The Department of Homeland "Security" has ordered 7,000 AR-15 rifles. Why? One wonders. It certainly couldn't have anything to do with defending the US Constitution, since the mere existence of the DHS is not warranted by the Constitution. But isn't it interesting to note that the gubment calls these "Assault Rifles" when civilians try to own them, and they magically become "Self-Defense" rifles when the gubment owns them?

This article comes via The Blaze, Beck's site. Paleo-conservative, not fully libertarian, but the information is valid.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-wh...

Be Seeing You!

Yep. What's funny about this one is that they guy doesn't like the rules for the country putting things into the hands of "lawyers" and "judges". But he still supports the state, which has as its foundation a series of laws and those who write them and a so-called "justice" system that upholds those laws. He seems to love his selective application of the kinds of laws he likes. If it's a law "by the people" that is contrary to the rules of the government as written in the Constitution, and he would rather not try to AMEND the Constitution? He would rather just have the law. Pushaw to the lawyers when we have to get the Constitution involved. But what happens to the people who then run afoul of his plebiscite laws?

People often tell free market boosters that they worry about unencumbered businesses colluding to raise prices. As Dominic Armantano's excellent book "Antitrust and Monopoly" spells out, business owners compete to LOWER costs and costs of production because they will gain market share, and after they gain market share, the mere possibility that someone else might enter the market should they raise prices contrary to what consumers want -- well that keeps them striving to keep prices low and lower them all the time. When gubment gets involved, however, it's a different story...

Here is a great example. Milk in Louisiana:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/louisiana-stops-sale-cheap-milk-at-...

Be Seeing You!

Awesome. Kudos to Mr. Mamet for not only writing such a powerful defense of the subjective nature of all economic decisions, but also for such a fiery verbal punch into the gut of conceited statism.

Beautiful to see. Mr. Mamet recently announced that he had turned away from his former left-statist ideology. He has clearly been diving deep into the waters of free market economics and libertarian philosophy, and he has clearly been using logic to great effect. Great essay.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-...

Be Seeing You!

Good for them, and for the concept of natural rights.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/number-nations-sheriffs...

Be Seeing You!

She thinks she will 'dry up the supply' of certain kinds of weapons. Has that happened with heroin? Has that happened with pot? How about the weapons already banned?

Oh, and don't forget to register everything, all.

Idiocy and fascism wearing a black dress, perhaps to impart 'mourning'?

The situation is going to get very confrontational.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/24/feinstein-calls-for-banning-more-than-...

Be Seeing You!

You gotta be kidding us.

Back when Baby Boomers were "young", they used to protest and laud freedom of speech againt authority. Those of us in younger generations often suspected that they were just waiting until they became the authorities, then they'd favor silence.

Those days have arrived.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/bbc-rewrites-tv-history...

The aggressors act, you defend rehtorically, and you are painted as the aggressor. Crazy world.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278993-report-feinstein...

Be Seeing You!

We predicted this kind of thing once the TSA went into the airports.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-readies-scan-and-frisk-article-...

How is it that libertarians can ask the rhetorical question re gun laws: "Will that apply to the agents of the state?" and know the answer will be "No"?

Once again, we're proven to have asked the right question, and expected the same answer. Case in point, the new NY State law on gun clips. The "lawmakers" mistakenly applied it to their own crowd of "enforcers". And we know they just can't have that, can they?

One can ask. If those who would like to curtail the second amendment want to stop private citizens from owning certain kinds of guns and ammo and certain kinds of clips, why are they in favor of agents of the state having them? Is it because they believe the agents of the state might enter dangerous situations?

Very good.

http://lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut70.1.html

Be Seeing You!

Wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gf0ujbzG9s

Be Seeing You!

Nothing like those baby-boomers who were all for freedom of expression long, long ago. Again, we must note that a video game, a movie, a book or piece or music or painting CANNOT be VIOLENT unto itself! They are depictions, or all kinds of things, and do not bring direct harm to another person. The very term "violent video game" is erroneous and works to prejudice people before the argument is even engaged.

Also, we must note that as video games have become more and more popular, violent crime in the US has DROPPED. There is no way to prove causation, but the correlation is very strong. In no way can a politician claim that videos that depict violence lead to violent acts on the part of real people.

Not one of the TSA thugs caught on video has ever been able to offer a constitutional justification for the presence of this federal agency in the airports, not will they ever be able to. The TSA is not sanctioned by the US Constitution, and infringes on the 4th Amendment's clear command that any search of a person or his effects/property that a government agent wants to conduct MUST be accompanied by a WARRANT, issued by a JUDGE, upon the JUDGE'S deetermination of PROBABLE CAUSE.

Good to see more people fighting back with moves like this!

http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/01/15/tsa-screener-assaults-a...

Be Seeing You!

More spending, more glad-handling, more invasions of private information (through the 'research' end of this)... The brown shirts are starting to become visible beneath the white collars of the bureaucrats.

But, we're SURE janet Napolitano can name the provisions in the US Constitution that allow her agents and pals to do these things... Right?

As Cosby said, "Riiiiiiiight."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dhs-expand-and-formalize-coordinatio...

Be Seeing You!

Ugh.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-pay-per-mile-scheme-would-boost-taxes-...

Be Seeing You!

Notice this quote from the article: "The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting." So, not only are they not interested in acknowledging the fact that they aren't going to propose any AMENDMENT to the Constitution, they are not even interested in the idea of putting the question to the Congressional representatives. That process wouldn't be Constitutional, but the fact that the Executive Branch is trying to avoid Congress indicates that they know it is not popular.

Good for him. His new film, "Django Unchained" is set in 1860. Its characters use language natural to the time. If he had written a story set in Elizabethan England, he wouldn't use Valley Girl language. Tarantino has also noted the vastly destructive forces unleashed by the unconstitutional so-called "war" on drugs. Another great insight. Kudos to him for sticking to his guns when it comes to his work and the plight of many hurt by the gubment's "war" on drugs.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/golden-globes-2013-quentin-taranti...

Pun intended.

Be Seeing You!

Actually? No. There are none. And there are none in the powers granted by the Constitution to Congress. IN FACT, Mr. President, you and Congress are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. ANY ARMS. If you would like to uphold your oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution", then don't move by executive action, and try to AMEND the Constitution. It's pretty simple.

Oh, what's that? It would be nigh impossible to win enough votes to amend the Constitution? So you'll just do what you want anyway and continue to pretend you're "defending the Constitution"?

What a surprise.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-ca...

Not surprising. One doubts that the agents of the state will be held to this standard if the bill passes.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Mag...

One of the things many politicians fear, but will not mention in public, is the idea of large numbers of armed protesters. If large crowds of disaffected and put-upon citizens confronted police officers the way protesters at anti-globalist or "occupy" protests have, by the thousands compared to dozens of police, the politicians know that the citizens would begin to see that they DO have the ability to push back against the state.