The Liberty Zone I'm an Army veteran and a Featured writer for both keepandbeararms.com and ArmedFemalesofAmerica.com and a former contributing editor to the NRA's Women's Outlook. I'm also news director for KeepAndBearArms.com.
View From The Porch Books. Bikes. Boomsticks. A happy place of rolling green fields, where I can let my Snark off the leash to run free among the herds of Bewilderbeests, bringing down the slow and the stupid by the throat.
protein wisdom "Everybody knows that protein is one of the building blocks of life, and you will find no finer protein in the blogosphere than that produced at protein wisdom" -- Bill Quick, Daily Pundit
The Truth Laid Bare Home of The TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem and N.Z. Bear's own brand of commentary:
The War on Guns Co-founder, GunTruths and Citizens of America. Commentary has been featured in GUNS AND AMMO, HANDGUNS and GUNS, as well as numerous freedom-oriented internet sites.
Daily Rant Turning America back into a Nation of Riflemen one citizen at a time.
Kevin started a very interesting dialog over the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I only wish I had his writing talent. I tend to get pissed off way too early. Especially when I put forth a well-reasoned argument that seems to be just ignored. Geez, I get pissed just thinking about some of the nonsense people seem to spout about guns. "Guns are dangerous". No. Not really. It's the people carrying them. "Guns cause crime". Oh please... Just don't get me started.
It seems to me that absolutely not one of the people that want to ban guns have really thought it through. There was crime before guns. There was oppression before guns. Throughout history the strong have oppressed the weak. The gun is the one, single, tool that evens the odds. How many women have been raped while having a gun and being willing to use it. How many law-abiding citizens have been relieved of not only their belongings, but their life when being able wield a gun in their own defense.
Ten years ago Arizona starting allowing concealed carry. "There will be blood in the streets!!". Didn't happen. Crime went down.
Same thing in Florida. Ohio. Virginia. DC.. oh wait... DC has a complete gun ban. And there is blood in the streets. Blood of defenseless victims.
Why are people afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying weapons?? I just really don't understand this. Do they really think that a gun turns someone into a murderous homicidal maniac??
God, please protect me from the do-gooders. They know not what they do.
After reading this at Kim du Toits site today I was compelled to comment. It seems to be that maybe this will start my "list of 100"
Personally I consider myself a libertarian but not so much a
Libertartion (ie the party). However what really counts is that you’re
true to your own beliefs.
1) The “Drug War” is a waste of time and money. It didn’t work for
alcohol and it isn’t working for other drugs. Take the money out of
drugs and you’ll take the crime out of drugs.
2) I take the Second Amendment literally. It’s an individual right. No other laws need apply.
3) I believe in capital punishment. Perferrably handed out by the intended victim at the scene of the crime.
4) PistolPete is an ass.
5) I admire the Israelis for their persistence in adversity.
However they’re very quick to forget their use of terrorism against the
6) The Republicans in power have abandoned the party principles. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave.
7) The Democrats are clueless. Liberal should be liberty. Not state conducted nannyism.
8) Separation of Church and State seems pretty clear. It also means the State can’t even LEAN one way or the other.
9) The Saudis are NOT our friends.
and the list goes on. I don’t need a label. I don’t care what
yours is. All I need to know is what you stand for. And if I don’t
agree with it I’ll still defend your right to your opinion.
To me the purpose of the government should be simply to facilitate
interaction between individuals not dictate how they should live.
An individual should be able to do anything that does not affect the rights of others.
An individuals rights stop where another’s start. That’s the part
that gets slippery and is the only purpose I see in government.
Update: Coyote blog also has some thoughts on his site about the individual that I feel seem to fit here
The government is not our parent, not our boss, not our priest, and not
our partner. It is our servant. Unfortunately, a large element behind
creeping statism in this country is a desire by both left and right to
"correct" individual decision-making, even when those decisions affect
no one but the actor himself
A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Convince me, using only the text above,
* that this sentence does not guarantee an individual right, only a “collective” right; or
* that this sentence means that the only legitimate intelligentsia is the one controlled by government; or
* that this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored; or
* that this sentence permits the government to require the registration of all books and book owners.
Found this via The Smallest Minority. Of course someone's going to try to argue that books aren't guns. However that's not the point. We're simply talking about the terminology used. Besides, the Bible and the Quran have both killed a lot of people.
Update: David Codrea from The War on Guns has pointed out that Ian has recognized that he may have borrowed this:
Commenter Dave Cordea
is absolutely correct, this idea is original to J. Neil Schulman, and I
utterly forgot it. I must have read his piece in his book Stopping Power some eight or nine years ago. Here I am basking in plagiarized glory without even knowing it.
It is, nonetheless, a very good argument and it's to Ian's credit that he publicly acknowledges "oopsie". :)))
The sad part of this story is that I'm not surprised. Every time you enter an airport should assume that you left your civil liberties at home. It used to be the part of flying I hated was the actual flying, now it's getting through security at the airport. I'm tempted, next time I fly, to wear my "Taxation is Slavery" t-shirt. Although I'd better be prepared to not make my flight. And perhaps to never fly again. It was bad enough when both my son and I would get pulled aside at the gate because there was a Daniel Newton on the watch list. Except for several letters we have the same name.
And this case is even worse. Not only was Mr Smith not carrying anything that in any way resembled a terroristic device, but possesion of the items does not violate ANY laws. And he is not only detained but public knowledge made of what he was carrying.
In my opinion this is why the second amendment was written. And this is a case that begs for it to be put to use.
Example: How many days has it been since John Kerry said he'd sign Form 180 releasing his military records? Once upon a time an embarrassing promise like Kerry's might have been forgotten until the next campaign. Now he's nibbled to death by blogs. ...
Mickey Kaus seems to miss the days when campaign promises could be forgotten after a reasonable length of time. Personally I don't understand his problem here. God forbid the public should remember what was promised and what was said. I think the blogospheres constant reminders are a good thing. I wish they had been around for Newt and company's "pact with America". Far too many people have forgotten about that. And forgotten how many signers ignored it within their first year. Maybe now campaign promises and their ilk will either be kept or not made.
Mexico is reportedly working with a "human rights group" in Los Angeles on the matter. "Mexico may sue reservist in migrant detention" has a few more details
I've not really weighed in on illegal immigration before. Even after listening to my wife talking about the illegals that she was working with in Indiana. But seeing Mexico's new stance is enough to cause, in the words of Kim du Toit, a RCOB to wash over my eyes. The government of Mexico is doing their best to insure that as many of their people as possible go to the United States by whatever means necessary so that they can send money back to family, or whatever else. I think Mexico is dependent upon this money for their economy. Why else would a government not only condone, but encourage, breaking the laws of another country. Of course considering how widespread corruption is within the Mexican government it really should come as no surprise.