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 Bastiatand:
The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Gun owners are the new niggers... of society. -- John Aquilino
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.
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.
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]