Men with Guns

We defend our President--------------with men with guns
We defend our Congressmen----------with men with guns
We defend our Governors-------------with men with guns
We defend our celebrities-------------with men with guns
We defend our sporting events--------with men with guns
We defend our jewelry stores----------with men with guns
We defend our banks-----------------with men with guns
We defend our office buildings---------with men with guns
We defend our factories---------------with men with guns
We defend our courts-----------------with men with guns
We defend our children---------------with a sign that reads: "GUN FREE ZONE." 


 - Ken Kaîketsu Stanton

How 23 Orders Will Affect Your Gun Rights

As I have previously noted, fears of impending firearms bans through executive order were highly unlikely, as that right was not granted to the executive branch, but to the Congress (not that they are any more trustworthy with our natural rights). While most firearms owners recognize a need to promote safety in society, support for fiat regulations and restrictions at the federal level is less than widespread, with more and more people understanding that criminals, by definition and nature, care not for the laws which intend to promote safety in society, where, apparently, a gunshot wound is a communicable disease to the likes of policymakers.

Here are a few of the worst of the executive orders Obama signed with the intention of promoting safety, while mostly discarding human nature and reality:

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

Criminals don't apply for gun permits or background checks, so that "loophole" can not be plugged by any short-sighted regulation or policy. 

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Seriously, how is gun violence an issue even slightly relevant to the directive of the CDC? Is a gunshot wound a communicable disease?

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

And under no circumstances should anyone be required to answer such irrelevant questions in situations where firearms is not relevant. Unless a person has been shot and seeking medical assistance, how is asking about guns in the home related to a person asking for treatment of the flu or other illness?

More: Obama announces 23 executive actions, asks Congress to pass gun laws – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

David Kopel on the Second Amendment in 2013

David Kopel, associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, evaluates prospects for changes to federal gun laws following the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Kopel offers one of the most reasonable cases against increases in gun control through executive order based on District of Columbia v. Heller, and the fact that law enforcement use firearms like the AR15 for defensive purposes, and that semiautomatic handguns come standard from manufacturers (for most markets) with 11-19 round magazines. Since that is the standard, a prohibition of magazines over 10 rounds would likely not be upheld based on Heller. Even a highly liberal Supreme Court would be unlikely to overturn Heller to support such prohibitions as those offered by McCarthy, Boxer, or Feinstein.

More:

• Trust the People: The Case against Gun Control
• Gun Control: Myths and Realities | David Lampo | Cato Institute
• McDonald v. Chicago: The Fourteenth Amendment

The Second Amendment, Militias, and the State

Does the Second Amendment apply to individuals or collectively society? Consider that the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, but protects natural rights from infringement by government. Is the defense of society best left in the hands of society itself, or a subset which has little incentive to provide effective and efficient defense? Let's start with the gun rights issue first:

Anti-gun lobbyists consider the Second Amendment antiquated, asking what militias could protect us from today. The pro-gun side answers: "Tyrants", citing King George III, Hitler's Germany, or another event so seemingly distant that the argument seems academic. Even some who want stricter controls might concede the home-defense argument. But they would never want Joe Public armed with the sorts of guns carried by soldiers and police. Are militias relevant today?

Do you think it strange that citizens might be called to grab their gun, and rush to the defense of their community or region against some threat? Why is it strange? Small towns do the same thing with volunteer fire departments. Bankers, plumbers, or gym teachers, all become firemen when there's a fire raging. You can't wait for experts to put out the fire, everybody gets involved. That same principle describes a militia.

More: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/01/second-amendment-do-militias-matter-today/

Another thing to consider was the inherent threat which the founders recognized in a standing army as opposed to volunteer militias. Compounding that issue is the application of Bastiat's "legal plunder" principle, through which the state gains favor from those joining the standing army, and who benefit and enable the state to extract resources from society as a whole:

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder..."

More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096680/posts

Absent the "benefits" of legal plunder, it is unlikely that a standing army could exist, promoting volunteer militias which would either support or oppose a particular effort of defense of communities by members of that community. Without coercion, militarization of local police could also be negated by the move to a voluntary defense, with protecting localities entrusted to those either volunteering for the positions, or by voluntary participation (funding) of private defense forces held accountable by the communities they are charged to defend.

Robert P. Murphy explains why services such as defense are best left to the private sector, absent intervention by the state:

"...even though the TSA had been in place for eight years at that point, it took a vigilant member of the private sector, i.e., the Dutch tourist, to avert catastrophe."

More: mises.org/daily/4873

As is typical, it is the general public which invariably does a better job of protecting society than the state. The corruption inherent in the application of legal plunder inevitably leads to a perversion of "defense," leaving society unable to defend itself, and at greater risk from those charged with defending the rest of us.

Obama invoking executive order for gun control

Despite the fact that any executive order intending to stem violence is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and is short-sighted in it's efforts to address a symptom rather than a cause of violence in society, I don't doubt that Obama will use that illegitimate authority to push an agenda of disarmament.

Gun Violence Meeting and another School Shooting

The Obama administration is sitting down with gun owners groups – including the National Rifle Association – as officials look at ways to curb gun violence.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration-wide review of gun safety laws, has vowed urgent action in the wake of last month's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.

The meeting with the NRA is one of three Biden has scheduled for Thursday, as he prepares to make recommendations on gun policy by the end of the month. Besides the NRA, Biden and other officials are meeting with sportsmen and wildlife interest groups, as well as people from the entertainment industry.

More: Joe Biden, NRA Meeting On Gun Violence

Rather convenient timing, that there is another school shooting this morning in Taft, CA:

A shooting has been reported at Taft High School in Taft, California, KERO reports.

The shooter is in custody, according to ABC 7.

Two people have been reported shot, according to the station. The first victim suffered minor injuries and refused treatment, according to KGET. The second was airlifted to Kern Medical Center. Details on the second victim's injuries have not yet been reported.

The incident occurred at about 9 a.m., according to KABC. At around 9:20 The suspect was taken into custody and students were evacuated to the football field. Parents were notified and asked to pick up their children.

This is a developing story, check back for further updates.

I'm starting to think that the incessant coverage of these shootings is like promoting a high score in a game. Crazies just see it as a challenge, and they accept. And no law will stop them. 

Machine Guns for the State, Squirt Guns for You

From Machine Guns for the Soldiers, the Cops, the Criminals Squirt guns for us by Bill Anderson over at Lew Rockwell.com:

Whenever one sees the word "debate" in the New York Times or any other Progressive Mainstream Media source, one should substitute the word "monologue," which is a much more accurate assessment of what actually is happening. Progressives and the MSM allies do not want a "debate" over gun control; what they want are laws banning private ownership of firearms, period, and anything else is only a way-station to the final destination: total private gun bans.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, the sister of one of the murdered children wrote a well-publicized letter to President Barack Obama, imploring him to ban all weapons except those held by the police and government agencies. Now, one can excuse a grief-stricken 10-year-old child for demanding that the USA adopt what essentially was the gun standard for the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, although I doubt seriously that the child herself actually came up with the idea for the letter at all, or at least its contents.

Nonetheless, the child pretty much has stated what is the ultimate agenda for American Progressives, and until that ban is complete, we will not hear the end of terms such as "sensible gun control." To Progressives, "sensible gun control" is not simple registration or even a ban on so-called assault weapons and handguns. No, it is total and absolute prohibition for private citizens, while at the same time, government authorities are going to be armed to the teeth.

I am of the mind that nearly any level of intervention by anyone on behalf of anyone else without their explicit consent is invalid, and at times gross negligence. 

Given the history of gun control in relation to rises in violence, I am modern inclined to believe the statistics rather than emotional reactions. The reality is that as gun control rises, so does social violence. Nanny-staters seriously believe that an outright ban in firearms ownership by the peasants will lead to a reduction in violence. Luckily, we have a wealth of information to refute that hypothesis; history. As private ownership of firearms declines, violence inversely rises. We have a list of desoots from countries that have attempted to take this path around the world, with rather consistent results: 

Ask the Jews, or a host of other oppressed peoples throughout history whether their natural right to self defense was necessary to their survival. As usual, statist defense of the prohibition self-defense is entirely baseless and without reason.