Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

I apologize that I haven’t had time to write more often for our internet home-town paper. I can only apologize that, in the words of Harry Chapin, “The new job’s a hassle,” even after 18 months. At least I can honestly say that I am doing good work—though I also must honestly say that if you knew the details (which I unfortunately can’t share) you might have a differing opinion. But anyway… Our Esteemed Publisher has asked me to undertake an exposition to celebrate the 1000th outing of The Libertarian Enterprise, so forthwith…

First, apologies for Dr. Sowell for appropriating his frequent headline, which often applied to his best articles.

On the Second Amendment:

I have come from a rereading of our Esteemed Publisher’s “Americans have obeyed their last gun law,” with a reminder:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is an imperative requirement. And the Framers would have found the idea that a state government can infringe on a right guaranteed to the people by the federal government—particularly this one—to be absurd. This situation persists because of one of the earliest incorrect rulings by the Supreme Court (which should be overturned) stating that the Bill of Rights limits the federal government but not the States. (While there have been recent abuses of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, nobody I know of has so far claimed that they don’t apply to the States.)

“A well regulated militia…” provides one—but not the only—justification of this right. To the Framers, “a well regulated militia” means one that is armed and trained to combat, not one that is shackled by nonsense rules.

“…being necessary to the security of a free state…” is the clause people, including liberals, keep forgetting, but it is the most important. Remember that George Mason, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the model for the Bill of Rights, defined a militia as “the whole people, except for a few politicians.”

So consider the Second Amendment in the following form: “The whole people armed and trained to combat, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What the gun controllers and victim disarmers are tying to say is, “It is unnecessary for the whole people to be armed or trained to combat, since the security of the free state is not worth defending, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be tightly controlled and largely disallowed.”

Then also remember that “the shot heard ’round the world,” the battle of the militia against the British at Lexington and Concord, was to prevent the British from disarming the town. The militia of 1775 considered forced disarmament to be an act of war, and the Framers were firmly aware of that precedent a mere fourteen years later while crafting the Bill of Rights. (Even Hamilton, who considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary, acknowledged the philosophical consequences of this precedent in Federalist 29.) The only precedent in American law is thus: forced disarmament of the people in general is an act of war against the people of the United States—and thus, by Article III, Section 3, an act of treason. (This does not preclude the occasional disarmament of individuals—by action of the courts, not by administrative fiat—for good cause.) Every gun law in every state, much more the federal government, is thus not only illegal under the Constitution, whomever passed, ratified, and enforced those laws are guilty of treason under the Constitution as clearly written, and as intended by the Framers (see also Federalist 46). Further, this would apply to any attempt to rewrite or annul the Second Amendment, or even to amend it any fashion inconsistent with its clear intent and purpose (e.g prohibiting laser-based small arms; and not just guns—this also applies to knives, swords, and similar implements; and on to any other personal implements of self defense or defense of community or country). No Supreme Court decision, act of the President or the Congress, act of any State, or even contrary opinion by a plurality of the populace can change these plain facts.

I personally would draw the line at implements capable of mass casualties—in other words, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Fully automatic firearms (as opposed to semi-auto) and explosives are a grayer area, but they compare to, say, plowing aircraft into buildings and semi-tractor trucks into crowds in terms of casualty effect and property damage, so banning or limiting them changes nothing and would likely restore some defensive opportunities). And I would keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check system—primarily to protect firearms dealers from any liability of selling to the few persons who appropriately have had their individual rights to keep and bear arms limited. Your mileage may vary.

(PS to Hillary Clinton—if you think the National Rifle Association is difficult, check out Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Note that I am a member of all three…)

Regarding Judge Roy Moore

I had in the back of my mind a longer essay on Judge Moore, the allegations against him, and his failure to secure a Senate seat from Alabama in the special election to replace (former Senator, and now former Attorney General) Jeff Sessions. Perhaps I will get to write that longer essay at some point, but the short version is:

Judge Moore has been the most reviled Republican politician in Alabama for decades, though he has always had a strong base of support among Evangelical Christians. The latter has been because of his public stance in support of displays of the Ten Commandments, the former because of the Republicans who viewed him as showboating (by no means limited to the local RINOS) and the Democrats who reviled everything about Christianity. From what I was able to put together, there is no evidence beyond he-said/she-said that he did anything other than occasionally ask out or date 16 year old girls (above the age of consent in Alabama) when he was in his early 30’s. The allegations of attempted (never consummated, from what I could see) more abusive relationships never came out in twenty years of statewide background investigations and political campaigns—again, note how much he was disliked. Nobody, even his critics, really believed them that I could see, but it provided a convenient excuse for people who were tired of the drama to stay home. And—barely—enough did.

On the First Amendment (not applicable in Europe)

On Twitter this weekend, much has been made of the pending rules that, as of December 12, will make it illegal for anyone in Europe to publicly criticize migrants or the EU’s pro-migration policy. In other words, the native European populations are being robbed, assaulted, raped, and murdered by a fraction of unvetted migrants, and the governments are making it illegal to even point this out, much less complain about it.

This is the most visible and extreme evidence of a Western government acting against the interests of its citizens (or subjects, in England) since Stalin and Hitler. The old joke of “The government will disband the people and elect a new one” is coming true in Europe, and it is hardly a laughing matter. (The fact that the governments don’t control the new population only makes the situation more bizarre and pathetic.). I dare say that it is for such occasions that the Second Amendment was drafted, and I’m confident that there are many native Europeans who lament that they do not have its equivalents among their populations. The European technocrats who are responsible for this policy clearly need to be ridden out of town on a rail while tarred and feathers—and praise the God they clearly no longer believe in if they get no worse. The Eu technocrats—and the migrants they support—clearly are at war with the native populations of Europe. There is no way this ends well, and World War 3 is one possible outcome (although it may not be a world war that involves the US for once).

On Trump

Just let the record state that I am reasonably (and sometime surprisingly) pleased by his accomplishments to date, and am thoroughly disgusted by his obnoxious detractors.

And once again, happy 1000th issue to Ken and Neil, and a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Winter greetings to all, as appropriate to your religion or culture.