Monday, January 28, 2013

"Media and Politicians Firing Blanks"

Media and Politicians Firing Blanks

by Brian Wilson

Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)

How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?

In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific

(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault

What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a

Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?

(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)

If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?

("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)

Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored

If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?

How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?

(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last

To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?

Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?

Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?

With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?

If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?

The above was forwarded to me by MamaLiberty

I have a couple of questions of my own to ask anti-liberty bigots:

Are you completely insane?

Are you totally ignorant of human nature, history, ethics, physics, and the difference between right and wrong?


The silliness of "borders"

Borders.  Imaginary lines.  I can understand them to a certain extent.  Private property lines are the borders that trump all others.  And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity.  Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around.  As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".

What I don't understand are "legal borders".  I mean the kind that derive from governments saying  "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there.  Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money."  And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to.  "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.

To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil.  For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil.  So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".

And the short answer to that is: neither one.

Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad.  To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.

It's not about "open borders".  It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.