~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liberals think with their hearts. That's their problem: trying to think with a pump. - PAFOA's Adam-12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is worth your time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943).]
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
- Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."
-Ben Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."
—Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1700
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money."
—David Crockett, USA Congressman (1827-1835)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
-Ayn Rand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course,
is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation ...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A favorite quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Shoulders I Stand On
Something to think about:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross
Author of Unintended Consequences
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you
COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the
lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed.
Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
***
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer --
they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire.
My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace
your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is
designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
freedom is that they're good practice."
***
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in
bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more
heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important
is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have
the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken
arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
***
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You
have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is
reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people
who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to
live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
***
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should
all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the
citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
***
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing
these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY:"You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if
you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This
license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteenyear-
old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot
them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country
to shoot these guns on public property."
***
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant
more to you than anything."
THEY SAY:"Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill
Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the
next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Marko Kloos
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -H.L. Mencken
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
From time to time, various interviewers ask me to identify the
important influences in my writing and my life. My answers have been
pretty consistent over the years, but I haven't had too many chances
to go into any detail. Visiting with a friend on the telephone, I
realized that three men, more than any others, have helped me to be
what I am. I can't thank them, they're no longer with us, but I can
tell my readers about them and share the benefits I've received from
them.
I've never been anything but a libertarian—and a radical one, at that.
But for some reason, my heroes have always been conservatives—and
Californians. The other day at the grocery store I found a brand new
DVD of Rio Bravo for a reasonable price and brought it home. It was
one of those two-disk sets with commentary, a couple of freestanding
documentaries, and other behind-the-scenes features I enjoy. I've
learned a lot, I think, about making movies from such things.
Rio Bravo, for those of you under the age of forty, is a 1959 western
about individual courage in the face of thuggery, directed by Howard
Hawks and starring John Wayne. It also features Walter Brennan, Dean
Martin, Rickey Nelson, and Angie Dickenson. And as I watched it for
the hundredth time in my life, I realized, not for the first time,
that I had learned a great deal more from movies like it than merely
moviemaking.
Specifically—because my dad loved John Wayne's movies and I saw them
whenever he did, usually at the drive-in theater where it seems I
spent most of my childhood—I'd learned many important lessons about
life from Wayne, and the image he created, developed, and perfected
over his long career. A man's word has to be his bond. A bully has to
be taken down. Wayne projected certain values—duty to what's right,
determination to see it done no matter the cost, personal honor which
is an individual's only genuine credential—that are often sneered at
these days by slimy, cynical lowlives in the media, government, and
academia.
John Wayne helped to build the foundation of my personality. And
although I understood that movies are fantasy, I also understood that
it's sometimes easier to convey important truths in fiction than in
non-fiction. Although I later came to disagree with him about specific
issues, (the war in Vietnam), I was confident he'd arrived at what he
believed by methods I would recognize and respect. What's more, I
brought to my opposition of that war, the values I had learned from
him.
A little later in life—I was in sixth grade—I discovered the works of
Robert Heinlein and continue to read them today. I have written before
this about him and his importance in my life. He, too, valued honesty
and decency, courage and determination. Like Wayne, he knew his way
around a .45 (not to mention a sword), and he believed that everyone,
even kids, should be adequately armed and capable of self-defense.
Heinlein was a bold experimenter, but with a respect for the past. His
books are full of ideas he clearly wanted to "try on for size". In
one, duelling was a respected custom, young couples sought genetic
counselling before having children, and Social Credit theory ruled the
economy. In another, people practiced complex "line marriage". In yet
another, citizens weren't allowed to vote until they'd served in the
military.
Heinlein began his intellectual life as an ardent New Deal leftist. As
socialism failed, worldwide, he had the integrity to acknowledge it
and journeyed, one step at a time (some say it was with the guidance
of his remarkable wife, Virginia), through a growing conservatism,
until, toward the end of his life, he became a genuine libertarian
and, I suspect, a "practical anarchist", an expression he invented.
His outlook on life was essentially scientific—he often said that if
you don't understand mathematics, you don't really understand
anything—but at the same time warmly understanding of the foibles of
his fellow human beings. We have a civilized obligation, he said, to
be kindly with the weak and patient with the stupid, a standard I
often have difficulty living up to. He knew (and because he did, so do
I) that times change, politics change, technology changes, but people
don't.
Socialists left and right may not believe it, but that's a good thing.
The third individual in my collection of real live heroes is Jeff
Cooper, a retired Marine colonel (when I knew him) and perhaps the
most important, historically, of the three. Wayne made great movies
that helped establish my character and those of many others, I am
sure. Heinlein wrote great stories that gave us futures worth fighting
for.
Over a period of forty years, Cooper, with a little help from his
friends, turned the use of the personal sidearm—specifically the
1911A1 Colt .45 automatic—into a martial art. Mostly in gun magazine
articles, he wrote extensively, about that and many other subjects,
and his writing was always clear, erudite, and frequently witty.
I remember especially when he wrote about being a young Marine officer
in World War II, altogether too influenced by Elmer Keith, a staunch
advocate of the single-action revolver, thinking that the old
Peacemaker was enough—until he had to reload the damn thing in the
dark, a driving tropical rain, under Japanese fire. It was in that
magic moment that the man I think of as the Yoda of the .45 auto was
born.
I never got to meet John Wayne, or even see him in person. I knew
Heinlein through the mail and his opinion of my work is a personal
treasure to me. Cooper was aware of my work (students at his shooting
school, Gunsite, were always giving him my books and essays), and when
he came to Denver for a week to teach, I asked him and his wife
Janelle to dinner at the Fort, a local restaurant that serves wild
game.
On another occasion, I told him about a book I was writing at the
time, Pallas, a novel about integrating hunting into modern society,
and asked if he knew where I could get a copy of the long out-of-print
Meditations on Hunting by Jose Ortega y Gasset, a book he had quoted
from and written about at some length. He was kind enough to send me
an inscribed copy of a new printing I believe he had something to do
with.
These great men loom large in my life, and sometimes they sort of run
together in my thoughts. Sure, there are other individuals—among them,
Ayn Rand, H. Beam Piper, Robert LeFevre, Zenna Henderson—who are
important to me and who continue to inform my thinking and my writing.
But in a bad pinch, I find myself wondering what John Wayne would do,
what Robert Heinlein would do, what Jeff Cooper would do.
And, to the best of my ability, I do it
The Libertarian Enterprise.
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our
enemies define the terms.
The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
By Robert Morgan
The Institute for Historical Review
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~