I'm a Gun Owner and No I won't Apologize

Sadly another mass shooting has happened and has taken the lives of many innocent people who just trying to have a good time. Predictably, the left had attacked gun rights with some calling for an outright ban on the Second Amendment. Whether these new attacks lead to legislation is unknown at this time but how the left continues to lie about gun owners and pushes another attempt at this collective responsibility bullshit.

One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, your responsible for yourself and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I'm some how responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I'm not the one who pulled the trigger so how can left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it, does the left realize that this is the same collectivist blame that conservatives and neoreactionaries like to place on muslims, jews and non whites for when individual members of these groups commit crimes? The left is correct when they decry when these type attacks happen but have no problem using them for their own statist agenda. Then again the left is no stranger to hypocrisy nor do they care about being called out on as such. I refuse to bow down to pressure from any statist to apologize for something that I did not do.

Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, Spain under Franco are examples of countries who believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don't care about facts and innocent until proven guilty, all that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, engages in particular activity etc that person is guilty and is responsible that simple association. Alternatively collective punishment and blame can be viewed as guilty until proven innocent which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.

The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface of this statement isn't evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don't care about legitimate laws thats why they're criminals. All gun legislation does is harm innocent people. Background checks, lists, databases, mental health screening, ammunition stamping does nothing to prevent future tragedies but cause more red tape for innocent people to defend themselves. Also not just red tape that such measures create, seeking government approval to exercise one's right it creates a tool in which people can use against political enemies.

Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they'll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? This kind of logic is insane.

Historically gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today's gun regulations can still do just that. For example lets take someone who is gay, some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be determined to be granted by another then it's no longer a right it's a privileged and last time I checked the second amendment is not a privilege but a right.

In a free society there will always be bad events, bad people and bad situations that's the reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren't) then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them. Also not just them but everyone.

Conservative Hypocrisy and Why Liberals Should Dump Gun Control

A few days ago Vice did an article on the Huey P. Newton Gun club and their patrolling of black Dallas neighborhoods. Based on the article the group acts in way what libertarians have been envisioning in a world without government provided law enforcement. A band of people uniting under a guise of protecting their community, openly carrying their firearms which is their right and educating others about gun rights.

One would think that those who are for the right to self defense would actually be in support of what the club is doing right?

Wrong.

Being that the club is liberal it has obviously ruffled some conservative feathers like those at Conservative Tribune describing them as a band of thugs.

Now for the record as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I'm pretty open about my hatred for liberals and conservatives (that includes the branches of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism). However that hatred doesn't blind me to the fact that they don't deserve to have the same rights as me, they do. Despite that they want to take my rights away via the guns of the state in one way or another. Also I will note that while I'm a gun owner I do not belong to any groups. Reasons being that; 1. I don't want to associate with conservatives as I hate them and 2. That majority of gun groups don't see (or choose to ignore) that foreign policy affects domestic policy which includes gun ownership. It should be also noted that the NRA technically has a branch in New York state but it's called the New York Rifle and Pistol Association.

Some of the quotes from the statist writer that stick out to me:

"Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect."

"Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh."

"It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention."


"Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to stand up to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club’s intimidation."

If the website wasn't named Conservative Tribune you almost think that this would be coming out of a anti-gun liberal. It seems that this statist and others who share his "concern" want the guns and boots of the state to keep a special eye on the gun club if not outright stop their right to assemble peacefully. However this wouldn't be the first time that conservatives had demonstrated a double standard for non-conservative gun owners and it won't be the last. It also shows that liberals really need to kick the gun control habit because it helps no one. While the gun club most likely supports liberal economic policies they at least recognize that the police are not your friend, despite all the programming that we are put through in public school and the individual is responsible for their own self defense. However I highly doubt liberals will dump gun control anytime soon.

Why such anger towards Lou Dobbs?

Fellow Libertarians might be wondering why I would be defending Lou Dobbs on anything. Since his economic protectionist views run very counter to our own. Among the mainstream media Dobbs is one of the few guys that makes any kind of sense on most issues.


That's why I was kind of surprised among all the hate Dobbs got from liberals when he continued the "birther" saga. For the record I believe Obama is a natural born United States citizen. The funniest parts about the attacks on Dobbs is that he was this right wing extremist. One of the first things he points out is that he believes that Obama is a natural born citizen! Would a right wing extremist support gay marriage, separation of church and state, the minimum wage, and abortion? My guess would be no. Even with stances on those issues most conservatives don't call him a liberal, they typically refer to him as a independent or a populist. The only time I have seen conservatives actually a line themselves with Dobbs is with illegal immigration.

Has this onslaught on Dobbs changed his views on the issues I've stated? Probably not since Dobbs is more rational that most in the media, especially when you compare him to Keith Olbermann. If Dobbs ever let liberals off easy in the past you can bet that he certainly won't now.

Social Collectivism is still alive and well

As everyone knows Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice. Right on cue liberals cheered while conservatives and libertarians jeered. This was of course expected with a Democratic majority in congress and as far as the ideological makeup goes there wasn't much change. With the single exception being that Sotomayor sides with the police more than Souter ever did.

Liberal groups and supporters cheered because they feel that they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. Buchanan-type conservatives try to revamp the case for use of the Southern Strategy and other right-populist themes in order to take back Washington. In both cases, both are wrong. For awhile both conservatives and liberals have forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When did character translate to group? Last time I checked people where individuals not groups, what my neighbor does to his body does not affect me. Why is it assumed by liberals that putting Sotomayor on the top court will automatically translate to votes? Why do a small group of conservatives think that Sotomayor's personal views are the views of every Hispanic in the country? It's not just the Sotomayor appointment it's also illegal immigration and affirmative action among other issues. The illegal immigration debate has brought out alot of racial and social collectivist thought out and it's pathetic. Sometimes one can't tell if it's debate or just ridiculous name calling and race baiting. It seems that the individual is lost on the partisans and for them it's easier to group people together and scream at their opponent.

In my opinion collectivism is a taught and natural behavior at the same time. Sometimes people naturally won't associate with others that are not like them. Look at High School for a nice example of that. In the taught aspect, those who teach collectivism may use crime statistics, voting data, religion, race and other trait that a person belongs to (typically through no fault of his or her own) in order to paint said group a certain way. Can social collectivism be overcome? Yes it can. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.

Libertarians must take a stand on illegal immigration

While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.

As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:

1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing

2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries

3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape

Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.

The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.

During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.

The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.

Just a reminder: Politics isn't nice

Normally I am a person who sticks to the issues and typically ignores petty fights unless it really somehow connects to an issue. With all the left and right wing whinnying something has to be said.

Politics isn't a nice game and nor will it ever will be. Not to say however that everyone in politics is a complete asshole it's just a game that one must go into with hard nerves. Do people want a decent political process that is just focused on issues? Yes. Will it ever happen? No. The 2008 Presidential election most likely marked the death for nice guy politics, they say nice guys finish last and that nice guy was John McCain. Even his supporters didn't like the fact that he didn't come down on Obama like a hammer.

It's very rarely that I ever agree with Big Government Social Conservatives but they are right in the fact that majority of people need thicker skin. Some may view this as agreeing with bigots, racists and anti-Semites, when in fact that's not it at all. For example I am of Hispanic descent and people like cold warrior Pat Buchanan use Judge Sotomayor as a vehicle (in addition use the illegal immigration debate) to criticize all Hispanics in his typical racial collectivist fashion. For the record his views on race hold about just as much water as Nancy Pelosi's views on taxes. It human nature to defend oneself from personal attacks but in politics you have to keep your eye on the prize and not be distracted by petty insults and attacks. I'm sure most of your parents have taught you or for your parental readers you have taught your kids to be the bigger person and walk away. If I may borrow a line from Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Political Bullies typically win when you engage them with the same petty insults instead of facts.

Currently now conservatives are up in a fury over Letterman's retarded joke about Palin and her daughter. I'll say right off the bat that this was another thing that when I heard about it I shrugged my shoulders and went on with my life. Letterman has been trumpeted as a liberal shill since the election I personally don't know nor do I care since I don't watch Letterman or much TV at all for that matter. Conservatives say this is the conservative equivalent of the Don Imus episode and the liberal reactions to it which isn't true since Imus's attack was at private citizens while Palin is a politician, a national figure and has made her family somewhat public. Some say that Imus isn't a conservative either but that's another argument for another day. From what I have read Palin seemed to be the bigger woman in this whole ordeal by just ignoring Letterman and leaving at that. I commend Palin for this because I am sure as a Governor she has better and more important things to do. What astounded me is the reaction from conservative pundits everywhere behaved like liberals and called for Letterman's head. I though conservatives had thicker skin but it seems that the incident has dyed down and won't be continuing for weeks on end like other gaffs from various national figures public and private.

While there hasn't been a major incident that has gotten liberals riled up as far as I know anyway. Some conservative pundits are accusing the nut jobs who killed Dr. Tiller and the shooter at the Holocaust Museum of being liberals. This hasn't though made much noise on the news networks just among liberal sites. Although one thing that has been going on and off has been those who criticize Obama are racists. Like Conservatives, Liberals must learn to roll with the punches, besides it's better to point and laugh at idiots and let their ownstupidty from both left or right expose themselves than to engage them.

The left needs to leave Miss California alone

To start off I am pro gay marriage because there is no evidence on how it affects my rights what so ever. It wouldn't very Libertarian of me to believe the Government jack boot should be allowed to enforce private morals.

When I heard about Miss California saying that she was against gay marriage I shrugged it off and went about my business. Unfortunately others didn't want to take that lying down and the fashion left began their assault. Well the assault had a side affects; the freepers, the evangelicals and every other right wing group out there picked it up on their radar screens and went to defend her from the "evil" liberals. Since the social and religious right have no actual facts to oppose gay marriage other than religious reasons they use situations like this to further the lie that there is the so called homosexual agenda. The typical lies that are said are that homosexuals are going to molest children, make religion illegal, introduce socialism (despite majority of socialist/communist countries outlawed homosexuality) and other bs. Oh course most people know these attacks are nothing but lies but when they use these attacks along side when someone is criticized for not supporting gay marriage it will sometime resonate in the minds of people that are still in the middle when it comes to the issue.

I can understand that those who support gay marriage must fight it's critics at every turn but this isn't a battle worth fighting. Miss California isn't a politician and she doesn't head a PAC although with this incident the woman might have been turned into a social/religious right crusader but who knows. Attacking her does not help the movement and only plays into the hand of the opposition. One should take a page out of the Conservative play book and ignore insignificant threats. When Specter switched to the Democrats the Conservatives shrugged and went about their business, they also do this when the Hollywood left opens their mouths. They know that attacking a private citizen (as in not a politician) doesn't do much good in the eyes of public opinion. It shows that they are nothing but bullies, and now the left and gay rights groups look like the bully. If Perez Hilton didn't go off on Miss California it wouldn't made much of a big deal. Yea the religious and social conservatives would've brought it up to show that another high profile American is against gay marriage but thats it. All it would've shown is that Miss California has a opinion just like everyone else.

Enemy of the State? Meh,tell me something I don't know

So this past week another memo from our glorious Department of Homeland Security with it's list of potential terrorists, extremists and the like. Once again innocent and non-violent groups are lumped into with neo-nazis, skinheads, anarchists, black panthers and other violent organizations. There really wasn't much difference between this memo and the one that popped up in Missouri last month with the exception of also mentioning clothing styles of extremists oh and now the Puerto Rican Independence movement is now listed. Granted that there is a political party in Puerto Rico that supports that idea but since when do Feds do any actual fact checking. It kinda makes me want a Klan and Black Panther come back just for the clowns that run DHS can see what a real extremist is.

I don't about some of you but I was considered a traitor way before Obama and his boys got into the White House. I was against the neoconservative project of nation and empire building, the blind support for Israel, the millions of tax payer money going to other countries, government legislating morality and faith-based programs. I support the Church State Separation, actual diplomacy with talking instead through the barrel of a gun, you know the type of foreign policy Thomas Jefferson believed in. Of course to the Conservatives in the Bush era said I was a Communist (despite having a Vietnam Vet for a Father and an Uncle, while some of the biggest voices in Conservative media never wore the uniform), terrorist sympathizer, anti-American oh and an illegal alien being Hispanic and all. I heard the usual Support the President and the like and I said no. I can't support someone who is engaging in activities that I firmly believe are wrong. Of course that was then.

Now that the Liberals are in power and I don't have too much love for their polices either so in their eyes I'm the extremist, the threat and whatever else label they can come up with. I personally did not attend the Tea Party in my area because they didn't like the fact that I didn't support Bush and alot of other neoconservative polices. Not to say that all the Tea Parties were neoconservative whinefests just the one by me was. As a rule I always let my opinions known to make sure that the particular protest I go to actually has to do with the subject at hand and not just an anti-liberal, anti-conservative jack off fest. With Conservatives along side us Libertarians being targeted by the Federal Government jack boot some are starting see that they were wrong in the last go around. Others still defend the police harassment of anti-war, and other left wing groups. I sometimes gloat at the fact that what had went around during Bush has came around under Obama but realize that I can gloat in private.

Some may say that I'm not taking this seriously, but I am but I also refuse to go hysterical about it. Honest and proper disagreements are much better in a civilized society than screaming liberal and conservative talking points. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution still exist in this country and if I'm a Communist or a Fascist because I believe in both than so be it. I rather be an enemy of the state than cattle mooing for the pat on the head.

Arlen Specter becomes a Democrat.....ok and?

While much of the Specter love and hate has pretty much come to head, one must wonder what is the big deal? Like most Republicans in the Northeast, he was a Liberal one sometimes referred to as the Rockefeller Republican (named after former NY Governor and former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller) but most of the time referred to as a RINO (Republican in name only). A big government Republican joining the Democrats isn't news, it's just being honest. I'm surprised that he didn't do what New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg did and just become an "Independent". At least if he became an Indy he wouldn't be apart of the Oligarchy in Washington that disguises itself as a two party system. Of course the real reason now is that Specter wants to continue to be trenched in Washington after showing a very poor polling in a potential primary against Pat Toomey. Can't say I blame the guy, since that's what politicians are there for, power and nothing more.

Of course seconds after word got out, Democrats and Liberals welcomed him with open arms. Specter claims that he won't be the automatic 60Th vote but only time well tell if he actually means it. They are trumpeting that the Republicans are on death beds which can be no farther than the truth but being the sport I am I will let them have their fun. It wouldn't be very Libertarian of me if I didn't. Little do they realize that they have got themselves into a corner with Specter joining them and if Al Franken becomes Minnesota's next Senator then guess what they are fully in control. With a filibuster-proof congress that means that they are responsible for the future pains that are on the road ahead. They won't be able to blame it on the Republicans or anyone else for that matter because they and they alone have the keys. They won't be able to create any cute little "Days of No" videos because the opposition will be ineffective in their small minority status. Democratic supporters better be prepared when it starts to crash down on them because it will and it will hit hard.

Taxes help growth?

Maybe I was asleep during this part in my economics classes but when did increasing taxes on our most successful people help out the entire nation? One of the biggest reasons people start their own business is to make money and have a better life for themselves. If the rich have to pay more for being more productive then they will be less productive in order to avoid paying the high taxes. When those who create the jobs choose to be less productive because of high taxes it usually leads to lay offs and passing those costs back onto the consumer. Not only does it put more people out of work but consumer goods become hard to buy when the prices are jacked up.

Why must Obama and his cohorts punish success? He current excuse is
that he has to help those who are feeling great pain by the current
economic climate. Some people think he is just stupid and doesn't know the basics about economics. Personally I don't, the main basis of liberal economic policies is that the private sector can't be trusted or at the very least the private sector can't help the public enough. Their polices seek to hinder the private sector so much that eventually people realize that it's more of a pain to run a business than it's worth. When jobs in the private sector dry up then the government steps in whether it be local, state or federal. When the government creates jobs it creates more of a burden for the tax payer. Since it is the tax payer that pays the wages of civil servants regardless of position. People tend to take civil service jobs when the economy is tight because it's guaranteed work. While I have no problem with civil service, hey it's a job my main problem is that people become entrenched with these jobs and won't find a job in the private sector. Civil service jobs were designed for those who can't find work (disabled, elderly, etc) in the private sector not for those who won't find work elsewhere. When you depend on the government for work your less likely to criticize it's policies and it's actions. Becoming dependent on the government in my opinion is a bigger threat to freedom in this country than anything Bin Laden can throw at us. I would like to be proven wrong that Obama doesn't seek to create a populace dependent on the government but I don't see that happening any time soon.

When in doubt point the finger

Ever notice whenever something really tragic and serious goes down political partisans are quick to point the finger at their opposition? We saw it during 9/11, various school shootings, the bridge collapsing in Minnesota, etc. Now that the economy is very shaky at this point, the partisan Liberals have decided to point their cross hairs on the Free Market and Libertarianism. This article at Slate.com . This cat claims that Libertarianism caused all this mess when in fact it was liberal economics and business killing government policies that caused this. Granted some in the business community got stupid and made bad bets but when the government strong arms them to follow stupid policies they can only be blamed for a certain amount. Of course Weisberg has the solution: Surprise More Government intervention that's the only answer we get from the economic left expand government, let government take care of it and such. You would think after the massive amount of failures Washington has had over the course of these last eight years and beyond the economic left would be shrinking more and more but guess not.