10 May 2013 Last updated at 10:18
US government orders removal of Defcad 3D-gun designs
The US government has demanded designs for a 3D-printed gun be taken offline. Continue reading
The US government has demanded designs for a 3D-printed gun be taken offline. Continue reading
The Only Defense is a Good Offense
by Boris Karpa
Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise
I am, sadly speaking, the inhabitant of a country which has—by every sensible measure—absolutely draconian gun control. I am not eligible for a permit, and if I were, the mightiest weapon I could get would be a single pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition (rifles are restricted to sportsmen who train for two years). I have written extensively—in American and Israeli media—on the subject on gun control, and am even now making an effort to set up a gun rights organization in Israel. Continue reading
by Thomas Knapp
“Gun Control for the Children?” Sorry, No Sale.
“This is our first task as a society,” said US president Barack Obama at a January 16th press conference: “Keeping our children safe.”
The event’s purpose was to leverage last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut into support for a set of new executive orders and legislative proposals relating to what supporters euphemistically refer to as “gun control.” Continue reading
by Anthony Gregory
Was Hitler Really Anti-Gun Control?
A Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald called “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” is making the rounds, purporting to challenge a myth Second Amendment enthusiasts spread that blames the Holocaust on Hitler’s policies of civilian disarmament. The thrust of the argument is that Hitler’s 1938 firearms law indeed ratcheted back restrictions from the Weimar era. But here is the most telling paragraph: Continue reading
by Trevor Hultner
Note: I don’t suggest he should be deported, because it’s none of my business what people do in their own country – and because it would mean his coming back to England, and I’d rather have Abu Hamza back here than him. However, why is anyone in America paying attention to Piers Morgan? He’s a resident alien.
In a normal country, such people should have the right to life and property. Of course, they should have the legal right to speak as they please. But it strikes me as bad manners if they use this right to demand changes in the law. They don’t perfectly understand the ways of the country in which they find themselves. They’ve had no ancestral part in the formation of the country. Neither they nor their children have any obligation to share in the consequences of what they recommend.
I find Janet Daley irritating for the same reason as Americans do Mr Morgan. Some years ago, when she was banging on about the need to scrap the double jeopardy rule, so the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence could be locked away, I suggested she should clear off home to America. She hasn’t spoken to me since.
I’ll make a partial exception from this rule for the Irish, and a larger one for people from the white dominions – ie, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell and so forth. Then there are variable exceptions for foreign immigrants – variable according to their degree of identification with the country. Outright foreigners should have a right to speak, but none to be heard and taken seriously. SIG Continue reading
How to Stop School Shootings
By John R. Lott, Jr
This week’s horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred calls or more gun control. But it’s worth noting that the shootings occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi the three states that have had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year all allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law generally prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school. Continue reading
The War Against Armed Crime:
We Need Guns to Make Us Safer
(Published in The Birmingham Post, 7th June 2006)
The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable. Everyone agrees something must be done. Just about everyone agrees this something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes, the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime.
Now, this whole line of thinking is nonsense. We already have some of the strictest controls in the developed world on the carrying of weapons. We also have some of the highest levels of armed crime. Indeed, we are reaching the point where we shall need to show proof of identity before buying knives and forks. There is no reason to suppose yet tougher laws will succeed where all the others have plainly failed. Continue reading
POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT
James Roger Brown
Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
Last updated 09/22/2011
Check back frequently, I will be adding to and improving this page.
Suggestions for inclusion may be submitted to the above e-mail address. One high priority document has not been located. Between the end of WW II and 1950 Naval Intelligence created a classified archaeology report about prior civilizations on the North American Continent. Talk to your family members who served during WW II and Korea to determine the title and author of the document. I suspect it contains maps that we need.
Activating this Post Apocalypse Recovery Project begins an effort which there is no documented evidence has ever been done before in all of human history. The purpose is to manage information, knowledge and resources to minimize the intentional disruption of social stability caused by the engineered collapse of civilization and minimize the recovery time to develop new stable social processes among the survivors. There will be survivors. Continue reading
Note: This was written after the Tony Martin case. However, it applies just as well to other cases. SIG
Killing no murder
By Robert Henderson
Tony Martin’s conviction for murder after he killed the burglar Fred Barras, raises these important issues: the right of self-defence; the protection of property, the general use of police resources; the policing of Martin’s locality, the fairness of Martin’s trial and, above all, the relationship between the individual and the state.
The right to self-defence
Any attempt at definition short of giving a person an absolute right to defend themselves how they will is doomed to failure. Once a definition includes general qualifications such as “reasonable force”, it becomes unworkable, because the qualifications are hideously imprecise. The practical result is confusion and uncertainty and anyone who defends themselves is at risk of prosecution. The problem is exemplified in comments by Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative home affairs spokesman who recently said “People whose person or property is attacked should be able to defend themselves without fear of penalty from the law” (Daily Telegraph 24/4/2000), but then qualified this by saying that prosecutions could still take place in extreme circumstances. Once that qualification is made, the uncertainty returns. Continue reading
by D.J. Webb
As libertarians will be well aware, English Common Law confirms the right of Englishmen to use arms in their self-defence. I am one of those who would not accept the legality of purported laws to strip us of this right, but in any case, we have not been stripped of this right, at least in terms of statute law. The 1688 Bill of Rights, which has not been repealed and has been affirmed by higher courts as being a major constitutional law that cannot be impliedly repealed (i.e., can only be repealed by express language clearly repealing it), specifies our right to use weapons in our own defence. Continue reading
by Kevin MacDonald
Note by Sean GabbI have copied this in full from The Occidental Observer site because Professor MacDonald’s posting seems to be the longest and most thorough analysis of what drove Mr Breivik to commit his crimes – always assuming he did indeed commit them. He has actually read the killer’s book, and this lets him say a great deal more than the mainstream media, which appears to take its entire coverage from statements by the Norwegian police.
For the record, the Libertarian Alliance deplores these killings and has no sympathy whatever with the ideology that may have been used to justify them. Nor do we endorse any claim that Professor MacDonald may derive from his analysis. At the same time, we thank him for having read and summarised an 1100 page book that has been made important by the the alleged deeds of its author.
It should go without further elaboration that we oppose all demands for gun control, which is nothing more than victim disarmament, and we oppose all demands for censorship of supposedly “hateful” ideas. Here begins the analysis by Kevin MacDonald:- Continue reading
according to this BBC article. So how will it keep British civilians safe at home?
UPDATE: I forgot to include a link to the report – apologies.
Our Coagulation-PM has got into hot water, it seems, with certain nationalist elements in the Pakistani Intelligence Services.
Apparently this is what Cameron said:-
”But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.”
The problem of interpretation centres on TWO WORDS…”able” and “promote”. If his advisers had said to him to say “unable” to “prevent”, or even “finds it difficult to prevent”, then I don’t think the ISI could have complained – for that would, as we all know, be substantively true.
Perhaps the coagulation is going to founder on the rock of the British Political Enemy-Class, which still owns the Terms Of Discourse, which wants our culture and civilisation dead, which believes what it is saying and thinks we don’t think that, and still, sadly, briefs Cameron’s speechwriters.
Pakistan is a surprisingly large place, like neighbouring Afghanistan, and it is difficult to police much of it, even had its government the strategic will and vision to supress “certain elements”.
“Johnny-Taliban” is clearly getting his gear (even if not his squaddies) from somewhere, and nearby – given his logistics-set-up – is the obvious place. I don’t think the Russians’ writ quite runs as well as it did in those parts in the 1970s/80s, so “north” is probably out: furthermore, ShootinPutin187 knows, to a nicety, how far to push us or not, and this is not something he’d go the the stake over.
France always makes trouble for the Anglosphere on principle, whenever it can. That’s how it is: it’s France’s job and has been for 1,000 years. So I’m prepared to believe that money might be coming from there, if not explosives and IED-technology. But Occam’s Razor does, sadly, point to our old chum “West Pakistan”.
If the ISI geeks want to flounce, let them.
the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.
Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (276). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
In 2010, for instance, most UK citizens live under such strict gun control laws that even the British Olympic pistol shooting team has to go abroad to practice. Meanwhile, members of the Royal family and Government ministers have armed bodyguards available whenever they appear in public.
Current gun control laws are a frank admission by our glorious leaders that the only ordinary British citizens who might carry guns near their leaders are would-be assassins. This in turn rests on an unspoken acceptance by the governing class that (no matter who’s apparently in charge) at least some of its policies are deeply provocative to a sizable number of British citizens and/or visiting foreigners.
I can think of no other way to explain the governing class’ obvious conclusion that the vast majority of law-abiding British citizens can’t be trusted to train and equip themselves to defend themselves, their homes, and their leaders. Tragedy, farce and gross insult are, in this case, aliases of our leaders’ (in)actions. The sensible political option remains what it has always been – to govern less and so cause less offence in the first place.
Recent events in Cumbria have led to an entirely predictable concern among UK libertarians that even more restrictions on gun ownership and usage are on the way. But on this occasion, I don’t share their pessimism.
UK domestic gun legislation is already among the tightest in the world (which is a bit ironic for a country that is one of the world’s largest arms exporters). Furthermore, even the most dyed in the wool statists are currently resigned to having their budgets (and therefore their de facto powers, at least) cut in the short to medium term. These facts, combined with the rarity of shooting sprees in the UK by licensed gun owners using their own weapons, make any attempt to administer further restrictions uneconomic.
So, might a total ban be contemplated? I couldn’t help noticing from the outset that key elements of the Whitehaven episode didn’t play out according to the standard gun control script. Jamie Reed, the local MP for Copeland was interviewed by the national media as the story broke on 2nd June. Although a Labour MP, he didn’t go along with one reporter’s efforts to corral him into calling for tighter gun control laws. Clearly, Mr. Reed knows something of the realities of his rural constituents’ daily lives. Quite simply, the prominent role of shotguns in particular in rural pest control means that a shotgun ban is unlikely to be supported.
Since 2nd June, it’s emerged that Derrick Bird had held shotgun and/or firearms licences for 20 years with no prior incidents, so it’s unlikely his actions could have been foreseen by anything short of continuous human and/or audio-visual surveillance (and then only in the very short term). Furthermore, it’s also emerged that local police officers had sight of Derrick Bird and might have been able to prevent his last 9 killings – except that the officers were unarmed, and therefore backed off when he confronted them directly.
This last snippet of news has clearly been released in an effort to deflect criticism away from Cumbrian officers. It may have the effect of relaunching the debate over the routine arming of police officers (that would be the state-thinkful option). This is unlikely to be deemed acceptable, but combined with the recent attack on 2 baby girls in their London home by a fox, it opens up new public debate opportunities for libertarians.
What’s the point of relaxing or scrapping the “reasonable force” restriction on householders’ defence of life and property against intruders if householders aren’t allowed to own and train with the best technical means available for home and self-defence (including pepper sprays, tasers and guns)? No wonder ministers are getting jittery about changing the law. And as urban foxes get more numerous and bold, isn’t it time to stop thinking of home defence purely in terms of repelling human burglars?
But what, you may ask, if the forthcoming debate does result in the police being routinely armed? In that case, civil libertarians of all stripes will unite to get it reversed. A significant number of police officers will meanwhile complain about the potential damage to their public image, and the extra pressures routine carrying of a gun will put on them. And then we will have to wait and see how well the state’s prefabricated “one rotten apple” justification will stand up to the public outcry when an armed police officer finally goes on the rampage with a Heckler and Koch. What, then, will be the justification for using the law of the land to allow only the police and the criminal classes to carry guns in Britain?
Intellectually speaking, at least, I suggest the gun control lobby is only a few steps away from shooting itself in the foot.
A superfast translation from Robert Groezinger!
NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International
Release Date: Wednesday 2nd June 2010
Release Time: Immediate
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, firstname.lastname@example.org
For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr081.htm
“CUMBERLAND SHOOTINGS: GUN BANS MEAN MORE GUN CRIME” SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY INSTITUTE
The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today calls for the relegalisation of civilian gun ownership in the United Kingdom as the only way for ordinary people to protect themselves against gun massacres. [This news release is prompted by the killings of at least five people on the 2nd June 2010 in and around the Cumberland town of Whitehaven.]
Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:
“This outrage will certainly bring calls from the police and other victim disarmament advocacy groups for further gun control. However, bearing in mind that civilian ownership of handguns was outlawed in the two Firearms Acts of 1997, we fail to see, unless the murder weapon was a shotgun, what there is left to be outlawed.
“The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. We understand that the killer, Derrick Bird, was able to drive in perfect safety around Whitehaven, shooting people at random. None of his victims was in any position to return fire. Only when armed police could eventually be brought in did he feel it necessary to run away.
“In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed. Only in a country like England, where the people have been systematically disarmed, can a killer go about like a fox among chickens.
“The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. They should also be able to use lethal force, at home and in public, for the defence of life, liberty and property.
“Only then will ordinary people be safe from evil men like Derrick Bird.”
END OF COPY
Note(s) to Editors
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at email@example.com
Extended Contact Details:
The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Our postal address is
The Libertarian Alliance
2 Lansdowne Row
Tel: 07956 472 199
The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the world.
Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and conservatives.
Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of the Libertarian Alliance.
Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.
It’s times like this that makes me sure that Mr. Orwell got his dates a bit wrong.
I’ve now heard that the Police are using UAV’s and the government is planning on getting even bigger ones. This means that, in addition to all the CCTV cameras dotted liberally (no pun intended) around the landscape, you can also be watched from 50,000 feet.
All this goes on without you knowing however, so you will be able to expect parking, speeding, and, knowing this lot, littering fines dealt out like a bolt of lightening from the gods above. Shortly after this, we, knowing our luck and their determination, will be seeing these things being armed with missiles and smart bombs. Indeed, health and safety will take a sinister turn, for you will be driving along without your seatbelt on, by accident or on purpose, then BOOM! a streak of fire will rain down upon you and end your criminal ways, for you have to remember:
“Driving without your seatbelt on is dangerous.”
[It seems that The Ranting Penguin already agrees with what I'm about to say.]
I don’t think I know what a “Taleban” is. Is it some kind of yoghurt? If so, why are we dying? Or is some “friendly power” secretly arming these buggers? We need to be told.
[In Lebanon, "Laban" is Greek yoghurt, and "Lebni" is a sort of slightly tart soft cheese (it's very nice, on a hot day, on a cheese-biscuit or something. With a biggish glass of Chateau Musar from the Bek'aa Valley vineyards.)]
A “Taleban” ought to be easy to eliminate in theory, faced with the theoretically-sufficiently-armed and armoured specialists of a First-World military power…..
(That’s not in Wootton Bassett, it’s here.)
It is beginning to dawn on me, after years, that I am a curious sort of libertarian. I am in fact a Marxist-Leninist turned upside down. This is getting quite comfortable for me these days, and I will develop my ire further in this regard.
Thus for now: I do not object to foreign wars at all, if fought by a minimalist State based on Classical liberalism, which knows it has an obligated, indeed actually a divine, mission to supress wickednesses elsewhere, such as Statism, fabian-subverted-pre-capitalist-barbarian-survival-guide-warlordism-masquerading-as-religion, general slavery of all kinds (still going on in countries about 3,681 miles from you), “communism” (getting to be old hat now as Chè, Castro, that Sendero-Luminoso-droid, Kim-Jong-Il and Hugo Chavez, Jimmy Carter, and the fascist-pig Mitterand all died physically years ago) and the like.
Indeed, an emergent British – or more possibly English, “state” having withdrawn from both the UK and the EU – libertarian government, may find itself with a variety of post-Bandung kleptocracies arrayed against it, with erstwhile “friends”, such as “France”, and perhaps even “Belgium”, eagerly selling modern armaments to our new potential enemies, speciifically to threaten us.
But in these wars which we now seem ot be fighting, I believe that we do //not// have to have what Sean Gabb calls a “vital national interest”, in my opinion. The very fact that terrible evils and unfathomable wickednesses are being done to humans in the name of “unity”, in the name of “progress”, and in the name of “people’s democracy”, is the justification to act to stop this nonsense and blood, if we have the power. We are in favour of Natural Rights, which human beings all possess by definition. If we do not have the power to act in these situations, then it is //our problem, and our failing//, and thus I am moving rapidly to the belief that it is [imho] our obligation to acquire the needed power – and to use it in such fashion. Sean knows quite well that he and I disagree in general terms although not necessarily specific ones on this matter and it is quite friendly: we argue about it from time to time in his sojourns up here, and thus reports of the death of the Libertarian Alliance are very premature.
The problem for GramscoFabiaNazis such as Gordon Brown, who like all socialists wants to be seen as “hard” and “warfighting” [it's in their genes sadly] while also crooning pacifistically to the post-modern British neo-CND left, is that he can’t sit on two toilets at once, like John Prescott that unexpectedly clever fellow, can. He can’t both shit and get off the pot simultaneously in two places. He wants to be seen as an important chappie in three ways: “supressing the supply of heroine and cocaine”, fighting the “War On Terror” [a contradiction in terms] and also cosying up to people like ShootinPutin187 whose gas and oil he thinks he needs and who got bloodied in Afghanistan 20-odd years ago. And yet at the same time he has also to appease his Enemy-Class-Paymasters who hate all things British (especially English) and who especially hate the Armed Forces, who of course /won’t/ cosy up to the ZanuLieBorg “Project”, and consist mostly of people either disregarded or despised and hated by the “New Labour Project”.
So where does poor little Wootton Bassett come into this terrible story? You will already all know how very, very deeply I despise and excoriate synchronised public grieving. I have never failed to bore you, year after year, with my hatred of the emotional incontinence which overtook this strong and gripped nation, at the death of the horrible Diana.
But this is different. [If the lefties can say such things, so can I.] Nobody told these poor people, sad at what was happening, to turn out. Not like the mafia-instructions to close all our shops [or else] on the day of Diana’s funeral. They just turned out.
A casualty list of eight chaps in a day, in 2009, is a disaster in today’s terms. This is not 1916, when we were locked in an insoluble battle against an equally-technologically-advanced set of enemies – this is 2009 and we are again fighting what used to pass for [pre-1914] small colonial wars against people that we called “towelheads”, in which we expected to take small but ongoing casualties while yet assuring victory. But our priorities and our perception of the deaths of soldiers in wars today has changed, while our supposed ability to deal with modern battlefields has increased.
This sort of misfortune ought not to be happening to a First-World-Economy’s armed forces, against pre-medieval barbarians [OK they are individual humans, but they "chose poorly" , as the old mailed knight said in the end-scene of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".]
Gordon Brown clearly wants and needs a war in Afghanistan. That’s why he has both flagged an increase in the number of our solders there (currently about four brigades) and also a decrease at the same time. He wants to please all his paymasters at once, and thinks we don’t listen. Either he wants “victory”, to destroy all the cocaine and heroin, please ShootinPutin187 and look hard, or else he does not, through not giving our chaps any kit at all that works, so that he puts them all off from joining the Army [a GramscoFabiaNazi medium-term-objective] and thus pleasing the neo-Harold-Pinters of this planet.
But the people of Wootton Bassett are trying to tell him something. I can’t think it will be to his advantage as a Prime-Mentalist.