The Libertists

Why the government has no authority to stop you from carrying a gun. Let us begin this by taking a different path. In the past when discussing this idea all of us turned toward the written laws. Those of us on the side of the Constitution turned to it, those of on the other side turned to the opinions of Judges and the standing statutes in place by governments. Today, we shall feign ignorance to the existence of any such notions and instead look at man himself and his place as natural being in the universe. John Locke said: Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men.  We, by natural law, that is by the action of being created (by God or by our parents) are independent thinking creatures. Our life is our own to judge of, in length of years and steady of health. It is not the action of others that determines such a thing, for if someone else takes my Life, he does indeed murde

The time is now To: Orange County Sheriff CC: President Obama Vice President Biden The Senate The House of Representatives The Governors and their respective Legislators of the States and territories of the United States The Sheriffs And fellow Patriots Subject:   The Oath of office, the requirement of Honor, and the value of a man’s word As I sit down to write this I am reminded that we have been down this road before.   On April 19 th , 1775 a band of patriots waited all night in a tavern for what they had been told by the ride of Paul Revere was the oncoming British Army.   These brave men meant to make a showing, to stand guard and remind the British that they were there and that they would not be tread over by the dishonorable and unfaithful service of   the British Crown.   The patriots whom waited all night numbered no more than eighty while the British Army regulars were numbered to seven hundred.    Captain John Parker stood his ground, not wanting to fight

What is a right? It is merely the vocalization of an intrinsic part of the whole. Our factual right to free speech is because we exist with the capacity to communicate.   It itself is self supportive of its own existence, because we can communicate we have the right to do so, and the ability to do so is naturally a right. Our right to free religion is because we have the capacity to rationalize, to think, to ponder the nature and purpose of life.   It is our given existence of mind that creates our right to self expression and the desire of our dreams and wishes.   I don’t want to get to far off on a tangent here, for I feel that the expression of the whole being is not the place of this particular paper, but it is important to at least recognize the idea that the entity we call “I” is more than the sum of my physical parts.   Call that soul, or spirit, or simply Mind, the physical form is but a piece of the whole.    The body itself is merely property of the whole bei

The Constitution requires that rights, being of inalienable destiny (absolutes, guarantees, without prejudice, fees, fines, holds, attachments, conditions.   Things not requiring qualification.)   have a sense of mutual equality.   Being that no single right be of lesser value than the others.   This equanimity ensures that the solidarity inherent in one be stabilized, behind the safety of all the others.   I’ve said it before, the whole is both shield and swords, an impenetrable wall of intellect and logic. The question of gun control then becomes a question of equality or its opposite; a question of prejudice. For example, an individual whom is openly walking down the street with a firearm in many states is likely to have the police approach him at some point during his travel from point A to point B.   It is likely that some ‘concerned’ citizen has dialed 911 and sent law enforcement to investigate the individual.   When approached what is the proper response of the offic

Mr. President and those in Government, When one examines the language of the current ideology put forth by those officials elected by free men to represent them, one finds a continuing series of false notions that stem from either incongruous opinions or are insincere blatant lies. The logical explanation why emotionalists put forth the idea of limiting firearms by way of the Constitution is founded in fantasy and has zero actual representation in the Constitution itself.   When a Supreme Court Justice makes up a fiction of language by adjunction of his own ideas to the end of the Amendment he is committing a lie and probably a crime (perjury is the act of swearing an oath and then by actions making that oath false).   When a President says that Congress and he have the authority to ignore an Amendment they too are being duplicitous and are in clear violation of their authority.  The questions that come to mind are: Why and How?    Why would elected members, whom s