In Massachusetts, a man was sentenced to a year in prison for shooting a coworker who was busy knifing him–for the second time–even though the Massachusetts Supreme Court admitted that “it is possible that the defendant is alive today only because he carried the gun that day for protection.”
From the book “Lost Rights”, page 221.
by James Bovard
MA SC quote from Commonwealth v. Lindsay,
396 Mas. 840, 489 N.E. 2d 666, 669 (1986)
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!”.
The October 15th issue of Chicago Reader has a picture of Stephanie Sailor shooting a Barrett .50 BMG at Boomershoot 2001. She was wearing my coat at the time.
Barb’s brother, Dow, sent us three copies of the newspaper. You can read the article here.
As always, there are errors in the story. But it was reasonably positive. Especially considering this is Chicago we are talking about. Illinois and Chicago in particular are exceedingly anti-gun. Stephanie is very pro-gun. The article does not attempt to hide that part of her position, but the headline is a bit discomforting. It’s not in the online version but it was the caption for the picture of Stephanie with the Barrett .50 BMG and said, “Can This Woman Take Down Jesse Jackson Jr.“ As Ry said, “I know it’s a good headline, but you know, perhaps they could have reworded it.“
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.
What was that again? Insanity is expecting a different result when nothing has changed? Well, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence must be insane then. This is a recent press release of theirs:
For more than 25 years, the District’s handgun and assault weapon bans have helped reduce the risk of deadly handgun violence. The citizens of the District support these laws and should be permitted to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, and workplaces. This attempted repeal is being brought by members of Congress who don’t represent DC and who don’t care about public safety.
For years D.C. has been the murder capital, or very close, of the U.S. Just a stone’s throw away in Virginia where it’s legal to use the best available defensive tools the murder rate is much lower. These lunatics want to continue with the proven failures of victim disarmament.
I don’t know what data they base their risk on but it sure seems to me that someone is either trying to make a lot of money or they don’t have a good idea of what their risks are. The bottom line is that if you are a NRA member you can buy insurance to cover lawyer and liabilty costs if you use your firearm in self defense. For a $100K benefit it cost $165/year and for a $250K benefit it costs $254/year.
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.
The ATF posted this on it’s web site:
Semiautomatic Assault Weapon Update
By statute, the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, certain sections of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR Part 478, are no longer in effect.
I celebrated by assembling some full capacity magazines for my competition handgun out of parts I had laying around. The anti-freedom crowd are whining to such an extent that it is almost deafening. Here is something the Violence Policy Center put out:
Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing “post-ban” assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban’s passage in 1994.
It appears the VPC has a problem defining words. By the definitions they helped create for the ’94 law the manufactures complied with the law. Congress and the anti-freedom people were told again and again their definition of “assault weapon” was meaningless. It nothing to do with the function of the firearms. Their concern was all about cosmetics. Then when the manufactures changed the cosmetics they complained that they were still making “assault weapons”. Well… we on the pro-freedom side of the fence never could figure out what you were calling an “assault weapon” other than by the cosmetics as defined in the law.
The questions a rational person has to ask are, “What definition of ‘assault weapon’ are you using now?” and “If the definition that Congress used wasn’t what you meant why didn’t you complain about it then?” You got what you wanted at the time. You made all kinds of claims about how wonderful it was to have the law passed, the studies were done as per the law and they found out EXACTLY what we were saying at the time–the law will not make any difference in violent crime. I made an appearance on a television show in August of ’95 saying some of this if anyone wants to check this out I’ll let them see the video. And more importantly you can’t change the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to fit whatever is convenient at the time. For example they say about one out of five police officers are killed with an ‘assault weapon’. Well…. they don’t tell you what their definition of an “assault weapon” is for that number to be true. It’s abundantly clear that it’s NOT the definition used in Federal law.
Oh well… it’s all part of the meltdown of the liberals–Clinton and “what your definition of ‘is’ is.” and all that. And then Dan Rather and CBS are the laughing stock of the nation today. As my friend Sean says: “Today is Happy News Day.”
The California Legislature banned toy guns (probably requires that you register) in public. Okay, they sort of have a rational basis for it. I’m all for letting Darwin take care of the problem but in a Nanny state you can’t expect that. But what really got to me was that some of the legislators reaction to the toys brought into chambers. They were told they were toy guns before they were brought into the chambers but they still were so afraid they moved away.
Before Spitzer began speaking in favor of the measure on the Assembly floor, lawmakers were told he had permission from Democratic and Republican leaders to bring replicas to the chamber. Still, the sight of realistic-looking firearms — an M60 assault weapon and a 9mm handgun replica supplied by the Department of Justice — upset some lawmakers, a few of whom moved away from Spitzer and formally objected.
Is there a way to get these people some psychiatric help? People this sick should be removed from public office.
How do you liberate a people when even talk about liberation by the politicians bring demands of their removal? A politician in the U.K. suggested that kids should be taught safe gun handling and his opponents demand he be sacked.
I don’t know of any instance where a country has given up their right to keep and bear arms and then regained it peacefully.
No surprise with the gun liability protection legislation being shot down today. It was loaded up with an extension of the ugly gun ban and the gun-show ban legislation. The sponsors of the gun liability protection bill dropped the whole thing. It is a stalemate.
Subject: Re: [#7423143] No more Google AdWords for my business.
From: AdWords Support
Date: Thu, February 26, 2004 0:30
To: Joe Huffman
Hello Joe,
Thank you for your email. I am sorry to hear that you have decided to
delete your AdWords campaigns.
I understand that you are concerned about Google’s policies regarding
sites that sell firearms.
Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers
broad access to content across the web without censoring results. At the
same time, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it
comes to the advertising we accept on our site, as noted in our
advertising terms and conditions. At this time we do not allow ads for
websites that sell guns or related products, nor do we allow these
products as keywords.
You may be aware that a different set of laws and regulations apply to
commercial speech (advertising) than to the search results we show when
you do a Google search. As a business, Google must make decisions about
where we draw the line in regards to the advertising we accept, both from
a legal and company values perspective. Please note that the decisions we
make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we
deliver. We will continue to show search results for guns and related
products.
We appreciate your comments on this issue, which will help inform our
future policy discussions. Thank you for taking the time to write us.
Please feel free to email us at adwords-support@google.com if you have
additional questions or concerns.
We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising
available.
Sincerely,
Loretta
The Google AdWords Team
No need to give bigots my money when there are better alternatives available. Here is what I told them:
It is with great reluctance that I do this. I have been very impressed with Google in almost every endeavor they have undertaken.
I just deleted my ad campaign and won’t be creating any new ones as long as Google continues it’s policy on the restriction of certain civil rights. I will also be contacting other Google advertisers whom I would normally purchase from to inform them of your policies and to tell them I will be finding different suppliers if this policy is continued and they continue to advertise with Google.
Please see the following links for more details if desired.
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/02/09/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/02/11/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/02/12/
Regards,
Joe Huffman
After having Google tell me they don’t allow people to advertise product related to the exercise of certain civil rights I started looking at alternatives. It turns out you can place an ad on Overture.com and get advertising to show up on http://search.yahoo.com, http://www.Search.MSN.com, http://altavista.com (defunct as of 2013, see https://digital.com/about/altavista/ for the history), and http://www.cnn.com/SEARCH/. There are some downsides:
The upsides are:
Kim du Toit is by far better than anything else, but he is doing this as a favor and I don’t have any control over being able do this on a regular basis.
Here is the break down on people that have clicked on banners, ads, and links from various places so far this month:
KimduToit.com 402
Shotgunnews.com 144
Overture Ads 36 (started on February 14th)
Google Adwords 23 (running all month and probably 12 of those were my own and friends)
JoeHuffman.org (all personal sites): 23
RyJones.org/com Gawth.com EveryoneEveryWhereAlways 17
Xeniahs.org (and other banner ads place by her) 2
So… comparing Overture to Google I get hits at a rate of about 7 a day versus about 0.6/day. Over ten times as good. I’m going to tell Google to get lost. No point paying bigots your money when there are better alternatives available.
A non-response if I ever saw one. I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
—–Original Message—–
From: AdWords Support
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:15 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Ry Jones; Stephanie Sailor
Subject: Re: [#7002486] Your Google AdWords Approval Status
Hello Joe,
Thanks for your suggestion. We appreciate hearing from our advertisers and encourage you to continue to let us know how we could improve the Google AdWords experience. In order to maintain a high quality of service for our advertisers, we are always interested in making improvements to the program.
We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising available.
Sincerely,
Charlene
The Google AdWords Team
Subject: Re: [#7002486] Your Google AdWords Approval Status
From: Joe Huffman
Date: Wed, February 11, 2004 20:27
To:
Thank you for the clarification on keywords. That helps a great deal. I
will abide by your restriction more carefully in the future.
I realize this almost for certain isn’t your personal decision, but I am
perplexed by the restriction. Your restrictions on firearms sales brings
up a flurry of concerns about the ethics of your company and appears to be
significantly out of step with the majority of Americans. For example in
a recent Zogby poll
(http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html) 79% of
Americans surveyed supported the right of the people to carry concealed
firearms in public. And all the major candidates for U.S. President agree
individuals have a right to keep and bear arms:
http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/31524155311.html
So what is the basis for Google to restrict people from supporting,
through sales of firearms, this constitutionally guaranteed right? Are
there other Constitutionally guaranteed rights you restrict as well? I
really don’t see the difference between your restrictions on people
engaged in firearms and ammunition sales and someone trying to defeat
Constitutional protections against slavery. Do you have restrictions
against selling property to Jews or blacks attending certain schools?
Just what sort of ethical framework does Google use to disapprove keywords
and phrases?
Again, I realize it’s probably not your decision, but I would appreciate
it if you would pass my concerns on to those that do make the decisions.
Thank you.
Joe Huffman
Event Director
—-
http://www.boomershoot.org/
AdWords Support said:
> Hello Joe,
>
> Thank you for your email. I understand that you would like to have more
> guidelines on constructing ads and keywords.
>
> At this moment, we do not have a public list of specific keywords,
> subject matter, or products that are unacceptable according to our
> policy.
>
> To clarify the issue of gun-related keywords, keywords that advertise
> guns or similar products, like ‘tactical rifle’ and ‘sniper rifle,’ are
> unacceptable. However, we do allow keywords such as ‘rifle training’ and
> ‘rifle class’ because they are specific keywords that are advertising
> for a service or event, but not actual firearms.
>
> Please feel free to email us at https://secure.lasthome.net/mail-lasthome.net/src/compose.php?send_to=adwords-support%40google.com if you have
> additional questions or concerns.
>
> We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising
> available.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Charlene
> The Google AdWords Team
>
> Original Message Follows:
> ————————
> From: “Joe Huffman” <https://secure.lasthome.net/mail-lasthome.net/src/compose.php?send_to=joeh%40boomershoot.org>
> Subject: Re: [#7002486] Your Google AdWords Approval Status
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:13:00 -0000 (GMT)
>
> Do you have a list of these restricted keywords or subject matter that I
> could view? It would help me to better construct my ad such that I
> avoid the embarrassment of having my keywords disapproved. I am also
> confused by your statement that ads are not allowed with keywords
> related to guns or similar products but yet you suggest ‘rifle training’
> and ‘rifle class’. A better understanding of your policy would help to
> save both you and me time and hassle.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Joe Huffman
> Event Director
> —-
> http://www.boomershoot.org/
I wonder if advertising products used in the exercise of other constitutionally protected rights are in violation of their guidelines.
——
Subject: Re: Your Google AdWords Approval Status
From: “Joe Huffman” joeh@boomershoot.org
Date: Tue, February 10, 2004 0:45
To:
I read your “Editorial Guidelines” prior to making making my ad. I could
not find any restrictions on the product we are delivering, and even after
reading your letter below I am at a loss for your disabling of my
keywords. We do not sell firearms or ammunition. We offer training and
opportunity for practice to owners of long range precision rifles. We
have police snipers, military, and former military personal attending and
teaching at our events. How do you suggest we reach this audience through
Google AdWords without using some of the keywords you have disabled?
Regards,
Joseph Huffman
Event Director
—-
http://www.boomershoot.org
> Hello Joseph,
>
> Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords. After reviewing your
> account, I have found that one or more of your ads or keywords does not
> meet our guidelines. The results are outlined in the report below.
>
> ———————————————-
> Campaign: ‘PPS Boomershoot,’ Ad Group: ‘PPS Boomershoot’
> ———————————————-
>
> KEYWORD(S): 50 cal sniper rifle, 50 caliber sniper rifle, accurate
> rifle, competition rifle, high power rifle, long range rifle, precision
> rifle, rifle event, rifle range, sniper rifle, tactical rifle
>
> Action taken: Disapproved
> Issue(s): Unacceptable content as keyword
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> SUGGESTIONS:
> -> Keywords: Google policy does not permit the advertisement
> of “firearms and ammunition”. This content is not permitted as ad text
> or keywords. We have therefore disabled the keyword(s) listed above.
>
>
>
>
> ———————
> Please read below for definitions of the issues I found:
>
> Unacceptable content as keyword: In keeping with Google policy, we do
> not permit advertisers to use certain content as keywords for their
> Google AdWords campaigns. Google believes strongly in freedom of
> expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web
> without censoring search results. Please note that the decisions we make
> concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.
>
>
> ———————
>
> If a keyword has been disapproved, your ad(s) will no longer be
> displayed for searches on this keyword.
>
> If an ad has been suspended, please edit it based on our suggestions,
> and then save your changes to automatically resubmit the ad for review.
> We’re confident that these changes will improve your ad performance and
> increase your return on investment.
>
> Our goal is to help you reach your target audience and maximize your
> investment. All ads are reviewed by AdWords Specialists to ensure that
> our advertisers create successful, high-impact advertising in keeping
> with our program’s Editorial Guidelines.
>
> For more information about our ad requirements, please read the AdWords
> Editorial Guidelines at:
> https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html
>
> Please feel free to email us at adwords-support@google.com if you have
> any further questions or concerns. We look forward to providing you with
> the most effective advertising available.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The Google AdWords Team
If only the politicians and the reporters would be factual and accurate we could have a rational discussion on the topic. But expecting people to be rational is irrational.
I’m probably jousting with windmills again.
—-
Subject: Re: Assault weapons ban back in play.
From: Joe Huffman
To: eepstein@sfchronicle.com
Date: Tue, February 10, 2004 0:17
I just read your February 9th article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/09/MNGH04S1DU1.DTL
I would like to point out some errors for your future reference:
1) There is no such thing as “automatic ammunition clips”. You probably
are referring to a “magazine” which is commonly, and mistakenly, called a
clip. The law does refer to a “detachable magazine”. And this detachable
magazine is required for it to be an “assault weapon”, not one of two
features from the list. See
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3355_en.htm for more
details.
2) You make reference “the banned AR-15 assault rifle”. Again there is no
such thing. An “assault rifle” is a fully automatic rifle. The AR-15 is
a semi-automatic firearm. See
http://www.boomershoot.org/general/ScaryWords.htm#AssaultWeapons or
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
for more details.
3) Feinstein and Schumer pick their words very carefully to avoid lying
but yet be deceptive. The “guns recovered from crimes” is not the same as
what is implied in your article. These are not guns that were used to
commit crimes because it includes guns that were recovered stolen
property. The “assault weapons”, as defined by Federal law are used in a
such a small portion of crimes that any measurable reduction in crime by
their complete removal from the planet would be lost in the noise of year
to year fluctuations. The politicians pushing the “assault weapon ban”
know this and are careful to avoid the topic.
See also: http://www.clintongunban.com/
Regards,
Joe Huffman
Senior Research Scientist II
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
Boomershoot Event Director
—-
http://www.boomershoot.org
https://www.joehuffman.org
I follow the politics of the anti-freedom movement in this country with particular attention paid to gun control. One of my tools for doing this is google’s news alerts. It’s a wonderful tool. This morning I got a notice about Gun control reappears as political issue. Heavy sigh… It included this little nugget:
…the recently enacted omnibus appropriations bill rolls back the government’s timetable in tracking illegal guns. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) sponsored in the provision in the House. It requires the FBI to destroy gun-buyer records 24 hours after a weapon is sold. The Brady law had required the FBI to retain such records for up to 90 days.
This is a commonly held belief but it is false. The original Brady Act said:
(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall–
(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.
Item (C) was interpreted by the pro-freedom activists to mean they would be destroyed almost immediately. This would allevate the concerns about creating a Federal gun owner database by default. The Brady Act would not have passed without this provision. The FBI didn’t destroy the records. Janet Reno said they were being held for “audit purposes“. Unfortunately they were also being used for other things as well. One would have thought that if they were by law to be destroyed then they could not be legally used for tracking down gun owners that passed the initial background check. But this wasn’t the case. Law enforcement was using the records for far more than “audit purposes“. The new law restores the original intent and the big fuss this created by the new law should be that law enforcement was violating the law to begin with and another law was necessary to curb them.
I wrote the author of the article a polite letter explaining things and suggested he should check any facts obtained from the gun control people carefully. They are frequently misleading in their statements — for example there is no such thing as a “Gun Show Loophole”. All the laws and regulations that apply at a gun shop also apply at a gun show.
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.
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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