PART ONE: A POLITICAL MENAGERIE

My mom was accustomed to calling herself a "fallen-away Catholic". Like so many others of her kind, she never got entirely free of it, and carried the baggage of guilt and self-hatred with her to the end of her days.

Although I couldn't have been more than four or five years old, I distinctly remember her telling me, at one exasperating point in what must have been my outrageously exasperating childhood, all about the stains.

It appears she was taught, and at some level still believed, that whenever you do something wrong—I don't recall that she actually mentioned the word "sin", but she might as well have; I knew what she meant—it put a stain of an appropriate size and darkness on your soul. She never said a word about undoing them through absolution or forgiveness.

In those days, my sins consisted of an occasional lie to preserve my privacy and freedom, of threatening, out of an exasperation of my own, to smush my younger brother's little button nose in for him, and of steadfastly refusing to ingest potato soup—one night I sat behind a rapidly-cooling bowl of the slop for four solid hours while everyone else finished dinner and went to the living room to listen to the radio.

Radio? That's TV for blind people.

Left alone, I poured the vile substance down the kitchen sink, in the end, squishing the solids through the little holes in the drain. I often wondered how many stains that put on my soul—one for each hole?

Sometimes I find myself wishing my mother's horrible outlook on life—and death—were true. When this was first written, some two dozen people had supposedly just been murdered in an American public school, herded into traps where they were physically unable or illegally forbidden to defend themselves, and I knew—just as you do—that those most fundamentally responsible would never be accused or face a jury.

Or—do not misread or misquote me, here: entirely under due process of law —lie down and take the lethal injection they deserve. The innocent blood of thousands is on their unspeakably evil hands, as surely as if they had wielded the gun themselves and pulled the trigger.

If you remember nothing else about what I'm about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn't do if you still had your weapons.

In fact, I think that's worth repeating and emphasizing. THE ONE AND ONLY REASON POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, AND POLICEMEN WANT TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS AWAY FROM YOU IS SO THAT THEY CAN DO THINGS TO YOU THAT THEY COULDN'T DO IF YOU STILL HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

At best, they are mass-murder enablers, massacre-helpers, accessories before the fact, who enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the killers we see conspicuously displayed on TV. These vermin create conditions under which killers are not just free, but actively encouraged to act, and every time somebody dies, the vermins' political fortunes leap ahead. We have gotten into in this mess, in what may be the last days of the Bill of Rights, because we have consistently failed to identify our adversaries accurately and adequately. As usual, we have been too polite.

Take, for example, His Dishonor Michael Bloomberg, a strutting lunatic excrescence—a wart or a tumor—on the body politic, who, as mayor of one of the most dangerous cities in the world to live in, denied his subjects the means to defend themselves, and at the same time dementedly believed he had a right to tell them what they may eat and drink, even if he had to employ police guns and clubs, noxious spray and Tasers, to do it. Be healthy or be dead: every pompous utterance he speaks, every Mussoliniesque pose he strikes, still smells of death.

If you remember nothing else I've said here, then remember this: THE ONE AND ONLY REASON THAT MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS AWAY IS SO THAT HE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU HE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

Then there's former "co-President" and current Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who, once her faction within the Democratic half of the Boot On Your Neck party had been soundly defeated by a Chicago style of gangsterism even the Clintons could never have imagined or undertaken, sold herself to the victors to become Secretary of State, a position in this administration with so little power that, except for fiascoes like Bernghazi and her illegal server use, she had to busy herself pimping for international victim disarmament (and making occasional pouty offers to resign) just to keep her monumentally unattractive features in the remaining newspapers and on TV.

Like the Brooklyn Bridge, Hillary is a commodity that can be sold more than once. As Secretary of State, she immediately sold herself to the United Nations, which means to environmental fascism, to the global warming hoax, to Agenda 21—which would cage all humanity like zoo animals—and ultimately to the genocidal wet-dreams of megalomaniacs who would reduce Earth's population by nine tenths of its current total.

Meaning that 6.3 billion people have to die.

If you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this: THE ONLY REASON THAT HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS AWAY IS SO SHE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU THAT SHE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

And President Hillary has plenty in mind to do to you.

And here we have Charles Schumer, the aging golden boy of the northeastern liberal left. If victim disarmament were a religion (which it largely is), Schumer would be the high priest. Many people on our side are afraid of him because of his rumored I.Q. (which, in fact, is bested by many an individual you know on our side) and the fact that he entered college at a remarkably early age.

I say that if the man had any functioning brain cells at all, then much like Rush Limbaugh, who claims to have tied his behind his back, Schumer would be a libertarian. As it is, he prudently occupies a safe Senate seat amidst the soft political pickings of a solidly Democratic New York City (exactly the same reason Hillary moved there to run) and enjoys many of the same close ties with the United Nations that the Secretary of State does. Google is full of speeches and proposals and bills he's sponsored or passed on behalf of these latterday wannabe mass-killers.

Still, I can't help wondering how Schumer's older constituents — some of whom must still have Nazi numbers tattooed on their arms — would feel about his close connections with an organization that wants nine tenths of them to go through the death camp experience all over again.

I guess we'll just have to find out, won't we?

And never forget: if you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this: THE ONLY REASON CHARLES SCHUMER WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS IS SO HE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU HE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

Let's pause for a moment to think about the late, unlamented, Sarah Brady—okay, that's enough; of the dead, speak nothing but the truth. Here's a female who had no public life except for various Beltway quilting clubs until her husband accidentally stepped into a bullet meant for Ronald Reagan. I don't know about anybody else—and it's certainly not his fault—but I never heard Jim Brady initiate a conversation after that. However his misfortune became his previously invisible wife's career. And instead of taking care of him—while Reagan sucked it up, joked on the way to the hospital, and refused to support an opportunistic attack on the Second Amendment—she became a corporate officer in the sleazy and disreputable victim disarmament trade.

As such, in the name of her "noble cause", the woman told more discredited lies than a North Korean edition of Pravda. She ignored more substantiated truth than The New York Times. She carted her wheelchair-bound and helpless husband around from stage to stage to stage like an old-fashioned temperance preacher showing off the evil effects of too much Demon Rum. I once got criticized by my loyal readers (actually, "sand-blasted" would be a little more accurate) for referring to poor Jim as brave Sarah 's "meat puppet". I stand by that, and say it again: Jim Brady was nothing more than Sarah Brady's meat puppet.

Word had it that Sarah was dying from lung cancer (as it turned out, word was right). I've recently had two women close to me die of the stuff, and another is hanging on. I guess I wouldn't wish it on anybody else. But in Sarah's case, it was a hard call. When I noticed that Wikipedia had her down as a lung cancer survivor (wrong), I freely confess to mixed feelings. She was an active agent of the terror that being adequately armed banishes, an opportunistic, exploitive bitch, and deserved far worse than the end that life gave her.

So if you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this and remember it good: THE ONLY REASON SARAH BRADY WANTED TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS WAS SO SHE COULD DO THINGS TO YOU SHE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

I don't know anything about the soon-to-retire Henry Waxman except that he's against everything I'm for. As a member of the California Assembly, he helped to destroy that state. As the very model of a modern Prohibitionist, he is perhaps the most vicious anti-smoking jihadist in pubic life. I could point out that he's the ugliest person I've ever seen (that may be a part of his motivation) and if the media used better cameras we'd be able to see the underside of his forebrain through nostrils that are like the sluices on the Great Grand Coulee Dam. Medically, I'm aware that his deepest wish is to take care of every one of us—to death.

All in all, if you remember nothing else I've said here, then do remember this: THE ONLY REASON THAT HENRY WAXMAN WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS IS SO HE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU HE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

If Sarah Brady was a vicious opportunistic meat-puppeteer, Carolyn McCarthy is a ghoul, having constructed a political career on the bullet-riddled carcass of an ex-husband who was among the victims of a viciously anti-white assassin on a Long Island Railroad commuter train. When she leaped into Congressional election mode, did she campaign against commuter trains? Did she campaign against racists? Did she campaign against state laws and railroad policies that keep victims disarmed?

Guess.

And as you guess, if you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this: THE ONLY REASON CAROLYN MCCARTHY WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS IS SO SHE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU SHE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

I have never had a clear idea what Diana DeGette wants, thinks, or believes. Maybe nothing—her mind is like a bowl of Jell-O, without the bowl. Her Congressional district is one of the most violent in Denver; still, she wants her constituents kept disarmed and helpless. Maybe she's just terminally angry because she woke up one morning and realized she'll never look like Scarlett Johansson. Or she's resentful because old Carolyn McCarthy got to be the Congressional gun control princess first.

But if you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this: THE ONLY REASON "PROGRESSIVE" DIANA DEGETTE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS IS SO SHE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU SHE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

The Denver newspaper (the only one left, and sinking fast) claims—in 2-inch headlines—that John Hickenlooper has reversed himself on guns. Yet his position has never been a mystery to anyone who pays attention.

John Hickenlooper? Who the hell is John Hickenlooper?

Well, to begin with, he ran restaurants and bars in the gentrified 20th and Blake Street skid row area around Coors Field where the Rockies lose their home games. Having no doubt learned where a great many bodies were buried in a putrescently corrupt Denver political scene that appears to revolve around an ever-changing cluster of whorehouses patronized by the city's social and political elite, he decided to jump in and, with his fake but quirky style, succeeded and became Mayor of Denver.

Now, replacing a guy who wouldn't run for Governor again because too much was known about his personal life, Hickenlooper pretends that he's the goofy scooter-riding Howdy Doody governor of Flyover Land, the moral equivalent of California's Jerry Brown, only sillier. In truth, the man is a grim totalitarian idealogue who, before a live audience, once glowingly introduced Van Jones, one of Barack Obama's many thuggish factotums, flunkies, butt-boys, henchmen, and stooges as a "rock star". Yet when it came out later exactly who and what Jones is—a self-proclaimed communist—suddenly Hickenlooper never heard of the guy.

It's widely believed that Hickenlooper wants to replace Obama, with whom he's thick as the thieves they are. His predecessor used the most spurious of legal excuses to keep Denver gunless, an incompetent or corrupt state Supreme Court backed him up, and Hickenlooper stayed pat with that until the murders in Connecticiut gave him a political opening.

So if you remember nothing else I've said here, remember this: THE ONLY REASON THAT NEXT-PRESIDENT JOHN HICKENLOOPER WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS IS SO HE CAN DO THINGS TO YOU HE COULDN'T DO IF YOU HAD YOUR WEAPONS.

But he'll do it with an insane titter and offer you a ride on his scooter.

The trouble with all the leftists' plans is this: more and more Americans understand perfectly that, as with Columbine High School, and every other event like it before or since, there were not too many guns on the premises, but too few. Some are even beginning to believe that these events may have been contrived for political purposes. Many have seen The Manchurian Candidate or The Parallax View. There have been just too many repetitions, too many elements in common, too many coincidences. As a consequence, I believe that Americans have obeyed their last gun law.

The message—not a threat, just a description—to politicians is this: strive too hard to strip Americans of their rights, try to take their guns or shut off their Internet, and you'll find that their patience has been long but is at an end. The discovery of corruption threatens to resculpt political life in Colorado and everywhere else. Your constituents know that you have your own little secrets. Give them sufficient motivation, and they will find them out and make them public.

Are you ready for that?

PART TWO: THREE-CARD BARRY AND THE U.N. TREATY FLIM-FLAM

I am not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. But this gives me an advantage: I am still able to read, and to think. I can count the lawyers I know who are still capable of that on the fingers of one elbow.

Okay, that may be a slight exaggeration. Some of my best friends, as the saying goes, are lawyers. But like most libertarians and decent conservatives, I discovered, somewhere back along the line, that there is nary an attorney in this country who possesses the memory, or the understanding of case law, history, and human nature, manifested by the average cocker spaniel, or, when pressed, can think his way out of a wet paper bag.

Nowhere is this more in evidence today than in connection with a couple of arguments that have been going on about the United States Constitution, with regard to international treaties and the Bill of Rights. Not amazingly, both of these controversies involve that most vile of human aggregations, that fetid snakepit of conspiracies, that sickening, demented eugenicist's hive of genocide and democide, that pustulent cyst on the buttocks of our lovely Mother Gaia, the United Nations.

Not that it matters. It's all a sham. A confidence game.

The item that most individuals who are not libertarians or decent conservatives appear concerned with is an agreement between the United States and a bunch of other countries with regard to prohibiting the production, transportation, sale, and use of some—but not all — drugs.

It's as phony as a three-dollar bill.

The principal purpose of this treaty is to provide a steady stream of obscene wealth and evil power to criminal drug lords, like those in Colombia and Mexico, to official drug lords, like those in the CIA and DEA, and to countless millions of bureaucrats and police officers who can't seem to make it through life on their salaries like the rest of us. Without international drug laws to raise the price of common agricultural products to thousands of dollars an ounce—from their natural price of dry spit—they would face certain (and well-deserved) unemployment and destitution.

Instead. they're well paid—better than most of us—to beat people up and kill them for a living, collecting what they can on the side.

So when the semi-sovereign American states of Colorado and Washington, desperately fearing bankruptcy and looking for something else to tax, reluctantly decided to let the voters make it legal to grow, process, transport, sell, and use the most popular of those drugs, good old Mary Jane (admittedly under the most infantile and humiliating regimentation imaginable), the drug-law dependent United Nations put its jackbooted foot down, ordering the government of the United States to suppress this terrifying (if entirely false) outbreak of individual liberty.

So far, the United States government has obediently,if half-heartedly complied, defying the will of the people it was established to serve (who naively believe they're the ones who decided to legalize pot) with the excuse that it is obligated to prohibit drugs by treaty, citing Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, which holds that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ..."

They wish.

Unfortunately for the drug-law pushers, this cannot logically or legally apply to the Bill of Rights, for two reasons. To begin with, there is the greatly neglected Ninth Amendment, which ordains that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, or to the states, reside with the people. Smoking dope is a Ninth Amendment right.

Everybody always seems to forget the Ninth Amendment in favor of the holy Tenth. But the Ninth implies that human rights are more or less infinite. It's there because many of the Founders didn't want their rights limited to those actually enumerated in the remainder of the document, which is an instrument for controlling government, not people.

Congress very clearly understood this principle when they passed the Volstead Act in 1919, outlawing alcohol. They believed (correctly) that they also had to pass a Constitutional amendment to make it legal. Drug laws have no such amendment to exempt them from the Ninth Amendment, so they, themselves are illegal. Any treaty we have with other satrapies agreeing to outlaw drugs is equally null and void.

But even more importantly—and this is the part that requires thinking—the Bill of Rights, including Numero Nueve is a series of amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, they supercede—they take precedence over—everything else in the document, that being in the very nature of amendments, by definition. It may well be that other laws and treaties are given equal status to the main body of Constitution, but they, too, must be overruled by the Bill of Rights.

Clearly, it doesn't matter whether the Secretary of State or the President signs it, or whether the Senate ratifies it or not. Such a treaty is not the law of the land. It is nothing more than wastebasket fodder.

Can anyone dispute this?

Raise your right hand—no, your other right hand—if you really believe that the Founding Fathers, who were not the result of three hundred years of deliberate dumbing down by government, whorish media, and the public school system, would have set up something like the Bill of Rights, only to make it vulnerable to the whims of foreign nabobities—like England, France, and Germany —who "hate our freedom"?

And here's the part you've been waiting for: exactly the same thing applies in the case of the U.N.'s "small arms treaty", which sounds like a warm and fuzzy way to keep wars from happening, but is actually meant to prevent people from wrenching control of their lives away—and keep them away—from the same tyrannical thugs the U.N. was created and commissioned to maintain in power, despite the will of the people. The treaty has nothing to do with arms in government hands, only with those in the hands of private individuals all over the world.

And, of course, THE ONE AND ONLY REASON THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS AWAY IS SO THAT THEY CAN DO THINGS TO YOU THEY CAN'T DO IF YOU HAVE YOUR WEAPONS.

Somehow, I doubt that rebels willing to overthrow the all-too-real governments of their own countries will worry much about obeying the pathetic imperatives of a toy government headquartered in Manhattan. It's all academic, anyway. America was born in a struggle about private weapons. Let them pass—or ratify—any legislation they please.

Americans have obeyed their last gun law.

PART THREE: IT'S A PIP!

By now, everyone who cares is aware that Barack the Usurper and his henchman Kerry the Unpalatable have been trying to shove this United Nations edict we've been talking about down our throats. It would culminate in our complete disarmament and the end of American liberty.

Happily, the U.S. Senate, which has the final authority in such matters, has so far refused to go along. Ratification of treaties (which is what this mess claims to be) requires a super-majority of two thirds. The vote to try to take our guns away failed, 53 to 46: good news, except that it means 46 Senators were willing to sacrifice American sovereignty to the New World Order, and sell 300 million Americans into chattel slavery to a pack of international thugs and gangsters.

Somebody get a rope.

You see, the leaders of the United Nations, along with certain Supreme Galooties in this government, believe that the planet has become overpopulated, that there are at least ten times as many human beings in the world as there ought to be (I don't know who died and made them Hall Monitor) and that somehow—they never really specify how, but we can make some educated guesses based on history—nine tenths of them, about 6.3 billion individuals, have to be gotten rid of.

Taking away everyone's weapons would be a big step in the desired direction. In fact, it's essential to their murderous plans.

The fact is, the human race needs more members, not fewer. The more people, the greater chance of producing another Leonardo, another Gutenberg or another Galileo, another Pasteur or Koch, another Edison or Ford, another Jonas Salk or Christiaan Barnard. If there isn't enough room here on Earth (there actually is), park them on the sea floor, on the Moon, on Mars, among the asteroids. Everybody has a different idea of the perfect place to live. Most Coloradoans love the mountains. I love the prairie. If the Carlsbad Caverns were opened to modern apartment living tomorrow morning, there would be a waiting list of people willing and eager to become guano-covered by tomorrow afternoon.

But I digress.

The U.N.'s democidal scheme is called "Agenda 21".

The pseudopod of it presently in question is billed as the "United Nations Arms Trade Treaty". It was excreted by the vile and dreaded Hillary Clinton, among others, aimed (if you'll pardon the expression) at reducing the number of "small arms" manufactured, transported, sold, and bought around the world. (In my view, this is one thing America is still good at, making and exporting good weapons, and we ought to keep doing it as much as we possibly can.) You will note particularly the emphasis on "small arms". That means rifles, handguns, shotguns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, genuine assault rifles, and submachine guns.

The people's weapons.

The real "Machinery of Freedom".

Sorry, Dave.

Sometimes it becomes important to remember that Americans aren't the only individuals on the globe headed for the U.N.'s Agenda 21 meat-grinder. This small arms treaty of theirs is meant, first and foremost, to prevent popular uprisings against tyrants, great and petty, the only creatures on the planet that the U.N. was created to benefit.

But freedom, it would appear, is in the air. There seems to be a worldwide hankering, just now, for liberty (the definition of which, admittedly, may vary from location to location, but that's what it's supposed to be all about, isn't it?), and the tin-pots of our world, large and small, are so terrified by what's coming down you can smell their fear. Interestingly, Barry the Fatherless, who increasingly rules against the will of the American people, is probably the most frightened of them all.

As he damned well ought to be, having deliberately taken the most prosperous and wealthy civilization in the history of humanity and the world, and devastated its economy, as well as the integrity of its constitutional structure, and left it teetering on the brink of civil war. There ought to be an award for the sheer magnitude of such an achievement.

Oh, yeah—they call it the Nobel Prize.

And now we're presented with this treaty, which, if there were international truth in advertising laws, would be known as the dictators' Perpetuity In Power agreement.

"P.I.P." for short.

In the 1960s, Ayn Rand, who was a fan of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer novels, was asked to comment on the spy stories that were all the rage at the time. The James Bond books and movies come to mind; they defined the genre. Also, I Spy, Danger Man/Secret Agent (which eventually morphed into The Prisoner), Our Man Flint, Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm stories, and especially The Man from U.N.C.L.E.. There are a great many more, but these will serve as examples.

Rand didn't like them, she said, because they were not dedicated to liberty, justice, or to any other morally worthy objective. In each and every one of them—and she named names and offered examples, demonstrating that she wasn't ignorant of the subject—the goal was simply to maintain the status quo, the balance of power, the current equilibrium, no matter who or how many suffered Soviet or any other atrocities.

The U.N. dictators' Perpetuity In Power agreement is the same idea in action. The document—it isn't really a law—is a transparent instrument of tyranny. It will never accomplish what it was designed to do. Only those who agree with it, or who fear the state, will obey it.

Consider:

The Zionist Irgun ("It's okay, they're our terrorists!") built modern submachine guns in garages, from scraps.

The Hmong of Southeast Asia make shotguns out of water pipe and nails.

Muslim mountain folk from Turkey to the Philippines fashion modern, sophisticated small arms—like the FN-FAL battle rifle and the Makarov pistol—working in their laps, using files and other simple hand tools.

I have a barrel for a Tokarev pistol, crafted the same way, by hand, by the Cao Dai, in Vietnam. It may look the slightest bit cockeyed, but it works perfectly.

I've seen photos of firearms made secretly by prison convicts. In fact that's how we got Marshall Williams' lovely M1 Carbine—look it up.

Just how stupid do the U.N. and their hangers-on and enablers have to be (or how stupid do they think we are), to believe they can strip the liberty-loving individuals of this planet of what my late friend Aaron Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership used to call their "liberty teeth"?

The trouble is, as with all such "progressive" "humanitarian" legislation, a great many folks on both sides are going to be injured and killed in a futile attempt to enforce it. The maiming and death of "our boys in blue helmets" will be blamed on "insurgents" (that's you, me, and anybody else determined to defend their own territory), but they'll inarguably be the fault of "our" evil, insane, and idiotic leaders.

I'm not telling them anything new, they know exactly what they're doing. They want America to look just like Beirut, East Berlin, or Carthage. There's unimaginably more political opportunity in a setting like that. Unlike the 9/11 "terrorists" who (assuming the official story is true) got fed up with the way western governments routinely rearrange their lives and murder their children, and struck back the only way they could afford, U.N. thugs, molesters of all that's decent and good, really do hate our freedom, and the unprecedented peace, productivity, prosperity, and progress it inevitably brings.

The badguys know perfectly well that there's no political opportunity at all in clean, safe streets, or in peace, productivity, prosperity, and progress.

No political opportunity in solved problems.

Like the current President of the United States, like all of his oath-breaking orcs and goblins, the UN detests the American Bill of Rights. They wish to obliterate it and substitute their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which, once it is the law of the land, as has happened here and there already, it becomes illegal to criticize or question. There is no way to escape it; it can never be repealed. No greater evidence ever existed of "progressive" hypocrisy and arrogance.

Or criminality.

Having taken what should have been a solemn oath "to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", having attempted to destroy the only item of the Bill of Rights that declares itself "necessary to the security of a free state," Clinton, Kerry, Obama, and every member of the current administration working with them, are traitors, and ought to be dealt with—legally—as such.

What they don't know and can't understand, is that the epoch has changed. Here, at the end of the Age of Authority, it is no longer acceptable for the elites to order "little people's" lives for them. It is time for the elites to shut the hell up and mind their own damn business.

Americans have obeyed their last gun law. We must strive to help the elites understand this. Our nation was born in an ill-conceived attempt by its British overlords to deprive Americans of their guns, The UN is making the same idiotic mistake. It has declared war on the Bill of Rights, and on America, as unequivocally as the Empire of Japan, the Third Reich, Mussolini's Italy, North Korea, the Viet Cong, and Al Quaeda.

Why are they still here?

Why is that building of theirs still standing?

On the plaza in front of that building, is an obscene sculpture of a ruined Colt Python, which is a uniquely individual civilian weapon, not a military one. It stands as an insult to the rights of every single American. If the UN were really interested in making a statement against war, they'd have tied an M-16 in a knot, or an AK-47. Instead, they have chosen to make a statement openly favoring tyranny. Why hasn't that sculpture been bundled up, sent back to Sweden, and shoved up the sculptor's commie ass?

It is time—it is long past time—to get the United States out of the United Nations, and the United Nations out of the United States. In Bumperstickerese, that would be: "US out of UN—UN out of US".

Most of us are familiar with Robert Heinlein's maxim, "An armed society is a polite society." A friend of mine signs all his messages with an equally cogent imperative: "Know arms, know peace. No arms, no peace."

PART FOUR: THE DEAL

An air-headed law professor embarrassing Texas with her existence (she'd want me to mention her name), has added her not very original two cents to arguments that "progressives" have been having among themselves (nobody else seems to be listening) about the unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right of every man, woman, and responsible child to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine gun, anything—any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

That's the full meaning of the Second Amendment she wants to see repealed.

Libertarians and conservatives don't have these arguments among themselves. That's because, somewhere along the line, they learned to read. They also learned a little history, which will prove important, here.

While some of this nation's Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason—were intent, first and foremost, to create a new country in which individual liberty and free enterprise would be the order of the day, there were others, like Alexander Hamilton, who regarded the fledgling America as his personal piggy bank.

You will have been taught that the Articles of Confederation, our first national "operating system" were deeply flawed, The truth is that they provided for an extremely decentralized governance that stood as an obstacle to the vast fortunes Hamilton and his cronies had hoped to amass.

That is why the Articles had to go, and it is revealing that among Hamilton's first acts as Treasury Secretary under the Constitution that replaced them was a national excise tax on whiskey that, as readers of my novels The Probability Broach and The Gallatin Divergence know, very nearly sparked a second American Revolution.

In an era before refrigeration, corn farmers of western Pennsylvania, long accustomed to turning their crop into a less perishable, more transportable product, were among the first victims of democracy American-style, the kind where three coyotes and a lamb sit down to debate on what's going to be for dinner.

Nevertheless, that's why a few stiff-necked libertarian-types, like Jefferson, held out for a Bill of Rights to be added to the new Constitution, and it was written, more or less to Jefferson's order, by his close friend, James Madison, one of the few Federalists who was genuinely interested in assuaging the Anti-Federalists regarding the new document.

The Bill of Rights was, unfortunately misnamed. It was not a list of things Americans were allowed too do, under the new Constitution. It was and remains a list of things that government is absolutely forbidden to do—like set up a state religion, or steal your house—under any circumstances.

The Bill of Rights became the make-or-break condition that allowed the Constitution to be ratified. No Bill of Rights, no Constitution. And since all political authority in America "trickles down" from the Constitution, no Constitution no government authority. And, since the Bill of Rights was passed as a unit, a single breach, in any one of the ten articles, breaches them all and with them, the entire Constitution. Every last bit of the power that derives from it becomes null and void.

Let's review:

No Second Amendment, no Bill of Rights.

No Bill of Rights, no Constitution.

No Constitution, no government.

Once again, to make sure that the dumbest lawyer in the room gets it:

No Second Amendment, no Bill of Rights.

No Bill of Rights, no Constitution.

No Constitution, no government.

Why a so-called law professor can't figure this out is beyond me. No doubt, in part, her mind has been damaged by years of law school, No doubt she regards the Bill of Rights as an obstruction to an agenda that she feels more loyalty to than she does to the Constitution, that of converting a nation of free and independent individuals into an ant-farm, Recall that the head of the most violent, lawless government we've had to suffer under since 1865, also claims to have been a law professor.

Teaching Constitutional law, no less.

At this point in history this woman knows that "gun control"—more accurately known as "victim disarmament"—does nothing to reduce crime. Howard Metzenbaum, gun control maven of the United States Senate from 1974 to 1995, openly admitted it to the media, "off the record". Gun control has only one purpose: to intimidate and control the Productive Class.

To the deep, almost physically painful chagrin of the people of her ilk, even if victim disarmament "worked", and even after decades of anti-self-defense propaganda, the Productive Class doesn't want it and doesn't need it. Except for those those areas controlled by "progressives", the inner city cores, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and, yes, truly progressive society in the history of the world.

It's also heavily armed—750 million firearms, according to the industry, "of modern design, in good working order"—it's pissed off about a number of issues, and better than ever before, it knows its rights. It knows that, even if the Second Amendment were repealed, the basic right to own and carry weapons doesn't come from the Bill of Rights, The Second Amendment was written to protect a pre-existing organic right to own and carry weapons. In short, the tax-slaves are getting uppity, and that terrifies plantation staffers like this law professor.

If she wants to renege on the historical deal that made America great in any way you choose to name, she needs to understand that, if she succeeds, government as we have known it, will cease to exist. America will be ruled by the kind of mindless brute police force we're seeing in New Mexico and other places today. Only, once the police are stripped of their Constitutional authority, people will begin to fight back.

We all have an idea what that will look like,

Maybe that's what she wants.

If you ever wondered what kind of political shape-shifters and double-dealers broke over 1500 treaties with the Indians, you need look no further than people just like this one, who want to take your guns.

Tell them that Americans have obeyed their last gun law.

About L. Neil Smith: The author of over thirty books, mostly science fiction novels, L. Neil Smith has been a libertarian activist since 1962. His many books and those of other pro-gun libertarians may be found (and ordered) at L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE "Free Radical Book Store" The preceding essays were originally prepared for and appeared in L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE. Use them to fight the continuing war against tyranny.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: