The New Niggers of Society

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 22 Jun 2002 12:00:00 GMT

From samizdata:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. -- Frédéric Bastiat

and:

The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness. -- Robert A. Heinlein

From kaba, quoted from dictionary.com's definition of nigger:

Gun owners are the new niggers... of society. -- John Aquilino

Ted Rall - George W. Bush: Slippery Slope Case Study - cartoon commentary on Herr Fuhrer Bush'es empire. Not funny. [lew]

No Treason Blog is going strong. New posts by Robert Vroman, Rob Moody, Rachael Anne Fajardo, and, of course, John T. Kennedy. Thanks, John, for the kind words about End the War on Freedom.

Perry de Havilland at Libertarian Samizdata - Taking a buzzsaw to Buzzflash - a point-by-point response to Buzzflash'es If You Don't Like Paying Taxes . . . Bravo! [samizdata]

Hari Heath at Sierra Times - It's Here...The Federal ID card - H.R. 4633, the "Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002" establishes a National ID card. Only two cosponsors. Hopefully it won't get out of committee.

This Bill requires that "a State shall embed a computer chip in each new or renewed driver's license or identification card issued by the State." It further demands that "a computer chip embedded in a driver's license or identification card... shall: contain, in electronic form, all text data written on the license or card; encoded biometric data matching the holder of the license or card; encryption and security software or hardware (or both) that prevents access to data stored on the chip without the express consent of the individual to whom the data applies, other than access by a Federal, State, or local agency (including a court or law enforcement agency) in carrying out its functions, or by a private entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions; accept data or software written to the license or card by non-governmental devices if the data transfer is authorized by the holder of the license or card; and conform to any other standards issued by Secretary."

John T. Kennedy at anti-state.com - The Revolution Will Be All Business - why market anarchism requires no political movement. It will be accomplished one business at at time. Brilliant! [notreasonblog]

Government can be seen as an attempt to solve public goods problems by punishing those who defect from cooperating with the collective. The problem with this solution is that we become prisoners of government. Our Prisoner's Dilemma is that we'd all be better off if we collectively defected from government, but individually we can incur severe penalties for defection.

John deLaubenfels at Strike the Root - The Neocons and the Nazis - why the U.S. should not even think about a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. [smith2004]

Suppose you live in Anytown, U.S.A. and someone moves in next door who makes you extremely nervous. He has visitors who don't seem very savory and are of uncertain occupation. He regards you with evident suspicion rather than trying to become friends. Once when you go onto his property to retrieve a frisbee, he appears and yells at you to get the hell out if you know what's good for you. You suspect that he is in possession of dangerous weapons. You suspect that he is plotting to burn your house down and kill you and your family. Do you:

- Keep watching, and arrest the man if you find him in the act of a crime.

- Launch a "protective reaction strike" (or whatever today's euphemism is; that was Nixon's) and wipe out that guy and his entire family.

Option one is unappealing, because the state of fear is not relieved in any way, and the element of surprise (if in fact an attack is coming) is left to your neighbor/ enemy. Option two has much more appeal: You pick the time, you dispatch the "enemy," and you go home and celebrate, having dealt with the "problem." You strut with pride at the manhood you have displayed!

Of course, the only difficulty with option two is that it is an act of cold-blooded murder, based upon nothing but fear and suspicion. Anyone guilty of carrying out option two would rightly be locked away for life.

Why is this easier to see than the same conundrum on the international stage? When a nation starts a war to effect a "regime change," it is engaging in murder on a massive scale. The morality, if anything, can only be worse than killing one's neighbor to prevent an alleged crime-to-be.

...

Which brings us to an inescapable conclusion, and there is no way to say this gently: People like Rich Lowry are dangerously insane. Let them by all means rant all they like in their little electronic playpens, but let us not make the mistake of following their advice, lest this nation share the fate of Nazi Germany in more ways than it already has.

Henrietta Bowman at Sierra Times - Tyranny's Slippery Slope - commentary and a couple of links about the department of injustice's new policy to declare people "enemy combatants" in order to deny them their trial rights.

All I know is, even if Hilary Clinton runs against Bush, I will not vote for him a second time. Holding my nose the first time was bad enough. I knew he was a globalist and would sell us out. But I never imagined he would become an out and out fascist.

Ari Armstrong at The Colorado Freedom Report - Stanley Convicted on Gun Charge - an eye-witness account of Rick Stanley's conviction by a kangaroo court in Denver on May 15-16. [kaba]

William J. Holdorf at LewRockwell.com - The Return of the King's General Warrants - a good short history of the reason for the fourth amendment. Lamentations of its death at the hands of well-meaning nazis. [lew]

It is shocking how far afield we have come as a nation from the cry of Patrick Henry, Give me liberty or give me death," to "Click-it or ticket," the cry of politicians who arrogantly claim the right to violate the Bill of Rights in the name of doing "good." The fact is, taking away liberty in the name of doing good has been the easy road for dictators and tyrants for centuries. The fact is, if politicians who do not respect the Bill of Rights are not voted out of office soon, someday they will be doing so much "good" for us, we will no longer have any more rights to give up. Seat belt laws and, especially, primary enforcement, are clear major steps in that direction.

William Lolli at CalNRA - Now More Than Ever... - Why the Supremes refused to rule on United States v Emerson. They're afraid of the second amendment, as they ought to be. That's what it's for. [kaba]

Remember that in Miller, the court simply defined the types of guns protected by the Second Amendment. In 1939, the court concluded that the "instrument" (a sawed-off shotgun) was not covered by the Second Amendment, since it was not a military weapon. Here is a direct quote from Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Note that the court's conclusion turned solely on the fact that a sawed-off shotgun was not "ordinary military equipment." As Professor Levinson (card-carrying member of the ACLU) said of the decision: "Ironically, Miller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers and ... assault weapons." [See Ann Coulter http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/coulter/2002/ac05-16-02.htm]

When you add the historical research and the Emerson decision, it becomes no surprise as to why the Supreme Court declined to rule on Emerson:

If they had ruled on Emerson they would have had no choice but to thoroughly and categorically overturn every anti-gun law, every assault-weapon ban, every registration requirement passed in the last 63 years.

AR15.com - Arsenal SA M7 Kalashnikov clones - A Bulgarian semi-auto AK47-type rifle. One of the responders raves about it. I'll probably get one of these at some point, though I'm in no hurry. This page has a paragraph about it with a link to a large picture. [ar15.com]

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Happy Summer!
Linking to NPR
The Wayback Machine
No Answers = No Taxes
Net Assets
Mexico was also target for 9-11
Shin-Tao Church of Holy Brutality
Mr. Rogers at Dartmouth
Doing Freedom! Returns
Franklin Delano Bush

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair