Freedom, Group Identification, and Consequences

To anyone trying to make the Cliven Bundy issue, or the Donald Sterling issue, or the Brendan Eich issue about freedom of speech...

...PLEASE STOP...

They are unrelated, and MOSTLY irrelevant, to free speech.

None are a question of freedom of speech.

All three are a question of bad PR and violating contract terms.

These idiots are not victims of oppression... at least as far as speech goes.

"Well, that's just your perspective... this is mine"

No... You can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.

This is not an opinion or a perspective, it is a fact. In making this argument, you are entirely and completely incorrect, in both fact and in principle.

That's not so bad... it's OK to be wrong... everyone is wrong about many things, every day.

What IS so bad, and why you must be corrected, is that by passionately advocating such a patently false viewpoint, and making weak and specious arguments to support it, you weaken the very important ACTUAL battle to restore and maintain free speech.

Using bad arguments for your cause HURTS your cause, it does not help it.

There are some very serious threats to free speech in this country, particularly on college campuses and in schools. There are supreme court cases in this session, and coming up addressing these issues right now... and the picture is decidedly mixed.

• We are dangerously close to criminalizing, or at least accepting some kind of official sanction, on "hate speech" in this country. We already HAVE criminalized "suspect motivations", through "hate crime" law.
• The Government is spying on and intimidating reporters, with the DOJ going after those it perceives as enemies.
• Witnesses are being suppressed out of fear of government retaliation.
• The IRS has gone after conservative political groups, simply for being conservative.
• We have enacted insane regulations about who can say what, when, and with how much and whose money, when it comes to politics and elections. 

These are HUGE REAL PROBLEMS.

By equating things which are not about rights and freedoms, to things which are, you weaken rights and freedoms, and make them more difficult to defend.

Freedom of speech means you have the right to say as you damn well please and the government can't stop you or punish you for it (except in some very strictly limited ways).

It doesn't mean that private persons or organizations have to publish you, support you, employ you, associate with you, provide you with a forum or an audience, or listen to you.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

If you can't back everything you say, and accept the consequences, then perhaps your problem is not one of lack of freedom, but of lack of courage.

"But... but... political correctness... thought police... BAD"

Yes.

I never said that political correctness WASN'T a chilling force on freedom of speech and even freedom of conscience... Of course it is.

...But that is not the same as government using force against you because of it (though with "hate speech" and things like campus "speech codes", we have to be very careful of that).

The problem with believing in freedom is that you have to believe in it for everyone, including people you don't like, or whose ideas you don't like, or who do bad things with it.

Private individuals and organizations can choose who they wish to associate with freely, and who they wish to support or oppose freely (or at least they are supposed to be able to).

That means both things and people that you like, and things and people that you don't.

That means you can be fired for expressing yourself. It means you can be fired for your political and social views. It means you can be fired for your private behavior. It means you can lose your customers, your money, your reputation...

In fact, everything but your life, and your freedom.

A free society means we have to put up with that.

We don't have to like it, but we DO have to put up with it.

And many of us actually have very little problem with it... so long as it's aligned with THEIR personal beliefs.

Frankly, I don't see very many "social conservatives" complaining very much when it's "progressives", gays, atheists, muslims, "perverts" etc... who experience negative consequences for their beliefs (admittedly, that is certainly not true of all. Some do decry all of this as suppression of free speech and freedom of conscience).

Most "social conservatives" aren't complaining when church groups or conservative groups try to get certain things banned, or removed from libraries or schools, or have teachers, or school administrators, or abortion providers fired...

...because you don't like their ideas or how they express them.

...Really, most anyone who you would identify as the enemy, or the "other side" or whatever other outgroup identification it may be.... seems it's ok to you if THEY have to live with the consequences of their choices, actions, and words...

Most of you are only complaining when it's happening to those you identify as YOUR ingroup, or for people whose opinions and ideas you agree with.

Again, not always, not everyone... but most.

The same of course is true of "the other side"... starting to see the point yet?

So really... What you're asking for is not "freedom of speech", it's "freedom of speech that you like", and freedom FROM both speech, and consequence that you don't.

That's not freedom. That exactly the same as "the other side"... you just like the opinions better.

The Much Bigger Problem

Millions of Americans think gays should be allowed to marry.

That's not a problem.

Millions of Americans think gays should not be allowed to marry.

That's not a problem.

The problem, is that most of both groups think that it's perfectly acceptable to use the government to force the other guy to do what they want.

The much bigger problem, is that we have stupidly given the government the power to make and enforce such decisions.

The Problem With Freedom

Here's the problem with supporting liberty and freedom... You have to support peoples liberty and freedom to be assholes and idiots.

I think discriminating against gays or blacks or anyone else for some arbitrary characteristic that doesn't harm you is fucking idiotic, and proof that you are a total asshole.

However, I think you should be free to associate with, or exclude, anyone you want to from your private property, or private business.

Why?

Because that's what freedom of conscience, and true property rights are.

The  right to associate with those you wish, and not associate with those you do not, is inherent to freedom of conscience.

The right of exclusion IS one of the three fundamental rights of private property (the others being the rights to use and dispose of the property as you see fit, and the right to the outputs, proceeds, and benefits accrued on or by the property).

Arbitrary discrimination by private businesses is wrong, stupid, offensive, and just bad business.

But it shouldn't be illegal.

Note: At least not for truly private businesses. 

There is an argument to be made that public corporations, because of the legal protections they receive from the government, and their "public ownership" through equities; should not be allowed to discriminate. Some even argue that by obtaining a business license, a business can be prohibited from discrimination. 

Unless such prohibition is written into the laws for licensure of these businesses, or for the foundation and governance of corporations, I disagree with this argument (and I have issues with the concept of making anti-discrimination part of the law, again on the grounds above), but there is at least a basis for it.

Oh and for those of you who think this is just about gays... it applies equally to guns. I think that businesses that exclude lawful bearers of arms from their premises are idiots, and that it's bad business... but its THEIR property, and they have the right to exclude me if they want to.

The GOVERNMENT should NEVER be allowed to discriminate, nor should any public utility, or any organization with a lawful monopoly. Any organization with which interaction is mandatory, or their power over you is involuntary, can never be allowed to discriminate.

Private individuals, and their private property though, can never be prohibited from doing so... at least if we value and wish to preserve freedom and liberty (and in this country, frequently and unfortunately, we do not).

Freedom of conscience though, is a wonderful thing... They get to discriminate. Guess what, so do you. You can choose not to patronize their business. You can organize all your friends... and the entire world if everyone else is so inclined... to not patronize that business.

That's freedom for ya...

Oh and by the by, these laws currently proceeding in several states explicitly legally authorizing business to refuse to serve people on the basis of their sexual orientation, are part of the blowback I predicted would result from the current strategy many in the gay rights movement have of "suing our way to normalcy"... 

"Dammit, if they don't want to make my same sex wedding cake, I'll SUE".
Or worse "We'll get married in Massachusetts, and then move to Kansas and sue for them to recognize our marriage". 

Many lied saying that would never happen. Many more well intentioned supporters honestly believed the lie, and repeated it. 

When I raise this issue with my liberal friends, they often say that I am being ridiculous.  

It HAS been happening, from the first legally recognized same sex marriages in this country. 

It's a bad strategy, and it has and will continue to backfire.

Franchise limitation isn't the solution to illegal immigration

A few days ago, Roger L. Simon of PJ Media posted "A Modest Proposal for Immigration Reform".

"So here’s my simple — call it simple-minded, if you want — solution, my modest proposal.  Illegal immigrants, assuming they have lived here for a decent period of time and have not committed a felony, can have amnesty, but they can NEVER be allowed to vote.  They can do anything else that is legal, but if they want to vote — or run for office or practice law in our country, as just happened in California — they must return home and go through the normal immigrant application process, however long that may take until they have citizenship."

Now, Simon is a smart and well read man, and by invoking Swift in his title, it's possible that he is cueing the reader that the piece is satire... but it reads as straight to me.

...Unfortunately.

Oh, on its face it sounds like a decent, practical idea, as Simon writes:

"This takes political motivations off the table in immigration policy and allows it to be about the lives of the people themselves, not the advancement of politicians and their parties.  If our Democratic friends mean what they say about their “compassion,” they should have no objection. If they do, they simply expose themselves as political opportunists with no real interest in the welfare of what they euphemistically choose to call “undocumented workers,” only in creating a voting bloc."

That would be nice... and overall, denying the franchise to illegals given amnesty citizenship seems like an OK idea... better than nothing, better than most legislation ideas being bandied about, and addressing one of the biggest problems with mass amnesty.

Except that passing such a law would, in fact, be disastrous.

Sebastian of PAGunBlog referred to the idea as "Amnesty Light", which isn't a bad way of putting it. More accurate though, would be to call it "Citizenship light"... which is a problem in several ways.

First of all, purely from a practical standpoint, the franchise limitation provision would fail in its intended goal.

The core issue, is that if such a law passed, it would effectively create multi-tiered citizenship: "Amnesty Citizens" and "Full Citizens"

In addition to the MANY other areas where this could be legally problematic; this would almost certainly be ruled, by just about any court, to be a 14th amendment violation (a privileges and immunities clause violation at the least, and possibly an equal protection violation).

Of course, it is not necessarily unconstitutional to limit the franchise by legislation (though based on court rulings over the past 60 years, that has some pretty strict, if ill defined, limits). For example, federally, we limit the franchise to those over 18. In most states they limit the franchise of felons, to some degree or another.

It is almost certainly unconstitutional however, to permanently deny franchise en-bloc, based on arbitrary characteristics, or on acts that were committed prior to passage of such a law.

It may even simply be ruled to be a fundamental violation of our system of citizenship as a whole; and that congress does not have the power to create a limited class of citizenship through legislation.

... I actually think that's likely. I don't believe congress has the power to create a limited citizenship by legislation.

I'd say that was absolutely the case, but there is a little wiggle room in the constitution, the 14th amendment, and the body of citizenship law; which potentially leaves it open to interpretation by a judge.

In that case, creating a limited citizenship would require a constitutional amendment... which will NEVER happen.

Oh an important aside... Some may suggest that the legal problems could be circumvented by requiring amnesty seekers to voluntarily agree to give up the franchise as part of their citizenship agreement. Effectively, each amnesty seeker would sign a consent decree voluntarily surrendering the franchise.

Normally, a consent decree can be used to enforce conditions that the government otherwise would not have the power to enforce, but there here are a few major exceptions.

This country has a body of anti-slavery and anti-abuse jurisprudence, which has enshrined a basic principle of law and contracts: American citizens cannot voluntarily give up their basic rights, privileges, and immunities. They can agree to reasonable restrictions such as non-disclosure agreements, but they can't contract themselves into slavery for example.

There may be some ways to make it work legislatively of course. For example, in order to get citizenship via the amnesty, each illegal immigrant would have to plead guilty to a felony (don't get me started on felonies), but that could get very messy very quickly.

Really though, which specific issue the franchise restriction was struck down for is unimportant. There are enough issues here that eventually (likely very quickly), there would be a successful challenge.

Given that any law passed would almost certainly have a severability clause, and that the supreme court would almost certainly strike down such a broad restriction on the franchise (certainly, many groups would litigate the issue constantly, and until they got the result they desired); effectively there would be no compromise. A few years after the law passed... possibly even a few months.... the voting provision would be struck down, and the amnesty citizens would be voters.

And let's just ignore fact that this would inevitably become an incredibly nasty race issue...

It's not just impracticable though. As a matter of principle, such a law would be morally and ethically wrong, and corrosive to our liberty.

Citizenship is, and must be, absolute. It's an all or nothing thing. The United States cannot create multiple classes of citizenship, de jure or de facto, and survive in any recognizable form.

Simply put, that way lies tyranny.

This is not to say that all people should be treated the same at all times.

Individuals may, through their own actions and choices, cause the PRIVILEGES* society grants them to change. A society can restrict certain privileges to certain individuals, who qualify by their own actions and choices; or deny them to others, disqualified by their actions and choices.

... so long as all have equal status under law, and the law is applied equally.

*The franchise is a privilege, not a right; as for that matter, is citizenship. They can be granted or denied by society, as society defines; so long as the law is applied equally to all, and not arbitrary or capricious.

Citizenship though, is absolute in this country. With one single and extremely limited exception, a citizen is a citizen, with equal rights, privileges, and immunities.

In this country, you can't say "you're a citizen EXCEPT...". It just goes against the nature of what we are... or at least what we're supposed to be.

There's a reason why there is only one office in this country that a naturalized citizen can't hold (Ok, technically two, since you have to be qualified to the the president in order to be the VP... but it's entirely likely that part of the constitution will eventually either be changed, or that the supremes will decide the 14th amendment moots it). There's a very big reason why it's explicitly called out in the constitution, as the sole exception to the rule that citizenship is citizenship, no matter what.

When the constitution specifies very broad rights and principles, and very narrow restrictions and exceptions to them, that's not an accident.

I'm not denying that giving somewhere between 10 and 20 million (and no matter what the propaganda says, largely unassimilated. I've lived in Arizona, California, Texas, Florida) illegal immigrants the franchise all at once could be a major problem. No matter what, it would be incredibly destabilizing, and we almost certainly shouldn't do that.

Neither though, should we weaken the essential protections our rights, privileges, and immunities have against an overreaching state, in order to attempt to address that problem.

It's a matter of the camels nose... or if you prefer, perhaps the slippery slope (slippery slopes may be a formal logical fallacy, but they do in fact exist. That's how incrementalism works).

Today, it's former illegal immigrants having the franchise restricted. If we allow that though, in principle, it could be acceptable to remove the franchise from any group. You'd simply need to come up with "compelling justification".

If you try to say "oh, that can't happen here"... it already has. In the civil war, WW1, WW2... The internment of the Japanese is the best known example, but far from the only one.

The fact is, several times in our not so distant past, the government has arbitrarily decided, based on "compelling interest"; that some people weren't "real" citizens, with all the rights and privileges thereof. That it was acceptable to simply ignore these peoples fundamental rights as human beings, never mind as citizens.

... and each time, the supreme court ruled it constitutional.

The principle of absolute citizenship should be just that, absolute. You either have citizenship, and all the privileges and immunities thereof... or you don't. That's it. there is no "in between"

Of course and unfortunately, these are principles that we rarely manage to uphold. The "real world" has more examples of inequitable treatment under law, than you could ever count.

That this is true, despite what are in theory our best efforts, should not make us discard the principle however.

On the contrary... That this is true, should make it incredibly clear, that we should avoid deliberately writing inequality into law; no matter how compelling the cause, no matter how limited the scope.

Oh... There's one thing I agree with Simon on in the entire:

"Our country lives by the rule of law — at least we should.  Immigration policy has been a farce."

Rules, and laws, don't keep you safe

Alright, let's get down to it here...

Some people seem to believe that laws, rules, protocol, negotiation, consent etc... keep them safe.

I happen to think that's ridiculous self delusion.

Recently, gun control has been a big issue again. Just in the last week or so, rape and "rape culture" (a concept I have some major issues with, but that's for another time)... and questions about individual sexual agency, have been big in the news.

These discussions are for the most part centered around the idea that rules can make you safe. Consent, negotiation, protocol, rules, laws... Somehow, these things are going to keep you "safe".

They can't.

Rules don't make you safe; people who follow them, and respect them, and respect you, can HELP keep you safe... but no rule will keep you safe from people who don't.

Consent doesn't make you safe.

Negotiation doesn't make you safe.

Limits don't make you safe.

Laws don't make you safe.

Rules, and consent, and limits, and negotiation, will not prevent someone who wants to harm you, from harming you.

They will not prevent someone who wants to violate your limits, or your consent, from doing so.

They won't even stop someone who doesn't intend to do anything wrong, from screwing up... though they can help make it less likely, and less severe if it happens.

This is not to say that rules, and negotiation, and consent are not important; of course they are. But they are not magic.

They are not bars of steel. They have no physical force... only moral.

The thing which keeps good people from harming others, is not that harming others is against the rules... it's that they are good people.

The reason good people don't shoot you or rape you or steal from you, is not because it's illegal to do so; they don't do those things because they are wrong.

And you will never know, with total certainty, whether someone is a good person, or just pretending to be... Ever.

Even after decades of knowing them, even after living or working with them for years... something might change... or they might just have been good at hiding, or controlling, what they really were... and it might just show up some day.

People wrap themselves up in their security blanket of rules, as if it really kept them safe. And god help you if you disturb their delusion... You threaten their worldview, and their delusion of safety, and they must STOP YOU so they can "feel safe" again.

Safety, is an illusion.

Certainty, is an illusion.

Control, is an illusion.

One must understand and accept that... no matter how uncomfortable it is...

...And make the best decisions you can, to the best of your knowledge and ability...

...And MANAGE and mitigate your risks where you can...

...And weigh your risks, against your rewards...

...And then live with whatever happens...

Life is scary... but you can't let fear stop you from living it.

Treaties, Executive Orders, and the NRA

So... It seems that a lot of folks understand that the electoral math of the question makes any significant federal gun control in the near future unlikely.

Unfortunately, many still hold the idea that somehow, the Obama administration doesn't need congress to implement gun control; that they could do so by executive order (or that the ATF would do so without congressional action, at Obamas direction), or by signing the UN arms treaty; and that they would of course, do so at their earliest opportunity.

... I guess because Obama is the living earthly incarnation of satan or something?

Comics from the new and so-far very good web comic Failure to Fire. 

Finally, these same folks mostly seem to believe that the NRA is useless, or worse, actively conspiring with the evil one to take away our guns etc... etc...

All three of these ideas are entirely incorrect, as I have written here and on other blogs many times before (as this is a commonly held mistaken idea that has come up often).

Oh and an aside: anyone who is getting their information or opinions (on any subject whatsoever) from reading things like Alex Jones, Joseph Farrah, World Net Daily, or anything that Larry Pratt or the GOA put out... you should really just stop. They’re about 90% full of it, and the 10% that isn’t, is overblown.

Before we get get into the legalities of the first two ideas, let's talk about the politics for a second...

For those that do, please tell me... Why do you believe so strongly that, against all evidence, gun control is the hill the democratic party wants to die on?

Because, make no mistake, that's what it would be; even if the gun control was Obama and his administration alone, without the action of congress.

If Obama really cared that much about gun control, he would have done it already.

If you think that "He was just waiting for his second term. Now that he doesn't have to be re-elected, you'll see, he'll do all the things we've been saying he was going to since 2008"...

...You're an idiot.

Oh it's absolutely true that Obama will be more liberal/progressive/socialist etc... this term; and will get more aggressive about what he wants etc... (or perhaps more to the point, his far more radical appointees, who he can sacrifice if necessary, will do so).

It's this ridiculous argument that somehow Obama is special, specially evil etc... and that by virtue of this he has some magical ability to completely ignore the realities of law, the constitution, government, politics... physics... that makes these folks idiots.

Perhaps there are some rational arguments to be made that perhaps Obama want's gun control bad enough to commit politicial suicide, or to have his party do so; but I haven't seen them being made. Just this idiotic "because he's Obama, that's why" crap.

Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.

Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.

Why do you think he put Joe Biden in charge of the "special comission"?

If he was serious, he'd be leading the charge himself. He'd be on television twice a day with specific ideas, and demonizing opponents etc...

If it works out, hey, great, he can claim credit. If it fails (and it will), he doesn't get any of the blame.

What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.

What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.

There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.

Now, on to the legal question

Neither treaties nor executive orders can violate the constitution (including the court decisions interpreting the constitution).

First, treaties:

Some seem to believe that a double evil combination will occur, where Obama signs a treaty that will unconstitutionally ban small arms; and by doing so while congress is in recess, he can immediately implement the provisions of the treaty to do so.

If you believe this, let me say to you, right now, without any hesitation...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or, at the very least, you have no business having an opinion on this subject, since you have no idea how our government works, or anything about law, or the constitution.

Treaties cannot be implemented without the approval of congress. They must be ratified by the senate, and their implementation must be enabled by house legislation (approving the funding for implementing the provisions of the treaty).

If a treaty is signed, but never ratified, the executive branch cannot implement any of its provisions.

However, that's entirely irrelevant because...

Treaties don't trump the constitution, nor do they override court decisions interpreting the constitution.

Ever, under any circumstances.

Treaties can supersede state and federal law, but not the constitution.



Any provision of any treaty that would do so, is automatically null and void.

Here are the relevant supreme court decisions:

Amaya v. Standard Oil:

"the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.’"

Reid v. Covert (which is controlling in this question):

“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

And the summary of the majority opinion:

“The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. 

(Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land … ” 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.”

Treaties MAY NOT supersede the constitution; however, it is important to note that the constitution does not necessarily apply to actions outside our borders and not concerning our citizens (US v. Curtis Wright).

The ratification of a treaty is an act of congress, and no act of congress, or its effects, may supersede the constitution. Article II and Article VI are mostly clear, and what ambiguity there is has been clarified numerous times by the supreme court.

Treaties CAN AND DO trump previous federal laws, and both state laws and state constitutions; which was clarified in Gibbons v. Ogden.

...And on to the executive orders...

Now, there's some important language I quote above:

"The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

As this applies to acts of congress, it also applies to the executive branch and its agencies.

The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.

Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.

"It doesn't matter if its unconstitutional, Obama is evil and doesn't care, and he's going to do it anyway"

Yeah...

Rather than address this whole thing again on the politics side, I'll just refer you back to the politics section above, and say...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or at the least, without any knowledge or understanding, you're parroting misinformation spread by either morons, or by those who are deliberately manipulating you (most likely for fundraising purposes).

But since we're in the legal section, let's get back to that...

I can see that there are some arguments (other than the "but he's evil" one that is), where its plausible the Obama administration might decide to attempt some blatantly unconstitutional garbage...

But...

Why do you believe that if the Obama administration suddenly decides to do various clearly and obviously unconstitutional things, that they'll actually be allowed?

That they'll have funding to do so?

That they won't be stopped by the courts?

That there won't be a million lawsuits?

That the various officials of the executive branch will go along with it?

That the enforcement agents of the executive branch will implement and enforce these new unconstitutional measures?

Again, I'm not talking about the possibility that they may attempt minor and lesser executive action to restrict guns in some ways (more on that below); just the idea that somehow, because Obama is extra special magic evil; that he can all of a sudden magically seize or ban all our guns (or all our evil black guns etc...)

Ok... the NRA

Right now I'm rather irritated with the NRA.

Not because they are "evil, ineffective, compromising backstabbers", but because of this:

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

This statement... Much of it is reasonable, true, good, useful helpful; unfortunately, some is very much not:

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. 

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." 

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with oneanother to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of
every month of every year. 

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. 

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate
owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not
complicit co-conspirators. 

Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

Ahhh yes... it's all the medias fault, especially that nasty TV and those awful video games.

Not only is this not helpful, in context it is both idiotic, and actively HARMFUL.

Not intentionally so of course; but in spectacular arrogance and ignorance.

I think the Penny Arcade response to this is appropriate here:

Lord knows, this isn't the first time the NRA was harmfully wrong (their entire history on the Heller case for example)... and it won't be the last.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't generally support the NRA.

I'm a life member, and I won't be resigning my membership over this stupidity (though I will be letting them know how I feel; and unlike most gamers, I know people inside NRA management... I would suggest everyone else who does as well, also make their displeasure known).

The NRA are by far the most effective organization for protecting our rights surrounding firearms and self defense (as I have written many times before, for example: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/06/political-captial-fundraising-mission.html)

The GOA has been promoting the idea for years that the NRA are the bad guy... but frankly, the only thing Larry Pratt believes in is Larry Pratt... And the only thing the GOA is effective at is spreading  unreasonable fear, and disinformation, aimed at increasing their fundraising.

Without the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would be fully abrogated by government... and would have been long ago.

Are they perfect? No. But they're the best we've got, and they do the best they can; and they are certainly NOT "part of the problem".

All that said... there's still some potential problems (of course)

I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any possible thing that the Obama administration could do on its own, or headaches, irritation, delays and difficult etc... they could cause.

For example, through executive orders and "administrative procedures", "administrative rules", "executive agency regulations" etc... the import of some firearms... possibly even all firearms, and ammunition... could be accomplished.

That is a foreign policy action, which has what could be interpreted, in principle, as having enabling legislation, depending on interpretation.

The administration couldn't ban the domestic manufacture, sale, or possession of any particular type of firearm; nor could they establish standards through the ATF or DOJ that would have the effect of doing so (there is specific legislation addressing this issue, and executive orders cannot counter that).

...BUT...

That doesn't mean they couldn't make life immensely more difficult; applying maximum scrutiny to every manufacturers, distributor, FFL etc...

Some have suggested they could simply order the NICS system shut down; but there's actually a default out for that. Even if there wasn't, this would clearly be an action intended to ban further sales of firearms, and the courts would be on that in a heartbeat (with the SAF, SAAMI, the NSSF the NRA, and every firearms manufacturer behind it).

...But they could make every transaction go through enough scrutiny to make the 3 day delay/proceed limit; backing the system up, and preventing sales entirely in some gun control states.

They could also go for some restrictions that may be allowed under existing law, and wouldn't be clearly unlawful or unconstitutional... The evil mind can think up lots of scenarios where some restriction could happen...

But again, the politics of the situation militate against it; except possibly in a minor way.


So, to appropriate the meme:

Keep Calm and Carry One... or More... Guns...

Stupidity, Politics, and Math

So...

I REALLY didn't want to write anything about the Connecticut school shooting... Frankly, it may sound callous, but we've seen this before, we've seen this worse.

It's truly awful...

...but sometimes truly awful things happen; especially when mental illness is involved.

That's not why I'm writing though... Or even exactly what I'm writing about...

What has basically forced me to write about this, is the outright stupidity that much of the pro-gun side is exhibiting at the moment.

Stupidity, paranoia, histrionics.... whatever you want to call it, it's irritating me enough that I had to write this little 3800 word rant.

The world is not ending.

The sky is not falling.

This is not the "American Dunblane".

No-one is coming to take our evil black rifles.

"...But... But.... 26 dead kids.... AHHHHH!!!!!!!.... IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME, I DON"T CARE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES, IT"S DIFFERENT THIS TIME... AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"

No... It's not.

Why not?

Because, much as abortion is for the right, gun control is something the left talks about to get column inches and screen time, to win the approval (and money) of single issue voters from your own side; and of course, to feel morally superior... It's not something you actually DO.

... If you actually DID it, it would end up hurting you... Again, much like abortion....

Pro gun folks, please stop screaming about how all the fun guns are going to be banned, Obama tyranny, etc... etc...

It's not going to happen.

There will be no new gun control of any kind (except perhaps, at worst a symbolic gesture, though I doubt even that), never mind a new so called "assault weapons" ban, or a magazine capacity ban.

Not that I wouldn't strongly oppose such a thing, but:

1. I'm pretty sure such a thing would never get voted on at all.
2. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even get debated in committee.
3. I'm pretty sure if it was, it wouldn't be voted on in committee.
4. I'm pretty sure if it ever made it to the floor, it wouldn't get a floor vote.
5. I'm pretty sure that if it did, it wouldn't pass...
6. Actually, I'm pretty sure such a thing wouldn't get more than about 25% behind it... 40% at worst
7. I'm pretty sure if it did somehow pass in one house, it wouldn't get through both houses.
8. I'm pretty sure if it did, it wouldn't make it through conference or reconciliation.
9. I'm pretty sure even if it did, current jurisprudence would prevent such a thing from ever being implemented.
10. If there were any kind of "ban" passed, and it were to somehow make it through the courts, it would have to be so restricted, narrow, and limited as to  be meaningless

I repeat, there will be no meaningful or significant gun control legislation of any kind even voted on... or likely even debated in open hearings, never mind passed.

I'm sure several bills will be introduced... Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein need to get their fawning press... and in an attempt to appear "reasonable" some republicans will talk about talking about it... but they'll never be slated for conference. They'll just be symbolic gestures by congresscritters in pro gun control districts.

In fact, there will most likely be several conflicting bills introduced by several different people in each house.... Intentionally so. This allows the politicians in question to pretend THEY were trying to get the GOOD bill passed, but couldn't, so they wouldn't vote for the BAD bill... etc... etc...

Nothing but red meat for the base... Just like every other time this has happened since 1996.

"...But.... But.... How can you possibly say that? Awful media screaming.... Gaaahhh!!! SCARY BLACK MILITARY STYLE RIFLES!!!!!, Dead CHILDREN!!!! PELOSII!!! FEINSTEIN!!! OBAMA!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Simple.

Politics, and Math.

Fox news was reporting that this morning, Rasmussen released a poll conducted after the shootings:

Only 27% of the population support additional gun control. Over 60% believe that additional gun control won't stop things like this from happening. Over 70% believe that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

AND THEY ARE RIGHT.

This IS a mental health issue. A major one. And a cultural issue (the part of the culture that turns guns into a magic rod of power in their heads, and denigrates and degrades the value and nobility of human life).

If you haven't already, you should read Clayton Cramers book about mental illness and how poorly we deal with in this country "My Brother Ron"... We basically have NO way of dealing with the mentally ill at this point, and it's a major problem.

... and a lot of folks know this, and understand this.... Though I don't think anyone has a really good idea what to do about it.

Occasionally, "the people" are not mindless sheep. Occaisonally they're actually surprisingly wise... Especially after decades of obvious garbage being shoved down their throats, is utterly contradicted by just a few minutes of real world experience, or the tiniest bit of basic logic and reason.

... And yes, "the people" can, on occaision, exhibit the ability to reason using facts and logic.

It's rare I admit...

So... as far as "more gun control" goes, the people don't want it, it won't work, and everyone not operating on a predetermined agenda (or through naive idealism, or blind ignorant fear) already understands that...

Because, as any advocate for the legalization of drugs will tell you, banning only stops the law abiding. It doesn't eliminate either the use, or desire, for the banned subject.

Because of course the argument makes sense when it's applied to something you support, but is utter twaddle when it's something you don't support... Of course...

...No, of course not...

Gun control is exactly as good an idea as banning drugs, or alcohol, or knives, or cars, or any other damn thing that requires an adult level of responsibility to manage properly.

Of course, that hasn't ever stopped politicians before.... like, well... for example, prohibition.

And much like prohibition, something like half the households in this country have guns in them.

When you account for the fact that very few of the households in the urban northeast, midwestern industrial cities, or coastal California, are among that number (and that's about 1/3 of Americas households)... and it actually works out to something more like 3/4 of households outside of the big anti-gun constituencies.

...and for the past 8 years, the second most popular gun in America, is what our president has been calling a "Military style Assault Weapon" (which in and of itself is a delberate fraud, but that's another issue entirely).

Since 2004, manufacturers have sold between 500,000 and 1 million AR-15 type rifles a year. While there are certainly lots of folks who have three or four of them, most folks only have the one...

They sell them at WAL-MART now. And not just one model, covered in mossy oak for the hunters... The last time I looked into the WallyWorld gun section a few weeks back, they had FOUR different models, including ones with rails, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, 30 rounds magazines...

You can't demonize the rifle that the guy takes to the range for his 12 year old daughter to shoot. The scare tactics only work on people who don't know any better...

...and more than half the country now knows better.

But I digress...

Basic truism of politics: Politicians never do anything unless they think it is to their advantage.

EVER...

...and outside those few districts that are strongly pro gun control (about 20% of the population, but only about 2% of the area) there is no advantage in gun control.

Plenty of advantage in talking about it... Talking about it helps liberals raise money...

But actually DOING something?

No... that's bad.

Gun control hurts the democratic party. The only places that support it would support democrats anyway, and everywhere else, every single democrat that votes for gun control means thousands fewer democratic voters.

Gun control cost the Democratic party control of Congress in 1996, they know it, and they will NEVER repeat that mistake again.

So, Democratic party politicians will talk about gun control on TV, but they won't actually DO anything that they can get nailed down on, unless they are from one of the (very few) anti-gun districts, or their seat is completely safe (in which case they're playing to the small but wealthy national liberal donor audience).

Hell... there isn't even any money in organized gun control anymore. There used to be big money lobbies behind it, but now almost all gun control is funded out of the Joyce foundations, and they don't have the money to spend on buying either politicians, or media campaigns.

Private individuals rarely donate very much to the gun control cause, if anything; and that has always been the case. A few very rich ideologues, the occasional frothing or crying liberal, and the sad people whose loved ones were killed by lunatics and idiots, and who are now used by the ideologues to put a sympathetic and legitimate face on their actions... and that's really it.

 You can almost always get people to donate "for" something... it's a lot harder to get them to donate "against" something; unless you can make people very afraid, and then convince them you will take their fear away.

Well... most people aren't afraid of guns anymore... and of the ones who are, most don't believe that the government is going to be able to do anything about their fear.

There's just no constituency for gun control.

Just 27%, in a poll after a major emotional event...

Certainly less, when the emotion dies down, and they have to actually commit to something, not just say what they think the guy at the other end of the phone wants to hear...

Ok... so maybe no AR-15 bans... but what about magazine capacity limits?


Not a chance. Any real restriction on people doing something they actually want to do... they remember it. A magazine ban would lose the Democrats every remaining rural house and senate senate seat they have left.

There's literally tens of millions... if not hundreds of millions, of "high capacity" magazines out there. Unless they made ex post facto law criminalizing their possession  then seized all of them (also a constitutional problem) and destroyed them... Which, never mind the legal, constitutional, political, and economic issues surrounding that, is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...

It's also just plain stupid... People understand and remember stupid. They remember being irritated, and inconvenienced.

Again, this is the kind of idea that only sounds good to the ignorant or the fearful. Those who have no clue... who just don't know any better... And now, more than half the country knows better.

No... A ban of any kind, of any weapon, of any magazine, just isn't going to happen.

No-one who isn't in a guaranteed liberal pro-gun control seat is going to touch ANY gun control of any kind.

Hell, the NRA has had more than 30,000 new members sign up since the shooting, along with over 80,000 renewals, and who knows how much in additional donations (I'm already a life member); and more are coming in every HOUR.

People on the left keep saying "We need to have a conversation about gun control"... 

Well, guess what, we've been having that conversation since 1968; and as of 2008, it's over.  

They lost, and we won. 

That doesn't mean there isn't still work to do of course; there's 150 years of racist, bigoted, fascist, legal kruft to get rid of.

That's going to take decades, and millions of dollars in legal fees, and there will be setbacks along the way...

But, fundamentally, gun control is dead.

I'm going to say this flat out:

There will not be any kind of meaningful, serious, or significant gun control legislation on the federal level within the next 12 years... possibly not ever again.

"...but... but... the Republicans are caving... they're stupid, venal cowards... but.. but... they ALWAYS sell out and screw up. I just KNOW they're going to cave on this like they do everything else and they'll go along with a ban...

...but.... but... DUNBLANE!!!! STOCKTON!!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

... OK...

Why would they do that?

Republicans certainly do a lot of dumb stuff... just look at who they ran for president the last two times... but they do it for a reason.

Like all politicians, they only do that which they believe is to their own advantage.

Any vote on gun control at all, never mind a vote FOR gun control?

To what advantage, and for whom?

There is no rationale under which any remaining Republicans (now that Chaffee and Snowe are gone) would vote for any kind of gun control legislation; nor would better than half the democrats. 

It's a losing issue for democrats, it's an even worse losing issue for republicans, AND then the dems get to lord it over the republicans... There's no WAY they'd let that happen. 

However, to avoid fundraising issues, giving the press talking points, or being nailed down on the record, rather than vote yay or nay, they'll just make sure that it never comes to a floor vote. 

• Just like they did after Aurora (2012, 12 dead, 58 injured)
• Just like they did after Seal Beach (2011, 8 dead, 1 injured)
• Just like they did after Giffords (2011, 6 dead, 13 injured)
• Just like they did after Binghamton (2009, 13 dead, 4 wounded)
• Just like they did after Virginia Tech (2007, 32 dead, 18 wounded)
• Just like they did after Columbine (1999, 13 dead, 21 wounded)

Just like they have after every other "Ahhhh!!!! they're going to take our guns now!!!" incident since 1999.

Oh and note... I don't include the shooters in those totals, or mention their names. Just a thing for me...

Let's do some math here....

The last significant piece of gun control legislation to pass at the federal level was the 1994 so called "assault weapons ban". There was a minor amendment that was passed in 1999. The so called "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004, without any kind of serious attempt at renewing or extending it.

Nothing has changed since 2004 to make gun control any easier or more likely... or 1999, or 1994 for that matter. 

In fact, post '96, it's a lot harder and a lot LESS likely.

Every significant federal gun control measure introduced since 1999 (and there have been a lot of them. McCarthy and Lautenberg introduce restrictive bills every few months) has not only failed, but I believe they have all failed to even reach a floor vote. Only rarely have they even made it out of committee. 

... and the 1999 bit was minor legislation on trigger locks, and only passed as a last second add-on amendment to an anti-crime funding bill (to put more "cops on the street"), 51-50 with Al Gore voting as tie breaker. 

The majority of serious pro-gun legislation since 1999 on the other hand has either passed, or come close to passing in one house or the other (usually passing in the house and never coming to a vote in the senate). 

Just as an example, the national parks carry bill in 2009 passed 279 to 147, under a democrat controlled house (and just after a couple of mass shootings within a few months). The national concealed carry reciprocity bill from 2011 passed 272-154 (just after a couple MORE mass shooting events). 

They couldn't even get gun control after Columbine...

They got a nifty piece of propaganda disguised as a documentary... but no actual gun control.

After losing control of the house and senate after '96 (because of gun control), the Democrats took both the house and senate back in 2007; and had the house, senate, and presidency from January 2009 until January of 2011. 

In that time, they didn't even bother trying to advance a serious bill out of committee. 

There's a reason for that...

Overall, the Senate has 46 members with an NRA A grade, and another 13 with a B or C. Only 35 get a D or F (6 are not rated). 

Of those 35, many can't afford to vote for any kind of gun control right now (no matter what speeches they make in front of the cameras); either because they're in very pro-gun states, or because they're in moderately pro-gun states (or even pro gun areas of generally anti-gun states... look at the map below) and have a strong challenge facing them.

There are 11 strongly pro gun Democrats in the senate, 1 slightly pro gun, 3 neutral, 2 slightly anti-gun... (from a+ to c-) meaning none of them have actually supported major or serious gun control in any meaningful way (otherwise they'd be graded at D or F)... Then there's 2 D's and 36 F's (counting Sanders and King as democrats of course). 

Oh, and there's only one strongly anti-gun republican in the senate at this point, Mark Kirk of Illinois; and two neutral to slightly pro-gun (both got C+), Collins of Maine, and Coats of Indiana. Every other republican gets either an A or a B. 

So... WORST case, we'd be looking at a 60/40 split...

...But that's before the electoral politics and math come into play.

The Dems know that with the economy going the way it's going (and they're going to be attempting to make it worse) they're going to lose seats massively in 2014. They are desperate to hold on to the senate, or at the very least to prevent a filibuster proof Republican majority

The following democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014:

1. Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
2. Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
3. Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
4. Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
5. Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye)
6. Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
7. Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
8. Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
9. Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry)
10. Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
11. Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
12. Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
13. New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
14. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
15. New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
16. North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
17. Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
18. Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
19. South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
20. Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
21. West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat

Now... look at that list....

That's 21 Democratic senators up for election, only 9 of which are actually "safe" seats (including Mass and HI), and four of which are very pro-gun. 

Of those senators, who is anti-gun, and in a safe seat?

1. Delaware - Chris Coons
2. Hawaii - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
3. Illinois - Dick Durbin
4. Massachusetts - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
5. Michigan - Carl Levin
6. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (the most anti-gun senator)
7. New Mexico - Tom Udall
8. Oregon - Jeff Merkley
9. Rhode Island - Jack Reed (as bad as Lautenberg)

Al Franken almost lost his last election, and there are plenty of hunters and shooters in Minnesota. He can't afford to lose a single vote, or to have Minnesota uninvolved voters mode involved at all. If it comes to a vote he'll probably vote for it, but he won't be pushing hard for it. 

Tom Udall may actually be iffy... He's generally pro gun control, but he's not very outspoken about it; and New Mexico is swingy on the issue, with a slight pro-gun bias. My guess, if it actually comes to a vote he'll be for it; but he'll want to avoid it. 

Tom Harkin is another one. He's anti-gun, but he had a serious challenge last time (his opponent wasn't all that strong, and lost by a wide margin, but Harkins negatives are HUGE in his home state right now), he's going to have a  serious challenge in 2014 (he's a core target for unseating as part of the GOP midwestern strategy, and he's got some serious weaknesses), and Iowa is generally a pro-gun state (though there's a lot of anti "scary black rifle" shotgun owners... all that great bird hunting and all...). Same guess, he'll vote for it if it comes up, but he'd much rather avoid the issue. 

You know who REALLY can't afford to even have something come up for a vote?

Harry Reid. 

You know... the Senate Majority leader? 

The guy who controls the senate agenda, and what comes up for a vote when?

If he presides over gun control legislation of any kind, he loses his gavel in 2014, and his seat in 2016; and he knows it. 

No if's ands or buts about it, he's gone, it's that simple. 

Reid isn't going to let that happen.

... and that's just for 2014, never mind 2016 and 2018. Gunnies have long memories on this sort of thing, as does the NRA, never mind the SAF, JPFO, GOA, the various state rifle and pistol associations....  

The numbers are even worse looking for gun control in the house. House members have to run every election; and of the 435 members of congress, 242 get an NRA "A" rating, and another 30 get a B or C. Only 146 get a D or F (17 are unrated).

Take a look at this chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

Of those 146 congrescritters, 37 of them are in STRONGLY pro-gun states (though not necessarily pro-gun districts). Another couple dozen are in moderately pro-gun states, or in pro-gun areas of anti-gun states. 

Basically... I doubt they'd get 100 votes in the house if it went to a floor vote.

They might do it if they could... but they just don't have the votes.

Every left wing political show, talking head, blog, columnist etc... has been talking all day long about how they don't think anything is actually going to happen. That the politicians will talk big, and do nothing. 

There's a reason for that. 

But the biggest reason I'm sure this is all noise? A nice distraction for Obama and the democrats from the upcoming "fiscal cliff"?

Obamas special blue ribbon action committee on gun control, is chartered to "come back with advisory recommendations by the end of January"... and Joe Biden will be in charge of it. 

Seriously... If they actually meant to do anything, would they have appointed BIDEN to run the effort?

Seriously...

We don't go black... we try to turn on lights

We're not going black today, over SOPA or PIPA.

In case you by some miracle hadn't noticed it yet, tens of thousands of web sites around the country and around the world, are "going black" or putting up banners explaining that they are not available or there is no content today etc... In protest against the "Stop Online Privacy Act" and the "ProtectIP act", which are currently (or were recently), being promulgated in congress.

We don't have a problem with anyone who does. It's important that people understand what SOPA and PIPA are (or were), and most folks are sadly unaware of the kind of stupid and harmful things that our government does.

Google and Wikipedia are two of the most important and most used sites on the net; and by participating in this protest, they will very certainly make a lot more people aware of this issue.

But "going black" isn't what we do here.

We talk about political and social issues here; in particular about liberty and freedom. We try to inform people about the important issues, events, and principles of liberty and freedom; and then talk about them in as free and open a way as we can.

I personally think that going black would be entirely against what we are about here; and while it might help to draw more attention to the problem, it wouldn't help us inform you, or help us begin the conversation about the issue.

... and of course, you can't go to wikipedia today to find out about it...

Note: actually, you can. All other searches are redirected to a "Stop SOPA" page, but you can research SOPA all you like... but it was too smartass not to say.

So, I personally, would like to do something that is in the spirit of protesting the idiotic and harmful nature of these pieces of industry lobbying masquerading as legislation...

...And share a few things:

That's the best explanation of why the freedom to share (within fair use of course, copyrights ARE important) is important; and why legislation like PIPA and SOPA are not only stupid and harmful, but entirely antithetical to the American system of ordered liberty.

And then there's this piece by my friend (and bestselling author, buy his excellent books please) Larry Correia:

"for all of the people out there on the internet having a massive freak out about the government potentially damaging something they love… WELCOME TO THE PARTY.

You think this is something new or unusual? Nope. This is just about a topic that you happen to be familiar with. If you fall into that camp, I want you to take a deep breath, step back, and examine all of the other issues in the past that you didn’t know jack squat about, but your knee jerk reaction was to say “there’s a problem, the governement has to do something!” Well guess what? The crap the federal government usually comes up with to fix these problems is similar to SOPA. In other words, the legislation addresses a perceived problem by instituting a bunch of stupid overregulation and taking away someone’s freedom.

You think people need access to affordable medical care and shouldn’t be denied coverage? Well, you got used and we got the bloated ridiculous mess that is Obamacare. You saw a news report about how big business defrauded people and said congress should do something? Well, everyone in the business world got screwed because of Enron by completely useless new arbitrary crap laws, and a few years later we got into an even bigger financial crisis which the arbitrary crap laws we spent billions conforming to did nothing to prevent. No, because that financial crisis was caused by people saying that there was this huge problem that needed to be fixed, so more people who couldn’t afford to pay mortgages could still buy houses, and the government simply had to do something to fix this problem!

Any crisis… Any problem… You ask the feds to fix it, you get this kind of answer. Almost never do the laws fix the actual problem. Instead the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers and it doesn’t fix the issue. When the problem gets bigger, then the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers that actually make the problem worse. Oh look! Despite all of these laws the problem has gotten even bigger? Whatever should we do? Why, I know! Let’s pass an even bigger law that takes away more individual freedom and gives the government more control!
Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Any topic, any situation, any problem.

They address it, you lose freedom and they gain more control. Some of you are only offended today because this particular law hurts something you enjoy. The rest of the time? Screw it. You can’t be bothered to pay attention. Or worse, people like me who are up in arms over an issue are just cranks or anti-government crackpots."

I was going to write something roughly similar to this, but Larry beat me to it... and I'd rather share what he wrote, because it's good, and because I can.

At least for now...

It really does get better... VERY NSFW

And now it's time for another post in which I irritate my socially conservative readers...

Watch all the way to the end please, and listen... unless rather serious vulgarity and profanity offend you in which case don't watch the video, or just skip to the end spoken word bit:



I'm not gay, and I wasn't bullied in high school even though I am the worlds biggest geek... But it wasn't out of the inherent kindness of teenagers. I wasn't bullied, because I was the biggest and strongest, and sometimes the meanest kid out there. I was the one who taught bullies a lesson... and believe me, I taught a LOT of lessons.

I'm not big on the "anti-bullying" bandwagon currently gathering steam in America. AS it is, it seems to be a politically correct hysterical reaction, combined with an unhealthy dose of overprotective parents, liability obsessed administrators, and fame seeking psychobabblers.

But, I still think forcing someone to pay a price for non-conformity, is wrong.

I don't care whether you disapprove of homosexuality or not; this isn't really about being gay, it's about being different. About not conforming to the social conventions and constructs enforced by the institutions we laughingly call educational in this country.

I wont say there isn't some value to those social conventions and constructs; society operates smoother with them, and when they are generally followed. A society without a commonly agreed upon set of social conventions is a society that quickly collapses in on itself.

The problem becomes when those who choose not to follow those conventions, in essentially harmless ways, are FORCED into doing so; or are actively persecuted, or actively hurt, physically, financially, spiritually, and emotionally, for not doing so.

That, is the very definition of coercive restraint of human liberty; and it is flatly wrong.

You don't have to support someones choices; but you have no right to enforce your choices upon them.

As people who love liberty, we would not tolerate such behavior from the state; but what is the state but a collection of individuals acting in concert... We should not accept this behavior from individuals, any more than we would from the government.

The message of this video is, if you choose another way, and you are being hurt because of it, it get's better. And unfortunately, until we can destroy those so called educational institutions and rebuild them into something that supports liberty and freedom and individual rights, giving kids that message is the best we can do.

Remember folks, in our fine institutions, it's those who love liberty who are the minority. The ones who don't fit in. We are the threat to the social order.

I don't see how anyone who says they're for freedom, liberty, and individual rights can not support this; because supporting freedom, liberty, and individual rights, means doing so for everyone, even if their choices are completely abhorrent to you (so long as their choice is not infringing on your rights).

It's not about gay or straight, it's about free or not.

Permission Slips

So, last week/weekend I went to get my new permission slips from the state to exercise my basic rights of self defense using the most effective means necessary, and to move about freely.

Technically, I was somewhat overdue to get my Idaho drivers license; should have done that within 90 days of moving here, but just never got around to it 'til last Friday.

Actually, as far as interactions with the state go, getting an Idaho drivers license is comparatively pleasant. One person in the office (usually two, but her workmate had taken the day after veterans day off... as had I), I think six folks there total while I was there, total time about 70 minutes including taking the written test (which Idaho requires when you're changing states).

Then Saturday, Mel and I went and qualified for our Utah CCWs. We are now duly state certified (though not authorized til the permits show up) to carry concealed handguns in 36 states (Arizona, Utah, and Idaho; plus all their reciprocal states)... Probably going to get Oregon non-resident as well, as they're a bordering state.

At that point our denied states will be California, Hawaii, Nevada (yes, "pro gun" Nevada has recently re-interpreted its own CCW laws to say that other states don't meet their standards for reciprocity), Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland.

Then, we can finally carry concealed while driving across the entire nation, if we start in Oregon, head over to Idaho, then down through Utah to I-40 in AZ (yes, it would be easier if we could go through Nevada)

Obviously, I am only going into this excruciating and ridiculous detail to highlight how absurd this whole situation is.

I climb into my state licensed vehicle, with state required insurance, being sure to carry my state required drivers license, and my four state required concealed weapons/pistol permits; just so I can zig zag across the nation to avoid driving through a state that doesn't recognize my constitutionally protected human right to defend myself with the most effective means available...

And of course, making sure all the while that I keep up with local laws about driving and carrying guns in each state, to avoid committing an accidental felony (of course, by definition there should be no such thin, felonies requiring intent or gross negligence). For example, just a few months ago, my CCW permits would have allowed me to travel through Nevada carrying concealed. If I had read a gun law book published only a year ago, then got pulled over in Clark County.

If I want to use public or private mass transportation (busses, trains, planes), not only am I FULLY denied my right to defend myself with the most effective means available; but I must now have government issued identification to use it.

I'm waiting for my third category of permission slip, my passport renewal. Not sure when that'll be back yet. Then I can have permission from my federal government, and the governments of many nations subject to international treaty, to travel between them.

And of course, I pay for all this with my government monitored salary (from my government monitored and licensed employer), stored in my government monitored (and licensed) bank accounts.

And now, with various taxes and money laundering rules, even if I wanted to live exclusively on cash, I wouldn't be allowed. What with transaction limits, transaction reports, suspicious activity profiling...

And of course, it's all on camera.

And people wonder why nobody says "hey, it's a free country" anymore...

A different conception of "civilized society"

...Thinking about something the other day... something about the country I want to live in, the society I want to live in; and my idea of what "civilized society" is, as opposed to say, the hard lefts ideas.

I think the perfect encapsulation of it is this:

In the lefts conception of civilized society, if I shot someone trying to rob my house one night, the first words the responding law enforcement officer said to me after arriving on scene would be "You have the right to remain silent".

In my conception of civilized society, the officers first words would be "Huh... nice group".

Possibly the most profound words I have ever heard spoken

"We are living in a universe of willing slaves; which is what makes the concept of liberty so dangerous, and the concept of freedom so dangerous" -- James Baldwin

12 steps to mind rape

The ninth circuit court has recently ruled that you can't force someone to go to a 12 step program against their will, as a condition of their release; because it is in effect forcing someone into religious indoctrination under the color of governmental authority.

For those of you who have been living in a cave since the late 60s, the 12 step idea is that addicts should admit they are out of control and surrender themselves to a higher power, asking that higher power to help them control their addiction through spiritual awakening.

These are the steps:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Though AA (and other 12 step programs) will say they are not religious; they do specifically refer to the "higher power" and "god, as we understand him" etc... Also, it is an explicitly proselytizing philosophy as described in step 12.

Many will even say that the "higher power" can be anything or anyone, and doesn't have to mean god; though given the content of the steps, such an assertion is ridiculous on its face.

I am a catholic man, raised in the church, gone from it for 15 years and returned by choice, because of my faith in god, and my personal experience with christ. I know the power of faith; but I also know that faith comes from within, it cannot be forced on someone. Attempting to do so is both ineffective, and I believe offensive to god (and man).

Further though, this is a greater issue than whether AA is religious or not. This is an issue of self determination and freedom of conscience; and honestly an issue of efficacy as well.

Let's address that efficacy issue first.

You can't coerce someone into any kind of therapy (which is what rehab programs are, as opposed to de-tox) and expect it to be effective.

I come from a family of alcoholics and drug addicts; and the most important things about addicts to understand are:

1. They are ALWAYS an addict, even if they get it under control

2. Their addiction is ALWAYS going to control them, for the rest of their lives. It is only when they are strong enough to fight back that they will be able to maintain control.

3. They have to WANT to maintain control for it to work, and for it to keep working. They have to want it, more than they want their addiction.

That goes for any addiction; be it alcohol, drugs, sex, or self hatred (perhaps the strongest, easiest to acquire, and hardest to kick addiction).

Now, some might make the argument that we have a duty to protect society from these peoples behavior, and that they are better off in treatment than in jail... and to some extent there is a valid point there (assuming we are in fact punishing and preventing BEHAVIOR, not morality), but it presumes that treatment is an effective means of accomplishing this goal.

I wont say that treatment doesn't work. I have friends and family members whose lives have been saved with the help of treatment programs; and I'm convinced without that help, they would be dead. It can work for some, IF THEY ARE READY AND WILLING.

The best estimates (and they are very sketchy estimates indeed; complied by epidemiologists, and addiction psychologists from public patient records and sample interviews) on the success of ALL treatment programs, be they secular, non-secular, inpatient, outpatient, whatever; is about 10% on the first try.

Yes, there is a 90% relapse rate; and I'm not talking about slipping and having a drink or a toke. 90% of addicts who enter a recovery program return to an addict lifestyle for an extended period of time.

It's about 50% on the second try. Generally speaking, if someone collapses back, and then manages the will to go again, they mean it this time; and they do well.

The relapse rate climbs back to about 65% by the third try, and if they haven't got it by then, the numbers fall off dramatically, to the point where someone in their 4th or 5th visit to rehab has nearly a 100% relapse rate.

The funny thing is, these numbers also hold true for people who try to quit on their own without treatment. About 90% fail the first time, 50% the second time, and returns diminish from there.

This isn't to say that treatment is completely ineffective, or no more effective than recovery without treatment. Most addicts don't have the will to do it by themselves, without the support structure of treatment; and even the very strong have weak moments, where that support can help them avoid relapse.

Also, often people come to treatment and succeed in it, after trying and failing on their own several times; because the structure of treatment helped them as above.

That means that though the percentages are the same, the absolute numbers of successful treatment from a program vs self guided, are much higher.

What's most telling though, is that these numbers seem to hold true, no matter what the treatment technique, no matter who's doing the treatment; because treatment isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Let me say that one more time: success in controlling addiction isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Now, back to the more important question,the morality of forced treatment.

I will make a blunt and harsh statement here that may offend some: Coercing someone into changing their very thoughts, is one step away from rape; and I mean no hyperbole in that.

If one must successfully complete a treatment program (or in fact any kind of therapy, indoctrination, or "thought modification" program) to remain free; and a part of the program forces you to do, say, or support that which you do not believe in; that is simply wrong. The state should not be in the business of policing thought. We MUST have freedom of conscience, as free people.

That said, if someone is given a sobriety order (which I think is very rarely justified, but that's another argument entirely) and they violate it; back in jail they go. I have no problem with that. That is a behavioral remedy, and requiring people modify their behavior to avoid harming those around them (presuming that is the true purpose, rather than the belief that substance abuse is immoral) is a fundamental part of civilized society.

The remedies of our justice system MUST only be behavioral; once law dictates conscience, we are nothing but slaves. One must hope that through behavioral remedies we can aid people in coming to a less harmful thought pattern and lifestyle, but we cannot force them to think or feel as we wish.

So, I have no problem with a court ordered de-tox, or court ordered and enforced sobriety (including returning them to prison as a penalty) under appropriate circumstances; and if someone VOLUNTARILY wishes to enter treatment to prevent that from happening, I'm all for it. Ordering someone into therapy though, is both ineffective, and a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience.

We may want people to change, we may even require them to change their behavior, or be punished; but we cant force them to change their thoughts and feelings. It is, at it's core, mind rape; any way you care to justify it.

Thank you Ann Coulter

For getting me to join the conservative book club.

You can get John Lotts new book "Freedomnomics" for $3.95 shipping, and only have to buy two more books from the club over the next year.

Somehow I think that won't be a problem.

Here's her article on the book

"There Oughta Be A Law": A conversation with someone who just doesn't get it

A few months ago, Arizona passed a statewide comprehensive smoking ban in all work places and public gathering spaces, excepting private clubs, or those that earn 51% or more of their revenue from tobacco.

Essentially, as of May first, it will be illegal to smoke in public in Arizona; except on the sidewalk (away from bus stops), in your own car, in a private club, or at a smoke shop.

Mel and I went to a casual Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale for lunch today, and when we asked to be seated they asked us the normal question, "Smoking or Non-Smoking". A bystander said "Ahh no more smoking as of May first thank god".

I answered "Non-Smoking", and then I turned to the gentleman who had spoken and said "Well sir, I don't smoke, and I would prefer to not have people smoke around me, but this law is a bad thing".

The gentleman responded "Why's that?"

"Well sir" I replied "It's a violation of property rights".

"Property rights? How can it be a violation of property rights. I just don't want people smoking around me when I eat".

"Sir, It's a question of self determination. A private property owner should be able to determine on his own, whether people can smoke on his property or not. If the government can tell you that people can't smoke on your property, they can tell you anything"

"Ok" he replied "I understand what you're saying and I agree with it as far as it goes; but I don't want people smoking around me".

"Well sir, then you should choose non-smoking sections" I countered.

"I do; but why should I have to put up with other people smoking around me at all?" he asked; seeming genuinely puzzled how I (as a non-smoker) could disagree with him.

"Sir" I politely and patiently explained "It's not your property, it's not your decision; or the governments for that matter. If you don't want people smoking around you, you can always go to restaurants that don't allow smoking. If it is profitable for restaurants to make such restrictions, then they will do so".

"Some of them already do, and I don't see why they all shouldn't".

At this point I'd given up on the idea that the person could see the problem with what he was saying, but I gave it one more effort responding with "Why should the government, or you for that matter sir, decide what a private property owner can do with his property?"

"But smoking is bad. I just don't like it. I don't want people smoking near me"; was his final argument (actually his first, final, and only argument).

He just didn't get it. He didn't understand why the government shouldn't step in and force a private property owner to do whatever HE personally wanted them to do. He thought it was entirely reasonable that his preferences should be made into law, and should infringe on the rights of the property owner. As far as he was concerned, because he didn't want people smoking around him while he ate, then no-one should ever be allowed to smoke in a restaurant.

As we were about to be seated I turned and made one final statement: "Sir, d'you know what the most dangerous words in the English language are? 'There oughta be a law'"

A Citizen or a Subject

What is the difference between a citizen, and a subject?

Very simple. A citizen has rights, a subject has privileges.

Some believe that one can be free in a monarchy, if the laws are structured properly. That in fact, their societies can be more free than more democratic ones, because the head of state can overrule any law that would violate the freedoms of the people.

Others believe that since no government, no matter how it is structured, can be depended upon to not vote itself more power, more money, and more control; that anarchy is the solution, and in fact only under anarchy can people be free.

I have to make it clear, both of these thoughts are entirely mistaken.

It is as sovereign individuals, participating in a free state, where we are subject to none but ourselves, but where we are citizens bound by justifiable laws, that we are most free as a people.

There is no way that anarchy can persist over time, without the weak becoming subject to the strong.

As individuals we may be more free under anarchy for a time, but as a people, the strong will dominate the weak, and our society as a whole will suffer for it, as will each individual member within it eventually. That's a second order effect that anarchists don't tend to see. They don't follow their argument to its eventual end.

There is no monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, where the people are truly free, because they are subjects not citizens.

It all comes down to the difference between a citizen, and a subject.

Even though in the United States our government has overreached greatly, and grown into the monster it is today, we are still at core free men, different from almost all others in this world.

Taking as an example Britain; as a subject of the queen, technically speaking you don't have any rights, you have whatever privileges the queen allows you.

Though the royals haven't ruled that way since the early 19th century, and their absolute control was curtailed by the magna carta, and again after the failed republic (and the somewhat disastrous but thankfully short Stewart restoration) the freedoms of the British peoples are entirely a matter of tradition, not of law.

Britain is often referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but this isn't actually true. There is no written guarantee of either the limitation or structure of government, nor of the rights of the people.

Britain is governed according to the principle of common law, where tradition and precedent are the primary means of enforcing structure and shaping legislation; but that's all there is. The only real limitations as to what parliament can or cannot do are tradition, prior acts of parliament (which can always be changed or repealed), or the will of the crown.

Unfortunately, British subjects have had this proven over and over again in the past decade, as their traditional rights, privileges, and immunities... their basic freedoms and liberties... have been ever more curtailed in the name of the security state, the nanny state, and "crime prevention".

The British subject is under perpetual surveillance, and legally disallowed from defending or protecting themselves to the point that they are no longer speaking of gun control, but KNIFE control.

Americas governmental structure is radically different. In America we have a constitution which defines the form and structure of our government, and (at least in theory) very strictly limits how that government can restrict our liberty as free men. The constitution itself makes explicitly clear that the governments powers are limited, and that power rests in the people.

We are not subject to anything, or anyone but ourselves, as free sovereign men.

As free men, we have no obligation to comply with laws, or regulations that are unconstitutional.

Sure, there are situations where folks disagree (or pretend to disagree) about what the constitution says, or how it says it, or what it means.

Here's the thing: Nuance and subtlety are not in the language of the constitution.

Let me say this again, there is no nuance in the language of constitution. If you think there is, read the federalist papers for reinforcement. The constitution was written quite plainly.

There is without a doubt both subtle and profound genius in the concepts of the constitution, but it's only because it is written in 18th century high cant that anyone can legitimately see any ambiguity.

Again read up, you'll figure it out.

Of course lots of folks pretend, or convince themselves there's real ambiguity, but they are either mistaken or they are lying.

Oh and the spot in the constitution that says we shouldn't follow any laws that are not explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Well you can't get more explicit than the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not surprisingly, that ones not too popular among legislators, liberals, or far right conservatives, because it very clearly states they aren't allowed to make any law they want to.

The government cannot under any circumstances make law that is unconstitutional. If they do so, that law is not legal, valid, or binding.

In most countries, you are only allowed to do what the government lets you. Almost all countries in the world other than the U.S. are like this (even Australia, the second freest country in the world).

In America we can do anything we like, so long as it is not specifically limited by the government, and the government can only restrict us in ways that are in the constitution.

That's a pretty radical concept. When it was first instituted, it had never actually been tried before. In fact everyone predicted it would fail quite spectacularly.

Instead, some 240 years later (I'm from Boston, we remember the revolution started on April 19th 1775, not July 4th 1776), we have the most stable and long lasting government since the roman empire.

Of course the government has taken upon itself to intrude, and to regulate, far more than the constitution explicitly allows, both for good and for ill.

The vast majority of federal law and regulations flow from a few basic statements in the constitution, which I'll paraphrase here: The federal government has the authority to promote the general welfare, secure the peace, negotiate with foreign powers, make war, ensure the full faith and credit of articles (licenses, marriages etc...) between the states, to resolve disputes between the states, and to promote and regulate interstate commerce.

The problem mainly lies with that last one, promoting and regulating interstate commerce. It's a pretty vague clause, and it can (and has) be stretched to encompass almost anything. This isn't really in the constitution as such, but if a judge allows it...

As our government was conceived, the states were, for most purposes, their own independent entities. The states had all the power to tax, and control of all laws and jurisdictions within their states, except in matters that would conflict with other states, or with the constitution. The federal government had EXTREMELY limited power and authority.

Even up until the early 20th century, the average citizen in America would have no contact or interaction with the federal government in any way, for their entire lives, except perhaps through the military, or during wartime.

Unfortunately, as a result of the growing tensions between the states, and several wars, there were a series of rulings by the supreme court in the 19th and through the early 20th centuries, which were very questionable as to their constitutionality, but very clear in their intent to grant the federal government ever increasing authority and control.

During and just after the civil war the president, and the out of control congress, did many things that were blatantly unconstitutional. They also packed the supreme court with justices that would allow them to do so. Or the simply ignored, or didn't allow to go to court, issues they didn't like. After restoration things calmed down significantly (though not back to where they were before).

It wasn't until World War 1 that the federal government laid any sort of regular permanent direct tax on citizens. In fact their authority to lay this tax was successfully challenged (several times), and they had to pass a constitutional amendment to get the right to re-institute it.

The last straw for our original intended system of federal government was Franklin Roosevelt, who used the circumstances of the great depression to multiply the size, and power, of the government by quite literally a factor of 10. Before 1934 most people never heard or saw the feds in their entire lives, afterwards, the feds became the dominant force of government, eventually relegating the states to near irrelevance.

This continued apace through the second world war, then Korea, and into the 60's; until by the time Lyndon Johnson was done, the federal government was over 20 times the size it had been before 1934, for a less than doubled population. In this same time frame, the number of federal laws and regulations expanded to over 1000 times what they had been before 1934.

Almost all of these things were in fact unconstitutional, but they were done while the country was reeling through 40 years of continuous crises; from the great depression through the cold war.

Anyone who challenged the government during this time was totally marginalized as a kook, or their point was acknowledged and ignored because "these things have to be done for <-- data-blogger-escaped---="--" data-blogger-escaped-crisis="crisis" data-blogger-escaped-day="day" data-blogger-escaped-here="here" data-blogger-escaped-insert="insert" data-blogger-escaped-of="of" data-blogger-escaped-the="the">".

By the time anyone thought to mount serious challenges, there was a huge bulwark of time and precedent surrounding the changes, and we've been trying to chip it down ever since. 

Anyone who has protested too vigorously has been declared crazy, made into a criminal, been harassed, or even been killed (Randy Weaver was a racist ass, but he was deliberately targeted for being anti-government, and what they did to his family is wrong in every way).

Meanwhile the sheep continue to munch away... but even with all this intrusion, we are still free men, subject to none but ourselves.

A very graphic, and simple illustration of the structural differences between America and Great Britain, and what it means, to be free, and not be a subject:

In America all elected officials, and all military officers and enlisted men swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. They do not swear to the president, or even to the constitution. They swear, to THEMSELVES, and to their fellow men, that they will uphold the constitution.

In Great Britain elected officials and military officers serve at the pleasure of her majesty, and officers commissions are granted by her majesty. Each man swears his oath to the sovereign, who he is subject to. He is not a free man, but a subject.

All prison sentences and court decisions are at her majesties pleasure as well. The final recourse of justice is in all cases a petition of right, which supersedes all courts, where one directly appeals to her majesty for a decision, and that decision has the force of law.

So here's where we stand. The British, most liberals, anarchists, and some conservatives seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, and make some improper assumptions about American government.

The British are subjects. They have been raised as subjects, and do not perceive how any government can be any other way. They are bewildered by our talk of unconstitutional law, and limitation of government, or of the thought of disobeying the law not being wrong, or not being a crime.

So are many liberals. They have the mentality of subjects.

Anarchists believe that one cannot have any government without being a subject.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. We do not have privileges granted us by the government, we have rights inherent to our nature as men.

A subject is required to obey all laws propagated by those he is subject to. A citizen is able, and perhaps morally required to disobey, and in fact to actively resist, all laws that infringe against his fundamental rights.

A subject is raised to believe that government is ultimately in power. A citizen knows that it is himself, and his fellow men, who are in power; he is answerable to none but his own soul.

Liberals want us all to be subjects. I wish to remain a citizen, and I will die before I am made a subject.

From the declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.