The Libertists

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

There is a fundamental flaw in the notion of limiting good people from being able to have ammunition storage devices that can be easily removed and re-used. The progressive idea of limiting magazines to small sizes or worse, as is the case in California, to not even being able to remove the magazine without a tool, is a vain attempt to limit the number of people murdered over the course a particular amount time.  To the progressives, the death toll divided by the minutes that it took to enact this crime equals the relative emotional evil of the act.  Therefore, the Aurora shooting that claimed 12 lives and took about 10 minutes would have an emotional evil level of 1.2. If we were to actually try to equate it to a real value. Now, let's compare that to Joseph Christopher.  Who you say?   Joseph Christopher also murder 12 people (attributed, perhaps more), but the difference, he did it from Sept 22, 1980 to May 10, 1981 or over the course of about 13440 minutes.  Joseph

On the Today show, the President, again, said, "90% of Americans believe we should make it tougher for criminals and people with serious mental illness to get a gun and so the notion that congress would defy the overwhelming instinct of the American people [ranting about actual events inserted here that have no bearing on the facts] is unimaginable." There is that fabled 90% number again.  By now we all know of course that this particular 90% number merely implies to the idea of stopping gun violence.  That is, 90% of people feel that gun violence is out and out wrong.  It does not say that 90% of people agree with the approach that the government is taking, only that 90% of people feel that the death of children is wrong and something, teeth gnashing aside, should be done. I again, will submit facts, that I hope someone reads: (popvox.com) There is a letter simply entitled "Common Sense Legislation to end Gun Violence".  79% of people agree that 'somethin

Taking guns from people simply because they have had 'mental illness', that is, they have sought out help for issues they have been having emotionally does only one thing: it will teach people having emotional issues to not share them and thus, could, set up a situation not unlike prohibition. Prohibition did three things: increased the size of government, increased the power of the 16th amendment, and drove drinkers underground.  The outcome of driving people away from a socially acceptable outpouring of their lifestyle and forcing them to behave like criminals was the creation of modern day organized crime.  The truth of the situation was, and is, that when the government forces people away from their nature they create more chances for crime and destructive ends. Here is the reality.  People whom might be depressed or upset or worried or frightened (yes people whom are afraid of being attacked see doctors, and buy guns...makes sense does it not?) whom in the past would h

When an individual enters a place and murders someone, the murderer robs the individual of their Life, Liberty, and Property.  By doing so, the murderer ends the value of all work to be created from that point forward.  We call this act murder, but in reality, the true crime is not simply the ending of the body, but is the whole being's loss, down to the past, present, and future work and effort the person would put forth. It is a loss of the individuals life time of work (or the potential life time of work).  Because of this, every murder should anger god, because it steals all that a person is and all that person could ever achieve, all that the person will ever be. When such a villain attacks children and steals, for all time their Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property by ending the future process of all their potential work, he steals from them the basics of all that we are.  He damages all the families that touch those children.  But yet, that is really the end of his reach.

To the President and the government, In 2011 there were 32,367 fatalities involving automobiles.  That means that 3.7 people died every minute.  In the course of six minutes, 22 souls were removed from life and left dead.  Never to return.  Never to finish their lives as they expected. The last data I could find for children under the age of 16 was for 2006.  In that year, 2170 children were killed in vehicle crashes (1 every 4 minutes, that means by the time you finish reading this, as many as 2 children will have died in car crashes). Since your administration is constantly talking about "saving just one life", where are the constant commercials from your offices about stopping this from happening? Where is the similar outrage for the disproportionate fatalities of children when sitting in a vehicle?  Why isn't Joe Biden telling the American people that they should get rid of their cars and just ride the bus?  I can see him now, "You don't need that car. 

rebuttal to this idiocy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=edkUY8dPK00 Obama said, "...we are the government.  They are elected by you.  I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system our founders put in place." Well, that's just a lie.  The reality, if they really believed they were constrained by the Constitution then when Obama says, "commonsense", he'd be quoting from Thomas Paine and not ignoring, bypassing, abridging, amending, altering, interpreting, changing, and a million other adjectives that represent the destruction of the very document he claims to represent.   The plain and simply fact is, that if I am attacked I want to be better armed than the person that is attacking me.  Be that person a mugger, a gang, a town, a country, or a world.  My personal existence is equal to all other existence.  By forcing limitations on me, you are informing me that my self identity is not as important as

To the Members of the Government, I recently watched a video starring Dan Pfeiffer, whom through the course of the video kept up this notion that 90% of America was in agreement with the President and that Congress would suffer terrible upheaval, in biblical proportions, if the Republicans, failed to act, in, I assume, accordance with the President's mandates.  Ninety percent of the people agree.  But, we know, that is, we of intellect, understand that he's not actually talking about the bills and possible laws being bantered about in Congress, but Dan's 90% number is simply the fear of mankind, t he hand wringing, hair pulling, and the teeth gnashing 90%, who work by knee jerk reaction-ism.  Those people who, upon seeing any disaster, say, "We must do something!"  Then couple that with the clever use of the phrase commonsense and apply a guilt to those that would oppose it and you are most likely going to get people to agree to a statement that 1. works

To the Government, Please remember on this April 2nd, 2013, that the Constitution was a document designed, not to rule men, but to ensure those that put up their ideals, were limited, allowing a free people to be as they wished.  Free of intrusive restrictions.  Free of illegal confiscations.  Free of the banter and clanging of the mob.  I need not remind you all that, that is the oath you took.  It should be clear, that you swore, an oath before all of mankind, creation, the heavens, and god himself, to uphold the Constitution.  Surely the weight of this responsibility is clear to you.  Yet it appears to be too much to carry judging on your actions. I oppose any new firearms regulations as I would oppose any new speech regulations.  I oppose them fully.  No to: HR965 S150 HR226 HR538 S33 HR138 Here is something interesting: According to popvox: 80% of people feel that there should be a commonsense approach to gun violence, but NONE of the restrictions on firearms or ammun