Department of Homeland Security... Training Videos

Folks, go to Oathkeepers and watch these videos. Look what they are training to do.

Look at who they presume to be terrorists.

You may have a friend or relative who works for an agency under DHS. You even believe your uncle Cecil and your cousin Scooter, are good guys...

This is happening folks. It is happening now.

Obama Speaks to Ohio State University

He's laughing at you.

Link

He is having an arrogant belly laugh because he knows the majority of you will believe the lie. To those of you who maybe waking up, he has this to say,

Quote: "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works."

In other words, people who believe as our founders did, are paranoid and should be dismissed with prejudice. They are getting in the way of Social... uhhmmm, I mean Progress!

Quote: "They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner."

Thirty years ago the leftists in this country were sneering, "Conservatives see a Communist under every bed..." There Were communists under the bed, and in the closet and their agenda was just around the corner. We are mired in it now.

Quote: "You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

What he means is, "You should reject these voices, for they get in the way of the Socialist agenda... uhhmmm, I mean  Progress!"

"Trust me!" yeah, that's just the ticket. The words "Trust me" are magical. They cause people to give in and give you what you want! You see, to a sane and rational man, the words "trust me" mean, "take the leap of faith, put your full confidence in me, I will inevitably do what is right and you will be satisfied and happy with the result, I will not let you down, this is an investment which is sure..."

But to a Sociopath, they mean no such thing. He only knows them as magic words, which, when he utters them, get him what he wants. If all his arguments fail, he'll try "Trust me!", which as the old stand by, seems to work on otherwise sane, rational and moral people. He knows that if he says that, nine times out of ten people will give in and give him what he came for. He has made no commitment. He owes no obligation. He doesn't have to explain himself. YOU didn't have to do that. It is your own fault.

Please note how he says that Socialism is "brave and creative". The "unique experiment in self rule" is NOT what he is talking about, rather, he means the inevitable triumph of collectivist tyranny, which, according to collectivists like himself,  is the natural march of history. We have the ability to put a brake on it, be he wants you to reject it.

Invoking the spirit of FDR,

Quote: "We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn't want to. But we don't think the government is the source of all our problems, either."

I'm from the Government. I'm here to help. Trust me!

Two Examples of My Previous Thoughts (update 1)

Here are two perfect examples where a cop could ask himself, "Am I acting in defense of Life, Liberty and Property?", or he might simply ask, "Am I 'helping people' or am I a Thug?"

First, I saw this piece on Yahoo news about a woman driving two miles per hour BELOW the speed limit. She also happened to be driving in the left lane. Probably the most egregious offense was being in front of the cop when he approached her in the left lane. This is most likely an example of failure to render obeisance.

Next, we have an example of a group of policemen gladly taking a woman to jail on the flimsiest allegations. She was merely protesting her property taxes being raised, based on an assessment by a private company which works for the county, which is trying to assess the property values more highly in order to increase the taxes on them.

There are two sources on this incident. One is Inforwars dot com, and another is Examiner dot com,  either of them has a complete write up and you can get a full account, except of course for the County's side which is something you don't need to know.


This woman had the unmitigated gall to quote the Constitution at a public meeting. What happened after that should make your blood boil... if you are an American. She was escorted out of the meeting hall, followed to her car and then told, quote from examiner dot com:

"See if you are able to pay your property taxes NOW!"


When she arrived home there were five patrol vehicles and a paddy wagon. She was arrested on an allegation, transported to the police station, booked, handcuffed to a chair, and told she had to surrender two firearms she legally owned. Quote from the Infowars piece:

After police arrested her, they demanded she hand over her two guns, a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a .40-caliber Glock for “safekeeping.” If she had refused, a judge would have set bail too high for her family to pay.

These incidents, folks are perfect examples of opportunities for Policemen to ask them selves "Am I doing the right thing? Am I defending Life Liberty and Property?" If they never ask the question, they are prone to thuggery, because they will do what ever their supervisors tell them to do. If they do ask the question but do the wrong thing anyway, they are Oath Breakers and simply do not care.

These are also examples of opportunities for those Good Cops we keep hearing about, you know, the ones who are supposedly in the vast majority, to stand up and say "No, I ain't doin' it!" These are the perfect opportunities for those Good Cops to stop the bad ones, you know the few bad apples we keep hearing about, from doing the wrong thing and to correct their behavior.

What do you suppose would happen if, when the cop wrote the ticket for going two miles under the limit, when he got back to the station, he was vigorously corrected by his peers? Anything? You think peer pressure, at a minimum, might change the way he conducts himself?

What do you suppose would happen if, when the woman who protested her property taxes was actually protected by the police in her right, first to her property, and second in her right to keep arms in her home? Anything? Do you think any of the Thugs who arrested her actually stopped and gave some thought to her rights? No, they were just doing their job. They went and arrested a peaceful woman, who had no criminal record, and who exercised her right to speak at a public meeting, on an empty allegation, with no investigation done to validate the allegation. They were told to go out and ruin a woman's life and that is what they did.

You want another example? Try this one, where cops get caught on video planting "evidence". Later, when the video is shown by the local press, the charges get dropped because the "evidence" cannot be located. Shucks by golly! Who would have thought of such a thing?

And they did it because they are such "Good Guys" right? Opportunities abound.

Civilian Policemen, you DO have a choice. You can be Constitutional Peace Officers, or you can be Law Enforcement. Go to this website for more information.

Our founding fathers, and the framers of the Constitution, warned us about keeping up standing armies in times of peace. This is exactly what they were talking about. This abuse of people's liberty is exactly what they envisioned when they proscribed the keeping up of armed bodies, paid by the government to do it's bidding, among the peaceful population.

 What is the difference between this,

...and this?

When Malice is Obvious... Call it Malice Not Stupidity!

This piece at Max Velocity got me riled a bit. Instead of posting a long and winded reply over there, I thought I might expand my thoughts on my own page.

His premise is, never attribute malice to that which can be explained by stupidity. I respectfully disagree.

Malice: the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness. Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being.

ATF agents facilitated the smuggling of weapons to the narco-gangs in Mexico, not out of stupidity, but malice. FBI agents murdered eighty people at Waco, not out of stupidity, but malice. Vicky Weaver was shot dead, not by a stupid man, but by a malicious one. The MOVE families in Philadelphia weren't firebombed and killed by the City's stupidest. Leftist members of Congress continually attempt to disarm the peaceful and law abiding, not because they are stupid, but because they are full of malice, hatred, and a burning desire to control every living being on the planet. The Department of Homeland Security (God help us, I never thought I would utter such words) is buying Two Billion rounds of hollow point ammunition, and it isn't because they are stupid.

If any man works for an agency, the function of which is a violation of his oath of office, he cannot say he is on the patriot/constitutionalist/liberty side. He cannot say he's one of the good guys. He cannot say he will do the right thing when the time comes while doing the wrong thing now. He will not be able to hide behind the defense of  "just doing my job..." when he is tried for crimes committed on duty. He cannot say, after the fact, that he didn't know his agency had an anti-constitutional agenda and purpose.

He might look himself in the mirror every morning and ask, "Am I honoring my oath?". If he doesn't ask, the answer is no. If he asks but doesn't answer, the answer is no. If he answers "No, but, but, but..." the answer is no. If he tells himself he'll do the right thing some day, the answer is still, "No, I am NOT honoring my oath."

If he can go to work day after day doing the job he chose, in defiance of his oath to support and defend the Constitution, he is not and will never be on the patriot/constitutionalist/liberty side.

He may mouth the words, but his actions define him.

Police Officers, I am not anti-cop. I am anti-bullying, and anti-thuggery. I am very much in support of Constitutional Peace Officers. If you think that makes me anti-cop, you have just defined yourself. No one WANTS to believe you are all bad guys. Most of us want to believe the MYTH that you are all good guys just trying your best to do a tough job with little appreciation.

If a mere mortal, you know, a "civilian", brutalizes or murders someone, he will be arrested and jailed, and when convicted, punished and wear a scarlet letter as long as he lives. A cop on the other hand, if he brutalizes someone, kills a person unnecessarily, or violates any of a slew of laws which would get a mere mortal "civilian" arrested and charged, he will most likely get a pass. His gang will protect him. Eric Scott, Kelly Thomas, Oscar Grant, Michael McCloskey, and Jose Guerena come to mind. There are hundreds of others. Good cops, if they were in the vast majority, would police their own ranks to such an extent, that bad cops would be extremely rare, but they are not. They are common. Do you think Lon Horiuchi was taken back to the team room at Quantico and beaten to a pulp by his fellow Hostage Roasting Team members? Did he immediately retire and find another line of work? Did he turn himself in for prosecution when he was charged, by a grand jury in Idaho, with manslaughter?

How many videos are there on Youtube of citizens being harassed by cops for exercising their natural right to open carry a sidearm? Hundreds? How many opportunities have there been in those situations for the "good cops" to tell the bad ones, "Hey Joe, you're steppin' on yer dick. I think you need to make a phone call..."

How many videos are there of bad cops brutalizing citizens, because they want to, and they know they will get away with it? Hundreds? How many opportunities are there in those situations for the "good cops" to tell the bad ones, "Hey Joe, you're gonna have a seat in the back of my cruiser and you and I are gonna take a ride down town..."?

One might see the firing of the first shot at Lexington in 1775 (most likely a British officer firing his pistol into the air) as an act of stupidity. But the march out to confiscate cannon, powder, and shot along with any small arms to be found, was an act of malice.

One might see the firing of the first shots at Waco (most likely the killing of the dogs near the front door) as an act of stupidity. But the planning and initiation of a Raid on a peaceful community, was an act of malice.

The time is near at hand. Will we live as free men? Or will we swallow the blue pill and go back into the Matrix? Will we go back to sleep believing the myths while struggling under the yoke?

Is your Slave Master nice?

A Cop Wakes Up or Welcome to the Real World

Chris Hernandez has a very insightful piece about cop culture. Chris should be commended for telling the truth. I hope and pray that more men like him will do likewise. One is better than none.

Thanks, Chris.

Go read the entire piece and remember that he is in the minority.

Link to article

Money Quotes:

" I had been something of an idealist about cops. I thought American cops would go by what’s right and wrong instead of looking for what they can legally get away with."

"I know now that cops like Joe have no problem violating people’s rights, as long as they have some “official” way to do it."
 
" Keep in mind, I became a police officer because I wanted to be a good guy. Even though we’ve all seen reports of police brutality and corruption, I still believe we cops are the good guys."

"I keep hearing we don’t need the 2nd Amendment. I keep hearing the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. I keep hearing that it was written for a time long past, when we had to worry about foreign invasion and government tyranny. I keep hearing the 2nd Amendment should be repealed because there’s no threat of tyranny today."

(You're hearing this from whom? Your fellow cops? Those stand up good guys you revere so much? Those super-swell heroes who swore an oath, like you did, to support and defend the Constitution?)

Welcome the the real world, Chris. Most citizens have to go through a good Law Enforcement fucking before they wake up. Better late than never.

Would You Buy an Armalite?

Mark Westrom of Armalite has declared where he stands. His Statement can be read on AR15.com where he posted it for a wide audience.

Quote:

Thanks for posting this email. I just received a concerned telephone call about it, an email from the staffer who stimulated the mail.
I think a bit of clarification is in order.
The root of the matter is a HUGE series of inquiries by both email and telephone asking ArmaLite to cut off sales to New York and other states which deny its citizens the right to own our rifles, as several other firms have done. Some of the contacts have been duplicates of others and some were so redundant that they appeared to be spam. Many of them have been rude and I'm afraid one of my staffers thought that he was responding to a spammer and was more terse than he should have been. Once he realized what happened he came to me and apologized.
My purpose here is to pass on his apology from the corporate level and to answer the initial question: What is ArmaLite going to do?
ArmaLite is continuing a policy put into place when California first banned our rifles. That policy remains:
1. We will not sell to those states which deny it's honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite's.
2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. I am a former Police Officer myself, and the staffer who stimulated the recent anger is a currently serving one. We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn't be punished for the actions of their political elite.
We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.
3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite's. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite's within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.
Our observation is that most County Sheriffs disagree with banning sales of our rifles and many publicly refuse to enforce such laws. We sell to those departments and to their Deputies, but will not sell to those County departments headed by Sheriffs who would deny their citizens the same rights.
In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.
As you can see by reading posts on the topic, some readers have been harsh with their criticism of ArmaLite. It was in response to this atmosphere that my staffer reacted harshly. He's come to me and apologized and I personally am passing my own apology along with his.
But don't be mistaken, ArmaLite is strongly involved with both personal, corporate, and political efforts at the State, National, and International level to protect our civil rights. And we'll continue to support your shooting needs as the situation moves forward.
Respectfully,
Mark Westrom
President,
ArmaLite Inc.

And so,  Mark Westrom, President of Armalite Inc. has decided, or perhaps more accurately has always believed that Police Officers SHOULD possess weapons which are denied to mere mortals. He believes the right thing to do is to sell his weapons to the very people who will exercise State power over citizens.

Note this sentence, "In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them."

He says this immediately after saying this, "1. We will not sell to those states which deny it's honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite's. "

and,

"We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware."

In other words he sees no contradiction in terms of selling his weapons to the very tools of the State  which WILL impose draconian anti self-preservation laws on you! He believes that Law Imposement personnel in remote areas deserve to have quality modern wesponry but YOU do not!

He believes his statement of being a former cop gives him credibility, so you "need not worry..."

This reminds me very much of HS Precision and their "let them eat cake" attitude after they published an endorsement b the  infamous killer Lon Horiuchi, the very man who murdered Vicky Weaver, formerly of the FBI's Hostage Roasting team. HS Precision's attitude was... Yeah, so what? We support Law Imposement! If it was the cops what dunnit it was the right thing to do, because it was the cops what dunnit! Everybody shut up!


I believe Armalite has just shot themselves in the ass.


The purpose of the Second Amendment is what, Mark?

When Bracken Speaks, You Should Be Listening

Bracken sends... Read it all!

Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.

The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.

The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.

Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.

In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.

Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.

Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)

Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.

In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.

In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.

Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.

During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.

The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.

“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.

So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.

Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.

The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.

While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.

Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.

But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”

If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”

You want our guns? Then come and take them!

No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!
Freedom now, freedom forever!

Burned Him Alive? No, They Wouldn't Do That.....

First, from CBS Los Angeles is the completely unforeseen headline,

Cabin In Dorner Barricade Situation Engulfed In Flames

 

Now, no one saw that coming did they? I mean, a fire? Shucks by golly! I mean, Jeepers! Who duh'thunk it?

USA Today doesn't say a word about what caused a fire, only that a deputy was killed and another wounded when they tried to storm the cabin. They believed Dorner was injured in the gunfight but had no idea if he had been killed by gunfire. It simply doesn't occur to them to ask the question, "Was he burned alive?"

The UK Guardian reports, "The cabin where Dorner was said to have been holed-up in Big Bear has been engulfed by flames. Earlier up to 200 police officers were said to have been outside the building, guns drawn."

ABC Local reports, " The cabin was on fire and smoke was coming from the structure in the late afternoon after police surrounded it in the snow-covered woods of Big Bear..."  They are also reporting that as soon as his vehicle was spotted, he was "engaged", meaning officers began shooting as him as soon as they saw what looked like their man. This is the same tactic used in Torrance, CA when two ladies were shot for the crime of driving a dark colored truck while delivering newspapers.

Infowars has multiple sources along with voice recordings of police demanding Dorner be burned alive.

Watch/listen to this Youtube video all the way to the end. They are discussing which sides of the building are fully engulfed in flames and holding back the fire trucks because they "didn't have full penetration".

But, I don't see a word yet about how Dorner set himself on fire and committed suicide. 

Are they not even going to try to make the claim this time?

Now they are saying... yeah we put incendiary devices in the cabin, but we didn't "intentionally" start the fire... (smirk, grin, chuckle). The Sheriff says they didn't start a fire to get Dorner out. That is true. They started a fire to burn him alive. I am sure that if Dorner had come out naked, carrying a white flag, they would have shot him dead as soon as he was visible. Any tenuous excuse of "might have had a weapon", or "furtive movement" would have sufficed.

Folks, this is doctrine now. This is what they have in store for you, when you decide the Gang can't have their way with you any more. It will be but a minor blip on history's radar screen, if it is remembered at all.

Get used to the idea. 

Fraud? Hornswoggle? Bullshit? You tell me...

This is it? This all there is? It reminds me very much of the "757 hit the Pentagon" story.

Not one school surveillance video? Not even a still shot from the surveillance video? Not one mobile phone video?

Take a long look at these two videos on youtube. Then tell me what you think. I am not asking you to debunk the videos. I am asking you to address the questions raised. Anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358657090

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUOBSN03TU

Eidt: this one also.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfczc6m5M4


The MSM? We all know the answer, so we don't even need to ask the question. What is astounding, is that not one MSM reporter even wants to know.

Why is there NOT ONE Law Imposement officer in the Newtown vicinity asking and answering these questions?

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

How many have there been with the same formula?

Are we all truly this stupid?

Two Pieces For You To Read

First, from Patriot Post is a challenge to pledge as our forefathers did, to protect and defend our natural rights. Folks we must make this Pledge to each other, and do it for the whole world to see, just as they did.

Quote:

"We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

and,

"
On that note, enough is enough.
Liberty is "endowed by our Creator," not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.
I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama's assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line."

Go and read it all!

Also, from American Thinker is a piece on playing chicken. Think clearly, folks.

Quote:

"The federal officers are going to tell him that his weapon has been banned, that the deadline has passed for him to turn it in at the local police station, and that he must turn it over immediately.... 
If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken -- that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children's future. This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive. It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner. It is how they want you to feel about your "private" health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion. It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of "sustainability," "social justice," "anti-discrimination," and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance."

Please go read it all!

My Senator's Reply

Here is what I received vi email:

Dear Longbow,

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence and gun control proposal.

Mass shootings are tragically becoming too common and as a U.S. Senator, it is my responsibility to address the growing issue of violence in America's schools and public places.  In the coming weeks, I hope that our country will consider how we can help keep people - especially innocent children - safe while protecting our constitutional rights. 

Moving forward, we must find careful, balanced solutions that do both.  I have a long history of protecting the Second Amendment, and I will keep that value in mind as we consider these important issues. With input from residents of Our State, I look forward to rising to this important challenge.  Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon  A. Judas

United States Senator

Translation,

"Yeah, I got yer letter. Yeah I hear you, but I don't really care. There is an agenda and we in the United States Senate will pursue it. Please contact me to praise me for the next unconstitutional agenda item I pursue... if you want to."

He was recently re-elected. He simply doesn't care. 

Remember, vote for the other team next time! That'll show 'em!

My Congresscritter's Reply

I told him in the first sentence of my letter not to respond to me with a form letter. This is what I received.

Dear Mr. Longbow:

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for continuing to protect our nation’s Second Amendment rights following the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I value your point of view and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

 

As a father of four, I am deeply saddened by the tragedy in Connecticut and pray that nothing like this ever happens again. It has become increasingly clear that there is a need to be proactive in increasing access to mental health resources and helping schools strengthen their ability to protect their students. Without a doubt, our nation’s health care system is in need of common-sense reforms that put patients and their relationship with their doctor first, and mental health must be part of that equation.

 

With that said, I am committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights, and I do not believe Washington should make rash decisions on controversial firearm restriction proposals that many experts believe would be ineffective in preventing violent crimes. While I believe we need to strictly enforce current laws forbidding potentially dangerous persons from possessing a firearm, I will work to ensure that Congress protects the constitutional rights of the thousands of Residents who safely and lawfully possess or use a firearm.

 

Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in Congress to represent the values and interests of the people of Our State, and your input is very helpful as I do. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Crappy S. Congresscritter

 

 

This letter is a pre-written piece of hogwash. This indicates the man's wet finger is in the air and he will blow the way the political winds direct him. Since he sent me a form letter back anyway, I must assume that he didn't read my first letter. So, I contacted him again and told him I didn't think he even looked at my letter nor the points I made, so I sent it in its entirety again.

Ok folks, I have shown you mine. Now show me yours!

My Letter to Congress and My Line in the Sand

This is the letter I am sending to my Congressman and Senators. I believe in being direct. The time is now to draw the line.

Longbow

101 Main St.

AnyTown, USA 00001

Hon. Crappy S. Congresscritter

206 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC  20515

10 January 2013 A.D.

Dear Crappy,

Recently, the subject of Gun Control has reared its ugly head. I want to make sure you know where I stand on this issue.

First, DO NOT send a form letter back to me. I am not interested in seeing and hearing you mouth the words. If you understand my intent, send a letter saying, “Ok, Longbow I understand.” That will suffice.

The actions of criminals do not and cannot ever nullify my rights, or the rights of any free men. Do you understand?

The Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees my right, and my neighbor’s right, to keep (own and possess) and bear (carry) arms. Those arms are the same arms issued to the infantryman. I will not suffer any further restrictions on my natural rights as a free man, most especially those rights secured and guaranteed to me by the Federal Constitution.

 This is my line in the sand. I will not comply.

If Congress passes any ban, I will not comply. If Congress attempts to expand the list of weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act, I will not comply. If Congress passes any bill, which attempts to make me a criminal for exercising my Natural, and Constitutionally secured, Rights, I will not comply.

Let me give you a glimpse of what might happen. The Attorney General (the very man responsible for Fast and Furious) will send agents into the field to enforce a new ban. They will come to my house attempting to force my compliance. I will tell them no. They will attempt to arrest me. I will resist arrest. They will attempt to use force against me. I will resist with equal force. They will then murder me. Do you understand?

Enforcement of a firearm and/or magazine ban is a murder mission. I will not go quietly into the night. If I see my neighbor being subjected to similar enforcement efforts I will come to his aid. I will use force to defend my neighbor’s Natural and Constitutionally secured rights. Do you understand?

The answer to the problem of school shootings is VERY simple. Repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act. That abomination has contributed to these shootings and made the problem worse. If effect, school zones are free-fire zones, victim disarmament zones, and target rich environments for mad men and murderers. How can you, in good conscience, mandate that everyone in a public school be made helpless and by law unable to defend himself?  Encourage teachers, administrators, and security personnel to train in the use of personal firearms and keep those weapons at hand and ready to use.

You want to ban something? Ban SSRI drugs. Do about five minutes of research and see that every one of these mass shootings, which result in the suicide of the shooter, also involves the use of SSRI’s and other psychotropic drugs.

I also want you to have some historical perspective on this subject. In 1934 Congress handed President Franklin another in his long line of unconscionable and un-Constitutional bills to sign. It was known as the National Firearms Act (NFA). This act brought under Federal regulation, Machineguns, Short Barreled rifles and Shotguns, Sound Suppressors, and a nebulous category known as “any other weapon”. The excuse for enacting this law was criminal activity.

I remind you now, the actions of criminals do not and cannot ever nullify my Natural and Constitutionally secured rights.

The only time this act was contested before the U.S. Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, the Court said the following (paraphrasing here), “Show us how a short barreled shotgun is a militia grade weapon and we will say the right to own it is protected by the Second Amendment…”. There was no one present to argue the case for the defense, so only the government’s argument was heard. The case was remanded back to district court, which had previously held the NFA to be un-Constitutional, for reconsideration.

All Federal Gun Control legislation rests upon this decision. Congress proceeded on the presumption that there was no individual right, secured by the Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

This presumption was proven wrong in the Heller decision, with which you may be familiar.

If the Supreme Court hears a similar case, in light of Heller and McDonald, based on newly banned “assault weapons”, the whole house of cards (NFA) will come down. Do you understand?

One more note about the NFA, in 1986 Congress passed the “Hughes Amendment” to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The Hughes Amendment disallowed registration and tax payment on new machineguns, under the NFA. It means Congress passed an unconstitutional law and then fifty years later passed another one which says, “Yeah, we know we required you to beg permission and pay a tax in order to comply, but now we will not even let you attempt to comply! Sucker!” Do you think this is good law? Do you sincerely think the status quo is good enough? The National Firearms Act should be repealed.

Proceeding incorrectly, Congress enacted the Gun Control Act in 1968 (GCA). This was supposedly an act to regulate firearms in “interstate commerce”. It granted to the Secretary of the Treasury (now transferred to the Attorney General) the un-Constitutional authority to ban any weapon from importation, which he believed wasn’t for sporting purposes. It also gave him the authority to require the registration and payment of a tax on any firearm with a bore diameter over .50 caliber which he thinks is not for “sporting purposes” The idea was to begin an ever-expanding list of regulated firearms, with the goal of eventual ban.

Let me be clear again. Hunting and Sport Shooting are forms of entertainment. The Second Amendment is NOT about entertainment. It is about my Natural Right to resist tyranny. Do you understand?

The CGA also regulated how firearms are delivered at retail to every customer. Even in transactions having nothing to do with “interstate commerce”.  This aspect of the Gun Control Act should be repealed. Congress has no such authority.

The “interstate commerce” clause has been used to justify any act of Congress passed without authority granted to it by the Constitution. The hinge pin there is Wickard v. Filburn. In this case the Supreme Court, under duress from the President’s threat to pack the Court with Anti-Constitutionalists, and attempting to salvage what was left of its Constitutional integrity, hoping to simply outlast the socialist administration of Mr. Roosevelt, decided that anything which somehow tenuously affects or is nebulously related to “interstate commerce” is subject to regulation by Congress. This decision was wrong. It was not only wrong, but I remind you it was made under duress. This decision should be overturned.

The “necessary and proper” clause is also cited as authority for Congress to do anything it wants to do. I remind you to read Amendments Nine and Ten to the Federal Constitution. Those Amendments are not difficult to understand.

If you and your colleagues seek to be true to your Oath, I challenge you to begin to deconstruct this house of cards. The original “Assault Weapons” ban from 1994, should not only not be renewed, it should be repealed in its entirety. It should be stricken from the books as though it was never passed. The National Firearms Act should be repealed in its entirety. Do want a good reason to do that? See the Dick Act (hint here, it will take about ten minutes of research). If Congress wants to regulate “interstate commerce” in firearms, there may be a way, legislatively, to put such commerce in good order, or to make it regular. The idea that “to regulate” means, “prevent, deny, disparage” is erroneous should be abandoned now.

Free men have the right to arms. They have the right to their own property and the right to prosper from the fruits of their own labor. You in Congress do NOT have first lien on the lives of the free people of these United States. The right to arms is the final expression of all the others. Do you understand?

I will now summarize. The right to arms is natural and inherent to the free people of these United States. The Federal Constitution guaranteed this in writing. The Federal Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. “Gun Control” laws are, on their face, a violation of the Supreme law of the Land. You swore an oath to Support and Defend that guarantee. I expect you to honor your oath. It is not good enough to continue with the status quo. The rights enumerated in the Second Amendment have been under attack since 1934. Any legislation which infringes on that right must be repealed. If you support the status quo you are in violation of your oath of office. Do you understand?

I will suffer no further restrictions, no further burdens. There will be no limits on magazine capacity. There will be no prohibition based on the function or cosmetics of any firearm I choose to own. There will be no begging permission from the FBI before I trade my private property with my neighbor. There will be no registration. There will be no transfer taxes paid, anymore than I would suffer a tax before I exercise my right to vote, or my right to speak my mind. There will be no Ban. I will not beg permission before I exercise a right guaranteed to me, any more than I will beg a bureaucrat’s permission to breathe. If the Attorney General sends his agents to enforce such a ban on me, or my neighbors, in violation of their Oath of Office, I will presume them to be on a murder mission and will act accordingly. Do you understand?

It is not enough for you to merely vote NO on the next restrictive bill introduced on the floor of the house. You should be fighting to turn the tide. Your efforts should ring throughout the halls of Congress. You may practice your polite collegiality on the floor of the chamber, but in the cloak room you should vigorously remind each of your colleagues of their Oath of Office and of their obligation. If you are not doing this, you are betraying the people who elected you.

Sincerely,

Longbow

T.L. Davis Says a Mouthful

Go here and read the latest from T.L.

I will say this, I would consider myself blessed to stand with any man as dedicated and principled as he.

I agree completely with this sentiment,

"That is unless we take a hard look at the realities of our position and realize that our fight is not just over the Second Amendment, but all of them. That if they force us to raise our weapons over this issue, we should not lay them down until all of the others have been resolved. Including a Supreme Court more accountable to their oaths."

How shall it be, folks?

Another Socialist Piece of Excrement Heard From, or, Iowans Why Do You Put Up With This?

This piece from The Daily Caller lays out what a State Representative in Iowa thinks of the people who elected him. I saw it on The Drudge Report.

Meet Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa State Representative.

The newspaper reports that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol. He thinks he should possess his weapons, but you are not to be trusted nor permitted.

Quotes from the piece at Daily Caller,

"We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them," said his smugness. How very erudite he is. How precise in his chosen words, how utterly imperial his declaration is.

But wait, there is more!

"We can’t have those running around out here." Are you Iowans allowing your guns to go running around loose and unsupervised again? Who left the safe open?

It gets better, "Those are not hunting weapons." You see? The only reason the State permits you to possess firearms is for you to go hunting. If you are not a hunter, you have no legitimate reason to possess them. You don't have a bona fide "Need".

Now for the money quote, "We should ban those in Iowa... We need to get them off the streets — illegally — and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them..."

Yes, that is the accurate quote in the Daily Caller piece.

"We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns."

Iowans, you elected this guy? This is who represents YOU? This is your expression of your best effort to make a choice?

This is what you want?

Dirtbag, Scoundrel, Oath Breaker.

Thank you WRSA.

Damn you, Oath Breaker!

Remember, there is justice, in this life or the next.

Meet Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Oath Breaker. Oath Breakers are, by definition, Perjurers and Liars. Liars are scoundrels. Scoundrels are dirtbags and I have no use for them.

Read what he thinks of your natural and Constitutionally secured rights. Remember folks, no officer gets a key to the Li'l General's room unless he is a bought and paid-for politician.

Read here and get it strait from the Scoundrel's mouth.

Quote, "“That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.” You see how he differentiates himself, as a soldier from mere citizens?

The unorganized militia of these United States is We The People. We The People must, and of right ought to, possess the exact same weaponry as the infantryman. If we do not, we have no only given up our birthright, we have abdicated our place in the world as free men and abandoned our Duty.

You see, how the hoplophobes and would-be tyrants always frame the argument in in terms of making you think you must justify yourself by proving a "Need" first? This is where the Fudds think they have an advantage over us mere "gun owners". This is exactly what they mean when they join the debate by proclaiming, "I'm a hunter...!".

You see, Stanley there, has a "Need" as an active duty soldier. He believes that you, however, being a mere mortal, don't have a bona fide "Need", and therefor shouldn't be permitted.

Damn you! Permitted by whom?

Quote, "...I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population...”

First of all, Desire? How about Shall Not Be In-fucking-fringed, Gen. McChrystal?

Second, protect our police? Who shall protect us from the police and the military if we give up our birthright? I ask again, is Government your Daddy?

(Later, after some thought)

I have a suggestion for you Gen. McChrystal. I have decided that Al Gore is correct and that YOU are putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by breathing. You are contributing to Global Warming! You probably want to suffocate children and kittens and puppies!

How about I come over there and place some "Reasonable Restrictions" on your right to breathe? Oh, and I will be the one to decide what is "Reasonable".

What's that? You say need "Need To" breathe freely and deeply? Well, due to global warming and greenhouse gasses and all, we must sacrifice, some more than others. Are you a professional athlete or a professional scuba diver? No? Then I have decided that your breathing is subject to my reasonable restrictions. You see, you don't have a bona fide "Need".

Now, lets put this choke collar on. Easy now, we wouldn't want you to get hurt resisting whats good for you. There, see? You can still breathe some. You'll survive just fine under "Reasonable Restrictions". Don't you just love the fuzzy lining on your new collar?

Oh, what's that? You say you have a "Right" to breathe freely? Well, where is that right granted to you in the Constitution? What Supreme Court Decision can you cite which says that you have such a right? That is correct, you can't. So I suppose you had better shut the hell up before the EPA SWAT Team comes to your home in the middle of the night to terrorize your family and take from you what is left your Breathing Privileges. If you do not comply, we must assume that you want to suffocate children and kittens and puppies.

Onward to Socialism Progress!

Karl Denninger Does it Again

This piece from Karl gets right to the point.

Money quote:

"But here is in fact the punchline, and the reason that Feinstein and others want to ban or otherwise restrict guns in any way, shape or form, no matter what they claim in public.
It is the true reason that all the gun-banners, including Obama, Biden, Bloomberg and the rest lie and obfuscate in an attempt to whip you into a frenzy:

If you are a government actor intent on violence against the citizens of this nation then it is clear from the evidence that you are and will be deterred by the presence of heavily-armed citizens so long as they continue to be present in America, even though they never fire a single shot at anyone, exactly as happens in the private sector between law-abiding citizens and criminals every single day -- more than a million times a year.

Heavily-armed citizens can only be persuaded through the use of reason, not force, and the more-heavily armed they are the greater the differential between aggressor and victim is that is neutralized."

Tyrants simply do not care about principles. They care about wielding power over every other person in existence. They care about control.

It is that simple.

Isn't It Illegal for Felons to Possess Guns?

We have been hearing about this incident in the news.

According to,

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/25/webster-police-gunman-left-chilling-note-before-luring-firefighters-into-trap/

 

A man, who was a known violent offender, and a convicted murderer, decided to kill his sister and then leave a note saying he wanted to burn the neighborhood down and go out doing what he loved to do best... killing people.

The cbslocal piece makes a point to tell us that the rifle he used a Bushmaster 223 rifle, you know, the same one used by the Sandy Hook killer.

Jeppers, I wonder if he registered his guns in accordance with the Gun Control laws in place. I wonder if he has a "permit" for the pistol he possessed.

Isn't it illegal for Felons to possess firearms at all? Shouldn't felons be made to register all of their guns just like the law abiding?

This just can't happen in New York, where they have some very rigid gun control laws under which all the law abiding must suffer.

You mean he was a criminal who didn't obey the Law?

I Almost Feel Sorry For Them.

They have no idea how badly they are making things for themselves. They are making civil war inevitable. 

Kurt Hoffman reports that Dianne Feinstein  wants to bring every weapon she calls an "assault weapon" under the National Firearms Act.

Per Kurt: 

"She explains that all existing "assault weapons" would be--just as machine guns are currently--put under National Firearms Act (NFA) regulation, with all the legal hoops such regulation entails.

The guns would be registered (presumably, like machine guns, subject to periodic inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives); owners would be subject to invasive background checks, presumably fingerprinting, etc. She did not mention the $200 tax stamp for every transfer (and would that also apply to magazines--each magazine?), but if they are to be regulated "like machine guns," that would be part of it. And ownership of the gun would apparently be contingent on a local judge or chief law enforcement officer approving that ownership--with the official in question not required to provide that approval, or even a reason for disapproval.
Failure to meet any of these requirements would be grounds for confiscation."

I agree completely with Kurt's final analysis, 

"Even without confiscation, Feinstein's bill is a new "Intolerable Act," and a direct violation of her oath of office. With it, it's an act of war against the American people. That is a war that she and her allies will lose."

 They have no idea how badly they are stepping in it. I almost feel sorry for them. Feeling sympathy would be rational if they were not in their right minds. But they are. 

They want you disarmed. They do not care what they have to do to get there. They do not care how many lies they have to tell or what propaganda they have to publish. They do not care that the Constitution prohibits, explicitly, the very thing they pursue. They just want you disarmed. They want to wield power over you. If you are disarmed, they have the ability to control your life and destiny and you have no recourse. 

They do not see the backlash they are setting up. They have no idea of the blow-back they will receive. They believe their minions will do exactly as they are instructed, and at first, most will. Those poor bastards. Very soon after the fact, no one will be willing to enforce those Intolerable Acts.

On the bright side, now is the time to rid ourselves of the National Firearms Act. That Act was only tested in the Supreme court once. In the case known as U.S. v. Miller, the Court said (paraphrasing here)...

"No one here has shown us how a Short Barreled Shotgun is a Militia grade weapon, therefor we cannot say the Constitution protects the right to own such a weapon."

If the NFA is challenged on it's face, the registration of machine guns, silencers and SBRs and SBSs will fail to pass constitutional scrutiny. 

Feinstein and company have no idea how precarious is their reliance on the NFA. They have no idea that when their ban on "assault weapons" is challenged directly, in light of Heller, it will crumple like rice paper. Even if the Court, in its post Obamacare madness, upholds a ban, enforcement of it will be impossible. Civil war would ensue. 

Do they really want to risk this? 

Yes, they do. Those poor stupid bastards.

A Good'n From Market Ticker

Go to market-ticker.org and read this piece by Karl Denninger on killing.

I like this part...

"But we have intentionally removed from our consciousness all of the ugly that inherently comes with killing.  And at the same time we have removed our understanding and respect for the fierce desire of that which is alive to remain alive.

We are now so depraved that we have calls in the media and political offices to cower in the corner and die when under lethal assault rather than assert our right to life and do whatever we're able, with whatever tools we can muster, to stop that assault.  We nod our heads instead of erecting the middle finger at all who suggest such rabid stupidity.

We talk about "gun control" as if that will stop killing.  It will not.  It will simply allow more killing to take place. Consider that if deer knew how to use rifles we would probably not hunt them.  They know their piece of forest better than we do.  We go into the forest for a few weeks to scout and then to shoot.  They live there all year.  Who's going to ambush who if they had rifles as well?" 

And,

"And sickos would not hunt us if they believed we were armed -- whether we actually are or not."


Well done, Sir!

A Police State? We Must Decide Now!

How is it to be folks? Norman Rockwell's America, where Officer Friendly is there to help? Shall Officer Friendly be seen as trusted and respectable? Will he be seen as the kind of man who is there to assist and help people? Will he be an expression of the best in the peaceful community he serves?

Or, shall it be as the trend is going?

Like this,

And like this,

And like this,

I often hear policemen refer to themselves as "Sheepdogs" You guys like that label, don't you? You think it sounds respectable and honorable. It is arrogant and condescending. I will tell you why. A sheepdog's primary function is to herd sheep. Do you like that idea as it applies to you? Do you like the idea of barking and snarling and forcing the herd to move in the direction the Master wants it to go?

Do you realize, that you are saying that not only do (free) people have a master, but that you do as well? You are labeling yourself a tool in the Master's arsenal of control.

You think it is just lovely to herd sheep? To where, one might ask? Why of course, to be sheered and ultimately, slaughtered.

Are you a servant of the people, or are you a tool? The time is now to make your choice. Don't worry, it will be obvious where you stand.

Americans, Stand the Hell Up!

I have the following to say. I will not disarm. Any attempt at confiscation will be met with Jim Bowie's reply. Congress may pass a new draconian law designed to remove practical weapons from the citizenry, but I, for one, will not comply.


The time is now, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, to draw the line and say no more. This is the end game. Any act of Congress attempting to make my firearms and magazines illegal to possess or non-transferable, will be flagrantly disregarded.

Law officers and Federal Agents you are hereby put on notice, that if you attempt to enforce any such new law, you are in violation of your oath of office, you will have perjured yourselves before God and the People. If you are acting outside your sworn office, you have no authority! Do you understand that? If you will stand against the Constitution and the American People and their natural rights, you are not worth a bucket of cold piss!

County Sheriffs, if you will not interpose on behalf of the good people who elected you, you are not worthy of your office. If you assist Federal Officers in enforcing an unconstitutional gun ban, you SHOULD be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Rank and file Policemen and Sheriff's deputies, If you will blindly follow unconstitutional orders and willfully impose such unconstitutional laws on the public, you will show yourselves  enemies of the of the people you supposedly serve. You oppose such bans, you say? Then say so! Say it loudly and publicly! Say it individually and through your professional organizations! Thus far the silence from your ranks has been deafening.

The only thing which will stop this, is an absolutist posture. All gun owners MUST stand up and stand together! The firearms industry must stand together and speak with one voice. Lobbying groups MUST make it clear to Congress that a gun and/or magazine ban will be considered an Intolerable Act.

We will not be able to guilt our congressmen into acting constitutionally. We will NOT be able to convince them of the logic of our argument. The Political Class in our country is as corrupt and self serving as any in the worst third world toilet. The ONLY thing they care about about is their position and power. They must be put on notice: the best thing that can happen to them is the loss of their office.

How shall it be, folks?

Stuart Rhodes of Oath Keppers says NO!

Here is Stuart Rhodes' declaration

"My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don’t want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our “assault weapons” – our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles – and the “high capacity” magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE.

The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion’s share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call “sniper rifles” (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don’t need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22’s (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not “disarmed” while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range).

We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted."

Well said, Stuart. I pray that there are more of us who are willing to say the same.

It Wasn't Guns, It Wasn't Asperger Syndrome...

Folks, David Codrea of War On Guns has linked to this piece at Market-Ticker

They link to this piece at New York Magazine.

It appears this young man, Adam Lanza was a schizophrenic who was on a new drug known by various names such as, Iloperidone, Fanapt, Fanapta and Zomaril. Psychotics many times act violently. Sometimes the drugs used to treat them make their condition worse. According to various sources, His Mother had been telling people "I'm losing him..." in the weeks before the shooting.

From the Market-Ticker piece,

"Many people may have missed this, and in fact I did until someone on the forum brought over the quote itself.  That drug is a relatively new one and in fact was the subject of a non-approvable letter originally.
The name caught my eye because I loosely follow biotech companies and remembered it from the denial back in 2008.  The FDA wanted another study and more safety data.  The company repackaged and resubmitted the previous study instead, which was a "Hail Mary" pass that almost-never succeeds.  In this case it did and the company's stock skyrocketed."

And,

"If this is real then we deserve to have this fact out in the open, in public, right damned now and all political activity associated with alleged "remedies" must stop until this allegation is fully vetted and either proved up or disproved, in public. 
If this is true there is no gun law that would have stopped this event; if he could not have gotten a gun he would have used a gallon of gasoline, a home-made bomb, a knife, something, anything.  We know he was willing to kill his own mother to acquire the weapons -- he would have killed a cop, a random person on the street, or a store clerk.
If this allegation is true this mass-murder was not about guns at all.
The point here, folks, is that there is simply no way to remove from society all of the tools and things that someone can use to commit murder, even mass-murder, if they have voices in their head telling them to kill people."

Go read the links.

YOU MUST read it all. Then call your local radio shows and television stations. Call your Congressmen and Senators.

ATF's Fast and Furious - Kill and Kill and Kill

CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson has recently filed a story you can read at CBS DC .

The meat of it is this, another Fast and Furious weapon has been confirmed as one used to murder a young lady named Maria Susana Flores Gamez. It was purchased and smuggled to Mexico by a Strawman buyer named Uriel Patino. He did so as ATF agents watched him, and tracked his movements.

Weapons smuggled to the narcotics gangs under the protection of ATF's Fast and Furious program have been used to murder hundreds of innocent people in Mexico, if not thousands. All the while this protected facilitated smuggling was going on, the Obama administration and their lap dogs in the press were telling the American people that their rights were at fault and to blame for violence in Mexico.

Folks, ATF really did this. The FBI really did facilitate the purchase of firearms by known felons, by illegally allowing them to pass the NICS background check. The Department of Justice really did facilitate this program and executives high in the chain of command including the Attorney General himself were fully aware of what was going on. No one under the Justice Department umbrella has been or ever will be prosecuted for this mountain of crimes.

Yet, the Obama admministration, the Justice Department, and members of Congress are saying that YOUR rights are at fault. They are saying that YOU must suffer greater burdensome restrictions on your freedom.

Folks, do you see a pattern here? Do you see a trend here?Do you understand that when they do the blood dance they are not praying for your safety?

Those who would disarm you seek ONLY to have power over you. If you disarm, you are at the mercy of, and subject to the whims of, he who is armed.

This is what you want?

If We Disarm

The "President" just said, "We can't tolerate this anymore. We must change."

I agree!

Ladies and gentlemen, YOU are responsible for your own safety and security! You and you alone can preserve your life and the lives of your dependents! Get personal weaponry and carry the single most effective tool available to you to for the prevention of violence against you or your loved ones. That tool is a major caliber handgun.

We have the right to arms because we are free men. That right is as inherent to us as drawing breath. Self preservation is the first law of nature.

Go read Jeff Snyder's piece called A Nation of Cowards which was published in 1993. It is even more prescient today.


Those who would disarm you only want to control or kill you. They do not care about you. They are not concerned for your safety. They are concerned only with controlling you.

I say again. Pay attention this time. If someone wants YOU disarmed, he desires to have power over you.

Government is not Benevolent Daddy! Government is FORCE. Governments cannot keep you safe. Governments can only exert force to control you, or threatened by your righteous anger, leave you the hell alone.

If, we as Americans decide to give up our birthright and become submissive, we will get the government we deserve. If we decide to allow bullies and thugs to rule over us because we have abdicated the rule of ourselves, we will receive our just reward.

When governments have a monopoly on the use of force, they use it generously.

In Armenia the Turks thought it a good idea...

In Poland, the Soviet Communists thought so too

In Korea, the South Korean Army with the aid of the United States did this,

In Uganda...

In every country in Eurpoe occupied by (National) Socialists

In Cambodia...

In  Rwanda...

In Sri Lanka...

In the Ukraine...

State Police in the Soviet Union, the NKVD, thought it a good idea too...

And in our own country, where "It could never happen here...", eighty people were murdered and we sucked our thumb...

And last but not least, I want to show you what your government looks like when he shows you his true intent. This is your Benevolent Daddy, to whom you bend your knee, from whom you beg mercy and goodness, to whom you look to "keep you safe", and from whom you expect "benefits" such as socialist security and medicare...

This is what you WANT?