Category Archives: Freedom

Just One Question

Posted on by

[Update: Get your t-shirt here!]

I don’t know how many times I’ve gotten into gun control debates but it’s probably in the hundreds. Sometimes it will degenerate into a question of ‘proof’. As long as the anti-freedom bigot can imagine some sort of reason, no matter how implausible, why the data could possibly be faulty or the conclusions erroneous they will claim that the pro-freedom position is wrong. Other times it will boil down to “I just don’t want people carrying guns around”. Some people just say, “I’m entitled to my opinion.” Other times it will be “I don’t believe your facts” (the RCOB moment this last one generates will be discussed some other time).

I’ve become very weary of these debates. Recently, unless it is a public or semi-public debate I rapidly loose interest and let it drop. Failing to convince (essentially no one will admit they were wrong no matter how badly they get “beaten up”) just one person isn’t worth the effort to me. A few years ago I came up with my “one question” response to bring the debate to a quick close but I tend to let myself get drawn into refuting their points rather than bring them to my playing field where they don’t stand a chance of survival. I now want to present this “one question” in as much detail yet as succinctly as I can. Then I can just refer people to this post and be done with them.

There is only one real question (this is NOT the “one question”) to ask, “Does gun control make the average person more or less safe?” Yes, we could debate what the 2nd Amendment really means. And we could debate how even if all guns were banned you would still have to reanimate your cold dead fingers before you could take it from me. But that is a distraction from the real question (again, NOT the “one question”), “Should firearms be restricted?”

There are essentially just two ways to look at the data–each has their weaknesses. You can look in one political or geographical area over two or more time periods where the gun laws are different. Or you can look at one time period in two or more political or geographical areas where the gun laws are different. There have been so many gun and weapon control laws passed over the years that there is no need to do any more experiments. The data is all out there. Researchers have written hundreds of papers and books on the subject.

My “one question” is this:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

There are three possible answers to this question.

  1. “I don’t know.” In which case my response is, “Come back to the debate when you can answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”
  2. “No.” In which case my response is, “Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don’t want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again.”
  3. “Yes and here is my demonstration.”

I have researched this fairly extensively and I can’t find the data to support a “Yes“ answer. I have asked a lot of people this question and I haven’t yet heard a “Yes” answer demonstrated. In October of 2003 the CDC released a study on this topic and couldn’t come up with a “Yes” answer either. I’m not the slightest bit worried someone will be able to come up with a defensible “Yes”.

If you are someone that has a “Yes” answer and believe you can conclusively demonstrate that then write it up and email it to me. Plan to have your work posted on a website of my choosing along with my comments. I will give you credit for your work or keep it anonymous–whichever you prefer. I will put links to those responses in the comments to this post.

Hint to potential takers–the U.K. versus the U.S. fails in a big way.  Look at before and after gun control was introduced in the U.K.

If you can’t come up with a defensible “Yes” answer and still persist in supporting gun control then you are either a bigot or an ignorant bigot.  Prepare to be called that to your face if you persist.

Any comments to this post presuming to support a “Yes” answer will be deleted.

Done. I’ll be referring people to this post in the future and severely reducing the time I spend debating.

Update January 26, 2009: We have a possible winner. Confirmation of the details are lacking but it looks promising. The gun grabbers aren’t going to like though.

Update January 14, 2013: More statistics and comparisons to other countries and between states:

I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.

…

Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.

Update January 4, 2013: Another study came out on November 26, 2013. It claims:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

I may become obsessed soon

Posted on by

I just stumbled across a web log for criminal justice in the U.K.  It has so much interesting information in it that I might find myself obsessed.  Sort of like watching the emergency crews at a accident scene.  It’s a tradegy and there’s nothing you can really do but see the mess the victim is in.  This site is filled with stuff like this:

And:

I’ve just barely begun to read the material and I’m all the more of the opinion that the U.K. is headed for disaster and the better option for crime control is to give enable the potential victims to give the universal hand signal for “GO AWAY!”.  Of course Kim du Toit has a reasonable approach as well:

…shoot the fucking goblin in the heart, at least twice, with a .45 pistol.

That is what Greg Hamilton calls, “the universal hand signal for LIE DOWN!”.

Bias in the news?

Posted on by

I have been reading the U.S. news media accounts of the battle in Falluja with a fair amount of interest but nearly all acounts were the same.  But thanks to Kim du Toit I got a pointer to a British account of the battle.  The difference is amazing.

On one extreme there is MSNBC:

As battles go, Fallujah has been a big disappointment to the U.S. military, which had wanted to draw the Iraqi insurgents into a cataclysmic mistake: a “fair” fight. Not that any officer relished the prospect of a Stalingrad- or Hue-like street-to-street, house-to-house blood-letting. But the alternative has even less to recommend it: a continuing series of roadside bombings and mortar and grenade ambushes that bleed American forces and frustrate efforts to secure Iraq ahead of January’s elections.

Unfortunately, from a military standpoint, the latter, less attractive option is the reality, and the choice was never the U.S. military’s to make. Iraq’s insurgents, with weeks to react as U.S. forces gathered and postured about what was about to happen in Fallujah, decided against turning it into al-Alamo. They saw the folly of taking on the Americans on their own terms, and they did what intelligent, determined guerrilla movements have always done in the face of overwhelming force: They faded away and lived to fight and kill and maim another day

On the other extreme is the Daily Telegraph:

American troops scored one of their biggest successes in the battle for Fallujah when an estimated 70 foreign fighters were killed in a massive precision artillery strike on a building in a mosque complex.

Military intelligence officers were last night trying to confirm that a “high-value target” or HVT died in the attack. The man is suspected of being a key lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq, and responsible for marshalling hard-line insurgence from other Arab countries.

…

A Humvee from Phantom troop fitted with a Long Range Acquisition System (LRAS) was moved to within two kilometres of the mosque, well inside its maximum range of 15km, to get a second opinion on what was happening. “The strike was so sensitive that it took more than an hour to approve it,” said Maj John Reynolds, operations officer for 2-2. “Normally it happens in minutes.”

American tanks engage insurgents on the streets of Fallujah
Lt Prakash was asked to provide a grid co-ordinate, accurate to within a metre, to minimise the chance of hitting the mosque, about 50 metres from the building.

At about 3pm, the higher authorisation came through and Lt Col Pete Newell, commanding 2-2 and with the call-sign Ramrod 6, gave the order to fire a barrage of 20 155mm high-explosive shells from howitzers about three miles away from the mosque.

Specialist James Taylor, manning the LRAS, watched the burst of shells hit.

“They landed on the left side of the building and I saw three bodies fly into the air,” he said. “It was awesome.”

Lt Prakash radioed that the rounds were right on target and requested 10 more to ensure maximum killing effect.

“One of the men was in a sniper position on the building,” said Lt Prakash. “I saw him fall off, hit the ground and bounce up. There were about five bodies that went three, four, five storeys up in the air. I’d already counted between 40 and 50 men going into that building. There were men running out, coughing and doubling over. The second lot of rounds took them out and all those who had been crossing the road.

Yes, I know completely different focus.  One is talking about the big picture and one is talking about the mechanics of one skirmish.  But my point is that MSNBC is entirely negative and that there are some very positive results available to report if they wanted to report them.  I mean 70 enemy, including a HVT, were precisely killed from afar without them even knowing they were in danger is as Specialist Jame Taylor says, “Awesome”.

If you want to prepare for al Qaeda take this class

Posted on by

I took this class a couple years ago — the al Qaeda Training tapes. The stuff has been in back of my mind and used for my own prep but I completely forgot to share it with others with all my postings about the new videos.

Here is part of the description of the class:

During this presentation you will VIEW video footage of Al Qaeda operatives engaging in training scenarios involving: Hostage taking/execution, Assassination, Kidnapping, Raids, Ambushes and Drive-by shootings. Specific skills/techniques seen include: Building entry (single and multiple breach/entry points,) Infiltration, 2-4 man room clearing, Target discrimination, Prisoner handling, Marksmanship (including marksmanship from moving vehicles,) and Rappelling. (This footage was filmed by Al Qaeda trainers while conducting advanced tactical training at a compound in Afghanistan).

The school house incident in Russia went down very similar to one of the training situations in the class. It’s very sobering stuff. It makes you realize how serious, how determined, and how well trained (not as good as our average combat solider but better than our average cop) these guys are.

If you can get enough people (dollars) together Insights will bring the class to your location. If you are serious about being prepared you should take this class.

Why the election related violence?

Posted on by

There is talk of riots if the Kerry-Edwards team doesn’t win.  There have been shootings and trashing of campaign offices.

On Monday, the Bush campaign provided a list of more than 40 examples it said had occurred since July, including the burglary from campaign offices of several items: two laptop computers in Seattle; a banner in Thousand Oaks; petty cash in Spokane, Wash.; as well as break-ins last Friday in Flagstaff, Ariz., and Cincinnati.

Also included were examples of lesser crimes including the defacement or theft of supporters’ lawn signs as well as broken windows, slashed tires, shots fired, bullet holes and thrown eggs at campaign offices.

In response to the Bush campaign’s incident list, Democrats countered with a list of 19 incidents aimed at the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, including a bullet that was fired into a supporter’s house, graffiti at campaign offices, the smashing of a mailbox bearing Kerry campaign stickers and the theft of a laptop in Norristown, Pa.

I don’t recall this happening on this scale before.  Is my memory off?  Or is something else going on?  I remember when I was involved on the no on I-676 campaign that there were lots of complaints of our yard signs being stolen (Boomershooter Steve M. was losing about three or four a week) but our offices were never broken into and there weren’t any reports of intimidation by either side.  But election violence, in other countries, is actually quite common according to what some people tell me.

So why the change in our country now?  My hypothesis is that people are getting violent because the government has more control than it used to.  It used to be the government stayed within the bounds of the constitution to a greater extent than now.  When the consequences of a change in power of the government was highly constrained it just didn’t matter that much who was in power.  But now that the Federal government is involved in so many things it didn’t use to have control over such as health care, education, firearm ownership, gay marriage, etc. the consequences of “your side” loosing are significant enough that people can justify, in their own minds, the violence.  This is just as people in other countries with few limits to government control can justify their violence.

It is my prediction that as the power of government increases the frequency and intensity of election related violence will increase.  Vote Libertarian and stop the violence.

Muslim child programming

Posted on by

The video tapes found in Afganistan show kids holding rifles and talking of killing Jews, the book American Jihad tells of kids coloring books that show how to kill infidals, and now there is a television show that encourage kids to use an AK-47 to committ a massacre if someone (Israeli soldiers) cuts down a tree.

To win the “war on terrorism” (it really is a war against Islamic extremists) in the long term we need to destroy their culture.  As long as they raise their children to kill non-believers we will continue to be faced with the choice as given in the Qur’an, to convert to Islam, be killed, or kill the Muslim plotters and attackers.

National ID card is on its way

Posted on by

The Liberty Committee just sent out an alert.  Anymore it is rare for me to urge people to send letter and contact their congress critters or other low life people, with power over them.  However this issue is one I am very passionate (and I believe rational) about.  Please read the alert and decide for yourself whether you want a national ID card and database.  Then do the appropriate thing.  The following was my confirmation and letter from my efforts on this.  Please also consider the contents of my web page on this issue.

Thank you for using The Liberty Committee Mail System

Message sent to the following recipients:
Mr. Otter
Message text follows:

Joe Huffman
[snip]
Moscow, ID 83843

October 22, 2004

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

Please work to have the House-Senate conference committee remove the
provisions that will create a master database on every American (H.R. 10,
section 2173) and the provision that will “standardize” or nationalize the
issuing of state driver’s licenses — an action which takes the final step
in creation a national ID (H.R. 10, section 3052).

I am a senior research scientist for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
with a very high level security clearance [deleted on May 18, 2005 in an
attempt to please PNNL management].  I recognize the threat we are
facing from the Muslim extremists, but giving up these freedoms does not
make us safer in the long run.  Please do what you can to kill this
national ID proposal.  Please also see the web page I have created
addressing this threat to our freedoms.

https://www.joehuffman.org/Freedom/IDCardFlaws.htm

Sincerely,

Joe Huffman
208-301-4254

Gun crime is up so ban toy guns

Posted on by

In the U.K. they have already banned real guns.  But crimes committed with guns is way up so the only thing left to do is ban imitation guns which is what these morons have proposed now.  This really should be a post for when prophecy fails.  I’ll get around to that later.

Complete article follows:

Greens call for tougher gun control

22nd Oct 2004

Conference proposes restrictions on imitation firearms

In response to rising levels of gun crime (1), the Green Party’s autumn conference, currently taking place in Weston-Super-Mare has endorsed tough new proposals on gun control.

The Green Party backs restrictions on the sale and ownership of imitation weapons and decommissioned weapons in response to the massive rise in their use in crimes.

Green Party Chairperson and Home affairs spokesperson Hugo Charlton commented;

“These measures are urgently required in order to combat the growing problem of crimes committed using imitation weapons. These replicas are dangerous; they are used in a growing number of crimes; they must be taken off our streets.”

“Our proposals on the licensing of active firearms will put public safety above the convenience of shooters: those applying for gun licences will bear the cost of the necessary psychological tests; they will be required to produce character references; they will be made to bear the cost that

Charles Bailey, founder of the “Don’t shoot” campaign, endorsed the Green Party?s position: “The Greens are taking the issue of gun crime seriously. They are putting forward policies that will really stop the incidence of gun crime on London’s streets.”

(1) Yesterday the Home Office released figures showing a 3% annual rise in gun crime over the past year. The figures also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation.

Pathetic anti-gun turnout

Posted on by

Time after time I have seen this happen.  But this is one of the few times I have seen it mentioned in the news.  I’ve been a counter protester when the pro-freedom people outnumbered the anti-freedom people 10:1.  A “gun violence educational” (it really was a group of people wanting to register and ban guns) presentation where all the people in the audience were firearms instructors.  This time the paper gives them lots of coverage as usual but also mentioned they only had nine people show up.  They pointed out that there was a big sign saying they didn’t want any input from the pro-freedom side, and they include information in the article that shows they aren’t even consistent — are these military weapons as the speaker says?  Or are they different as an anti-gun web site (correctly) says.

NEW PORT RICHEY – Art Hayhoe can’t fathom why a 10- year ban on semiautomatic weapons was allowed to expire this month.

…

“Who in God’s name wants to sell civilians fully militarized weapons of war that are designed to kill as many people [as possible] as fast as possible?” he said to an audience of nine.

According to information distributed by the Violence Policy Center, semiautomatic weapons are more accurate than machine guns and military assault weapons. The center is a national nonprofit organization that works to establish policies that reduce “gun-related death and injury.”

Unlike machine guns and military assault weapons, which can fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled and the ammunition lasts, triggers of semiautomatic weapons must be pulled every time a round is fired, according to the Violence Policy Center.

I believe the anti-freedom people are falling apart along the with the left in general and the press is finally starting to realize they have been lied to and the anti-freedom people are morally bankrupt.  Our job is to keep up the pressure up and push these people into political extinction.

More beheadings this week

Posted on by

Grisly news.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 21 — An Islamist group said today that it had beheaded the second of two Americans seized with a Briton last week, according to a Web site that has proven reliable in such matters.

The Islamist Web site said that the killing of the hostage, Jack Hensley, had been announced in a statement from the group and that a video of the execution would be posted later in the day. Western news agencies and the Arab news service Al Jazeera also carried reports of the killing, citing statements posted on the Internet.

“The lions slaughtered the second American hostage after the end of the deadline,” one such statement attributed to the group said.

The families of Mr. Hensley and the Briton, Kenneth Bigley, had pleaded earlier in the day for officials to help get the men released hours after the group beheaded the other American, Eugene Armstrong.

The Islamist group, One God and Holy War, led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, posted an Internet video after midnight showing the decapitation of Mr. Armstrong, a 53-year-old engineer kidnapped from his home in the capital last Thursday. The group threatened that the other two men, also engineers, would meet a similar fate in 24 hours if its demands were not met.

[In Washington, a C.I.A. official said that the agency had assessed with “high certainty” that the voice of the man who carried out the beheading on the first videotape, showing Mr. Armstrong’s death, was that of Mr. Zarqawi.]

I’ve heard of people wanting to nuke Mecca for this sort of thing.  There are other people suggesting even worse things on a global scale.  I think it’s unlikely we will, or should, do either.  But either the U.S., the Russians or some other nation state will get very, very heavy handed if this sort of thing continues much longer.  After the election Bush will likely not be nearly so restrained.  The problem is that we don’t have many options.   There is nothing to negoitate when someone insists you must convert to Islam or fight.  I’ve mentioned some of the things here before that have crossed my mind.  From the rational to the angry and vengeful.  There is another way that probably would work and would save Islam from being targeted for extinction one way or another.  If the vast majority of Muslims would publically denounce the beheading and the taking of innocent hostages.  The Islamic culture as a whole, must turn on the extremists that cannot tolerate non-believers and point them out to the authorities for capture or extremely close observation.  If they don’t the civilized world will be convinced of the necessity to destroy the entire religion.

Intelligence agencies reorganization

Posted on by

Technically speaking, I’m part of the “intelligence community” in this country.  My involvement is very minimal and I really don’t know how the reorganization recommended by the 9-11 commission would affect “our“ effectiveness from an insider viewpoint.  However, [Deleted on May 18, 2005 in an attempt to please PNNL management] a friend running for U.S. Congress asked me for my thoughts on the issue so I’m going to do my best.  My “position” inside the intelligence community contributes essentially zero to this.  My position would be the same even if I were still working on the “outside”.  [Deleted on May 18, 2005 in an attempt to please PNNL management]

The specific questions I was asked were:

  • Would you favor consolidating intelligence-gathering into an agency independent of the Pentagon?
  • Do you believe the chief of any such agency should also be independent of the White House?
  • What one measure most needs to be enacted to make our nation more secure?

The U.S. intelligence agencies are tasked (and rightly so) with invading the privacy of people and countries who might wish to do us harm.  Information is a very powerful thing and extreme power needs to be carefully controlled.  The U.S. military is the primary consumer of the information because they are tasked with preventing harm to us.  So having them control the intelligence agencies seems to me to be a good idea.  Furthermore the U.S. military is specifically forbidden from acting against U.S. citizens (the National Guard is under the authority of the individual states) .  This is a very good thing.  Many other countries do not have this restriction on their military and this has lead to some very serious problems (genocide). 

But what about gathering information on people that are in our country already and wish to do us harm?  The FBI and other law enforcement people have to “jump through hoops” to gather information — probable cause for search warrants signed by judges, that sort of thing.  The NSA and the CIA don’t bother with such niceties (although I suspect they have their own internal controls).  As severe as I think the threat from terrorists is I still fear our own government more.  A look at history will show that more innocent, non-combatant, people have been killed by their own government that by the governments of others.  And the terrorists that confront us now do not have the capacity to kill millions (as much as they would like to).  I believe the wall between the law enforcement and intelligence agencies is a long term good thing even though short term is it seen as a hindrance to security.  The wall doesn’t need to be complete, there should be information shared but it must exist and having the military in control of the intelligence side of the house is a good way (in my mind) to help keep an appropriate wall in place.

As to “What one measure most needs to be enacted to make our nation more secure?“ Security might be enhanced by deporting anyone professing Islamic faith.  But that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.  Security might be enhanced by eavesdropping on all electronic communication but that would violate the 4th amendment.  But the one thing we can do that will not infringe on anyone’s inalienable rights is to enable preventive measures that would have stopped the 9-11 attacks and have stopped the attack on the school children of Russia the other day.  Enforce the restriction imposed by the Second Amendment on the states, cities, and agencies of the U.S. government.  The 2nd amendment says “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  The 14th Amendment says the states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…“  The States and government regulations that prohibit adults from carrying firearms and other defensive tools in schools and on airplanes should be immediately abolished.  We don’t want any more commercial airplanes used as guided missiles or our schools used as killing fields.  Allow people to defend themselves and the lives of other innocent people.  Enforce the 2nd amendment through the use of the 16th amendment.  Any government employee who violates the 2nd amendment rights of a citizen under the color of law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So…. to answer the questions:

  • No.  I am not in favor of consolidating the agencies independent of the Pentagon.
  • If such a consolidation were to occur I would want it to be independent of direct political control.  I think we learned that lesson with Richard Nixon.  If he had an first class intelligence agency rather than second rate burglars to spy on his political opponents he would have violated the rights of a lot more people and probably gotten away with it.
  • Abolish all gun laws against law abiding adult citizens.

European Union seeks diplomatic solution to Islamic terrorism

Posted on by

I had never really followed the EU much.  It was sort of, okay, whatever.  Others complain about them being a bunch of wimps and various other derogatory things.  I didn’t really have an opinion — then I read the following:

The European Union, already at odds with the Bush administration over pre-emptive military strikes, reacted warily to a warning from Moscow that it too reserved the right to neutralize terror threats anywhere in the world.

Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces, said Wednesday that “we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world.”
.
.
.
The European Union argues that a policy of pre-emptive strikes is too risky. A security strategy paper approved by EU governments last year said emphasis should be placed on diplomatic and political solutions.

“Diplomatic and political solutions” often work if you are dealing with a nation state.  I think it was 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001 were from Saudi Arabia.  Should we have started negotiations with Saudi Arabia to find out why they attacked us?  No?  Why is that?  Oh, because it was Osma bin Laden that was the top leader of that attack not the Saudi government.  So perhaps we should negotiate with him.  He sent us an open letter after the attack, clearly spelling out the conditions required before the attacks would stop.  I commented on this letter before so I don’t need to do that in depth here, but the bottom line is that we need to convert to Islam and stop the immorality and debauchery including fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest.  We need to rule ourselves under the laws of Shariah of Allah rather than invent our own laws.  If we fail to respond to all (emphasis added) these conditions then we will need to fight the Islamic Nation. 

Okay, so tell me how we can find a diplomatic solution to this position of our adversary?  Who wants to give up the U.S. Constitution and turn our justice system over to Islamic Clerics?  Maybe we could just reinstate prohibition and execute homosexuals.  Does anyone think that perhaps this would be sufficient to satisfy them? Does anyone think that is an acceptable compromise?  I don’t, and I’m not a homosexual and only very rarely drink any alcohol.  If those laws were passed it would only have the most minor of immediate effects on me and my lifestyle.  But it still is totally and completely unacceptable to me.  I would rather imprison and/or kill a hundred thousand Islamic extremists and loose another thousand U.S. lives than agree to that one point.  And what cost do you think we should be willing to pay to avoid the rule of “Shariah of Allah”?  I’d rather start up special pig (and web) farms for the Islamic terrorists we need to “process”.  As sad and as distasteful as it may be it would be better to run a million Islamic extremists through the pig farms than for the world to live under an Islamic theocratic rule.

So, IMHO, the EU is a bunch of totally clueless wimps.  If they want to “place emphasis on diplomatic and political solutions” then I would like to suggest they pursue that path with the Russians.  I think perhaps the Russians would agree to let the EU leaders shovel their pig manual.

Dealing with Islamic extremists

Posted on by

The whole Russian schoolchildren thing really upset me.  I still cry every once in a while when I’m tired.  I end up thinking about solutions to the problem every time something reminds me of them drinking their own urine to avoid dehyridation or being shot in the back as they tried to escape.  On the reality front I’m giving a couple presentations to the Air Force tomorrow on ideas for defending against some of the attacks used by the people we are fighting.  In my fantasies I think along the lines of what to do with those that kill children and behead civilians workers and reporters and sometimes post the video tape on their web sites.  This is my latest thought which should, of course, be video taped for our web sites and the news.

  1. Strip them naked.
  2. Stake them to ground in a pen full of hungry pigs.
  3. Let them be eaten alive (or dead if they had previously absorbed excess lead).
  4. There should be close ups of their genitals being ripped off and chewed by the pigs.
  5. Close ups as the manure with bits of hair and bone come out the other end.
  6. Package up the manure and put it in “bombs“.  We were using laser guided concrete “blocks” during parts of the war so this should be easy enough.
  7. Drop the bombs on their mosques.

This should apply to the following groups of people:

  1. Anyone who deliberately injures or threatens to injure innocent life.
  2. Any enemy combantant (with some possible exceptions for those that have been extremely helpful and appear to have given up their religious beliefs) whose release is demanded by those that make the threats or injures innocent life.

So much for fantasies.  I need to get some rest so I can wake up early enough to do a good job with reality tomorrow.

Islamic extremist activities

Posted on by

Reading news.google.com today I find mention of Twin Suicide Bombings on Israeli Buses, Moscow Suicide Bomer Kills 10, Injures 51, Video Claims to Show Hostages Being Killed, France Pushes to Save Hostages in Iraq, and Darfur Conditions Said Worse, Talks Resume.  And that’s just a single snapshot of the current situation.  That doesn’t include the two planes that were taken down in Russia or the Italian journalist killed last week.  From a quick glance it would appear we have a world wide war on our hands.  The Islamic extremists versus the non-Muslims. 

This is consistent with this post I made and with Bin Laden’s open letter to America.  Ry and I were talking about this a few weeks ago and didn’t come up with anything much better than what Bush is already trying to do in Iraq.  Provide a “shining beacon” of non-religious prosperity and tolerance to the Islamic world in their own backyard.  Then capture or kill anyone that tries to destroy our example or us.  Short term we will draw them to the people best able to deal with them — our soldiers in armored vehicles and airborne gunships.  As long as they are drawn to the fighting in Iraq they aren’t bringing down our civilian airplanes, commercial buildings, or blowing up our buses.  Long term we need to destroy the culture that breeds these type of intolerant people.  We have been doing that, but unintentionally, which is part of the reason they hate us so.  Their young people see the sex, recreational drugs (including alcohol), and general decadent lifestyle (gambling, women with exposed skin, etc) and fail to have an interest in the Spartan religious life.  We have been destroying their culture through subversion of their youth with our culture for decades.  As our communication and culture propagates around the globe they see the “end of the line” for their way of life and their religion.

So… it appears to Ry and I they have a sensitive spot they are responding to with violent action.  That must mean they want us to stop.  I do not believe they will ever willingly stop their war on our culture.  We have been in a culture war with them for 1500 years or so.  It’s not going to stop in the next five or ten years.  Our only course of action that will guarantee this war will stop is to finish the job.  Their culture must be destroyed.  Don’t we have sufficient evidence that they want nothing less than our total destruction?  If you don’t think that is true then take a look at Bin Laden’s letter again.  So… given that we must destroy their culture then we should expend more effort in accomplishing this task.  The question is how do we do this?  One of Ry’s suggestions was dropping porn magazine out of airplanes over Muslim population centers.  How about air dropping samples of wine, beer, cards (gambling), and dice?  Or even just putting free internet access in their cities?  They apparently have a “soft spot” in the minds of their youth.  We should take advantage of it.  Long term it is our only acceptable solution.  The visible alternatives are not acceptable.

Flight ID Fight Revived

Posted on by

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64599,00.html

Backed by a phalanx of civil liberties groups, civil liberties iconoclast John Gilmore on Monday relaunched his legal campaign against the federal government’s requirement that airlines ask passengers for photo identification in order to board a plane.

Gilmore, who began his fight against the identification requirement in the summer of 2002, filed suit Monday in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking the court to force the government to reveal the requirement and to declare it an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel.

If you walk down the street to visit your neighbor you can’t legally be stopped and asked for ID unless there is some reasonable belief that you are engaged in a crime in some sort.  Same thing as a passenger in a car or bus.  However on an airplane the government thinks it can require you to identify yourself.  John Gilmore is challenging that.  I am pleased.  Identification by itself does nothing to increase our safety other than as a mild deterrent to those that fear being caught after committing a crime.  In order for it to have any hope in terms for detecting intent to commit a crime you must check a database that has background information on the person.  If you have such a database it will be abused.  Politicians will use it for digging up “the dirt” on their opponents, the reglious zealots will want to use it to out gays, the anti-semites will use it to harrass Jews, just to give a few examples.  Information is power and concentrated power is always abused.  Don’t tell me that line about “we just need to get good people in government”.  Power attracts the worst people.  “Good people” are either repulsed by power or scared of doing something wrong when given great power and avoid it.  Why do you think communism and socialism have been such huge failures?  It’s because they give government way too much power and that power attracts evil people.  An ID system with the required database to make it really “do something useful” is an invitation to abuse.  Don’t let it happen here.

Update:  I found John Gilmores web site: http://www.toad.com/gnu/.  I just did a quick scan but I didn’t find anything I disagreed with him on.  He is even gun friendly.  I should sent him an invitation to the next boomershoot as a special guest.

Islamic terrorists

Posted on by

Every once in a while I hear someone, either in person or on some news outlet, claim something to the effect that we need to learn how to life in peace with the Islamic fundamentalists that wish to do us harm. Basically what they are saying is that we must be doing something that pisses them off and we should stop doing whatever that is and then we could get along. Putting this as gently as I can – people that believe that are delusional. Read Osama bin Laden’s letter to America (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html) carefully. Here are some excerpts:

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

…

2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives? (ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

…

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.

Another data point, if that wasn’t clear enough, was a comment from a guy I know at the CIA who works with psychologists there (no, I can’t prove I actually talked to someone at the CIA, those guys don’t hand out business cards). He told me, “Very few people in the U.S. understand, or can understand, how different these people think from us. Their thought processes are completely foreign to us.”

What are you going to say to someone that says you must give up “trading with interest“, our constitutional form of government and accept a government based on the Quran or prepare to fight? My response is, expressed with a great deal of sadness, our resolve is just as great as yours and until you can respect our way of life we will take this fight to you and we will kill as many of your warriors as we have to before they ever set foot on our soil. We will do our best to make sure this fight is on your soil with your homes and with your families in harms way. Our homes and families will continue our way of life in as much peace as we can give them. You can respect us or you can fear us, but you will not harm us, prepare to harm us, or conspire to harm us, or you will imprisoned and/or killed.  I realize you are willing to die for your cause but there is a certain amount of symmetry in that — we are willing to kill for ours.

State regulated nursing homes

Posted on by

I got a call from Barb today.  She was pretty upset.  The nursing home where her mother, Joy, lives was audited by the state of Idaho and was told they have too high a percentage of patients that have railing on their bed.  Barb’s mom was one of the residents that would have their railings removed.  Joy has fallen out of bed three times and in one of those falls broke her hip.  A railing seems to be more than just a good idea, but the state has some sort of quota system and Joy was going to pay the price.  Barb called the state inspector and was told, “You are very hostile.  Calm down.”  Barb managed to get some of the anger out of her voice but she still expressed her view of what the inspector should do in regards to the stupid regulations.  The inspector told her that maybe her mother could have her bed on the floor instead of having a railing.  For some reason this helpful suggestion was not received with as much enthusiasm as might have been expected.  Another suggestion was that we take her out of the state licensed nursing home.  This is actually a rather good suggestion if it wasn’t for the fact that the state takes so much of our money in taxes that we cannot afford private care for her.  We could have provided far better care for her if our tax rate was 1/2 of what it currently is.

I explained this is the sort of thing that happens with government “provided” anything.  They take our money from us because they know how to spend it better than we do.  They then spend it according to the whims of the “central committee” and the central committee in their infinite wisdom will come up with rules such as what we are experiencing in this case.  It happens all the time.  It’s not just health care, it’s nearly everything the central committee does.

Vote Liberatarian, the party of principle. 

Philosophy Question for the Winter of ’98*

Posted on by

Q: What are the proper limits to government?  Can it be determined by popular vote?  Or are there limits that absolutely must be respected?

By this I mean, suppose that 90% of the people voted to kill all but 2% of the male babies at birth and just keep those few around for breeding stock.  Would it be acceptable to do so?  90% is more that enough to get a constitutional amendment through to overcome any sort of impediment like that.  So what if 10% of the people didn’t want most of their male children killed at birth.   The majority rules right?  What if it was blacks, native Americans, whites, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, or some other racial/religious group that was being exterminated by popular vote?  How is it that we should determine just what our inalienable rights are?  Some people think the Bill of Rights in the US constitution are a pretty good enumeration.  But then there are those that have a problem with the Second Amendment.   And a few that have a problem with the fourth — due process sort of gets in the way occasionally in the “War on Drugs”.  But just a little, we have overlooked it for the most part.

I see our Bill of Rights under extreme attack from our government.  Is it essential to freedom?  Or just a bunch of loopholes for criminals to make a mockery of our laws?

Send me email. I want to know. If you say it’s okay, I’ll publish your response here.

*This originally appear on a web page of mine. I am moving it here for better visibility and archival.—Joe November 5, 2010

Philosophy Question for the Month of July ’97*

Posted on by

Question: When, if ever, is it morally justifiable to disobey the law?

This is a 4th of July question, Boston Tea Party, and that sort of thing. And also, I think this is particularly relevant at this time because of the Timothy McVeigh trial. In the most general case I think it is possible that some people (certainly McVeigh and Terry Nichols, assuming they did it) do not think a bombing of this type is necessarily wrong.

At what point would YOU decide to disobey the law if the laws and the government enforcing them depart from your beliefs in regard to morality? For example, would you have been willing to hide Jews in Germany in the late ’30s? Would you be willing to take up arms and shoot at the Gestapo as they dragged the Jews who lived next door away? Or if the Gestapo (or what ever it might be called in your time and place) were about to drag you and your family away? Or help runaway slaves during the 1850’s and early 1860’s in the US? Or would you as a member of the US army fired upon Native American women and children after being ordered to? Or what if our government required everyone to have an electronic identification device imbedded in his or her skull? Or your SSN tattooed on your wrist? Or required that you (as a non-criminal — until now) register with the police every time you left one jurisdiction and entered a new police jurisdiction (it could made easy with today’s technology — magnetic encoded credit card like badges at the county lines and town borders — that sort of thing)? Or required that you show positive ID for every purchase you made (makes it hard to conceal your feeding the family of ‘Jews’ living in your attic). Or what if the police start making “routine checks” of your vehicles for drugs, politically incorrect weapons (the UK has outlawed many types of knifes), and other contraband? What about registration of your firearms? Confiscation of your firearms? Possession of more than X rounds of ammunition? Or what if the government required that you obtained permission before having a child? Or required that your child be taught a version of history that you believed was incorrect? Or prohibited you from viewing certain materials? Or prohibited you from criticizing the government? Or prohibited you from private meetings (a public “watchdog” must be in attendance and the entire meeting video taped) of more than X people? Or declared that mere possession of explosive components was a crime (never mind that kitchen flour can be made to explode)? Or a tax on singles/gays/non-whites/whatever? Or (il)legal abortion? There are people who believe abortion is murder. Is their claim that much different than believing Jews are human and qualified to enjoy the same rights as other humans even though the law claims they are not (US law on abortion, compared to 1939 German laws regarding people of Jewish descent)? Would you break the law to stop someone from having a legal abortion? Others claim abortion is a right. If abortion was illegal in your state or country would you help someone to obtain one in another state or country even if such action were against the law?

Basically, at what point, if any, do you, as a freedom loving person, declare you are willing to disobey authority and potentially suffer the consequences? And further, at what point, if any, are you willing to use force to exercise that freedom or prevent the arrest and/or prosecution of people trying to exercise their freedoms? And if you are, at some point, willing to use force, what form would that force be?

Or perhaps you are one who says, “the law is the law”, or “peace at any cost”. And if so, what would you say to Patrick Henry, who declared, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Or to Samuel Adams who in 1776 said:

If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

And if so, what would you say to the families of the millions who fought the British, the Japanese, the Germans, and all the others and ended up giving their lives for your freedom? Would you tell them, “Freedom is just not that important to me?” Or, “I wouldn’t give it up to another government, but if my government takes it from me, that’s okay?”

Answers: As if there is a definitive answer. Heavy sigh. Okay, I read a bunch of books, still more to read so as I get more information on the subject that I think is worthwhile I’ll update this.

Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi said that under no circumstances should violence be used. In fact he did things such as call off exceedingly successful, peaceful, strikes because he wanted the authorities to be able to save face. Interesting technique, yes? Another thing he did, when he disobeyed the law he would tell the authorities exactly what he was going to do. He felt that time in prison was well spent, he got to rest, pray, and meditate. And Gandhi was enormously successful in getting changes in the laws. He also believed the Jews in Nazi Germany could “… score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted the latter to an appreciation of human dignity.” All without a single violent act on their part. Believable? Read on. This was first published in Harijan on November 11, 1938. I found it in Gandhi The Power of Pacifism, pages 146 and 147:

If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon…. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription ere offered, he or they cannot be worse of than now…. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary sacrifice, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving that Jehovah had wrought deliverance for the race even at the hands of a tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror….

If I had to summarize Gandhi’s method in a way that most people could grasp just a glimmer of what he was talking about it would be as follows:

Gandhi’s philosophy was to have no fear. Fear of absolutely nothing. Not fines, nor loss of property, nor prison, nor torture, nor death. He acquired no property. He made his own clothes (for reasons related to the exploitation of factory workers) right down to the spinning of the yarn. When you are in that position, in many ways you make yourself nearly invulnerable to authority. They cannot successfully threaten you. They can only physically restrain you (death being the ultimate physical restraint). And even government authority has limits to its resources. How many people can they physically restrain at once?

Interesting, yes? You become powerful as you are stripped of all possessions — as long as you have no fear. There are hints that the Germans thought he was onto something, the same book, on page 146 claims, “After the publication … in 1938 …the Nazi press launched a fierce attack against Gandhi.”

What I have been unable to find from my readings of Gandhi is some method for objectively determining what laws should be disobeyed. There are vague things about injustice, and lots of examples of things he protested against, but nothing (yet) that helps answer the fundamental question.

Katie

Katie, my wife’s sister-in-law is very much involved in Catholicism (she would be a priest if the religion would allow it). I asked about her thoughts on when it was morally justified to disobey the law. Again it was vague on the when and specific on the non-violence. Also of interest is that apparently the Church has made some fairly recent changes in their doctrine about war. There used to be a concept of a “just war”. If some specific conditions were met then a war could be considered “just” if it were waged in a proper manner (no action taken against civilians, that sort of thing). They no longer have such a doctrine. Something about nuclear weapons, fallout, etc. I asked about personal defense. Is it acceptable to use force to defend yourself or other innocent people against someone that is attempting to physically harm you. She said that was left up to the individual. It’s not a sin to do that. I found this odd. If an individual could use force to defend themselves, then wouldn’t it be acceptable for a group of people to use force? And if a group can use force to resist why can’t a government wage war against an aggressor? I didn’t have the opportunity to get into that with her, perhaps another time.

 

The Lawyer’s Second Amendment Society

The Lawyers Second Amendment Society (LSAS) recently had two articles  in The Liberty Pole about “Tripwires” (see My Tripwire and Ultimate Tripwire).  Great reading.  Basically, in My Tripwire the authors say censorship is the ultimate tripwire.  As long as we may speak, publish, and associate freely, we have the means to resist tyranny.  They claim firearms confiscation is easy to evade and therefore is only secondary in importance as a tripwire.   As long as we have the means to expose the truth we have the means to change the system.  They go on to say the basis of when to resist is as follows:

The enforcement of any laws–local,state or federal–that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

If you have to look up “nugatory” don’t feel bad.  I had to also — it means “Having no force, invalid”.  Thus, they claim, firearms confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because it will make resistance impossible.

In Ultimate Tripwire a different author comments on the previous article and says:

… there are two additional and significant “tripwires:” (1) Positive Identification of the enemy, and (2) A strict constructionist leader.

This is because of his concern for anarchy.  Only if resistance is focused on the problem and a solution will resistance be preferable to the problem.

John Ross

Unintended Consequences by John Ross:  Another expression of basically the same viewpoint that I have heard expressed, most recently via an email discussion with someone, is put forth in the book Unintended Consequences.  Basically it is this: When one’s ability to resist is under assault, that is the time to fight to the teeth. One of the major characters in the book give the analogy of someone inviting you to ride with him in his van.  Perhaps even insisting that you take the ride with him.  When you get to the van he asks you to put handcuffs on that secure you to the van.  It might be entirely innocent, but can you take the chance?   If you accept the invitation you will be without significant recourse if it turns into a hostile situation.  You must resist while you still have the means.

Turner Diaries

How about The Turner Diaries? Check out my review of The Turner Diaries on Amazon.com.  Basically the main character “Earl Turner” joins the underground and violently resists the federal government when they arrest him for possession of a firearm.  He and the others in his organization blame their political situation on the Jews and non-whites — which must be exterminated.  Non-whites are sub humans and therefore are a genetic pollutant to the human race.  Laws which protect them are “racial treason”.   This author needs to do some thinking on my question for the fall of ’97 — How do you determine right from wrong? Truth from falsity? Because, if he still believes as the main characters in the book do, he doesn’t have a clue.

Joe Huffman

My thoughts are probably best described as a mixture of Gandhi and Ross.  Quite a combination huh?  There are injustices that demand action.  Those actions should be non-violent if at all possible.  But, there are cases when violence is fully justified.  I think Winston Churchill says it best for me:

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Email response

I think this person obtained this from someplace else, and I’m not sure he/she wants their name on it anyway, so I’ll leave it as anonymous.

Remember the lessons of the 20th Century:

Lesson No. 1:

If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you don’t want to go because of who you are or what you think– kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent them. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant’s executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.

 

Lesson No. 2:

If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms– kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

 

Lesson No. 3:

If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you may be more easily identified– tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that aren’t on their list.

 

Lesson No. 4

Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is “democratically elected” doesn’t mean that he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932. And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, doesn’t mean he believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others. The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate doesn’t mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled “Showers” doesn’t necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of “is” is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants– but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.

*This originally appear on a web page of mine. I am moving it here for better visibility and archival.—Joe November 5, 2010