Position Statement

by LF

The impetus behind Laissez Firearm was my observation that most of the pro-gun sites on the Web are BORING. For every page containing stirring rhetoric or useful scholarship, there are hundreds which simply offer mossy quotes from Madison/Jefferson/Washington/etc., the same handful of "borrowed" articles that everyone on our side has already seen, links to familiar allies, and plenty of gratuitous flag-waving.

That approach gets deadly dull after the first few dozen exposures. If I wanted to endure endless assoholic lectures, I'd vote for Al Gore.

Personally, I got into bangsticks because they are fun.

So if you came here looking for wondrous arguments which can convert your anti-gun pals, you yanked a wrong turn. To put it as succinctly as possible: FUCK THEM.

Are we clear on that? Swell. Now, the other reason for this particular essay was that it became apparent that I needed to add a "Libertarian 101"-type bit at the start of the page after several e-mails came in accusing me of exhibiting schizoid tendencies because my wildly pro-gun articles (supposedly a "conservative" thing) appeared to some to clash with my calls for an end to the Drug War (supposedly a "liberal" thing).

I'm not going to waste any space going over the various pros or cons here since if you are interested in either issue you've undoubtedly heard from both sides ad nauseum. As long as you still have at least two brain-nubbins left to rub together, I'll trust that you can figure out which "solutions" will result in a reduction of State control over our lives. Anyways, it's perfectly consistent for me to hold those positions, and it is an easy bet that I am vastly more resolute in my devotion to both causes than 90-some percent of the medical waste that infests Congress.

How many "pro-gun" politicians would be willing to repeal the 1934 law which regulated machine guns, silencers, and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns? Or the 1968 law? Or the various Reagan-, Bush-, and Clinton-era laws? I can think of maybe five or six out of 535. I am for the elimination of them all, because I value freedom.

How many "pro-drug" politicians are actually pushing for outright legalization? I can think of maybe three or four. The rest are maneuvering to get the money currently spent on punishment re-routed to treatment, or are pushing for ADDITIONAL money for counseling and the like. The first would represent merely a shift in State power, the second would actually increase it. I am for the elimination of all drug laws, because I value freedom.

Does that mean that I think that schoolkids should be free to buy assault rifles and cocaine? Sure, why not? See, back in the old days there were these things called parents, who were held responsible for the welfare of their offspring. It's high time to pull those people out of the closet, knock away the dust and mothballs, and see if they can't do a better job of raising their own children than our current army of shitheel bureaucrats who gleefully line their pockets and wipe their asses with wagonloads of our tax dollars.

There are a handful of "liberals" I respect, but none are in Congress. And I'm probably never going to vote for another Republican again because they've consistently proven that they're only interested in creating some privileges for themselves while hanging on fiercely to the ability to inflict pain on any groups they don't happen to like.

In case you have not heard, the government grew faster during the first four years of a Republican-controlled Congress than it did the previous four years under the Democrats. So it took them what, a couple of weeks or months to change from lean, mean tax-cuttin' machines into consummate PorkMeisters? What a surprise. For example, look at their constant slobbering after per-kid tax credits. How is that any different from traditional socialist human engineering? Why should the childless be forced to subsidize the hellish spawn of others?

They also slapped us with the Lautenberg Amendment, now law, which strips people ever convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors of their right to own a gun for the rest of their lives (and the system is so screwed-up these days that "domestic violence" can and does include mickeymouse "offenses" like ritual door-slamming, because that purportedly generates an "atmosphere of intimidation"). That bit of legislation managed to kill off ANY remaining urge I had to get married or even shack up, as our Republican pals have handed any potential partner the ability to permanently dick me over. Imagine it: "Mister Firearm, we're here to confiscate all of your guns because you were convicted of throwing a pot full of Spaghetti-O's against the wall, scowling, and using harsh language after catching your wife boinking a Jehovah's Witness."

On the other side of the aisle, one of the slanders that the Pol Pot Left in this country constantly spew is that capitalism is "unfair," which serves as the sum total of the intellectual basis behind their redistributive policies. That's such horseshit. If anything, the free market is the most scrupulously-fair system yet devised.

For instance, if the creepily-effeminate actor Leonardo DiCaprio is better than anyone else at making the braces'n'ponytails crowd gush at both ends, then he is perfectly entitled to whatever chunk of the gross ticket revenues his shark agent can gouge out of the film studios. More power to him. If nothing else, I'd much rather watch him shoot all that money into his arm than see a single penny of it wind up in the hands of some social do-gooder. People who fail to make it do not earn a halo which permits them to steal from others, or to have their self-appointed guardians do the thieving for them.

One of my favorite stats of all time was the relatively recent revelation that 70-some percent of the Welfare budget goes towards bureaucrat salaries, perks, and the construction of offices for them to molder in. An alternative system that would probably be mucho cheaper would be to allow citizens to simply send in a letter to the Treasury requesting assistance, along with a copy of their tax form from the previous year. A check could then be cut for any shortfall under the pre-determined amount X. At least then we could get rid of the sanctimonious assholes who glory in tending to the poor like a horde of sheep-fucking farm hands.

And if that sounds harsh, let me state that I think that ALL corporate welfare should be ended first. And since their vile bag man Bob Dole is now out of the way, I suggest that we start with the sleazy cruds at Archer-Daniels-Midland.

For me, the point is not to rig it so that your team holds the reins of power, it is to eliminate the gawddamn power. Unfortunately, that just ain't in the game plans of the RNC or the DNC.

(Further, notice that I always refer to myself as a small-"l" libertarian. The LP has its problems too, but since they have not done squat election-wise, at least none have to do with how they manage to screw over taxpayers.)

Enough ranting. There are plenty of places where you can learn more about libertarianism, and it's no surprise that many representatives can make it sound much more palatable. Actually, most of them are nice, polite, and level-headed. Personally, I've given up on trying to convert people as I think the clock has already run out, and thus don't bother to sugar-coat my own views.

Up the spout