Tag Archives: Hitler

Viernheim: Another Lesson on Gun Control

23 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Today, while people in Britain pondered BREXIT, people in Viernheim, Germany tried to take in The Jungle Book at the local cinema. Their plans were interrupted.

A gunman was shot dead by police in Germany on Thursday after he attempted to take several people hostage in a cinema.

In what appeared to be a remarkable police operation, none of the hostages were injured.

The German authorities said the gunman, who has not been identified, was “disturbed” and there was no initial evidence of a link to terrorism.

But police were reportedly investigating an explosive vest and a hand grenade found on his body to see if they were genuine.

There was no word on the hostage-taker’s ethnicity or background. Witnesses described him as being between 18 and 25 years old.

He was armed with a “rifle or long gun” and reportedly fired four shots in the air as he entered the cinema in Viernheim, a small town south of Frankfurt.

The good news is twofold: no innocents were killed; the shooter was. Multiple media sources (not many in the U.S. though) were adamant the shooter, while not yet identified, had no initial ties to terrorist organizations. Just a man with a suicide vest, a grenade, and a rifle. Just a disturbed man of unknown origins on a shooting spree.

Someone should relay this story to John Lewis and his idiot friends currently occupying the House floor in support of gun control. That way they can urge the Germans to adopt “common sense” gun control. There obviously isn’t any restriction on firearms in Jerry-Land or else this incident could not have happened.

Some good guys with guns who stopped a bad guy with a gun. Telegraph/Facebook.

Oh wait… Germany has some of the strictest gun control measures in the world. Modern efforts to disarm citizens dates to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was a huge proponent of gun control – for certain people. Post-WWII, the East Germans found themselves under Stalinesque tyranny, including more gun controls. The current German Weapons Act came into effect in the 1970s and has been getting more restrictive as time goes by. Germany is also the only place in the world where those seeking a (hard-to-get) firearms permit must undergo psychiatric examination. That’s one of the insane ideas the American left has thrown around at their child-like sit-ins. None of it worked today.

Germany has also recently welcomed over 1 Million third-world “refugees”. The country is a hot-bed of terrorist ideology and action. The way I see this attack: it was either an ISIS hit gone awry, and/or: it was a failure of German gun control. Either way it won’t help the intellectual descendants of Hitler and Stalin in their attempt to create unarmed subjects out of armed, law-abiding citizens.

 

 

 

Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass shootings, terror attacks, and assassinations always prompt a heated national “discussion” on the matter of firearms and firearms control (the private ones, mind you). As with any important issue there are many competing ideas and angles though there are two predominant groups that get attention – pro-gun control and anti-gun control. While I am solidly in favor of the private ownership and use of firearms, my anarchist disposition gives me a unique, almost outside view.

As I see the current debate one side, the gun controllers, really want a complete ban on all private firearms though they present their ideology in terms of “responsible”, incremental measures designed only to ensure safety. The other side, the NRA side, nominally defends the Second Amendment while agreeing to many of the same incremental controls sought by the other side. I see both groups ultimately seeking to use the power of government to advance their own agendas and the agenda and existence of the government itself. They are both allied with the state. I have no use for any of them.

Some of the gun grabbers are blatant about their ultimate aim – Rolling Stone called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Other grabbers pretend to agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms while insisting that those arms never be used for defensive purposes.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.

The author of this insane Huffington Post statement wants to alter, rather than abolish, the 2A in order to nullify it. The author takes into account only those relatively few crimes committed and lives lost to the illegal use of guns. Considered in totality, privately owned guns save far more lives every day and every year than they take. Then again, by this man’s standards, each such lawful defensive usage constitutes a deprivation of the original aggressor’s right.

The only thing I can think of to attempt to justify this kind of logic is that this fellow obviously worships the government as a god and regards laws as a religion. Like a Natural Law theorist, he seeks to conform all positive law to the designs of and the adoration of his god. He would happily place the primacy of the state over the lives of human beings. He is a statist’s statist. Some on the other side do a good job of refuting this nonsense:

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The NRA is the poster child of the pro-Second Amendment movement. They are vilified by the New York Times:

What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.

And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.

There is no truth to any of this dribble from the fallen Gray Lady. The worst of the lies is that the NRA is complicit with terrorism and that it blocks those “common sense” gun control measures. It does not. The NRA seems more than happy with the bulk of the existing gun control measure – all of them unconstitutional. While the NRA backs lawsuits to overturn various local measures, they roundly accept the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Both of these laws treat all Americans like criminals and bar the easy or economical possession of the type of weapons actually protected by the Second Amendment.

The NRA also agrees with the opposition regarding the expansion of watch lists – to exclude terrorists from the gun pool of course, and no more… Their own words on the matter:

Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

This statement places the NRA (and Donald Trump by association) in the same position regarding gun control as Senate Democrats and the Obama administration – though the Executive seems a little at odds with itself as to how the proposed list measures would be (will be) implemented. Proposals to expand the “no-fly” list to cover firearms purchases has even drawn the ire of the ACLU as the list procedures (as they exists and as proposed) violate fundamental due process.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Hussein Obama, and their friends are all wrong. There is no due process at all concerning these controls. The new Senate proposal, S.551, mentions due process protection and then negates it in the same paragraph.

The government really has no dog in this fight as it is the primary creator and enabler of terrorism today. If not for the unceasing meddling and misadventure of the state there wouldn’t be any terrorists in our nation to worry about and no need for any lists nor for gun control.

A former CIA agent admits the government and the elites are the problem:

A former CIA counterterrorism agent has said it is time to talk about why terrorism really happens, and to address the “misguided narratives” that lead to oversimplification of the situation and continued war.

Amaryllis Fox worked on counterterrorism and intelligence in the CIA’s clandestine service for ten years. She told AJ+ that the beliefs surrounding terrorism are “stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides, who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of use to keep killing each other.”

Fox says the current conversation about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the US “is more oversimplified than ever.”

“Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops,” she said.

Her observation echo what H.L. Mencken said about the government’s imaginary hobgoblins a century ago. Hitler concurred that terrorism (real or manufactured) is the best way to keep people panicked and, therefore, controlled. Gun control is about people control. Terrorism, war, and government in general are about creating and maintaining power for a few. It’s that simple. That’s what they’re working towards.

And, they are working hard. After Washington stirs up an already volatile region in begins to import the angered locals into America. Some really are hapless refugees. Others are terrorists – as the CIA admits. Oddly … or not, many of the recent notable terror suspects in America have had some ties to the CIA. This should raise serious questions and red flags about the state’s motives and how those motives negatively affect the rest of us – but it doesn’t. The bulk of the discussion put forward by either side of the political divide or by the government itself is: what else can the government do?

What they are doing is just more of the same. The people keep seeing their freedoms chipped away. The elites keep amassing power. The useless laws grow. The attacks, foreign and domestic, continue. They unvetted “refugees” keep pouring in – over 400 from Syria alone – since the Battle of Orlando this past weekend.

The horror and the comedy of the divide is how pointless it all is. Until the ridiculous, blasphemous, and hellish cult of government is dealt with, none of it matters.

Google.

Murder Inequality

04 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

The Sword of Government

14 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning I read a letter to the editor of the Augusta (GA) Chronicle wherein the author proposed streamlining the dead penalty process.  The author had, I think, a mild semblance of good intentions behind his missive.  He certainly picked a sympathetic test case.  However, his proposal is extraordinarily dangerous.  And, unfortunately, his thinking is all too common in modern America.

His letter recounted the guilty plea entered by a South Carolina defendant accused of murdering a police officer.  As I have written elsewhere most criminal cases end in plea “bargains.” By entering his plea the defendant avoided the possibility of the death penalty.  This is a common practice.

The author argued the defendant deserved to die for his actions.  Perhaps he does.  I am not opposed to the death penalty per se.  Under the right circumstances it is a fitting punishment.  But, as I have written before, an American courtroom is one of the last places on earth one may find appropriate circumstances.

The author notes, correctly, that in South Carolina and Georgia (all civilized jurisdictions) a jury’s decision in a death penalty case must be unanimous – all of the jurors must agree the crime of murder was committed by the accused.  After reaching that conclusion they must separately and unanimously decide if death is the appropriate punishment.

Our letter writer calls on “both state legislatures of Georgia and South Carolina to change the law that requires a unanimous decision by a jury for the defendant to receive the death penalty.”  He proclaims: “When heinous crimes are committed, it should only take a simple majority of jurors for the person to receive the death penalty.”

His most disturbing and telling comment is: “The government should be the sword of God, and the guilty party should be hanged in public in front of the courthouse.”  The government should be the sword of God…  I submit he really believes the government should be … God.  This sentiment is as common as it is alarming.

First, as a legal matter, there is a sober reason why jury verdicts should be unanimous. In a criminal case, especially a death penalty case, the burden of proving the underlying facts and elements of the crime rests solely on the state.  The state must prove these elements beyond all reasonable doubt.  This means a reasonably prudent man (twelve of them) must have no logical reason to question the defendant’s guilt.

JurorsWEB_20120112144338_320_240

(Google.)

I’m working an article about the origins and logic behind the jury system.  In short, it is a last check against a tyrannical prosecution.  Should a corrupt government bring a baseless (or sloppy) case against an accused individual, the jury stands between that individual and injustice – or so it was intended.  Having multiple jurors eliminates the possibility of individual juror prejudice co-opting justice.  In critical murder cases the unanimity rule adds a final layer of protection.  If only one juror maintains doubt, the whole jury is “hung.”

This protection is in place for all of us.  The Chronicle letter was followed (online) by several reader comments.  All but one wholeheartedly agreed with the author.  The lone holdout noted a Ohio case where three men were convicted or murder and sentenced to death.  After 39 years in prison they were exonerated in a crime they never committed.  This too is an all to common occurrence in America.  Hang them and let God sort them out?

If I read the author’s thought correctly, then I suppose he would really like to dispense with the jury and trial altogether.  In his mind an accusation should lead to immediate execution …  for God’s glory, no doubt.

I also suspect he subscribes to the simplistic reading of Romans 13 – that government is a righteous extension of God’s will.  Paul qualified this passage in terms of just law and order.  Should that government derive its authority and actions from Natural Law this assumption would be correct.  I do not know of any government, ever, which has so existed.  By their logic, blanket 13’ers would have to sanction any and all government actions as the will of God – including those of Stalin and Hitler.

The “sword of God?”  Government is just a sword – pure brute force – imposing the will of the ruling (Godly or not) on its subjects.  As I said above, I think the writer would supplant the Almighty with earthly governance.  This blasphemy is in vogue across the political spectrum.

CNN news anchor and Fordham Law School educated Chris Cuomo recently espoused the view that laws and rights come from earthly government and not God.  ‘Our Laws Do Not Come From God’.

Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings goes further – he says people “come to government to feed their souls.”  Rep. Cummings: People ‘Come to Government To Feed Their Souls’.

The views and quotes show plainly that the new American religion is statism (a pitiful, second-rate brand of Satanism).

As to the suggestion the South Carolina defendant deserved to die, I recall several lines from The Lord of the Rings.  While discussing Gollum’s crimes, Frodo asserted that Gollum deserved to die.  Tentatively agreeing, Gandalf answered masterfully: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”  As true in South Carolina or Georgia as in Middle Earth.

 

 

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns.  Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections).  While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas.  Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense.  “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  1 Timothy 5:8.  This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible.  “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”  Exodus 22:2-3.  This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks.  The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective.  Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist.  It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal.  While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'”  Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him.  This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.”  Proverbs 20:22.  Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle.  This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name.  When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters.  I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance.  Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”  Luke 22:36.  I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances.  Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible.  Matthew 5:39.  He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword.  John 18:11.  Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.”  John 13:34.  The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force.  It does not foreclose the concept.

JESUS-620_1587358a

(The ultimate Defender.  Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally.  When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away.  John 2:15.  This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord.  The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need.  “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering”  CCC: 1004.  While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.”  Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas.  In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense.  David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent.  He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.”  Id, at 163.  Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.”  Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.”  Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively.  Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice.  Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed.  Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action.  Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender.  Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].”  Codex Justinianus 3.27.1.  The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969.  Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?”  Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.”   The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?”  Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.”  The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?”  “Raising cattle with little success.”  Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?”  Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?”  Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources.  It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law.  Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense.  John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights.  Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government.  Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society.  Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.  Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment).  The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added).  The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

sword

(In case of emergency only.  Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right.  It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility.  As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law.  In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

Equal Gun Rights

25 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org/, just posted this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY&feature=player_embedded about self-defense discrimination.

I have a post underway about the history of gun control in America, which has racist origins – from plantation masters afraid of armed blacks to “progressives” copying Hitler.  This video reminds me of a column by Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, a few years ago about people in the country being freer than people in cities.  Gun control nazis knowingly disarm minorities and anyone else in major cities line NYC, D.C. and Chicago as the video makes clear.  Point this out to your local elected idiots and ask them if they support racism.

Droning On and On

15 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Suddenly, in the midst of the deprivations of the Imperial police state, a controversy has arisen!  I imagine it will die down (literally perhaps).  The same neo-con nuts who gleefully embraced preemptive war, torture, and summary execution of “fara-ners” with rabid, Ares-worshipping lust have suddenly found a reason to be concerned about similar tactics.  Apparently, these Jacobin decepticons were previously unaware of the prolific and deadly use of armed, un-maned drones in the War on Freedo..er..Terror. 

Now there is a great uproar over President Sotoro’s claim, cleared legally by the Just-Us department, unopposed by the loyal and useless opposition in Congress, and unaddressed by Federal Courts, to have the unilateral authority to kill any American citizen by drone strike anywhere, at any time, and for any reason or for no reason. 

You may recall the Obama’s warning to his daughter’s potential suitors: “I have two words for you — predator drones.”  See the Emperor in action here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4. We all laughed.  Hahahahuuuuuh….  The man was serious it seems.  Now it appears that these flying hunter-killers are intended to quell any Amerikans out of line, not merely stupid teenage boys who hit on the wrong girls.

By Executive Order (an act of Congress without an act of Congress) the President has established a “kill list” of suspects, terrorists, others (political dissenters??), the occupants of which may be targeted for death by Hellfire missile at the President’s individual whim.  Hitler is probably kicking himself in hell for not thinking of something similar.  Americans are not exempted from the list.  No need to trouble a grand jury, the police, or the Courts!  No need for antiquated concepts like Due Process or Equal Protection.  Just press a button and … BOOM!  Problem solved.  All of this takes place in secret as to protect us serfs.

The New york Times has warned that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be engaging in a “‘Whac-A-Mole’ approach to counterterrorism”  (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).  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. 

predator-firing-missile4

(This thing may be coming for you, Amerika.  Source – Google Images, fair use.)

Many ordinary citizens, when confronted with such awful reality often retort, “It can’t happen here!”  Sadly, while not necessarily occurring on American soil, it has already happened to three Americans overseas.  Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki along with Awlaki’s 16-year-old son were blasted by a missile from a drone. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite).  These individuals were allegedly involved in some sort of terrorist activity in Yemen.  Details are scarce in this case, absent altogether really.  Per the President’s Order the public (and Congress, etc.) need not know any reasons behind such actions.  Tyrants usually do not to explain themselves.

This is the current poster case of drone abuse.  Considering the government goes to extraordinary lengths to keep its criminal activities secret, there may be other incidents of extra-legal drone killings (murder).  I have friends in and out of the legal community who defend such actions as warranted under the “War” on terror.  Can you recall when Congress declared war on terror?  They did not.  They did authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on numerous lies concocted by the previous administration.  I suppose this “War” extends to Yemen and, now, world-wide.  The most Honorable Ron Paul objected to this carte blanche authority and urged his lower-IQ colleagues in the House to consider a Declaration of War, as mandated by the Constitution.  Remember the Constitution?  Congress has not declared war since 1941 and probably never will again.  Rules are so hard to follow; sworn oaths be damned.

Reports have been issued that these mechanical terror birds are currently in use over the good old U.S.A. for domestic surveillance purposes.  The details, again, are scant at best.  A rumour floated around the newsrooms that drones were used to hunt accused criminal Christopher Dorner in California.  Is it possible the fire which killed Dorner might have been started by a warhead detonation rather than the (constantly shifting) reasons given by the authorities involved in the case?  Dorner was described as a “domestic terrorist” after all by L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck.  (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/10/ex-cop-manhunt-continues/1906999/).  Perhaps Beck made a phone call to the White House.  I speculate wildly and perhaps without cause.

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration assured the shepple that there will never be any armed drones over Amerikan soil.  See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/13/faa-official-no-armed-drones-us/.  Some, like Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s son, fear the President might someday use armed drones to kill more citizens here at home.  Now we know we are safe – the government told us so.  This would be the same government that told us income tax withholding would cease just as soon as Hitler and Tojo were licked.  The same government that told us about the great naval battle in the Gulf of Token, the evil of the Waco TX Seventh Day Adventists, and the collapse of World Trade Center Number 7.  We have nothing to worry about!  Really!

I can sense, telepathically, that you don’t believe this latest lie.  You may recall that on the same day they “pulled” WTC No. 7, the FAA temporarily lost control of the nation’s airspace to the Imperial military.  Your flights were cancelled and all.  It’s the same military that will dispatch the armed drones to engage all of you “domestic tarr-ists” whether the FAA likes it or not.  The FAA answers to Little Barry and when (if) he tells them to step aside, they will without a word of protest.

A long, long time ago, back when America more resembled a free country, Congress took up the subject of lower tech military threats against Americans in America.  The result was the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the use of military troops or assets in domestic law enforcement.  For years this law sat on a shelf in Washington until it was completely covered with dust.  By strange chance a night cleaning crew uncovered it while trying to tidy up after Watergate.  The law was promptly re-addressed by the Congress and essentially nullified.  It’s still on the books though it has never been used – ever.  Rarely does a federal law go unused.  I am (or was) an expert on this little gem of legal security and you can look for a near future discussion of the same at this site. 

There are many potential solutions to this quandary: impeachment, nullification, Congressional oversight, etc.  You can (and should) write your representative in Mordor to recommend and demand such action; do not expect results.  Reinvigorating and strengthening (and applying) the Posse Comitatus Act might be a way to solve the neo-cons’ worries.  Oh, I almost forgot about them.  They do tend to be annoyingly forgettable, don’t they?  I think their concern stems from the party association of this particular President rather than his policies. 

The ever-wafting neo-fascists were enthusiastic, as noted above, when a Republican president used similar heavy handed measures.  “D” and “R” convey tremendous power.  Last year, as in 2008, the RepunliCONS had a good chance to stand behind a man who would have never allowed such atrocities to befall the American people.  At the time, though, the nuts declared Dr. Ron Paul to be an isolationist and a wachco.  Would they agree now that a wacho beats a dictator?