MyGovCost News & Blog

Valerie I. VanOrden says:

Ever since the invention of the Gatling gun in the late 1860′s, we’ve had mass carnage with each war and with kids who can obtain such killing weapons.

Paul T says:

Yes, government causes violent crime, but should not we believe also that government of the type in question is itself criminally violent? There appears to be no way other than by criminal violence, and credible threats of criminal violence, for government to maintain its “rule of law” once people become aware of the fraudulent means by which this type of government is established and maintained.

Now Barack Obama promises to assert more vigorously a monopoly upon gun ownership that the government has for many years asserted implicity by the mere fact of establishing a regulatory regime for firearms. The fact that the government has allowed private possession of firearms alters not a jot the fact that it asserts a monopoly on ownership of firearms, just as it asserts a monopoly upon the ownership of land when claiming authority to collect taxes from deedholders of land and to evict any deedholder with the temerity not to comply with government’s demand for protection money. So, what Obama & his allies want is merely to claw back some of the privileges of possession that government has heretofore allowed, and the vigorous clawback will be imposed through intimidation and credible threats of aggressive violence. Throughout the affair the govenment will maintain that it has a right not only to monopolize ownership and possession of guns but also to coerce anyone within the territory it claims to pay for the guns and muscle it uses to carry out its crimes, including, one day, the crime of disarming residents, except for its own employees and agents, of the territory it claims without justification.

Yet another irony here is that governments throughout the world, American governments included, have long been in the habit of subsidizing the development, production, and distribution of firearms. Recall the M1911 and the AR-15, to give just two examples. (Government deserves blame for nukes, too, no?) Now teary, American, antigun nazis tell us, apparently without trying to be humorous, that the government must not allow dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the wrong people.

How are we to discourage these caring, collectivistic tyrants and to undermine their efforts? Let us remind forcefully their courts and those courts’ cartels of faithful lawyers that their alleged constitution lacks not only consent but also coherency. And how can we tell that the Constitution is incoherent? Notice that Article VII appears to state the law about how to establish the other six articles as supreme law of the land. So, how did the clause of Article VII acquire its supposed legitimacy? If not severally from and prior to the other six articles, then the Constitution must be a hoax even though it enjoys widespread popularity, which should never be confused with consent. We should close the case against the great Constitution by reminding its apologists of their reluctance to demonstrate evidence that Article VII acquired legitimacy such that it could be used for its ostensible purpose. Perhaps cops and soldiers, too, need better education about the counterfeit law that they’ve sworn to uphold. We might even suggest to them on rare occasions when they are inclinded to listen that no natural law obligates a person to sympathize with cops and soldiers when they fulfill roles assigned to them by people who are eager to organize crime under the color of law and on the pretext of establishing order.