Gun owners continue to shoot their own feet - this time in Texas.

While it may seem like a positive advancement at face value, the Texas Senate bill is an unjust effort - as are all similar measures. Any law that trumps property rights can only lead to the inevitable erosion of self-defense rights, since firearms are, in fact, a specific type of property.

When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines.

As an individual in a free society, we can accept those tenets or refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

For government to encroach upon a property owner’s wishes, within the context of a voluntary relationship according to voluntary terms, is an unjust trampling of the American essence. Telling a property owner that he must allow weapons on his property is no different in principle than telling a restaurant owner he must not allow them - both destroy property rights.

Such bills are short-sided attempts which in effect chop down the tree to get to the apple.

Well-intentioned proponents of these measures claim that employees have property rights that trump those of the employer.

…your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

It is your property, but it’s subject to my terms when you’re on my property. You are free to accept and accommodate (or violate, as I’ve done in the past), or you may refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

If you don’t want to chance what could be in your employee’s cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don’t allow any parking on your property. However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

That’s certainly one option. Or, you could rely on contract law and property rights by simply specifying restrictive covenants in an employment contract.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

Like I said above, if the restriction is “no firearms”, then the context is irrelevant. “No firearms” doesn’t mean “no firearms except for where you have an emotional (or even practical) justification for them”, it means “no firearms”, regardless of how you rationalize it.

Keep in mind, I completely disagree with these types of restrictions, but I’m much more adamantly opposed to using government force to counter them in a way that can only injure the cause of freedom.

Property rights must adhere to a hierarchy to some degree - a chain of command amongst voluntary participants - where each link (acting as a host) possesses the right to impose restrictions on the next (acting as the guest) according to voluntary terms.

An example of the same principle taking place one step down the chain could entail you and a co-worker driving to lunch in your car. You would be fully justified in restricting him from getting in your car with a bag of cocaine (or a copy of The Communist Manifesto) in his pocket despite the fact that the coat he’s wearing is his property. He can either choose to accept your rules, or abstain from the ride or even the relationship. What he can’t do however, is hire government to force you to allow him in your car with whatever he chooses, just because he chooses it.

I urge any freedom loving individual who values his right to self-defense to strongly oppose any legality that disrespects our rights to life, liberty or property.

UPDATED: To add thoughts resulting from the comments here.

Unless a principled stance is taken, unless man’s rational and natural rights to life, liberty, and property are defended consistently, this is exactly what will come to America:

I am very concerned this will happen here, not in an isolated sense, but because a ban on weapons will expedite further erosion of our freedoms.

This threat is only a symptom of the underlying issue, our failure to properly regard individual rights. Despite a large segment of our population who’ll resist, the reason organizations such as the NRA will prove to be impotent in the long term is that they don’t crusade on consistent principles, and they’re really only fighting to rearrange Titanic Deck Chairs.

What value is there in a right to a firearm (a specific piece of property) if individual construction is criminal and oppressive regulation and taxes eliminate manufacturing of such property? Many of the same people who’ll boldly proclaim their right to firearms will waffle on (or concede) the “right” to health care, minimum wage, education, or any other phony privilege based on force. Failing to abstract, they won’t object on principle to government intrusion into private business, but fail to see how such injustice threatens them when used for ends they disagree with.

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it—intellectually and physically. - Philosophy: Who Needs It

I’m most intimidated by gun bans because a government that would ban and confiscate weapons is far enough down the road to tyranny that economic stagnation, and the desperation and violence which accompany it, can’t be far behind.

Desperate and violent times are when I want to be able to defend my family and myself the most.

I’ve become firearm enthusiast. I like the engineering, I like the power, I like the security. Firearms are a tribute to the focus of mans mind on the endeavor to protect his life.

A particularly uncomfortable confrontation in the street out front of our rental house in 2006 prompted my official foray into the world of firearms. We were building our current home and had the opportunity for very cheap and flexible rent through a colleague of my wife. Every deal is a tradeoff and in this case the trade was cheap rent for a somewhat shady locale. There are areas in most towns referred to as the wrong side of the tracks - this home would have been built on the tracks. One side of the street was warm and pleasant, the other dark and risky.

I grew up like many guys with BB and Pellet rifles. We lived on several wooded acres so plinking targets, cans or birds out in the back yards was no big deal. Growing up in a small rural suburb meant I had family and friends that were avid outdoorsman, and through them I gained experience with shotguns and rifles. My father had both and a revolver, but I never really paid much attention to them. He instilled a healthy sense of fear, both in the inherent dangers of guns and especially the dangers of me tampering with his guns. I remained very distant, if not isolated from deadly weapons from my early teens until a few years ago.

A few hair-raising stares in downtown Charlotte on dark early mornings as I walked in from the parking lot initiated my curiosity. The booming, lowered and tinted thug-mobile pugnaciously blocking my driveway at the rental house one late winter night was the deciding factor that led me to a serious approach to self-defense.

I have a tendency to take on new endeavors in a very dedicated manner and this one would be no exception. I very quickly recognized that a firearm in incompetent hands is a liability that can ruin lives. I joined a few ranges, one near work, and one near home and began training a few days per week. I soaked up as much info as I could find. I tapped into a new realm of industry, culture and controversy. I also started to really enjoy shooting and the mechanical aspects of maintenance and part upgrades. I learned that like any market, there were niche offerings for specialize purposes. There are pistols small enough for effective concealment, there are those with upgraded components and tailored for accuracy, there are those optimized virtually every situation one could be in requiring such power at their disposal. As a natural progression I started to look into the rifle market. There are traditional bolt-action rifles and there are the modular, military inspired tactical rifles. The latter are far more interesting to me. The AR-15 platform is a very innovative and flexible weapon. In addition, it’s also the weapon of choice for those who’d prefer me not have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. It’s a powerful, customizable, all-purpose and pleasantly engineered source of anxiety for the irrational - I’ll take two of those.

I must get to the point.

I’m going hunting this year for the first time in 20 years. I’m excited - not necessarily about killing an animal, but about the exercise as a whole. The excitement of being outdoors, gearing up to face the weather, acting covert, relying on the technological masterpiece in your hands, the rush of the kill, and the reward of food to show for it in some cases. Depending on the game, there are some I’d actually prefer not to kill. Deer, I appreciate, but if we’re talking about an undeniably ugly and unappealing beast such as a bore, fox or coyote - I’ll have absolutely no reservations about their elimination.

I carried a vague awareness of restrictions around hunting. I knew there were certain times of the year that hunting with particular types of weapons was common. What I had been naively insulated from was the tyrannical invasiveness of our game laws. Given the overreaching club of Government in all other areas of our lives, why would it surprise me that essentially I have to ask the state permission to act within my proper role on the food chain?

I’m required a license to hunt or fish. I can’t go kill a varmint without paying a fee to the State. Even after which I’m only privileged to kill so many, and only during very brief time periods. What weapon I use to kill is restricted. What caliber I use is restricted. What time of day I do so is restricted. The sex of the animal I claim is restricted.

Does the state own all the animals? Or, do animals have rights? What a brilliant concoction of Environmentalism and Gun Control! And consider the potential revenue stream - subjective law always proves to be an adequate means to control men and loot their pockets.

The animals are either property, or they have a right to life. Which is the State implying? All arguments supporting these laws are founded in one of these foundations, neither of which can hold their weight on either moral nor practical grounds (the moral always is the practical).

Laws should be based on rights.

• There is no specific right to have an ample supply of game for hunting.
• Animals have no rights.
• Man has a right to his life, liberty and property.

Who’s right to what am I forcefully violating by hunting according to my own terms? Men have the right to their lives, their liberty and their property - all three of which are violated by this perversion of justice. Hunting to eat, freedom to do so at my discretion and the right to do so unchallenged on my on land are all three dependent on the consent of the State. Once again, another sick inversion of the proper role of government. The supposed protector of rights is the violator.

Anyone surprised?

Can you imagine our founder’s response to the notion that what was a staple of survival in their time has now been criminalized? America, as they envisioned and died for, no longer exists.

I’m still leaning heavily towards not voting in this election, and for the same reasons detailed here. There is only a single issue that stands out as a distinguishing characteristic between these clowns - self defense with deadly force.

The NRA, an organization I can no longer support due to their pragmatic indifference to property rights, is really hammering on the obvious anti-gun (read: anti-property rights) intentions of Obama. Here is a bullet list of their key points:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

Sure he does. He wants justices that will legislate his collectivist agenda from the bench in spite of the constitution.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

I’m sure it was poorly crafted with full intent.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

Sure he did. A subjective legal system is a handy tool for a man of which force is the preferred means to deal with men.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

No surprise here.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

Yes, he is anti-gun - which means no guns, no ammo. An unarmed population is easier to control.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

In a nation riddled with subjective law, a rogue court system who’ll trample the constitution at will, and a population of which the majority doesn’t properly respect rights, this is essentially the only issue that clearly distinguishes Obama from McCain.  If we’re going to be subjected to inadequate protection from people who’ll forcefully violate our rights in a system that only hints at a standard of justice, I want to be able to protect myself and my family by any means necessary.  I want to have the ability to issue deadly force at all times.

My life and the lives of my family are precious and irreplaceable.  One candidate conveys a clear intent to deny me the means to better protect myself, while at the same time promoting policies that will amplify those very threats. The other promotes policies just as vile, and shows disdain for individuals and freedom comparable to his opponent - but, he claims to support my right to self-defense.  With a few exceptions, his record supports the claim.
With either outcome, the sanctity of the individual will further erode into some collectivist variant.  With Either outcome, what’s left of Capitalism will take a tremendous blow.  With either outcome, the irrational philosophies of the majority will yet again have their way.  For the first time since 9/11 and only the second time in my adult life, I have a sense of fear.  I fear that the economic destruction resulting from years of pragmatic ignorance will inevitably become the fissure releasing decades of hatred, panic and misery that’s brewing within our divided population.  When/if that storm erupts, we’ll see savagery from men scrapping for survival that I can’t imagine.  Weapons won’t guarantee survival, but they will provide an increased odds.  The process of disarming us is well underway and this election could enable a substantial boost for such cause.

Pulling the lever for McCain won’t save Capitalism, it won’t rescue individualism, it won’t promote reason, and in fact it will perpetuate several vile mystical and tyrannical movements.  But, it may enable us to retain our right to self-defense and possibly shift the momentum of a movement that will certainly injure our republic.  A vote for McCain may enable us to survive long enough to see the day of reason.

Men of reason don’t rely on force for survival, but even Hank Rearden appreciated the value of gun ownership.  Is this sufficient motivation to cast a ballot?

Read the rest of this entry »

Great video by Penn & Teller:

I’m slowing becoming a big P&T fan.

Georgia House Bill 89 rightfully enables permitted individuals to carry in restaurants and parks. Let’s hope this logical wind blows in the direction of North Carolina and all other states.

There’ nothing shocking about this graph. It logically follows that when individuals aren’t prohibited from defending their rights to life and property, those who would violate said rights are less likely to do so.

Violent Crime and CCW:

Chart data sources:
Right to Carry Laws 2006 - www.nraila.org/map.
Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table5.
National Average - Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table1.

by Jeffrey R. Snyder - (C) 1993 by The Public Interest.

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture — from fashion magazines to the cinema — positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person’s “self-esteem”; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist’s spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one’s life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: “I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want.” For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m overwhelmed with joy. I stumbled on this refreshing LTE in reference to the insidious “gun free” mentality. There are conflicting premises floating amongst the primary Objectivist circles. At times, the subject of guns, open or concealed carry, and objective laws pertaining to their uses and limitations seem almost taboo. Specifically, the question of what involving a firearm constitutes a threat of force.

I’m encouraged to find others who see reality as I do, and that I’m not intrinsically at odds with some obscure Objectivist tenet that I’ve yet to integrate.

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.