End the War on Freedom

Jeff Quinn at Gunblast - Ruger's AR-platform, gas piston rifle has been available for a while now, in 5.56x45 NATO. Now they've released it in 6.8mm SPC. Reliable, hard-hitting, accurate, expensive and worth it. Ruger lists it at $1,995 suggested retail.

From Facebook: ‎"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?" -- Thomas Sowell

L. Neil Smith at The Libertarian Enterprise - good rant on socialism, in its myriad despicable names and forms. [tle] Quote:Individualism is a pretty straightforward proposition, although it's a choice that hasn't been particularly popular over the last ten thousand years or so. It's the choice that's closest to the truth, as far as physics and biology go. Not to reiterate the idea's greatest advocate unduly, individualism holds that the individual is the only real component of any given group—that, in a moral sense, there is no such thing as a group, but only an aggregation of individuals—and that no individual is under any obligation to recognize the existence of any group or to inconvenience himself in any way for its sake. ... One of the most important things to understand is that two major branches of socialism have been developed over the past couple of centuries. One of them, "left-wing socialism" in the terms employed by libertarian philosopher and lecturer Robert LeFevre, we are all too familiar with, prepared to recognize, and, increasingly, ready to defeat. It is the socialism of Barack Obama and his admirers and followers. What's much more difficult, for Americans at least, to identify is the "right-wing socialism" of a George W. Bush. "Progressives" (like "liberal", simply another euphemism for socialist) won't acknowledge it because they find their fraternal-twin relationship with it embarrassing. Conservatives stick their fingers in their ears and chant "I can't hear you!" over and over again, hoping that you'll go away. But look: no matter what it calls itself, any regime that takes what belongs to you—your rights, your property, your life—in order to achieve some goal that you didn't choose and may not approve of, is sacrificing you for whatever it represents to be something bigger and more important than you are. And that, by definition, is socialism.

Anonymous at His Convenant Ministries - interesting article on the first thing a court must establish before being able to go ahead with trying an alleged statute violation, something that most of us give them without thinking or knowing about it, and something that most of us owe them only because we've been defrauded into implying that we are either under oath as a government agent or guilty of perjury. Mirrored at billstclair.com/jurisdiction.html. Quote:In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don't talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." The protest obviously didn't happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here's what happened.

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - if the EPA goes ahead with a ban on lead bullets proposed by the Center for Biological Diversity, copper and tungsten will be your only legal choices, and I expect they'll ban tungsten, too. Looks to me like a back-door gun grab, masquerading as environmental protection. NSSF recommends submitting comments opposing the environmental arguments put forth by the gun grabbers. I think the EPA bureaucrats need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that though the environmental toxicity of lead bullets is questionable, their toxicity to bureaucrats who do not respect our inalienable right to keep and bear arms is certain. Mike Vanderboegh submitted this comment: Quote:Regarding the proposed ban on lead core ammunition, I think I speak on behalf of three percent of American gun owners when I say that should it be made into law, we will be happy to return it to the federal government one round at a time. Mike Vanderboegh PO Box 926 Pinson AL 35126 GeorgeMason1776@aol.com http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com Comment Tracking Number: 80b3aeca

Iloilo Jones - excellent essay on the subhuman beasts who inhabit positions of power, living on violence and coercion. Quote:I know that those who employ coercive force against us, hiring thugs with the money stolen from us, are engaged in a marvelous game of smoke and mirrors, where we pay the hoodlum to not beat us. When, as do many animals, we give way to the angry bully, hand over our fruit to the bigger ape, give the alpha wolf the best eating place on the kill, and thus spare ourselves from being beaten, hit, or bitten. Animals resort to force to settle disputes. Humans have been given the gift of reason, if only we will learn to use it. But if humans allow this sub-human use of force to continue, then how are we better than the primates who beat each other to get the piece of fruit, or better than the wolf who snaps to secure the best morsel from the kill?

From Armageddon in Retrospect: "I have the humorist Paul Krasner to thank for pointing out a big difference between George W. Bush and Hitler: Hitler was elected." -- Kurt Vonnegut

Hugo Salinas Price - a parable for our times, concerning hard money, and the humanoids, "who do not appear to be intelligent, as we humans are, but rather sub-human in their reasoning faculties," who deny its importance. [gsc] Quote:These humanoids are at present quite busy building large structures such as bridges and tall buildings with concrete, which they invented many years ago, but without the use of reinforcing bars, or rebars, as we call them. Of course, since we are intelligent, we know what has to be the result of their efforts: continual collapses which cause these poor humanoids great grief and disappointment. It appears that in the remote past these creatures did use rebars in concrete constructions, but an influential politician whose name is recorded in their history as “Nicson” finally decided that concrete did not require rebars to give it tensile strength, and therefore banned their use.

Smuggler and XYZ (PDF) have written a short book (77 pages) on strategies for creating an agorist "second realm", co-existing with the current statist first realm. It is subtitled "Crypto-Anarchy, Tradecraft, TAZ and Counterculture." I have read it once, and not really thought about it much, but enough to recognize that it contains many worthwhile ideas. It's linked from the "Free & Unashamed" section of the Anarplex.net hosted files page, and from my home page. My mirrored copy is here. Quote:This is a booklet for people in search for liberty, and who subscribe to a philosophy of personal, civil and economic liberty through the absence of government in their lives, along with the presence of strong property rights. Among the varying philosophies that hold this view the most noted is probably that of Anarcho-Capitalism of both the Rothbardian and the Friedmanite flavor. The authors of this booklet subscribe to the former and it is that perspective that should be taken into account to take the most value from this text. ... The interwoven aspects of culture, institutions, profits from redistribution and the longing for stability form the foundation for the power of states and assure lasting consent (both passive and active) for this system of domination. We call the totality of this system: The First Realm. ... Our strategy for liberty is the creation of a culture of liberty, a society that occupies its own protected space and implements independent systems of cooperation. We need to create a Second Realm.

From The Libertarian Enterprise: "It is the job of the government to provide you with service. It is the job of the media to supply the Vaseline." -- L. Neil Smith

From Facebook: "The problem with the question about how criminals would be punished in a pure anarchy is that it presupposes that the questioner lives in a system which catches and punishes criminals. In fact you live in a system which gives badges and uniforms to criminals." -- Jim Davidson

From Twitter: "Why look like an imbecile, pushing the AK-47 as a deer rifle, when it meets the Founding Fathers' ACTUAL criteria so elegantly?" -- L.Neil Smith

From gsc: "Everywhere you prod it, even with the shortest stick, the established system isn't simply corrupt, it's unequivocally putrescent. The law is created by demonstrable criminals, enforced by demonstrable criminals, interpreted by demonstrable criminals, all for demonstrably criminal purposes. Of course I'm above the law. And so are you." -- L. Neil Smith, "Pallas" (1993)

Roger Roots at Constitution.org - I think I've linked to this essay before, but it bears re-reading. Mr. Roots contends that the Founders would have been appalled at the very existence of the modern professional police force. As well they should be. [fija] Quote:Uniformed police officers are the most visible element of America's criminal justice system. Their numbers have grown exponentially over the past century and now stand at hundreds of thousands nationwide. Police expenses account for the largest segment of most municipal budgets and generally dwarf expenses for fire, trash, and sewer services. Neither casual observers nor learned authorities regard the sight of hundreds of armed, uniformed state agents on America's roads and street corners as anything peculiar — let alone invalid or unconstitutional. Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles. Under the criminal justice model known to the Framers, professional police officers were unknown. The general public had broad law enforcement powers and only the executive functions of the law (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) were performed by constables or sheriffs (who might call upon members of the community for assistance). Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons. ... Nothing illustrates the modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen as much as the modern law of resisting arrest. At the time of the nation's founding, any citizen was privileged to resist arrest if, for example, probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed. As recently as one hundred years ago, but with a tone that seems as if from some other, more distant age, the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or at least defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and any trespassee had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such arrest. Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. Even third-party intermeddlers were privileged to forcibly liberate wrongly arrested persons from unlawful custody. The doctrine of non-resistance against unlawful government action was harshly condemned at the constitutional conventions of the 1780s, and both the Maryland and New Hampshire constitutions contained provisions denouncing nonresistance as "absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." ... If pressed, modern police defenders would have difficulty demonstrating a single material difference between the standing armies the Founders saw as so abhorrent and America's modern police forces. Indeed, even the distinctions between modern police and actual military troops have blurred in the wake of America's modern crime war. Ninety percent of American cities now have active special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams, using such commando-style forces to do "high risk warrant work" and even routine police duties. Such units are often instructed by active and retired United States military personnel. ... The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities. The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.

Kevin at WatchesTrends.com - I saw Inception last night, a 2.5 hour romp through the subconscious. Exciting, interesting, and worth the $10 I paid to see it, but it definitely stretched the premise, shared dreaming, past the breaking point. One thing that stood out, for me, besides the unanswered question at the end, was the watch that Leonardo DiCaprio wore. So I googled it. It was a Tag Heuer Carrera (WV211B.BA0787). I couldn't find it on Tag Heuer's web site, though they do have a Leonardo DiCaprio page. Macy's has it for sale for $2,000.

From Facebook: ‎"Saying that humans cannot live without government is like saying animals could not survive without farms" -- Patrick Starr

From westernrifleshooters: There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism--by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. -- Ayn Rand, "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon," The Los Angeles Times, Sept. 9, 1962

From gold-silver-crypto@rayservers.com By Ray at rayservers.com To pull oneself above the "conflict" of this thread, here are some facts: 1. "America is a country of laws": Wrong. America was a "Country of Law" - One law - Lex Terrae, the Common Law, the essence of which is the same as that the Kings of England supposedly agree to be bound by: "Thou shalt not cause harm or loss to another; No man shall be imprisoned except by a trial in a court of record or jury of his peers". This is the meaning of freedom. 2. Today, America is a Republic. Wrong - America is a corporation and has been since the around days of Lincoln. Historians on this list can give you the exact date.

Posted in response to this Louis R. (Skip) Miller of D.A.R.E. essay at the San Jose Mercury News via Cannabis News: Of course we should make it easier for people to get high, if they want to. Land of the free. Right? Adults are sole proprietors of their own bodies. Hence, unless they directly harm a non-consenting other, they have the absolute right to eat, drink, smoke, or inject anything they desire. Anything. No matter how harmful it is to themselves. -Bill St. Clair

J.D. Tucille - a sample chapter from a book Mr. Tucille intended to write about "how scofflaws limit state power, curbing the reach of government officials and carving out a modicum of liberty even when and where it’s officially forbidden." His agent hated it. I love it. Bravo scofflaws. Liberty! [claire] Quote:Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. I’ll never know if that guy went to the black market. But plenty of New Yorkers have chosen to own guns outside the official system. In a city that, as I write, has roughly 37,000 licensed handgun owners and about 21,000 rifle and shotgun licenses, the running guesstimate of illegal firearms stands at two million, give or take a bit. ... Well, says the Small Arms Survey, a research outfit established by the Swiss government, the United Kingdom, with just shy of 1.8 million legal firearms, has about four million illegal guns. Belgium, with about 458,000 legal firearms, has roughly two million illegal guns. In Germany, the number is 7.2 million legal guns and between 17 and 20 million off-the-books examples of things that go “bang” (a figure with which the German Police Union very publicly agrees). France, says the Survey, has 15-17 million unlawful firearms in a nation where 2.8 million weapons are held in compliance with the law.