Archive for January, 2013

Protect Yourself and Your Country

January 22, 2013

Natural rights are rights that are given to us by the very fact of our existence.

First, a word concerning the word “right”. The best way to think about this is to imagine what people are thinking of when they claim the “right to be king”, both the person who says that and the people who hear it.The would-be king asserts that due to his special circumstances, IE, God said so, or his ancestry (with the connotation that God gave the throne to the descendants of some ancient king), he has the unique ability to ascend to the throne and rule an entire nation of people.The subjects of the king acknowledge and submit to his claims. Whether or not they believe God gave him the right to be king, they act accordingly anyway.
At such a point that the people no longer tolerate the king, they may refuse to acknowledge his right and put some other king in his place, or in the case of the American people and many modern nations, put in a new form of government that may or may not have a place reserved for the king.As such, rights are interesting things. They exist the moment you claim them, but are of no effect unless others acknowledge and respect them.In America, we claim rights for ourselves, as individuals, by the fact of our existence. There is no logic or reasoning behind it, and so there is no logical or reasonable argument to overthrow it. We have not documented a full list of our rights, nor do we ever intend to do so, asserting that our rights are unlimited while the powers of government are limited.The right to bear arms is an interesting right. It is a right which immediately puts us at odds with our own government. The purpose of the right to bear arms is clear: We want to be able to kill things that threaten us. In fact, we wish to be able to muster a militia that can kill any threat, foreign or domestic, from time to time as the need arises.As such, we assert, without justification nor explanation, the right to keep and bear arms. This means we get to have military-grade weapons in our homes and on our persons. And we have the right even to parade around our cities and streets so armed and ready for conflict, and government has no power to infringe upon this right.Many people think this is barbaric and insane. I propose that they are barbaric and insane. They would rather put their liberty and safety into the hands of people who we know do not have their best interests in heart—the politicians and corporations with so much power in our country. What insanity! Do you think your elected officials really care about anything but whatever privileges and powers they receive in office? Do you think they count anything but votes as important in their career goals? We have seen them, time and time again, violate the trust we have given them to execute their offices faithfully, and yet you believe that we can trust them to protect us and defend our liberties?The insanity is that you would listen to our elected officials and believe them when they spew lies about their intentions. You look out in the world, see a father keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending his home and neighborhood, and question HIS motives, but you do not question the motives of those elected to serve us? Are politicians more righteous than our heads of households? Is it more noble to make the safety of our children a campaign issue than it is to try and actually protect your own family?I wish to assert to my reader that they have the right to keep and bear arms, damn the constitution and legislation of any government. I wish to encourage my reader to disobey any laws that restrict your right to arm and protect yourself. If you are sitting on a jury, you can refuse to convict people of gun crimes because you acknowledge they have a right that the court does not admit to.Yes, we need to be discrete about these things, and avoid piquing the interest of our would be masters. But we need to be sure that when the time comes that the militia needs to be mustered to defend our country from tyrants foreign or native, that we muster armed like any soldier who would be found on the battlefield today. The more sure we are, the less likely we’ll actually have to muster.Do not put your hope and trust in our military men and women. Do not think that because they were charitable and kind and good in years past that they will always remain so. It is always the case that tyrants and dictators find a way to pervert the military, replacing good soldiers with bad, and in a matter of a few years, bring that military to bear against their country’s own people.If we take our rights seriously, and acknowledge each other’s right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what the government says, then when the government finds out that every home in every neighborhood not only has a pistol, but a rifle, a shotgun, and a fully-automatic assault rifle with plenty of ammunition, then that may be enough to convince them not to attempt a war with the people. That may be enough to convince them that the matter is settled and there will be no seizing of arms and there will be no more tyranny in our country than the amount our people accept.If they do not accept it, and attempt to start a civil war with the people, then we will have enough arms and armaments and people to overwhelm them. Do you think a military of a million or two fighting men and women will win against 50 or 60 million citizens? If they do win, what will be left of the country they tried to rule?If we do not, then we will watch as our military and policemen sweep through neighborhoods, leaving us disarmed and incapable of fighting our future corrupt government. We will have accepted the bonds of slavery in exchange for our liberty. And our only choice will be to live as a happy slave or die.PS: I hope that as part of keeping and bearing arms you exercise your right to train yourself in military skills, tactics and strategy. If the day comes we need to fight, I doubt we will have much time to train each other.

“Well-regulated milita”

January 10, 2013

The text of the 2nd Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Although the second clause of the amendment is completely plain and obvious (the American people get to keep and carry weapons used in war and congress can’t even begin to stop them), the first part is not as clear. I wish to focus on “well-regulated militia” and what that means. When we understand the purpose, the method becomes painfully obvious.

First, “militia”. What is the militia? George Mason famously wrote this in relation to this very amendment:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

This might seem like a foreign concept to our modern American, but it is an important one. The militia is NOT the National Guard. It is not the military. It is everyone else, besides the government. It is anyone who can pick up arms to fight for our country, which is everyone.

When you rewind history, you see that it wasn’t always the case that governments could support a standing army. A far more reliable method of securing land and property was to simply call up regular folks to fight and defend it. Socrates, the famous thinker of Athens, was a soldier who picked up spear and shield to fight and defend Athens in his youth. You might think that he was always a philosopher, but that isn’t the case. Everyone, no matter what their chosen profession, except perhaps government officials, are part of the military and are called upon to defend the homeland when they are needed. That’s the way it always has been, and even the way it is today.

When you think of a country like Russia or China contemplating invading the US, the consideration they must always consider is what happens if they successfully defeat our standing army, take out all of our military assets and installations. What next? If they intend to take our land, they must deal with the hundreds of millions of armed citizens who will spontaneously organize and resist invasion. That’s the bottom line. That’s why Japan didn’t use its naval superiority in the beginning of WWII to invade the mainland. That’s why Germany never said they wanted to invade the US. That’s why no country since Great Britain in the War of 1812 thought it wise to set foot in military conquest on our nation’s shores.

The next word we need to study is “well-regulated”. You may think you know what this means, but you are probably wrong.

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. (source)

In other words, “well-regulated” means “working and existing”.

So, the 2nd Amendment reads, in our modern language:

If we want to keep America secure, we need a working and existing group of regular Americans who can pick up arms and fight a war without government direction. In order to do that, the people will always have the absolute right to own and carry weapons of war, and this will not be questioned or modified in any way.

Now, I ask you, those of you who oppose our 2nd Amendment rights, are you ignorant of what the text says? If you have read what I wrote, you are not. You know now that the only reason the Founding Fathers wanted us to have the right to own and carry guns is because they wanted a way to protect the American people from military threats.

If you, knowing this, continue to advocate the banning of guns in one way or the other, or even the infringing of our right to keep and bear arms, then you are knowingly trying to make America less secure, and prevent the people from forming spontaneous armies to protect themselves.

Obama and Biden are not ignorant about the 2nd Amendment. They know exactly what they are trying to do. And that is they want America to not be secure nor free. They are actively working to overthrow our government and our freedoms, and they are doing it in the only way it can be done. They are, in effect, working for our enemies.

It seems rather brash to make these accusations, but when you understand why we have the 2nd Amendment, it becomes painfully clear.

That militia the Founding Fathers wanted? It can be called upon to fight its own government, if necessary. It is the last line of defense against tyranny, the last resort of freedom and liberty. You can take our government, our military, our economy, and everything else, but as long as we have our guns, we will still be free. Even if we controlled our government, military and economy, if we don’t have our guns, we are not free.

Yes, Mint Our Money

January 10, 2013

The $1T coin idea you may have heard of is being mocked by conservatives. I, too, think it is a terrible idea, but not for the same reasons conservatives typically give.

Let me propose a better, yet similar, idea.

In order to meet our budget, the government is spending north of $1T more than it brings in in revenue. Right now, we’re borrowing that money from lenders, one of whom is this corporation you might have heard of called the Federal Reserve. Rather than mint currency and deposit it in the Fed, we should, instead, stop borrowing the money altogether. Let’s just print what we need.

Now, people are going to scream that that is inflationary. It’s too late. What the Federal Reserve is doing by financing our debt is inflationary. They’re already printing cash in absurd amounts and sending it off to DC. The difference between us printing it for ourselves and us printing it for the Federal Reserve is that when we do it for ourselves, we don’t enslave our children, grandchildren, and great-great-great grandchildren to debt. The money is ours.

If we do print too much money and cause inflation, then it’s a problem we deal with right now. Once the deficit matches the growth of the economy, inflation disappears. On the other hand, if we don’t print enough money, then we may see deflation, which is a horrible beast far more devastating than inflation, but the solution is, once again, simple and immediate, with no long-lasting effects.

How much should the deficit be? I propose it should be about the change in the real, non-governmental GDP. That is, if our economy grows from $15T to $16T in 2013, then we print $1T in new currency to keep inflation and deflation away. If we’re not too certain, then we can print a little extra, maybe $1.2T, so that we definitely won’t hit deflation. Think of it: this is free money, money that we owe no one for, money that must be printed and put into circulation anyway so that the people have a stable currency they can trust and use for everyday transactions.

We can, today, write a law preventing the Federal Reserve from printing another red cent using our country’s name. Let them make their own money, and see if anyone wants to use it, like any other bank. We can print all of the money our economy needs with our own name and faith and credit, and we can use the surplus that needs to be printed to keep our economy growing for whatever we like.

Some will argue that the Fed serves an important purpose by preventing bank collapses and keeping the economy stable. I say they have a terrible track record, and we are better off leaving that responsibility with congress than the Fed.

If President Obama chooses to print that $1T coin, then I hope he doesn’t stop there, and pulls an Andrew Jackson and takes on the banks and wins by keeping the power to print money to the federal government alone. If he were to exercise his dictatorial presidential powers to do something like that, I would call him a hero.