Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Anti-liberty bigots on display

I saw a status on Facebook that was admitting that if The State would give up ALL its various weapons first, the poster would vote for "citizen" disarmament.

Not that rights are subject to a vote.... but anyway...

One of the first comments posted was by a Fudd who wanted to keep his shotgun, but wanted to restrict semi-autos and full-autos because access to them is too easy.


Hilariously, he claims to know the difference between automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms, even as his "argument" proves he doesn't.

Moving right along, he claimed that gun shows are places where you can buy both types of firearms with no "background check" at all.  Responding to further incredulous comments he claimed he has been to gun shows and has never seen any feds (or anyone else) monitoring sales in any way, no one conducting "background checks" or complying with the "law" in any way.  And, I suppose he has never seen the dealers on the phone with the NICS either.  I have.  And I've seen plenty of feds- both in uniform and in disguise.

He says he knows a person who has over 200 semi-autos in a collection, and his justification for regulating these seems to be that the collector can't "fire off all of those weapons simultaneously".  Guess what, I can't read all my books simultaneously, either.  Or listen to all my MP3s at once.  Or watch all my DVDs.  Or... well, you get the idea.  I suppose morons such as he would claim that The State should regulate those things, too.

Then I pointed out that while gun dealers are all forced to comply with the NICS "laws", private sellers (in some states) at gun shows are still free to sell guns, just like they are from their own home.  Which he then claimed was proof that I said "not all gun shows are regulated".

When I pointed out that the Second Amendment makes it illegal to make "laws" concerning guns, he said I was wrong.  I told him to read the Second Amendment again.  To which he replied "There's no talking to you, it's your way or the highway, and there is no room for dialogue with any of you. Good night." and "You're all too intransegent [sic] and are too paranoid that someone [w]ill steal your stupid guns. Grow up, guys."

It's like the other guy who was calmly wetting himself (in another comment thread) over the availability of guns in America who wanted to educate me about what the Second Amendment said.  So I posted a link to my own website where I talk about and dissect the Second Amendment and the right that it was supposed to protect from government.  He "congratulated" me for having read the article I linked to, but told me to read the original document for myself- he said that even as a non-American he knew the Second Amendment better than I did.  He changed the subject and went off on a strange tangent when I mentioned that I wrote the "article" in question.

And that, folks, is the intellect of our opponents- the anti-liberty bigots.  Their only strength is in numbers, and in the fact that the murderous criminals of government are on their side.



  1. The herd mentality writ large. Some people react to threats by seeking the comfort of numbers knowing that predators can't, and don't want to, kill the entire herd. Thus, safety in numbers allows the fearful to hide in plain sight. Further, they will charge and stampede in whatever direction the herd takes off in. No thinking required. Survival of the herd is the primary goal with individuals being seen as a sacrifice "for the many".

    Other individuals are wired to access threats and respond as free-thinking men. They realize the safety of the herd is an illusion and just a numbers game. Responding to predators with weapons is a natural human response. Survival of the individual is paramount, while the herd is seen as dependent on the individual.
    Although each general type of collectivist and individualist see each other as "out of touch with reality", one should be able to easily recognize that groups require individuals while individuals don't require groups. Of course, there are a lot of scared little individuals whom decry that life without the herd is not worth living. That, I believe, is the source of their angst; and cowardice.

  2. The prohibitionist has always demanded that things be banned based upon what it "can" do.

    The company where I work has a "no weapons" policy. I immediately looked at my hands, and wondered how I was supposed to leave them home. Several hardware people carry Leatherman and other very sharp folding knives.

    Of course they MEAN guns and everybody knows that is what they mean, but they're afraid to say it.

    The Herd, as Mark points out, is very easy scare. Always has been.

    I've contended for a long time that the reason for the United States as the "Great Experiment" in limited government is because of the nature of its settlement. The only people who threw away their comfortable Herd lives and moved to this new continent were those natural wanderers, the "rugged individualists", so that there was, here of all places, ENOUGH of them to make the idea of deliberately limited government possible.

    The Free State Project comes to mind also. Again the "rugged individualists", deliberately this time, are trying to come together in a great enough concentration to overcome the inertia of the Herd.

    It is astounding to me how repulsed some of the people who are already in New Hampshire are by the idea of NOT FOLLOWING THE HERD into oblivion.

  3. RE: gun shows and background checks

    I don't own any guns and haven't been to a gun show, so I'm probably speaking out of ignorance. A lot of gun rights advocates defend gun sellers (specifically, at gun shows) by mentioning that they do follow background-check laws and waiting-period laws, implying that they see these as good and necessary precautions to avoid selling guns to murderous psychopaths. But a free society would presumably have no laws against selling any gun to anyone, at a gun show or elsewhere. The Constitution certainly prohibits the federal government from making any such law.

    Do you think laws requiring background checks and waiting periods are good laws, or should they be abolished along with 99% of all other laws? Do you think it would be good or even acceptable for states to pass as many or as few gun-control laws as they wanted, after abolishing all federal laws? Do you think a gun seller should be held negligent or complicit in a deranged psychopath's murders if the gun seller sold him a semi-automatic rifle without doing any type of background check?

    I try to balance my desire to protect liberty with the requirement that people be responsible for their actions, and it just makes sense that gun sellers, in a free or unfree society, should take some responsibility or some precaution against giving guns to someone who could be expected to use them against innocent people. At least, semi-automatic weapons that can be easily used to kill many people quickly without giving them a chance to pull out their own weapons to defend themselves. I don't know, I don't think bars are the least bit responsible for drunk drivers, so the same could apply to gun sellers.

  4. "A lot of gun rights advocates defend gun sellers (specifically, at gun shows) by mentioning that they do follow background-check laws and waiting-period laws, implying that they see these as good and necessary precautions to avoid selling guns to murderous psychopaths."

    Then they are not advocating gun rights.

    And you are right; the Constitution forbids any such "laws". Period. Even better, fundamental human rights- "Natural Law"- forbids it and has since humans evolved.

    I have come to the conclusion that 100% of all "laws" should be abolished. Or just ignored. The real "right and wrong" don't need to be formalized. And certainly don't need to be written down.

    So, yes, background checks should go. Waiting periods, too. And prohibitions on certain people owning and carrying guns. Or swords. Let aggressive people take their chances with the rest of us. I'm willing to take that "risk". And not only federal law- human rights don't recognize any political entity. You either respect rights or you violate them. No third choice.

    How would you hold a gun seller accountable? Through "law"? If I sell a gun to someone who tells me that he's going to massacre a classroom full of kids, and people find out that I knew in advance what he planned to do, how long do you think I'd survive? Or if someone acts in a way that worries me, while telling me nothing definitive, why would I go through with the sale? Sure, I might if I really needed the money, but once again, if people find out I might not like the consequences. I don't believe vengeance is right, but it happens anyway. And, background checks are flawed. Bad people pass them all the time, and good people fail them. Who is held responsible for these failures now?

    Have you ever seen how fast some people can shoot (accurately) a revolver? The whole semi-auto fearmongering is a lie. Pull the trigger, and a bullet comes out. Full auto guns are a little different, but that also means they run out of ammo faster, giving bystanders a chance to shoot before a reload can happen.

    I don't see any rationality behind any kind of gun "regulations".

  5. Tories came after our CANNONS, and it sparked a kerfuffle.
    Now, citizen ownership of first rate military weaponry is infringed. That has had consequences: Fed.gov monopoly of force ("tyranny") is the problem.

    Way past time to re-assert natural rights acknowledged as a condition of agreeing to be governed by Constitution.

  6. When any agency holds overwhelming power/control over others, inevitably that power is used to enslave.
    Nature balances power, in time. Darwin wins.
    Societies that become unbalanced- fail.

    AnarchoCapitalism works, where imbalanced societies fail. Societies succeed to the extent they balance power across multiplicity of interests dynamically allocating resources. Interfere with balance, and unintended consequences pile up.

  7. I've fired full auto guns and I can tell you from first hand experience that it's extremely difficult to hit your target after the first bullet leaves the barrel. One of my bullets found the target, the rest went up into the sky.

  8. John, if I may.

    I, like you, believe that a person should be held responsible for their actions.

    Has someone with lots of guns and explosives and such harmed anyone? No.

    If someone murders on Wednesday, could they be arrested for murder on Tuesday? No, because that would not be punishing them for their actions.

    Crime is a distributed threat. There really is no way to know when or where a badguy is going to strike. And that is why restricting arms is such a bad idea, doing so cannot be sure to disarm only the bad guys. Thus the result in "gun free zones".

    As Farmer notes above, not only are full auto weapons inaccurate, they're repulsively expensive. Hardly useful in a criminal enterprise, it cuts too deep into the profit margins.