Molon Labe! (56 page)

That is certainly his prerogative, but in doing so he places himself
out-side
the law's protection and is thus fair game.

You mean the rest of society can go gunning for him?

You bet. By forfeiting a fair trial, he takes his chances on the run. Actually, the scenario isn't all too different from today, if you think about it. But, hey, you're talking about the child of an embryo. We're a generation or two from the first experiment in anarcho-capitalism. By the way, a very interesting book on the matter is Neal Stephenson's
The Diamond Age
.

Would such a society actually
work
?

Well, we won't know until we try it and see, will we? The trouble with limited government is that it's never
stayed
limited. Perhaps no government at all is the answer...when we're ready for it.

Wyoming is now the most "guntoting" state in the Union. Is a state-wide fascination with firearms really necessary?

You bet. A gun is simply a tool used to prevent aggression. For some gunowners it is merely a means to that end, and that's fine. However, many other gunowners have discovered the historical, cultural, mechanical, and aesthetic wonder of firearms. I certainly did! The gun culture is part of our history, and is vital for our future. It is healthy, enjoyable, and helps to preserve our rights and sustain our heritage.

Nevertheless, in today's savage society, aren't additional gun control laws required to maintain law and order?

What, you mean the first 20,000 laws didn't work? (laughs) One definition of insanity is repetition of action with the expectation of different results. Anti-2nd Amendment laws have never reduced crime, yet that is the rationale for every new bill.

Oh, and to which "savage society" are you referring? Los Angeles? New York City? Detroit? We're not savage in Wyoming. An armed society is a polite society. We're both. We have the least crime in the nation.

And since criminals by definition don't abide by laws, let's call "gun control" for what it
really
is — victim disarmament. No, Tom — we don't need any more victim disarmament laws. We don't need any more victims, we need more
victors.
All those unconstitutional laws need to be repealed, just as we did in Wyoming. It's the only state where street criminals are outnumbered by armed citizens, and that's exactly the way it
should
be! We will continue to nourish our gun culture until it once again becomes second nature to us.

But the Supreme Court ruled in
Stanley v. U.S.
that the 2nd Amendment is not inviolable, and that the right to bear arms can be regulated if the government has a compelling interest.

Yes, and the Court utterly ignored those vital four words
"shall not be infringed"
words which appear in no other Bill of Rights amendment. It was a cowardly, despicable omission.

In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in
Dred Scott
that black Americans were not citizens within the meaning and protection of the Constitution. Eventually, they condescended to effectively overrule themselves. Perhaps someday that will occur with
Emerson
. But until then, we in

Wyoming maintain that
"shall not be infringed"
means just that, and we will take the language at its word. Besides, it's a sad case for freedom if you have to wait for 5 Justices to figure out what any Laramie 4th grader knows.

Aren't you concerned with a federal response to Wyoming's nullification of U.S. gun laws?

Those laws once effectively disarmed peaceable Americans because of their leverage over the random individual. That leverage no longer exists in Wyoming, as we are a united front against further violations of our 2nd Amendment right to own and carry arms.

The ATF quickly figured that out and left Wyoming months ago. There was no point in their staying. Even if their goon squads encountered no citizen resistance, no gun case could ever be successfully prosecuted. Too many fully informed jurors out there! We will not send our neighbor to 20 years in the federal pen as a
felon
be-cause a piece of wood or metal on his gun was ¼" too long or too short. That's over with!

Today, Wyoming is the most armed and safest place on the planet. We have all but eradicated street crime. So, the feds have left us alone. They sort of
have
to. (laughs) To pick a fight with us over
Emerson
at this point would be ridiculously spiteful and counterproductive.

Federal agents are actually leaving Wyoming?

Yes, they are. Many Wyomingites have thoroughly shunned federal agents and their families. Only five cities in Wyoming have more than 25,000 people, so it's difficult for federal agents to hide in our state.

A hobby of our high-schoolers is to locate their personal cars and regularly shoe-polish them with "FBI" or "ATF" or "IRS" or "DEA." The feds really hate this, although I can't understand why if they're truly proud of their work. For example, there are a dozen FBI agents in downtown Lander next to Ruffian's Ice Cream Bar who are livid about being "outed" by the so-called "Fremont County Map to your Local Feds." (laughs) All their home addresses were listed. What a
dozen
FBI agents are doing in a small, remote Wyoming town of 9,000 people is anybody's guess.

Still, federal law enforcement agents have a job to do.

Not if it means violating our Bill of Rights. They can't do that and stay unknown and unchallenged for long in Wyoming. While the ATF agent is out looking to imprison gunowners for some nonviolent technical offense his wife has no friends in town and few businesses will deal with them. After a few months of this, the wife will say,
"We're not staying here any longer"
and they transfer. As Jeff Foxworthy used to say,
"If
she
ain't happy...
you
ain't happy."
Word is circulating throughout the federal agencies that Wyoming is socially inhospitable, so they try not to get transferred there.

Ostracism and shunning are very powerful. When the wife is used as a stick to beat the man, it gets his attention like nothing else can.

That seems cruel to the wife.

Nobody forced her to marry and breed with a guy who has chosen to oppress his countrymen under the false color of law. Now, I will grant you that ostracism is unfair to the children, who had no choice in their parents. Perhaps, however, it will dissuade them from joining the ATF.

Your program in Wyoming is very aggressive and dramatic. How is it going over with the locals there?

Well, I admit that our program took many Wyomingites by surprise, even the conservatives. Most have quickly understood what we are trying to accomplish and now back the agenda very strongly — especially after experiencing the results for themselves.

Our relatively small liberal population, however, was quite shocked. I guess they didn't believe that I meant what I said during my campaign, or if elected that I'd actually back it up with action. I think they're still in shock.

I will be the first to admit that Wyoming is not and will not be for everybody. No state is. I'll also tell you that Wyoming will not be a cheery choice for those who demand government solutions to personal issues. If you don't like it, then move to or stay in California. There are many states wherein government supremacists may assuage their private conscience at public expense. Wyoming is not one of them.

You feel strongly about the jury nullification of disagreeable laws. How does this work?

Jurors have a 1,000 year-old right to judge both the facts and the
law
. The primary purpose of a jury trial is to simultaneously put the
law
on trial as much as the accused. The jury is actually the
fourth
branch of government, which nullifies bad law when the legislature refuses its repeal. Our legislature proposed a constitutional Fully Informed Jury Amendment, and the people ratified it in April. Wyoming is the second state to do so, after South Dakota.

But that's a prelude for eventual anarchy.

If your premise assumes an inherently anarchist people, then maybe. However, Americans are anything but anarchist. High-spirited and shallow perhaps, but not anarchist. As much personal responsibility that's been bred from us, it still remains a significant part of our programming.

What we've forgotten, or more likely never knew, is that the
we
are the fountainhead of the law, who merely delegate our authority to government. Delegate, not relinquish. When government is ineffective or corrupt, then the people must repossess the law until they may once again delegate it back to good government.

In your speeches and writings you often harken to that theme of courage. Why?

Bravery pays only the principle, but cowardice
always
pays the interest as well. It's cheaper to be brave. Not to mention more honorable.

For example, the British were cowards until 1940 when they were forced to be brave. Churchill slapped them into clarity. But until then, Britain and Europe paid a
lot
of compound interest. So did we, on their behalf.

In your mind, what is courage and why is there so little of it today?

Well, courage is not the absence of fear. It is the
subjugation
of fear. For example, a 300 pound, maniacal knife-wielding man with murder in his eyes is certainly something to be afraid of. If you can run away and live, do so. There is no dishonor in that, and any good martial arts
sensei
will agree.

If, on the other hand, you
cannot
run away and live — if you are all that stands between him and your family —then you must be brave. You must fight him. The Brits finally faced up to Hitler and fought him. Only after the Battle of Britain did the American people decide that the English might be worth saving after all.

There are many types of courage other than physical, such as moral courage, social courage, and financial courage. The parent courage of them all is courage to
self
, which is the courage to act by that which you know or believe to be right.

Can you give some examples of these?

Sure. Moral courage would be sending an anonymous letter to the editor against closed-shop unionism. Social courage would be signing your name to it. Financial courage would be jeopardizing your own business by not selling to unionized companies. Physical courage would be defending your life and property against marauding union thugs.

There is a progression involved, but, as you can see, all stem from courage to self.

It is very rare for a person to truly and consistently exhibit courage in all
four
facets, that is, moral, social, financial, and physical. Generally, the courageous are so in just one or two facets. For example, Ayn Rand showed great moral and social courage by writing and speaking as she did, but very little financial courage regarding the income taxes with which she disagreed philosophically, yet continued to not only pay, but
over
pay for fear of an audit. There are people who would risk their fortune to defend what they believe is right, yet run from a fistfight. There also are people who would fight to the death in defense of themselves and their family, yet are too timid to speak up in public.

My point is that the courageous are also very often somehow cowards outside their own sphere, and those viewed as cowards can be courageous
inside
their own sphere.

Who has provided inspiration to you for courage?

Wow, there have been so
many
. I'll have to limit myself to those who exhibited four-faceted courage. Sir Thomas More certainly did. The stageplay and movie
A Man For All Seasons
is one of my favorites.

In my view, the most courageous man was Jesus Christ. At Golgotha, He had lost His property, family, and even His disciples. He even thought He had lost God the Father. Yet He never stumbled in His courage to self.

Why do you say that?

Well, after the disciple Peter sliced off the high priest's servant's right ear in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew 26, He chastised Peter,

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be?

What He was saying was,
"I don't have to go through with this if I choose not to."
You see, even when he apparently could have avoided the Redeemer's sacrifice without recrimination from the Father, Jesus remained courageous to self, and then demonstrated incomparable physical courage on the cross.

This is hardly a proper example, as the story of the crucifixion and resurrection has not been satisfactorily corroborated according to many historians.

Many other historians and scholars disagree, and quite a few of them were originally atheist. For example, applying biographical testing is very enlightening. Such looks at the number of manuscript copies of the original, and the time period between the original and the copies when none of the originals still exists. Take the manuscript copies of the writings of Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, and Tacitus, for example. We have only one to ten copies of them each, all written no sooner than
1,000
years after the originals. Nevertheless, the copies are held by scholars to be accurate.