A bit for Kirkules.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 05:29
VIEWED: 558
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, November 3, 2008 12:58 PM

I dug up an old speech by L Neil Smith that I felt appropriate to this moment in time, every bit as valid now as it was in 1987.

======================
== THE ATLANTA DECLARATION ==

by L. Neil Smith

WeaponsCon I, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1987

Future of Freedom Conference, Culver City, California
November, 1987

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual,
civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry,
openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun,
_anything_ -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

Someday to demonstrate that principle -- before I'm lying on my
deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before
arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches -- I intend to
walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip,
unmolested by any freelance or official parasite.

The question is, how do I get there from here?

In the 80s we are witnessing the rise of a New Victorianism (the sort
of mindset which prefers the word "limbs" to "legs") aimed not so much
at human sexuality this time around (although that's happening, too)
as the human capacity for violence.

Victorian times weren't characterized by sexual abstinence. Many
of today's kinkier turn-ons originated in that era of repression,
hypocrisy, sublimation, and guilt. Whenever any basic human function
is repressed, behavioral distortions arise.

The claim today is that weapons are evil, that anyone dumb enough to
try protecting himself will come to a bad end, that violence is always
wrong, that non-violence is always and unquestionably right. Never
was the persecution of a minority more persistent than that of gun
owners, nor more hypocritical. Like any other law, gun control is
enforced at gun point. Those preaching non-violence are lobbying
to license thugs for the purpose of imposing their views on others,
unleashing against innocent people the deadliest weapon ever devised:
government.

Repression never helps. Violence, like sexuality, is a morally
neutral, perfectly natural capacity, linked with the survival of the
species and the individual. A pseudo-morality of non-violence only
serves the interests of established authority and other criminals
by disarming the decent and making them helpless victims of evil.
Charles Manson was a product of this pseudo-morality. So was Jim
Jones. The only way to create a less violent society is to face the
phenomenon honestly and openly, just as courageous thinkers like
Havelock Ellis once did with sex.

History's most revolutionary ideas seldom blow bugles announcing
their arrival. The work of Gregor Mendel, the first geneticist, went
unnoticed for decades. And even otherwise well-educated individuals
have trouble pointing to the time, place, and party responsible for
the invention of the Scientific Method.

Likewise, another intellectual revolution has occurred in recent years
that Dan Rather never told you about: the Non-Aggression Principle, a
product of honest, open, courageous Libertarian thinking about ethics,
states that "no one has the right, under any circumstances, to
_initiate_ force against another human being." This is all
Libertarianism consists of, no more, no less. It's the most important
thought ever generated by the mind of man. Those who act consistently
with it are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who
fail to act consistently with it are not Libertarians, regardless of
what they may claim.

Recorded human history and what we can infer from archaeology goes
back some eight thousand years. In all of those eighty centuries, the
one question we see being fought over most bitterly and killed over
most brutally and died over most horribly has always been "who shall
have the power to tell others what to do?" To me, the answer has
always been self-evident. Yet for me, growing up has largely consisted
of becoming convinced that this was just one more way in which I

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I dug up an old speech by L Neil Smith that I felt appropriate to this moment in time, every bit as valid now as it was in 1987.

======================
individuals -- otherwise highly
principled but with certain phobias about accepting the responsibility
for their own physical safety which contradict not just their
political beliefs, but reality itself, haven't much liked the results.

...I figured I would offer that for you to ponder on, since my beliefs on many things run about 80-90% concurrent with his.

Lots of his other stuff can be found here.
http://keithlynch.net/lns/
And an especially interesting What-If graphic novel you might like... here.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

Instead of bashing heads with folk like me, you just MIGHT ponder the things we have in common, especially since I am right damn sure that imma need as much help as I can get in dumping sand in the gearboxes of folk come Nov 5th.

And since most of the so-called conservatives around here will pout and whine and throw temper tantrums cause they didn't get their way and will not be of any help, I figured to address someone Conservative who might actually be, you know, adult about it.

Am I wrong ?

-Frem

Not so much...

We all got on this boat for different reasons...

All give some...

Some give ALL...

Been readin' on 'The Probability Broach' a while now...

Recommended !

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 5:29 AM

Damned good story, innit ?

I like Lucy, she's like a female version of me right down to the passel of cats.

I looove their little discussion about airline security in Chapter 17, so much meaning rolled in that little bit of snark.

And yes, there really WAS a Gabbet-Fairfax MARS Automatic pistol.
http://www.horstheld.com/0-Mars.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Automatic_Pistol

It was rejected cause of it's brutal recoil and due to the fact that since it ejected the spent brass directly backwards, it could not be aimed conventionally and had to be shot from the hip, cowboy style.

Still, you seriously wouldn't wanna catch one from a G-F-M, it'd be equivalent to being holed by an M1911.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it