8 Comments → “Boston T. Party: The Future of the Second Amendment Post-Heller”

1. 
   

   KBCraig
   

   Mar 29, 2009

   I’m surprised that BTP was out of date on one question, that of the “contiguous state”. Since 1986, federal law allows you to purchase a long gun in any state, not just contiguous states, so long as both states’ laws allow the purchase.

   I’m also pleased to find that his in-person presentation is vastly at odds with his online persona; I never cared for the latter. I found him magnanimous, gracious, well-spoken, and humorous. I already knew he could present an intellectual defense of the right to keep and bear arms, but it’s nice to see he does it in person as well as he does in print.

   Reply
2. 
   

   George Donnelly
   

   Mar 30, 2009

   Hmm, I found his online persona to be consistent with the in-person experience.

   btw the scientology youtube ad is a bit weird in juxtaposition to this topic…

   Reply
3. 
   

   freddy k
   

   Mar 31, 2009

   hmmm,sounds as if gun control is starting.seems they have to get the gangs and criminals to abide by it.cant see the guys buying a gun out of the back of a escalade worring about it at 3am.just who does it hurt?

   Reply

4. Apr 08, 2009

   Liberty-Lovers Need Both Guns AND Honey | George Donnelly
   

   Reply
5. 
   

   Jake Witmer
   

   Apr 13, 2009

   Scalia is an idiot and a traitor, and if there’s a hell, he should burn in it. Apparently, he’s also an illiterate idiot and traitor. Who writes a ruling on individual gun rights, without reading “Unintended Consequences”?

   Scalia’s interpretation of Miller is grossly unconstitutional.

   There is no freedom at all left. Just google “Frank Turney v Alaska”. Sentenced to jail and humiliating community service for handing out pamphlets about jury rights to citizens, in front of a courthouse in Fairbanks.

   The anti-gun assholes are wrong about everything, but they never bother to check the facts. They could care less about the facts. They are murdering assholes who pave the way for democide, and hysterical panicked sheep who support them.

   I think our reactions to them should be emotional. We hurt ourselves by confining ourselves to logic.

   When your neighbor or co-worker says some anti-gun BS respond with these talking points:
   http://web.archive.org/web/20070115025334/www.john-ross.net/mistakes.htm

   Respond with hostility. They want your life, they want your children’s lives.

   Boston is right. His book “Molon Labe” is excellent. I strongly recommend it.

   Also recommended:
   http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com
   http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com

   -Jake

   Reply
6. 
   

   Jake Witmer
   

   Apr 14, 2009

   My email, published and shared: jake.alfg@yahoo.com

   Another few things: -Boston is right about the Feds’ desire to restrict travel. One more thing: The Feds can devalue the currency at will. Losing control of our money, we’ve lost our freedom. The demand for a $250 passport (or Canadian “PAL” –personal arms license– to travel through Canada, would have made my last trip through Canada unaffordable, if I obeyed the law, and took my firearms to the lower 48 from Alaska). Later on, as the economy shrinks because our dollar shrinks, we will not be as able to afford to travel. The illusion of freedom is there, …but the actual exercise of freedom is restricted. We think “we haven’t lost the right, they’ve just made the right expensive.” ..But really, at that time that they were ceded the right to control the expense of an exercise of freedom is when we lost the right, because the government views all rights as collective –if you can’t kill them if they take it away, it isn’t a “right” (it’s simply an exercise of freedom they haven’t yet managed to fully eliminate).

   This is why Boston’s comment: “You’re not what you believe, you’re what you’ll fight for.” Is true. And along those lines, I need to talk to that gentleman from CIR, because http://www.nevergetbusted.com and http://www.kopbusters.com were recently shut down by their online credit card processor by Authorize.net, PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon.com “Never Get Busted” sells effective DVDs that tell people how to protect their 4th amendment rights while transporting marijuana. –All of the CC processors caved in to threats and harrassment from the DEA and Texas drug interdiction. “NGB” is currently looking for any payment processor brave enough to stand firmly in defense of free speech. (Amazon shut them down on the same weekend that they caved in to pressure from the religious right to “demote” homosexual storylines and books in their search results. So gay sexual sadism stories are now demoted in search rankings below wholesome family straight sexual sadism stories that used to appear side-by-side. …LOL. Ideally, there will be unity in opposing this “back door” censorship.)

   To Answer David Nolan’s question (paraphrased) “Why are some states that are better on gun rights worse on other rights?”: I don’t think it boils down to the “Republican v. Democrat paradigm”. (That doesn’t answer the question anyway). I think it boils down to what people put into their “religion/unquestioned authority” meme-space in their mind. When they were children, they were taught that a certain class of knowledge should not be questioned, that it is “for the best”. They were severely punished if they questioned it (because of their parents’ fear of “raising bad kids” or “being viewed as bad parents”). …It boils down to irrational beliefs and social ostracism. Anything that people don’t understand, they look to find an expert opinion on, and the “best thing” that they hear (the thing that triggers their emotions the most, or the thing that makes the most sense at the time) is what they then parrot until something “superior” supplants it (and by superior, I mean, the thing they predict as being most likely to give them comfort in their world). The older someone is, the more likely their current memes have been tested, and if they still hold them, they likely have withstood tests, and are thus “strengthened”. The only thing that can overcome a “strengthened” or “encounter-tested” meme is this:

   New evidence that that meme will no longer continue to aid their survival, and in fact will do the opposite: it will put them in jeopardy of physical danger, embarrassment, or failure of some kind.

   That’s why Stefan Molyneux’s prescription of extreme social ostracism works, but only for respected members of the community. If you are envied or very able in some respected way, you can change more minds than if you are a “losertarian” or “povertarian” or “crazy philosopher”. (Even other libertarians won’t respect you then! Trust me on this. The first thing they look for before they decide whether or not to think about your ideas is whether or not you have letters after your name! Nevermind the quality of the ideas themselves… LOL)

   But nobody wants to be thrown out of a store because they don’t support gun rights, and have the store owner say “Git outta here, you fuckin’ coward! –thud!– Now scram, you piece of shit!” Few people will even risk silence and awkward stares. (A big part of the reason I think that libertarians should always be totally friendly, able, helpful, cheerful –because we have the same job that christian preachers have. We are selling something that prevents death and hardship in the long term, but increases the likelihood of discomfort or death in the short term. As with Christianity, our practical “reward” is in the future, and cannot be grasped by those with limited reasoning ability. We need to convert our “future promises” into immediate incentives and disincentives. This is also true for our own activists, and the media attention they will generate. Immediately, as a jury rights activist, you can feel the pleasure of “doing the right thing” by helping to find a drug user “not guilty” so that their lives aren’t ruined. Immediately, as a videotaped activist, you can feel the adrenaline rush that the courthouse cop feels as he confronts you. Immediately, you can feel the pleasure of watching him back down as you stand your ground, and refuse to leave. Immediately, you can go home, and upload your video to one of several video networking sites, like fora.tv , youtube.com , kopbusters.com , liveleak.com , etc… Immediately, you can call the local news and ask them if they would please feature the attempt to suppress jury rights activism at the local courthouse, and that you have footage you can send to them. If you have an arrest to feature, that’s even more of a story. If you have a website with nice graphics that they can also feature that has the scales of justice or something equally “non-whackjob” on it, that’s even more “instant gratification” and “instant feedback” for the media and the libertarian activists. …Nothing works without this, because it doesn’t feel like a movement that has a specific GOAL.)

   Why waste time pursuing something that may take years, if there is no attainable goal? That fails almost everyone’s personal “cost / benefit” test. …Especially those without an axe to grind (such as those in the media).

   And as far as more social ostracism? Ladies, here’s your cue: (To Steve Dasbach’s credit, he seems to have understood this, and had some nice interns on the news when Harry Browne ran. I heard more about them from male college students than I actually saw myself…)

   No guy wants a pretty girl to walk away from his advances because he doesn’t support gun rights. Example: “My brother went to jail for a gun offense. (looks choked up for a second) …Just leave!” (LOL!)

   We fail to learn how to interact socially at our own risk. Most libertarians appear too “intellectual”. We are the cattle that quietly bear an expression of concern, while everyone is happily chewing their cud (drinking their beer) on the way to the killing gate. Whereas, if we appeared to be similar to the others, we’d be more likely to start a “stampede”.

   But the parasites continue to happily march onward towards the concentration camps, because libertarians are not really withholding their support for the current system. We continue to give them the benefits of our efforts by participating with them. We continue to give them our labor, and thus our blessing. We continue to befriend them, after they have rejected the idea of freedom. We fail to show up at courthouses to prevent tyranny in significant numbers, as we would if it were our kids going to jail (Sure, we’ll show up occasionally, but not every week! Not as if it was our “top priority”)! …Therefore, we can safely be ignored.

   Has anyone else payed much attention to the jury rights activism problem? Jurors typically enter for 2 hours per week. They enter the courthouse not knowing how jury rights have been eroded, or grossly unprepared to shield their intellect during “voir dire” (read “Surviving Voir Dire” by Clay Conrad). They then go into the court, and are railroaded into returning “guilty verdicts” to people accused of victimless crimes. Often, jurors apologize (for being stupid pieces of gullible and easily-manipulated human waste that are willing to drop the hammer on their fellow man because a man in a black dress told them to) for their verdicts (as in the recent case of pornographer “Max Hardcore” who was found guilty of “obscenity” AKA “not making porn that brainwashed christians would admit to watching”).

   Individual judges fight tenaciously against jury rights activists. They hate them, if they are there for any longer than one day, they send the courtroom police out to crack their skulls, arrest, or intimidate them. Typically, the jury rights activists lack the balls and backbone to press onward, and call their bluff (while videotaping it, in case it’s not a bluff, but a powergrab). If that happens, they might be arrested for “jury tampering” (google Frank Turney), or arrested under the new Federal Statutes, TITLE 18, Part 1, Chapter 73 SS 1507. (prohibits speaking to jurors, or anyone involved with a trial, with the “intent of influencing the outcome” — a prohibition on telling the truth, and a prohibition on justice!), and SS 1508. (prohibits recording of juries or courtroom proceedings)

   All that said, jury rights activism is one area where the public would likely side with us, (or the country would fall into violent rebellion, because the right to free speech would have been lost, and noone intelligent could deny it). Another possibility is that the public would start to side with us, and it would mean that the state backed down, because the word was getting out about jury rights.

   So how else can we see how soft and unwilling to defend freedom our current libertarian movement is?

   Well, let’s see, …

   …John Mackey continues to sell the left-fascist masses their healthfood groceries, and has, in fact, caved into their “demand” that he get rid of those pesky ballot access petitioners in front of his stores (you know, the ballot access petitioners who place his political party on the ballot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) You heard me right: John Mackey is such a friend of freedom that he not only doesn’t ostracize fascist behavior, he allows his corporate board to go along with it and promote it! (Am I to believe that if he said: “Gentlemen, Whole Foods respects the reasons why America is different from Soviet Russia. I better not hear any more about polite petitioners being told they have to shut up and shop, or leave our stores. It will be up to the managers, but if someone is politely asking someone to sign a piece of paper that reduces the fascist lack of choice at the ballot box, they will be allowed to stay. …Especially if they are in favor of our right to free trade.”, …that his wishes wouldn’t be respected? Seriously?) …But we expect NOTHING from our fellow libertarians.

   Peter Theil’s PayPal is one of the online CC processors that refuses to tolerate “material which promoted illegal activity”. OK, fine. Does Marquis de Sade’s “120 Days” “promote” torture and murder? It might. …If a federal agency says so. Until then, they’ll crawl on their bellies like the dogs they are, and “not rock the boat” demanding their rights be upheld. Would PayPal listen to Theil if he gave them advice now? Is contractually bound to not criticize them? …I don’t know. But I also haven’t heard back from him.

   …Not too many people really care about actual freedom. (Well, maybe that’s not fair. I think Boston cares, I think George Donnely cares. I think T.J. Rodgers cares. I think Wayne Root cares. I think Barry Cooper cares. I think Andy Jacobs cares… But I can’t keep going for very long. Most other people have an “intellectual” interest in freedom.)

   Fascism is tolerated by libertarians. Our organization and informational structures are not as sophisticated as those of the police state (and the Libertarian Party is as willing as the Democrats and Republicans to hang its best supporters and workers out to dry). …Therefore we lose to the police state.

   If we ever get serious about fighting the police state, using peaceful methods, then maybe I didn’t just waste the previous 9 years of my life as a ballot access petitioner and “coordinator”, delving into the psyche of Joe Sixpack.

   Then again, perhaps we’re being “phased out” in favor of a more hive-like human. Those who perform violence will be “military worker bees”, those who perform every other task will also be narrowly-specialized. It will be possible for any military “worker” to kill any non-military worker with a simple snap of the wrist. Everyone will work for the Federal Reserve “drones”. Intelligent anomalies that refuse to specialize will be executed without due process (much like Soviet Russia).

   Perhaps humanity is actually separating into two species, and in the future, the aliens who find our wreckage will declare:

   “It looks like the more intelligent ones could have made a go of it in 2010, but they simply didn’t have the will to fight like the more numerous ones.”

   I’m going to share my email. More communication is better (I get a perverse pleasure out of being told to “How wrong I am” …LOL). But call me in the morning, because I’m about to go to sleep.
   jake.alfg@yahoo.com

   In closing let me just say that I appreciate the hell out of Boston’s books, and enjoyed his speech immensely. I appreciate all the FSPers, and especially the jury rights activists in New Hampshire, and Wyoming.

   Of the two suggested states, I come down more in support of Wyoming, especially after reading Molon Labe. (Or Alaska, since a person like me who was willing and able to travel all over Alaska would be more likely to effect change, but a person like me could not afford to travel all over Alaska, since that also means flying a lot. I could theoretically afford to drive all over Wyoming, although I cannot now afford to do so, and the LP does not choose to be selective in whom it pays to do ballot access –hence the 5 states of failed ballot access and DC in 2008. …And before any blithering idiot chimes in to point out that I was employed by Bob Barr in WV, and WV failed, I should mention that WV failed because I was put in a subservient position to two self-important mongloids known as Shane Cory and Russell Verney. I will never again work for a statist infiltrator of the LP, even if it’s only for the purpose of his being a ballot access placeholder.)

   At this point, it’s starting to look like the LP is heavily infiltrated.

   …Which in some ways is good. …If it were our own simple stupidity, I would say that things were virtually hopeless (as a blind man on a beach in Thailand asking people how to get to the Detroit bus terminal as the tsunami approaches) I expect that the LP will continue to fail until they make clear how much serious issues of freedom mean to them, and put it on the web in video.

   Defending your right to put a couch in front of your house is not a “serious issue” or a “reason to go down swinging”.
   Preventing someone you don’t know from going to jail for a long time over a drug, gun, or tax offense IS.

   Demanding your right to videotape in a courtroom is a little better. It’s “on the edge”, but you will lose a lot of easily-confused people who just think you’re “being rude” for the sake of rudeness. (Remember, they don’t have principles for the sake of preventing long-term systemic damage, or protecting individual freedom. They have “issue-based” belief in specific individual rights that are designed to “accomplish something”. If you make a stink about being able to record courtroom goings on, that doesn’t speak too highly of your end-goals, since “they prioritize getting someone out of jail”, but can’t argue against “higher level” statist arguments themselves.)

   Why not hidden-camera videotape and defend with lawyers something that everyone agrees you should have the right to do? Thusly, the guy who works for pizza hut will say “I agree with that guy that they arrested in front of the courthouse”. Rather than: “I don’t know why he was wasting his time.” Is this not the totally obvious way to go? DO you NOT want the public support that comes from predicting overreach of the law? Do you not want to BUILD the movement?

   We need to be smarter than them.

   Am I one of maybe ten people (on the right side) who has even a rudimentary understanding of this stuff? You can bet that our masters at the Federal Reserve understand all of this basic stuff.

   Charlie Shumer understands it. Did you see him grill Roberts over the interstate commerce clause? He understands the utility of a rifle well enough to get twenty of them pointed at each of us.

   Our enemies understand this stuff at a deep level, even though they don’t know anything (or care anything) about economics, justice, or philosophy. The ONLY thing they care about is strategy for maintaining their power (that stereotype is true). We supposedly want to win power (so we can decontrol), but don’t appropriately value the effort of learning how to do so.

   How is it that I know that there will be some Konkinite who criticizes my comment about “winning power” (without looking at the libertarian context it sits within), because libertarians like to fight each other (an easy victory, and the comfort of failure), but they hate to talk to non-libertarians (or have no idea how to do so).

   Get a job where you get paid to talk to people (sales). Get taught how to talk to people. Read “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Read “Winning Elections” by Dick Simpson. Walk your precinct with FIJA materials, and claim that you have the answer to the loss of freedom. Some people will be interested. …Make friends with them. Start adding hours to the time you’ve spent with your constituents.

   …Or be quiet, and be happy with the tyranny you live in.

   Bon Chance,

   -Jake

   Reply

7. Oct 21, 2009

   One Nation, Under Surveillance - Homeland Stupidity
   

   Reply

8. Nov 13, 2009

   Your Optimal » Blog Archive » Boston T. Party, aka Kenneth Royce
   

   Reply

Leave a Reply