to the world that he wants nonviolent gun owners disarmed because of the actions of a few violent individuals he should do it at the damned White House, United States Capitol Building, or at a private speaking gig.

In Lieu of Jails, Alternatives to Incarceration

In our society, and in most societies that suffer under a state, the use of prisons as a form of punishment is very popular. When I discuss anarchism people often want to know who will run the jails or, if there were no jails, how could evildoers being punished. Historically when societies privately developed legal systems (that is to say legal systems that were developed outside of state decrees) they tended to focus on two qualities: efficiency and reparations. Bruce L. Benson wrote an excellent book titled The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State that covers the history of legal systems. At one time a majority of legal systems were privately developed, not state created. Instead of focusing on enforcing the state’s decrees, as legal systems do today, historical legal systems, such as the lex mercatoria, focused on preventing behavior that was detrimental to the community and correcting aftermath of such behavior. Laws were developed against murder, assault, property damage, thievery, and other crimes that involve an aggressor and a victim. Another notable feature of historical legal systems is the lack of incarceration.

Incarceration is an extremely inefficient and ineffective method of dealing with criminals and crime. Consider the results of imprisonment. The victim of a crime gets no reparation from the act of incarcerating his aggressor other than the fulfillment of the human desire for petty revenge. In fact incarceration can prevent an individual from working, which prevents them from obtaining income, which in turns deprives them of ability to pay reparations to their victim. Another undesirable requirement for prisons is the expense. Prisons must be developed in such a manner that escape is extremely difficult (and ideally impossible). Constructing a facility that is difficult to escape from isn’t cheap since every possible method of escape must be made impossible. On top of the costs involved in constructing a prison one must also staff it with full-time guards. If prisoners are left to their own devises they will most likely begin acting on a plan to achieve escape. Therefore prisons don’t fulfill the desired goals of historical legal systems.

How could a society without prisons hope to prevent individuals from aggressing against one another and compensate the victims of aggression? Instead of relying on the threat of incarceration societies relied on the threat of outlawry. Today the label outlaw generally means a fugitive from justice but the historical definition of the word literally meant outside of the law, specifically outside of the protect of the law. When somebody proved to be a danger to society, whether through repeated crimes, refusal to pay reparation to victims, or perpetrating extremely heinous crimes, an individual was labeled an outlaw. Once labeled an outlaw an individual no longer had the protection offered by the law meaning any action taken against them by another was entirely legal. Stealing from or killing an outlaw would not lead to charges of theft or murder. Such a threat obviously would encourage cooperation with the legal system or vacating of the area, which would remove the threat from the community.

Another aspect of the outlaw label was the general unwillingness of the community to interact with individuals labeled as such. Think about all the things you enjoy that require the cooperation of members of your community. Getting served at a restaurant, buying food at a grocery store, buying clothing at a clothing store, getting your vehicle repaired, renting a place to live, etc. all require another person to cooperate with you. If nobody in the community is willing to interact with you your only real option is subsistance, which is a miserable condition to live under.

Even if any individual hasn’t been labeled an outlaw but is generally disliked by the community that individual may find themselves fending almost entirely for themselves. People often talk about public shaming as an effective punishment but it is only effective if individuals in the community are also unwilling to cooperate with the person being shamed. If members of a community are willing to publicly shame a wrongdoer and revoke their cooperation until the wrongdoer has made proper reparations then an incentive exists for abiding by the established legal system. Once again this is historically how privately developed legal systems operated.

The legal system we live under today isn’t efficient and doesn’t focus on compensating victims. In fact the way our legal system works today is by punishing every member of society for the actions of criminals. Part of the taxes expropriated by the state go to the construction and maintenance of prisons. In addition to that tax money is also used to clothe and feed prisoners, pay prison guards to watch over prisoners, pay police officers to gather up suspected wrongdoers, and pay courts to rule whether or not a suspect should be imprisoned at society’s expense. It really is the worst of all worlds.

Gun for Me, Not for You

Gun control advocates can be a fickle bunch. On the one hand they claim to want peace but then they turn around and advocate murder. This brings use to another characteristic of gun control advocates that I find disturbing, their claimed opposition to violence disappears whenever violence will promote their agenda. The vast majority of gun control advocates are statists. Their agenda isn’t so much eliminating gun violence as granting the state absolute power. Through an absolute state statists desire to create the perfect society. Unfortunately their idea of a perfect society doesn’t involve individual freedom, it involves obedience to masters. If there were no armed individuals the state would be free to redistribute all wealth, force individuals to pay for universal healthcare systems, regulate away any product that may be in the slightest bit dangerous, eliminate pollution, and kill anybody who stood in the way of such “progress.”

Expectedly statists are myopic, they can’t see the logical conclusion to what they advocate. Statists usually see themselves as part of the state, the ruling class. What they don’t seem to understand is that they will be relegated to subservience with the rest of us “uneducated” scum. For you see the average statist isn’t currently part of the ruling class and the ruling class isn’t apt to let new members join their ranks. To quote George Carlin, “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.” Instead the average statist is, to borrow a once popular phrase, a useful idiot. They are the suckers who invest their time, money, and labor transferring power from the people to the state. Once the state has complete authority, once these low level statists are no longer useful, they will be discarded. It’s true, some of them may be allowed to hold low level positions within the state but they will still be subjected to the same terror as everybody else not in the upper echelons.

We’ve seen the logical conclusion of absolute statism many times in the last century alone. From Hitler’s Germany to Stalin’s Russia to Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia history shows that absolute statism isn’t kind to anybody outside of the ruling class. Millions have paid the ultimate price when the desires of statists were fulfilled. In ever case people believe such atrocity would never happen in their country. People had faith that their rulers only wanted what was best for them. They learned very quickly that such atrocities could happen in their country and that their rulers didn’t care about what was best for the people. Those who did the footwork, the low level soldiers of statism, also learned that they were not giving positions of power but were treated the same as those “idiots” that stood in the way of “progress.”

Gun control advocates are frightening because they are statists, they want to strip power from the people, and they believe the ends justify the means. Violence is only deplorable when it’s not used to forward the cause of statism. Although it saddens me to see so many suckered into promoting the statist ideal I take solace in knowing that when I’m rounded up and sent to die in some prison camp they’ll be on the train right behind me.

Obama Looking to Use Executive Orders to Enact Gun Control Laws

What happens when you give a power hungry psychopath the authority to enacts laws willy nilly? The power hungry psychopath enacts laws willy nilly. Via Uncle I came across Biden admitting that Obama is looking to bypass Congress in order to implement gun control:

President Barack Obama is exploring executive orders to help prevent mass shootings in America, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday.

“The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken,” Biden told reporters before meetings with groups representing survivors of mass shootings. “We haven’t decided what this is yet, but we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members.”

Why haven’t we issued the President a crown and scepter yet? If we’re going to be ruled by royalty then our rules need to look the part. The country is already broke so we might as well spend more money we don’t have. Think about all the jobs we’ll create by building a gigantic castle for His Majesty to rule from! Goldsmiths throughout the country could be employed to sculpt a truly spectacular crown, scepter, and throne! Why it would be a veritable stimulus package!

Gun Control Advocates Sure are a Violent Bunch

It never ceases to amaze me how gun control advocates can claim to advocate peace while constantly threatening to murder anybody who disagrees with them. Take a look at the following video where a CNN panelist actually advocates Piers Morgan shoot Alex Jones (there is an introduction piece, the important part of the video starts at roughly the 0:37 mark):

For those who don’t want to or can’t watch the video Buzz Bissinger, after a short rant about semi-automatic weapons, says “Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic you got legally, and pop him.” An unknown female panelist then replies by saying “I’d love to see that.”

I guess when they say they oppose gun violence they really mean they oppose gun violence against anybody who agrees with their point of view but advocate the use of gun violence against anybody who disagrees with them.

I Think Gifford’s Creation of a Gun Control Organization Speaks Volumes

Gabrielle Giffords, the senator who was shot in the head in Arizona, has decides to start her own organization to advocate for gun control:

A former US congresswoman who survived a gunshot wound to her head during a mass shooting has launched a campaign against gun violence.

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative aims to raise money for gun control efforts.

While I’m not one to criticize somebody for capitalizing on an event that befell them I think Gifford’s creation of a gun control advocacy group speaks volumes. Whenever a shooting occurs the only proposed solution we hear from claimed opponents of gun violence is more gun control. It’s almost as if the movement has no creativity. Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) managed to come up with a somewhat new, albeit misguided in my opinion, solution with their School Shield program. Why can’t claimed opponents of gun violence ever come up with something new and exciting? Do they ever advocate looking into the possible mental health side of gun violence? No. Do they ever advocate looking into the possible economic side of gun violence? No. It’s always a gun grab.

I think the lack of creativity demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the general gun control advocate. They seem to believe in a rigid hierarchy where the state is at the top, they are in the middle, the average person is below them, and gun owners are the lowest of scum. Their only solution seems to involve taking orders from the top by mindlessly obeying the state, which has a vested interest in disarming those it exploits. It would be nice if these petty authoritarians could jump off of the hierarchical ladder and begin thinking for themselves. Perhaps then they could comes up with some innovative ideas to address the root problem of violence.

Don’t Believe Everything You Read

This lesson shouldn’t need to be taught but you can’t always believe what you read. Case in point, I noticed a couple of individuals posting this story, which purports to provide evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was more than meets the eye:

(Thomas Dishaw) More twists to the Sandy Hook narrative. On December 11 Google indexed the United Way website that offered condolences to the family’s of Sandy Hook.

This is a full three days before the actual shooting that took place on December 14 2012. You can view the Google page here and the United Way page here.

If you go to the Google link provided in the story you’ll notice it’s a search for the results of “sandy hook united way” that appeared on December 11th, 2012. Since the shooting occurred on December 14th, 2012 you wouldn’t expect any results but results appeared for the United Way Sandy School Support Fund webpage. In of itself this appears to be a little fishy but rest assured there is a simple explanation for these results, Google’s date searching mechanism is a little wonky. To demonstrate this I did a search for “sandy hook shooting” on the date of December 1st, 2008 (click to embiggen):

Either the Sandy Hook shooting conspiracy was accidentally leaked to the Internet over four years ago or Google’s search by date function is a bit unreliable. I’ll let you be the judge.