My two cents on the prohibition of guns

I just unsubscribed from the boldprogressives.org mailing list.  Why?  Because I received a message from them asking me to join their push to pressure lawmakers to pass "common-sense gun legislation".  That's a fancy way of saying "make it harder for people to get guns that can kill other people".

Although I lean progressive, I'm also for increased freedom.  That means I'm opposed to less freedom.

I want everyone to have the freedom to do whatever they choose so long as it doesn't violate someone else.  Owning a gun - any kind of gun - violates no one in and of itself.  It's how the gun is used that carries that potential.  I was under the impression murder is already illegal. Prohibition is by definition the restriction of freedom.  I'm not down with that.

Listen, unlike many of my friends, I don't dig guns.  I don't own one, and I rarely fire one.  I'm a dude who believes that if you want peace you must be peaceful.  But I'm not going to join anyone in the push to keep other people from a freedom so important the founders of the American nation saw only freedom of expression as more important within the Bill of Rights.

Are you aware that a man in China attacked a bunch of school children with a knife the day before the Connecticut shooting?  People in America are "up in arms" over guns.  Kind of ironic, huh?  They want to ban this gun or that gun.  Hell, what if they were successful in banning ALL guns?!  Would they try to outlaw cutlery next?  That's just ridiculous.  People need it to cook.  Even if they did, the darkness in human hearts is what kills people.  Not weapons.  Weapons are just tools.  Take one away, another can easily be chosen.  Easily.

Besides, when has prohibition of anything ever worked?  How's that working for pot smokers?  How did that work with booze in the '20s?  We got the gang wars.  Prohibition of drugs today fuels the same thing, just making a few people rich off the danger.  The danger that is created by prohibition!  The danger that would be eliminated by ending prohibition.

Also, it is my spiritual belief that we are all born sovereign beings.  You do not have the right to remove choices from other sovereign beings, much in the same way our country does not have the right to dictate what another sovereign nation can or cannot do.  Yet, we operate as if we do.

Obviously there has been a noticeable surge in incidents of gun violence.  It's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to think we should restrict access to guns to keep these things from happening.  I just don't think less freedom is going to make us safer, and I believe there's evidence to show that any time society tries to restrict something it simply adds to the danger attached to whatever it is.  It makes me sad to see good people caught up in the furor over guns.  Guns didn't kill the those poor kids in Connecticut.  Adam Lanza did.  At least that's what we've been told.  We've also been told he killed himself.  If his mission was suicide, he could have made a home made bomb and accomplished the same thing.  He could have slit their throats with a cook's knife before jumping off a bridge.

Outlawing guns will never keep guns away from killers any more than the Drug War has kept pot away from college students.  It will just make them more expensive, and more dangerous - while making every one of us just a little less free to make our own choices.  

Fluoride Free Kansas releases Vote No ad

Fluoride Free Kansas has put together an excellent new advertisment explaining why Wichitans should vote against water fluoridation in the November 6 election.  I would encourage all who pay for and use Wichita's tap water to watch, like - and most importantly, share - this video!

Cincinnati Police seize cameras at public meeting

Normally, I would leave it up to Adam Kokesh to inform you about this sort of police state activity.  But as he's been temporarily shut down, I'm going to make whatever noise I can.  Nature abhors a vacuum. 

Monday night in Cincinnati, two activists had their cameras seized by a police officer at the request of staff for Congressman Steve Chabot.  The meeting was a public town hall type event, held in a public building. 

Now, there were apparently signs posted saying cameras were not allowed.  The congressman's spokesperson claimed they ordered the seizure “to protect the privacy of constituents”.  But this is allegedly The Free World, and that's not good enough.  If a public representative holds a public meeting in a public building, it's public!  There is no right or guarantee of privacy in such a setting, nor should there be!  Perhaps the consituents of Cincinnati AND their representatives should all go look up the word "public"!

So, what's the big deal?  The two activists were given back their cameras after the event.  No harm, no foul, right?

Wrong.  The "big deal" is this sort of occurrance is symptomatic of a growing problem in the alleged Land of the Free.  Report after report surfaces of police seizing cameras, whether it's because they don't want some act of their own to be visible to the public at large or because they've been told to do it by the hired staff of an elected official who isn't even their boss, it is not the roll of law enforcement to forcibly take footage or video capturing devices! 

Our society really needs to ask itself why it values secrecy so much.  Who does it really protect?  What's the harm in as many people knowing the truth about a particular event as possible?  Secrecy is the enemy of freedom.  We The People need to demand those hired or elected to serve us stop pretending seizure of cameras and footage is a legitimate use of power.  We must nip this trend in the bud, so to speak, before it blossoms into a full on clamp down on the spread of information!