The Excalibur of the People

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:00:00 GMT

# Zell Miller at The Washington Times - Iwo Jima, if covered by media today - Hilarious. But not applicable to the war on Iraq. The Japanese government attacked America. Iraq did not. Remember. American soldiers committed many atrocities against non-combattants in WWII, inexcusable, unforgivable atrocities. Just as they have done in Iraq. "We're at war" does not cut it as an excuse for killing and maiming babies. [geekwitha.45]

Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"

Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."

Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"

Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."

Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"

Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."

(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do -- sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "

...

Cutie: "Yes, of course, but it's all over. (Nervous giggle). Except here on Capitol Hill, of course. Corporal Smith, I wonder if you know the gender, race and ethnicity of the group that put the flag up. In other words, did that group 'look like America?' "

Corporal Smith: "Look like America? They are Americans, ma'am. United States Marines."

Cutie: "Any females?"

Cpl. Smith: "No, ma'am."

Cutie: "Any African Americans?"

Cpl. Smith: "I don't know, ma'am. But there is an Indian in Easy Company."

Cutie: "You mean Native American?"

Cpl. Smith: "Whatever, ma'am, I've got to cut out. My outfit is moving on and we've got a lot to do."

# Sergei Borglum Hoff at The Price of Liberty - The First Law of Nature Demands a Second Amendment: The Excalibur of the People - Glorious! [price]

The following truths must be conveyed to these unrestrained servants of the people: For the preservation of liberty, this nation, self, or family, the First Law of Nature does not require bureaucratic sanction prior to its enforcement by the people. And, whether or not politicians and judges view the Second Amendment as impaired is not a governing factor for the resolute individualist. Further, genuine patriots--those loyal to this nation and the principles of its Constitution--and other adherents of the First Law of Nature, will never be enslaved or deterred as a result of unnatural and unconstitutional laws, regardless of counterfactual Supreme Court judgments. There are 90,000,000-armed Americans (University of Chicago Research Center). Although ten-percent is conceivable (9,000,000), if only one-percent of that number (900,000) begins to energetically react--expertly or not--to human rights violations, there will indeed be ample cause for concern on the part of the unfaithful public servant. As the supreme counterforce to the tyrannical powers of government, our Founding Fathers forged the unyielding Second Amendment--the Excalibur of the people. Those politicians and judges from this subversive tribe and the others now performing their ballet from atop a fence will display a degree of wisdom by briskly restoring constitutional government and justice.

...

In violation of the Bill of Rights, my state requires the possession of a license that permits me to bear a firearm. As a "compelling state interest," should I not also be required to possess a license that permits me to freely speak or write what is on my mind, a license that permits me to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or a license that permits me to refrain from incriminating myself? What other unalienable rights should I not be permitted to exercise without a license?

...

Is the right of individuals to bear firearms of choice, absolute? Yes! Of course it is. The unjustified use of a firearm is an entirely different matter. Our rights do not extend beyond the point where they begin to violate the rights of others. We do not have a right to use firearms for criminal intent. Nor are we permitted to maliciously shout fire in a crowded auditorium. Freedom of speech cannot lawfully be abridged unless used in an unlawfully destructive manner. And, our right to keep and bear arms cannot lawfully be infringed upon except when firearms are used for criminal purposes. Unlawfulness stems from anti-social behavior, not the tools used to achieve the nefarious results. Use of a firearm or any weapon (automobile, knife, poison, baseball bat, and on forever) to violate the rights of others is a felony offense, and has no correlation with the Second Amendment. We have an abundance of laws to control or punish destructive behavior. Criminal use of firearms should be dealt with on an individual basis without penalizing the entire nation for the misdeeds of a few. Preventing citizens from firearm ownership simply because they might violate the rights of others is unconstitutional. In doing so, innocent persons are punished along with the guilty. Rebellious of the aforesaid truths, our government conducts all Americans as suspected criminals.

...

Although neither decision is related to firearms, they nonetheless settle the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation, or registration of any constitutional right. Laws requiring persons to obtain permission from states to carry concealed firearms are unconstitutional. Seeking permission to exercise a right is absurd. Unconstitutional laws lack legitimacy and should never be obeyed by a free people.

...

The reality is that you have no right to demand of anyone to risk his or her life in the defense of yours. Obviously, preserving your life is a very personal endeavor requiring sound judgment. Make no mistake! Anyone--regardless of ignorance or intent--who attempts to deprive you of the means or ability to defend the lives of your family is a very real enemy and must be exposed as such. All anti self-defense activists are as deadly a threat to you and your family as any violent criminal, terrorist, or psychopath. Never underestimate the destructive potential of these victim disarmament fanatics, with their inherent theatrical talents for staging mindless mob melodrama. Does the "Million Mom March" rekindle memories of such absurdities? Their actions contributing to the same deadly result, these million goose-stepping moms and many politicians (Bush, Clinton, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Daschel, Lautenberg, on and on), must all be held accountable for the thousands of American men, women, and children who--through unconstitutional, outlaw legislation--are prevented from defending their lives.

# Russ Stein at LewRockwell.com - Ignore the Campaign Too - why you should spend not a single second of your time on government, and especially, don't vote. [lew]

I don't own a TV, but I wanted to at least be able to give the impression of being a politically aware guy the next time I ran into this hottie, so on the day of the second presidential debate I tuned into NPR for some conversational material. I lasted about 3 minutes, that's all I could take. I was preoccupied with a freelance article I was trying to finish, and Bush's "mixed signals" (signals? the commonplace is "mixed messages" -- what is wrong with that guy?) were seriously getting on my nerves, so I flipped it off.

Am I wrong? What am I, a bad person because I don't care about the sub-high school civics level nonsense and mass propaganda that passes for political rhetoric in U.S. national campaigns? On the contrary, I think indifference is the way to go; the wave of the future, if you will. In this I'm with the majority, after all, at least in my age demographic.

Here's why I can't be bothered to vote, or pay the slightest bit of attention to the campaign:

The high-tech, digital, capitalist society that I live in, and the obsolete and oppressive U.S. political and legal regime that menaces us and the world, are mutually exclusive. I can fully participate in global digital culture while ignoring the imperial State and its colonial wars and inexplicable crimes, so long as I fly below radar and avoid attracting the attention of the regime's envious, ignorant government officials, police and prosecutors.

...

Summing up, the only vote I really care to cast is on eBay, when I click the "Buy it Now" button. Or when I find a great writer on a blog or website and use Google to find more of his stuff. Or when I load Linux instead of Windows onto my laptop. Sure, I vote. When I find some great new website, I vote for it with clicks and links. Or I submit articles or queries, or I buy something using my Paypal account.

# Ed Henry at The Price of Liberty - Four More Reasons To Vote For Bush - hehe. [price]

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Columbus Day 2004
Commission of Fake Presidential Debates
Conservatives for Badnarik
More Government ALWAYS Translates into Less Freedom
U.S.A. T.R.A.I.T.O.R. II
George Bush: Extend the AWB, Close the Gun Show "Loophole"
Slow Noose Day
So Many Politicians. So Little Rope!
X Prize Likely To Be Won Today
Lyman Luma Ring™ Shotgun Sight

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair