The Weekly Sedition

Monday, 3 October 2016

Quote of the Day for Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Filed under: Quote of the Day, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:26 PM

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s Liberty teeth and keystone under Independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this Land knows firearms and more than 99 99/100 per cent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference and they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go all goes, therefore we need them every hour.”
~ C. S. Wheatley.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Extropy UnboundFacebook / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoBlog / FB page / FB group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoBlog / FB page / FB group
      3. CNM College Libertarian ClubBlog / FB group
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, CNM College Libertarian Club and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Advertisements

Friday, 19 August 2016

[LPNM] Resolution: Right to Self-Defense and to Firearms

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 4:31 AM

WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent and unalienable human right; and

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Libertarian Party (LNC) and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; and

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the LNC and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico affirm the right of due process, and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; and

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition, and may further seek to deprive people, who have been convicted of no crime, of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of New Mexico opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person solely for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list, and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations.


Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 18 July 2016

Obama: “It’s easier to get a Glock than a book . . . .”

When addressing the assembled mourners in Dallas, Barry Obama said the following[1]:

It’s easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer . . . or even a book.

First, there’s these places called libraries that will let you read books without going through any paperwork at all. Quite a few of these . . . libraries . . . will let you check out books and — wait for it — take them home without so much as a simple background check.

Nor do the librarians make you fill out federally-mandated paperwork asking you if you’re a convicted felon, fugitve from justice, illegal immigrant, been dishonorably discharged from the military, have been adjudicated as mentally unfit to read, have any domestic violence convictions, or if you’ve renounced your U.S. citizenship.

And if you want to keep the book, you don’t go to a library, but to another place called a bookstore, where you can hand over some of your cash and take the book home with you. No background check, no waiting period, just pay for your book, take it and go. Nor do you have to be at least 21 years old to purchase small, easily-carried books.

Why, they even let you buy or borrow multiple books without additional paperwork. WOW!

Nor do the feds require bookstore owners to get a federal license to sell books across state lines.

Now, what about prices?

Let’s see:

A mass-market paperback of the kind that I bought most of my books as ran at 2.50 (plus tax) back in the early 1980s. Now they’re up to ∅7.99-8.99.

Trade paperbacks in the 6″ x 9″ format usually run ∅9.99-19.99, depending on how many pages, the publisher, etc.

Hardbacks are pricier — they’re usually over ∅20, most likely in the ∅22-27 range (it does pay at times to check the remainder tables!).

How about computers, then?

You can get a used desktop (such as the one I’m typing this article on) for about ∅100-200 (I paid ∅90 to a place that was going out of business).

Used laptops are in the same price range.

And as with books, there’s no need to fill out any federally-mandated paperwork, no waiting periods, no required background check, no age requirement. You can get a computer, even a brand-new one, even if you’re a convicted felon, messed up between the ears, been dishonorably discharged, etc., etc.

As for the Glock, though, that’s a bit different. Brand-new, a Glock will run you about ∅500. Used, they can go for more or less, depending on condition and after-market modifications. A factory-model Glock in decent condition will cost you about ∅300.

On top of that, if you’re a convicted felon, don’t get caught possessing that Glock by the cops — the feds love to throw people in prison for ten-year stretches for that.

That federally-mandated paperwork and background check I linked to above? That’s the sort of thing you have to go through to purchase a firearms from a federally-licensed dealer. In order to sell firearms across state lines and on any sort of commercial basis, the feds require that the dealer get a Federal Firearms License [FFL].

So much for Obama’s comment in Dallas.

Here’s the really bad part about Obama’s comment:

He’s got advisors from the Cabinet secretaries and agency directors on down who could have offered up the correct information for his Dallas speech. It’s already bad taste to use a memorial service to score political points. On top of that, he used nonsensical comments to score those points? Come one, now.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ixquick search / DuckDuckGo search / Startpage search / Qwant search / Encrypted Google search

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 9.2

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 20 June 2016

“No One Wants to Take Away Your Guns” [2]

Well, it’s Hoplophobia Season again, as your friendly (in appearance only) politicians scramble to stand atop the fifty-some bodies of those killed at Pulse Orlando. As usual, their media friends will say “no one wants to take your guns,” even as they say explicitly that they do want to disarm you. Here are some examples:

The first is an old one, from August of last year, from science fiction, fantasy and comic book writer Peter David, which is a shame, as David can be a good writer when he wants to be. Still, at least he’s honest and up-front about his desire to disarm America’s population, which is more than I can say for most hoplophobes and victim disarmers.

[Click on the pictures to go the article]

Amitai Etzioni, a current proponent of what’s called “communitarianism,” wrote the next piece in The Huffington Post yesterday, and suggests that they probably will need to be sneaky about disarming the American population:

[Click on the pictures to go the article]


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Wikipedia page on Peter David
  2. Wikipedia page on Amitai Etzioni
  3. Wikipedia page on Communitarianism

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 15.9
  2. Reposted –
    1. Extropy UnboundFacebook / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 2 March 2015

An open letter to Ladd Everitt at CSGV

Filed under: Humor, Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:32 AM

Mr. Everitt –

As we all have noticed, you have a rather disconcerting obsession with the penises (penii?) of firearm owners and are constantly comparing them to the size of those who do not own guns. This particular fetish for penis size comparison is quite interesting, very much so to be honest. With that in mind we’d like to ask you a few questions.

  1. How long have you been meat gazing?
  2. Do you also compare the dick size of minors who enjoy guns?
  3. Is your comparison based on erect or flaccid penises?
    1. If erect to you give out a handie before measuring?
    2. If you give a handie do they get a happy ending or do you leave them with blue balls?
  4. Do you go “hands on” or just guesstimate?
  5. Do you ask to check penis size or do it surreptitiously?
  6. How many dicks have you measured over the years?

Considering your penis fetish, as displayed on your Facebook page, we feel these are valid concerns. We are most concerned with question #2 as most of our sons also enjoy the shooting sports and the fact you are checking out their dick size is rather troubling. As a matter of fact there is a word that describes adults who groove on checking out the genitalia of children.

Anyway we await the answers to our queries and thank you for your cooperation.


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 8.3
  2. Original article

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Saturday, 24 August 2013

How did we ever survive . . . ?

How did we ever survive with such death machines available to the general public through the mail, with the only paperwork involved being the sales slip?

Why were there no rivers of blood and gore flowing through the streets on a daily basis?

Up until 1934, subguns could be purchased without any mandatory paperwork from any level of government – no required background checks, no mandatory fingerprinting or photographs, no 200 transfer tax, no requirement that you get your police chief or sheriff to sign off on your purchase.

In fact, the STEN gun advertised in the picture was made AFTER the National Firearms Act of 1934 had been passed and signed into “law” – the STEN was first developed in 1941, as World War II was getting started. You see, the Brits had dumped truckloads of military-pattern rifles and subguns into the North Sea after WWI, rather than let their private citizens have them. The fact that quite a few weapons had to be left behind during the Dunkirk evacuation compounded the matter.

In this case, Cadmus Industries’ advert uses the phrases “airdropped to Maquis” and “used in ill-fated Rommel HQ raid.”

And after the War, plenty of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines brought weapons home in their duffel bags – not only war prizes such as specimens of the MG 42, FG 42, MG 34, Luger, MP 40, StG 44, Nambu pistol, etc., but they also brought home American and Allied weapons such as BREN guns, M1 rifles, M1 carbines and Browning Automatic rifles. Quite a few of those returning service members didn’t bother to fill out any NFA paperwork, and quite properly so – the federal rules requiring such paperwork are quasi-Constitutional at best in the letter of the Constitution, the Declaration and the Bull of Rights. Where the spirit of the Founding Documents is concerned, the NFA-1934 is flat-out ANTI–Constitutional.

Yet there didn’t seem to be many if any “active shooter” type of spree killers, of the kinds we saw at Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine High School, etc. Never mind that all of those locations had been legislatively designated as “gun free zones” since 1990 (thank you, (REPUBLICAN) George H. W. Bush!) where no one but law-enforcement personnel are permitted to carry weapons.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. STEN submachine gun – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page
  2. MG 42 machine gun – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page
  3. FG 42 rifle – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page
  4. MG 34 machine gun – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page
  5. MP 40 submachine gun – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page
  6. Sturmgewehr 44 – Wikipedia page / Modern Firearms page

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 15.0
  2. Reposted –
    1. LPUSA / LPNMLPNM Blog / LPBCNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group / LPBCNM Official Facebook group / New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Sunday, 30 June 2013

One Reason Why I Will NEVER Convert to Bahá’ísm

Here are the gory details, straight from the Bahais themselves.

Abstract:

Whether Baha’is may practice self-defense in times of danger, and whether American Baha’is should purchase firearms.

From the texts you already have available it is clear that Bahá’u’lláh has stated that it is preferable to be killed in the path of God’s service than to kill, and that organized religious attack against Bahá’ís should never turn into any kind of warfare, as this is strictly prohibited in our Writings.

So a Bahá’í is expected to “take one for the team” in the name of the faith? If a group of whacko Islamofascists were to set upon a Bahá’í temple with physical violence in mind, the Bahá’ís are supposed to simply stand by and let it happen?

A hitherto untranslated Tablet from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, however, points out that in the case of attack by robbers and highwaymen, a Bahá’í should not surrender himself, but should try, as far as circumstances permit, to defend himself, and later on lodge a complaint with the government authorities. In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian, he also indicates that in an emergency when there is no legal force at hand to appeal to, a Bahá’í is justified in defending his life. In another letter the Guardian has further point out that the assault of an irresponsible assailant upon a Bahá’í should be resisted by the Bahá’í, who would be justified, under such circumstances, in protecting his life.

How exactly is a Bahá’í (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell if the assailant is a responsible one versus an irresponsible one?

If the assailant is a responsible attacker, is then the Bahá’í adherent supposed to refrain from resisting?

What if the Bahá’í deems the attacker to be irresponsible, and later it’s determined that the thug was indeed a responsible thug?

The House of Justice does not wish at the present time to go beyond the guidelines given in the above-mentioned statements. The question is basically a matter of conscience, and in each case the Bahá’í involved must use his judgment in determining when to stop in self-defense lest his action deteriorate into retaliation.

Oh no, the horrors of retaliation!

Of course the above principles apply also in cases when a Bahá’í finds himself involved in situations of civil disorder. We have, however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that under the present circumstances in that country it is preferable that Bahá’ís do not buy nor own arms for their protection or the protection of their families.

Here we have it – an explicit proclamation from Bahá’í officialdom that firearms ownership is discouraged.

With that, I can safely say that I am not joining and will not join the Bahá’í faith.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Self-Defense, Guidance on by Universal House of Justice, first written or published 1969-05-26

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNow New Mexico’s Executive Director Pat Davis will tell you that they are all in favor of expanding the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. In reality, they are ultimately hindering the LGBT cause, as opposed to helping it.

“How so?” you might ask. After all, both of them have been rather outspoken in support of same-sex marriage.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, Bushee was quoted as “urging county clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”[1]

And ProgressNow New Mexico joined in yesterday with an email blast and Facebook posting.[2]

Now remember that in 2005, Democrat Attorney General Patsy Madrid filed litigation against same-sex marriage licenses issued by Victoria Dunlap. Those with good memories for the political scene will note that Dunlap was the Republican County Clerk in Sandoval County at the time. After Dunlap left office, Patsy dropped the lawsuit she filed against Dunlap’s actions.

The lesson to be learned from this is the Democrats will treat people of the LGBT persuasion as a political soccer ball, to be kicked around at a whim. Why shouldn’t they, as LGBT people will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat regardless of what Democrats do between elections?

And it should also be noted that both Bushee and Davis regard the rights of others not in their political circle as soccer balls, to be kicked around at their leisure. If not as flies to be swatted.

On the latter, I’m referring to one issue in particular, specifically the individual right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, for the purpose of self-defense.

On 20 December 2012, Bushee said that she would sponsor a ban on civilian possession of “assault weapons” – military-pattern semiautomatic rifles – within the city limits of Santa Fe[3]. Warbling in tune with Bushee, ProgressNow NM has kept up a steady flow of strident, hoplophobic catcalls on behalf of the victim disarmament cause[4].

Consider that since it was founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party has supported the rights of LGBT people to live their lives free from coercion just the same as we libertarians support the rights of conservatives to live free from coercion.

How many conservative-type people in New Mexico really care per se about LGBT people being of the LGBT persuasion? Probably not many. So when I bring up to them the idea that LGBT should be just as free as they are to live without coercion, my case is undermined by Davis, Bushee and their ilk clamoring to infringe upon other, equally-cherished rights. “Why should I care about their rights when they don’t care about mine?” goes the question.

In short, if Bushee and Davis want their cherished freedom to be LGBT to be upheld, it would behoove them to respect the rights of others to own and carry weapons, among other rights.

_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing / http://mikewb1971.wordpress.com / Phone – 505-249-1248
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”
_______________________________________________________________________

NOTES

  1. Albuquerque Journal: 20 March 2013 – City Attorney: Same-sex marriage OK
    Santa Fe New Mexican: 19 March 2013 – Santa Fe leaders ask county clerks to honor same-sex marriage
  2. ProgressNow New Mexico – Facebook page post and email blast
  3. Albuquerque Journal: 20 December 2012 – Assault Weapons Ban?, 14 January 2013 – Coss Headlines Santa Fe Gun Control Press Conference
  4. http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488185797897738
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488015187914799
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487840961265555
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487719194611065
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487713881278263
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/526701757382247
    http://progressnownewmexico.pnstate.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=81426.0
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487208071328844
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487207284662256

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Thursday, 14 March 2013

The Armed Defense of Liberty by Dr. Alan Keyes

The Armed Defense of Liberty

By Dr. Alan Keyes – July 30, 1999

Despite the heroic efforts of Sen. Bob Smith to turn it back, the latest batch of irrational and servile restrictions on the Second Amendment continues to ooze its way through that allegedly deliberative institution, the Congress. Perhaps because the gun control debate is now so entirely drenched in the emotive sludge that is the principal intellectual food of our political establishment, this seems a good moment to recall the deep reasons, the fundamental context, that must inform any responsible deliberations on the question of an armed citizenry.

I believe that underlying all of the prominent issues of the day – abortion, the breakdown of the family and of our educational institutions, the betrayal of our national sovereignty and military readiness, and the ongoing expansion of government’s tyrannical claims to tax and regulate – we can discern what is essentially one moral challenge which manifests itself in many areas. Simply stated, that challenge has to do with the corruption of our understanding of freedom, which leads to the abandonment of respect for law and individual responsibility, the twin pillars which ought to under-gird true freedom.

As a free people, our way of life depends upon certain moral ideas. As a matter of personal conscience, I believe that Christianity most perfectly embodies those ideas. But since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with issues of public policy, we must derive these ideas from sources that are open to support from all the people.

Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the principles and logic of our own Declaration of Independence, so American citizens and statesmen should make it the explicit basis for dealing with the moral crisis we now face.

The Declaration is fundamentally a statement of the principles of justice that define the moral identity of the American people. It presents a certain concept of our human nature and draws out the political consequences of that concept.

All human beings are created equal. They need no title or qualification beyond their simple humanity in order to command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their “unalienable rights.” The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.

But the Declaration is more than just an assertion of rights. It also makes a clear statement about the ultimate source of authority which commands respect for those rights. God, the Creator, the author of the laws of nature, is that source.

Thus the effective prerequisite for human rights is respect for God’s authority and His eternal laws. This is also the prerequisite for the idea of government based upon consent, which includes free elections, representation, due process of law, etc. If we accept the logic of our Declaration of Independence, this reverence for God is not just a matter of religious faith. It is the foundation of justice and citizenship in our republic.

Therefore, our freedom is derived from our respect for law, especially the highest law as embodied in the will of the Creator. Thus freedom, rightly understood, cannot be confused with mere licentiousness. It first of all involves the duty to respect its own foundations in the laws of nature and nature’s God. That’s why our rights are “unalienable,” which means that we do not have the right to surrender or destroy them by our choice or actions.

Indeed, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have the duty to resist and overthrow the power responsible. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral and material capacity to resist tyranny. These principles constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain.

It is in the context of these principles that we must understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the duties that it implies. The Founders added the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover those rights.

If we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. It is very hard to do this if the government has all the weapons, something that our Founders and the generations before and after them knew from repeated and first-hand experience, as well as from a study of history. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

The claim that the Second Amendment is principally concerned with the maintenance of state militias – military bodies under the direction and control of state governments – is not just historically false, it is also fundamentally incoherent. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses. The gun control movement is incompatible with the sovereignty of the people, because it aims to eliminate one of the key material supports of that sovereignty.

This is not the principal danger of the gun control movement, however. Perhaps more important than the physical disarmament the government is attempting is the moral disarmament that accompanies it. If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can’t be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?

The advocates of gun control take as their first principle that the American people are morally incompetent creatures of passion. The America they envision for us is, accordingly, more like a national 24-hour day-care center than a self-governing republic of free men and women. If we agree to accept this apparently comfortable arrangement, we will have to check our citizenship at the door along with our guns.

If, on the other hand, we intend to exercise the duties of self-government and justice that are our patrimony as free and rational creatures, then we will need to think clearly and coherently about securing the means necessary to do so. We must defend the moral self-confidence of America by reasserting the capacity of our people to make the most important decisions and bear the most important responsibilities themselves. And we must retain the material means necessary to shoot the windows out of the national day-care center, if it comes to that.

Second Amendment rights are sacred because of their connection to higher rights and higher duties, which are the very substance of liberty and justice, and to the God that America has always acknowledged as the source of both. We cannot surrender our guns without surrendering the vision of human dignity under God which is our national soul. The slow erosion of our national understanding of this fact is continuing in the Congress. Only a citizenry armed with a clear understanding of what is at stake can ultimately save us from the civic imbecility to which the gun control movement leads. By disarming, we will confess to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty, and wish our rulers to take up this burden in our stead. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves – and slaves, at least, we will soon become.

The terrible history of the 20th century should make clear enough that subjection to unlimited government is not desirable. But a clear and thoughtful examination of our national principles teaches us also that it is our duty to shun such servitude. It is our right, and it is our duty, to remain free.


Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Responding to the BCSO “Buy-Back”

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Responding to the BCSO “Buy-Back”
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:19:37
From: Mike Blessing
To: Tom Zdunek, Debbie O’Malley, Art De La Cruz, Maggie Hart Stebbins, Lonnie C. Talbert, Wayne A. Johnson, Dan Houston

Dear Commissioners, Mr. Zdunek:

Recently I was surfing the web and found the following:

BernCo Compass: Gun Buybacks, Strip Club Rules and Downtown Housing

Here’s the pertinent part:

Issue: Gun Buyback

The county conducted its first gun buyback day on Saturday, Feb. 9, in the North Valley. People who anonymously surrendered their firearms were compensated – no questions asked. If the weapons were stolen, they were to be returned to their rightful owners. Deputy County Manager Tom Swisstack said the program brought in 333 weapons, seven of which were assault rifles. The $50,000 put up by the county for purchasing the guns ran out within two hours.

Swisstack added that it’s the most successful buyback day in the state so far. He thanked Sheriff Dan Houston for doing an outstanding job, and Commissioner Debbie O’Malley for moving the program forward.

BernCo View

O’Malley thanked everyone for the compliments but said when she got to the North Valley Command Center on Saturday, she was surrounded by other gun traders in the parking lot. They waited outside harassing folks, she said, telling them they would buy the guns for more than the county was paying. She said she was surprised people could do that kind of gun trading in a parking lot without permits.

Swisstack assured that next time, the sheriff would block off the area around the substation. The next buyback day is Saturday, Feb. 23, at the South Area Command Center (2039 Isleta SW).

First, this wasn’t a buy-back event at all – the word “buy-back” assumes that you originally owned them and are buying them back, when the truth is that the firearms purchased by BCSO weren’t owned by Bernalillo County in the first place.

Second, this event was advertised and reported upon as some sort of “public service,” in order to “get the guns off the streets.” This is code-speak from the victim disarmament crowd for getting firearms away from private citizens, whom as “we all know,” “can’t be trusted” with any weapon more powerful than a plastic straw loaded with spitballs.

Third, the ONLY good thing about these “buy-back” events is that BCSO is apparently to return any firearms found to have been stolen back to their rightful owners.

Fourth, considering Tom Swisstack’s anti-Constitutional comments of ” . . . next time, the sheriff would block off the area around the substation,” perhaps it’s time that Bernalillo County picked out a new Deputy County Manager. As well as a new Sheriff if Dan Houston goes along with this.

It seems that I have until 1 May 2014 to gather sufficient signatures to recall Mr. Houston, and 1 May 2016 to do the same for Ms. O’Malley.

_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing / Phone – 505-249-1248
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico – http://lpnm.us

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”


Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Older Posts »