NH Activist and Free Keene Supporter Makes National Waves

Because of ignorance on the part of most Americans and their reliance on a deceptive (or know-nothing) media!

Zeus, the reason for it does not matter, not for tactical purposes. We must work with what we have. Just as it didn't matter why William had that sign, so it doesn't matter why people reacted poorly to it.

I will watch how YOU do open carry activism the “right way”, but until you DO that we’ll both know you are full of shit.

I open carry my Glock 23 in a black Galco FLETCH holster every day, and in a considerably less firearm-friendly place than NH!

That said, I am very grateful for all constructive feedback. I seek the truth. We all make mistakes. With more eyeballs, the bugs are shallow. Et cetera.

attendees at such meetings should be allowed to carry loaded guns?

Who owns the property where the meeting is to take place? The decision is up to that person.

Actually, no, that doesn’t go for “anything”; I hope we could agree that a gun is potentially more dangerous than a leaf, for instance.

Don't be willfully ignorant, Ann. We're not talking about leaves and you know it. If, however, you let your kids run around the neighborhood without supervision, you're being careless. If you leave a chainsaw, an ax, a nail gun, a hammer or any other potentially dangerous tool out in the open, you're inviting danger. If you leave the keys in the car while you're kid is in it, you're being careless. If you poke someone in the face with a stick, you shouldn't be surprised if you damage their eye.

The point here being, as you well know, that people need to take responsibility for the things they do and the mistakes they make because they can have fatal consequences. Shifting the blame to the object for which you didn't take proper care of or for which you ignored safety precautions is YOUR fault and no one else's.

As to whether you are in fact “Pro-Liberty” is certainly open to question. And of course human beings respond to various inanimate objects differently. You see no connection at all between the amount of gun violence we have in this country and the sheer number of guns in circulation here?

I've seen the statistics, Ann. Places like DC and Chicago are hellholes of crime because the criminals are armed and the populace isn't. When the populace has the power to protect themselves, the criminals go elsewhere for easier marks.

We've seen what happens in "gun free zones".

If you're worried about gun violence, your best defense is for moral people to be armed and vigilant. If you trust yourself and others from going crazy just because they wear blue, be my guest.

By the way, do you recognize any limitations to the armaments/weapons an American citizen can own? How about machine guns, or biological or chemical weapons? Tactical nukes, once the technology enables it? Any cut off point, or is it all good?

Biochem weapons and nukes wouldn't exist if governments hadn't sought them out and financed their creation using your money and mine without our permission. And no, I don't believe anyone should have those particular things as they're not defensive weapons. They're weapons of genocide. Big difference.

Uh, no. Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto.

And of course, they are YOUR laws as well; I haven’t the slightest doubt that you abide by them and fund their continuation and enforcement. If they were so intolerable to you, you exercise any number of alternatives at your disposal.

I didn't write those laws, I didn't vote for those laws and didn't agree to abide by those laws. That I haven't violated them has more to do with me having a strong moral center, not being a violent person and not seeking control over others or their property. Not because I actively sought not to break or follow any specific laws.

As for funding them, I live my life in a way where any such funds being stolen from my pockets are minimal and, in many instances, zero.

What are you doing to reduce the violence and theft of the state, Ann?

I agree that the choice of whether to own a firearm is an individual one, and should remain so. The right to legitimate self-defense must remain in a person’s hands.

Something we finally agree on.

By the way Zeus, is it your opinion that American citizens are facing debilitating restrictions in terms of obtaining firearms? Since we are simply awash in guns, I’m not seeing what all the paranoia is about.

The paranoia, as you call it, is because history has show time and time again what happens when a country falling toward fascism disarms the people.

Ann, I have no idea how to get the message across to you as to what is happening to this country. You simply haven't been exposed to the same news most of us have, you don't have a solid pro-liberty center with which to process the information you do receive, and you place far too much trust in government and the mainstream media.

I don't know how old you are but I've been told time and again by people in their 60's that they've seen this country's golden age. That in many ways, Americans are less free now than they were in the 40's, 50's and 60's. And certainly, for those of us who grew up in the last few decades, everyone was orders of magnitude more free prior to 2001.

The country and everything good it was supposedly built on — reason, justic and liberty — are being thrown down the toilet. Everywhere you turn, the people no longer have any control over the monster that is government. The system is completely broken and something needs to fundamentally change. If we sit around and ignore it, it will only get worse.

Some have decide to join the FSP. Within that, some run for office, some do civil disobedience or non-cooperation and some just spend their time being free people among like-minded persons.

The majority, however, still thinks they can change the system by voting for Universal Cog A or Universal Cog B. Both Cogs are nearly identical and both are flawed.

I'm sure those who seek power and control over the people would like us all to go away. But even if they silenced us all today, however, more would rise up against them tomorrow.

You can't stop the inherent human desire for freedom.

@GEORGE DONNELLY

"Who owns the property where the meeting is to take place? The decision is up to that person."

George,

As I mentioned, the meeting is in a public place; here's what I wrote:

"Assuming that a Town Hall Meeting held by a President occurs in a public place, is it the opinion of the brain-addled denizens of this site that attendees at such meetings should be allowed to carry loaded guns?"

So, what's the answer folks? Since so many of you assert that the right to own and carry arms can't be legally abridged, and that guns are simply neutral, inanimate objects, isn't it safe to assume you think that having people carrying loaded guns attend a meeting with the President of the United States in a public place is a perfectly fine idea?

@Vix

"Well I personally dont believe in public property."

Sounds like someone thinks that the right to bear arms is subject to circumstantial infringement, doesn't it? If not, why dodge the question?

In terms of alternatives, an obvious one that humans have exercised over the millennia is emigration; by the millions, people have left places they considered oppressive and settled in environments they felt were more congenial to them and their beliefs. Choosing a place to live can be thought of as similar to choosing any product; if you don't like one brand, you choose another. But of course you and your fellow nutcases would never make that choice, because 1) you love it here; 2) you know, deep down, that many of your notions are exaggerated at best and preposterous at worst, and this is reflected by the fact that they haven't been adopted by any functioning society on the planet; 3) the problem isn't "government", it's your neurosis, and you will tend to carry that with you wherever you go.

Sounds like someone thinks that the right to bear arms is subject to circumstantial infringement, doesn’t it? If not, why dodge the question?

No, it sounds like he's gathering information regarding property rights, because — as you must know by now after all the hours you spend on this site — property rights are the core principle on which all other rights are based.

If the owner of the property decides armed visitors are not welcome, then you respect his or her wishes and either don't come at all or leave your weapon somewhere safe.

You'd know that, however, if you spent two-minutes of research by watching the Philosophy of Liberty video. Of course, then you might get cooties or have an epiphany and I'm sure the latter frightens you most of all.

In terms of alternatives, an obvious one that humans have exercised over the millennia is emigration; by the millions, people have left places they considered oppressive and settled in environments they felt were more congenial to them and their beliefs. Choosing a place to live can be thought of as similar to choosing any product; if you don’t like one brand, you choose another.

And we've chosen New Hampshire to emigrate to. Lucky you!

Just think of NH as a company we and our native NH friends are buying shares in. Eventually, we'll perform a buy-out, becoming the majority stockholders and then all the statist parasites like yourself can go pound salt.

I hear Taxachusetts is great for someone of your… predatory predilections.

But of course you and your fellow nutcases would never make that choice, because 1) you love it here;

Well, it's hard not to be somewhat attached to the places that forged many a memory, where most of the people you know happen to live and where all your stuff is.

Of course, the cure to that is the Free State Project. We come to New Hampshire in the spirit of peace and freedom to make New Hampshire even more peaceful and free! Smile for the camera!

2) you know, deep down, that many of your notions are exaggerated at best and preposterous at worst, and this is reflected by the fact that they haven’t been adopted by any functioning society on the planet;

What we know is that your system is broken and it can't be fixed so we're each doing what we think is best to make it go away or at least render it harmless. And if our notions haven't been adopted by any functioning society on the planet, well shit… look at 'em all. Most of them are still playing with communism or democracy or some other untenable notion doomed to failure just like the Roman Empire.

Don't you worry now, though. Things are startin' to accelerate as people finally realize that the system they've got now is like being on the deck of the Titanic and our movement, based in peace and liberty, is the only one with life-rafts.

3) the problem isn’t “government”, it’s your neurosis, and you will tend to carry that with you wherever you go.

If by "neurosis" you mean "the light of liberty", then yes, we will carry that where ever we go.

If you're feeling nostalgic, you still have some time to enjoy the tyranny while it lasts. Go ahead and pay some taxes, ask a cop to ticket you and vote for some scumbag politician. We'll still be here when ya get back.

3) My home is wherever I decide it is.

She's gonna jump all over that one like a piranha. Seriously, you should have seen her go after a guy who misspelled.

So I hereby submit the following addendum:

3)My home is wherever I decide it is…

a) …so long as I have a just, moral claim of ownership on the property (such as an honest exchange of value for value) or

b) …the permission of the property owner.

Fine print: Governments, having attained their group wealth through theft and murder and often using the deceptive alias of "the public", are illegitimate as property owners in any manner beyond private individual ownership with their own justly acquired wealth like everyone else.

@GEORGE DONNELLY

"Public… Which government then? I guess it doesn’t matter since both the NH and US constitutions are clear that the right to keep and bear arms is inviolable. You know, if it wasn’t for the fact that these politicians have glommed so much power and insist on keeping it, they would have nothing to fear."

Well folks, there you have it. George Donnelly believes that it would be fine for attendees at a public meeting with the President to carry loaded weapons. Will anyone else man up and either agree or disagree with him? It really is a very simple question to answer.

Exactly. Obama could specify in the contract that no firearms be allowed in the hall where he is to speak.

So AmazedReader you are oversimplifying the libertarian position.

But I don't care if you scream to the hilltops that I have no problem with people being armed in the presence of the president. I can defend that. And even the secret service agree with me, so hey, can't be all that controversial!

One other thing, Zeus. Regarding FreeKeeners bleatings about the right to videotape on "Public Property": if you don't think such a thing as public property exists, what do you imagine they're talking about? Or is it just another one of those typical FreeKeener bits of disingenuousness: refer to "the law" as something that must be followed (according to the way you interpret it) when you wish to; when you don't simply declare that the law isn't valid, or that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't apply to you. Such a deal.

I’m sure the Secret Service would be completely sanguine about the notion of people carrying loaded weapons to a Presidential speech or meeting.

I see that went over your head. The secret service are people. And they are armed.

I assume that the next time you go to hear a President, Senator or Representative speak, you won’t feel any hesitation about bringing a loaded gun, if the fancy strikes you?

Why would I go hear a thief sweet talk me? Around here the thieves do house calls, we don't have to go to them.

Again, amazed, if the politicians weren't stealin' so much, there would be no need to worry about people exercising their right to self-defense.

She just battles back and forth with a select few people and ignores the points she can't argue with. At least that's how I interpret her lack of response to my direct response to her.

Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record. This has been confirmed repeatedly by the Hawaii Dept. of Health, as well as the state's Republican Governor, Linda Lingle.

The legitimacy of the Certificate of Live Birth has also been confirmed by the non-partisan site Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_bor…

It seems that so people simply can't believe that the country's most powerful political figure is a (gasp) "Negro". Paranoia about payback being a bitch, I imagine. Or perhaps it's the old mentality of the segregationist, to wit: "If I ain't better than a n*gger, who AM I better than?"

ZEUS: Actually AnAmazedReader has been right 2 times that I can remember the 1st being on the comments section of Dave's interview of William when the one called WAYPASTHADENOUGH called for us to use/support violence against the left/the state. He correctly pointed out that most if not all of us here won’t support violence as the means to get freedom.

Who decides what’s immoral and unjust, Zeus? You?

Ann, the wonderful thing about the philosophy of liberty is that it's so simple and logical that anyone who can be intellectually honest with themselves for about 8 minutes can master it and not need me or anyone else to hold their hand when using it to figure out what is just and moral in nearly any situation that presents itself.

To pretend right and wrong don't exist or that it's impossible to determine one from the other is a cop-out used to avoid responsibility for one's actions.

Ann,

People do, and will act according to their beliefs. Currently, an overwhelming majority believe murder is immoral, and defense against murder is moral. I am sure there are a few who do not. If those few choose to attack others, they will find that those others will defend themselves against the attack, and they won't get very far.

Similarly, suppose an overwhelming majority believed the initiation of violence is immoral, and defense against it moral. If a minority in that context believed theft was ok, for example, and they choose to steal from others, they also probably wouldn't get very far.

I am sure, Ann, that you can ask questions without being insulting, if you try.