A Dichotomy Of Arms

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

Tags

Amercia, anarchy, arms, army, Athens, authority, firearms, freedom, God, government, guns, history, Iraq, law, Melian Dialouge, Melos, military, murder, Natural Law, Paul, police, police state, power, Romans 13, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, state worship, The People, War

A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It’s a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.

Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.

Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.

The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.

A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter’s account, tempered by reasoned thinking.

On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike’s death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I’m sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I’m sorry their conditions were the results of the government’s inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It’s terrible some think we need that government.

Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.

Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist’s account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.

I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can’t.

Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.

At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.

There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.

The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike’s death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.

There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.

Some pro-shooter comments:

Should have been on a leash.

…

Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that’s why pepper spray is a good idea.

…

“Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: ‘Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.’ Exactly

Pro military, no matter what:

Sounds like another Democrat got there hand’s on a gun !!

…

this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.

…

I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!

…

I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death

These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely “conservative” by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. “Liberals” would abhor the gun itself.

I see this as a difference of opinion between “red staters.” I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here’s the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I’ll call these the people “freedom lovers.” The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I’ll call them “government lovers.”

The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a “long painful death” – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.

The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God’s Natural Law.

The Nazis, acting under Hitler’s “legal” orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.

The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.

If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it’s acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it’s okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.

In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.

This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.

For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).

A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:

Athens: “Surrender and join us.”

Melos: “No.”

The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.

Ruins of Melos. Google.

Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.

It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government’s unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.

A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.

All of this is open for consideration. What say you?

Drone Cold Crazy

17 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Drone Cold Crazy

Tags

America, crime, drones, Economic collapse, Edward Snowden, government, insanity, middle east, Obama, politicians, terrorism, The People, War, Washington

Years ago I pondered the menace of the Empire’s drone wars: here and here.

The New york Times has warned that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be engaging in a “‘Whac-A-Mole’ approach to counterterrorism.” Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, does it not? Silly old Jimmy Carter was laughed at for once stating he sought nuclear policy advice from his daughter. Now we have a deadly serious policy operating on the principles of a carnival game.

Droning On and On.

It seems “Whac-A-Mole” was the perfect description of the program. Read this: The Drone Papers. In Edward Snowden style someone has leaked detailed classified information about America’s drone wars.

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

The Intercept.

From the “Firing Blind” section:

The Obama administration has portrayed drones as an effective and efficient weapon in the ongoing war with al Qaeda and other radical groups. Yet classified Pentagon documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the U.S. military has faced “critical shortfalls” in the technology and intelligence it uses to find and kill suspected terrorists in Yemen and Somalia.

…

A report last year by retired Gen. John Abizaid and former Defense Department official Rosa Brooks noted that the “enormous uncertainties” of drone warfare are “multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government: How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?”

In 2011, for example, U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that they had killed a local governor because Yemeni officials didn’t tell them he was present at a gathering of al Qaeda figures. “We think we got played,” one official said. (The Yemeni government disputed the report.)

We’re being played while we play with fire, firing blindly at phantoms of enormous uncertainty. That reminds me of the people’s part in electoral politics.

Shooting missiles at local politicians and goat-herders in foreign countries does nothing to fight terrorism. Muslim terrorists are in America and operating freely – in Boston, Oklahoma City, Chattanooga, etc. More are being imported by the master terrorists in Washington.

These proxy operations only serve the military-industrial complex and the bankers. And, we are rapidly running out of money to pay them.

All of this will end, it just won’t end well.

We’re Number One!

14 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, collapse, decline, economy, exercise, fat, football, government, modern, The People, Zombies

I just published a story about the sad ending of one of the greatest men’s clothiers in American history. As sad as the end was it was fitting. Modern American men do not need nice clothes. They don’t want to look like gentlemen. They resent class. They are, by and very large, a mass of fat slobs. Our women don’t look much better.

As you may remember from blog posts past I used to be a fattie. With a little self-control and a lot of gym time I transformed myself from a tubby couch potato into a proportionate athlete. Of late I find it difficult to exercise on a regular schedule. Yet and still, by carefully controlling my diet, I maintain a healthy body mass. I only eat what I need. This simple concept escapes most Americans.

Modern Americans are the fattest people in the history of the planet. More than half the populace is overweight, a third are morbidly obese. Adults, children – read the stats I just linked to. Hell, you don’t have to read it, do you?

The other day as I motored about my daily business I saw a bloated whale of a woman waddling across a busy street. Perhaps 400 ponds, more than twice her natural weight, she lumbered forth, oblivious to the world, yapping on her cell phone. Like a fat zombie. I see this everyday, everywhere. I’m sure you must see it also. Pathetic as it is common.

I’m not making fun of fat people. I used to be one of them. I wish they could be healthy, be normal. Else, I wish they would spare the rest of us their repulsive visage. It’s just too much – literally.

Americans are the fattest. We’re also among the dumbest. We have the largest population in prison. We are among the most violent. This is paradoxical. Historically, heavier people were associated with a prosperous and civil society. Our society is overly dumb and overly in economic decline.

Ours is a society in decline by every measure. We are obsessed by the trivial. The important goes unnoticed and unattended. In most American States the highest paid public servant is a college football coach.

Map of the madness.

I love college football. It’s just plain fun. However, it is sad that my team’s coach makes 25 times (roughly) as much as the governor of my state. My taxes support this imbalance, with obvious results. Mediocre football, monopoly subsidized, in a pitiful political environment.

Others notice the disparities too. Small business owners know something is wrong. Something is wrong. It’s what I write about so often here.

There is no political solution. No legal solution. The change must come from us. What will you do? Me, I’m going back to the gym. Back to the ring. Please follow me.

America is number one in all the wrong categories. It’s time for a change.

Peace in Pieces

11 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Peace in Pieces

Tags

Afghanistan, America, evil, Good, government, Iraq, Kurds, peace, terrorism, The People, Turkey, War

Good and evil exist and are on display every single day. Frequently they are violently juxtaposed. So it was in Turkey. Yesterday thousands gathered in Ankara for a pro-Kurdish peace rally. Judging by the event pictures those present were mostly idealistic young people, likely students interested in bettering their world.

The handful of those who know of Turkey and its capital (all my readers, undoubtedly) also know of the plight of the Kurds. War and oppression have followed this people for ages throughout the region. They have suffered particular aggression in Iraq – both from Saddam Hussein and in the wake of the disastrous U.S. imperial adventures in the Middle East.

Good people joined together in Ankara to support Kurdish peace. Those pictures showed faces both happy and loving. Then, evil inserted itself. Two bomb blasts rocked the event, killing more than ninety and wounding hundreds.

Moment of terror. Google.

The terrorism was likely the work of the Islamic State or some other group of demented satanists. Given the pitiful state of geo-political affairs anything is possible. The scale of the operation points to professional backing, state or otherwise.

The story I linked to features a video which captured the moment the first bomb went off. It shows the look of happiness on those young faces turn to horror.

Speaking of state sponsored terrorism and horror, the Empire is being characteristically tight-lipped about the hospital bombing in Afghanistan.

Last week the U.S. government changed its story no less than four times. No coherent explanation (or apology) came forth.

The U.S. military, whose own account of what took place changed in the initial days after the attack, has said that the hospital was “mistakenly struck” in an attempt to support Afghan security forces. But the military has declined to provide full details of the incident while its investigators examine what occurred in the worst example of errant U.S. air power in recent years.

Don’t expect a truthful account of what happened – ever. The U.S. explains nothing. The truth make come out one day but it will come from outside sources. And, it will come long after the zombified masses have moved on.

The bad news is this wickedness will continue until the end. The very good news is that good will continue to resist evil and, in the end, will prevail.

Murder Inequality

04 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Murder Inequality

Tags

Afghanistan, America, bombing, CNN, crime, firearms, freedom, government, government evil, guns, Hitler, law, media, murder, Obama, Oregon, politicians, Second Amendment, Stalin, terrorism, The People, tyranny, War, war crimes

Are all murders equal? The short answer is, “yes.” All human killing in general is bad enough. Premeditated and unjustifiable killing is utterly deplorable whenever and wherever it happens. Most people understand the concept. Most, that is, except for the rodent political class.

The shooter in the Oregon community college rampage last week, Christopher Harper Mercer (an anti-Christian lunatic and loser), had barely been identified before President Obama embarked on a twelve-minute oration as much against American guns laws as against the tragedy itself:

“I would ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws and to save lives, and to let young people grow up. That will require a change of politics on this issue,” he said. “If you think this is a problem then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.”

Shut up, Barry. Pay attention to the beam in your eye first. How about first condemning your hospital bombing in Kundez, Afghanistan this weekend. You know, the bombing so many are saying amounts to a war crime.

Nineteen are dead and 37 or more injured in the bombing (don’t forget the Afghan war ended last year…) and all the Whitehouse can do is issue a short statement: “‘The Department of Defense has launched a full investigation, and we will await the results of that inquiry before making a definitive judgment as to the circumstances of this tragedy,’ the President said.”

When it is politically expedient to exploit a domestic terror the political class immediately demands action. However, when they are responsible for the deaths, they want to wait before making any judgments. When some idiot murders another, they want to take away all of our guns. When they are the idiots who murder others, it’s just collateral damage. “Oops! Sorry we burned your kids alive. Won’t happen again.”

Again, most people see this glaring difference and inequity. Again, the pols just can’t. Their cover-up artists in the popular press can’t either. The best CNN can do combining the issues of gun violence and war/terrorism is to release a graph showing a disparity between the number of Americans killed between 2001 and 2013 by guns (406,496) and by terrorism (3,380). Their slant is obviously towards the Obama-ite view of changing gun laws and further restricting the freedoms of normal Americans.

Four hundred thousand deaths (taking their numbers for granted) in twelve years is terrible – that’s roughly 33,333 deaths per year. But, statistically speaking and with an eye towards liberty, what about the net effect? The government criminals and their media lackeys never talk about lives saved by guns. In America every year that number approaches somewhere close to 2.5 Million. That’s 30 Million lives saved by guns over twelve years! That’s 75 times as many lives saved as lost due to firearms.

Little of this matters to those degenerates who bomb hospitals full of helpless people. The rest of us are painfully aware that (although imperfect) an armed society is much safer than the alternative (see also the experiences of disarmed citizens faced with the likes of Hitler and Stalin). Least safe of all is an armed government. Yes, Barry, we need policy changes. We need common sense government control. Many lives depend on it.

Students, Guns, and Money

01 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

CIA, debt, government, guns, insanity, jihad, John Boehner, law, middle east, money, Muslims, Old Republic, shooting, The People, Warren Zevon

My apologizes to the late, great Warren Zevon.

Another shooting in another gun-free zone. Hmm. Always the narrative. One would seem to preclude the other. You don’t hear about too many shootings at police stations, gun ranges, NRA conventions – places where everyone is armed. Anyway, 13 or more innocent people are dead in Oregon. Very sad.

It’s also rather suspicious that officials know the shooter’s age and sex but not his name. We knew Vester Flanagan’s name and even his alias immediately. CNN had pictures of KKK-wannabe Dylan Roof instantly. Nothing this time.

Also interesting is the shooter’s request that his victims rise and state their religions before he executed them. All this leads me to believe the shooter was either anti-Christian or Muslim. Maybe both. Maybe he was just a nut. Maybe he was a recently imported, CIA trained “refugee” from the middle east seeking a better, safer life in America. That was sort of the story in Chattanooga and some other recent shootings. The government is working overtime to import jihadis into the rubble of the Old Republic.

The same government is about to run out of money. All year they have employed various tricks to make invisible the mounting debt crisis. As I said earlier, they’re printing and spending just not reporting. Now the chickens are coming home and the roost is ready to collapse.

Not to worry. Ahead of his departure Speaker John “Boo Hoo” Boehner is orchestrating a plan to raise the government’s borrowing limit. They will succeed. A default and resulting shutdown would be the best thing that could possibly happen to this country. After several weeks or months the people would forget about the government and never want it back. The best thing for us is the worse for the political class. They can’t have that. The horror show will go on.

They keep spending, we keep dying. Convenient, huh?

Government defined in four words. Google Images.

Trump on Taxes

01 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Trump on Taxes

Tags

America, Artcles of Confederation, Congress, Donald Trump, Federal government, Federal Reserve, freedom, government, IRS, law, Republicans, Sixteenth Amendment, taxes, The People, The Republic, theft

Donald Trump just started talking like an old school Republican. He’s added a third plank to his Presidential platform – along with immigration reform and the Second Amendment – tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal says Trump’s plan would cut taxes for millions of Americans. I put the emphasis in the last sentence on “would” because The Donald’s plan, as great as it may sound, won’t happen even if he’s elected.

There are too many who will not stand for substantive changes to our draconian tax code, members of the huge tax benefit lobby at the bottom of which is the Federal Reserve, gaping and grasping like that sandpit monster from Return of the Jedi. One must also consider the malicious might of those 535 clowns under the big top … er ….dome in D.C.

This plan, which looks far better than the insane mess we have now, is fated to fail like the Fairtax and various flat tax proposals before it.

Here’s a link to the Trump plan.

Trump has four “simple” tax goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.

Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.

Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

Trump Plan.

All tax brackets would drop with the maximum being capped at 25%. Those earning less than $25,000 per year would pay no tax. Trump would eliminate the marriage penalty, the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Federal Death Tax. These are great points. However, consider that the original maximum tax bracket was supposed to be 10% and that was supposedly reserved for the super rich. Government is like a hungry wolf; just because it doesn’t eat you today doesn’t mean it won’t try tomorrow.

Always at the door. Google Images.

I assume the other candidates have or will soon publish similar plans. Republicans will promise cuts, Libertarians deeper cuts, and Democrats increases here and there to make things fair. What we will have in the end is the status quo. It’s no coincidence the Sixteenth Amendment and the modern tax system came along on 1913 along with the Federal Reserve. One is dependent on the other, both are weapons of the government against the free people.

The scheme we currently suffer is bad. Trump’s plan is better. It would also be better to return to the tax system originally built into the Republic – tariffs, etc. or into the Confederation – Congress begging the States for dough as needed. Best of all would be a 0% tax for everyone with no government to support. For satirical consideration only is the solution I noted several years ago from a Doctor Who episode – tossing the tax collector off a high roof. That would tend to work under any tax system.

Tears of a Clown: Goodbye Boehner

27 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Barack Obama, Congress, D.C., good riddance, GOP, government, Jesus, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, The People

Smokey and the Miracles were Smokin’ back in 1978. John Boehner smokes whenever he can and certainly while tanning. Soon he will be able to devote himself full-time to his hobbies.

Last week the House Speaker, the worst since Nancy Pelosi, announced he would retire from the Speaker-ship and from Congress at the end of October. Through his usual crocodile tears the Ohio Republican reminisced, “I never thought I’d be in Congress, let alone be speaker.” It really would have been better if he had not. The country will never be the same.

Getting in one last shot at his own sordid party Boehner warned: “The Bible says beware of false prophets. And there are people out there spreading noise about how much can get done [to hurt the people]. I heard Jesus is willing to forgive this false prophet’s warning of false prophets since he is as thrilled as any about the resignation.

Boehner’s long list of accomplishment’s include:

Piling on Trillions of dollars of debt for the people to deal with (soon);
Securing the world for banks, insurance companies and other large transnational outfits;
Making sure Planned Parenthood gets your financial help to murder babies;
Keeping the Obamacare tax and related headaches alive and well;
Big government, uber alles;
Keeping the sheeple focused on the Republicrat charade, fiddling while the Republic burned;
Trading away your job;
Marching America towards an impoverished third world status;
War, war, forever more.

Thank God in Heaven this reign of mediocre terror is coming to a swift end. Sadly, we know another speaker will rise from the sewers of D.C. to take the place of the crying tan man. News is the GOP is currently consulting the Oracle of Baphomet for replacement ideas. Given his knack for circumventing the Congress at most turns, I nominate Boehner’s bestie, Barack Obama.

Boehner tearfully regrets he could not do more to screw up the nation. Google Images.

Really, and in all seriousness and optimistic sentiment, this could be a fantastic start to a beautiful new era. If only the other 534 clowns would follow suit – tears or no. Good riddance.

The State Vs. The Children

22 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The State Vs. The Children

Tags

child molesting, crime, evil, freedom, government, insanity, War

Government, as I mentioned the other day, has but one valid purpose – to protect the rights of the free people. The industry as a whole completely failed this charge about 5,000 years ago and has yet to redeem itself. Among its many, many illicit purposes is a virtual war against the innocent, including children.

One of the latest American victims in this war is a sixteen year old high school boy from North Carolina (and his 17-year-old girlfriend). The boy was prosecuted for felony child pornography charges – for possessing naked pictures of … himself.

It seems the young couple engaged in silly behavior – as teenagers will, to include “sexting.” They exchanged naughty pictures of themselves. Kids do that sort of thing. It’s human. It’s also a technical violation of that god of gods, the law. The teenage perpetrator, also his own victim, was allowed to plead guilty on lesser charges to avoid the lifelong stigma attached to sex offenders.

This story takes stupidity and malice to levels previously unknown in the civilized world. How could anyone consider this a crime? How could this crime be prosecuted? How could a judge not throw the case out and, furthermore, cite the state for contempt for its bringing? Why isn’t the courthouse in flames?

I suppose some law and order, puritanical types are rejoicing that another law was upheld and someone was punished for having fun. These might be the type of modern “conservatives” accustomed to handling rattlesnakes for the Lord in the backwoods somewhere. I don’t know. I hope they’re happy.

Happy also are the anything goes, “liberals” one might find in the basement of a San Francisco bathhouse. They’re happy about another case on the far side of the world wherein the government honored the libertine “customs” of a native people – yet, again, all done at the expense of children.

U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, while on break from guarding the CIA’s poppy fields, were instructed to look the other way as our Afghan “allies” engaged in good old fashion child molestation and homosexual rape. See also: here.

There you have it. The same government that prosecutes children for non-crimes simultaneously covers up actual crimes against children. Worse, we’ve been forced to pay those ally rapists friends of ours hundreds of billions of dollars (trillion$???) to help them pursue their Satanic hobbies.

Remember these stories in conjunction the next time you ponder the worth of the state. I say, ready the…

Google. See Matthew 18:6.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

America, Bernie Sanders, Carly Fiarino, Constitution, crime, Darryl Perry, Democrats, Donald Trump, Federal government, freedom, Gary Johnson, government, guns, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Libertarian Party, Liberty, Natural Law, Natural Rights, President, Rand Paul, Republicans, rights, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, States, Supreme Court, Tenth Amendment, The 2A, The Founders, The People, Thomas Jefferson, tyranny, United States, violence

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform. I decided to make a professional examination of his paper. Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment. Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination. I don’t have that kind of time. Trump gets the spotlight. Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general. Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject. You will soon realize my failure.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety). I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment. While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law. It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time. It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win. “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law. I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense. It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary. The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.” That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not. “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says. He gives examples of local violent crimes. The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States. There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason. And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence. My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot. This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms. Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense. That’s good! He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.” That’s bad! Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right?? Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system. Again, that’s great. It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…). I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill. For that I commend him. Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.” By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment). He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms. I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A? The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms. Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice. Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated. Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree). Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional. I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent! However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.). He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem. That’s really the only valid reason to have a government. He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective. This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah. Another Bush. Bush number three. Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website. I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong. Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights. The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh). Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution. The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example. And, The People themselves retain political power. By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual. None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people. Illegitimately, it happens all the time. Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun. Anti-freedom is more accurate. They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton. Yes, one married to that other Clinton. Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words. To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things. Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.” Hillary, August 27, 2015. Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban. That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence. That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment. I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent. Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race. He has no papers or issue statements yet. However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here. Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to. Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters. Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence. We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians. In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President. He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.” “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.” Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry? “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set. What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant. Ah. That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times. But, suppose there’s a government on the loose? What then? Defense? Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election. No word on whether he’s in for this bout. Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine. If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government. None. But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one. Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office. Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).