Gun Control: An Enlightenment View


Cesare Beccaria (1735-1794)

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Continue reading

Paris: The Wages of Victim Disarmament


Peter

Expressed in their simplest form, the ingredients for this atrocity can be expressed as follows:

mass migration + armed interference in Middle Eastern affairs + civilian disarmament = successful terrorist attacks in Western Europe.

The chances of this happening again could be much reduced by addressing even one of the elements on the left side of this equation. Unfortunately, given the vested interests involved, the chances of this happening must be nil. Continue reading

‘Gun Violence’? No! Goon Violence


Ilana Mercer

For a short while, the thing called “gun violence” was uppermost in the minds of the blabbering class. Two lovely young people, Alison Parker (news reporter) and Adam Ward (photojournalist), of Roanoke, Virginia, were gunned-down on live TV, is a scene reminiscent of the film “15 Minutes,” in which an anchor’s drive for ratings and a murderer’s quest for his 15 Minutes of Fame result in … gun, fist, and other gratuitous, on-air violence.

A week on, CNN’s Poppy Harlow was using the language of George Orwell’s Oceania to describe the entity, “gun violence,” that “took” the life of poor Deputy Darren Goforth, of Harris County, TX. Shortly thereafter, the same inchoate culprit claimed Lt. Joe Gliniewicz of Fox Lake, Illinois.

Ambush assaults on police are, indubitably, up. And so is Orwellian newsspeak.

In Roanoke and Harris County, black men were implicated in directing the guns at Parker, Ward and Goforth. The killers acted on a tip from their mentors in media. That’s right: Do not be so hard on the “Black Lives Matter” movement. The movement is in its infancy. Most people are unfamiliar with it. “Black Lives Matter,” moreover, is not nearly as innervating and enervating as the meme disseminated, year-in and year-out, by media, academia, by the pedagogy and the politicians; over the airwaves, on the teli, in classrooms, in the halls of power; in textbooks, film, music and in every other cultural outlet and product.

For decades has this “Racial-Industrial Complex” been schooling Americans in the fiction of systemic black oppression by white America. The threshold for oppression is remarkably low. To be white is to oppress The Other; to be black is to be oppressed. Continue reading

The matter of flying and “the war on terror”; Andreas Lubitz, his problems, Germanwings and so on


David Davis

I have been wondering quietly to myself for a few days since Tuesday, and the news that a bloke deliberately locked his fellow Flying-Officer out of the cockpit and crashed the entire plane into a mountainside at the speed of an air-rifle bullet, about the strategic wisdom of measures taken by our supposed “leaders” in regard to what they call “The War On Terror”.

I will not make an anodyne speech about how “our thoughts are with the victims and their families” for

(a) they are anyway, and

(b) it’s anodyne corporate wallpaper when said in this way (you might just pray to God instead if it makes things better or at least less awful, and which you can) and

(c) all the Public-EnemyClass-GramscoFabiaNazis say this crap when they are trying to cover up something and they don’t mean it a toss anyway, being bad people a-priori; so they’ve devalued it. So I shan’t do it.

Now then, to The Main Business.

There can be no such thing as a “War On Terror”. How do you wage war against a tactic of war, or a “strategic objective”? You can only wage a war on the actual people that execute at least one of a range of different tactics or strategies.

It so far appears that the door to the cockpit of this sadly-doomed plane possessed locking devices strong enough to prevent breaching with an axe. In the wake of 9/11 this seems all very well, but doesn’t take account of probabilities far far higher than an armed hijack by pre-capitalist-barbarian nerds (you all know who there are) armed with stanley-knives. Such higher probabilities must, it seems, include pilots with mental problems serious enough to put their “fitness to fly” in question – regardless of the level of skills they have.

It appears that these locking devices could be commanded from inside the cockpit; and also then _not_ by a flight-deck officer outside it who could then not override them.

The obvious way round this problem, if our “masters” believe that armed air-hijacking is a real threat, and that there is actually what they call a “war on terror” (the need for such a war is indeed rather arguable doubtful) is to do one or else more of the following things, in light of the fact that it’s pretty hard to take, say a Bren Gun or other “medium machine gun” (or even a 0.5″ rifle) into the passenger compartment of an airliner:- Continue reading

Generic truths revisited


David Davis

Counting Cats said this. Or rather, they said that J R R Tolkien said it:-

“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

in “The Two Towers”.

The only thing I would entreat libertarians to ultimately consider, is the need at some point, and really rather soon in historiographic terms, for liberal-inclined nations to arm themselves to the teeth (as I have often trumpeted) “without restriction”.

We learn today that we needed to “call on the Americans” in order to track a Russian Sumbarine in the North Eastern Atlantic. This is a not small place in which not one single copepod or shrimp-larva ought to be able to stir its arse, – let alone the Sumbarines of a country that our EnemyClass seems to be determined to piss off and irritate –  without our War Secretariat knowing about it.

Leaving aside Sean Gabb’s and my collective dislike of the American-Federal-PoliticalEnemyClass and what they stand for – as opposed to the American People which is a different matter as I always am at pains to actively point out – what the hell are we playing at? (That’s to paraphrase D J Webb earlier.)

The British Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Defence


Your Right to be Armed

Whatever happened to the right to keep and bear arms?

by RKBA

SRA Secretary Richard Law was invited to tease out the answer to this question in a presentation to the British Constitution Group’s conference in Sutton Coldfield on 1November 2014, and this summary is derived from his notes. Faithful readers of the Shooter’s Journal and of this blog may find some of the history familiar, but it remains as true and relevant as it ever was. We should add that Mr Law didn’t use these notes during his presentation, as the print was too small and the light wasn’t good enough to refer to them; and they’ve been lightly edited for publication here.

The short answer to the question is this: the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is hiding in plain sight, but to find where it’s hiding and to test whether it’s still real or not, one has to reach back through time to find its beginnings and then follow it to the present. Continue reading