Ohio State Sen. Capri Cafaro Proposes Official Oversight of Would Be Homeschoolers

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/597010.html I'm not sure what to make of this proposed legislation. I have mixed feelings. On one hand home education should not be allowed to be used as a smoke screen for abuse, and/or other potential crimes. Besides this case, as well as this other even more notorious case http://www.thenation.com/article/nightmare-christianity#, there is also the perceived risk of some homeschoolers turning into terrorists. Case in point http://www.globaljihad.net/view_page.asp?id=226. But as Home Education Magazine points out, http://unschooling.com/homeeducationmagazine/child-abuse-under-the-magnifying-glass-is-there-room-for-growth-for-all-of-us/. And I do not think that homeschool families should be singled out for undue scrutiny. I tend to feel that this is more of an example of a government official wanting to at least seem as if she's trying to do something about this problem. But I rather doubt that in practice it can be all that effective. Especially with the Children's protective services being so overwhelmed and underfunded. Like, if they failed to be able to keep this teen boy safe, after concerns were reported, how does State Senator Cafaro expect that social workers will be able to keep up with all of the parents who request permission to homeschool? Also, a number of homeschooling parents have this sense of entitlement, in that they think of home education as being a divine right, rather than a priviledge granted by the state. So they will be liable to just not notify the state of their activities, and homeschool underground. But as I referred to above, there is a problem of various cults whom educate, more like indoctrinate really, their children at home. Incidently, not only Christians, but also Muslims are engaging in home education http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/21/muslim-families-turn-to-home-schooling/?page=all. And while I'd like to think that many, if not most of these families are peaceful, and law abiding, would it come as a surprise if the political powers that be might feel inclined to want to keep tabs on such people? But I am not convinced that this approach would be all that effective. Plus I feel that if the state, in the interest of child welfare, and public safety, were to thusly intrude upon homeschooler families, they should also conduct investigations into all other familes as well. Only some might think that would be an invasion of privacy. But my point is just that homeschoolers should not be singled out, and unduly impeded by bureaucracy. The problem is not so much that of home schools, but rather cult schools. Yet, in spite of what some people seem to think, homeschoolers are not by and large as socially isolated as Sen. Cafaro seems to think they might tend to be. I mean it's not likely that there will be a case altogether like the plot of "Thr3e", which is both a psychological thriller novel, and film, by Ted Dekker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thr3e_%28film%29 If state involvement is to be deemed to be necessary, I feel that it should simply consist of evaluation, and medical examination, such as it is in Pennsylvania. http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/overview_of_homeschooling/20312 , http://home.comcast.net/~askpauline/hs/homeschoolmedical.html As both medical personel, and licensed teachers, as evaluators are required to be, are required by law to report indications of abuse, and/or neglect. And, this has actually worked to stop child abuse. For example, in this one case I know of, there was a Schwartzentruber Amish girl whom was severely mistreated by her family. And, a nurse whom examined her helped her to get away from her adverse circumstances, as related in the last story in this article http://legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp And I don't think you can get more social isolation than the Schwartzentruber Amish. So in my opinion, while the education, health, and well being of children is an important public concern, intrusive government involvement is not called for..

Proposed County Charter Would Create a Corporative State

So I just received in the mail, a copy of a proposed county charter, which you can read here, http://newashtabula.wordpress.com/ashctycharter/. I am personally opposed to this planned change in government. With it's administrator, and economic developement commission, I feel that it will mean the rise of creeping, cryptic, social fascism. This would obliviate the difference between the public, and private sectors, and create a corporative state, with crony state capitalism. The tax payers will then have to foot the bill for business expenses, which would only serve to favor special interests, rather than simply the general welfare. I do not feel that economic developement planning by itself can effectively better the standard of living, and/or bring about financial prosperity. After all both Stalin, with his five year plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union, or Mao, with his "great leap forward" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward, were able to completely,effectively manage the resources, and businesses, of the nation. So I feel that most ideally, the socio-economic system should be made up of co-operation between voluntary associations, instead od governmental regimentation, and patronage. Corporatism is most unamerican, and many persons fought, and died to combat it. But as many voters are ignorant of political science, I fear that this ballot proposal might very well pass. For the majority of the people would not recognize fascism if it bit them on their collective rear, and if it were to return under another name, they will tend to be taken in by such a social movement, and will come to support it. But, as for me, I favor a co-operative commonwealth libertarian munincipality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Commonwealth_(society)#Co-operative_commonwealth. But, at any rate, it should by rights be the people as a whole whom shall be entrusted with determining the type of social system we all have. And we shall receive the regime we most deserve, for better or worse.

Americans Accross the Political Divide Oppose Military Action in Syria

And in case anyone reading my blog secretly feels I might be a kook, for having doubts as to the justification, and even the motivation, of the proposed air strikes against Syria, I'm not alone in this regard. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/proudly-patriotic-but-skeptical-on-syria-attack.html Plus, for what it's worth, and if anyone cares, Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee stated that he wondered if this might be like the film "Wag The Dog", in which an American president launches a war under false pretenses, in order to divert adverse attention from domestic problems. http://video.foxnews.com/v/2654379993001/syrian-conflict-threatening-the-us-economy/ I've heard it said, by those on the left, that Obama's administration is as if it were another term of George W. Bush. But I think that it's more like a remake of Clinton's, when we got embroiled in various military interventions, such as in Somalia, and Afghanistan. I remember, I was around back then. And I do not feel that it made America more secure from terrorist attacks, as evidenced by 9-11-01. I'm just glad that it's Democrat in office, as president, so that the Republicans, both elected officials, and registered rank and file members, will tend to more so have the strength of their convictions, in opposing government excesses, just as I remember it being when Clinton was in office, as opposed to Bush 2. But I also think that all those whom believe in the value of voting should come apart from the two major parties, which are disgraced by both incompetence, and injustice. I feel that all good charectered Democrats should join the Green Party, and that all well intentioned Republicans should go over to the Libertarian Party. Only then will I expect we will be able to enjoy a new birth of freedom, and peace.

Plot Allegedly Uncovered Concerning a False Flag Operation in Syria

It now appears that the Obama Administration has been implicated in a conspiracy, in cahoots with radical islamists, such as Al Qaeda, which largely make up the so called Free Syrian Army, to launch chemical weapons, and then blame it on the regime of Bashir Assad. If this account is true, then it would parralel the attack on Poland, commited by Germany, under the authority of Adolf Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler As you should be able to see, from the link I provided, what is alleged has eery similarities with what the Obama administration supposedly is up to, in inciting the U.S. military to intervene in the ongoing civil war in Syria. I trust that in time the truth of the matter, whatever it might be, will be revealed. But at any rate, I do not feel that it is called for American forces to enter into this foreign military affair. Not only are none of the combatants altogether justified in their respective actions, with Assad acting as a sponsor of, and conduit for Iranian supplies to, Hezbollah, and the Free Syrian Army made up of radical islamists, who've commited attrocities themselves, but also Turkey, amongst other Middle Eastern nations, have already sided with the FSA rebels, and France plans on following suit. The only side within Syria that I feel support for is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coordination_Committee_for_Democratic_Change. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.

Right-wing Terrorist Groups Threaten to Take Over Rural Villages

Yesterday I saw this on tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_uAPO9vv2Y As I've mentioned before, I was born in PA. And spent part of my life growing up there. There tends to not be all that much of a local police force. So mostly the residents just provide for their own self defense. But this situation is not simply a gun club formed with the intention of hunting wild game, and protecting one another. The group in question constitutes a paramilitary political gang. It's starting to resemble the social situation that existed in Weimar Republic Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_paramilitary_groups And worse than Jamel, Germany, of today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10065697/Little-welcome-for-strangers-in-Germanys-neo-Nazi-village.html. So I feel that if the state has it's hands tied, and/or is unwilling to confront the problem, then the left should form it's own armed partisan group to counter the aggressive hostile threat. Sort of like the "Reichsbanner" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold Only I fear that the center-left liberal establishment might prove to be lilly livered. So what might come to be would be a far-left militia, reminiscent of the "Red Front" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund What I find to be frustrating, and foolish though is that it seems that the powers that be, and the public at large, are more alarmed by the militant left than the fanatical right. I mean if someone were to publicly have displayed a Vietcong flag, such as this ,like how certain people on the right display a Confederate battle flag, and then go out into their back yard, and practice shooting with an automatic rifle, and.or handgun, I imagine that a sizable number of residents would become concerned, and inform the police, or perhaps even form a vigilance commitee to take matters into their own hands, rather than to feel compelled to have to simply put up with it, until the stuff hits the fan, so to speak. In answer to Thom Hartmann's question, about what I'd do if beset by such a scene, if I myself were to have a gun in my vehicle,I likely would have openned fire upon his "constitutional security force". Certainly, if there would ever be a time for pre-emptive attack, it would be then, in facing an imminent threat to the safety, and order, of the public. And this is also why I've largely lost confidence in this government's competance in securing our homeland from attacks. They can not seem to even get a handle on the various street gangs, much less private militias. And then when they do attempt to investigate reports of shots fired, they wind up hassling the likes of me. Presumabley because the authorities have become aware of my philosophical anarchist sentiments. I mean, in a way I get it. After all it was a self described anarchist whom assassinated Pres. William McKinley. But that was an example of a fanatical ideologue. Most left-libertarians, including your's truely, only justify using violence in countering aggression, in order to protect ourselves. And the state should only be cracking down on people who are overt threats to the public, not simply for the point of view they might hold. And, just as I'm not like the Weather Underground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground ,in all fairness, not all conservatives, even the old right, are like this right-wing paramilitary outfit. So we should all be held to account due to our actions, rather than our opinions.

Bill Is Introduced To End Exemptions For Closed Workshops

http://harper.house.gov/press-release/harper-authors-bill-provide-fair-wages-disabled This is a rare occasion when I actually have praise for the actions of a Republican office holder. :) I have long been a foe of Goodwill Industries, stemming from my own experience having been sent there for evaluation, by the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. I actually consider them to be an example of modern day indentured servitude. And besides not paying much, if anything, they also lock the workers inside, while they're in operation. This is not only confining, but also potentionally dangerous, given what happened in this one case http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/p/trianglefire.htm, and also this http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/factory-workers-locked-flames-spread/story?id=17832077. So I feel that under equal protection of the law, such enterprises should not be permitted to be exempt any longer. America is supposed to guarantee liberty, and justice for all, regardless of social status, and/or special needs. I first read of the public awareness being raised about this issue in this article. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal?lite I wanted to address some of the comments made by some of the persons interviewed, First off, there are a number of people, not simply those whom are regarded as being disabled in some way, which is actually a broad category which would include neurodiverse persons such as myself, who have such conditions of a PDD http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/development-disorder, whom would be willing to work for free, in return for sustainance. However, as of yet, we do not live with a gift economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy , where in there is no cost for anything, and Goodwill certainly is making substantial profits off of the products they sell, and the labor they exploit. If however you feel that a job well done should be it's own reward, then you are what's known as an anarcho-communist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism. Now I have no quarrel with such people, but I think that Goodwill might take issue with it, and deny them the so called opportunity of fulfilling work, given this one case. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html Now some people might be thinking, even with all of this being said, that those with various special needs might be in need of vocational rehabilitation, in order to prepare them for the workforce. But who gets to decide who is qualified to be given gainful employment? I'd suppose that such businesses as Goodwill, who utilise such bond laborers will want to keep them for as long as they can get away with it. Unless the "client", as they call their wage slaves/indentured servants, happen to be older. Then they give them credits right off the bat. And furthermore, if such a program were required of every person, before they may seek employment in the job market, the people would regard it as being state sponsored bondage, like something out of Mao Zedong's China. And in response to such a policy, there would be a popular revolt, like perhaps with guns, and the like. So why expect others to do what you yourself would find to be intolerable? I do not feel that it's elitist to have self respect, and to demand to be treated fairly. Oh yeah, by the way, already in certain places those on welfare are being forced into unpaid labor, as my one British counterpart blogger posted about. http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-workfare-slavery-tory.html, http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/letter-fans-workfare-slavery-tory.html So these are all of the points I can think to make at this time. So I will close by expressing thanks to Rep. Gregg Harper, of Miss. I consider his action on this to be worthy of the historic political party of Abraham Lincoln. I just hope that it shall pass, and subsequently be signed by Pres. Obama. But I suppose that it will receive not only bipartisan support, but also bipartisan opposition. But at least it's a worthwhile try.

School Boy Is Chided For Intervening In A Knife Attack.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/06/was-a-canadian-student-punished-by-his-school-after-stopping-a-knife-wielding-classmate/  As a philosophical anarchist, I often here the refrain that if anarchy were to take effect, it would lead to chaos. I like to respond by asking what do you call what we have now, if not chaos? I actually feel that if persons were empowered to take initiative, in handling interpersonal/social problems, then such threats could be directly nipped in the bud, at a grass roots level, before it would have opportunity to develope into a stronghold of violent crime. I therefore support a do it yourself approach of indivisual responsibility. Now this certainly does not mean that there are never times when one should seek help from others, or that violence is always the best way to deal with conflicts. We should certainly not resort to becoming vengeful vigilantes, lest we set off a vicious cycle of violence. But sometimes just, and proportionate force is called for in dealing with dangerous situations. And furthermore, I would like to address what I see as being the hypocritical, and nonsensical, atiitude which people such as namely Americans have towards violence. If someone, such as Briar Maclean, the boy mentioned in this story I linked to, get mixed up in a fight, though no one is killed, or even seriously hurt, he is faulted. But, if someone goes overseas to fight in a war, and ends up killing many people, including inadvertantly civilians, he will be lauded, and if killed honored with a memorial shrine. And religions, such as namely Christianity, do not help matters either. For it has a seemingly incoherent view of violence. It's position ranges from nonresistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance#Christian_theology, to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Compassionate_belief_and_religious_influence, with the more nuanced view of Just War Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory in between. But more than this, I've noticed that Christians tend to cite various Bible passages, that are alternatately pro, and anti- violence, however they feel is convenient to suit their purposes. If you study the Bible, with the standpoint of "tota scriptura", it will be left to you to try and make over all sense out of it's precepts, such as pertains to the existance of violence, and what our position should be in relation to it. Now speaking for myself, as one whom might be described by some as being a Christian deist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism, I adhere to the non-aggression principle http://nap.univacc.net/. Though probally most Christian anarchists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism abide by absolute pacifism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism. But whatever principled position you might take, let's resolve to acts as we deem fit, in not only pursuing happiness for ourselves, but also the wellbeing of others. We should not have to be made to feel dependent upon the government in being benevolent. The welfare, and warfare, state can not do as optimal a work as voluntary mutual aid, and mutual defense, between persons within a given community. And upon such time as the people are altogether mature enough to be able, and willing to do so, the only sort of government we shall have will be self-government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance, which in my view is the best government.

Snowden Shows How The Secret Police Are Violating Civil Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-basic-liberties_n_3414824.html As I have suspected for some time now, according to the testimony of Edward Snowden, whom I consider to be an exceptional example of an honest, conscientious, government agent, the various intelligence agencies have been using their expanded powers to spy on Americans. As part of the "Prism" program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), telecommunications, and digital data can be accessed, and recorded. Now, if this were specificly used to target known enemies of the U.S.A., and were subject to the due process of the law, I would not have a problem with it. I think that it would be necessary in order to keep current with the modern digital information age. However, as I've pointed out before, in prior blog posts, it's not just groups such as Al Qaida that are being focused on, and the operations aren't altogether taking place within the scope of the criminal justice system. In fact, comparabley to Nazi Germnany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichssicherheitshauptamt, various police agencies are now collaberating together under the direction of the secret police. http://rt.com/usa/fusion-center-director-spying-070/ And as I've alluded to if you're either left, or right of center, and might have opposition towards, and/or concerns about the government, you might come under suspicion, and even under fire, by the secret police, and their storm troopers. Look, if their is a valid concern about an imminent threat, then they should be permitted to get a warrant in order to investigate, and if needed apprehend suspected seditionists, and saboteurs. But we should not be targeted, and subsequently persecuted, simply based upon our opinions. Just think about it, if the federal government were to have possessed this power, and followed this policy, during the time leading up to the Civil War, it would have used it to crack down on abolitionists. Remember, the Fugitive Slave Act was in effect. And the raid on the Harpers Ferry arsenal was carried out by a fanatical abolitionist, John Brown.  http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html So, abolitionists would have been regarded as being criminal subversives, just as like how today anarchists such as myself will tend to likewise be viewed with animosity. But before some of you start to think that we have it coming, due to our opposition to institutions of power in our society, including the state, I for one, amongst others strictly adhere to the principle of non-aggression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle / value of non-violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violence. So I do not feel that it would be justified to initiate force for any reason, not even to try to effect desired social change. And also, as I mentioned earlier in this article, it's not just those on the far left whom are being suppressed, but also various persons who are old right. http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/were-all-terrorists-now.html, http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/ So just because you might think that you're a good person, who has done nothing wrong, and therefore should have nothing to hide, and be worried about, doesn't mean that the powers that be will automaticly agree. Sometimes those in government might become prone to jump to conclusions, and over react. Which is why it is necessary for us to have the protections of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, in order to keep the political powers in check. P.S. To those whom might be thinking that it's my fault that all of this is happening, since you presume that either I voted for Obama, or did not vote at all, you'd be wrong. Eventhough I largely consider myself to be a libertarian Democrat http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat, I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein, as I have been concerned about a number of Pres. Obama's policies, such as the NDAA. I feel that we should always strive to vote for candidates who are pro-freedom, and I also prefer that they be in favor of social justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice as well. So that's why I sometimes will vote for Greens over Democrats. But also, to any right-libertarians, and/or disgruntled Republicans, whom might be reading this, I feel that the Libertarian, Gary Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson was not all that bad a choice either. And I hold no hard feelings towards those who chose to vote for him.

The Second Amendment Needs Clarification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/opinion/rewrite-the-second-amendment.html? Coincidently, I was thinking about this very thing, and share the sentiment of the author. The only thing I would add is that virtually no one understands what the Second Amendment really means. What it had intended to do was to create a system much like what still currently exists in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland ,http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/21/gun-violence-proposal-militias-second-amendment-nra-obama/ So basicly, this constitutional amendment was intended as a "nuts to you" directed at the notion of a professional standing military. What the framers wanted to avoid were "few, and proud marines", for example. Instead they wanted for the people to be empowered to defend both themselves, and their free state. But from what I've been seeing, conversly, people whom support gun rights in this country also are expressing support for the military. I disagree with this attitude. If we entrust our protection to an armed elite, then what's the sense of even having civillian firearms ownership? The Ohio State Constitution puts it even more explicitly. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=1&Section=04 But with that being said, another thing that gun rights extremists seem to forget is that the U.S. Constitution was initially drafted in response to the abuses of the right to bear arms, as it pertained to Shay's Rebellion http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html. And during The Whiskey Rebellion, the Federal Government used state militias to suppress the use of private civillian firearms against the government. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/ , http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment.html The last time that this system was used in America was during the Civil War. My one ancestor, Stephen Duncan Burns was part of the state militia sent to quell the rebellion of secession, and guard Pennsylvania from invasion. http://www3.familyoldphotos.com/photo/pennsylvania/7358/stephen-duncan-burns It seems that after the Civil War however, the Federal government no longer tended to trust the people to responbibly defend itself, without potentionally commiting sedition, and/or other violent crimes. And so the Second Amendment has since been disregarded in various ways. P.S. I haapen to know from personal experience that in Western PA. , the spirit of the Whiskey Rebellion still lives on. Pres. Barack Obama's remarks, however blunt perhaps, were spot on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html It's practicly a functional anarchy over in the backwoods country. Rather than keeping up any sizable local police forces, they just tend to rely on their own selves, and guns, in solving problems, and settling disputes. It's just the way that it's traditionally been. And it might even explain somewhat my own libertarian political tendency, left-wing though it be. :) So if you ever decide to visit our fair state, keep in mind that "don't tread on me" is not merely a slogan, it's a way of life.

The Christian Right's Pervasive Underlying Anti-Semitism

I'm sure that we've all heard about Islamic anti-semitism. In fact, unfortunately the Islamic world seems to have picked up where Christian Europe has left off. But fewer people seem to realise the anti-semitism promoted by a number of Christian right groups. http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9405/antisemitism.html If this expose creates a backlash for me, then so be it. Ignorance, and intolerance, are things every decent good natured person should stand up against. And I myself have noticed how the rhetorical charecteristics of key Christian right figures, and groups, namely Christian Reconstructionists/dominionists, resembles, and is even at times identical to the propoganda of Nazis. The only real subtle difference between the dominion theologians as a whole, and more specificly Christian Identity, and/or Kinism, is that the former only seek Christian religious supremacy, while the latter also seeks white racial supremacy. People can rest assured, or if they are the above mentioned enemies of democratic freedom, can be forewarned, that I shall continue to both address, and counter, the extremism of the ultra-right. Just as people in the west like to call on both current, and former, adherents of Islam to denounce the excesses of their religious background, so shall I, as an ex-christian denounce the excesses within my former faith. All those whom sincerely love freedom should use their recognised legal civil liberties to counter those who would threaten to undermine a free secular society, just as ironicly enough, the fascists, and various theocratic fundamentalists use the rights they are afforded, in order to challenge the very foundation of civil society. They are like a cancer upon the body politic. We should not allow the enemies to get the better of us, by using our freedoms against us. Amongst the rights we should exercise is our right to bear arms. I do not care all that much which weapons you choose to own, and operate, whatever the established laws in your country/place of residence permits you to have, as a civilian. I myself prefer to use a crossbow, as it is silent, so you have the benefit of stealth, if and when you go to take out a target, in combat. Also besides not having shell shock, you also avoid the blow back, which you get from guns. But I certainly don't begrudge gun owners, as long as they are both law abiding, and safety conscious. To those whom might over react to my advocacy of armed preparedness, I am refering specificly to the perverbial collapse of society itself, comparable to what Somalia has experienced. I am not trying to endorse the initiation of force, eventhough it might be justified if we were to adhere to the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare. But I do not adhere to this notion. Instead I abide by the "non-aggression principle". It's just that I do not wish for the people to be caught unawares, if like during the days of the Weimar Republic, we might need to form resistance groups, such as either the Reichsbanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold , German Iron Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front, or the Red Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund, depnding upon your exact political persuasion. We might even have to stage an armed revolutionary insurection, such as is the film, and graphic novel series, "V for Vendetta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta. Who says that survivalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism is only for rightists? I assert that survivalism, including various forms of self defense, and combat, should be considered a fundamental part of a D.I.Y. lifestyle approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_ethic. The most important thing is to become fully aware of the nature of the enemy, and their tactics, in order to be enabled to counteractively respond accordingly. And, as an apostate/defector from the Christian right, and it's diverse movements, and subcultures, I feel particularly qualified to take up the task of taking on the potentional threats, and problems, caused by it's pernicious presence. P.S. No I'm not simply trying to lump together everyone in the broad category of the political right. I know that they can range from old right palaeo-conservatives to new right neoconservatives, and also various strains of right-libertarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism. I, as a left-libertarian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism oppose them all, to some degree. However, I recognise that the approach used in opposition should vary depending on the exact situation presented by the nature of the political position. Anarcho-capitalists, a type of right-libertarian, share my commitment to non-violent political action, and so are not regarded by me as being an enemy, in the same manner that I regard the theonomists. I mean their ideology I find to be rather pathetic, and therefore unfeasible in practice, but they are still friendly towards freedom.

People debate gun control measures, in the aftermath of shootings.

I've noticed that lately various people, from both sides of this issue, are concerning themselves with gun control, since the senseless, tragic, killings, by such persons as Adam Lamza, and James Holmes. I myself have mixed views, on this subject, as one might imagine. First off, here are some posts I'd made about it, on my Facebook page, which in the interests of annonomity, I've made private, in regards to this blog. 

"And now some words from Fm. Pres. James Madison, on the second amendment, and gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ume73vmDqQQ Also thses articles from "The Daily Beast" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-adv...ocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/how-we-can-regulate-guns-using-the-second-amendment.html. The framers of the Constitution were actually concerned about such incidents as the "Whiskey Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion , and also "Shay's Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion. And so the Federalists crafted the Constitution, in order to strengthen the powers of government." "

I just recently read posts on Facebook, made by people who feel that school shootings such as what took place in Conn. , are a fairly recent developement, and even is a sign of moral decline. Well, as a student of History, just let me tell ...you that they are wrong. http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states Murders took place back in the "good old days" too. And even if the would be shooters were to hear that murder is ungodly, and/or unjust, as I'm sure they all had, at some point in their lives, human nature with it's base impulses would still remain the same. There is a good story which illustrates the existance of both yetzer ha ra (bad nature), and the yetzer ha tov (good nature) http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html. So that's my commentary on this tragedy, seeming as just about every other person on Facebook has already posted something on it. P.S. Sometimes, as I well know, from on-line aquaintance, someone might react violently in adverse response to religious upbringing, which he deems to have been oppressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings. So not all religions are positive. Some might actually be repressive, if not abusive, cults. But as long as persons have free will, and we all do, and there's no one who can completely suppress that, these sorts of things might continue to happen. For man has ill will at times, not just natural virtue. So we'll all just have to cope with it the best we can, and try to make the best of it."

  Now with that being said, I do respect the general right of the people collectively to bear arms, in defense of both life, and liberty. In regards to a perverbial future anarchic society, I like to imagine that the possession, and use of firearms will be confined to a citizen's militia. Sort of like what has been had in countries such as both present day Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland , and the former Czechoslavokia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Militias_(Czechoslovakia). I am of the opinion that as long as the guns are all registered,  it's owners liscenced, and/or authorised to possess them, and are operated safely, and away from all residential areas, the right to bear arms should not cause any undue amount of violent crime. Now I know that on one end, there will be anarcho-pacifists who might contend that all weapons are invalid, and that we should all just take the high road by not using violence for any purpose. There are actually anarchist based intentional communities, such as most notably "Christiania" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#The_community. And on the other end, there will be anarchists whom feel that there should be a recognised indivisual right to bear arms, without any preconditions. As to the former, while I respect the right to particular communities to make their own standards concerning conduct, in accordance with self determination, I myself advocate the principle of non-aggression, rather than non-resistance. I feel that the lives of good natured persons should be considered to be of more value than of any aggressive adversary that might attack. And in regards to the latter, would you seriously want to afford the same right to bear all manner of weapon to such ilk as neofascists, islamists, and/or dominionists? Because I sure don't. I feel that the common good, and defense, of the people should take precedence over the permissive liberties of various persons. But of course, indivisual intentional communities may rightly set their own standards in dealing with the issue of weapons possession, and use.