<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Minor Thoughts &#187; guns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minorthoughts.com/tag/guns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minorthoughts.com</link>
	<description>In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:02:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Heinlein Defines Our World &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.com%2Fculture%2Fheinlein-defines-our-world%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BHeinlein+Defines+Our+World+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Fculture%2Fheinlein-defines-our-world%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BHeinlein+Defines+Our+World+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libertarian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/culture/heinlein-defines-our-world/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In the course of defending Robert Heinlein’s position on firearms from David Brin, Eric S. Raymond offers up a view on the staggering impact that RAH has had on the world we live in today.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(When time has given us perspective to write really good cultural histories of the 20th century, Heinlein is going to look implausibly gigantic. His achievements didn’t stop with co-inventing science fiction and all its consequences, framing post-1960s libertarianism, energizing the firearms-rights movement, or even merely inspiring me to become the kind of person who not only could write The Cathedral and the Bazaar but had to. No. Heinlein also invented much of zeitgeist of the 1960s counterculture through his novel Stranger In A Strange Land; it has been aptly noted that he was the only human being ever to become a culture hero both to the hippies of Woodstock and the U.S. Marine Corps. I am told that to this day most Marine noncoms carry a well-thumbed copy of Starship Troopers in their rucksacks.)</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the course of defending Robert Heinlein’s position on firearms from David Brin, Eric S. Raymond offers up a view on the staggering impact that RAH has had on the world we live in today.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(When time has given us perspective to write really good cultural histories of the 20th century, Heinlein is going to look implausibly gigantic. His achievements didn’t stop with co-inventing science fiction and all its consequences, framing post-1960s libertarianism, energizing the firearms-rights movement, or even merely inspiring me to become the kind of person who not only could write The Cathedral and the Bazaar but had to. No. Heinlein also invented much of zeitgeist of the 1960s counterculture through his novel Stranger In A Strange Land; it has been aptly noted that he was the only human being ever to become a culture hero both to the hippies of Woodstock and the U.S. Marine Corps. I am told that to this day most Marine noncoms carry a well-thumbed copy of Starship Troopers in their rucksacks.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3434" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Fculture%2Fheinlein-defines-our-world%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BHeinlein+Defines+Our+World+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Re: Fort Hood&#039;s Shootings</title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Flaw%2Fre-fort-hoods-shootings-2%2F&amp;seed_title=Re%3A+Fort+Hood%26%23039%3Bs+Shootings</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Flaw%2Fre-fort-hoods-shootings-2%2F&#038;seed_title=Re%3A+Fort+Hood%26%23039%3Bs+Shootings#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:43:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libertarian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.com/?p=1391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I believe <a href="http://minorthoughts.com/politics/re-fort-hoods-shootings/">this post</a> finishes our site&#8217;s libertarian conversion. We now occupy the same portion of the libertarian spectrum that <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">LewRockwell.com</a> occupies.</p>

<p>I don&#8217;t like America&#8217;s wars of aggression. The problem, as I see it, is that it can be hard to tell the difference between a war of aggression and a good preemptive defense. For instance, I&#8217;m still not convinced that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I&#8217;m not sure what risk we were defending ourselves against.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Afghanistan was a necessary war. You give safe harbor to people who blow up part of a city, you die. It&#8217;s just that simple. But I think that we should have left a while ago. I&#8217;m not sure that we&#8217;re accomplishing anything worthwhile by propping up a corrupt Karzai government. I know about the fear that that terrorists will get Pakistani nukes and attack us with those. But I&#8217;m not sure how likely that scenario is or how fragile Pakistan&#8217;s own government is. So I&#8217;m not sure if what we&#8217;re doing is preemptive defense against a nuclear scenario or whether we&#8217;re engaging in blatant imperialism for no good return.</p>

<p>But I am grateful for those who do decide to join the military and protect our borders. I respect their loyalty, their sense of honor, and their dedication. I don&#8217;t always agree with their mission but I know that I&#8217;m not qualified to judge how necessary each mission is. As a result, I do sympathize with them and with their families. For this attack, especially.</p>

<p>The Army, for its own inscrutable reasons decided that stateside military bases should be gun-free zones. That strikes me as absolute lunacy. Had someone removed this nut months ago when it became apparent that he was a nut, soldiers would be alive today. Had someone decided to allow our soldiers to carry the guns that they were trained to carry, more of them would be alive today.</p>

<p>I have a lot of sympathy for people who are hamstrung and betrayed by their own leadership. Incidents like this raise a lot of questions about whether a bureaucratized military is the best way to protect a country. I&#8217;m not sure that it is. The institutional Army protects its turf quite fiercely, even when that turf isn&#8217;t worth protecting. Instead, I&#8217;d like to see us get back to the old way of doing things: no standing army and a fully armed citizenry that stands ready to form an ad-hoc army as conditions warrant.</p>

<p>Michael Z. Williamson envisioned a heavily armed libertarian society in his book <a href="http://www.webscription.net/p-162-freehold.aspx">Freehold</a>. I rather like it. And I can think a large portion of our current military would like it too. I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re in the military because they&#8217;re thugs. I think they&#8217;re in the military because it&#8217;s the only institution we have that will allow them to arm up and stand on the borders, protecting those within. Getting called upon to engage in dubious ventures is an unfortunate cost of being a protector. And that&#8217;s why I sympathize with them.</p>

<p>And, just for the record, I think <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy72.1.html">this LewRockwell.com post</a> is more than a little nuts itself.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe <a href="http://minorthoughts.com/politics/re-fort-hoods-shootings/">this post</a> finishes our site&#8217;s libertarian conversion. We now occupy the same portion of the libertarian spectrum that <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">LewRockwell.com</a> occupies.</p>

<p>I don&#8217;t like America&#8217;s wars of aggression. The problem, as I see it, is that it can be hard to tell the difference between a war of aggression and a good preemptive defense. For instance, I&#8217;m still not convinced that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I&#8217;m not sure what risk we were defending ourselves against.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Afghanistan was a necessary war. You give safe harbor to people who blow up part of a city, you die. It&#8217;s just that simple. But I think that we should have left a while ago. I&#8217;m not sure that we&#8217;re accomplishing anything worthwhile by propping up a corrupt Karzai government. I know about the fear that that terrorists will get Pakistani nukes and attack us with those. But I&#8217;m not sure how likely that scenario is or how fragile Pakistan&#8217;s own government is. So I&#8217;m not sure if what we&#8217;re doing is preemptive defense against a nuclear scenario or whether we&#8217;re engaging in blatant imperialism for no good return.</p>

<p>But I am grateful for those who do decide to join the military and protect our borders. I respect their loyalty, their sense of honor, and their dedication. I don&#8217;t always agree with their mission but I know that I&#8217;m not qualified to judge how necessary each mission is. As a result, I do sympathize with them and with their families. For this attack, especially.</p>

<p>The Army, for its own inscrutable reasons decided that stateside military bases should be gun-free zones. That strikes me as absolute lunacy. Had someone removed this nut months ago when it became apparent that he was a nut, soldiers would be alive today. Had someone decided to allow our soldiers to carry the guns that they were trained to carry, more of them would be alive today.</p>

<p>I have a lot of sympathy for people who are hamstrung and betrayed by their own leadership. Incidents like this raise a lot of questions about whether a bureaucratized military is the best way to protect a country. I&#8217;m not sure that it is. The institutional Army protects its turf quite fiercely, even when that turf isn&#8217;t worth protecting. Instead, I&#8217;d like to see us get back to the old way of doing things: no standing army and a fully armed citizenry that stands ready to form an ad-hoc army as conditions warrant.</p>

<p>Michael Z. Williamson envisioned a heavily armed libertarian society in his book <a href="http://www.webscription.net/p-162-freehold.aspx">Freehold</a>. I rather like it. And I can think a large portion of our current military would like it too. I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re in the military because they&#8217;re thugs. I think they&#8217;re in the military because it&#8217;s the only institution we have that will allow them to arm up and stand on the borders, protecting those within. Getting called upon to engage in dubious ventures is an unfortunate cost of being a protector. And that&#8217;s why I sympathize with them.</p>

<p>And, just for the record, I think <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy72.1.html">this LewRockwell.com post</a> is more than a little nuts itself.</p>
<p></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Flaw%2Fre-fort-hoods-shootings-2%2F&#038;seed_title=Re%3A+Fort+Hood%26%23039%3Bs+Shootings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Anyone Ban Handguns?</title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Fgovernment%2Fcan-anyone-ban-handguns%2F&amp;seed_title=Can+Anyone+Ban+Handguns%3F</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Fgovernment%2Fcan-anyone-ban-handguns%2F&#038;seed_title=Can+Anyone+Ban+Handguns%3F#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2nd amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Constitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minorthoughts.com/?p=622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/">Heller decision</a> was a big win for the 2nd Amendment: it established that citizens do have a right to own guns. Unfortunately, that decision only applies to the federal government. What about the states? It will take a new court case &#8212; and a new decision &#8212; to establish whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments.</p>

<p>Well, that didn&#8217;t take long. It looks like that new court case is on it&#8217;s way: <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-case-tests-second-amendments-reach/">SCOTUSblog &raquo; New case tests Second Amendment&#8217;s reach</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In a newly filed lawsuit in federal court in Chicago, two gun rights organizations and four individuals asked that the Second Amendment be extended to block strict gun laws at the state and local level.  &#8220;The Second Amendment right,&#8221; the complaint contended, &#8220;is incorporated as against the states and their political subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p>The case, McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al. (District docket 08-3645), was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago to challenge a city ordinance that bars registration of handguns with only a few exceptions, and that limits registration of other guns. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur.  The complaint can be read <a href="http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/complaint.pdf">here</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/">Heller decision</a> was a big win for the 2nd Amendment: it established that citizens do have a right to own guns. Unfortunately, that decision only applies to the federal government. What about the states? It will take a new court case &#8212; and a new decision &#8212; to establish whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments.</p>

<p>Well, that didn&#8217;t take long. It looks like that new court case is on it&#8217;s way: <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-case-tests-second-amendments-reach/">SCOTUSblog &raquo; New case tests Second Amendment&#8217;s reach</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In a newly filed lawsuit in federal court in Chicago, two gun rights organizations and four individuals asked that the Second Amendment be extended to block strict gun laws at the state and local level.  &#8220;The Second Amendment right,&#8221; the complaint contended, &#8220;is incorporated as against the states and their political subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p>The case, McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al. (District docket 08-3645), was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago to challenge a city ordinance that bars registration of handguns with only a few exceptions, and that limits registration of other guns. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur.  The complaint can be read <a href="http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/complaint.pdf">here</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Fgovernment%2Fcan-anyone-ban-handguns%2F&#038;seed_title=Can+Anyone+Ban+Handguns%3F/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

