Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare – Page 23

All Progress is Due to Anarchy

Although the term anarchy is often incorrectly used as a synonym for chaos the true definition of the world means “without rulers.” While various branches of anarchism disagree about what is meant by “without rulers” most branches agree that it means an absence of coercive rule (the reason for the disagreement is the varying criteria regarding what is coercive). Within the realm of politics many people often refer to rights. Like the various branches of anarchism, the various political philosophies disagree about what constitutes a right but most of them share the definition of a right, which is the absence of coercive rule used to prohibit actions. The right to free speech really means an absence of coercive control over what somebody expresses. The right to keep and bear arms really means an absence of coercive control over possessing and carrying arms. In essence rights are anarchy. The debate between gun rights and gun control activists can therefore be boiled down to whether or not coercive force should be used to prevent somebody from possessing or carrying firearms and to what extent that force should be employed.

JayG over at MArooned made an excellent statement regarding rights:

Look, freedom is messy. It’s scary, and dangerous, and unpredictable. Living in a free society means, yes, it is possible that the wrong people might do something that winds up in innocent people getting hurt.

Rights are frightening to many people because the absence of control also means an inability to predict outcomes. Will an absence of control over firearm ownership lead to a more peaceful society or a more violent society? Although deductive logic and available research indicate the latter, there is no way to know what the future will bring. However we do know what the presence of control will bring, the status quo. To quote Jeffrey Tucker:

Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owned to it. The human race thrives only because of the lack of control, not because of it. I’m saying that we need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place. It is a paradox that we must forever explain.

Progress is only possible when there is an absence of coercive rule. Henry Ford didn’t streamline automobile production because a state goon put a gun to his head and said, “Make building cars more efficient.” Mr. Ford’s advancement of automobile production only came about because he was free to act on his idea. Steve Wozniak didn’t create the first affordable mass-produced personal computer because some thug told him to. The Apple I came about because Mr. Wozniak was a brilliant inventor who wanted to bring the power of computing to the average person. This wonderful communication system we call the Internet is another demonstration of the power of anarchy. While the infrastructure remained under the control of the state little happened. Once people were given unfettered access to the Internet is began to change society and we not sit here and enjoy the ability to watch movies and television shows on demand, listen to music on demand, and do our shopping from the comfort of our living rooms.

While freedom, that is to say the recognition of rights, may seem scary in the long run it usually turns out for the better. Coercive rule, on the other hand, tends to turn out far worse. Most of the scary things we learn about in history stem from extremely coercive regimes and individuals. It’s not surprising when you consider that those in power have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Politicians who expropriate wealth from the general population have a good reason to advocate for the disarmament of the general populace. Without doing so the general populace may decide to rise up when the politicians begin taking too much.

Gun control advocates believe they can make society better by inflicting more control on it. Their theory may sound good on paper but historically it’s unprecedented. More control generally means less progress. In fact enough control seems to return humanity to more barbaric times. As regimes or individuals gain more control over a population violence is often the result. This may be because people have an innate desire to be free, having control over a populace reduces the cost of inflicting violence upon them, more violence must be continuously implemented in order to gain more control, or some other reason(s). But history tends towards freedom being far less messy than the lack thereof. While bumps may occur in a free society those bumps tend to be relatively mild to the genocides and death camps that are so common with the most tyrannical regimes. In the end less control tends to be better for everybody and because of that more actions should be recognized as rights everyday.

Minnesota Gun Rights Battle Round Two

Several things are certain in life. Water will always be wet, fire will always be hot, and politicians, if you let them, will always try to take more power from you and transfer it to themselves. After the battle here in Minnesota for gun rights concluded with no real changes a couple of politicians have decided to restart their holy crusade:

MINNEAPOLIS — Some Minnesota lawmakers are still hoping to pass tougher gun laws this session, despite a defeat for gun control advocates earlier this week in Washington.

The two main sponsors of gun control legislation in the House and Senate, Rep. Michael Paymar and Sen. Ron Latz, say they are disappointed that a U.S. Senate effort to extend background checks was recently voted down.

The two Democrats are pushing for legislation that would not only increase background checks, but would also patch holes in the state’s background check system and add more crimes to the list of offenses that make a person ineligible to possess a firearm.

This is a battle that will continue until the politicians know that we gun owners will no longer comply with the state. So long as we show a willingness to play their game and obey their decrees they will believe they hold power over us. I’m sure calls will go out for Minnesota gun owners to show up to hearing and make their presence known and all that jazz that didn’t even win us half a year of reprieve. You can do that if you want but I urge you to take a different route. Instead of playing their game by their rules I would urge Minnesota gun owners to play a different game and make it very clear that all new gun control law will be openly disobeyed. Only through massive acts of civil disobedience will we be able to demonstrate the state’s lack of power and only through such demonstration will we be able to convince them to stop pushing for gun control less the general populace realize that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes and the entire power structure of the state collapses.

Bad People Do Bad Things Regardless of the Law

Gun control laws are justified by making society safer. While the concept sounds good on paper in practice is don’t work. The problem comes from the fact that bad people will do bad things. People willing to commit murder are unlikely to be deterred by a law prohibiting them from owning firearms. That’s why this news about the suspected perpetrators of the Boston bombing doesn’t surprise me:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.

If these people were, in fact, the bombers then it should come as no surprise that they were also in possession of firearms. A person willing to detonate two bombs at a large sporting event isn’t going to have a moral issue with acquiring a firearm illegally. The general population of the United States seems to have been suckered into believing that laws will prevent evil men from conducting evil. In reality laws are hindrances only to those willing to obey them. Passing laws against owning equipment after somebody commits a heinous act with that equipment is a worthless gesture, especially when the act itself was already illegal.

Dianne Feinstein Went (More) Insane

Speaking of gun control advocates going insane, Dianne Feinstein went on one hell of a tear during the Senate debate over the various gun control amendments:

The California Democrat was in full fury, spilling a stream of outrage beyond the mere two minutes allowed on her amendment to gun legislation that was crafted in response to the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults in Newtown, Conn., four months ago.

Her California colleague and fellow Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer, shouted for order so that Feinstein could be heard in the evening round of votes that left efforts to stem the availability of guns in shreds.

“We have had enough of the development of highly militarized weapons, easy to shoot, big clips, 100-plus bullets in each large-velocity gun, falling into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people mentally disturbed,” Feinstein said.

Wow. She actually became so enraged that she started babbling nonsense. Highly militarized weapons? Big clips? Large velocity guns? It’s obviously that she has personalized this issue so much that she can’t even feign being impartial. Further adding to her nonsensical statements she said:

“We’re here on six-year terms for a reason, to take votes on difficult issues,” Feinstein said. “Everything needs 60 votes today. This is supposed to be a majority body. We have crafted an assault weapons bill to really represent the people of America. Every single poll has shown support for this.”

Every single poll showed that Americans, by in large, supporting banning semi-automatic rifles? Somehow I doubt that. Even if a majority of Americans do support banning semi-automatic rifles, so what? As far as I’m concerned the state can ban whatever it wants because I’m not going to comply and I know many gun owners who will join me in giving the state the middle finger. She continued on:

“I know how this is going to end,” Feinstein said. “The despair and the dismay of families standing out there whose safety we need to protect, and we don’t do it,” she said, as some families of the victims of Newtown and other mass killings watched from the gallery.

This is probably the most nonsensical statement she made. She claims that it is the job of the Senate to protect families after she spent two minutes discussing how she wants to bring the state’s capacity for violence against every family that possesses a semi-automatic rifle. That’s akin to somebody stealing their neighbors assets and claiming that he wants to protect his neighbor’s home from burglars.

I think it’s time for Feinstein to take a break. The stress of being in the Senate is obviously getting to her and she’s beginning to show signs of a mental breakdown. I’m not surprised. According to Wikipedia she’s 79 years old. Of those 79 years she spent 10 as mayor of San Fransisco (and we know the descendants of Emperor Norton are the rightful heirs for the San Fransisco kingdom) and for the last 21 years she has been in the Senate. Wasting that many years in the political system will give anybody mental issues. Imagine if you literally wasted 31 years of your life threatening innocent people with state violence. Could you live with yourself? Would you be able to maintain your sanity? I don’t think most people could do either. Honestly, I almost feel sorry for the woman. She’s 79, has done nothing of value with her life, and have only a few short years remaining.

When Gun Control Advocates Go Insane

Now that some of the more zealous gun control advocates have gotten their drink on and refilled their mugs with their own tears it’s time to watch them lash out and anybody attached to gun ownership. The award for most entertaining example of rage induced nonsensical lashing out has to Lawrence O’Donnell:

But no one was more adamant about their hatred for the NRA than MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell who last night accused the civil rights group of aiding and abetting the terrorist(s) responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings.

“There are new developments tonight in the bombing investigation here in Boston,” O’Donnell said. “But that investigation could be moving faster were it not for the successful lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association.”

“The NRA’s efforts to guarantee that American mass murderers are the best-equipped mass murders in the world is not limited to murderers who use assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” he added.

Whenever I see random leaps in logic such as this I’m only able to laugh. How has the National Rifle Association (NRA) hampered the investigation of the bombing in Boston?

“The NRA is also in the business of helping bombers get away with their crimes. Gunpowder could be traced by investigators to a buyer at the point of sale if gunpowder contained a taggant, an element that would enable tracing of the purchase of gunpowder,” he explained.

“But thanks to the National Rifle Association, identification taggants are required by law only in plastic explosives. The NRA has successfully blocked any requirements for such taggants in gunpowder. So such supremely helpful evidence as taggants are not available to the FBI in this investigation,” he added.

Interesting. Do we know that the bombs used in Boston used standard gun powder? Furthermore, how would taggants help speed up the investigation? Taggants can only tell you about the powder manufacturer. Unless a gunpowder jug was also serialized and had the serial number recorded at time of purchase taggants would be useless. In addition to that recording sales information would be useless unless the buyer used an electronic means of payment such as a credit card. If the state mandated that personal information about gunpowder buyers had to be recorded the information would still be useless because making your own gunpowder from household items isn’t rocket science.

O’Donnell is just butt hurt because the state didn’t aggress against the people he wanted it to aggress against. Obviously he doesn’t understand how the state works. The state doesn’t follow any specific political ideology, it merely works to expropriate wealth from the general population. While it does pursue powers that makes expropriation easier, such as disarming the populace, it also wants the most bang for its buck. Gun control is a package deal with a lot of headaches. Expanding surveillance powers, on the other hand, doesn’t include nearly as many headaches, actually grants the state more power to expropriate wealth than disarming the populace, and is much easier to implement than gun control is to enforce.

Tears of the Gun Control Movement

Now that the gun control bills have been voted down and the politicians can concentrate on exploiting the bombing in Boston to really ramp up the police state the gun control advocates are crying in their beer. Fortunately they have decided to drown their sorrows at the local watering hole instead of doing so in private, which means we get to watch them in their drunken stupor. Although I enjoy The Verge’s technology coverage their political coverage, as with most technology news sites that venture outside of technology, is rather pitiful. After the news of the gun control bills failure to pass Mr. Sottek posted this story complaining about how broken Congress must be for gun control to fail:

As The Washington Post reports, support for expanded background checks looks very different outside the halls of the Senate; a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 9 in 10 Americans favor strengthened background checks, with strong support even among NRA members and gun-owning households.

This 90% canard has been touted by gun control advocates for a while. Statistics obtained from polls are always suspect but that sentiment goes double when polls are conducted by news organizations. News organizations usually cater to a specific crowd. For example, Fox News and The Washington Times tends to cater to self-proclaimed conservatives while The Washington Post and ABC News tend to cater to self-proclaimed liberals. Since the poll was operated by The Washington Post and ABC News, who cater to gun control advocates, I’m not surprised that they found overwhelming support for prohibiting private sales (which is what is really meant by “strengthening background checks”). Had the poll been taken by Fox News and The Washington Times I’d expect the opposite result.

In addition to selection bias the claim that National Rifle Association (NRA) members strongly support ending private sales is difficult to prove with any certainty since the NRA doesn’t release its member list. Claiming gun-owning households also support ending private sales is suspect because there is no way to reliably determine if a household has guns inside. In other words the information obtained about NRA members and gun-owning households is based entirely on information that was volunteered by poll takers, which tends to be unreliable. Another point I found laughable was the following:

The failure is particularly biting for many in light of the dramatic gun violence from last December, when 20 children and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. Despite the broad sense of national consensus that followed the Newtown tragedy, it appears that the incident did not actually change anything about gun politics in Congress.

I find it funny that The Verge, Mayor Bloomberg, and Philip Rucker spend so much time demanding gun control after a school shooting but will raise little more than a periodic murmur, if they they even raise that, when the United States government continues its terror campaign against Middle Eastern children. The lack of consistency makes me believe that they’re not really sincere about wanting to protect children. Instead it appears that they simply don’t like non-state agents owning guns. The article gets more mind numbingly stupid:

Critics of the Senate’s failure to act cite influence from special interests, namely the NRA, which has stepped up its marketing efforts in recent months as tragedies in Connecticut, Colorado, and other areas have thrust gun control into the national spotlight. As part of its outreach efforts, the NRA won a sponsorship for NASCAR which renamed the Samsung 500 to the NRA 500 this April.

First of all the NRA wasn’t the only game stepping up marketing efforts. Gabriel Giffords started her own gun control advocacy organization and Mayor Bloomberg put millions into advocating for more gun control. In addition to that the NRA didn’t “win” a NASCAR sponsorship, they bought it. I’m surprised a news organization that makes money off of advertising doesn’t understand that sponsorships, another word for advertisements, aren’t won in competitions but purchased with money.

While politics seldom interests me anymore I find the reactions of gun control advocates, who do put their faith in the political process, rather entertaining after they lose. They whine that everybody supports their cause but Congress won’t obey the will of the people. In actuality the issue of gun control is hotly debated and Congress would rather expand its powers in less troublesome ways. Why waste time riling the serfs up by pushing gun control when you can offer buisnesses a lucrative deal where they can sell their customers’ information to the state without worrying about legal repercussions? Less people get riled up about expanding the surveillance state and it nets the state more power. Congress doesn’t obey the will of the people, it grabs for power over the people. Gun control gives them some power but there are much better ways of obtaining more power that involve less headaches. The reason gun control advocates haven’t achieved many victories as of late is because they aren’t offering Congress much of value. Like sponsorships, Congressional victories aren’t won, they’re bought.

The Lies of Moms Demand Action

Every Day, No Days Off had a post showing a new campaign by Moms Demand Action. After first I thought the campaign images were a parody until I looked at their website. As it turns out the pictures are not parody images, they’re part of the organization’s actual campaign. Let’s take a look at the three images currently available on their site.

First we have this example:

This picture implies that the banning of Little Red Riding Hood from schools was legitimate. I guess Moms Demand Action support censorship.

Next up his this ditty:

Banning dodge ball, at least banning rubber balls instead of foam balls, was one of the biggest let downs of my youth. Dodge ball was one of the few games I was decent at and it was a great deal of fun. Then one kid got hurt and the game was replaced by a mockery that relied on foam balls that couldn’t get tossed fast enough to hit even the slowest kid. But the game wasn’t banned because it was viewed as “too violent,” the use of rubber balls was merely banned because a kid was injured.

Third we have this monstrosity:

Nothing is prohibiting children from buying Kinder chocolate eggs. In fact they were available during Easter.

Now that I’ve commented on each images individual absurdity it’s time to comment on the absurdity they all have in common. None of the times mentioned in the three pictures have been banned in America. Some of those times may have been banned from some schools but children haven’t been prohibited from enjoying them outside of school. Firearms are a different manner. Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 non-state entities, which includes all children, are prohibited from bringing firearms into school zones. In addition to that most states prohibit children from being in possession of firearms unless they are being supervised by an adult. The examples given by Moms Demand Action are asinine. In fact the implications behind made in those pictures are outright bald-faced lies.

I’m not an ends justify the means kind of guy and that’s probably why I don’t understand why Moms Demand Action believe it’s acceptable to lie so blatantly. Look, I get it, they don’t like guns. While I don’t agree with gun control advocates I believe we can have a debate without having to resort to outright dishonesty.

Gun Owners Being Sold Out, Again

It shouldn’t surprise anybody that gun owners are being sold out in another political maneuver. Things started heating up with Alan Gottlieb of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) fame announced that he supported the Toomey-Manchin Amentment. Joining Mr. Gottleib is Cheaper Than Dirt, who generated a bit of anger last year when they ceased selling firearms online and jacked up their prices on standard capacity magazines (which, let’s face it, under a shortage is going to happen) after the Connecticut shooting:

I had a chance to sit down with Allen Gottlieb from the Second Amendment Foundation and get the straight scoop about the gun related legislation pending in the Senate. The following is the summary from my conversation with Gottlieb.

First, let’s start from the point where we lost the cloture vote. The vote lost by a huge margin with 68 senators voting in favor of cloture. Once reached, it was evident something was going to go to the floor and Schumer’s background check bill was simply draconian, bad, evil, and needed to be stopped.

As for Senators Manchin and Toomey, both have “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and care tremendously about the Second Amendment and gun rights. The Toomey-Manchin bill was crafted in Sen. Manchin’s office as a response to Schumer’s proposal. A representative from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was present to suggest talking points and provisions for inclusion.

Their support, along with Mr. Gottleib’s support, seems to stem primarily from the fact that the proposed Toomey-Manchin Amendment isn’t as bad as the bill proposed by Schumer. In other words they’re being pragmatic and you know how I feel about pragmatists. The primary thing that concerns me about the recent support for the Toomey-Manchin Amendment is that many of the claims being made by advocates are, according to David Kopel, not true. Specifically the Cheaper Than Dirt post claims that the Toomey-Manchin Amendment prohibits the creation of a national registry but Kopel, who I might add is a lawyer, says otherwise:

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

If you support or are considering supporting the Toomey-Manchin Amendment it would be well worth your time to read Kopel’s analysis. It’s a sucker’s deal reminiscent of what us Minnesotans had to suffer earlier this year. Don’t let yourself be suckered into publicly supporting gun control legislation. While people like Mr. Gottleib and organizations like Cheaper Than Dirt will lie and strike fear into you by claiming that we either take the Toomey-Manchin deal or suffer Schumer’s bill remember that they are giving you a false choice. They are conveniently forgetting to mention the third option: opposing all proposed gun control legislation. You don’t have to carry water for your ideological opponent. If gun control advocates want to prohibit us from owning guns then make them do all the damned work.

The ATF is Emulating the FBI’s Tactic of Creating Criminals

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has a long, proud history of creating terrorists and “stopping” them. Somebody in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) must have been paying attention during some inter-agency meeting because they are now emulating the FBI’s tactics:

ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

For more than six months, federal agents relied on Chauncey Wright to promote “Fearless Distributing” by handing out fliers as he rode his bike around town recommending the store to friends, family and strangers, according to federal prosecutors and family members.

Wright, unaware that the store was an undercover operation being run by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also stocked shelves with shoes, clothing, drug paraphernalia and auto parts, according to his family.

Once authorities shut down the operation, they charged the 28-year-old man with federal gun and drug counts.

[…]

Wright’s IQ measures in the 50s, about half of a normal IQ, according to those familiar with him. Wright’s score is classified as mildly or moderately disabled, depending on the IQ scale used.

Congratulations go to the brave agents of the ATF who managed to capture this most dastardly of criminals! If it wasn’t for the ATF this man would… likely have done nothing illegal. This tactic of creating criminals works well because there are a lot of people out there who make easy prey for smooth talkers. When you look at the history of the FBI’s creation of terrorists you find that the people they recruited, armed, and “stopped” are usually dull witted. In this case the ATF recruited a man who’s IQ measures around 50 (the average IQ is 100).

Were I a tasked with capturing criminals to obtain funding for my agency, suffering a lack of criminals or an inability to capture them, and a complete psychopath I would likely use the same tactic as well. When agency funding is tied to the number of criminals they capture higher ups are eventually going to opt to create criminals in order to justify their demands for more funding.

The Real Reason Behind Universal Background Checks

Advocates of gun control are pushing to prohibit private sales through a scheme they are referring to as universal background checks. While the phrase universal background checks sounds like a method meant to prevent violent individuals from acquiring firearms it’s actually a method to turn more nonviolent gun owners into prohibited persons:

Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support. While President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg talk about “gun sales,” the actual legislation moving through Congress aims to regulate far more than sales. It would turn almost every gun owner into a felon. The trick is that the language under consideration applies not only to sales but also to “transfers,” which are defined to include innocent activities such as letting your spouse borrow your gun for a few hours.

The story puts forth several scenarios where a nonviolent gun owner would become a felon under universal background checks. Since the language is based on the idea of transferring possession of a firearm any time you allow a friend or family member to borrow one of your firearms you risk becoming labeled as a felon.

This isn’t surprising to those of us who own firearms. Gun control advocates have been doing everything in their power to forcefully seize our property. Since outright bans haven’t been effective gun control advocates have begun using other more secretive methods to accomplish their goals.