 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 809, February 15, 2015 The only reason Obama wants to control the Internet is to shut us up.
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise We're going to start this off with an interesting piece of writing from Mama Liberty. (WHY does this seem familiar? Oh yeah! That's how we start EVERY Rant we can!!) This one is one Impaired Self Defense. [Link] Okay, get OFF you're high horse—she's NOT saying run out, get drunk, and defend yourself. "First, of course, it helps to define "impaired." Perfectly alert, with perfect judgment, perfect physical ability, and perfect training/experience describes nobody on earth, which makes every single human being "impaired" to some extent, if compared to perfection. If not perfection, to what is it compared? Who decides? And why? A person's physical abilities and judgment is relative to so many things, and the perception of those things is subjective and individual. Don't think so? Try this: You say you are hungry, thirsty, or tired... Even if you can begin to articulate any measurable criteria that would apply to everyone (go ahead and try... I'll wait...), are you really willing for someone else to define hunger or thirst, etc. for YOU—and dictate what you must or must not do in that case? Who, then, is responsible for setting limits for your impairment if you drink, oversleep, take drugs, or any of the hundreds, maybe thousands of things that would seriously (you decide) reduce your physical and mental ability to exercise good judgment and not harm others, whatever it is you are doing." From here, she goes into an interesting and different take of gun carrying, self defense, and the Designated Shooter. Read on, dear reader, and see where she ends up. Mama—to answer your question—I do not drink outside the home, so I'm happy to be YOUR designated shooter any time you need one! I'm going to spend a few moments discussing MY take on this, after you watch the linked video and read the article. [Link] You would think with the amount of national tension between police and citizens the police would do a better job of policing themselves. "It's one thing for an officer to discharge a defense weapon when the officer in question is under duress. But to pepper spray somebody because he was walking too close? That's just crazy. And yet that's exactly what happened after an MLK Jr. march." Now, I read the entire article, and watched the 15 second video. Now, Mr. Hagopian was mistreated far worse than the story actually implies. How, you ask? It's really simple—he wasn't even targeted. He was walking and talking on the phone, and the police creature began indiscriminately spraying the crowd—Mr. Hagopian was just the only person who got hit hard. Watch the video—she's screaming at the crowd (most of whom aren't even paying attention to the scared little piggy) and spraying her pepper spray, first at Mr. H, and the woman next to him, then she proceeds to spray it around the area BEHIND him! This cop is treating her pepper spray like a machinegun on the walls of a fort under siege—yet the crowd isn't doing much more than carrying signs. I guess when you're bicycle police at a peaceful protest, you need to do SOMETHING to prove you are "The Man!" Luckily for Miss Piggy, she doesn't appear to have hit any children or asthmatics with her reckless endangerment. And I doubt she'll face any criminal charges for assault, even though they are justified. I re-watched that video 5 times, and I see NO threats to her or her fellow officers' safety that could possibly justify these actions. Where do I start with this one....? [Link] "Gun owners with legal permits would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under a bill introduced in the Senate—a measure that previously came just three votes shy of passage in a Democratic-controlled chamber. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act "operates more or less like a driver's license," Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told The Hill about the measure introduced Thursday. "So, for example, if you have a driver's license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states." Well, we can START with the entire anti-Constitutional idea of "Legally Armed". Ever hear of the Constitution? Then EVERYONE is already "legally armed". So the idea of federal legislation to "allow legally armed Americans" to carry in all 50 states is pretty asinine, because IT'S ALREADY OUR DAMNED RIGHT, YOU IDIOTS!!!!! But now, we have to address life in anti-Constitutional America today. Since despite the fact that most of the people demanding ever greater restrictions on a Constitutionally enumerated right like the RLKBA (restrictions they would start a revolution over if applied to any right THEY cherish), and in fact, many 2nd Amendment supporters have been brainwashed into thinking a license is actually a good thing, we need to look at this asinine idea from another angle. Since licenses exist, and since cowards refuse to fight against ALL licensing, and demand Constitutional carry (anything, anywhere, open or concealed, at the sole discretion of the citizen), we have to deal with the concept of state lines. We've all read the stories of people crossing a state line unawares and finding themselves incarcerated despite being "licensed" carriers of firearms. While ALL 50 STATES now have provisions for some form of concealed carry license, fully 1/3rd of the states will not honor licenses granted in other states, and more of them will not honor licenses from states that will not honor their licenses. So, shat to do? This legislation makes sense, sorta, under these circumstances. Sooo, IF I have to have a CCW to avoid jail time for engaging in my Constitutional rights, the least we can do, I guess, is force ALL states to recognize ALL licenses. That will keep me from needing both my NY license AND the Arizona license to protect me in 37 states. I've got to say this Sheriff really impresses me. [Link] He's standing up for what is right, doing his job, AND following the Constitution. "Constitutional Sheriffs are becoming more vocal and demonstrating why they are a valuable asset to freedom and their communities. The latest sheriff to take a constitutional stand is Eddy County, New Mexico's Scott London, the first sheriff in twenty-five to stand up to the IRS against a tyrannical attempt to sell a citizen in his county's land without due process. Priscilla Jones provides the background information for the sheriff's actions:
While this is not an actual "Well Armed American" story, without it, we AREN'T Well Armed Americans. So I thought that this time, I'd post a story to HELP us remain well armed. [Link] "Access to guns:
In the western feature film, "Silverado" (1985), one of the main characters, "Emmett" (palyed by Scott Glenn) is shown out in the desert intensely practicing his shooting skills. After demonstrating superlative acumen, knocking cans around, he smartly holsters his empty revolver and then walks toward his horse. Out of nowhere, the crooked deputy, "Garth," (played by Sam Garney) appears and says,
It reminds me of a scene from L. Neil Smith's excellent novel Pallas, where our protagonist, Emerson Ngu, leaves a silhouette shooting match without re-loading his handgun, and winds up forced to defend himself with an empty gun. Then, the author makes another great point about competition shooters (One I have oft remarked on at the range) which addresses the problem of "race guns" and self defense. "I am also reminded of most "competition" participants. Nearly all leave the range with empty guns, locked away. This, after shooting all day in simulated "real life" scenarios! The minuscule few who do carry off the range, don't carry a gun that even slightly resembles the one they "practice" with! They piously exercise "real life," but they don't live it! In their next lethal emergency, I wonder how much "prep time" they foolishly imagine they're going to get. Are they really expecting a "miracle?" I've built guns for local competitions. And, while they WERE to competition standards, they, and the holsters used, are so impractical for self defense scenarios that it would be funny if someone tried to use one in self defense (if it weren't so sad that they most likely would not help). Just turn on Outdoor Channel, and watch Shooting USA's Impossible Shots. Jerry Miculek is literally the fastest person with a revolver I have ever seen. using his custom built S&W revolvers, speed holsters, moon clips, and post clip holders, he can draw, aim, fire to empty, re-load, and empty the gun again so fast it sounds like a machinegun. But he starts from the ready position (hands at shoulder height, gun exposed) waiting for the signal to draw. While I'd NEVER wish to see him forced to actually USE the gun in self defense, one wonders if he'd be the survivor. I carry, every day. I practice drawing my carry guns from the carry position—whether it is the cargo pocket of shorts or kilt, IWB holster, shoulder holster, jacket holster, or whatever other option forced upon me by my clothing choices. And using the guns I carry. NOT my race 1911, with a comp, 1.7 pound trigger, disabled grip safety, and a skeletonized fast-draw holster. Even though it might be a great gun/holster combo, it isn't a defense rig. Sean Gangol has some great points about ALL types of prohibition. So good that I thought it important to put it here even though my TLE readers have already seen it in last week's articles. You DID read Sean's piece last week, didn't you? [Link] "The mind of a prohibitionist is something that I have never been able to comprehend. You would think that with the track record that prohibition measures have had on society, only a small fringe element would support such a thing. Yet there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who support prohibition in some form or another. Whenever I think about prohibition, I am always reminded of the stories I heard about my Great Grandfather Gangol who emigrated from Hungary to the great USA in the 1920's. Like many immigrants at the time he wasn't the most educated nor did he speak English. Despite this he was smart enough to figure out why prohibition was and will always remain a colossal failure. When he arrived he made his way to one of those little stations that would teach immigrants the fundamentals of living in America, one of which was the English language. They also taught basic economics, such as supply and demand. I am not sure about the exact moment that it happened, but the light bulb in my grandfather's head lit up when he applied supply and demand to the nation's ban on hooch. While the government continued its war on booze, there would be a greater demand for cocktails, which meant greater profits for those filling that demand. Pay attention to this because this will play a part in the conclusion of my article. What amazes me the most is the way that a prohibitionist will admit that the measures have failed in at least one aspect, but believe that it will somehow work against the very thing that they want to see eliminated. The first person who comes to mind is Emily Miller, a columnist for the Washington Post who has done a serious of articles on Washington DC's gun laws. She also wrote a book titled, Emily Gets Her Gun, where she describes the amount of red tape that she had to go through in order to legally own a gun in the nation's capital." You should follow the link to TLE and see where this winds up.... It is time, once again, for the Quotes of the Week! This one, sent to me by Paul, is quite surprising to many—[Link] "He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their
honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by
violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two
is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must
either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in
helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a
bully."—Mohandas K. Gandhi
Well, I need to fire this off to the editor, so TTFN!
Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
