End the War on Freedom

Time to fetch the battle rifle. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bob's your uncle.

Kidnapping in France. pic.twitter.com/1641yPBmbq

— Libertarian Party Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) January 10, 2023

Add comment Edit post Add post

Want to stop school shootings? Cold? A gun locker at every high school, secured by the local national guard. Daily classes for every student with parent permission, and guard approval, preparing them for armed response.

Twenty trained, rifle-wielding 17-year-olds could stop even a team of invaders.

Bill St. Clair

Add comment Edit post Add post

1 comment Edit post Add post

I posted this as a comment at The Zelman Partisans, in a discussion on Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

I dont like permits. "Do not be infringed" means exactly that. No background checks. No permits. No interstate or mail-order restrictions whatsoever.

I should be able to order from Amazon a full-auto M-16A4, a Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum, a 9mm Glock G43, and 1,000 rounds of ammo for each, pay for it with Apple Pay, have it brought to my house via free two-day Amazon prime delivery, put the G43 under my coat, the Redhawk on my belt, the M-16 over my shoulder and walk from one end of Manhattan to the other without any cop saying a word to me about it except, "Nice holster!"

But that ship has sailed. National Concealed Carry is a good small step back towards sanity.

Add comment Edit post Add post

I collected the Vermont General Assembly members elected in 2016 with their gun ratings from this page at Gun Owners of Vermont.

The candidate names, districts, parties, and incumbent status are from this Senate page and this House page at Ballotpedia.org.

A bold capital "I" in parentheses denotes an incumbent.

If party isn't listed, it's Democrat. "(Rep.)" = Republican. "(Ind.)" = Independent.

The Senate has a veto-proof (2/3) anti-gun majority.

If all of the UNKNOWN representatives are actually anti-gunners, then the House has very nearly a veto-proof anti-gun majority. I hope they aren't, but it would be good to find out. I guess the first vote on a victim disarmament bill will tell us.

Bottom line: Governor Scott's veto pen is all that's protecting Vermont from Bloomberg's victim disarmament insanity.

Add comment Edit post Add post

L. Neil Smith has penned The Libertarian Enterprise's first cyberpamphlet. And it's a good one.

When this was first written, some two dozen people had just been murdered in an American public school, herded into traps where they were physically unable or illegally forbidden to defend themselves, and I knewjust as you dothat those most fundamentally responsible would never be accused or face a jury.

Ordo not misread or misquote me, here: entirely under due process of lawlie down and take the lethal injection they deserve. The innocent blood of thousands is on their unspeakably evil hands, as surely as if they had wielded the gun themselves and pulled the trigger.

If you remember nothing else about what I'm about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn't do if you still had your weapons.

They are mass-murder enablers, massacre-helpers, accessories before the fact, who enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the killers we see conspicuously displayed on TV. These vermin create conditions under which killers are not just free, but actively encouraged to act, and every time somebody dies, the vermins' political fortunes leap ahead. We have gotten into in this mess, in what may be the last days of the Bill of Rights, because we have consistently failed to identify our adversaries accurately and adequately. As usual, we have been too polite.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Charles P. Pierce at Esquire - more whining from an anti-gunner.

My comment:

Most defensive use of guns is done without firing a shot. Let the goblin see that you have a gun, and he usually makes himself scarce. The biggest positive effect of a reasonable proportion of the population being armed, openly or concealed, is to make potential criminals, and crooked politicians, afraid for their lives to commit crimes.

Make law to declare certain places to be unarmed victim zones, and the criminals will go there; workplace safety zones for criminals.

Take away all the inner-city gang violence, caused primarily by drug prohibition, and the number of gun killings left doesn't even compare to deaths caused by falling in the shower, much less auto accidents. It isn't a real problem, and the positives of gun ownership by honest folk far outweigh the negatives of gun ownership by criminals, especially if the police aren't tasked with enforcing those unarmed victim zones.

I predict more cop killings. Caused primarily by people getting tired of being arrested for actions that don't hurt anyone. No victim. No crime. Period. Cops that enforce those statutory non-criminal "crimes" deserve to be hanged for kidnapping, after due process and a speedy trial by a jury of their peers. Since that's not an option, yet, people have to take justice into their own hands.

2 comments Edit post Add post

Crystal Park at Voice of Russia - complains that the NRA makes it hard to implement gun control legislation in America. I commented: [@jpfo]

Only a lawyer could interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean that any restriction whatsoever is allowed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, short of barring actual crime, meaning aggressive physical harm or theft.

The NRA is moderately useful as a guard against legisltative infringements, but they are primarily a firearms training organization, and they have a history of trading away our rights. For the REAL Second Amendment legislative bulwarks, see JPFO or GOA.

But the on-the-ground defense of our right to keep and bear arms is We, the American People. Deny our rights legislatively, and you still have to take away our guns. At least three percent of eighty million armed Americans will take great offense at that prospect, and three-quarters-of-a-million American police will have a bloody (literally) hard time disarming those three million freedom fighters. It will make the first American Civil War look like a picnic.

But then, that's what the Second Amendment is for. Yes, it provides for defense of self, family, community, and state. But primarily, it ensures that We the People are always able to eradicate our government, should that become necessary.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Mike Vanderboegh warns legislators in NJ and RI of the risk they are taking of getting their skulls turned into soap dishes.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Mike Vanderboegh has penned a warning to cops in NY. What a wonder it would be if they listened to reason! I'll be very happily surprised if they do.

The question is, as the deadline approaches, what do you intend to do? Governor Cuomo expects that you will work his will upon these people at the muzzle of your state-issued firearm. But some percentage of a determined minority -- let's use the three percent figure that harkens back to the Revolution -- will understand that you are there to force them to submit or to kill them if they resist and they, having drawn the correct conclusion, will kill you instead in what they perceive to be righteous self-defense. THEY. WILL. KILL. YOU. Depend upon it. And then reflect back on the numbers. Even if it is only three percent as it was during the Revolution, they've still got you surrounded. Are you starting to feel like a trooper of the 7th Cavalry as you follow Cuomo/Custer down into the valley of the Little Big Horn? You should.Heck, Custer's men faced better odds in 1876 than you do at this moment.

1 comment Edit post Add post