3D-Printed Guns: Orwell Was Wrong, So Was Rand

The 3D gun printing process doesn't constitute the invention of a new wheel of undocumented gun cottage industry. Skilled gunsmiths and semiskilled machinists have always been able to manufacture undocumented ("illegal," "unlicensed") guns.

The true significance of the 3D-printed gun is the "democratization" of gun manufacturing. Now all the equipment you need is a 3D printer and the skills required to operate it.

The knee-jerk reaction by the people's rulers, New York Senator Chuck E. Schumer and Congressman Steve Israel? They want to ban all plastic guns.

"But if you're going to download a blueprint for a plastic weapon that can be brought onto an airplane, there's a penalty to be paid."

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Hijacking aircraft is already illegal. A hijacker, particularly if he's a suicidal religious fanatic, isn't going to be deterred by an additional gun charge.

Over at the Huffington Post, the assorted fascists, commies, gun control freaks, and other intellectual bottom feeders creeping around there are huffing and frothing at their mouths. But just that they don't like reality doesn't change it.

"This elegant statement of purpose [the Preamble to the US Constitution] confirms that our Founders saw a more energetic, more capable federal government as the best possible guarantor of individual rights."

Only that this government turned out to be the most vicious destroyer of individual rights. Apparently, the huffy poster is unable to distinguish between individual rights and the will (the tyranny) of the majority.

"He prefers an anarchical society where government lacks the ability not only to accomplish great things, but also to do the mundane, like ensuring that judgments are enforced and laws executed."

Let me take Israel's nonsense statement and turn it around into something meaningful:

We're all for enforcing (Anarcho-Capitalist) laws against true crime. But if you're going to raid someone's house to steal his books, computers, and weed, to lock him into a cage, and to murder him if he tries to defend himself, there's a penalty to be paid.

If everybody has a gun, no organization, be it a fascist state or an Anarcho-Capitalist corporation gone rogue, can afford to enforce laws against victimless "crimes." Neither fascist pigs nor Anarcho-Capitalist security guards will be at all eager to enforce contempt of cop on even the lowliest individual.

The case of 3D-printed guns proves two popular antifascist writers, George Orwell and Ayn Rand, wrong.

In 1984, Orwell painted the dystopian picture of an omnipotent state enslaving its subjects through technology. Now we see that technology is not the evil tool of the fascist state.

At worst, technology is morally neutral, neither good nor bad, its moral worth depending on which party uses it, the state or the freedom fighters. At best, however, technology is so disruptive that, once genie is out of the bottle, it reduces any organized monopoly government ad absurdum.

Murray Rothbard correctly stated that:

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."

Which, as this case demonstrates, can be turned into this corollary:

Technology is the fullest expression of anarchy, and anarchy is the fullest expression of technology.

Advanced technology makes totalitarian rule impossible, and the absence of pointless regulations allows more technological progress.

Rand believed that anarchy would result in the rule of brute force, and consequently fantasized about how to keep some hypothetical "limited government" limited. Now we see that anarchy is not the rule of brute force, but of force controlled by the mind.

Anarchy is the "rule," for lack of a better word, of those who can operate 3D printers. Not the rule of decrepit old men like Chuck E. Cheese, who cannot tell the "intertubes" from their feeding tubes, old men who love nothing better than to at the drop of a hat make laws to kidnap and murder random individuals who never harmed anyone.

If you want to wrap your mind around how far the lunacy of the government toadies goes, look at this huffy poster contradiction:

"The concept of a government 'monopoly on force' may sound inconsistent with the political traditions of a country steeped in stories of its own revolution, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any nation-state."

Versus

"We don't know if the project will be producing serviceable handguns and assault rifles anytime soon, but if it does — and if these weapons avoid regulation — political violence could one day replace political dialogue as the hallmark of our democratic system."

In the first quote the gun control freak extols the state's monopoly on force. In the second quote he condemns political violence.

But what is the state's monopoly on force, if not political violence, political violence perpetrated by the majority to enforce its will on the minority? Looks like political violence is fine with freaky-boy as long as it has been rubberstamped by the majority.

Majority tyranny, democracy, is fine and dandy for him. Looks like he expects to always have a leftist majority to back him up.

But be careful, freaky-boy. A government that is powerful enough to give you anything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have. I dare say that if your authoritarian government turns on you, saving an authoritarian like you from death row will be the lowest of the low priorities for any anarchist.

You dirty fascists, commies, conservatives, and socialists. Your government stole our herbs, guns, and books it didn't approve of, locked us in cages, and murdered us. When we complained, you basically told us to go fly a kite.

Now liberty and anarchy is coming to you, and you don't like it one bit. You complain to us.

You know what? Go fly a kite.

Anarchy is the way of the future. Better get used to it.

The shot heard 'round the world.

What Is the Market?

One reason why anarchists and minarchists are arguing at cross-purposes is the failure to understand what the (free) market is and how it works. Let me explain. 

What is a market? A market is a place where people exchange goods and services. 

What is free? Free means free from initiatory force. 

What then is a free market? A free market is a place where people exchange goods and services voluntarily. 

The state claims a coercive monopoly on the provision of certain goods, i.e., defense and justice. The state claims only it is qualified to provide them. 

Anarchists hold that the market will provide these goods better, cheaper, and more humanely, like it provides all other goods in that fashion. Minarchists claim that for a free market to exist, it needs to be created and protected by a preexisting limited government, but they cannot explain how such a limited government could come into or remain in existence. 

This apparent contradiction is best explained in a model. Let's assume there's a world that contains three individuals: Alice, Benito, and Carl. 

The three of them go to the market to trade. Alice is more intelligent than Benito and Carl. Therefore, her products are more advanced and more valuable to every one of them. 

Because she is more intelligent, Alice has made a pistol for her self-defense. Benito and Carl have only slingshots, as they don't know how to build anything more advanced. 

Now, the archist argument is that that market is not free, because Alice has got a gun, but the other two haven't. Alice can force the other two to trade on terms that they would not agree to if they were on equal terms in firepower. Therefore, archists claim that the three of them have to set up a government, which will somehow administer the gun, i.e. the use of force, objectively. 

Yet, governments do not exist independently of individuals. Governments consist of individuals. 

So in our market, Alice, Benito, and Carl establish a government and have a democratic vote on whom to use the gun against. I bet you can imagine what happens next. 

Right, Benito and Carl gang up on Alice and vote to point the gun at her and expropriate her superior products from her, so they get for free what they could barely have afforded in a hypothetically truly free market, where no one can threaten to use force against their trading partners. 

This is precisely what has happened in our world. The minarchist solution is to plead with Benito and Carl for one of them to side with Alice. 

They promise Benito and Carl that if they let Alice go with her tools now, she will come back with even more and better products, and everyone will be better off. But Benito and Carl only care about free stuff now. 

Then the minarchists explain to Benito and Carl that it is immoral to steal Alice's stuff, even if they steal by way of democratic government. But Benito and Carl only care about free stuff now. 

Besides, they have rationalized their crimes, so that they can go on looting, but still face themselves in a mirror. Benito makes himself believe that democratic government is holy and can do whatever it wants. Carl makes himself believe that Alice didn't really create her goods, but just found them somewhere, so she doesn't really have a right to them. 

So in the real world you only have two options: Alice keeps her gun and makes the rules for everyone, or Benito and Carl vote on what rules to make and enforce at the point of the gun they could never have created. The market cannot and should not be free as in "Everyone has the same firepower" or "No one should be able to threaten the use of force against trading partners." The market can only be free in terms and to the extent of "Everyone gets to keep the guns he can manufacture to defend himself with." This way, the most intelligent have the most firepower, and initiatory force and injustice is thus minimized as much as humanly possible. 

Sure, it's not ideal to have the intelligent and productive make all the rules, for to be intelligent and productive does not necessarily mean to be moral and just. But it sure beats the current situation, where the stupid and unproductive gang up into a majority and force their superstitions on their betters and loot from them. 

For a representative government to work, the majority would have to be intelligent and productive, instead of stupid and unproductive. Given that it isn't, there are only two ways to establish civilization on this planet. 

Either you adopt Anarcho-Capitalism straight, where the rules are made by corporations, where the richer shareholders have more votes. Or you have to go back to "anarchy light," i.e. the system the Founding Fathers established, with census suffrage, where the rich got more votes than the poor, so the latter could not outvote the former to loot from them. ("Anarchy light" because it attempted to replicate the results of Anarcho-Capitalism without fully going there, without recognizing individual sovereignty.) 

But if you go that far, you may just as well go the whole nine yards to Anarcho-Capitalism. But then, you can bury your head in the sand like the minarchists and hope that someday some miracle will happen and establish a market where no one has more firepower than anyone else. 

The funny thing is that the minarchists (or at least the objectivists) are vociferously opposed to a world government. I.e., they abhor the state of nature among individuals, but they are adamant that the state of nature be preserved among nations. 

But in logic, if it is wrong for individuals to live by the law of the strongest (which means the most intelligent, as conflicts are no longer decided by bare fists and brute muscle), then it is wrong for nations, too. So if you want a government to rule individuals, you have to want a world government to rule nation states. 

What we have right now between nations is the Alice, Benito, and Carl state of nature described in the beginning. Alice, the US, the most rational — or rather the least irrational — nation, rules as she sees fit, and Benito and Carl, or the socialist slave states of Europe and the theocratic states of Islam, want to disarm her via the UN. 

Which means that archists, minarchists, and objectivists have no argument on their side but the status quo. We need world anarchy, or the world government will democratically vote to disarm the US and annihilate Israel. But we cannot have individual anarchy, because it's never been fully tried and is scary. The archists are afraid of change and can only resort to "discussions" along the lines of "La, la, la, I'm not listening to this." 

Prove me wrong and try to prove me wrong. If you can. Otherwise I hope those government boots you're licking at least taste good. 

Tea Party vs. Flea Party

Insanity is… this. Sigh. The fleabags need a padded cell more than they need to get maced.

So, I corrected it. I guess they can be glad I didn't grade it, too.

Tea Party	Flea Party
(Grassroots movement)	(Astroturf)
Most events ignored by the media, except by Fox News.	Left-leaning mainstream media cheer looters on.
Participants revolt against the sick and poor who use need as a claim.	Participants provide free food, healthcare, and emotional support to everyone present, then claim they cannot pay their student loans and call for another round of looting.
Anti-union, anti-moocher, anti-looter, anti-government, anti-Obama ("racist"); I grant you bigoted and xenophobic — the fundies insisted on tagging along.	Strives for inclusion and participation of every moocher, looter, and rotter in the world, but xenophobic when "American" jobs are "exported," as if America or any country collectively owned jobs.
Funded by the Koch brothers. Avoids leaders — decisions made by the market, i.e., by the people who worked for their money.	Funded by Buffett and Soros. Decisions based on consensus imposed by Ivy Starnes and her comrades.
People show up with "assault rifles," shout and spit at members of congress (boy, do they deserve it), and the police take no notice. Why should they?	People show up committed to looting and violent overthrow of capitalism, and get maced and beaten by the police, as they deserve.
THIS IS WHAT LIBERTY LOOKS LIKE. DON'T TREAD ON ME!	THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS EXPLICITLY REJECTED DEMOCRACY.
Benefits the 53%.	Benefits the 47%.

Chicago, DC: More Guns, Less Crime

The evidence from Chicago and DC is in, and more guns do indeed equal less crime.

More guns, that is, in the hands of would-be crime victims who had been disarmed by the criminal government.

Ristorante Ecoli Hamburg Now Open!

First we took Staunton — now we take Hamburg! Ristorante Ecoli Hamburg is now open for business!

Unfortunately, we had to get rid of the sniper rifle on the balcony due to local gun laws. But you can try our fresh bean sprouts at half price! A little complimentary surprise with every dish of bean sprouts!

Or visit us on the web:

http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/Ristorante_Ecoli

Dude, not funny? Well, then take it as a public service announcement.

Don't eat sprouts. Ever.

If you eat sprouts, you're asking for E. coli. (If the feds have to outlaw something, they should outlaw sprouts instead of weed. But I digress.)

Who eats that shit, anyway? I mean, really.

It's esthetically praiseworthy if you don't want to go the way of the beached whale, but steering clear of high-fructose corn syrup should be enough. Don't have to ingest those germ plants.

At least we know now why it's called Germany.

Eco-Terrorists Declare War on Mankind!

It is in vain, dude, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!

(Hat tip to John Stossel.)



So that's how All Gore got his name!

If you never understood why they're not properly called "greens" (though they sure vegetate) or "environmentalists," but eco-terrorists, or why Ayn Rand correctly identified them as anti-man, now you have proof from the horses' asses' mouths.

Apparently, we threaten the eco-terrorists' existence by breathing, using power, and stuff, or at least they're deluded enough to believe that:

"What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?" jokes 10:10 founder and stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

They must have amputated her brain…

Well, if the eco-terrorists want a civil war, they can get it. We'll win it hands down.

After all, they can't use jetfighters (emissions), tanks (depleted uranium), or even lowly handguns (lead pollution). OK, eco-terrorists, draw your sticks and stones, and make my day.

(As for that half-assed apology, you can shove it next to your head. One false move, and I amputate the shortest appendage of your unwashed hippie body.)

Update:

So what's the result of their stupidity?

Currently boycotting Gillian Anderson. Boycotting Richard Curtis, too, though I never heard of that limey fucktard.

Planning to fly somewhere, in spite of the airport nazis. Does anyone know what airline has the best fleet in terms of emissions? Anyone still have 707s or Concordes? :P

Happy Birthday, America — Here's the Present!

As far as gifts go, McDonald v. Chicago is as good as it gets.



Happy Independence Day and long live Lady Liberty.

"We the People" Murder Individuals

Must be Stupid Article Day at The Atlasphere:

If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.

…

If the public doesn't like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box.

Even if armed self-defense did lead to bloodbaths (which it doesn't — where guns are banned, like in Limeystan or Krautistan, the same going postal takes place, just with knives or illegally owned guns), neither the supreme court, nor congress, nor "we the people" would have any right to sacrifice one individual by disarming him and leaving him defenseless to save any number of others.

Stupid collectivist. Goes to show why you can't work with conservatives.

Quote of the Day

"It seems as self-evident to me as it was to the Founding Fathers that a people disarmed by their government cannot purport to be free. The bottom line remains: Force rules. Therefore, if you allow the government to have a monopoly on force, then you can never purport to be a free person."

— Charley Reese, The Orlando Sentinel, April 18, 2000.

Gun Bans Shot Down — Right on Schedule

Yes!!!

Life imitates art once again: As predicted in Torch in the Night, the Supreme Court shot down state and local gun bans. And right on schedule, that is, one year early, actually. (My fictional prediction was half past June 2011.)

Thus, to get rid of gun control, Traynor had to convince the justices that the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution not only was a protection against federal gun control, but also applied to state and municipal governments. He had to get the justices to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment had extended the Second Amendment to the states. In legalese, the Second Amendment had been incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. After such a ruling, the often capriciously administered state licensing schemes, like in New York, and outright gun bans, like in Chicago, would be null and void.

Torch in the Night, p. 14.

"Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right 'applies equally to the federal government and the states.' "

QED.

Disarming Successful — Patients Dead

Turning all of Limeyland into a gun-self-defense-free zone did not stop this limey from going postal with his miniature arsenal. Well, as the wisdom of the gun-control-free zone has it, when guns are outlawed, only criminals (including the government's jackbooted thugs) have guns.

At least the limey rulers are more consistent than others by disarming some of their thugs, too. It seems to make them a tad less aggressive. Or maybe the sugar rush from scones is not as bad as that from donuts.

Anyways, if people were reasonable, gun control would be dead now. Moon bats are no more reasonable than wing nuts.

No Guns for Negroes

So 100% of videos agree — even fat Southern sheriffs think twice before they assault armed blacks. If what fat Southern sheriffs do can be called thinking.

A Little Good/Gun News Today

"Starting Monday, a new federal law will allow guns to be carried into national parks and wildlife refuges across the country,"

Yay!

Bill Wade, a chairman for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, calls the new law a "sad chapter" in the storied history of the park system.

"On the heels of the Ken Burns documentary about the importance of national parks to America and after a year of increased visitation to parks despite a poor economy, this law will have a chilling effect on how visitors behave in national parks," said Wade, the former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park. "A feeling of safety and security will be replaced by wariness and suspicion."

In other words: If I'm disarmed and at the mercy of every psycho, I feel safe and secure. When I am able to defend myself, I feel wary and suspicious.

Good that you're retired, moron. You got Alzheimer's.

Angel Kruzen, with the Sierra Club's Missouri water sentinel program, said she didn't foresee the new gun law causing major problems at the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.

She did question, however, how the law might make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to catch people illegally shooting wildlife from their vehicles.

"I think it may be more difficult to enforce," said Kruzen, who lives in Mountain View, Mo. "In the past, if they saw someone sitting in their car with a loaded gun, it was pretty clear what they were up to. Now, I suspect that's going to be a little more difficult."

I hope that isn't meant to suggest that people should allow themselves to get disarmed and then murdered just to make it easier to catch poachers.



"Nobody robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town"

Because the storeowner had a gun to defend himself with.

"Nobody OD'ed, nobody burned a single buildin' down"

Because the homeowner had a gun to defend his home with.

"Nobody fired a shot in anger, nobody had to die in vain"

Because everybody had a gun to defend themselves with.

"We sure could use a little good news today"

Like the above.

"Somebody takes a hostage, somebody steals a plane"

Because guns are still banned on planes. Whenever guns are outlawed, only skyjackers have guns.

How I wanna hear the anchor man talk about a county fair
And how we cleaned up the air, how everybody learned to care
Whoa, tell me

Nobody was assassinated in the whole Third World today
And in the streets of Ireland, all the children had to do was play
And everybody loves everybody in the good old USA
We sure could use a little good news today

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

— Robert A. Heinlein

"We need a change in policy"

Here's one. One down, one bazillion more gun laws to go.

Of course, as "terrorists" use small planes instead of guns nowadays, we all know what gets banned next.

If Only We Had a Million Pols Like Her

Ladies and gentlemen,

Meet the next Governor of New York: Kristin Davis.

While branding "taxation as confiscation," the former escort empress said the legalization of prostitution and marijuana could provide $2.5 billion in revenue to help close the budget gap.

"I'm a natural Libertarian," said Davis, who also embraces gay marriage and the views of the National Rifle Association.

What more can you desire?

In fact, she ought to be made the Queen of the USA.

Speaking of which…

Can't Loot Milk Money Here

Self-defense works:

"Barista Pulls Shots, Pulls 9 mm Christmas Gift from Hubby, Scares Off Robber"

Kudos to MSNBC for picking that up, after all those years of sensationalist reports of "gun crimes" (as if guns could commit crimes) and conspiracies of silence on armed self-defense in the liberal media.

The Sitting Ducks of Fort Hood

Go figure:

When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. The Associated Press reports that "he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun."

Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan's assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them.

The other day I thought it would be fun to bet people $10 that they wouldn't storm into a recruiting office with a (painted toy) gun, jump onto a desk, and scream, "Allahu Akbar!"

Thought that would be a pretty surefire way to earn a Darwin Award. Now it looks like you can do it with impunity — at least until the local police arrive.

And I thought the Fort Hood shooting was the exception that probed the rule "if the mere presence of a firearm caused a shooting wouldn't we have large numbers of shootings at gun shows, gun stores, police stations, and military bases instead of at schools?"

Checking your premises reveals that military bases rank with schools, not with gun shows, gun stores, and police stations.

Guns Don't Kill People — Arabs Kill People?

In the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, moon bats called for banning all guns. Wing nuts called for banning all Arabs.

The Equalizer Shoots Back

To celebrate John Stossel's move from ABC to Fox and his own show, my favorite Stossel segment.



Who knows, that might be just the way for Fox to find some friends, after all. :P

What's Good for the Gunmen Is Good for the Thugs

For some people, civilization means being defenseless to the point where you love to kiss the jackboot in your face.

The fact that protesters at President Obama's political events have begun showing up bearing arms may be disquieting, but it's perfectly legal — and the Secret Service, charged with protecting the President, insists that it is not unduly alarmed by the development. That's because while the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry guns, federal law also gives the Secret Service the right to keep gun-toting folks away from the President.

…

But former Secret Service agent Joseph Petro thinks his former employer may be trying to put the best face on a bad situation. "The Secret Service is very concerned about this," says Petro, who spent 23 years as an agent, including four guarding President Reagan and his family. "It's hard enough to protect the President, and this is not helpful." He pauses. "We are not a Third World country."

So being a disarmed victim of jackbooted thugs is a hallmark of development? I guess I don't have to tell you where you can shove that brand of "civilization."

While protesters in certain states may have the right to carry weapons to spots near presidential visits — and the Secret Service may blanket the President with protection — Petro says the guns' presence changes the atmosphere surrounding such events. "They're intimidating people like it's a western saloon," he says.

The Old West was the only truly civilized society that ever existed. But I guess it's not hard to understand why the jackbooted thugs want to be the only ones who are "intimidating."

And the weapons could turn a verbal clash between demonstrators into a shoot-out. "In a heated atmosphere," Petro argues, "it's a recipe for disaster."

So what are you packing, you jackbooted moron? Yep, thought so.

Most critical, according to Petro… is the message the guns send. "These guys aren't going to shoot the President," he says of the protesters. "But it's putting the idea in some nut's head that maybe he can get a gun and try to shoot him."

Maybe so. So what?

The President has the power to kill innocent people with cruise missiles and nukes. So why should he not live in fear, too?

Fair is fair. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. If you don't want to be a bull's-eye, don't run for President.

A second man outside that event displayed a gun holstered to his leg. "I wanted people to remember the rights that we have and how quickly we're losing them in this country," William Kostric later told MSNBC. "It doesn't take a genius to see we're traveling down a road at breakneck speed that's towards tyranny." Kostric, who used to live in Arizona, said he voted for Ron Paul in the last presidential election. He carried a sign saying, "It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty," a reference to Thomas Jefferson's quote that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." …

Both Arizona and New Hampshire are "open-carry" states in which it is legal to carry visible weapons in public. But every gun-bearing protester requires the attention of the Secret Service and the local and state police who reinforce their efforts. "If the local police are drawn away to deal with these fools, then there's a vacuum somewhere," Petro says. "Perhaps one of those cops was supposed to be in a critical place where he or she could have stopped someone from doing something to the President. That's a real problem."

Yeah, somewhere some donuts would have needed to get eaten. Or some fool citizen would have needed to get ass-raped.

But Paul Helmke, who heads the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says such an act "endangers all in attendance" and that even if their actions are legal, "common sense" should dictate that gun owners keep their weapons away from such gatherings. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement and end up stifling debate," he says. "Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home — no exceptions."

Maybe. But again, fair is fair. Then the pigs and jackbooted thugs need to leave their guns in their sty, too.

Like in Limeystan. Most cops there are unarmed.

And guess what? Those bobbies are friendly.

Extending the perimeter, he suggests, makes more sense than handcuffing those with guns. "If the Secret Service started arresting these people," he says, "they'd have battles on their hands."

As they should have. For that would be open tyranny. If what little gun rights still exist are trampled into the dust so that Obama can feel a little safer, it is definitely time to fertilize the tree of liberty.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." The particularly bitter irony here is that this isn't even the usual case of depriving the minority of their liberties so that the majority can feel a little safer. This is plain and simple depriving all the people but one of their rights so that exactly one person, who gets a private 747 and much undeserved respect free of charge, can feel a little safer on top of that.

If Prince Obama can't enjoy his sinecure on account of the pea of gun rights, he should resign. I guess America will do just fine without anyone around to socialize medicine.

Ugly in, Ugly out

In the past, there's been some criticism about the black and white characters in Atlas Shrugged. The heroes are beautiful and the villains are ugly.

Well, move over, wing nut and moon bat critics. Here comes life imitating art.

Look at Injustice Sonia Sotomayor. I won't even mention her elephantine proboscis (which isn't her fault, unless you want to call failing to get a nose job a fault).

But what did she do to her face? Around the clock tanning? Chain smoking? Or maybe it's just gravity.

Suffice it to say that, putting it charitably, she's way uglier than Miss Pigskin, Pamela Anderson. And, taking a page right out of Atlas Shrugged, she has some pretty ugly things to say:

…Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

Even Sarah Palin wouldn't say, nay, even think of something that stupid and evil. If Palin is Hitler in lipstick, then Sotomayor is Hitler in all his/her/its unvarnished ugliness.

And Sotomayor didn't graduate from some backwoods college, but summa cum laude from Princeton. So much for the quality of moon bat schools.

If there's no Constitutional right to self-defense, the Constitution is just a piece of worthless toilet paper. The right to self-defense is the only fundamental right there is. Without it, any other rights are meaningless. If you don't defend yourself, no one will.

From the streets of Washington, DC — where the pigs have been empowered by the courts to do nothing if you get raped and murdered because they'd rather have another donut — to the concentration camps of Germany — where the pigs will even actively assist in raping and murdering you — one thing is certain: You only have the rights you personally fight for. Or, as Henry David Thoreau had it: "Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."

If you have to leave defending yourself to the government, you're at the mercy of any punk on the street and of any Hitler in government. The only question is, is this one ugly villain motivated by love of punks or by love of Hitlers?