From David T. Hardy comes this:
[The Brady Campaign is] on the defensive (to the extent they act at all) and the progun side is on the offense. Since almost all of it has occurred over the last month or so, it’s more than an offense, it’s a legal blitzkrieg.
That made my day.
You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Take the quiz at
About.com Political Humor
And I promise, no more of these quizzes until after I do a real blog post.
Ok, you conservative soul. Do you even believe in global warming? Loosen that necktie a little, and try some organic food. It actually does taste better. And go to a farmer’s market–they’re fun.
And I promise, there will be some more gun/freedom blogging soon.
Heh. Here’s what I got after plugging in my earlier post titled In Defense of the Layman.
After the passage of the despicable health control bill a few weeks ago, I made it one of my missions to do my part to send a strong and clear message to every single member of the House of Representatives who voted Yea that we will not tolerate tyrants who wish to rule over us as opposed to servants who do nothing more than their constitutionally limited powers. In times of peace, a Congress that does nothing would be a step up from what we’ve got today. Treat us with benign neglect and we will do what everyone throughout history has done in those cases: prosper.
So my target is Bob Etheridge of the North Carolina 2nd congressional district. Recent ratings from GOA, NRA, and GRNC put him pretty consistently in the F category, with occasional appearances in the D category, according to votesmart.com. The candidates I know of who are running in the GOP primary for a chance to unseat Etheridge are Renee Ellmers, Frank Deatrich, Todd Gailas.
I’m told that Dan Mansell is running again, but haven’t seen any confirmation of that, and he hasn’t updated his campaign website as of this writing.
A fifth candidate I believe is running is Jay Johnson of Harnett County, but I have yet to find a campaign website or email address for him. There is a Meetup.com posting from April of last year by him, so I signed up with Meetup and posted the questionnaire there.
So far, I’ve sent David Codrea’s questionnaire to Jay Johnson (through Meetup.com), Frank Deatrich, and Renee Ellmers. I will soon be sending it to Todd Gailas, whom I just found out about and who has a detailed description of his support for gun rights that almost suffices on his campaign website. Dan Mansell will also get a copy. Out of fairness, I will also send a copy to Bob Etheridge, but he’s already made his position against individual liberty pretty clear with his abysmal voting record. But my current focus is the primary and to the best of my knowledge, Etheridge has no primary challenger.
The good news is that I did finally get one response to the questionnaire which is posted here. I will post others as they respond. I would like to thank Frank for responding as that may help turn up the heat on the other candidates to go on the record as true supporters of gun rights. Questionnaires aren’t a guarantee, of course, of good behavior while in office, but they serve their purpose, particularly when they are as specific as this one.
Here are Frank Deatrich’s responses, modified only for formatting. His answers in italics:
If you’re not visiting David Codrea’s War On Guns blog and national Gun Rights Examiner column on a daily basis, you’re missing out on a lot of important information that can equip you to contribute to the battle to roll back the decades-, or even century-long infringements on our freedoms and retain what few remain.
Update: Per Frank’s request, I have changed the wording of his answer to question 7 above.
Although it’s nice to see someone else notice that this East Anglia Climate Research Unit email and data leak has more implications than just for climate science, it’s not something the surprises me in the least.
I have often wondered how presumably intelligent people can use phrases like “science tells us,” “the scientific consensus is,” or, the most ignorant, “the science is settled” (or their equivalents “the numbers are in,” and the “the debate is over”). These are not just utterances of people who can’t argue, and therefore have to declare the argument over. They are rantings of check-your-brain-at-the-door religious fanatics. Science is not God, or even a god. It is simply our best, though flawed, effort to understand the world around us.
And they accuse us Christians of abandoning reason.
The process by which we as humans come to any conclusions about any facts ultimately comes down to this: Who do we trust? Who do we believe? Who is trustworthy? Unless you plan on doing the scientific experimentation yourself (and even that comes with its own set of biases), you must rely on someone else and their own preconceived notions, and, possibly (likely) their own agendas.
Human nature does not change simply because a person spends 4-10 years earning various degrees and can now tack a few initials after his name. We all have our unique biases and motivations. It’s why, for example, honest writers will put disclaimers at the end of what they write when relevant. It doesn’t completely invalidate their opinions or the results of the research they do, but let’s the consumer of the information judge for himself if the results may be unduly influenced by the writer’s or researcher’s background, associations, funding, or ideological views.
When judging a conclusion I look at an author’s previous work. How well was it received? Is it well corroborated? What do his critics say? How well did he deal with criticism? How about his critics? What is their previous work like? Their reputations? If nothing else, the leaked email archive exposes a clique mentality that is inexcusable and destroys the credibility of those involved.
What does this have to do with gun rights (i.e.: freedom)? Well, everything. A free man does not wish to depend on a nanny-state, know-it-all government to come to his rescue. We lay claim to our own lives and against anyone who wishes to lord it over us. There is zero earthly authority for any man to rule over another save the authority we all have to stop tyrants (which includes individuals who trample on the human rights of others). We demand to be left alone inasmuch as our actions do not directly and detrimentally affect the same rights of others.
I include among the definition of tyrants those who would claim that because of their years of study in a certain field, we have no right to question their conclusions, because we haven’t devoted our lives to that same course of study. I will not sacrifice my liberties for your megalomaniac ambitions or chicken little arm waving about TEOTWAWKI.
Environmental-cases, gun grabbers, collectivists…they’re all the same in the end. They treat us as sheep who need a shepherd. Oh, I agree, but that Shepherd is no mere human. And it is not our tasks to bring about a utopia. One of the best descriptions of these modern day teleologists I’ve seen was written by Steven Den Beste at HotAir.com. It sheds light on the thinking behind Barbara Boxer’s focus on prosecuting the messenger (hacker or whistle-blower). The alarmists must dodge the credibility problem because the problem is real and that just can’t be allowed to enter the public psyche. Because if they just believe then it will be true. And since their utopian dreams require the unanimous consent of the masses who cannot think for themselves, provide for themselves, and defend themselves, they’ve got to attack and keep the spotlight on the leaker, rather than what was leaked.
Books and other forms of media have never in history been so widely available as they are today. There is very little excuse for ‘leaving it to the experts’ at this point. The experts, when engaged in honest debate and disclosure, have value. But their monopoly on intelligent discourse ended long ago. And it doesn’t take a degree in any of the sciences to see how obviously the leaked data sullies the involved scientists’ reputations.
Same goes for the collective piggish attitude of some LEOs like this one (h/t David). Who are you to decide what “value this brings to the community”? And, though we do believe going armed creates a better society, our rights do not depend on that one iota. Our rights are our rights, and your discomfort with our exercise of those rights by anyone but your fellow JBTs is not, at its core, our problem. We do not exist to make you comfortable.
So, EPA, go ahead and declare CO2 a ‘public danger’. I’m going to keep on exhaling more CO2 than I inhale and you can take a hike. I would encourage businesses around the country to quite simply disobey any new regulations that come out of this declaration. But as an unapologetic capitalist, I lament at the rent-seeker status of most big businesses today. Big business is married to big government in the US. That’s not capitalism.
“Going Galt” is looking more and more attractive in these times.
Keep your power dry.
Another couple of Only Ones, but even better, they’re Booze Only Ones:
“It doesn’t matter who was behind you,” the judge said, while explaining that Almon was guilty of the charge for placing another person in fear of bodily injury.
So let me get this straight. Two people walking behind him at midnight and he takes out his pocket knife and asks why they are following him. And puts it away when they say they are cops. And he’s guilty of “criminal threathening?”
Sounds like one from Across the Pond in Sarah Brady’s Paradise, but no, it’s New Hampshire.
And what does this judge suggest we do if being followed by two unknown people with unknown intentions at midnight.
Credit goes to David, of course, for the Only Ones and Sarah Brady’s Paradise memes.
“I am not your serf”
That’s how I signed a farewell note to some fellow employees at a former rather oppressive employer. In that case, I had the choice available to me to leave. With the bill just passed in the House with its criminal penalties for not participating, we’re not being given a choice. The moronic comparison to auto insurance doesn’t even come close. Even in that case, I can choose not to drive, and some people in fact can’t drive for one reason or another, so don’t have auto insurance. There is no penalty. By simply living and breathing we are being required to pay for something most of us don’t want. Or at least we don’t want government approved insurance.
Mike at Sipsey Street posts his latest to reiterate that we are not to fire first.
I’ve had no confusion about this since he first starting writing about Fort Sumter.
However, I think the question in many of our minds is, “how will we know?”
What I mean is, the FedGov and the complicit state run media will most certainly distort or outright lie about the reason for the standoff with those ‘anti-government oath-whatever-amajigs’.
How can we be sure that if a standoff takes place due to the sequential events listed below, that the truth will get out?
a) bills pass both houses and result is signed into law
b) citizen oath keeper unenrolls from existing health insurance as a protest
c) tax time comes and, against the advice of citizen’s tax adviser, citizen refuses to submit to $15,000 fine
d) citizen is contacted by FedGov informing them that he must pay the fine and asking why it wasn’t paid
e) citizen informs FedGov of his refusal to submit to this affront to his God given liberty
f) FedGov officials arrive on the ‘compound’ (state run media word for ‘more than 2 acres’) to take citizen to jail to await show trial
g) citizen tells two FedGov officials at his door to go pound sand and slams the door
h) FedGov breaks down door with drawn weapons and one of them fires at ‘armed individual’ who only had a gun in a holster. He misses and citizen draws and fires, killing both officials
i) a perimeter is established, and media is called to the scene to witness federal officials’ show of force in apprehending ‘anti-government gunman who has holed himself up at his compound.’
All wildly hypothetical, of course, but the point is, I think we all need to be thinking about media contact. And new media will be essential.
I propose:
As much surveillance as you can afford at your place of residence, including audio and outside cameras if possible. There are many possible ways to set this up, but the key here will be collecting the video on a computer where it can be processed, cut into smaller manageable chunks and archived. Be sure to have remotely hosted servers (virtual servers like Amazon’s cloud offering can be acceptable) and have video copied to it automatically on regular (or continuous) intervals. Security including encryption is essential.
At regular intervals, unless you intervene before the interval is up, the remotely hosted server should be set up to post video to Youtube, but also other on-line video services and sent to friends and family, or someone else, possibly, if you don’t want to unwittingly implicate someone who doesn’t want to be involved.
What I’m talking about here is sort of a dead man switch. If you are not able to prevent the posting, emailing, etc. of your surveillance video, then it will get posted.
That’s just a rough idea. I plan on doing something like this myself and will work out the details. I may have to suggest a less public forum for discussions of the details.
Update: I should also add that it would be a good idea to record yourself, Youtube style, explaining at each step of the way what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I.e.: first one might be recorded when you first unenroll from your insurance. That way, anybody viewing the surveillance of a FedGov attack will have the full context.
Breda made a very good point today about the so-called “Hate Crimes” legislation with her “that word you’re using…” post regarding the special, privileged class that is created. Breda says she’s not really for gay marriage, but rather for getting the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Here’s what I would propose:
I know 4 is a stretch, but frankly, it’s all a stretch in today’s current political climate, but I spell it to make a point that one can be entirely opposed to any sort of homosexual behaviour, but not necessarily in favour of government control of that behaviour. Nobody in the homosexual world has a right to be seen as normal by everyone they meet. My strong libertarian leaning informs me in my position that I don’t even think any (private) employers should be forced to hire or not hire anyone based on homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals are welcome to try and convince naysayers to see they’re behaviour as normal. It is the right of those who don’t to hold that view.
But I digress.
My main point here is that no one has any right to have their behaviour viewed as normal by anyone else. That includes gun owners. And that includes those who open carry. It is our determined goal, as expressed through opencarry.org and various other organizations to normalize the sight of people carrying guns on their hips, not only not being a threat, but being a stabilizing force in otherwise crime ridden areas. It is our human right to keep and bear arms, and that includes bearing them openly.
But just because we can’t expect to be viewed as normal (there will always be those who will never be convinced of it), doesn’t mean we should modify our behaviour to satisfy them. A right not exercised is a right lost. Virginia became, relatively speaking, one of the friendliest eastern states to open carrying of firearms by people carrying firearms openly. It was already legal, it just took some determined activist to change the view of a number of people and, I think in some cases, the local police.
I’m with Rob Allen in “Open carry is fine, so long as you don’t do it where people can see you” where he demands proof of statements like “For every one person you turn on, two others are turned off.” I asked Sebastian in the comments of Alan’s “Sebastian Zumbos Himself” post to give evidence that leans heavily toward exercising a right causing a deterioration of the freedom to exercise that right.
I still haven’t seen a credible answer.
I posted more on Open vs. Concealed carry here almost a year ago.
Update: Forgot about the Hunters reference. I also meant to point out Sebastian’s post a week ago titled “High Public Approval for Hunting“. In that post, he said:
The danger I see is that hunters have not yet accepted the “no one gets thrown off the lifeboat” philosophy that most in the shooting community have come to understand.
He’s not quite doing that to open carriers just yet, but he’s dang near close, so I challenged him with it. His comeback was to say that unless he was working to make open carrying illegal or sitting by while others were working for that, then open carriers were not being thrown off the lifeboat. Well…let’s just say that seeing him jump on every opportunity to bash open carriers makes that hard to swallow. Not all so-called “Fudds” were necessarily working to make EBRs illegal, they just were not all that crazy about others having and using them. Sounds awfully familiar.
Update: Ouch. Fixed a couple of missing negatives in that last paragraph.
Go here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338125/posts for some great aerial and other photos. h/t Pamela
