 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 784, August 17, 2014 The IRS Will Never Find Us in the Asteroid Belt
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise AS is our preferred wont, we shall open with the words of Mama Liberty. [Link]
Needless to say, the Victim Disarmers will pooh-pooh the facts, and merely claim we're all crazy gun fondling psychopaths bent on violence and destruction. Of course, if that WERE true, there'd be one hell of a lot more firearms violence, rather than an ever DECREASING amount of it (other than in places where gun ownership is strictly controlled, like Shitcago!) Finish reading. You KNOW you want to! I GUESS I oughta put in my two cents on Ferguson, Mo. Well, other than what I have below on protecting property from looters! LOL. So here goes. First, I have NO idea who is right or who is wrong. I'm thinking that blocking traffic is NOT a shootable offense, though I MIGHT run your ass over if I'm trying to get my wife or kid to the hospital at the time. I also find it questionable that the police took 5 days to "reveal" Mr. Brown's heinous criminal acts of which the shooter/cop was unaware. I have to admit that I find it amusing that "journalists" are being gagged, and arrested. Isn't it funny how they bitch when THEY are the ones getting busted for trespassing? That being said, I just don't get how a "Protest for justice" requires one to break into stores owned by your neighbors, Molotov cocktails, and days of rioting. It's often amused me how when poor people riot, they tend to wreck their OWN neighborhoods. Overall, I think that no matter who it turns out is guilty, the people of Ferguson are going to be the losers. So now we have anti-Constitutionalists demanding the U fucking N to interfere in our right to self defense!?! [Link] Let's start with the article. In it's entirety. It's fairly short.
So first, we have Trayvon Martin's mother claiming Trayvon "was killed by a man who considered him a threat, and she brought up Stand Your Ground laws." OK, lady, we understand your son is dead. We feel for your loss. But he was in a physical altercation after attacking a man, and he was killed for it. If he hadn't confronted the "creepy-assed cracker" and instead walked to a well-lit area and hollered for police (or used his cellphone to call 911, rather than his girlfriend) he'd probably still be alive. SHE calls it racism, Zimmerman, with a history of working on behalf of black people, calls it self defense. In NEITHER case does the UN have anything at all to do with it. "Fulton asked the committee "to challenge the State Government to work with local authorities to repeal the Stand Your Ground law to make a future for people of color." ". IF she feels that shooting criminals or other attackers in self defense is eliminating the future of "people of color", then she has, apparently, no faith that "people of color" can avoid criminal activities. Hmmmmm. Next, we have another distraught parent demanding the UN (again, which has NO ZIP ZERO ZILCH NADA authority or power in this case) to "ask the State party to revise the Stand Your Ground laws, which violated human rights." So let me see if I get this right, Mr. Davies. Self defense is a violation of human rights. Passing a law that says you are not obligated to run away from an attacker or other criminal, and have the right (DUH!!!!) to defend yourself using any means you deem necessary including lethal force violates the rights of the attacker!!!! Hello! What about the rights of the fucking VICTIM to keep their property and person safe from predation? And finally, we come to this last statement, from the UN dipshit, committee Vice Chairman Noureddine Amir, who "noted that African American males were seven times more likely to die by firearm homicide, citing Stand Your Ground laws as one of the causes." and "I understand that these disparities arise from factors such as subconscious racial bias in shootings, the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws and the existence of predominantly African American and economically depressed neighborhoods with escalated levels of violence," NO, the main cause of African American males being 7 times more likely to be shot is because most crime committed against African Americans is BY African Americans. And these African American criminals not only wind up being shot in the course of committing crimes (by black and white victims alike), they ALSO tend to shoot the hell out of each other during confrontations over territory, suppliers, and just as part of gang initiations. NONE OF WHICH has anything to do with SYG laws except when the victim is engaged in criminal activity and pays the price. Now, will there be an occasional and deliberate misuse of SYG to justify murder? Humans being humans, YES. Does a bad person, misusing a good law that protects victims from needless prosecution or lawsuits for defending themselves, justify declaring that a law is a "human rights violation"? Absolutely not. Nor does SYG law justify racial shooting -- it justifies shooting criminals committing crimes. It does not say "Only shoot blacks", nor is the use of SYG a racist act, or a sign of subconscious racism. CAN it be misused for racist purposes? Yup. Are most uses of it racist? Nope. And under ANY circumstances, do SYG laws violate human rights, or do they have ANYTHING to do with the UN? NO FUCKING WAY! I can already hear the anti-Constitutionalist Victim Disarmament crowd crowing over this one. [Link] Under Gobernator Ahnold Schwarzeneggar, Kahleefourneeyah passed a law in 2007 requiring all firearms added to the "not unsafe" (and thus legal to sell) list to have firing pins installed that "microstamp" a unique serial number on each brass casing when the gun fires. This law is not supposed to go into effect until the technology is available to make it possible to comply. Of course, that isn't going to stop the state attorney general.
This has already caused Smith & Wesson and Ruger to call a halt to gun sales in the Quake State. Now, do not take my objection to a law with which it is physically impossible to comply as SUPPORT of the law once the technology becomes available—I do not. Such a law MANDATES universal registration of firearms, which, needless to say, is absolutely not acceptable in any way. On the bright side, this law HAS opened up job opportunities in Kahleefourneeyah for enterprising young entrepreneurs to supply Kahleefourneeyah's gun owners with new black market firearms, so that Kahleefourneeyans can continue to possess the means to forcibly change the government when they finally decide they have had enough. Isn't it funny how
So sorry, assholes, We, the People, have long memories, and we're not gonna take it anymore. So long, suckers. Sigh. Another example if how no civilian can possibly defend his or her self and others with a concealed gun. [Link]
After all, it is HIGHLY unlikely this poor "suspect" actually intended any harm. All he wanted to do is engage in a little light-fingered capitalism, and raise some peoples' adrenaline levels. Besides, this "gun nut" should have waited to see if anyone would actually be harmed before taking this poor man's life. The shooter was probably a racist, besides. And at the next link, we see that gun nuts and tattoo artists have the nerve to guard their property from rioting protesters in St Louis. [Link]
So let me see if I get this straight—these men decided to infringe upon the rights of local rioters to steal guns and wreck a business. And they were among the few businesses that DIDN'T get trashed during the riots? How dare they do the police's job for them -- do they want to put the police out of work? It's most likely a case of "Too Little, Too Late", but it certainly is nice to see a congresscritter appear to remember exactly for whom he works. [Link] Unfortunately, his fellow Republicans will remember that they voted FOR the laws that permitted groups like the EPA, DOE, SSI, and the FDA (to name but a few) paramilitary-style SWAT teams, and refuse to back the bill. And OF COURSE the Democrats won't back him, because it's THEIR Messiah who is taking it to extremes in order to give him a militarily-armed force that has never sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Just one example there shows that extremes to which the government is going—WHAT THE FUCK does the Peace Corps need a SWAT Team for? It's bad enough that police of ANY kind are permitted to don military style clothes, conceal their faces, and engage in military assaults on American citizens. Why the hell are we tolerating groups that are not even cops to do the same?? (Yeah, I know, Mama, but it's hard to get TOO many new concepts through their skulls at one time!) This law just makes sense. [Link] In recent years, we have seen homeowners who shoot cops engaging in serving un-Constitutional "No Knock" warrants get prosecuted for felony murder and even murder under special circumstances, where the death penalty is mandatory, for killing a cop. And the cops killed isn't even at the correct address. funny thing is, when the cops go to the wrong address and kill the armed homeowner who tries to defend his home, the cop usually walks away with at worst the loss of a job, and usually with one hell of a lot less. Don't want cops shot breaking in to an armed homeowner's house? Then eliminate "No Knock" warrants. After all, cops are SUPPOSED to serve a warrant, not engage in an armed pseudo-military assault upon a suspect who, EVEN if they get the correct house, is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The headline sounds sensational. And many news sources are milking it for all its worth. A recent change in law in Indiana allows citizens to resist anyone who forcibly enters their house if there is a reasonable suspicion that they intend harm to the occupants. That includes lethal force if that is all that will do the job:
When stated in that way, it doesn't sound quite as radical as many are being led to believe. The recent change of law in Indiana was actually a correction of a previous ruling that had basically given police completely free reign to enter into houses and do what they wanted, while giving citizens absolutely no recourse to resist uniformed intruders—even if the police were engaging in harmful and/or unlawful activities. In the 2011 case Barnes vs. State, The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." Which is absurd. That means that, no matter what a police officer was doing, citizens could not exercise reasonable measures to protect their homes. That amounts to forcing citizens to allow militarized police unrestricted quarter in their homes. I seem to remember a Revolution that was fought over something along those lines. Unless someone knocks on my door, waits for my answer, and identifies himself as a police officer WITH A WARRANT prior to entry, they are valid targets for a few .45acp JHP slugs or a load of 12 gauge buckshot. And might I add that bursting through my door shouting "POLICE!! WE HAVE A WARRANT!!" is NOT properly identifying yourself—this same method has been used in criminal home invasions that are NOT by cops. Freedom of speech issues here? [Link] No light bar, half the cops out there these days are driving unmarked cars, and it has a transformers logo and saying on the side, and this guy gets arrested for "impersonating a police officer!
Methinks this is stretching things, even with his stupid comment. So now we cannot two-tone a car? Or put stickers on it? Remember, the shield is on the side, NOT where people he approaches can see it. So it's a black Maserati. NO ONE with a brain would consider that a cop car, EVEN if you grant that cop cars are legitimate vehicles in the first place! :) Humor break! Humor break!
And if they put Obama's fan next to Chris Christie's, they could power a hovercraft! This is just too fucking sad to be funny. [Link] This brain dead bitch has the NERVE to claim we should arm rebels—in other words, a militia of un-enlisted citizens fighting an oppressive government for freedom, while demanding we disarm our own militias—un-enlisted citizens who AREN'T even fighting their government, but who just demand retaining the ability to do so.
This is just ridiculous. And people get offended when I refer to this imbecile as Hillarious Rotten Clinton... And now for the Quotes of the Week. "Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again; poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves."—D. H. Lawrence "One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street ... these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time." "Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." "The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory." "All the people constitute the militia—according to the Founding Fathers. Therefore every able-bodied man has a duty under the Constitution to become part of the 'well-regulated' militia, specifically to understand and perform well with the individual weapon currently issued to the regular establishment .... Thus one who has not qualified himself with the M-16 may not be considered to be a responsible citizen." (Four from the good Colonel) And that is a wrap for this week.
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next