Category Archives: 077 Rights Watch

The Sheriff Revolt on New Gun Laws Shows Why America Needs More Decentralization – Foundation for Economic Education

People would have far fewer political grievances in a decentralized system.

Recently, a dozen sheriffs in Washington state announced that they would refuse to enforce the newly passed Initiative 1639, which raised the legal age of purchasing a firearm of any sort to 21, expanded background check requirements, increased the waiting period, and mandated weapon storage when not in active use. Predictably, political proponents immediately threatened these sheriffs, who were hired to enforce county, not state, laws, with legal action. Of course, when I say passed, what I really mean is that 14 of 39 counties in Washington decided the referendum was a good idea.

Based on actual voting patterns, the victory of this particular bill can be almost entirely explained by the margin of victory in King County (506k), where Seattle is located, which accounted for 87 percent the margin of victory of the statewide referendum (580k). This is a common phenomenon in many states that have a large single urban population. Another classic example is New York and the political dominance of the city in state-wide politics.

The Problem with Centralized Authority

What the refusal of the 12 county law enforcement officials is doing is voicing displeasure with what amounts to a distant population dictating how they’ll operate in their own homes. Why are people in Seattle, who may never even set foot on the eastern side of the Cascades, let alone actually make that region their permanent home, imposing law on residents of Omak?

A nearly identical result of the above picture was experienced in Legislative Initiative 940, which mandated law enforcement personnel behave like good citizens, such as mandating de-escalation as first response and legally mandating police provide first aid to wounded individuals, including suspects who have been shot.

Though, to be fair to residents of King County, this reliance on statewide referendums for local issues can backfire. Initiative 1634, which banned taxation of sodas and other items politicians in Seattle find in vogue to tax, also passed, essentially with only King, San Juan, and Jefferson disagreeing with it.

An identical result to the above picture was experienced, though with colors flipped since it failed, for Initiative 1631, which would have imposed CO2 taxes on Washington residents. If we take all four referendums in bulk, only six counties in Washington can be considered 100 percent happy about the results. Everyone else basically only got some of the policies they wanted. This means that only the majorities of 15 percent of the counties in the state could be classified as satisfied with the results of the election cycle, leaving the other 85 percent stewing like those dozen sheriffs.

This is a terrible way to run a society, where only a small fraction of the people are happy with political and social decisions, and the vast majority always have to eat “compromise” imposed upon them by outsiders.

Radical Decentralization

However, it doesn’t have to be this way. Residents of Seattle, San Francisco, and New York City shouldn’t have to believe that they can’t live their chosen lifestyle without this strange belief that those same policies and decisions must radiate out hundreds of miles from their borders. Nor do residents who aren’t part of large urban centers need to feel like they have to strategically handcuff urban dwellers to avoid getting swept up in their preferences.

The solution to these issues is radical decentralization. There is no logical reason why Washington state must continue to exist and can’t be split up into 39 new states. Just like there is very little that is done in D.C. that can’t be done just as well, or better, in Olympia, there’s very little that is done in Olympia that can’t be done just as well, or better, in Ephrata, Washington. This way, the people of the new state of King can have gun laws, soda taxes, a kinder police force, and CO2 taxes without stepping on the toes of people in the new state of Yakima. The only real objections would come from politicians, both in D.C. and in Washington state, who are only concerned with maintaining personal power—if Washington state decentralizes into 39 independent entities, all that would happen is a layer of state politicians and bureaucrats would be laid off, and US senators would find their vote is no longer worth 1 percent of the Senate but 0.6 percent.

It’s much easier for someone unhappy with policies of the hypothetical state of King to move to the hypothetical state of Kittitas than it is to relocate to Idaho.

In reality, the US should be made up of, at minimum, 3,142 states (the number of counties and census areas), though certain areas, like Los Angeles County, can be split into at least 17 distinct states itself, and NYC can be cut into 73 around police districts, each of which are large cities in their own right. Again, the only real objection to this would be the middlemen state-level politicians who would no longer have a job and congressmen who would see their voting power radically diluted. Which, to say, is not a legitimate reason to oppose splitting the US up into smaller political jurisdictions.

Under such a system, people will have far fewer political grievances since they’ll be unlikely to have to live under a regime that’s unfavorable to them. It’s much easier for someone unhappy with policies of the hypothetical state of King to move to the hypothetical state of Kittitas than it is to relocate to Idaho, similar to how it’s easier for a resident of New Mexico to relocate to Texas than it is to New Zealand. Similar to the setup in Luxemburg, or even how Clark County residents have employment in Portland, dividing up political jurisdictions into small pieces allows for people to work and live in preferred jurisdictions without the significant inconvenience of a long-distance move. It’s much easier to find a county with a preferred lifestyle than trying to get an entire state to fit your preferences. This would radically reduce the desire of local sheriffs to rebel against imposed laws, and people would be far happier with the expanded political choices—finding common political and social ground with 50 thousand is far easier than 7.5 million.

This article was reprinted from the Mises Institute.

The Gun Control Campaign Against The AR-15 Is Full Of Lies

“Moreover, the nice thing about having our individual rights codified in the Constitution is that Americans, unlike most others, don’t (or shouldn’t) have to explain ourselves to government officials. Though many Americans use ARs to hunt, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment (or the debates surrounding the Constitution) mention “hunting,” because the right to self-defense—both as an individual concern and a buttress against tyranny—had nothing to do with bagging deer. It was about the state taking away firearms.”

 

 

Political efforts to ban the AR-15 are part of an incremental movement by gun controllers to ban all semi-automatic guns.

Source: The Gun Control Campaign Against The AR-15 Is Full Of Lies

I’m a gender traitor and proud of it

Handmaidens

Today was the last day to register to vote in many states. I know this because my Facebook feed is full of women telling me how to vote. And how to not be a gender traitor.

Here’s what I have to say: 

I don’t care how you vote.

And many of you don’t care how I vote.

But before I get demonized and belittled for being a conservative woman, let me explain how I arrived at being a conservative, despite the constant bullying pleas from the Democrats.

Philosophically:

I believe that you know how to spend your money better than the government does.

I believe that crippling regulations stifle innovation and lead to complacency.

I believe in American exceptionalism, and hope that Americans will reclaim their integrity, intelligence, and grit.

I believe a person is a person, no matter how small.

I believe in personal responsibility. Yes, that includes not getting black-out drunk and expecting the rest of humanity to take care of you. It also includes dressing respectably.

I believe in freedom. Freedom from the tyranny that dictates the social superiority complex.

I believe in equality. Do not diminish me to my gender and call me a traitor for logically disagreeing with liberal women.

Practically: 

The Affordable Care Act is not affordable. It reduces choice and competition, which leads to unaffordable care and premiums.

We need to do better by women who are struggling with an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is not the only option, and to disguise the killing of a child as “women’s health” is not only deceptive, it is morally corrupt.

I believe in my ability to compete sans affirmative action. The perpetuation of female victimhood is exhausting and insulting.

The roads should be the first thing to be funded. Collectively, this country spends billions on Medicaid but can’t fill our potholes. Money does not grow on trees.

I believe in private property and the right to defend your property by any means accessible to you. Gun control is a farce as debunked by the cities with the strictest gun control laws and highest murder rates.

Republicans, more often than not, cannot be blamed for irresponsible financial management at any level. Look at Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore…

I don’t play the game of identity politics. Neighbors will solve cruel behavior, not politicians.

I don’t believe the government should parent our children, manage my finances, or control education.

I’m a conservative because I have thought about it. I’m a conservative because I refuse to be a pawn. I’m a conservative because I believe the future is brighter when we trust our citizens to lead independent lives.

Vote how you want. Stop complaining about the way I vote.

 

Envy Kills (the root of America’s poblems)

greeneye envy

The gunman who attempted to slay Republican Congressmen at a baseball practice had a Facebook feed. Before it was deleted, everyone could read his vitriolic attacks on the rich, his denunciations of capitalism and corporate culture, his calls for high taxes and wealth redistribution, and, of course, his push for Bernie Sanders to be the ruler of us all. We all know the litany of gripes that drove him.

When was the last time you heard a sermon against envy or observed a media figure casually recognizing its evils? And yet, when the folks at National Public Radio were reflecting on his motives, the hosts declined to speculate. They feigned to be completely mystified how a happy, charming, good soul such as this could have turned to violence. Had the tables been turned – say an alt-right agitator had shot up a civil-rights protest – there would have been no question about the motivation.

Read More

How To Beat Terrorism by L. Neil Smith

Away, way back in 1977, when I began writing my first novel, _The Probability Broach_ (still in print, after four decades), I was regarded as something of a nutcase because I argued that American society would be a much better, safer place if everybody who wanted to, carried a gun. I was by no means the first to do so, nor was I the only one at the time, but, except for Robert A. Heinlein, Elmer Keith, and the ghost of H. Beam Piper, I often felt very much alone in my simple, straightforward, common-sense advocacy of exercising one’s natural rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now, of course, forty years later, armed self-defense has become a social movement. The degree to which I share responsibility for that is debatable, but I am proud of any part I may have had in it.

Last weekend (no, I am not changing the subject) was a pretty lousy one for peace and civil order in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Egged on by various evil shamans (one of them in the States), Islamic terrorists employed an automobile and big knives to wound and murder dozens of innocent individuals who were trying to enjoy a warm summer evening—in a near-Arctic climate that doesn’t offer many of them—and whose only “crime” was that they did not choose to follow the benighted religious precepts of a 7th century Arab merchant-trader.

Read More

Georgia Fugitives Captured by Home Owners

Yes, we can.

The bravery of a homeowner put an end to the three-day long manhunt, Fitzhugh said.
The inmates had run through the woods to a home on Pruitt Road, near the rural community of Christiana.

“The homeowner was alerted somehow, he looked outside and saw the suspects trying to steal his vehicle,” Lt. Bill Miller from the Tennessee Highway Patrol said late Friday.

The homeowner called his neighbor and both men, each armed with a gun, confronted the fugitives…

Ricky Dubose and Donnie Rowe after their capture.

Ricky Dubose and Donnie Rowe after their capture.
Source: CNN

Concealed Carry Reciprocity May Be Coming To Illinois

“Why would some go through 16 hours of training if they could mail order to get a concealed carry permit from Virginia or from Florida?” Asked Colleen Daley, executive director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “We want to make sure only the most qualified individuals… who’ve gone through the training and know what they’re doing are carrying firearms in our state.”

Really? So you think that the 16-hour course as mandated by Illinois is somehow superior to a mail order system?

Please list the facts that back up the claim that after state training people “know what they’re doing,” and then explain to the class why Illinois residents are too stupid to be able to do the same as those from Florida and Virginia who can mail order.

Source: WRSP

Kansas student activist group “warns” foreign embassies about campus carry law

I hope out of the 160 foreign embassies she wrote she included the 107 countries that have higher homicide rates and tighter gun control than the United states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

“Meaning many international students at Kansas universities would be surrounded by firearms without the legal right to also carry one — making it potentially even more dangerous for these students,” she wrote. “Considering the shooting of two Indian men who were presumed to be ‘Middle Eastern’ by a white supremacist in Olathe, Kansas last week, international students, especially those from certain countries or regions, are at a greater risk of being the victims of deadly violence once this campus carry law goes into effect.”

Source: guns.com

A Reignited War on Weed Will Harm The American Economy

The Last Thing America Needs Is a Reignited War on Weed – FEE

The marijuana legalization movement has been holding its breath, waiting to see how President Donald Trump will address the issue.

Public opinion and state law have leaned heavily in favor of decriminalizing the controversial cannabis plant over the last several years, signaling the inevitable downfall of the government’s war on drugs.

However, as numerous state victories gave advocates hope that the end of prohibition was near, the unexpected election of Donald Trump threw the legalization movement a curveball no one was anticipating.

Legalized marijuana is projected to create a quarter of a million jobs by 2020.

While the future of marijuana in America is still unclear at the moment, if Trump wants to keep his campaign promises of job creation and financial growth, he should strongly consider the economic benefits of marijuana legalization.

The Future is Green

As a presidential nominee, Trump spent much of his campaign promising national job growth. Reaching out to the blue collar working class, Trump promised to bring jobs back to American manufacturing.

However, if Trump is serious about fostering an environment of economic prosperity and job creation, he may want to set his sights on the burgeoning marijuana industry instead.

According to a recent report released by New Frontier Data, the marijuana industry is projected to create more than a quarter of a million new American jobs by the year 2020.

By the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own projections, the legalized cannabis industry is expected to outpace growth in any other sector over the next few years, including American manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing jobs are expected to decrease by 814,000 over the next seven years.

Additionally, the marijuana industry is currently estimated to be worth about $7.2 billion. Given its current success and expected trajectory, the entire industry is expected to grow at a rate of 17 percent annually.

Likewise, the New Frontier Data’s report estimates that the medicinal market alone will increase its worth from $4.7 billion to $13.3 billion by the year 2020.

Of the 25 states that have decriminalized cannabis in some capacity, seven of those states have allowed for its recreational use. As a result, the recreational industry is also expected to increase its worth from $2.6 billion to $11.2 billion by 2020.

While these projections are bound to have positive effects on the national economy and create a plethora of new American jobs, the estimates will never come to fruition if the Trump Administration decides to backtrack on the progress made thus far.

Good People Don’t Smoke Marijuana

Had Hillary Clinton won on election night, as many had expected, it is highly unlikely that the war on drugs would have suddenly come to a screeching halt.

Not only is Clinton’s own track record on the matter weak, but her husband also contributed greatly to the perpetuation of the problem.

Former President Bill Clinton helped escalate the war on drugs through his support of mandatory minimum sentencing laws and other policies that were prevalent during the “tough on crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s.

However, Mrs. Clinton’s terrible track record on the issue does nothing to excuse Donald Trump, should he make the same mistake.

 “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

While Trump is not a strict ideologue by any means, he has unfortunately chosen to surround himself with advisors and cabinet appointees who have struck fear into the hearts of advocates of marijuana policy reform.

Trump’s decision to nominate Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General only heightened this paranoia among his critics.

Sessions has been a longtime supporter of civil asset forfeiture, which essentially incentivizes law enforcement to use the drug war as a pretext for stealing property from anyone merely suspected of drug-related activity.

As if Session’s support for highway robbery weren’t bad enough, he has also gone on the record making outlandishly biased statements including, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Since Sessions has the legal authority to impose federal drug laws on the states, this comment is quite concerning, to say the least.

While Trump’s own comments on the matter have been somewhat neutral, Press Secretary Sean Spicer added fuel to the fire last week when he hinted that the White House might soon begin enforcing federal marijuana laws once again.

Under the direction of former Attorney General Eric Holder, the federal government agreed to more or less “look the other way” when states made the decision to legalize cannabis. This policy has allowed states like Colorado to add over $1 billion worth of revenue to their local economy and create new jobs for its residents.

Just a few days ago, Sessions publicly recommitted himself to the drug war by saying:

“I don’t think America is going to be a better place when people of all ages, and particularly young people, are smoking pot. I believe it’s an unhealthy practice, and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago, and we’re seeing real violence around that.”

Ironically, the war on drugs, which Sessions adamantly supports, is responsible for that increase in potency, as economist Mark Thornton has demonstrated.

According to “the Iron Law of Prohibition,” when substances are prohibited, black market providers are incentivized to increase potency because more potent forms take up less storage space, are easier to transport, and sell for more money. This is considered necessary to mitigate the risk of being caught and incarcerated.

Session’s Reefer Madness-inspired statement is absolutely frightening considering his position of authority as Attorney General of the United States of America.

The White House might actually begin enforcing federal marijuana laws once again.

But in the spirit of maintaining optimism, there is still reason to hope that Trump’s alleged commitment to economic growth will overpower the draconian beliefs held by some of his cabinet appointees.

The Economic Savior

Trump was elected as the “no nonsense” businessman who was going to fix our national economy and create jobs for the American people. As America’s “economic savior,” his supporters firmly believed he was the candidate who would restore prosperity to the middle class. This is the promise that ultimately got him elected to the highest office in the land.

Since assuming office, he has shocked the public by actually fulfilling most of his campaign promises— which has been both slightly encouraging and downright terrifying.

While there can be no defense of his love for protectionist policies, he has still maintained his support for a free market economic system.

If this is true and he is as committed to economic reform as he claims to be, then perhaps the economic repercussions of marijuana legalization can change his mind, or at least drown out the backward influence of his advisors.


Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Trump And Russia: Just Pointing Out The Obvious — Capitalist Exploits

Chairman Trump may well be a child in a man’s body – erratic, lacking in finesse, as articulate as a gangsta rapper, contradictory, and missing the cognitive functions allowing one to think before acting. But.. But… he does seem smart enough to have thought a little about Russia. Thought alone is a welcome surprise from Washington.

The establishment for their part are fuming!

First their rice bowls are at risk, and to top it off they’re now publicly mocked. To egomaniacs this is worse than acne to a prom queen. As I mentioned a couple weeks back the mockery has come thick and fast:

CNBC’s John Hardwood decided to conduct a Twitter poll to see who the American people trusted when it came to the DNC hacks. Did they believe Wikileaks, who deny Russian involvement, or do they believe the intelligence community who has blamed Russia despite ZERO hard evidence being shown to the public?

The results were shocking and it stunned the media elite!

 

The absurdity over Russia has turned into a social meme. Few buy the narrative and those that do increasingly find mainstream thinking to be questioned.

Source: Capitalist Exploits

Don’t Ruin A Chance for Tax Reform with “Border Adjustments”

Don’t Ruin A Chance for Tax Reform with “Border Adjustments”

As part of an otherwise very good tax reform plan, House Republicans have proposed to modify the corporate income tax so that it becomes a “destination-based cash-flow tax.”

For those not familiar with wonky inside-the-beltway tax terminology, there are three main things to understand about this proposal.

  • First, the tax rate on business would drop from 35 percent to 20 percent. This is unambiguously positive.
  • Second, it would replace depreciation with expensing, which is a very desirable change that would eliminate a very counter-productive tax on new investment outlays. This is basically what makes the plan a “cash-flow” tax.
  • Third, any income generated by exports would be exempt from tax but the 20-percent tax would be imposed on all imports. These “border-adjustable” provisions are what makes the plan a “destination-based” tax.

I’m a big fan of the first two provisions, but I’m very hostile to the third item.

Read More

Off duty officer vs. Mike Strickland’s escalation of force: Something is wrong here…

 

“The confrontation began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer’s property,” Anaheim police said in statement Wednesday.

This is most interesting.

You can watch the OODA Loops spin out of control as communications break down and either the wrong tactic is used or no tactic is selected at all due to the Sympathetic Nervous System or “SNS” reaction.

As the SNS response continued to rise all parties were beginning to think with their survival brain, hence the continued decline in communications which lead to anti-social behavior.

While one could write an article on the video tearing apart the officer’s tactics, or lack thereof (a training issue, not the officer’s fault). I won’t.

And while one could write an article critiquing and condemning the society and education system that fostered such blatant disregard for individual and property rights, I won’t do that either.

I will, however, state that had both sides had a modicum of respect for each other, other’s property rights, abided by the NAP, and had just a little bit of training, all these unpleasantries could have been avoided.

Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet, fortunately, were closer than most think (thanks technology!).

In the end, I hope the officer doesn’t face the same unjust consequences that as Mike Strickland is now facing for making the same sensible decisions to protect his life.

After all, two wrongs don’t make a right. And while a badge shouldn’t grant extra rights, it shouldn’t mean you have any fewer rights either.

Source: nypost.com

After Orlando shooting, Florida Republicans want to eliminate gun-free zones

A rose by any other name…

Seems rather desperate when one is forced to use the same regurgitated, unpopular, and failed arguments one has used in years gone by.

I do recall the same reactionary types calling Florida the “Gunshine State” because its citizens had the gall to support giving themselves more control over their own security.

This repeated itself time and time again, as it will continue to and should.

You can’t defeat a distributed threat by centralizing the response… most people sense this intuitively, hence the resistance to centralize.

“In the aftermath of the deadly Orlando nightclub and Fort Lauderdale airport shootings, two Republican lawmakers in Florida are pushing to eradicate the Sunshine State’s “gun-free zones” in a move that would put more guns in public areas. Sen. Dennis Baxley, of Ocala, and Rep. Don Hahnfeldt, of The Villages, want to allow people with concealed weapon permits to carry a deadly firearm nearly anywhere, including local bars, voting booths, courthouses, public schools, colleges and university campuses, airport passenger terminals and maybe even a Miami Dolphins game.”

 

Source: rawstory.com

Coming After Your (replica) Guns?

Toy gun

Of the 86 fatal shootings involving imitation firearms since 2015, the most common theme was mental illness: 38 of those killed had a history of it, according to their families and police reports. Fourteen of the calls were domestic disturbances. Ten others began as robberies. The remaining circumstances range from patrolling neighborhoods to serving arrest warrants to making traffic stops.

Are more laws needed to make a fake gun look fake to protect the person wielding it inappropriately?

Is the problem fake guns that look too real (whatever that means), or could other factors be at play?

Since people under a life or death situation (such as those described in the article) naturally achieve a sympathetic nervous system or (SNS) response which includes the loss of color vision; what modifications will be demanded when simply coloring guns differently doesn’t fix the problem?

It seems to me that the real problem is that some people choose to intimidate, coerce, or otherwise threaten other innocent people, and then other people react with appropriate levels of counterviolence when faced with someone acting in a manner that suggests that they or others are in immediate jeopardy of loss of life and limb.

As my friends in law enforcement say “You do stupid thing, you win stupid prizes.”

Read More

String of shootings on party buses exposes gray area in regulations in Chicago?

And near the bottom of the article, the real issue comes out.

I am skeptical that any licensed carriers committed any of the shootings, and if they did, they need to be made an example of.

No need for further regulations, simply enforce violations of the NAP will take care of it.

There are already laws on the books for this kind of behavior, no need to place more regulations on any industry.

Pearson said he didn’t think a change in the law would make any difference because it’s unclear whether people shooting others on party buses are licensed concealed carry owners.

Source: String of shootings on party buses reveals gray area in regulations – Chicago Tribune

Texas anti-gun students seeking safe space after parody film mocks their position

Not believing that all is fair in love and war, the gun-control crowd at the University of Texas (UT) is upset about a parody film created by other students that seems to imply “a dildo can’t save your life.”

“At first I thought that it was just a poorly made rebuttal to our protest,” Lopez said. “And then I skipped forward and I saw the subject shot in the head with the sex toy fall to the ground next to her. Of course I was disgusted.”

While a logical argument could be made that the film is stating an obvious point, the offended group is overlooking the more subtle and twisted sub-plot. . . by disarming people or keeping them disarmed, they are condoning sending men with guns to enforce their desires using the credible threat of lethal force.

In other words, it’s our own fears that enslave them (and their law abiding neighbors). . . And in this case – firearms owners have proven they are the least of societies worries.

Rather ironic.

Who in their right mind would want to disarm the very group of people that have been proven to break the fewest laws?

Who in their right mind would want to disarm a group whose use of lethal force is demonstrated to be extremely long suffering – even to a fault.

This same demographic invests millions of their own dollars seeking out self improvement through training, then purchasing their own training, firearms, training and defensive ammo, and even investing in the best life-saving equipment (including first aid) their money can buy.

Firearms owners do this in order to increase their ability to win the fight of their lives in the hopes of saving innocent life, they do this without any government mandates, handouts, or tax breaks… and they do this knowing full well knowing they will be highly scrutinized and likely be targeted for their efforts to defend innocent life.

Firearms owners and carriers voluntarily deal with red tape, pay the added expenses (in both time and money), and places themselves under government scrutiny — all to be permitted to exercise the right to defend themselves (both before and after, if — God help them — they actually need to shoot another human being in the defense of innocent life).

This heroic behavior and judicious use of lethal force doesn’t just seem to be the product of regulation either, because in those states that allow constitutional carry (no licensing to exercise a right), these unregulated and armed citizens have also proven to be among the least of societies’ problems.

It’s also noteworthy to remember that this demographic includes a grassroots movement whose activists have single-handily kept well funded, astro-turf, special interests like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and their ilk – fighting defensive battles as the anti-gunners continues to lose support of their illogical stand.

Well done gun owners, well done.

Source: Houston Chronicle

A 20TH Century History of Infringement

L. Neil Smith tells it like it is.

Last week, I was chatting contentedly with my friends on Facebook (who would ever have thought I’d say that?) about gun politics, when I was interrupted by (ostensibly) a young woman (everybody’s young compared to me these days) who denied that anyone in politics was out to take my guns away and asserted, in essence that I am some kind of paranoid crank.

Source: A 20TH Century History of Infringement, by L. Neil Smith

UA-56674165-2