Wednesday, October 1, 2014
When millions of Americans, with neither the metalworking and gunsmithing skills to build firearms by hand, or the wealth to buy equipment sufficiently sophisticated (at the prices such equipment commanded until now) to do so through automation, can nevertheless produce effective fighting arms in the privacy of their homes, "universal background check" laws, "prohibited person" laws, "assault weapon" bans, etc. become meaningless. The gun ban zealots' worst nightmare--uncontrollable, utterly anonymous access to so-called "assault weapons" is upon us, spelling the death of the "government monopoly on force" so beloved of the gun ban jihadis. That's a victory for humanity.
"Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them." Clarence B. Carson on the inextricable links between property, liberty and the law.
Clarence B. Carson, historian. 1925 - 2003.
In my stroll through the thrift store last week, I encountered a remarkable book by Clarence B. Carson, entitled Basic Communism: Its Rise, Spread and Debacle in the 20th Century.
Carson is writing here about the Soviet system (the book was self-published in 1990) but his observations are universal to all systems, especially our own these days.
One of the major conclusions to be drawn from the Soviet experience in this regard is that law is not essential to the exercise of the power of the state. Since governments have commonly used law in the exercise of their power, it might be supposed that law is necessary to that end. On the contrary, law is frequently and in certain ways essentially an impediment to the exercise of governmental power. Government operates essentially by the use of force, and by its nature tends to monopolize the use of force in its jurisdiction. Law regularizes and LIMITS the use of force by government. It limits it by prescribing how force shall be used, to what extent, and under what conditions. In this sense, law is no more necessary to governments than handcuffs to a boxer.There is an intricate connection between law and property. Probably, private property is essential to the existence of law. In the light of what has happened it does appear that when private property is largely abolished that law does indeed wither away. Certainly, much of it withers away, for law no longer has its main object to deal with. Most important, all rights and liberties wither away in the absence of private property. All rights tend to be more or less extensions of property rights, though they are often not thought of in that light. Freedom of speech, of press, and of religion, for example, are much more dependent upon property than we might casually conclude. Freedom of the press is most meaningful only when one has access to a press, by way either of ownership or consent to its use by some owner. If government owns all the presses, there might conceivably be a government privilege to use the press under certain conditions, but freedom of the press would have no content. Freedom of speech depends upon a place (property) from which to speak, and, for its defense, the means (property) by which to enter into an adversary relationship with those (including government) who might deny it. By extension, freedom of speech is a property right to one's utterances. As for religion, its public practice depends upon the ownership or control over houses of worship and all the physical paraphernalia (musical instruments, song books, prayer nooks, surplices, and so on). The Soviet Union has amply demonstrated the dependence of freedom of religion upon private property. Abolish private property and you undermine law as well. Law can no more survive without private rights in property than can a building be suspended from sky hooks. Neither has any foundation.Government requires neither private property nor law in order to function. They are both inhibitors of its use of force. There is an alternative to law for government; it is terror. Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them. In the absence of private property and its corollary, law, government must act by terror, when the chips are down. The exercise of force without the restraint of law is terror. No better definition can be given, and none is needed. It does not become terror because of the especially horrible character of the acts. Rather it is terroristic because it is arbitrary, unpredictable, and has no certain cause or explanation. None may know when force will be applied or when it will be halted, for there are no enforceable restraints.
"Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them."
Stupid, an adjective meaning: 1. not intelligent; 2. having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things; 3. not sensible or logical.
I have been taken to task somewhat severely by folks over my comment at this post indicating that I thought the public banning of all Muslims from a gun range was "monumentally stupid."
It was a quick reaction, but I stand by it. This has nothing to do with property rights, potential lawsuits, or the First Amendment. It is stupid because the problem, if it exists, can be handled by a simple "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. Making this about perceived Jihadi menaces and extending it to a religious ban is just that -- stupid. A suspicious observer might conclude that it was done for the publicity to boost business among local clientele who are overwhelmingly, I am sure, non-Muslim.
Using the utter lack of training and failure rate of LEO’s is not the most reassuring basis for choosing a pistol caliber. In fact, .22′s hardly have ANY recoil and it is used in the OLYMPICS where shot placement is vital. In a world where stopping power is a myth and shot placement is paramount, the .22 would seem ideal for the FBI’s conclusions.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The crux of the government's arguments revolve around testimony of Jose Roman, a member of La Linea, the enforcement arm of the Mexican Juarez cartel trying to save his own skin. As this column reported two years ago, when it noted “Records don’t back witness for the prosecution in Reese gun case,” Roman has been a career criminal since the age of 17, smuggling illegal aliens, guns and drugs, and who has been offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony. Significantly, he also admitted on the witness stand that he had provided false statements while making firearms purchases from the Reese’s gun shop.
While FFLs and range operators have a great deal of latitude in their business dealings, it is doubtful that a blanket ban based upon religion is remotely viable on First Amendment grounds. This is no more legally viable than a ban on Baptists or Catholics.
It is also monumentally stupid.
So, I'm walking down the aisle at the thrift store yesterday and what do I see but a double-extra-large example of this tee shirt, brand new:
Looking at the price tag and roughly calculating the tag-color discount-of-the-day plus my old fart's percentage, I saw that it was less than a buck, I had to have it, so I carried it up to the register, pleased as punch. The line was long and I was short on time to go pick up Rosey, but no matter. While I waited, I held it out in front of me, fully displaying the iconic image, looking at it and smiling. Some clueless young bearded slacker was behind me in the line and commented, "Wow. I like the tee shirt." "Yeah," I enthusiastically replied, "it'll make a GREAT target the next time I go to the gun range. Images of commie murderers always make the best aiming points." You should have seen his face. Priceless.
"I’ve said it before and I’ll keep pressing on the issue. My home is my castle, and I don’t care what judge has signed what piece of paper. If you come at my home, especially in the middle of the night, you’re going to get shot, cop or not. I won’t differentiate because I cannot trust uniforms and announcements. Criminal gangs have now taken to wearing uniforms and making announcements."
"My home is my castle. It doesn’t belong to you, and it doesn’t belong to the state. If you are law enforcement and want to come in my home, call and make an appointment. Got it? If that isn’t good enough for you, if you think there is evidence of something or other you want to see, then put good detectives on the job (like you did at one time in history), watch for me to leave, detain me, and then take me back to the home and let me use my key to the front door. Or get a locksmith. In other words, use your brains to gather evidence. Otherwise, I don’t care if you lose that evidence. I only care about my safety, and the safety of victims like Mr. Guy."
Monday, September 29, 2014
Unknown at this time will be the extent of anticipated reactions by those in the angrily vocal camp against George Zimmerman, notably from personalities like Al Sharpton, and from members of the New Black Panther Party, who in 2012 offered a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman's capture. It is for reasons of personal safety and security, as well as so the interview does not get disrupted and halted by protesters, that the physical location is being withheld.
I've never used these Bushmaster 25mm ammo boxes for long-term storage and I'm wondering how many uses folks have found for these air-tight, water-tight containers?
Here, a fellow using them for panniers on his bike.
Here, a post discusses the use of 25mm M791 Ammo Boxes as Flashlight Storage.
They are, it seems to me, heavier than metal ammo cans of similar volume. Still, does anyone have experience using them tactically, or for long-term storage?
As for the shotgun, Stewart said the idea to keep it out in the open came from a customer who owns a pawn shop in Tuscaloosa. Stewart said the customer told him that after his shop was robbed, he got a shotgun up, pulled the pump down and set it behind the cash register. "He said, 'That's a universal language,'" Stewart said. "'Everybody understands what that means.'"
Two political action committees registered with the IRS — one supporting Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the other supporting Republican businessman Tom Foley — have so far amassed a total of nearly $5 million in contributions to spend mostly on TV advertising, often condemning the other candidate. Other groups, including gun rights and gun control advocates, are also pumping money into the election.