The Libertists

I often get into this argument about voting, what others call, third party. The general argument that is presented is that in order to make a difference one is simply wasting their vote if they vote for any other contender than the two individuals standing for the two so-called opposite parties. If, for example the voter is a communist they are best to side with the democrat, because at least some of their views are reflected and some of their hopes and opinions for the future are going to make it and, god willing, sometime in the glorious unfurled future of mankind all of the communist’s views will eventually climb from the shadows and bask in the wondrous sunshine. But that’s just pie in the sky hogwash and worse, leaves the values and opinions of the so-called voter to not only others, but those possible beings years from now. Talk about a cop-out and leaving the weight of ones life on the shoulders of your children. Isn't it bad enough we leave them with our debt? Those

10 Round Magazines A Failure in Logic (or how Legislators refute science, just like in the middle ages) Modern firearms are so designed to be rather modular. Take for example the AR-15. The so called ‘assault weapon’. The commercially available version only fires every time you pull the trigger. Just like any other firearm. It is no different than the 10/22 made by Ruger in function. It is no different than the Ruger mini-14, the Browning BAR, or the Remington 750. They all fire comparable bullets at varying speeds at the same rate: As fast as you can pull the trigger. The only real difference is that the AR (That is the Armalite platform – AR is short for Armalite) was designed so that if some object in the gun failed, broke, or needed updated or changing it could be done by the owner and not require a gunsmith to make the changes. This idea, that is creating a modular rifle, changed the way firearms were manufactured. No longer was the entire metal object of the gun f

I normally require an intellectual argument before I get drawn into the mire of someone else's thought. But alas, I too, sometimes befall the follies of emotion. I watched this video of Eddie Vedder and its lack of usable information and overly emotional propaganda, angered me. It angered me so much that I felt at first that I would only be able to rant about its sheer stupidity and not be able to find a word of logical discourse. So, I did what I should in such times, I put the leashes on my dogs and took them to the park and looked at the stars. My dogs called to nature and she called back where I came away from that breezy evening sky with at least a sense of willingness to re-listen to him with an attempt to hear his rambling foolishness without the vehemence.  You can watch the video here: ( http://youtu.be/qEDUERnILQM )  He says:  “…continue the discussion…”  Continue the discussion is a clever phrase, because it does set forth a prospect of debate. It simply sa

We must begin to look at each other as equals.  To truly, look into each and every other person and assume that they have the same equal value as we do.  We must, it is imperative, to view our friends, neighbors, countrymen, and fellow mankind, as having the same adult respect we would expect from others.  Life is about the golden rule. The Golden Rule simply states that we should treat others as we wish to be treated.  It does not mean, as many people have made the false ideal of: that we should let others hurt us and expect them to find remorse or 'justice' from a system of other people we consider to hold a position and ability to meter it out.  No, on the contrary, our system is designed to 'help' in situations where individuals were unable to affect justice in their own lives.  Stated another way: our forefathers thought that each person had the legal authority of protecting their Life, Liberty, and Estate and anyone that attempted to take this from an individual

Mr. Gatto, Please seriously consider this argument. 1. Individuals define their own value. This value is related to the work and subsequent efforts required by the individual to achieve their desired goals.  These goals create "Property" as John Locke called the collection of objects and ideals that one individual defines for the self. 2. If someone else, be that one person or a collection of people, even the majority, re-defines that value of Property for the individual, they are effectively determining the value of that persons life.  That all work the individual does is not for the self, but determined and controlled by the collective majority that makes the determination of the Property. 3. This attack on personal Liberty is Tyranny.  If a man approaches me and asks for my wallet while using a sword to demand it, he is saying that my work to achieve the wallet and all things in it, was at his bequest and his superior armament is all the work h

To the California Government, All California is doing by constantly imposing restrictions on a Natural Right of Self Preservation, is to drive people out of this state.  If that is the intention, to drive diversity and different opinions away from California, then by all means, continue down this destructive and controlling path.  Laws that restrict what I can use and what I own are criminal acts that we would not tolerate if our neighbors imposed them on us, but we are suppose to be okay and abide by the illegal actions from legislative organizations that then use our tax moneys to confiscate, control, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate us?  And worse, in order for We the People to defend ourselves against these obviously immoral acts against the natural right to defend ourselves with the best tools available, we have to pay for our own legal fees when suing the state for it's criminal actions and the state then uses our tax money against us for its defense!  Have none of you re

California is back on the firearm registration bandwagon.   There is a bill being passed about that would require all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a magazine to be registered with the state. The proponents of this proposed act all have the same message:  If you are not a criminal, what do you have to worry about? That is crippled response to the important question of, why register? Who does registration help?  What purpose does it serve?  What, possible, results could registration create?  Does it help the individual whom does the registration or does it help the government?  What is the purpose of registration?  Does the purpose of registration give citizens better understanding and protection against gun violence or does it simply help Government? We can examine this closely, because, like all States in the Union, California has enforced laws that require individuals to register their motor vehicles. Does the registration of a motor vehicle do anything of value for

To whom it may concern, I oppose this act on many levels, but to save you from the philosophical failings of such illegal acts will simply leave it all at this: 1. John Locke and later the 18th Century Enlightenment was about the idea of individual sovereignty: Life, Liberty and Estate defined by the individual and only the individual.  Government, groups, churches, and others had no legal right to re-define those intrinsic living attributes.  No more right to do so than I would have the right to enter my neighbors home and throw away his china, simply because the rest of us neighbors got together and voted it to the trash heap.  Our government requires an incredibly powerful argument to take someone else's property, read the 4th amendment; secure in person, papers and effects. 2. Defining someone's property is a direct assault on their Estate and the value that individual creates inside it.  Understand, that only the individual has the right to defi

California has just as much responsibility to Protect Individualism and the right to Self-Sovereignty as any other state.  By not defending the values of this nation you are only creating a situation where those of value that would defend it leave the state and you are left with those that would not. Any law that avoids, ignores, or supersedes the Constitution is not a law.  Even the Supreme Court recognizes this in Norton v. Shelby when it states: An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Any law is un-Constitutional that pre-defines the values set forth in the first few lines: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  For it breaks with the most important principles of being alive and destroys the very natural value of life, when it defines the value of the self.  Laws have no authority to define th

To the Officials in Government, I do not care what your political faction is. I do not care what your social beliefs are. I do not care about your ideology and morals. I care about individualism and self-sovereignty.  Any action forced on a free people is an illegal act no matter if that forcing is done by a King or a State Senate.  It is still a crime.  The forcing of actions against a free people is slavery and enslavement has already seen this country at war twice over.  First the Revolution where we threw off the shackles of a decaying Monocratic ideology and then later when we finally realized that the Constitution guaranteed an already Naturally established set of rights founded on all living things simply by being alive, when we fought and won the Civil War.  In fact, all war for this country has been about the abatement of enslavement by those that have zero love for Liberty and self-sovereignty. It comes down to simply math.  One is either on the side of individual Lib

Part III The 4th Amendment -violated The 4th A  The Text of the 4th Amendment is as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The point of the 4th A is to ensure that government does not simply start taking the fruits of one's labor, that is, of Life, Liberty, and Estate, they, the government, have no authority to seize your Estate.  Currently, in most heavily Liberal States, the only place one is protected under 4A is in their own home and even then, with particular caveats: if the officer 'sees' a crime then he now has probable cause to enter, detain, arrest, and search, even though what he could have seen as probable cause, underage drinking for example, has noth

Part II The 5th Amendment - Ignored   The 5th A When a law is written, it is done so by a very small group of individuals whom do not have to validate the actual legality of the law they propose to pass.  They do not need to do so, because they represent the law itself, therefore anything they pass is automatically the law, regardless of previous versions or points of contention.   That is just the general legalization of a new law and does not even represent the Constitutional ramifications or worse, and more importantly, the requirements to follow Natural Law.  They simply pass their new law and hand it over to the judicial system, as is.  The judicial system doesn't validate it as legal, moral, constitutional or within the rights created by Natural Law, either.  The Judicial system simply enforces it.  This makes for a very weak interpretation of our three branched system of government, because it leaves the courts not as equal, but separate entities, but instead makes the

Deciding what I can own (in relation to firearms) is a clear violation of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.  Which in turn means, that it is violates the 9th and the 10th amendments. Part I The First and the Second Amendments -- Violated   1st A Religion is not the idea of believing in a god.  It is the idea of having a belief.  This belief can be anything that does not require the necessity of science to be validated.  Those things that would require scientific peer review are, well, science and require a rigid set of values and processes to follow, whereby the theory becomes fact or falsified.  A belief is anything that one can say and hold onto without the need for this review process.  To say "I believe in God" is to be religious, but it is just as religious to say, "I believe in humanity"  The attributes of the belief may differ but the underlying notion, that is, believing in something that others may disagree with based on their own views,

California is set to vote on AB-187 The body of the bill actually has the audacity to say "This bill would impose a tax upon retailers for the privilege of selling ammunition at the rate of 10% of the gross receipts..." Privilege?  We are privileged to have a business and maintain our own Liberty and exercise our natural freedoms?  You sirs have lost the most fundamental impression of good taste and confused  your positions with those of old world Kings.  You serve for us, We The People, as a privilege to our good fortune, not the other way around. Frankly, I'm insulted that you believe taxation is merely a tool imposed on the privileged used to control them instead of a means to achieve a common goal...like using that tax money to make roads.  Instead you wield it like a weapon, turning it against good people, trying to control and enslave with it.  I hope that you are at least capable of seeing the hypocrisy of using tax as a weapon while you try to tax away the persona

Tracy Morgan, Actor, made the following statement ( http://gunssavelives.net/blog/tracy-morgan-of-course-i-want-to-get-rid-of-guns/ ): “Of course I want to get rid of guns. My father fought in the Vietnam War and he forbid us to have guns when he came home when we were little, so yes.” I see two possible meanings for this statement and let us discuss them below: 1.  What he really could mean is that he wants to end all forms of violence, from war down.   This is a beautiful ideal.  I think we all shared in this idea at some point in our youth.  I remember, fondly, being young, and having the illusion of peace as part of my very make up.  But then, I started reading.  Almost immediately I realized that of all the greatest destruction imposed on people, those worst moments of man's history, were done by a complacent, obedient people, whom just wanted to do good for others.  War, strife, fighting for property, women or ideals, these things will never go away.   Instead of wish

A quick note: I constantly hear this argument, that criminals do not use background checks, terrorists aren't going to use background checks.  This is all fine and dandy, as it makes a valid argument for why supports of the 2nd Amendment can continue to ply an intellectual position. Yet, the argument is really not relevant, because the opposition (gun-grabbers), if they get their stronger backgrounds and close all loop holes, will find that many guns are initially purchased by legal means.  How they end up in crime can vary (theft, change of disposition of person, etc.), but initially the product is purchased by someone that was able to pass a standard background check.  This is probably true of most guns.  I seriously doubt that most guns are either manufactured by criminals or stolen directly from firearms manufacturer.  My guess is that 99% of guns used in violence against another person are either owned by the person using it or stolen from someone else whom did in fact pur

To the Government, I saw today that Nancy Pelosi vowed to keep the fight up. I would like to offer some advice, and not to be belittling, but just to help explain and inform. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between Pelosi's view and those of us that would oppose her. I've made this point more than 50 times in letters to you (and received not one educated, human, response back): Pelosi and her side of the camp believe in the idea of State sponsored control of individualism.  Her side, believes, you are only as free as you need to be in order to work within the framework of what they wish us to be.  This means that nothing is true, expect what the current leadership says is true, which of course can change once the leadership changes hands.   I've even heard Feinstein say this, with terror in my heart. We, on the other hand, believe, with all that we are, that there are certain points of existence, we call them Rights, that by existence itself are necessary fo