Although I shy away from discussing political matters anymore I feel it’s necessary to discuss various gun-related politics in order to maintain the facade that this is a gun blog (at this point, I should probably admit that it’s primarily an anarchism blog). After having no luck getting gun control pushed through Congress, Mr. Obama decided to take direct action by issuing executive orders. I think he finally realized that those executive orders hurt his administration, specifically the parts that are providing arms to drug cartels under Fast and Furious, instead of gun owners. To correct this shortcoming he has issued two more executive orders:
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.
The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.
The first one is the most concerning because it could effectively end the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). For those who don’t know, the CMP is a government created organization that promotes marksmanship. One of the services the CMP provides is access to surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines. Many of the Garands and carbines sold through the CMP were purchased back from foreign countries. If reimporting all military weapons becomes illegal then the CMP will have a more difficult time supplying shooters with rifles. With that said, the executive order apparently makes an exception for the government (nobody’s surprised) so the CMP may be able to squeeze under this order due to the fact that its a government chartered program. I’m not a legal expert so I can’t say for sure.
The second order is just asinine and effectively tosses up some additional road blocks between individuals and firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This order is probably little more than a spiteful attack by the current administration against us uppity gun owners. Of course the National Rifle Association (NRA) had some choice words regarding these executive orders:
“Requiring background checks for corporations and trusts does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Prohibiting the re-importation of firearms into the U.S. that were manufactured 50 or more years ago does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. This administration should get serious about prosecuting violent criminals who misuse guns and stop focusing its efforts on law-abiding gun owners,” the NRA said in a statement.
I think the NRA’s mistake is assuming these executive orders are about reducing violent crime. My guess is that these orders are petty revenge from an administration angry with a group of individuals that tend to be on the more rebellious side.
In the end, you need only ask yourself one question: will you comply with these orders? If you will then these orders are likely to anger you. If you won’t then these orders are likely to be irrelevant to you. People from the former category will probably be very angry about the latest news and people from the latter category are probably figuring out a way to smuggle these newly verboten firearms back into the country. As always, do what you wish but I’m siding with the smugglers.
The United Kingdom may have chickened out but our good allies al-Qaeda and France still have our backs when we decide to bomb the Syrian government back to an agrarian society! One may wonder why we want to involve ourselves further in the Middle East. Isn’t that region a kettle of bad international relationships ready to boil over? My friends, I am here to tell you that it is not. In fact understanding Middle Eastern relationships is so easy one need only look at this chart, which was created by an Egyptian blogger called The Big Pharaoh:
See, isn’t that simple? Who wouldn’t want to involve themselves with that mess? Hell, this is easier than involving one’s self with a particularly nasty love triangle. I’m sure no bad consequences would arise from invading yet another Middle Eastern country.
Even with all of the stories I’ve read about corrupt judges, police officers, and politicians I can still be left dumbfounded. For example, how does this make any fucking sense:
HOUSTON (CBS Houston) – A 10-year-old girl is facing rape charges from playing an alleged game of “doctor” with a group of children from her housing complex.
The girl, who is only identified as “Ashley,” was charged by police for aggravated sexual assault.
Where can I possibly begin? I guess I’ll start with the inappropriate action of the accused. Children do inappropriate things all the time. Their sense of right and wrong are different than an adult’s. In cases where children perform a misdeed it is generally up to the parent to take disciplinary action. It would be appropriate for the girl’s parents to sit her down and have a talk about what is appropriate touching and what is inappropriate touching.
Another thing that would be good to know is where the girl picked up this behavior. It could be such a thing where she’s merely at the age where she’s becoming curious about such matters. She may have seen part of a porno. Or, more concerning, she may have been molested by somebody. Children tend to either mimic behavior or explore. Finding out whether she was merely exploring or mimicking behavior she’s encountered before could be important.
We also have the fact that children play “doctor.” I’m sorry, but that’s a fact of life. Once again, we return to the fact that children are curious and satisfy their curiosity by exploring. Welcome to childhood development.
But let’s not let common sense get in the way of good legal chicanery. It would make far more sense to take a 10 year-old, run her through the legal system, and tag her as a sex offender for the remainder of her life (if she’s really lucky she may get that expunged from her record when she turns 18, but you never know these days). Traumatizing the child will certainly teach her a lesson about… something, I guess. Seriously, fuck everything about this story.
Are you a true patriot who is ready to lay down his life for his country? If so, I have bad news for you. You may be patriotic but you’ll never be as patriotic as this man:
The truth is, there are a lot of countries, each of which is the most noble cause possible to die for. I only regret that I have but one life to lose for but one country.
I would not hesitate to give my life for or against any other noble nation. Come to think of it, I would even die for a neutral third party caught in the crossfire during a heroic peacekeeping effort, just so long as my death would be in some way related to a country of some kind. That’s how committed I am to the concept of nationalism.
The bottom line is that the current boundaries of a nation are worth protecting at all costs. Otherwise, what would so many brave and patriotic souls have lost their lives for?
He is a true patriot of all nations!
The United States is preparing to war with Syria. Hoping to prevent the impending war many anti-war activists have been urging people to contact their “representatives.” Contacting “representatives” seems to be the go-to solution whenever one becomes unhappy with political matters. This is especially funny because it’s also the most meaningless act one can make, which leads me to a theory. I’m beginning to believe that having the ability to call, write, and e-mail government officials is a sinister plot.
When you think about it, being able to contact government officials gives people an out. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and taking direct action people can be satisfied that they “did something” by making a phone call, typing a letter, or sending an e-mail. They contact their “representatives.” They let him or her know, in no uncertain language, their feelings on the matter. After that their “representative” becomes the responsible party.
As I explained yesterday, political participation is nothing more than acting by proxy. You elect an individual to do the work you want done. If he or she does as you want you give them a gold star, if he or she doesn’t do what you want you give them a demerit. In the latter case you can absolve yourself of any responsibility because it was your proxy who failed. You elected him or her based on promises that weren’t fulfilled. Contacting “representatives” is little different. If they fail to do as you want you can blame them for the consequences.
Politics has to be one of the most depressing subjects one can talk about. Seriously, it’s always bad news. Whether the state is cracking down on a new technology, declaring a fun activity verboten, starting another war, shooting another dog, running a campaign for another wannabe psychopathic ruler, or kidnapping people for smoking a weed it’s depressing to read about and watch. This is one of the reasons I have distanced myself from politics. Believe it or not, I don’t like writing about political matters. It’s not so much the subject matter that depresses me as the outcome. Although I’d rather not have to read anybody about the state spying on us I would receive the news more happily if that news lead to the end of the spying. Instead the news will get wall-to-wall coverage for a week or two followed by nothing. The news will cease covering it, the state will continue to spy on us, and we will await the next great political catastrophe.
What’s the point of politics is it only leads to anxiety, high blood pressure, and rage? One of the things I like about agorism is that it’s apolitical and enjoyable. I enjoy working with my fellows an conducting business with them in an entirely voluntary market. Even if agorism doesn’t undermine the state I still have fun doing it. Politics, on the other hand, isn’t fun to participate in regardless of the outcome.
For those of you participating in the political system and wondering why us dirty agorists refuse to join you, the answer is simple: we’re tired of being depressed. We’re tired of investing our time, money, and energy into a system that bears no fruit. Why would any sane person want to spend hours at a caucus, hours at a basic political operating unit (BPOU) convention, hours at a state convention, and days at a national convention when you’re going to have jack shit to show for it? Who in their right mind would invest time, money, and energy into a campaign when you have no reasonable assurance that the campaigner is going to do what you want? I only have a finite amount of time on this planet and I plan to spend as much of it as possible doing what I enjoy. Agorism is something I enjoy. If not for the possibility of putting an end to the state’s power then for the friendships I’ve developed and the good times I’ve had.
They say there’s no honor amongst thieves. It’s not surprising then to see that the biggest thief of data, the National Security Agency (NSA), has been acting less than honorable:
Staff working at America’s National Security Agency – the eavesdropping unit that was revealed to have spied on millions of people – have used the technology to spy on their lovers.
The employees even had a code name for the practice – “Love-int” – meaning the gathering of intelligence on their partners.
With all the recent news about impending war with Syria, coverage of the NSA’s misdeeds has dwindled a bit. But we’re still learning about the extent of the NSA’s operations. At this point we should assume that the NSA is spying on everybody and anybody who is in a relationship with an employee of the NSA should really consider whether or not they can trust that person.
The technology industry makes me happy. While politicians run around trying their damnedest to wreck everybody’s life the technology industry is busy trying to improve everybody’s life. One of the most interesting technologies that looks to change our society is 3D printers. Taken to its logical conclusion, 3D printer technology stands to decentralized great deals of manufacturing and medical care. The manufacturing side of 3D printers is discussed frequently but the technology’s applications in the medical field are less publicized. For example, I haven’t read about the fact that scientists at Wake Forest University have printed skin onto a burn victim:
Scientists have developed a method of 3D printing new skin cells onto burn wounds at Wake Forest University’s Military Research Center. The method is far superior to traditional skin grafts because regular grafts require skin from a donor site somewhere on the patient’s body. Taking skin from a donor site is painful and sometimes the patients do not even have enough unburned skin to transplant.
Wake Forest accomplishes the skin printing by way of laser scanning and a modified inkjet printer. The laser scans the patient’s burn and that information gets translated into a personalized plan for filling the wound up with cells. Then the inkjet printer lays down the cells individually, one layer at a time until the burned area is completely covered.
Imagine a day when entire organs can be printed. No longer will people in need of transplants have to worry about a lack of potential donors.
Apathy is one of the more comical criticism politically involved individuals make towards agorists. In the world of the politically involved any failure to participate in the political process is a sign of laziness. I say the criticism is comical because it implies agorists are doing nothing while politically involved individuals are pulling all the weight.
Consider what political involvement entails. When one is politically involved they are working on campaigns, attending party functions, volunteering their time at events, and showing up to the voting booth on election day. What do all of these acts have in common? They all involve a proxy. One of the criticisms us gun rights activists make towards gun control advocates is their inconsistency. Gun control advocates claim to oppose guns but they almost unilaterally are willing to use a gun by proxy. When somebody breaks into their home they are unwilling to use a gun to defend themselves. However, they are willing to call a police officer with a gun to defend them. Working for a campaign is effectively trying to make social changes by proxy.
A politically involved individuals is usually trying to get a specific person or party in power in the hopes that that person or party will change things in a favorable way. Electing a pro-gun candidate in the hopes that he or she will fight for gun rights is an act by proxy. Instead of doing the footwork themselves, most politically involved gun rights activists are trying to get somebody else to do the work for them. Mind you, this isn’t to say all politically involved individuals are trying to pawn off their work on another. Many gun rights advocates introduce new people to the shooting community, teach people how to shoot, and research ways to make gun laws irrelevant.
Agorists seldom rely on proxies to do their work. An agorist tends to take direct action by performing economic activity that undermines the state. It is through underground economics that agorists hope to end the state, which is the intended goal. Taking direct action strikes me as far less apathetic than asking somebody to go to a marble building and vote a certain way in the hopes that those votes will eventually lead to a desired end goal. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” Agorists are being the change they want to see. Can the same be said about politically involved individuals?
Anarchists understand that the state is behind the times. When it comes to medical science the United States is practically in the medieval period. Upon creating or hearing news that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons the United States diagnosed the country with a severe case of violence. Instead of applying modern medical techniques, the United States opted for an ancient medical procedure known as bloodletting. In the eyes of American politicians the disease of violence in Syria can be cured if enough blood is removed from the country. In lieu of leeches the United States plans to use cruise missiles. My only hope is that the patient recovers before they bleed out.