Martin O’Malley Calls for New “Assault” Weapon Ban…Again

In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste Martin O’Malley is the latest flat earth gun control supporter calling for another “assault” weapon ban…again. How does that saying go it is like deja vu all over again. Apparently this clown doesn’t even read his own adoring paper the New York Times, which also admitted that the “assault” weapon ban enacted from 1994 to 2004 didn’t make any difference. Why? Because the vast amount of thugs killing people do NOT use modern sporting rifles, which 2nd Amendment hating, flat earth supporters, like O’Malley call “assault” weapons. The term is a completely and carefully poll tested word used by freedom hating POS like O’Malley to remove rights from us.

It is interesting that he is using the latest crisis in South Carolina to call for this ban. First, the shooting itself was NOT done with a modern sporting rifle. Not that this should make a difference, but it does show how these freedom hating thugs call for any and all types of gun control every time an event like this occurs. Second, the issue in South Carolina was more about mental illness than guns. If we fix the mental illness issue in this country people like this guy in South Carolina should be able to get the treatment he obviously needs.

2nd Amendment hating, anti freedom and anti civil liberties people like O’Malley will never understand the real issue and quite frankly don’t want to. They are more interested in striping freedom from private citizens than actually solving problems, which is what the entire gun control industry is based on.

The formula is always the same. First, wait for “crisis” that involves a gun. Second, don’t wait for the facts and start dancing in the blood of the victims and calling for “common sense” gun laws. Next, try and find a way to work in the words “assault” weapon into every news report the group does on national media, even if the perp uses a knife it becomes a conversation about “assault” weapons. Pull out a long wish list of gun ban laws that are always ready to go in their desk drawer and propose it as THE solution to THIS problem even though they are always the same tired ideas which have been pitched for years. Lastly when you don’t gain traction, blame it your lack of progress on the powerful “gun lobby” and NRA. Rinse and repeat.

In the case of O’Malley work a little fund raising in the issue as well. No point in not squeezing your supporters for a few bucks for your personal coffers at the same time. These guys will never understand we have 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. We don’t need any more “common sense” solutions, which only make it harder for private, law abiding, citizens to exercise their rights and won’t even slow a criminal down. But again, it isn’t about real solutions. It is about control.

The real solution to this latest shooting is two fold. First, fix the mental health system in this country. Of course that is hard and expensive and time consuming so it is easier to just call for some more “common sense”, but useless gun control law and call it a day. Second, eliminate the criminal protection zones like this church was. Gun free zones don’t work and never have. A thug bent on murder isn’t going to change his plans because you put your stupid little no guns sign up. It isn’t like garlic to a vampire, it doesn’t repel criminals. If you really want to stop mass shootings stop creating victim zones where law abiding citizens can’t carry and protect themselves and become prey for thugs like this guy. If anyone in that room besides the killer had a firearm they may have ended this before it became a mass shooting, but hey, let’s just propose another “common sense” gun control law because they always work; full sarcasm intended.

The bottom line is I don’t care how many politicians use the word “common sense” and talk about how this never happens in more enlightened countries like Australia. As a 2nd Amendment supporter I am not giving up one more right for a useless law that won’t solve a damn thing. Not one more inch.

Pending Obamacare Legal Decision Summed Up

The Supreme Court is ready to rule on the question of subsidies for Obamacare anytime this month. Chances are they have already voted on it and the decision is being written up as I write this and will be announced soon.

This will go one of two ways, kind of like a simple decision tree. Either in an effort to again re-write what the law actually says one or more of the Justices will “find” something in there that justifies it and rule in favor of Obama and the subsidies, thus protecting Obamacare yet again from complete destruction, which is where it should have went years ago. Personally, this is what I believe will happen. I don’t trust that traitor John Roberts to rule on what the law actually says. He will go through legal gymnastics as he did the first time and rule in favor of Obama.

However in the very small chance that I am wrong and the Justices rule against Obama the subsidies will be found illegal and the law will quickly begin to cave in, which brings an interesting problem to bear. The Republicans want changes to the law. Obama doesn’t want anything changed. He [Obama] will dig in and throw a temper tantrum and vow to veto any changes to his precious socialized healthcare program.

The Republicans will be able to pass a reform bill, but Obama will refuse to sign it. The only bill he will sign will be one that makes the subsidies legal without any other changes whatsoever. Meanwhile in approximately 37 states the cost of health insurance will streak into the stratosphere for many people that are receiving subsidies. The policies will become completely unaffordable and they will lose them and possibly be fined for not having insurance they simply cannot afford. These people will begin screaming for blood.

Meanwhile the spineless Republicans will become terrified that the Mongol hordes screaming for their government gravy in the form of subsidies are calling for their heads. They will buckle under the pressure as they always do and give Obama exactly what he wants to pacify both Obama and the Mongol hordes.

Amazingly the same thing happened 2,000 years ago in Rome when the barbarians showed up at the gates of Rome and sacked the city. Only this time the barbarians are already in the city gates and the only thing that will pacify them is for the spineless Republicans to throw more government gravy pacify and shut them up for now, but they will be back. They always come back and they want more and more.

This will not stop until we have another party willing to make the tough decisions (Libertarians) or the system collapses as it is doing right now in Greece. Isn’t it amazing how history just keeps repeating itself over and over again and politicians are dumb enough to believe it will somehow come out differently THIS time.

Ross Ulbricht: Victim of Senseless Drug War

Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison on Friday. Another individual that can be added to the long rabble of victims of the U.S. Government’s senseless war on drugs. He was the creator of the Silk Road web site, which ran on the TOR network and took payment in Bitcoin, thus making the trading of what the government calls “illicit” goods easier and more private.

You can read in plenty of other places how the web site worked and the details of the case. What I wish to focus on specifically is why Mr. Ulbricht was sentenced to life? This was the harshest sentence that could be given and even worse than the prosecution itself was asking for.

The minimum was 20 years. Mr. Ulbricht is 31 years of age so a 20 year stint would have freed him when he was 51 and still left him some semblance of life left to live. However the judge literally threw the book at him and gave him what really amounts to a death sentence. He will now spend the rest of his natural life behind bars and never again know freedom in this life. So why give such a brutal sentence?

The first main reason is the government, like most crime syndicates, doesn’t tolerate competition well. The government needs the “War on Drugs” to finance and finish building the huge police state apparatus it has been quietly building for decades. The so called “Patriot” Act, is simply the latest law that was sold to us to stop terrorism, but is really used to stop competition in the drug war (As of midnight Sunday this has been updated to the USA “Freedom” Act).

In addition, the government needs a large slush fund that isn’t transparent to the public to finance off the books military and spy operations around the globe. If these activities were paid for through traditional channels it would require disclosure in the budget (public information) and be subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. Would a good police state allow its subjects to see that kind of stuff?

The drug trade is a very profitable enterprise for the U.S. government and to the extent Silk Road was cutting in on that monopoly was completely unacceptable to the thugocracy running our government. Mr. Ulbricht had to be completely crushed to send a message. The jack booted thugs in the government needed to send a clear message to other young upstarts. You mess with our drug business we will end you and use our kangaroo courts to make it look all nice and legal.

The second reason is far more interesting in my opinion. The technology used to build the Silk Road is readily available all over the Internet. The skills used to harness this technology are available to any web developer worth his/her salt. In other words to set up this enterprise didn’t require vast resources, money, manpower or a large enterprise. It required a web developer with some decent programming skills and a laptop.

Think about that for a moment, some guy in his basement with a laptop can create another Silk Road web site, utilize Bitcoin, TOR, and readily available encryption and create a lucrative marketplace that would literally end the government’s monopoly on the drug trade if it catches on and lots of people do it. In addition, it isn’t just about drugs, in fact, I would argue that is actually a small part of the future.

The real power will come when totally free, anonymous, unregulated, and tax free networks and lassie fare capitalism can truly be practiced without interference from the Federalies. People will be able to buy anything they want without the nanny state blocking it, taxing it, or regulating it.

As new people start to do this they will learn from the mistakes of others. They will learn at the speed of light how to hide more effectively from the growing police state, move money around more quietly and easier, facilitate better more frictionless capitalism and they can do it from anyplace in the world. They will get harder to track and harder to stop.

Such a site can be set up in about month with a little elbow grease. In fact, others have already been set up. Many of them have been shut down, but new ones are coming. Think technology boom, but in this case being used to run circles around the behemoth and slow moving Federalies. The innovations that created our modern Internet can and will be applied to ending the Federalies alternative income schemes and totalitarian control over our lives to exercise truly free markets.

The real reason Mr. Ulbricht was given such a harsh sentence is because he dared open Pandora’s Box, he showed how ANYONE can do this. The government is feeling stark terror right now. They see their precious drug business being usurped by a dude with a laptop. They fully understand that if more and more of these sites pop up that the resources needed to track them all down all over the world and arrest everyone involved will quickly outstrip even their resources and manpower. They are terrified.

Like any jack booted tyrant or animal that is terrified it is lashing out viciously in an attempt to stop the inevitable from occurring. They won’t be successful. More will follow and some will be busted and receive similar treatment, but eventually the market will become unstoppable. They know this. So, in an attempt to strike fear into anyone else thinking of doing this they gave Mr. Ulbricht a life sentence. Not because they care about society, but because he dared to cut into their business and usurp their authority.

Many feel that in this case the punishment didn’t fit crime and is truly an injustice. Sadly it has been this way throughout history. The first pioneers into any endeavor often get the arrows in the back. They die trying to push boundaries and advance into areas unexplored. However his sacrifice will only inspire others.

Others will follow and soon the technology, processes, skills, and brave individuals willing to poke a finger in the eye of the jack booted thugs running the U.S. government’s crime syndicate will grow. Soon they will be unstoppable. The government is terrified.

Obama Denies Troops 401(k) Plans

In a completely predictable decision, Obama came out and denied troops access to military set up 401(k) plans. These plans, if created, would have allowed military members to contribute to 401(k) plans with matching from the military and would give military members that don’t serve a full 20 years some retirement benefits. So now our troops will continue to be stuck with the “all or nothing” plan they have now. Serve 20 and get a pension or get nothing.

However the real reason Obama doesn’t support these is simple. Our Communist in Chief hates the idea of private property that is under the control of people and not the government. As a dedicated Communist he believes government should own everything, be in control of everything, and give (or take away) everything. This is a guy that was raised from birth worshiping the state in all of its forms as god and all that it does. In his warped and demented worldview the state should be all powerful and never does wrong. The idea of giving our military members private property is not something he can or will swallow. Truth be told if he could nationalize all private plans (401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc) tomorrow he would do it in a heartbeat.

This is the sign of a power mad dictator, but then we already knew that about him. Some of us knew that back in 2004 when we heard this clown speak for the first time. His actions have simply confirmed what we already knew.

Note to our dedicated military members you can still open up Roth IRAs when you join and contribute money to the fund. The bad news is you won’t get a match and you won’t get a tax break, BUT you will own this piece of private property forever and when you remove the money at retirement it will be tax free. Private property and tax free. I say do it, just doing this on any kind of mass scale is bound to give Obama heartburn and that should bring a smile to everyone’s face.

Obama believes ALL money belongs to government

The House recently passed a bill to abolish the estate tax, which while I completely agree with is still only a micro step in the right direction. Let me be more clear, taxes are morally wrong and ALL of them should be abolished!

Predictably the Communist in Chief, Obama, believes all money belongs to the government and he is not giving any extra back to you. In fact, you should probably just shut up and sit in the back of the bus and be happy with the scraps he generously allows you to keep now. After all, every penny, you keep is “costing” the poor old government!

According to his blog he thinks this is a “giveaway to the rich” at the “expense of the middle class” and it would “cost” too much. Just examine that use of words and language that he has chosen.

It frames the debate in that ALL money belongs to the government and like a person that earns a paycheck by trading value for value and then spends money by making choices. Families or individuals that consider some things too expensive will decide not to spend the money on them because of cost. So when you hear Obama say things like this it sounds like language you or your family would use and therefore is normal. Only it isn’t.

Make no mistake in an effort to manipulate the weak minded unthinking drones he calls supporters he has carefully chosen the exact wording and phrases. He has carefully poll tested and chosen these specific words to sound like you should when making an economic decision so that it sounds reasonable and normal to you when he uses language like this. However there are huge differences as you might imagine.

1.  ALL money does NOT belong to the government! They stole it from you and now when people talk about giving it back to you it becomes a “cost” like they somehow earned it and are making one of those economic decisions. They are are not.

2.  It is NOT a “giveaway” to the “rich” it belonged to them in the first place! They paid taxes on it once already when they earned it! The government STOLE it from them at the point of a gun by threatening violence!

3. The government did NOT provide value for value before stealing this money. I certainly would not pay the taxes I owe for the “services” that the government “provides” unless I had a gun pointed at my head as well.

4. It can’t “cost” the government to simply not steal additional money from you. It was yours to start with.

The childlike arguments made by Obama have no rational basis in logical thinking. This would be like saying that if the government comes along and breaks your leg, but then uses a government program to get you a cast they “healed” you and you should be grateful to them for being so generous.

As usual the Putz in Chief, Obama, is off on his communist rant and couldn’t produce clear rational thought if his life depended on it. Sadly he has droves of equally moronic supporters who are equally incapable of logical and rational thought, which is why our country is in such trouble today.

Philadelphia Extorts Bloggers

It would seem the City of Philadelphia, the site of our once Continental Congress, has decided to use its enforcers to shake down bloggers for cash. Of course they wrap it all up in a pretty package called a Business “Privilege” License and make it sound all official, but at the end of the day it is a shake down akin to a visit from the local Mafia thug.

It seems that if you operate a business, which now includes blogs, you need a license from government! They have gone so far as to refer to it as a “privilege” license! Please show me anywhere in our Constitution where it says any level of government can grant businesses a “privilege” license for the sum of $300 to start a business. Anyone? I thought not.

This goes against the very core of freedom and the First Amendment. Now I would never, ever, ever tell anyone to break the laws of our great nation so what I write next is only theoretical mind you. If you are a handy web developer you may want to consider (theoretically) doing the following if you find yourself at the receiving end of something like this…

1. Set up your site on a server in another country.
2. Use a VPN to access your site.
3. Encrypt all of your files on your existing hard drive.
4. Use email encryption when conducting business.
5. Never admit to anything.
6. Conduct financial transactions using Bitcoin.

Of course this is just a theoretical idea for the sake of conversation for intellectually curious Libertarians 🙂

Is Obamacare Dead?

A case sitting before the Supreme Court right now known as King v. Burwell has all the potential to deliver a death blow to Obamacare. The crux of the case is that the law specifically reads that only states that have state run exchanges qualify for Federal subsidies. There are over 30 states they don’t have a state run exchange, which means the Federal tyrants have set up an exchange for them, wasn’t that sweet of them. The states that have no state exchange are technically not entitled to stolen tax payer money subsidies.

It doesn’t help the progressive idiots that used some of the most convoluted shams lies kick backs “rules” to get this passed and as a result didn’t get to actually clean up this monstrosity. Now they are claiming they never intended for it to not cover everyone. Of course this to is a lie. It was specifically written this way to bribe force create incentives the states to set up their own exchanges. Many of them did not and now Obama and his criminal henchman in Congress are in a bit of a pickle as they offer up additional lies excuses lame reasoning explanation for what they meant.

The question of course is will the SCOTUS rule as they should, which is to say looking at the letter of the law where it specifically says state run exchanges are the only ones able to receive stolen tax payer loot and rule as they should by the letter of the law.

Since that traitor, John Roberts had to perform such complex legal gymnastics the first time to find this piece of crap “Constitutional” by essentially re-writing it on the fly I am not hopeful that he will rule any differently this time. He will probably accept the lies from the progressives that they intended this to be the case from the beginning, apply a huge dose of legal gymnastics again and again vote in their favor. After you add up the other 4 guaranteed Obama votes from the 4 liberal Justices you will get another 4/5 decision. In fact, I am so sure this is what will happen I think it is as close to a sure bet as you can get.

We should know in a few short months. The anticipation is killing me…NOT!

Obama Snubbing France after Terror Attack

Here is an interesting opinion piece about the recent snubbing Obama gave to France after their recent terror attacks. The piece does a good job at outlining the reasons for this. Basically, Obama is more interested in looting hardworking Americans of their earnings in an effort to make the world “equal”. So in the name of equality he continues to ignore serious terrorist threats. Nice. The piece goes on to point out that is has been Obama’s mission since the beginning.

Unfortunately what Obama doesn’t understand is that you can’t have equal outcomes until you have equal inputs. In other words it is a fact of life that some people work harder, longer and are simply more talented than others. Those people will generally put more into life to get more out. Those that don’t will often be on the bottom and stay there. Idiots like Obama want to somehow punish those individuals that work harder and make everyone and everything equal so that regardless of what you put in or are capable of putting in you get the same out as the next guy who didn’t do this. In short, socialism.

Using terms like “JV Team” when describing terrorist is designed to put out the message that these guys aren’t a serious threat so we can go back to his favorite topics of looting, spreading the wealth, socialism and robbing the “rich” to give to the poor. The only thing is the terrorist don’t seem to care what Obama is interested in talking about or doing. They are still plotting and planning and will keep attempting to carry out attacks against the west.

No doubt as in France these attacks will mostly likely be these lone wolf types we have been seeing pop up and will happen both overseas and sadly on American shores, eventually. This makes it even more important that Americans continue to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. Your ability to protect yourself may eventually be all that stands between these terrorist psychopaths and your own life or your family’s life. We certainly can’t count on Obama to take the threats seriously.

And this folks is what happens when you elect a JV guy to be President because of all the free stuff he promises to steal from the “rich” to give to you.

Gun Control in U.S. because of Terrorists in France

As soon as I saw the news that terrorist had used guns to attack unarmed citizens in France I said to a friend, “just watch the anti 2nd Amendment crowd will find a way to call for gun control in the U.S. even though this happened across the ocean in France!” Sadly, but predictably, I was 100% accurate. It wasn’t even a day later that calls for yet more civil liberties infringements should be applied to U.S. citizens because of what happened in France! I repeat France!

Liam Neeson, despite making millions of dollars glorifying guns on the silver screen is one of the key people calling for more gun control in the U.S. because of this. I am not really even sure what to do with that information. The bottom line is you simply can’t fix stupid. You can’t negotiate with crazy.

First, like most western European countries France has some of the strictest ownership laws regarding firearms of anywhere in the world! Yes, the entire world. Even a bulk of their police don’t carry guns! Yet despite that terrorist were able to use the criminal networks and black market to smuggle guns into the country. Of course predictably they met almost no resistance as they proceeded to walk along killing unarmed and defenseless people.

Yes, to you idiots calling for more gun control this is what happens. You take away guns from all the people who follow the laws and then wonder why you have massive body counts when criminals steal or smuggle guns and kill all the unarmed people.

Mr. Neeson seems to think that because there are so many guns in the U.S. that attack would have been worse here than there with all of their gun control. That is so stupid it actually defies all rational thought and any semblance of logic!

How would 4 terrorist shoot any more guns than the ones they possessed in France? I have been a shooter for a long time and I have yet to figure out how to shoot multiple guns at the same exact time. Plus as pointed out before they used the black market to get these guns so if they wanted more they could have had them. Period.

What would have happened in most places in the U.S. is a CCW holder would have pulled out a gun and fired back! They may have even killed these guys before they murdered a dozen people! That is what happens in a country that has more guns and doesn’t disarm all of their subjects “citizens”. They shoot back. They are not soft targets.

I have come to the conclusion these people are simply too stupid to debate any longer. They can’t even use rational logic in forming an opinion. Their positions make zero sense. I suppose we must continue to answer them when they spout this garbage because we have equally stupid individuals in the media that actually think this drivel is newsworthy and that these flat earthers of the gun debate should be given serious consideration.

How do you intelligently debate someone that can’t even put together logical and debatable points? I imagine this is how early intelligent people felt when confronting morons who still believed the earth was flat. You made logical, fact based, statistically proven and well reasoned points and they would respond with “You are wrong, the world, she is flat!”. Like I said before you simply can’t fix stupid.

Should Restaurants be able to Ban Firearms

There is an interesting post and poll on the Personal Liberty blog asking the question if restaurants should be able to ban or restrict firearms on their premises.

I encourage everyone to go cast their own vote, but I thought I would share with you my perspective on the issue. The short answer is absolutely they should be able to ban firearms if they so choose. They should be able to post a sign and regardless of what state law says or what the 2nd Amendment says they should be able to ban firearms 100% at their establishments.

Those of you that have read my posts in the past know my own position on firearms. Therefore, I will wait the obligatory few minutes while you pick your collective jaws up off the floor if you are totally shocked about my position. Waiting… Waiting…

OK, everyone have their dental work back in place again? Good, let me elaborate. In a true libertarian society the right of private property must be sacrosanct. No negotiation on this point. However the rights of the individual need to be 100% respected as well. It would seem on this particular issue there is an impasse.

I disagree. As the property owner whose rights are sacrosanct they have the right to decide if someone is allowed in that facility with a firearm. However you as the individual whose rights must be respected also have a right to NOT go to that establishment and NOT spend your money there.

They are under no obligation to allow you entry with your firearm and you are under no obligation to come in. You as the individual are also allowed to boycott and make your displeasure known to whomever you would like. They as the property owners are also allowed to make their position known and defend it if they so choose.

In my state it is legal for any business to post no guns and as a CCW holder I am obligated to obey. If I choose to do business with one of these companies I do so according to their rules. However I also have the right to not do business with them and in my personal day to day life I do. I will not, on principle, go into any business that denies me my right to go in armed. Period. This is MY rule and MY right, which I choose to exercise.

Many times I will let the business know that I have or will take my business elsewhere if they choose to maintain this position. I am generally cordial and will ask them some questions as to why or how they came to the conclusion that this was a good idea. In some cases they don’t know why. In other cases they simply did not really think the issue through or have the facts to accurately assess the situation, i.e. that criminals don’t care if the stupid sign is up and only law abiding gun owners will obey those signs. Therefore, it doesn’t “protect” them from crime. If anything it keeps someone who could defend them from being present when a criminal does come in and ignores the sign.

However if at the end of the day they have an ideological position against guns and no matter what facts you present choose to ban guns on their property; in a libertarian society they should be allowed to. I also have the right to make certain choices, which I do.

Now for you people that are screaming you have a right to go here or there AND be armed I offer this. There are certain places in every city where the criminals rule. It is unsafe to go there under just about any circumstances, even if you are armed. You are of course free to go and be armed, but do you really want to? The point is being able to go absolutely anywhere you choose armed while it may be your individual right is it one you ALWAYS choose to exercise under ANY and ALL situations? I would offer no, there are some places that you CHOOSE to not go even if you can go armed.

This situation is not really that different. You are choosing to NOT go to a place because if you must go unarmed the place is fundamentally unsafe. If you were armed you might feel differently, but just like our crime ridden part of town you might not feel safe even if you were armed. The issue isn’t one of being armed or not armed it is about feeling safe under the circumstances. In a place that chooses to ban firearms I don’t feel safe because I know the facts about criminals. I choose to not go and feel unsafe. I am voting with my wallet and I am choosing to tell others about my position (boycotting) and letting them make their own decision.

Remember in a libertarian society your rights only extend to the point at which they infringe on another person’s rights. A private property owner has rights to. You may disagree with their position, but you can’t trample their rights to exercise yours. Simple as that.