The Weekly Sedition

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++.

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

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Dear Starbucks

My recent email to the head honchoes at Starbucks, sent via a hoplophobe website:

Dear Starbucks,

Thank you for allowing private civilians to exercise the right to own and carry weapons for self-defense in your locations. Because of this, I will go to Starbucks whenever possible over your competition.

Your support for the Second Amendment IS appreciated.

Again, thank you.

Here’s the link, for those wanting to send their own:

http://action.momsdemandaction.org/page/speakout/dear-starbucks

H/T Jospeh L. Roberts

This is almost as good as when I sent Jeff Bingaman a check for 1 back in 1994 – he’s been sending me holiday-season cards ever since.


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

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

Friday, 10 August 2012

Krueger Lacks True Common Sense (and Balance)


This was originally posted as a letter to the editor to The Albuquerque Journal on Monday, 30 July 2012.

In her “Up Front” column “Add Common Sense to Gun Law Arsenal” from 27 July, Joline Gutierrez Krueger attempts to stand atop the dead and injured of the Aurora movie shooting. The sad part is that in attempting just that, she stumbles from lack of balance – and common sense.

For example, she insinuates that higher crime rates in New Mexico are due to lenient gun laws (no supporting data was provided) – what does she say to those of us who say that the crime rate is due more to the something-for-nothing welfare state and Drug Prohibition?

What about Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming, where people can carry concealed weapons without a permit? Why is it that crime rates per capita are lower in those states than in states with more restrictive gun laws?

She goes on to parrot a comment from Obama, who never understood the true purpose of the Second Amendment:

“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms . . . . But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

Remember that when Obama refers to guns “on the streets of our cities,” he’s really talking about the ones in your private possession. In the end, it doesn’t matter to him whether you’ve committed any sort of violent act or not.

When they wrote the Constitution and Bill of rights, both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists commented explicitly that they wanted the civilian population to have access to the military arms of the day. Back then, that was muzzle-loading flintlocks. Now it’s the Glock pistol, the AK-47, the M4 carbine, the MP-5 subgun and the MP7A1 PDW.

In much the same sense, the Founders never envisioned radio, television and the internet when they wrote the First Amendment, allegedly guaranteeing our rights to free speech and freedom of the press that Krueger uses for these columns. Should Krueger surrender her “assault keyboard” lest she write something that incites someone to commit a violent act? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Finally, if Krueger’s point – “guns cause crime” – were true, then why don’t we hear about bloodbaths of the kind we saw in Aurora, at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech at gun shows and shooting ranges? Why don’t we see hunters killing each other over that perfect tree stand or duck blind?



Mike Blessing
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico
505-515-7015 / http://lpnm.us

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


Copyright © 2012 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 gedit and Notepad++.


Friday, 5 February 2010

Why No One Invades Switzerland

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , — weeklysedition @ 3:20 PM


Thanks to Paul Gessing for reminding me that a good bit of Switzerland’s safety is due to that country’s non-interventionist foreign policy.

As opposed to Buchanan-style “let’s build walls around the country” isolationism, which is just as stupid as Bushevik / McCaindroid neo-conservative “let’s bomb them them into being our friends” schtick, which The Barack made hay of during the 2008 campaign, then started doing on his own after being inaugurated in 2009.


bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Sunday, 7 June 2009

A Continent-Wide Switzerland?

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — weeklysedition @ 6:11 PM

Reading this week’s edition of The Libertarian Enterprise, I took notice of an resurrected article by long-time friend L. Neil Smith

What he’s proposing in in his reposted article Radically Decentralized Defense is nothing morethan a continent-wide version of the Swiss Confederation, commonly known as Switzerland.

I don’t say this to disparage his article, but to support it by showing that YES there IS historical precedent on hand for his idea. In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it, and further note that a significant number of America’s Founders would have supported it, as well.

An addition, though — current (OK, government-sponsored) laser research is expanding to levels you’re only hinting at in this article. At present, they’re working on truck-mountable units capable of shooting down artillery shells and mortar rounds in flight [1]. Where I say “working on,” I don’t mean developing the technology, I mean getting ready for field deployment. Add to that the fact that they’ve already deployed laser units (again, mounted on a truck) for use in destroying IEDs from a distance [2].

NOTES

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_high_energy_laser#Demonstrator
  2. defense-update.com/products/t/thor-IED.htm

Nukes and the Second Amendment

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — weeklysedition @ 6:09 PM

Current mood: annoyed

I’m sure that we’ve all heard it before when discussing the right to own and carry weapons (especially handguns) with hoplophobes and fence-sitters —

C’mon now, let’s be reasonable here — when they wrote the Second Amendment, they weren’t talking about nuclear weapons. Why would anyone want one of those?

FIRST, this argument is a way for the prosepctive hoplophobe to hook you, the ROCW advocate, over to his side. After all, who doesn’t want to be “reasonable,” right?

NOW for the purposes of discussion, let’s assume that my next-door neighbor actually has a fully-functional 20-kiloton fission device in his garage.

SECOND, if he doesn’t set it off, who is harmed? If he does decide to detonate, I won’t even know it if I’m home — the fireball will vaporize the nerves before the signal has time to register in the brain, and I’ll never feel it. And who will the survivors prosecute and/or sue? Certainly not him!

THIRD, I’d like to know who his investment broker is — nukes aren’t something you pick up at the flea market for Ø4.99, or at a gun show, despite Brady Campaign agitprop — they generally run a few million FRNs a pop on the black market, and that’s for the fully-assembled ones. If you can afford to blow that much cash on a one-use item like that, more power to you.

FOURTH, assuming he decided to go the DIY route to building his membership card in the Don’t Fuck With Me Club, it’s true that you can get the general theory and some of the specifics from the internet. Still, assembling the parts will be rather expensive — plutonium or yellowcake isn’t something that you pick up at Home Depot for pocket change — it’s in short supply, as it has peaceful uses in the power-generation field as well as being useful in making nuclear explosives. The deuterium and tritium used in fusion devices is likewise quite rare. Add to this the fact that there’s quite a bit of electronics and chemical explosives needed to make the thing work right, as well. Not only does the prospective protege to Dr. Khan need to acquire this stuff, but he also has to know how to handle the yellowcake or plutonium safely (from what I understand, it’s rather toxic stuff, chemically speaking, in addition to any radioactivity), as well as making the electronics and chemical explosives all WORK TOGETHER PROPERLY — you’ll need at least a bachelor’s degree in physics to make this happen — a masters is more likely. If the chemical explosives aren’t PRECISELY aligned and centered, they might still go off and vaporize the radioactive core, but you won’t get the fireball, flash, shock wave and distinctive mushroom cloud — and that’s what the Suburbian Mad Bomber wants, right?

FIFTH, even with just the “physics package” (the part that goes “BOOM!”), you’re looking at something at least the size of a basketball, if not a beach ball. This isn’t something that you’ll fit in your pocket or on your belt, like a handgun that the hoplophobe is trying to talk you out of carrying and owning.

FINALLY, who says that there are not PEACEFUL uses for nuclear explosives? We’ve had chemical explosives used for over a century for peaceful purposes in these fields —

  • mining
  • road-building
  • tunnel-building
  • demolition to remove old buildings, bridges, etc.

In fact, there HAVE been efforts to use nukes for peaceful purposes —


NOTES

  1. Micah 4:3 — And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
  2. A FAR BETTER use of the name “Orion” than George Worthless’ attempt to rebuild the Apollo program — “Long live Nixon!” and all that.
  3. This article was, in part, inspired by an article in The Libertarian EnterpriseRadically Decentralized Defense, by L. Neil Smith

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Is CCW OK on CNM’s Campus?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — weeklysedition @ 5:22 PM

Current mood: amused, contemplative, devious

Is CCW (carrying concealed weapons) OK on CNM’s campuses? The Administration says no, but read on . . .

According to  CNM’s Student Code of Conduct, carrying weapons on campus is verboeten

NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT:
ALL STUDENTS
SAFETY VIOLATIONS
1. Unauthorized use, possession or storage of any weapon or explosive (including fireworks) on CNM premises or at CNM sponsored activities. [1]

Which is kind of amusing, because here’s some other violations that I see on a routine basis —

  • skateboarding
  • dispersing litter on the premises (I don’t actually see this one, but there’s litter scattered around campus, and it’s not getting there on its own . . .)
  • drinking and eating in classrooms and labs
  • parking bicycles outside of designated areas

There’s even a situation where the Photonics Lab (N-21) was repeated entered by various persons after hours, resulting in various lasers being misaligned, mirrors monkeyed with, a staff member’s bicycle taken for an unauthorized ride and returned with goathead seeds stuck all over the tires . . .

There’s more from the “Safety” Department

  • Never bring firearms or other weapons on premises, including buildings, parking lots and vehicles.
  • Fascination with guns or other weapons may indicate an employee at risk for violent behavior. Carefully consider such situations and, if appropriate, report it to your supervisor.

That second line there is particularly chilling — “fascination with guns or other weapons” is a reason to report someone as a threat. So if a student or faculty member is reading a gun- or martial-arts-related book or magazine, the person becomes a “threat” ? Consider that the school’s IT Department has the capability to monitor the web traffic of each and every user, student, staff and faculty alike. What’s to stop the Administration from labeling sites concerning weapons as “suspicious,” and to flag traffic to them for review?

Answer — only the good graces of the Administration. Hell, even this blog posting could be considered “grounds for disciplinary action.”

Now to the meat of this matter — is having weapons on campus illegal?

First, let’s stipulate the sheer idiocy of the question, in that anything — car, book, rolled-up-newspaper, ballpoint pen, walking cane, chair, water bottle — can be used as a weapon if used with the intent to harm another — or defend oneself or others from harm. The “debate” here revolves around objects purposely-built to serve that intent — guns, certain knives, batons.

More to the point, the Powers That Be and their lapdogs are especially worried about The Root Of All Violence — The Gun.

Is having a gun on campus illegal? Yes and no.

YES, in that the hoplophobic prohibition against them is in the rules that students and faculty agree to upon signing up, which is “backed up” by State Law, considering that CNM is property of the State of New Mexico, and such. Especially if you get caught with one in your pocket, purse or on your belt. (Cops excepted, of course.)

NO — As a public institution, CNM is (or should be) obliged to follow the State Constitution, which states —

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) [2]

But who am I fooling here? I have no expectations that the Administration or Governing Board will care in the slightest that students and staff are functional, rational adults, with all of the expectant rights, privileges and immunities. Still, you should be OK IF YOU KEEP YOUR WEAPON LOCKED IN THE TRUNK OF YOUR CAR. See this letter to UNM’s Daily Lobo

Having a concealed weapon in a vehicle on campus is legal
Issue date: 1/28/09 Section: Opinion
Editor,

I am writing this in response to Larry Tarvin’s confusion on whether a weapon can be in a vehicle at school, and I want to assure you that the dean of students is correct that a person can have a loaded, concealed weapon in his or her vehicle on campus.

This is because in New Mexico, a car is considered an extension of your dwelling and is private property. As such, anything you can legally have in your home, you can legally have in your vehicle, even if it is parked on city or state property. There are some exceptions, however. The Air Force base and public schools are different as they are either federal property or, in the case of schools, federally funded. But if you remove the weapon from your vehicle – even just to move it from the front seat to the trunk – you would be in violation of the law and committing a fourth-degree felony.

I know this because I have a concealed-carry license and this was explained to us during the training course. Like it or not, property laws are why people can have a weapon in their car on state or city property. In fact, you do not even need a license (concealed-carry or otherwise) to have a loaded weapon concealed in your vehicle just as you don’t need a license to have it concealed in your house.

James Taylor
UNM student

Finally, let’s examine another “gun free school zone” — Virginia Tech. We know all too well about how much Seung-Hui Cho complied with Vriginia Tech’s weapons-prohibition rules, don’t we?

That’s the reason that such codes are more properly referred to as victim disarmament codes.

NOTES

  1. Student Code of Conduct, bottom left of page 3
  2. Article II — Bill of Rights, Section 6 — Right to bear arms
  3. Related organizations — Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and the CNM Shooting Club

Older Posts »