Precisely one week ago, Anders Monsen published his top 50 libertarian fiction list, and included the rules he chose. I particularly like his restriction of only one choice per author; not only does it help spread the love around, as it were, but it encourages the listmaker to reflect on the various volumes of, for example, Robert Heinlein and to attempt to articulate the ineffable: Which one do I really like best, and is good at promoting liberty?
In the course of conversations about many of the high profile incidents being used to further the efforts of politicians and socialists of all stripes, especially the gun grabbers, the thing that came to my mind over and over was the question: by what authority? Why do so many people assume, or even enthusiastically agree with the idea that politicians, bureaucrats and "law enforcement" entities and personalities have some absolute and undeniable authority to do whatever it is they do, and to force that on all the rest of us who do not agree with their plans?
I carry a gun - Get over it
By Susan Callaway, Editor
July 30, 2012
I carry a gun. All the time, just about everywhere I go except to bed and the shower. Even then, a gun is within a foot or so of my hand all the time. An occasional trip into the disarmed victim zone of the post office, and my last (and I do mean last) trip to California to visit family are the extreme and very temporary exceptions.
This article is from the current issue of The Price of Liberty. I like to think it is one of my better efforts, and have been surprised at how little feedback I've gotten after posting it on a number of freedom and gun rights message boards. A little discouraging.... but I guess that's just life these days. Anyway, thought I'd share it with you here as well. Comments are, of course, most welcome.
I Love My Guns
By Susan Callaway, Editor
April 02, 2012
Some recent comments on various message boards frequented by shooters indicate that a few people are either changing their minds or are bowing to the politically correct pressure of the day. They have begun to assert that they do NOT "love their guns" and only view them as necessary tools.
While I couldn't agree more that guns are simply tools, pretty much like any others, I don't know why that would make them unlovable. Most men love their tools, all different kinds, and men have always loved their guns. I'm certainly not ashamed to join those men.
But, you might ask, just what is it that we (who still profess it anyway) actually love about guns? Aren't they killing machines, good only for harming others? We hear that a lot.
So, why do I love my guns? Let me count the ways.
We've been talking about research, mostly medical/drug recently, and I thought this was a logical extension of that discussion - but so different it needed its own thread.
A good deal of my absence here—and the lightness of subject when I do post—can be attributed solely to fear.
I’m finding some interesting, er, artifacts as I sift through stuff I’ve been carrying around for years. One thing that caught my attention last night is a copy of Fifth Estate’s spring/summer 2005 issue. I believe it was an essay—the title of which I’ve used for this ramble—that sparked something within me.
Rasmussen Reports recently announced the results of an interesting little poll of American voters, regarding the idea of “the consent of the governed”. Shall we poke around in the data a bit?
In Costa Rica, as in many other places, this year is a census year. I intend to do everything possible to avoid being counted.
My experience with the census started in 1970, when my parents received "the long form" (for lack of a better name). I recall my father feeling important because "they" wanted to know all about him. I saw the form and felt creeped out. It asked things like how many bathrooms in the house, how many TVs you owned, etc. I remember thinking that this was none of their business.
I have a lot of conversations with folks who understand the growing problems and potential for disaster. Many of them are already well down the road to preparations for survival, many have just started, and most are somewhere between. Unfortunately, a few still cling to the idea that - if "we" ALL just would pay attention and DO SOMETHING - the old US Constitution could be resurrected, we could elect the "right people," and the police state would be gone.
I saw this article this morning and thought we might continue our discussion of the agora and its importance in our struggle for liberty. Kyle is a good friend, and a member of my FSW family - as well as a contributor to The Price of Liberty.
I expect that many freedom-loving individuals would answer that question in the negative; but some would aver otherwise, pointing to the power of a jury as a (perhaps “the”) remaining check on the state’s dominance. I’ve pondered that issue for some time—wanting to be convinced by the arguments, truth be told, but never making it that far. The primary obstacle is the vanishingly small role juries directly play in most people’s lives. How many adults are tapped for jury duty? Out of those who go, how many actually serve? How many times does an average person sit on a jury? I have no numbers to pin to those questions, but it should be clear that I am skeptical that an activity that at best probably commands only a few hours of a person’s life is going to be seen as enormously important to him.
Another assertion that would likely be offered is that juries can make or break laws—and that does affect many people, as we all live under the burden of the laws of our jurisdiction. But again, I have problems ... Jury nullification depends upon at least one informed, courageous person; and the voir dire process actively seeks to eliminate such individuals from juries. That person must also keep his intentions secret until deliberations, else a mistrial could be called. Even that doesn’t guarantee that a mistrial won’t happen.
But—and here’s the heart of the matter—all the jury power in the world won’t make a bit of difference if the judge plays fast and loose with his power in the courtroom. A judge has a variety of means by which he can skew a trial, including what he allows as evidence, lines of questioning the lawyers are allowed to pursue, and the instructions he gives to the jury before they retire for deliberation.
Some judges have apparently become so brazen that they will not allow the jury access to the actual law(s) under consideration in a case. Pete Hendrickson says that’s what happened to him in his recently-concluded trial with the IRS.
Finally getting to the long promised story of my trip to California. You were warned. [grin]
It all started months ago when my sister sent me tickets for the airfare. She'd always wanted to do that, but I'd never before agreed to fly... but I had a 2 1/2 year old grandson I'd never seen, and wanted badly to reconnect with my two sons, so I bit the proverbial bullet and accepted.
That is probably not news to regulars here—after all, my interview of B.W. Richardson displayed my high regard of him; and I’ve pointed to several of his blog posts here. But if you’ve not been by Montag ... lately, take a mosey over there and you should easily see why I’ve titled this ramble thusly. He’s been on a powerful tear lately—and lest you think you can suss out my favorites based on my commenting pattern there, to that I say “Nay!” Of late I’ve been racing the heat as well as very busy, so I often let great bits slip by without comment.
But today’s post is simply too good to let pass, nor to keep to myself. Hie thee over there and bask in his inspiring words. Thank you very much, my friend.
Some musings occasioned by the imminent departure of Lobo’s first brood from our home and my concerns for their successful fledging ... Even so, I will try not to make this overly personal, not just for privacy of the individuals involved but also because I’m interested in exploring the broader ideas and issues, not just our family situation.