Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
As usual, I like to start things off with a woman I have come to
truly respect, despite the sad fact that I have yet to meet her. Mama
Liberty has some sage words of advice on statistics for us this week.
The "gun rights" folks need to be very careful when using
statistics,even FBI statistics, to "prove" anything. Statistics can
and do lie... alot. And omission of data is as serious lie as
deliberate bias in the criteria.
And if you read the link, you will see why this matters.
NOT that we haven't already known it, but this REALLY drives it
home. "Our" governments—local, state, and federal—are a bunch
of thieves, who write and pass laws our founders would find
reprehensible. This smacks to me of something George III would have
done, and that Thomas Jefferson would have used in the Declaration as
proper grounds for revolution.
Using "Civil Forfeiture" laws, the government steals your property because
someone ELSE commits crimes on it. Or lives there, and has a criminal
Back in March, Chris's son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs
outside of the home. With no previous arrests or a prior record, a
court ordered him to attend rehab. But the very day Sourovelis was
driving his son to begin treatment, he got a frantic call from his
wife. Without any prior notice, police evicted the Sourovelises and
seized the house, using a little-known law known as "civil
Law enforcement barred the family from living in their own home
for over a week. The family could only return home if they banned
their son from visiting and relinquished some of their constitutional
rights. Adding to the cruel irony, their son has already completed
rehab, ending his punishment by the city. "If this can happen to me
and my family, it can happen to anybody," Sourovelis said.
So that's civilization in Philadelphia. If your child has
committed a minor crime you can be deprived of your home or other
major property. The city shakes down residents, without trial and
without even an accusation, for about six million dollars a year.
Under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be
convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose
their property. Instead, the government can forfeit a property if
it's found to "facilitate" a crime, no matter how tenuous the
connection. So rather than sue the owner, in civil forfeiture
proceedings, the government sues the property itself, leading to
surreal case names like Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Real
Property and Improvements Known as 2544 N. Colorado St.
In other words, thanks to civil forfeiture, the government
punishes innocent people for the crimes other people might have
committed. Sadly, the Sourovelis family is not alone. Doila Welch
faces civil forfeiture of her home, which has been in her family for
17 years, because her estranged husband, unbeknownst to her, was
dealing small amounts of marijuana. Norys Hernandez and her sister
co-own a rowhouse, but her sister is still barred from living there
because Hernandez's nephew was arrested for selling drugs outside her
rowhouse. Welch and Hernandez have not been charged with any crime
and both have joined Sourovelis as named plaintiffs in IJ's class
action against the Philadelphia forfeiture machine.
These people are thieves. They are an organized crime syndicate.
And they exist all over the United States. Philadelphia only stands
out because of the sheer audacity of the size of the annual
Your PROPERTY is taken to court, tried and convicted, then stolen
and sold. Come the revolution....
This is one scary thought, and it REALLY pisses me off that a man
whose writing I have read (and some of them, I enjoyed) supports this
Read the article. THINK over the implications. Then get back to me.
You can inject one under your skin and no one will ever notice. Using
short-range radio frequency identification (RFID) signals, it can
transmit your identity as you pass through a security checkpoint or
walk into a football stadium. It can help you buy groceries at
Wal-Mart. In a worst-case scenario—if you are kidnapped in a
foreign country, for example—it could save your life.
Microchip implants like the ones pet owners use to track their
dogs and cats could become commonplace in humans in the next decade.
Experts are divided on whether they're appropriate for people, but
the implants could offer several advantages. For soldiers and
journalists in war zones, an implant could be the difference between
life and death. A tracker could also help law enforcement quickly
locate a kidnapped child.
"In the long run, chip implants could make it less intrusive than
some emerging ID systems which rely on physical biometrics (like your
fingerprints or unique eye pattern)," says Alex Soojung-Kim Pang,
author of the book "Distraction Addiction" and visiting scholar at
Stanford's University's Peace Innovation Lab.
"This should be a matter of individual choice, but fighting crime
should be much easier using chips," adds sci-fi author Larry Niven,
who predicted chip implants in the '70s. Niven said he supports chip
implantation for security reasons, provided it is an opt-in
"Opt-in measure" my ass! We ALL KNOW that our benevolent and
trustworthy government would NEVER make it mandatory. (yeah,
right!)IF it were "opt-in" to start, someday down the road (about
next Tuesday) the mantra would be "Only criminals, anti-government
revolutionaries, and other deviant scum refuse to be chipped!"
Wednesday, it will be mandatory, at least for all new delivery-room
arrivals, and for anyone seeing a doctor.
And here is another example of an idiotic "Good Samaritan"
interfering when a 70 year old man is busy donating to a
How DARE he do the job of the police. It's people like this who give
victim disarmament people the willies! (sarcasm)
One can only wonder what would have happened to the victim of a
stabbing had a Good Samaritan not intervened and pulled his gun on an
attacker. But what can be said for certain is this…
Because Jeffery Hopkins had a gun with him, and was at the right
place at the right time, a violent criminal is now safely behind
bars, and gun owners everywhere are yet again vindicated.
The video below details exactly how Hopkins was able to subdue the
criminal, and even better, how he was honored instead of vilified for
his heroic actions.
There IS video included. Where are the good citizens who acted so
bravely for Kitty Genovese in New York City, lo those many years ago?
Oh, wait—they're the bastards demanding people like the Good
Samaritan in this video give up their weapons because "they never do
any good anyway".
A police chief admits the truth—a cop's job is to instill fear
in civilians. [Link] Boynton Beach,
Florida. Chief Jeffrey Katz defends the actions of his police. (This
event happened last year, and is only now raising waves.) One of his
cops threatens to shoot a civilian for refusing to stop recording the
actions of said cop and his partner.
The footage begins with an
officer having a conversation with a group of men in a parked car
after a routine traffic stop. When the cop demands to see everybody's
ID, one of the men informs the officer that he is recording the
"Turn that phone off right now," states the officer, to which the
man responds, "No I'm not intimidated, I have rights, sir, I'm
recording your ass," before unleashing a string of profanities.
The officer then walks around to the other side of the car and
gives his badge number but refuses to provide his name, which
according to one of the men in the car is "Danish."
"What's your name sir?" asks one of the men, before the cop swats
the cell phone out of his hand and drags him out of the car, throwing
him to the ground.
Another officer then arrives with his gun drawn before stating,
"I'll fucking, I'll put a round in your ass so quick." The cop then
opens the passenger door with his gun drawn and the video ends.
And the Boss Pig's defense of these animals runs thus—
According to Katz, the men in the car were "escalating" the situation
by "recording the interaction." The officer's actions were justified
because one of the men "reached out of his window with a black object
in his hand"
(a cell phone).
Katz also cited a "violent home invasion robbery" that had occurred within
a 2 mile radius as justification for the hostile response to the men
in the car.
Although the men in the car were foul-mouthed, they could hardly
be described to have been acting in an aggressive manner.
Katz asserted that the men were deemed a threat because they
weren't displaying an appropriate level of "fear" towards the
officers, stating, "When I watch this video, I don't see a car full
of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with fear of the
The men had apparently done nothing to arouse suspicion in the
first place apart from 'driving while black'.
As Carlos Miller explains, "That's what it really boils down to in
this video. Contempt of cop….The young, black men in this video not
only questioned their authority, one of men turned up the attitude
after a cop ordered him to stop recording."
Let me inform you, Mr. Katz, of something you might have neglected
to pay attention to—the Supreme Court if the United States has
ruled that We, the People, have a right to record your thuggish
stormtroopers in the performance of their duties. In point of fact,
the young man, by informing your thugs he was recording them, even
managed to comply with laws specifically designed to punish us for
doing so—he informed the cop he was recording, thus making sure to
avoid illegal wiretapping rules designed to negate our rights. Your
cops acted in an illegal, unConstitutional manner, they engaged in
assault and battery in defense of said unConstitutional acts, they
acted unprofessionally, one drew his weapon and threatened
pre-meditated murder in defense of their actions. And you, Sir, are
as guilty as they, for defending their actions. And the boldfaced
line (boldfacing mine) shows the truth—a car-full of niggers
didn't fear your thugs, so the thugs had to teach them to properly
fear the law. And you wonder why Ferguson happened. (Apologies for
using the word "ni__er", but that is really what this man means —
young blacks didn't fear the cops, knew their rights, and this makes
them a threat. It's people like Katz and his bully-boys that keep the
Fergusons of this country going)
I've GOT to wonder how this is going to stand on appeal.
To ME, ALL 10 day waiting periods violate the 2nd Amendment, just as
background checks, registrations, and ALL licenses or permits do.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP)—A federal judge has overturned part of a
California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun buyers,
ruling that it does not apply to those who already own firearms.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled that "10-day
waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for
gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to
carry concealed weapons.
Californians buying their first firearm will still be subject to
background checks and the 10-day waiting period under the ruling,
A spokesman for the state attorney general, Nick Pacilio, said
Monday that officials are reviewing the ruling as they decide whether
Two gun owners and two gun-owner rights groups, The Calguns
Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, sued over the state
waiting period in 2011.
I guess we'll call it a victory. I HAVE to wonder, though, why a
SECOND 10 day waiting period "impermissibly violate the Second
Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are
authorized to carry concealed weapons." but the first one doesn't. In
addition, Please, Mr. Judge, would you pull your head OUT of your ass
and tell us exactly where the Constitution says that the people must
be "authorized to carry concealed weapons." What part of "Keep and
Bear Arms" mentions authorization, other than the fact that IT'S OUR
FUCKING RIGHT YOU IDIOT. THERE IS NO AUTHORIZATION NEEDED IN ORDER TO
EXERCISE A RIGHT!!!!!
Now THAT'S the way it's done, son! [Link] And to the whiney-assed liberal whiners who
will claim "But it was only a toy! He shouldn't have killed that
man!", we do NOT wait to see if the gun works, or is real. When a gun
is pointed, you kill the person pointing it. PERIOD.
On August 16, a felon in Shasta County, California, pulled out a toy
gun, threatened to take a baby, and was shot and killed by the
boyfriend of the baby's mother.
to Redding.com, when the 38-year-old man showed up at the birthday
party of the one-year-old child he and Amanda Rizer share, he allegedly
became enraged upon finding her new boyfriend there.
He got into an argument with Rizer's new boyfriend, then walked
out to his truck and retrieved "what appeared to be a 9mm handgun."
He said that he "was going to take the child" and pointed the gun at
Rizer's boyfriend, Matthew Robinson.
Fearing for his life, Robinson pulled out a ".38-caliber handgun"
and shot the felon in the chest, killing him.
Officers determined "Robinson fired in self defense."
The deceased felon "was out on bail pending court proceedings for
being a felon in possession of a firearm."
Excellent job, Daddy. You protected your child and the mother. I
And now, for something completely different. The Quotes of the
Week for this round shall come from (cue ominous tones) the bastards
trying to strip us of, or who already have striped other of their
right to keep and bear arms.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to
allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all
conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms
have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so
far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow
of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police."
—Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
"All military type firearms are to be handed in
immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German
man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore any one who
does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who
unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an
enemy of the national government."
—SA Oberfuhrer Bad Tolz, March 1933
"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we
imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
—Janet Reno, US Attorney General
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily
... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to
start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to
strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total
control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to
make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few
exceptions) totally illegal."
—Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker
Magazine, June 26, 1976