By: Zach McCormick
11/25/14
It is now legal to hunt using a suppressor in Florida according to the NRA's recent press release. With this change in the law, hunters may finally take advantage of a responsible and respectful method of protecting their hearing.
Someone might argue this is something that should never have even been prohibited in the first place...those people would be correct.
A blog by attorney Zach McCormick covering topics ranging from angry anteaters to zombie zoologists.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Bill Murray's "St. Vincent" = Time Well Spent
By: Zach McCormick
11/16/14
My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".
Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.
Worth the price of admission in my opinion.
11/16/14
My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".
Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.
Worth the price of admission in my opinion.
Friday, November 14, 2014
ATF Gives Approximate Date For Gun Trust Rule Change
In an article posted by the American Suppressor Association (ASA) on November 4th, 2014 it was reported that the ATF expects to rule on the so called "41p" rule change implemented by Obama's executive order.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Net Neutrality: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
ATF Publishes 80% Lower Guidelines...Finally
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Make the USA a DMZ
Police aren't soldiers and for good reason; soldiers fight an enemy and police should almost never be in a position to target their fellow citizens as if they were in a war zone. It is time to start de-militarizing our police officers so that we can once again enjoy their protection without fear of being harmed ourselves.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Mental Health: The New Front in the War on Gun Rights
By: Zach McCormick
www.zjmlaw.com
5/7/14
Hillary Clinton recently told a body of mental health professionals at the National Counsel for Behavioral Health that the United States should "rein in its gun culture". Her perspective should hardly come as a surprise to anyone but what was noteworthy was how her actions coincided with the latest strategy in the war on guns.
The latest battleground is mental health and groups on both sides of the gun debate have actually unified in saying that people with mental health issues shouldn't have guns. Lets be clear; people with serious mental health problems shouldn't have guns, but who exactly has a mental health disorder? That question may have been easy to answer in days gone by, but today, the list of people that have diagnosable disorders has grown by leaps and bounds.
In fact, the psychiatric bible known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or "DSM" has been expanded considerably since its creation over 50 years ago. Under the latest parameters, as much as 26% of the adult American population could be considered to have a mental illness. Yet, in comparison, only 6% of Americans are deemed to suffer from "serious mental illness" according to the National Institute of Mental Health's numbers. These numbers are staggering given their sheer scale.
This reality might be easier to accept if these new categories were created in a totally unbiased vacuum. Yet, it appears that financially interested parties (pharmaceutical companies) have considerable say in deciding what should be called a disorder these days. (See: PLOS Medicine Article by Krimsky and Cosgrove). In its most simplistic sense, this ties Americans' gun rights to a body whose members may stand to profit from deciding to call something a mental health disorder.
Complicating things further, is the fact that over diagnosis appears to be at an all time high and although we are now better equipped to spot and treat mental illness, the drugs that are being prescribed may be causing their own problems. In fact, this controversy has caused considerable disagreement within the mental health community.
It is important to acknowledge that technically, in Florida, there are legal safeguards found within Statute 790.065 that are designed to prevent abuse. Yet, despite these safeguards, the practical reality is that mental health patients get churned through a few underfunded, and overworked institutions where the attending doctors have very little time to spend with each person. Additionally, it is extremely rare for a patient to get the chance to fully present a defense at the short hearing that occurs in each case. Finally, once a citizen is branded, the burden shifts to him to reverse the finding of mental deficiency.
This process stands in stark contrast to American legal tradition of "presumed innocent" and it forces the citizen to submit himself to a potentially humiliating and time consuming process of seeking "relief from a firearms disability".
Given how important this issue is, we should carefully scrutinize all matters relating to mental health and gun rights.
www.zjmlaw.com
5/7/14
Hillary Clinton recently told a body of mental health professionals at the National Counsel for Behavioral Health that the United States should "rein in its gun culture". Her perspective should hardly come as a surprise to anyone but what was noteworthy was how her actions coincided with the latest strategy in the war on guns.
The latest battleground is mental health and groups on both sides of the gun debate have actually unified in saying that people with mental health issues shouldn't have guns. Lets be clear; people with serious mental health problems shouldn't have guns, but who exactly has a mental health disorder? That question may have been easy to answer in days gone by, but today, the list of people that have diagnosable disorders has grown by leaps and bounds.
In fact, the psychiatric bible known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or "DSM" has been expanded considerably since its creation over 50 years ago. Under the latest parameters, as much as 26% of the adult American population could be considered to have a mental illness. Yet, in comparison, only 6% of Americans are deemed to suffer from "serious mental illness" according to the National Institute of Mental Health's numbers. These numbers are staggering given their sheer scale.
This reality might be easier to accept if these new categories were created in a totally unbiased vacuum. Yet, it appears that financially interested parties (pharmaceutical companies) have considerable say in deciding what should be called a disorder these days. (See: PLOS Medicine Article by Krimsky and Cosgrove). In its most simplistic sense, this ties Americans' gun rights to a body whose members may stand to profit from deciding to call something a mental health disorder.
Complicating things further, is the fact that over diagnosis appears to be at an all time high and although we are now better equipped to spot and treat mental illness, the drugs that are being prescribed may be causing their own problems. In fact, this controversy has caused considerable disagreement within the mental health community.
It is important to acknowledge that technically, in Florida, there are legal safeguards found within Statute 790.065 that are designed to prevent abuse. Yet, despite these safeguards, the practical reality is that mental health patients get churned through a few underfunded, and overworked institutions where the attending doctors have very little time to spend with each person. Additionally, it is extremely rare for a patient to get the chance to fully present a defense at the short hearing that occurs in each case. Finally, once a citizen is branded, the burden shifts to him to reverse the finding of mental deficiency.
This process stands in stark contrast to American legal tradition of "presumed innocent" and it forces the citizen to submit himself to a potentially humiliating and time consuming process of seeking "relief from a firearms disability".
Given how important this issue is, we should carefully scrutinize all matters relating to mental health and gun rights.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Popular Flu Vaccines Not Effective: Who Dropped the Ball?
By: Zach McCormick
4/14/14
Last night as I sat reading the evening news via my twitter feed, this headline by Forbes contributor Paul Rodgers caught my eye. It read, "Tamiflu Is No Better Than Tylenol At Fighting Flu". It referred to a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration which indicated that the popular flu vaccines 'Tamiflu' and 'Relenza' are not only far less effective than originally thought, but in some cases more harmful than beneficial.
The Cochrane piece also described the struggle to get access to the results of the Tamiflu and Relenza drug trials and then, once finally obtained, discovered that the drugs are probably next to useless.
I was quite startled by this assertion because I have heard for years that these drugs were the best way to avoid getting and spreading the flu. In fact, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on massive stockpiles of these drugs. It now appears to have been a giant waste.
Of course if, as a result of a colossal regulatory failure, people were actually hurt by these drugs, then the pain of money lost would pale in comparison to the to horror of knowing that something intended for good actually caused harm to innocent people.
I accept that there are many factors involved with how the FDA goes about doing its job. Yet, assuming the Cochrane study is accurate which is highly probable, 'the thing speaks for itself' as to how badly someone screwed up on this one.
I wonder how this scandal will influence the way drugs are "checked" in this country going forward.
4/14/14
Last night as I sat reading the evening news via my twitter feed, this headline by Forbes contributor Paul Rodgers caught my eye. It read, "Tamiflu Is No Better Than Tylenol At Fighting Flu". It referred to a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration which indicated that the popular flu vaccines 'Tamiflu' and 'Relenza' are not only far less effective than originally thought, but in some cases more harmful than beneficial.
The Cochrane piece also described the struggle to get access to the results of the Tamiflu and Relenza drug trials and then, once finally obtained, discovered that the drugs are probably next to useless.
I was quite startled by this assertion because I have heard for years that these drugs were the best way to avoid getting and spreading the flu. In fact, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on massive stockpiles of these drugs. It now appears to have been a giant waste.
Of course if, as a result of a colossal regulatory failure, people were actually hurt by these drugs, then the pain of money lost would pale in comparison to the to horror of knowing that something intended for good actually caused harm to innocent people.
I accept that there are many factors involved with how the FDA goes about doing its job. Yet, assuming the Cochrane study is accurate which is highly probable, 'the thing speaks for itself' as to how badly someone screwed up on this one.
I wonder how this scandal will influence the way drugs are "checked" in this country going forward.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Mesh Networking For Freedom
By: Zach McCormick
3/23/14
Mike Elgan's piece titled "How an Under-Appreciated iOS 7 Feature Will Change the World" outlines how a new software tweak in Apple's iOS 7.1 will allow users to communicate with each other without a traditional internet connection.
If your eyes are starting to glaze over, don't worry; I'm not smart enough to get into a technical discussion on the why this stuff works. Yet I think Mr. Elgan is spot on with his assertion that this type of technology will "change the world", especially in democratic republics.
If this tech lives up to its potential, then each cell phone basically acts as a miniature cellphone tower and repeats the signal to other cell phones in range. The more users, the larger the network. So for example, if all the cell phone towers and all the internet connections in a given area were disabled (like when a hurricane hits), people using this type of tech could still anonymously communicate in short to medium ranges as long as enough users were present.
Elgan's piece focuses on the iPhone's new ability to accomplish this with an app called "Firechat". Firechat's interface looks very much like most other messaging apps and, although there is room for improvement, its simple to use.
What does this have to do with democracy? Well, history has shown us that the preservation of liberty depends on communication which is free from censorship. The recent events in the middle east are proof that when communication is centrally controlled it is vulnerable to the most powerful interests who have the ability to control that communication and so repress liberty. (For ex: Twitter access in Turkey restricted).
As with every instance where people are free to say what they want without consequence, there will be some 'political incorrectness'. However, the whole point of the 1st Amendment is that we should be free to say what we want and be willing to grow skin thick enough to deal with the words that hurt.
3/23/14
Mike Elgan's piece titled "How an Under-Appreciated iOS 7 Feature Will Change the World" outlines how a new software tweak in Apple's iOS 7.1 will allow users to communicate with each other without a traditional internet connection.
If your eyes are starting to glaze over, don't worry; I'm not smart enough to get into a technical discussion on the why this stuff works. Yet I think Mr. Elgan is spot on with his assertion that this type of technology will "change the world", especially in democratic republics.
If this tech lives up to its potential, then each cell phone basically acts as a miniature cellphone tower and repeats the signal to other cell phones in range. The more users, the larger the network. So for example, if all the cell phone towers and all the internet connections in a given area were disabled (like when a hurricane hits), people using this type of tech could still anonymously communicate in short to medium ranges as long as enough users were present.
Elgan's piece focuses on the iPhone's new ability to accomplish this with an app called "Firechat". Firechat's interface looks very much like most other messaging apps and, although there is room for improvement, its simple to use.
What does this have to do with democracy? Well, history has shown us that the preservation of liberty depends on communication which is free from censorship. The recent events in the middle east are proof that when communication is centrally controlled it is vulnerable to the most powerful interests who have the ability to control that communication and so repress liberty. (For ex: Twitter access in Turkey restricted).
As with every instance where people are free to say what they want without consequence, there will be some 'political incorrectness'. However, the whole point of the 1st Amendment is that we should be free to say what we want and be willing to grow skin thick enough to deal with the words that hurt.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Florida Police Spying NSA Style?
By: Zach McCormick
4/8/14
Florida police departments appear to be following the example set by the NSA recently, as evidenced by recent reports by Florida ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, that the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) has used technology that is capable of intercepting cell phone communications of innocent Floridians without warrants. These devices are commonly referred to as "Stingrays" and are designed to intercept cellular data by acting as middle men between peoples' cell phones and cell phone towers.
As justification for its actions, TPD cited a non-disclosure clause in its contract with the device manufacturer. The apparent implication being that civil contracts trump the US and Florida Constitutions.
As it happened, the Tallahassee Police Department intentionally chose not to disclose the fact that this type of technology was being used during their investigations. However, according the Mr. Wessler's piece, TPD is committed to rectifying any wrongdoing on its part associated with misuse of the technology.
That might otherwise be the end of the story, but it appears as if this was simply the tip of the iceberg as evidenced by an even more unsettling stance that the City of Sunrise has taken.
In contrast with the Tallahassee example of reluctant, ultimate disclosure, the City of Sunrise refused to even confirm or deny the mere existence of records relating to the City's ownership and general use of the these devices. (Their response to Mr. Wessler's public records request can be found here). Fortunately for freedom loving Floridians, Mr. Wessler is a legal beast and he knows his stuff.(As evidenced by his brutally accurate response which can be found here).
Not only did Mr. Wessler basically inform counsel for the City of Sunrise that they've misinterpreted the law, but he points out (humorously I might add), that the City has already confirmed that they own at least one Stingray.
It seems that Mr. Wessler has pulled on a thread that could unravel into a tangled mass of unpleasant discoveries about how Florida police agencies have been going about securing evidence in their investigations.
Regardless of how these two individual cases are resolved, it seems clear that even the state level actors are jumping on the widespread, warrantless bandwagon.
4/8/14
Florida police departments appear to be following the example set by the NSA recently, as evidenced by recent reports by Florida ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, that the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) has used technology that is capable of intercepting cell phone communications of innocent Floridians without warrants. These devices are commonly referred to as "Stingrays" and are designed to intercept cellular data by acting as middle men between peoples' cell phones and cell phone towers.
As justification for its actions, TPD cited a non-disclosure clause in its contract with the device manufacturer. The apparent implication being that civil contracts trump the US and Florida Constitutions.
As it happened, the Tallahassee Police Department intentionally chose not to disclose the fact that this type of technology was being used during their investigations. However, according the Mr. Wessler's piece, TPD is committed to rectifying any wrongdoing on its part associated with misuse of the technology.
That might otherwise be the end of the story, but it appears as if this was simply the tip of the iceberg as evidenced by an even more unsettling stance that the City of Sunrise has taken.
In contrast with the Tallahassee example of reluctant, ultimate disclosure, the City of Sunrise refused to even confirm or deny the mere existence of records relating to the City's ownership and general use of the these devices. (Their response to Mr. Wessler's public records request can be found here). Fortunately for freedom loving Floridians, Mr. Wessler is a legal beast and he knows his stuff.(As evidenced by his brutally accurate response which can be found here).
Not only did Mr. Wessler basically inform counsel for the City of Sunrise that they've misinterpreted the law, but he points out (humorously I might add), that the City has already confirmed that they own at least one Stingray.
It seems that Mr. Wessler has pulled on a thread that could unravel into a tangled mass of unpleasant discoveries about how Florida police agencies have been going about securing evidence in their investigations.
Regardless of how these two individual cases are resolved, it seems clear that even the state level actors are jumping on the widespread, warrantless bandwagon.
Monday, March 3, 2014
An Introduction
Welcome Folks,
My name is Zach McCormick and I am an attorney based out of Tavares located in beautiful Lake County Florida. I wanted to take a brief moment to introduce myself and warn everyone in advance that I have been known to ramble on about just about every topic known to man.
To be fair, I do end up talking more about firearms rights as well as US Constitutional issues in general and of course, current political and financial events. If I haven't put you to sleep just yet, hold on... I've been told that I am a marginally addictive alternative to most over the counter sleep aids.
The truth is, I like to talk about current events because I really care about how this country is progressing and am deeply interested in doing what I can to make sure the destination is one that preserves our rights. Its an idealistic stance I admit, but its one I have held for a while now and I believe its correct.
I am a libertarian too, (in case that hadn't already become clear). Before, you ask, yes... I do believe in government and laws and order etc... What I do NOT believe in is the notion that government is entitled to make moral choices for its citizens. You'll probably see this theme pop up quite a bit and if you have an extra tinfoil hat to send along, I can give it a good home.
Thats all for now,
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)