Category Archives: snbi

Give Them Nothing

I’m in agreement with David. Where are the SNBIs? Why is there no one willing to say, “NO!” not only to any new restrictions on gun ownership, trade, manufacture, and carrying, but to all existing restrictions? I like that Shapiro was in Morgan’s face and just didn’t care that Morgan kept saying, “How dare you?” What is Morgan, a little kid who thinks he’s on a playground and whining about someone stealing his spot on the swing set? I mean, really, now.

Kurt Hoffman is correct. Yield. Absolutely. Nothing. No Compromise.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

How’s “No. Your Move.” for an Argument

Ah, yes, as is often the case, those fact checking sites turn out to be statist shills. First there was Snopes (or actually, I think there was one before it, but forgot the name), then, and now we have someone over at seeking a bloody civil war.

In his latest cracked (up) post he brings up four points that freedom lovers bring up during any debate on gun people control.

I’m not going to fisk his entire post. There’s plenty of rebuttal for just about every point he makes all over the ‘net and dead tree letters to the editors.

But the bottom line is, the answer is “No.” As Bob Owens said, We, the supporters of the Constitution, are in the position of strength. So why should we compromise? Show me one time in history an instance when those interested in individual liberty compromised with those who wished to control them and it didn’t benefit those on the side of control and be detrimental to those on the side of liberty.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

There’s been enough carnage, in the 100s of millions, due to tyrants killing their own innocent countrymen in the 20th century alone (after disarming them, of course), that we simply do not trust you. And never will.

Yes, we’ve figured it out. You are lying through your teeth when you say things like we should license guns they way we license cars. You are a liar.

Cody at Cracked whines about the four most meaningless annoying arguments he hears from pro-gun folks ending the argument. He makes it sound like they’re four magic incantations recited by the faithful that puts metaphysical tape over their opponents’ mouths. If these end the argument, maybe it’s because you hoplophobes haven’t come up with believable counterarguments, eh?

There’s always a gun people control debate after a tragedy involving firearms. The problem for you statists who would control us is that you keep using the same old tired arguments that the majority of populace does not buy.

It’s obvious that the antis are feeling a bit defeated these days. But it’s clear to this writer that there’s plenty of debate going on, just nothing new.

Ayn Rand said it best: “A gun is not an argument.”

And we know damn well that those who would restrict us further in our right to keep and bear arms would have no compunction about using government guns to enforce their edicts. Whether you accept it or not, that makes you an accessory to the state sponsored murder of me and those who think like me. Although I have scant hope that there would be a 100 heads response to my death by tyrant, you can rest assured that the collectivists’ army will eventually take out someone of enough significance that you who advocate for our disarmament most definitely will be one of those 100 heads sought out as a result. To echo Billy Beck’s take on those who think they only advocate common sense gun laws but really advocate for reversing the government to citizen equation:

Get those guns out of my face and I can be the sweetest person you ever met. I will always meet you on your premises.

Should you succeed in subversively enacting further control over our lives, you’re advocacy will not be forgotten when the killing of those who love liberty begins. You can be certain that our side will be operating under Clinton’s “Serbian Rules.”

When it comes to my unalienable human rights, I will not argue to make my point. Not because our side doesn’t have great arguments for the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, as we most certainly do. I will only argue for my own entertainment.

Tam, of the blog View from the Porch gets credit for an often quoted footnote to one of her “tab clearing” posts: “Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.”.

So, yeah: do that.

Update: via Mike, Mama Liberty says, “Get over it” which is a slightly nicer way of saying Tam’s “So piss off.” ML’s post is great. Go read it. (I still like “piss off” better than “get over it” but it’s a great post, nonetheless. :-))

Reason 53 Why I Am Not a Big “L” Libertarian

I don’t really know if all (Big L) Libertarians have this view, but it seems when it comes to so-called “guns in parking lots” bills like this one (h/t Unc) they invariable frame it as one right competing against another.

It’s not.

So here’s what I posted at Uncle’s link, with a few edits:

How about this. For those crying “property rights,” let’s try an experiment. You come over my house for coffee and I’m going to demand access to your vehicle to search it for Bibles and porno mags.

And let’s [add] another variable. I’m going to post my property “no Bibles or porno mags,” as well, and if I find any of those prohibited items in your car, I’m going to call the cops, have them arrest you, and you will [spend time in jail and] lose … [your] right to read *anything* for the rest of your life.

That’s [the] situation here in NC with the 2nd amendment. Not so appealing when you apply the same standard to the 1st, is it?

My car is my property no matter where it is parked, notwithstanding Paul Stam’s (RINO weenie in the NC legislator) bizzaro claim that my car become[s] his property when it’s parked on his property.

How about a newspaper or political literature I disagree with? Ready to turn over your right to have those items in your car whenever you park it on someone else’s property. WHICH, by the way, you ALWAYS do, unless you leave it parked on your own property at all times, making it pointless to have it.

No matter what magical properities the hoplophobes want to paint guns with, it’s time they face two facts.

First, it’s property like any other property, and if you want the right to prohibit any specific items I carry in my car, then I demand the same right to ensure your car is clean of any items I find offensive while parked on my property.

Second, it’s NOT property like any other property. It is SPECIALLY protected as a pre-existing, fundamental, natural, human right, codified in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Deal with it.

Freedom is Nonnegotiable

Does the world really need another gun blog? Maybe. Maybe not. But I can think of no better topic to write about given the fast approaching election and the lack of a real choice for freedom loving people. I may never gain the popularity of other gun bloggers out there, but that matters not to me. I think its important that more freedom loving people speak out against the increasing threats to those freedoms.

I grew up in a state in the northeast corner of the country that does not trust its citizens to run their own lives. Really, I often wonder if the entire country hasn’t gone down that same path. But some places are definitely much further down the path to socialism than others. That aside, I live in a much freer state as of a few years ago. At least in regards to firearms. And I’ve been making up for lost time, so to speak.

There are many reasons I love my freedom to keep and bear arms. But the most important among them is not the “ooh, shiny” fun of it. But that plays a small part, to be sure.

It’s not the target practice or shooting sports that so many find enjoyment in. Though I do enjoy that.

It’s not the hunting opportunities it provides. Though I’ve never hunted in my life, I have a great interest in starting, even at this (semi-)late stage in my life.

Believe it or not, it’s not even so much the self-defense — against both four legged and two legged creatures — aspect that captures my interest the most. Even though I see that as supremely important.

I’ve heard a lot about the gun culture (in a postive sense) in this country from many gun rights groups and the firearms tradition as well. And while all that is important, I don’t think I can put it any better than Suzanna Gratia-Hupp did in her testimony before Congress many years ago:

“…the second amendment is not about duck hunting. … but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there”

I don’t know about you, but I could think of only one word when I heard that: Wow. And right in the face of one of the worst anti-rights congress-critter ever, as he smugly looked on.

So I hope that sets the theme. I guess it makes me an SNBI gun rights advocate. But I stand with David Codrea of The War on Guns when he references Yuri Orlov in the silliness of that moniker. Be that as it may, I wear the label proudly. Consider me a member of Merry Band of Three Percenters.