Tag: Gun Rights

More Proof that Fast and Furious was About Gun Control

Uncle has more proof that Fast and Furious was about gun control, not curbing the supply of weapons to Mexican drug cartels:

In the Fronteras interview, Coulson also claimed ATF knew that what has come to be known as the “90% lie” was a myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others had been pushing the line that 90% of guns seized in Mexico came from the U.S.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
“Among federal law enforcement, that became somewhat of a joke,” Coulson said. “We all knew that was whatever weapons the Mexican government decided to follow or trace back to the U.S. and never took into account the weapons that came in from Central America, from other countries around the world.”

This myth was behind the Justice Department announcement last April 25 that it was making 8,500 gun stores in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico report individual purchases of multiple rifles of greater than .22 caliber by law-abiding American citizens to the ATF because — get this — such guns are “frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest border.”

This corroborates previous evidence demonstrating that Fast and Furious was nothing more than a sham operation meant to create an excuse to enact more gun control in this country.

Americans seem to believe that they can hold the government responsible through voting, protesting, petitioning, and writing their “representatives.” These beliefs are false because if the populace make too much of a fuss about something the government simple goes from using overt tactics to covert tactics. Passing gun control laws in this country has become far more difficult today than it was back in the heydays of the 1990s. Members of the government, still wanting to disarm the populace, know passing gun control laws is akin to political suicide so they’ve changed their tactics. Instead of passing bills that decree further restrictions on gun ownership they are using their already possessed regulatory power and creating false flag incidents to justify the new regulations.

I realize many people will simply label me a conspiracy theorist (something I’m not, in general I’m very skeptical) for the claims I’ve just made but the proof supports Fast and Furious being a false flag operation so, at the very least, I’m vindicated on this issue.

Starbucks Appreciation Day

Remember that today, Valentine’s Day, is also Starbucks Appreciation Day. For those who aren’t in the loop Starbucks Appreciation Day is where gun owners of all sorts viste their local Starbucks, buy some coffee and pastries, and thank Starbucks for now bowing to anti-gunner pressure. Starbucks has stated numerous times that they will not ban the carry of firearms at their establishments, something that has been irking the anti-gunners something fierce. In a fit of rage the anti-gunners have declared today to be Starbucks Boycott Day. I’m pretty sure a bunch of gunnies going to purchase coffee will more than offset the lack of anti-gunners patronage.

People of Detroit are Realizing Police are Ineffective

What happens when the police fail in their duty to protect the populace? The populace gets armed for their own defense:

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

I say good on the people of Detroit for defending themselves. Detroit suffered from massive economic collapse due to their over reliance on the automobile industry and when the economy goes bad crime rises. When the crime rises the police are usually the first to run and hide in the safer parts of town leaving those living in the poorer parts of down in a position where they must defend themselves. The anti-gunners would rather these people be dead than have a means of defending themselves against criminals.

Minnesota Omnibus Gun Rights Legislation is Back

I’m back in Minnesota and thus can begin posting time relevant information again. My arrival in Minnesota greeted me with some good news, last year’s omnibus gun rights legislation is back:

Last year, GOCRA worked with Minnesota legislators to introduce the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act, a sweeping set of legislation that would fundamentally rebalance Minnesota law to protect and support the rights of law-abiding citizens.

While the House bill, HF1467 passed a vote, SF1357 was tabled in order to delay a vote for one year. That year is up and the omnibus gun rights legislation is back and ready for action.

The Illegitimacy of Mob Rule

I disagree with a great deal of what the Occupy movements have been advocating but my biggest objective, by far, is their espousing of mob rule. Of course they don’t call it mob rule, nor does anybody else who supports the idea, instead preferring the friendlier term democracy. The problem is democracy by nature is nothing more than mob rule:

Democracy, of the unlimited kind lauded today,[3] is a form of socialism, in the sense that it arrogates ultimate power over all decisions to the government. Implicit in the notion of people’s present love affair with mob rule is the assumption that government, through the collective “will of the people,” should have the prerogatives of ownership of all resources in society, should it choose to exercise these. The democrat brooks no limitation on the legitimate powers of government and hence gives total ownership over all of society to this institution.

While people often call the United States a democracy it is not. Unlike a democracy the founding fathers of the United States attempted to limite government power over the people through the Constitution (it was a valiant effort old chaps, I’m sorry it didn’t succeed). In a democracy every decision can be chosen by the majority in society whereas the United States, as envisioned by its founders, specifically prevents certain decisions from being made. The Bill of Rights is an example of this attempt. Unfortunately the founding fathers left the Constitution open for changes via amendments meaning nothing in the Bill of Rights was really set in stone but at least there was a high barrier of entry to start mucking about. Either way you get the idea, the United States wasn’t meant to be a democracy where any decision could be made by the mob.

Yet those who advocate democracy are saying that they desire the majority be given rule over the minority. Sometimes advocates of democracy try to conceal that fact by using fancy terms such as consensus. With consensus, advocates claim, no decision is final until everybody involved has agreed to it. In all honestly many people eventually break down and agree to things simply because they’re sick of debating and wish to move on with their night (a phenomenon I’ve witnessed numerous times at OccupyMN). Oftentimes people will simple say, “Fuck it, I’ll vote for it to get things moving along but I’ll try to get it repealed later.” These same people don’t stop to think about the fact that repealing it later will be almost impossible (a fact demonstrated by our government that never seems to repeal any law).

My biggest gripe with democracy though is the fact that rights become conditional:

It is true even when a democratic government chooses policies that are relatively liberal and purportedly support the ownership of private property. For such property ownership is regarded as conditional. Supporters of the system of democracy assert their right to forcibly interfere in the lives of others whenever they have sufficient support from the mob to do so, or are otherwise capable of capturing political power.

Do you own a business? Good for you! Unfortunately the majority of people have decided that a park would be a far better use of the land your business is occupying so we’ve voted to demolish your livelihood. Too bad, so sad, get the fuck out. Are you enjoying your protection against government goons breaking into your home and searching through your belongings without so much as a warrant? We’re sorry to inform you that the majority have agreed that persons making more than $1 million a year are no longer protected from warrantless searches. Why? Because we need to ensure that you’re paying your “fair share” to society!

Uncertainty is bad for everybody. Who is going to start a business if they are uncertain of what regulations will be coming down the road? Why invest the money to build a home if you’re not sure the mob will vote to seize it at a later date? Nobody is going to strive for success if that success can later be taken away by those who did not enjoy similar success in their lives.

Many people will often claim that democracy can work so long as the right people get elected. Who are the right people? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 10 different recommendations:

If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when “the right people” are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time.

Right now Barack Obama is the president because of two mob decisions. First a mob of Democrat Party members agreed that Obama was the candidate they wanted to run for president. A second mob later decided that Obama was the person they wanted to be president of the country. The same goes for Bush. There is no way to elect the right people into office because everybody believes different people are the right ones. Whereas I believe Ron Paul is the only decent candidate for president others want Romney or Obama (but I repeat myself).

If I’m against democracy that must means I’m an advocate of a dictatorship right? Wrong, that’s a false dichotomy:

Those who support democracy tend to conflate the issue of the method of selection of rulers with the preliminary question of whether political power is legitimate in the first place. Hence, it needs to be clearly understood that objection to democratic rule does not mean that one prefers dictatorship — it means than one does not consent to have others initiate force against them, regardless of the method of selection of those with the power to do this.

I am my own sovereign. If somebody believes they can become a sovereign over me they can kindly go fuck themselves. Each person is born a free individual and has power over their own life. Just because a gang of assholes get together and call themselves a government doesn’t mean I have to recognize their authority.

What alternative exists though? How can one man defend himself against a mob? If the mob has decided on a decision isn’t your only option to comply? The answer to those questions is to be thankful that you exist today and not centuries past.

Since the idea of dragging capitalists out to the town square and running them all through guillotines is a popular idea among collectivists I’ll provide my standard rebuttal to it. Even if you get 100 people to vote and agree that I should be executed for advocating capitalism I don’t have to agree. Sure there may be 100 of you but me and my .308 can make one hell of a protest against your little mob. In the end you may win, I may die, but your victory won’t come without cost, I won’t go alone.

With the way things are going in the world I’m glad I live in this century. Before the invention of repeating firearms there was little a single individual could do against a mob. Today one man with a semi-automatic firearm can refuse to comply with a mob and have a halfway decent chance of surviving. Imagine a democratically elected vengeance seeking brigade lynch mob decide you were to hang. What could you do? Quite a bit if you have a quality firearm by your side and the skill and ammunition to use it. In the end the firearm is the free man’s defense against democracy.

Some will claim that my attitude goes against the principles this country was founded on. Those people are wrong. The founding fathers of this country did establish a government but always believed the individual to be sovereign. A quote by Noah Webster brings the founding father’s ideals to light:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Webster strongly believe the people not only had a right to keep and bear arms but that this right was essential to ensure the government wasn’t allowed to encroach on individual sovereignty. Let us not forget Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote:

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Not only did Jefferson believe in the right of the people to defend themselves against their government but he also advocating periodic rebellions to ensure the government was reminded that the people reign supreme. While I’m not a fan of violent rebellion in any regard I am an advocate of self-defense and that self-defense includes people being assailed by their government.

These are just two quotes in a virtual library of materials penned by the founding fathers regarding the sovereignty of individuals. We have to remember that the founding fathers had just previously overthrown a tyrannical government and were still riding high on the idea of individual liberty. They didn’t believe in democracy, where the mob reigns supreme, but in the sovereignty of individuals. In their minds it was the right of every individual to defend him or herself against infractions on individual sovereignty. By declaring my distain for democracy I’m not opposing the ideals this country was founded up but actually promoting them.

Those who cow to the majority are some of the most despicable people of all. They think that so long as the majority believe something to be just that it is, that so long as decisions are made democratically they are good. These same people often complain about the state of the world today but only suggest that the people who are responsible for this dystopian state, the government, be given more power so that “the people” may reign supreme. By “the people” they really mean everybody who agrees with themselves wholeheartedly.

Do not fall into the fallacy of democracy, stand up and assert your sovereignty. Let no other person or persons rule over you. Just because a large group of people made a decision doesn’t mean it’s right. Do not allow yourself to fall into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Just Throw Money at It

Through Uncle I learned that Mayor Bloomberg is putting up some major money and buying an advertisement during the Super Bowl to promote his gun bigotry:

He also announced that he and his Boston counterpart, Mayor Thomas Menino, would appear in an anti-illegal gun commercial during the championship game, joining the race for Super Bowl ad space.

The spot shows the two leaders of Mayors Against Illegal guns in an animated discussion and clad in their team jerseys on a couch in front of a television.

Bowls of chips and popcorn along with a football lie on a glass table before them.

The 30-second spot will run regionally because of restrictions against issue-oriented ads on the national broadcast. The Mayor’s Against Illegal guns, which counts Bloomberg among its private donors, funded the clip.

The biggest problem with anti-gunners is that they only know how to do one thing: throw money at something until it goes away. Members of the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have no facts to backup their cause so they simply hope they can spend enough money to make guns go away. Luckily for use throwing money at something never actually makes it go away.

Mexican Citizens Taking Up Arms Against the State’s Decrees

What do you do when the state ruling over your area refuses to protect you and even goes so far as to make it illegal to protect yourself? You give them the middle finger, which is what many Mexican citizens are doing to protect themselves against the drug cartels:

In Mexico, where criminals are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons smuggled from the United States, it may come as a surprise that the country has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Smuggled in by our government as part of Operation Fast and Furious.

But on July 7, 2009, close to 20 men showed up at Benjamin LeBaron’s house, according to his older brother, Julian LeBaron.

“They wanted to terrorize everyone into never opposing them,” Julian LeBaron says. “They dragged Benjamin out of his house, and [his brother-in-law Luis Widmar] came to help him.”

Then, he says, the criminals took the two men a couple of miles down the road and shot them.

The cold-blooded murders of Benjamin LeBaron and Luis Widmar galvanized the community, Julian LeBaron says. It prompted them to take a stance that is familiar to Second Amendment advocates in the U.S., but one that is taboo in Mexico.

“I think there would be less violence if there were more guns, in the sense that I could barge in here and do whatever I want, knowing that this guy doesn’t have a gun,” says Jose Widmar, the brother of slain Luis.

Today, if the gangsters return, the LeBaron colony is locked and loaded.

The average person in the United States and most European nations are fortunate that they can live a life relatively free of violence. Unfortunately relatively safe lives lead people to forget the necessity of self-defense and thus lose pasion for their right to keep and bear arms.

These lessons are quickly being learned in Mexico though, where armed drug cartels all but run the country and view human life as being without value. The Mexican government has been unable to protect the people yet demand the people be unarmed. Now people living in Mexico are going to the really free market (often incorrectly called the black market) to obtain the means of personal defense. I commend these people and demand those advocating for the disarmament of the citizenry explain what alternative these people have.

Starbucks Appreciation Day

In response to an anti-gunner protest of Starbucks scheduled for February 14th the gun community is declaring that day Starbucks Appreciation Day.

Starbucks has publicly declared that they will not ban guns on their premisses, instead relying on state laws. The threw the anti-gunners into a tizzy because they were trying to get Starbucks to ban the carry of firearms at their establishments.

We should be supporting companies who are willing to stand up for our rights. On February 14th stop by your local Starbucks, pick up some coffee, and make sure you let the employees working there know that you’re happy about Starbucks’s policy of supporting your right to bear arms. While the 10 or so anti-gunners boycott Starbucks we gun owners, who measure in the millions, can create a surge in profits.

NYPD Working on to Further Expand Their Personal Police State

While the police state is expanding throughout the United States it’s expanding at a faster pace in some places. States like New York, Massachusetts, and California are expanding at an incredibly rapid pace as are the cities of Chicago and New York. Not only has New York all but disarmed the law-abiding citizenry they’re working on ensuring those individuals remain disarmed. Because of the recent cases involving law-abiding citizens being dumb enough to attempt compliance with posted “No Guns Allowed” signs the police force in New York is looking for new technology to detect those who are carrying concealed weapons:

The NYPD is stepping up their war against illegal guns, with a new tool that could detect weapons on someone as they walk down the street.

But is it violating your right to privacy?

Police, along with the U.S. Department of Defense, are researching new technology in a scanner placed on police vehicles that can detect concealed weapons.

“You could use it at a specific event. You could use it at a shooting-prone location,” NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told CBS 2′s Hazel Sanchez on Tuesday.

It’s called Terahertz Imaging Detection. It measures the energy radiating from a body up to 16 feet away, and can detect anything blocking it, like a gun.

With the recent introduction of body scanners at airports I’m sure you’ve heard of terahertz imagine. Most airport body scanners use millimeter waves as terahertz imagine is still a relatively new technology with a rather disturbing side-effect:

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they’ve found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That’s a jaw dropping conclusion.

So the New York Police Department (NYPD) is using a technology that can damage DNA to detect concealed firearms. First of all it’s none of NYPD’s business who is and isn’t carrying a firearm because, regardless of what city officials believe, the right to keep and bear arms is still codified in the Constitution (and even if it wasn’t the right to self-defense is a natural one that can’t be rightfully overridden by some assholes in a government building).

If this technology gets off of the ground the denizens of New York City may find themselves exposed to dangerous terahertz waves just so some piece of shit working in NYPD can get his jollies off disarming a peaceful individual (or outright shooting the poor schmuck because “he had a gun”). I’m still waiting for New York City to setup checkpoints at every point of entry where people and their vehicles are thoroughly searched before being granted entrance into the prison city.

Yet the Anti-Gunners Think They’re the Only Ones Who Should Carry Guns

Anti-Gunners continue to claim average citizens such as you and me shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns yet somehow police officers have some kind of magical training that makes them able to do so. I still don’t understand this because most of the shooters I know practice far more with a firearm than the average police officer. It also appears as through police officers are far more likely to beat their wives than the average citizen:

Law enforcement officers beat their wives or girlfriends at nearly double the rate of the rest of the population, and trying to control that is not only difficult for the victims but potentially deadly, experts say.

Explain to me again why police officers are somehow more qualified to carry a gun than the average citizen? Police officers aren’t magical beings gifted with skills above that of another average person. That badge does not make them more capable of handling stressful situations or making the correct call on whether or not lethal force is warranted at a particular time. Yet those who are against the right of average citizens to carry guns usually believe it’s OK for a police officer to carry one.

It’s an idiotic belief that has no grounds… come to think of it it’s no different than other anti-gunner beliefs. Oh, the following line was just comedy gold (or depressing, depending on how you look at it):

One of the hallmarks of a good cop is to radiate authority and control, and in the wrong hands, those characteristics can be misused, domestic violence counselors say.

One of the hallmarks of a good cop is to radiate authority and control? Really? I always thought the hallmark of a good cop was the ability to resolve non-violence situations without initiating violence. Needless to say very few officers appears to have the virtue.