Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 28 May 1999 19:58:53 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 27 May 1999 22:59:23 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to:

> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > There has to be a central recordkeeping resource to ascertain
> > whether or not a prospective gun purchaser is underage, mentally
> > deficient and/or deranged, a spouse and/or child abuser, or a
> > violent criminal, as well as penalties for breaking such laws, and
> > enforcement of the penalties; otherwise they would be useless
> > scraps of paper.
> The Insta-check system is such a system. However, the FBI and ATF is using this
> system to keep records like a registration system, which is against both law and
> the constitution. I don't mind insta-check that much, so long as my record of
> purchase gets deleted. NOTE: The feds have not prosecuted one person since the
> Insta-check system was instituted for illegal attempted purchase of a firearm. Its
> been working for a year now. Paper tigers, anyone?
I think that this is a disgrace and that such prosecutions should be swift and sure.
> > As far as anarchy goes, postulated that you have
> > a society of people with private property in close proximity with
> > limited resources, and your goal is to maximize the freedoms of all,
> > then your standard is that all people who are capable of assuming
> > responsibility for the free exercise of their choices should have all
> > freedoms that all others do, and in the cases of inevitable conflict,
> > these should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise.
> > Right away, you need an executive or enforcement branch to keep
> > bullies from illicitly imposing their wills on others, a judicial branch
> > to decide what is equal and proportional in each specific case, and
> > a legislative to both set general standards for the judiciary to
> > interpret in specific cases, and to enact refinements and additions
> > so that the laws may evolve with changing circumstances. You will
> > nweed a core document, or constitution, which clearly enumerates
> > the inalienable rights to which all citizens are to be entitled,
> > including minorities, and you need to allow the people at large to
> > monitor the fairness and competency of those holding the positions
> > whose responsibility it is to legislate, enforce and judge, and to
> > expel and replace them at will; a popular vote.
> Not at all. There is absolutely no reason all of these functions cannot be
> satisfied under the insurance/PPA/PPL model for a libertarian/free market anarchy
> society. Those that wish to live in no-right-to-carry communities can do so, and
> their PPA will enforce that wish under their standard contracts. I suggest you
> research this area before you baldly state that only a government can do this.
The PPa idea has pretty thoroughly been discredited, on the grounds that ANY organization which assumes the functions of a government has a tendency to become a de facto, if not de jure, government and any safeguards which are built in to prevent this may be co-opted by the PPA and used against those whom they were created to protect. To try to have a government without having a government is a futile exercise in self-contradiction. Just admit that we need governance, and ceaselessly go about evolving the best feasible entity for the purpose. I do not think we can do without executive, legislative, judiciary, constitution and popular vote, for the phenomenological reasons stated above.
> Mike Lorrey