Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 75

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.

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.

Gun Control is a Form of Collective Punishment

One of the more disturbing trends found in collectivist ideologies is the concept of collective punishment. Collective punishment is the idea that an entire group should be punished for the actions of a single member of that group. Not surprisingly this idea has generally found acceptance in collectivist ideologies, which view individuals are minor components of the grand social machinery. Socialism was founded on the idea of punishing the bourgeois class. At first the bourgeois class consistent of everybody who privately possessed means of production and, even if a particular member of the bourgeois class did nothing to harm another person, socialist doctrine generally supported punishing that private holder of production. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the bourgeois class quickly became a catchall for counter revolutionaries.

Fascism is another socialist ideology that ascribes to the idea of collective punishment. Nazi Germany is the pinnacle of fascist collective punishment. During the reign of the Third Reich entire groups; including Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals; were exterminated because, it was claimed, members of those groups brought harm to the German people. In German the term Sippenhaft was used to describe the idea of collectively punishing a entire family for the wrongdoing of a single member. Sippenhaft, as a concept, has existed in Germanic law since the middle ages but was made prevalent once again by the Nazi Party in Germany and, later, the Communist Party in East Germany.

The United States inherited the generally individualistic ideology of Britain. Due to the more individualistic nature of those societies the legal system has very few references to collective punishment. At one point in time was unusual to hear a person living in either society to directly call for collectively punishing entire groups for the misdeeds of individual members of those groups. Unfortunately both societies have move away from generally individualistic ideologies and have slowly adopted more aspects of collectivist ideologies. As traditionally individualistic cultures, specifically the United States, have progressed further down the collectivist road the idea of collective punishment has become more acceptable. Unlike collectivists societies that outwardly adhere to ideologies like socialism and fascism, the United States doesn’t not overtly perform acts of collective punishment. Instead of rounding up entire families and placing them in prisons the United States has opted for a more underhanded method of collectively punishing groups, legislation.

When an individual does something to harm others the common response in the United States is to find what groups that individual belongs to. Being social creatures humans are easy to connect to social groups. Once a connection has been made demands are quickly made to legislation against that specific social group. If the wrongdoer is an anarchist cries are made add anarchists to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of the Tea Party cries are made to add the Tea Party, or so-called right-wing extremists, to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of racist group cries are made to enact legislation that prohibits racist speech. Not surprisingly when a wrongdoer is a gun owner cries are made to enact legislation that punishes all gun owners.

Gun control is nothing more than a form of collective punishment. Enacting gun control legislation restricts the liberties of gun owners but doesn’t punish the person who committed the act that resulted in the demand for more gun control. If somebody shooters several people with a handgun gun control advocates start screaming for a ban, or at least tighter restrictions, on handguns. The killer faces multiple charges of murder but nonviolent owners of handguns, that is to say the majority of handgun owners, face future charges of possessing a prohibited weapon or are restricted from buying particular handguns in the future.

From the beginning gun control has been a form of collective punishment. The first gun control laws were implemented to prevent African Americans from obtaining firearms. In that case the entire African Americans community was being punished whether they brought violence against another human being or not. Gun control hasn’t changed much in its long history. From collectively punishing African Americans to collectively punishing gun owners the idea of gun control has always been one of punishing entire groups for the, oftentimes perceived, actions of individuals in those groups. To use the ever beloved car analogy gun control legislation would be akin to banning Ford Fusions because a single man got drunk, drove a Fusion, and killed another person in a collision. Instead of punishing the drunk drive a vehicle prohibition would punish car owns, specifically those who like Ford Fusions.

Collective punishment is a frightening idea. Since we’re all members of various social groups and it’s highly probable that somebody in every social group will commit an act of aggression against another human being it’s likely that every could face punishment under a collective system. I oppose collective punishment and believe only a wrongdoer should be punished.

The Difference Between the Pirate Bay and the Library

Representatives of the recording, publishing, and movie industries constantly gripe about Internet piracy. They claim rampent piracy will lead to the death of music, literature, and movies because individuals will no longer pay money for them. Considering this why don’t those industries gripe about another source of obtaining such media for free? You never hear those representatives complain about public libraries, do you? Why is that? It’s because public libraries are too inefficient:

It begs the question why every author, filmmaker, and musician isn’t up in arms about the New York Public Library’s rampant sharing, while there’s a ton of opposition to the sharing habits of BitTorrent peers who use The Pirate Bay. After all, The Pirate Bay’s community shares significantly less than the New York Public Library: just 1 million items in 2008 (and the collection certainly hasn’t grown 5000% since then). The reason that The Pirate Bay is offensive, and the New York Public Library is not, is because of its efficiency.

Before the New York Public Library can share an item with you, you first need to schlep all the way to 5th Avenue and 42nd Street in Manhattan. Then you have to walk around the massive building to find what you’re looking for. That is, if the item isn’t checked out. See, the New York Public Library has a peculiar system of storing their items: in finite, physical form. If you want to read a book or watch a film, there are only a few copies available. You can take an item home for a limited time (which forces other people to wait until you return it), but only if you live in New York State.

Were libraries as efficient as online piracy sites representatives from the recording, publishing, and movie industries would be demanding their immediate shutdown. So remember, you can borrow intellectual property for free so long as you do it in an inefficient manner.

You Just Can’t Trust Anybody Anymore

Brace yourselves, I have some rather surprising news. It appears that a couple of politicians have, get this, performed a complete 180 on an issue position. Senators Mark Warner and Joe Manchin, both candidates with “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA), have come out in support of reinstating the “assault weapon” ban:

Two US Senators became the first of America’s pro-gun advocates to break ranks on Monday night as they called for a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings.

[…]

The two Senators – both Democrats but with “A” ratings and previous endorsements from the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby group – both spoke out to argue publicly that the death of 20 Year 2 children was a “game-changing” moment for America’s divisive gun debate.

These two senators have demonstrated why the political means can never be a tool to achieve liberty. Politicians cannot be trusted. They may claim to support gun rights one moment but will turn on you the second it stands to advance their political career. Senators Warner and Manchin have demonstrated that they care nothing for gun rights and would prefer to throw gun owners under the bus in order to get their name on headlines and, in all likelihood, advance their political careers. Nothing about this development should surprise anybody though, these politicians are just doing what politicians do.

What Eliminating Gun-Free Zones Can Do

Since the shooting in Connecticut two camps have emerged. The first camp are those who demand stricter gun control laws and the second camp are those who demand loosening current gun control laws. I’m firmly in the second camp. As I’ve continued to advocate for the elimination of legally established gun-free zones I’ve heard many arguments against allowing those who can carry firearms to do so on school grounds. Most of these arguments are rather absurd.

Some proponents of gun control claim that students will wrestle guns from teachers and begin shooting their fellow students. This argument is irrelevant because, as these school shootings have demonstrated, students wanting to shoot fellow students are already brining guns into schools. In addition to that fact it’s unlikely that students will know which teachers are carrying. Another common argument against legalizing carry on school grounds is the concern about negligent discharges. Again this argument holds almost no water because negligent discharges can only happen if a firearm is removed from its holster. What reason would a teacher have to remove their firearm from its holster unless there was an active shooting? It’s not like a teacher is going to pull their gun out to show the kids. Other opponents to legalizing carry on school grounds claim teachers won’t have sufficient training to properly engage an active shooter. This claim, like the previously mentioned ones, is almost entirely irrelevant. If you look at the history of these mass shootings the shooter almost always commits suicide upon meeting any form of armed resistance. In a vast majority of cases a teacher wouldn’t have had to engage the shooter, they would have simply needed to present a firearm and the shooter would have committed suicide.

This brings us to the point I want to make. What would legalizing carry on school grounds do? The first and most important thing it would do is reduce response times. When an active shooting occurs they usually last until armed resistance arrives. Usually armed resistance comes in the form of police officers. Unfortunately police are unable to appear instantly when a shooting begins so the shooter has free reign for several minutes. Arming teachers would allow response times to be lowered from minutes to seconds. Having an individual on site able to present armed resistance would mean an almost immediate response could be available. During an active shooting response time is the most important factor since, as I mentioned above, shooters often commit suicide upon meeting any armed resistance. Furthermore even if the shooter doesn’t commit suicide upon meeting armed resistance their attention will likely be diverted to the armed resister and not directed at the children.

In addition to reducing response times legalizing carry on school grounds would raise the cost of performing shootings on school grounds. Since schools are legal gun-free zones those with murder in their hearts know that they are almost guaranteed several minutes of free reign before armed resistance arrives. This makes schools relatively cheap targets for wannabe murderers. The low cost of performing violence on school grounds is a likely factor for the frequency at which mass shootings occur on school grounds. Most mass shootings seem to take place in legal gun-free zones. Knowing that there could be armed teachers or faculty members on school grounds increases the odds of encountering armed resistance from almost nothing to highly probable. Increasing the cost of performing violence will likely lead to a reduced rate of violence being committed.

Legalizing carry on school grounds stands a real chance of deterring mass shootings at schools. Unlike gun control, which relies on murders obeying the law, legalizing carry on school grounds doesn’t rely on the behavior of murders. Instead legalizing carry on school grounds merely erects a barrier between school grounds and those wanting to commit violent acts on those grounds. It’s a far more intelligent response to school shootings than enacting more laws for murderers to ignore.

Obama’s Crocodile Tears

After the shooting in Connecticut Obama, apparently believing not tragedy should be wasted, went on television and gave a speech. The speech was the usual political affair with vague statements about the need for change and some shed tears. Shedding tears was a nice touch but they can be considered nothing more than crocodile tears. While Obama lamented on the death of 20 children in Connecticut his drone strikes have murdered 168 children in Pakistan:

As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years as the CIA has intensified its secret programme against militants along the Afghan border.

When Obama said there needs to be “meaningful action” he was right. He can start but ceasing further bombings in Parkistan, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries. More children have been killed by American drone bombings that the last several school shootings combine.

Protecting Society from Violent Psychopaths

One of the unfortunate facts in any society is that there are always a few violent psychopaths. Fortunately our society has developed a relatively effective means for the good people in society to protect themselves from the violent psychopaths. The most important aspect in any defensive situation is awareness, you must be able to identify a potential attacker. If you’re able to identify your potential attack soon enough you can usually avoid them entirely.

To facilitate identification and, hopefully, avoidance our society has taken as many violent psychopaths as can be identified and issued them special costumes and badges. Upon seeing an individual wearing one of these official costumes and badge you should do whatever is in your power to avoid contact. If you are unable to avoid contact there is a high probability that one of these violent psychopaths will attack you with a blunt weapon, electrical discharge device, or a firearm. They are also prone to firing upon canines so take extra precautions when walking your dog.

Enforcing the Laws on the Books

When it comes to gun control there is already a veritable library of laws on the books. Some advocates of gun rights and gun control often make quips about focusing on enforcing current laws. Both sides are making a statement that current gun control laws are not stringently enforced. In the case of gun rights activists they are implying that crimes involving firearms can be addressed by stringently enforcing current laws and that new laws are unnecessary whereas advocates of gun control are implying that current laws aren’t being enforced and therefore a higher rate of crimes involving firearms exists than should.

The concern I have with the idea of enforcing current laws, a concern that should be shared by both my fellow advocates of gun rights and my philosophical opponents advocating for gun control, is that laws can be interpreted different by different individuals. Consider the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) latest victory in Illinois where a judge ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago made the individual state’s prohibition against non-state agents carry firearms illegal. This decision was a boon for advocates of gun rights and a defeat for opponents of gun rights but could have had the opposite outcome.

Remember that the federal appeals court decision actually overturned the decision of a lower court, which held a different interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. One court believed that the Supreme Court’s decision, which allowed for “reasonable” gun control laws, allowed an individual state could prohibit non-state agents from carrying firearms while a different court believed the opposite. If the defense appeals the case we may see it land in the Supreme Court where a third interpretation of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling could be decided.

Utilizing the interpretation of current laws has played out in the quest to advance gun rights and I’m not saying we should abandon this strategy. What I am saying is that advocates of gun rights should be careful about advocating for the enforcement of current laws. I believe it would be smarter to recognize the court system for what it is, a convenient tool to advance gun rights, but not imply that current gun control laws are just. If we imply any consent to current gun control laws we could find ourselves at the wrong end of a court ruling. Were this to happen we would be forced with either consent to the law or make hypocrites of ourselves and claim that the law, in this case, shouldn’t be enforced.