The Gun Is Civilization.

 

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun... is a good guy with a gun.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun… is a good guy with a gun.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

"I'm afraid of the recoil."
“I’m afraid of the recoil.”

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

Alison's first gun. It's pink.
Alison’s first gun. It’s pink.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Author Unknown

Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.
Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

_______________________
Time to get your hands on your BRAND NEW tags that NEVER EXPIRE! Click here!
_______________________

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this “BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,” stating as follows:

ARGUMENT

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

RIGHTS

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

and further …

“Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”

Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

right-to-travel
Know your Right-to-travel! (click image to enlarge)

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. Continue reading “Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel”

Why You Want a No Trespassing Sign On Your Door.

I recently put a new sign on my front door that gives notice to agents that they are not welcome here and that if they come over here with the intent to trespass then official notice has already been given and the agents or officers are more easily sued.

NOTICE to all public servants
My new NOTICE to all public servants. Click to enlarge.

People often ask: If someone ‘Trespasses” onto my private property, what can I do? Can they be dealt with using force? How much force? Is it dependent upon each state (USA)?

Look up the trespassing laws for your locality, this will tell you what amount of “reasonable force” you may or may not be allowed to use. The point is that once you display the “Notice”, no further notice is necessary and you may now use reasonable force to get them to leave if they refuse to.

Good luck getting a policeman to tell you what actually counts as reasonable force for different degrees of trespassers though. Basically when I post this sign that states USC title 42 1983 it applies to all agents of government acting under color of law, and to see how this can be applied Continue reading “Why You Want a No Trespassing Sign On Your Door.”

Cops Don’t Have Imaginary Superpowers

For every crime there is supposed to be a victim.
For every crime there is supposed to be a victim.

I know that you may have a bit of fear-based conditioning when it comes to cops, but I wanted to talk about something you may not have thought about.

Usually when we think of foundation of the government the United States, most think of the Constitution. However, I would say that the Declaration of Independence is the document that actually created our country, and it states: “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”

Now this document is just what it says. It is a declaration, saying we are Continue reading “Cops Don’t Have Imaginary Superpowers”

Produce Your Oath, Or Be Disqualified. (Court Filing)

"Let's get you sworn in!" An oath is administered for EVERY public office. No Oath, no office. “Let’s get you sworn in!” An oath is administered for EVERY public office. No Oath, no office.

Everyone that works for government has to take an oath that is actually binding on their soul. Should they honor their oath? Do you know what the oath they swear to states? Is it to uphold and defend corporate policy and statute? I don’t think so, I’m pretty sure the oath is sworn to uphold and defend the “constitution” from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic.

With that said, don’t you think it is important that if you are being prosecuted by the (Federal, State or Local) government that the people doing the prosecuting and judging are fair, unbiased, and have no special incentives or ulterior motives that make them act a particular way or another?

I think that this is VERY important and that is why I am going to share with you one of my personal favorite demands that you should make on the court when facing prosecution a DEMAND TO PRODUCE OATH OF OFFICE (which you can copy and paste into your legal document as an exhibit to an affidavit or file it by itself. Continue reading “Produce Your Oath, Or Be Disqualified. (Court Filing)”