Thugs In Action... Again

Resistor in the Rockies has the story, but it has appeared at The Blaze dot com also.

These two Criminals in Uniform have done this at least twice. They anally raped two men on the suspicion of harbored drugs in their rectum. These two Thugs work in Deming, NM.

As was the case with the DPS Officers digitally raping women on Texas highways, how many more times did they get away with it?

How long have their co-workers, their brothers in arms, their Thin Blue Line fellow Gangsters allowed them to get away with it?

Let us not mice words here. This was Thuggery. This was Rape. These two miscreants think what they did was lawful and appropriate. Why do they harbor that mistaken notion?

Back Slaps and High Fives All Around...

Read this and realize what will be done to you.... or your Father... or your Brother.

Faced with a one hundred seven year old man, the only thing they can think to do is gas, flash-bangs, and gunfire.


 http://www.thv11.com/news/article/278849/2/107-year-old-Arkansas-man-dies-in-shootout-with-SWAT

Update, He was legally blind and nearly deaf.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/08/107-year-old-man-dies-in-shootout-with-swat-team/

I am constantly being told to remember, the men who do this are our "friends" and "neighbors". They have families. Their children go to school with our children. Their wives shop at the same grocery store where our wives shop.

More T.I.A. or Thugs in Action

If you want to know what Law Imposement has in store for you, read this piece from David Codrea just in case you missed it.

Then read this piece, from HuffPo, the link to which I got from from Battlefield USA also.

They are both worth a couple of minutes.

Do you still believe in Dudley Doright?

Ahh... The Parasite's Paradox

This piece comes from market-ticker.org and explains to the uninformed, or the misinformed, how basic macro-economics works. Thanks to WRSA for the link. The piece is concise and very worthy of a read.

The Parasite's Paradox is this, the Parasite wants desperately to feed off the host in quantities which would kill the host and thus deprive the Parasite of its food which would, logically, kill the parasite. The Parasite knows it must have a healthy host off of which it can suck in order to live, but by living off the host it will eventually destroy it's own food supply. It knows it must not be too burdensome, if it wants to continue to exist, but it just cannot help itself. It is after all, a Parasite.

Socialists, Marxists, Statists, Bullies, Thugs and Control Freaks of all stripes are such as these.

More Digital Rape in Texas. How Many Times Did They Get Away With It?

I said when I posted about this sort of thing last time, they are smugly self assured they can't be wrong because they have probably gotten away with it before.

Here is proof!

More digital searches of motorists in Texas have been exposed. That means a Texas DPS Officer is anally and vaginally fingering your daughter/wife/mother.

The sickening story can been seen at MyFoxAustin with an accompanying video. (Thanks to http://www.policemisconduct.net) The news piece says the officer doing the search has been fired and the officer observing and doing nothing about it has been suspended. There should be felony charges against them both. Whatcha wanna bet they were laughing and joking about it after the incident? How many officers in their unit knew about it? How many times has this happened and how long has it been SOP?

Let us speak clearly here. This is Rape. A female DPS officer in Texas digitally raped a citizen in Texas and another cop stood nearby while it was happening. If this doesn't make your blood boil, you are either dead or playing for the other team.

Just in case that wasn't enough for you, here is another link with a similar story, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-men-sue-city-of-milwaukee-police-department-4-officers-for-illegal-strip-searches/2013/07/11/dffeaf54-ea3a-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html

I want to remind you all of this fact:

The cops involved here and in the previous incident, SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS!

They thought digitally raping a citizen was the RIGHT THING TO DO!

They are PROUD OF THEMSELVES!

 Folks, if Alex Jones is right and this is a prison planet, then this makes perfect sense.

May God have mercy on you if you attempt to do this to my wife, daughter or mother. I sure as fuck won't.

A Good Cop Speaks Up

I found the link over at Gun Free Zone. This is the money quote from the piece:

My message to my brethren is also simple: unless a person is materially interfering while videoing, simply leave them alone.  If you are worried about what the video will capture, the issue is with you and not the person taking the video.

And again he Speaks clearly:

What I mean by no carte blanche is that officers simply cannot demand identity from a person and then arrest that person for failure to comply.   Remember that any seizure of a person requires at minimum reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (see above link on police-citizen contacts), and using a show of authority to compel identification is a seizure.

Thank you Cheif Weems.

What Massad Ayoob, and the Rest of the Law Imposement Community, Doesn't Say

In his recent piece published at Backwoods Home, Massad Ayoob makes his case that the Law Imposement community really doesn't oppose the Citizens' right to keep (meaning hold, possess, maintain) and bear (meaning carry) arms.

He says a lot in his piece, but not what he should have said if he wanted to genuinely back up his claim.

What he said was, "...I was at the annual conference of the above-mentioned ILEETA, attended by more than 700 police trainers from around the nation and the world. I was one of many attending a panel discussion on Active Shooter Response when something interesting happened.... Partway through the discussion, a panel member looked down at a text message on his smart phone, and raised his hand to interrupt. He announced that he had just received a message that the Universal Background Check bill had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause."

What he should have said was,"...the Universal Background Check bill, which would not have exempted Law Imposement Officers, had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause." I cannot help but wonder, that if the bill would have specifically exempted that group of citizens, there would have been anything more than a yawn.

What he said was, "By contrast, the anti-gun groups were notable by their absence. No surprise; they had nothing to offer real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would see through them, anyway."

What he should have said was, "No surprise; they had already made their case to real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would agree with them, anyway."

What he said was, "Shouldn't the cops have responded with an anguished chorus of "Boo"? No. Because these were the real cops, the trainers of the next generation of real street cops, and they knew the reality.

Here is where I again ask the question: Where the fuck are they?  Where are all these "good guy" cops we keep hearing about? Why aren't they, individually and through their professional organizations, making the most noise of all? Hundreds of thousands of "Law Imposement Professionals" could rival the voice of the NRA, but they don't. There is eerie silence when it comes time for all those "good guys" in Law Imposement to stand up and support the rights of we mere mortal "civilians". There should be hundreds of cops speaking before State legislatures in every State, every time an anti-gun bill is being debated. There are rarely any at all.

There should be NO VIDEOS like this one, and this one, and this one, and this one... and on it goes. There are hundreds.

The average Cop would never do such a thing, right? Never! He supports every free man's RIGHT to possess and carry arms, right? Well, maybe, as long as a person is properly trained and licensed... Right?

How about this, Must I have a License to draw breath? I have a Natural right to breathe, correct? Need I ask a cops permission first? Must I demonstrate a "need" before I exercise the right? Will I be made to stop breathing every time a cop approaches and decides to feel bad because I am exercising my Natural Right without his permission?

What Mas said was, "A record 86,000-plus NRA members attended. Among the throngs inside the convention center were many law enforcement officers, some in uniform. They chatted pleasantly with the armed citizens and firearms industry people in the aisles."

What he didn't say was that in Texas it has been illegal to open carry a sidearm since the Reconstruction era. Each armed citizen those cops conversed with had a Texas CHL, a license, in his pocket. Each citizen had submitted to finger printing and mug shots and a State approved indoctrination in order to carry a Permission Slip around in his pocket, thus minimizing his chances of being harassed by all those "good guys" in the Law Imposement profession. Do Law Imposement professionals feel at ease in a room full of armed citizens, generally no, They don't like the idea at all, but at least they all had State Photo I.D. Permission Slips with them.

I have worked many gun shows were local cops and sheriff's deputies come in as patrons (free of charge usually). Every time I have attempted to engage them in conversation about comparative preferences in weaponry, the cops get anxious and flustered and seem to want to move on  right away. They don't like the idea that a mere civilian knows more about firearms and shooting than they do, and that the mere mortal civilian is likely more proficient than they are with their own personal weaponry.

What Mas said was, "The media and anti-gun politicians constantly tell the public that cops want more "gun control" and even gun bans."

What he didn't address was why they aren't the loudest people in each community opposing more "gun control". The truth is, they remain silent because their pay check is more important than their supposed principles. Their Boss's opinion of them is more valuable than the Natural, God given, Rights of the citizens they serve.

What Mas said was, "You'll hear the same from high profile police chiefs who, despite the usual rule that police officers can't take political positions while speaking as members of the law enforcement agency, will flank the President or some other politician who makes an anti-gun speech. Why does that happen?"

I will tell you why. It is because they are in this game for Control. Gun Control is People Control. It is Population Control. It is the perfect useful tool in the grand mechanism of control which is Stateism. The Chiefs of Police believe in, and use, each and every mechanism of control at their disposal. As with all bullies and control freaks, Control is its own reward.

What Mas said was, "Sheriffs are a different matter. The high sheriff of the county is an elected official, and "serves at the pleasure" of ... the voters. This is probably why you see relatively more sheriffs than police chiefs or commissioners standing up for gun owners' civil rights and refusing to be sock puppets for anti-gun politicians."

This is a true statement, This is why it is critical for people to know fully where their Sheriff stands in regard to Natural Rights. One must look beyond his public statements and see his actions. His actions will tell the tale. Sometimes a Sheriff will release a letter saying he will "never support the illegal seizure of Citizens' weapons ", but not that he would oppose such seizure under any circumstances.

What Mas said was, "The Police Benevolent Association representing New York State Police Troopers took public exception to the law." in reference to the New York SAFE Act. According to reporter Teri Weaver, "...The union representing New York State Police say they believe the state's stricter gun laws could put law enforcement officers at risk."

Not that they give half a Damn about the Natural Rights, nor the safety of the citizens they supposedly serve. Wouldn't that be the primary concern of all those "good guys" we keep hearing about?

Again according to Teri Weaver, ""In an email release on Monday, the New York State Troopers PBA said its 6,000-member group "holds widely shared concerns" about the NY Safe Act. Nonetheless, the union takes exception to some state lawmakers accusing the troopers of failing to enforce the law."

Why, hell yes they are enforcing the law! They will enforce this law against the citizens they supposedly serve, until they are told not to by those who pay them. People have already been prosecuted under it. They say the PBA "holds widely shared concerns"? How about contempt? How about deeply rooted and righteous anger? How about indignation? How about saying, "Hell no! I ain't doing it!"?

Again according to reporter Weaver, the PBA says, "We urge the citizens of New York state to remember that troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the state, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws."

How about this Boys and Girls in Law Imposement, if a statute passes the legislature and it obviously and blatantly violates the Natural Rights of the citizens you supposedly serve, and violates your Oath of Office, announce boldly and with vigor, that you will NOT enforce it! Disavow it!

Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices all over New York blatantly announced they would be violating the NY SAFE Act, while imposing the same law in the public. Originally, there was NO exception in the SAFE Act for Law Imposement Officers. Governor Cuomo recently signed laws which now exempt them. Can you say hypocrite? Can you say Liar? Can you say Oath Breaker? They are now above the law with which you must comply. But by golly, they support your rights, because they are such "good guys"!

What Mas said was, "A lot of the general public has missed the fact that many of these laws impact police."

No! Say it ain't so! You mean the police sometimes suffer the unintended consequences of the laws they are told to impose on the rest of humanity? I mean, shouldn't there be a blanket exception?

Again, Mas,  "A great many law enforcement agencies (Florida Highway Patrol comes to mind) can't afford to buy AR15s for every officer, so they authorize their armed personnel to buy their own and take them on duty after appropriate training and qualification. An "assault weapon ban" written to allow these guns to be purchased only by law enforcement agencies takes that option off the table, and police in that situation won't have access to patrol rifles with which to protect the public and themselves."

Don't worry, they can always get a grant from the Department of Homeland Security! Then they will be free to impose this kind of prohibition on the rest of humanity!

But wait! Mas continues, " If the law is written to exempt currently sworn individual police officers, that means that as soon as the officer retires and gives up his sworn authority, he's either a criminal if he keeps it, or has to give his personal property over to the police department."

Mas, you mean to tell me, that when a cop retires he is no longer a Super Citizen, but a mere mortal civilian again? And he has to suffer under the same restrictions and limitations of his Natural Rights that the rest of humanity does? This just isn't fair! You can't go around treating superior beings like mere mortals!

Mas continues, "In 2004, then-President George W. Bush signed into law HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. As LEOSA stands now, any sworn (or honorably retired and currently handgun-qualified) police officer can carry a personal handgun nationwide when "on their own time." "

You mean it created a Federally recognized class of Super Citizens who have privileges the rest of humanity doesn't. That's kinda cool IF you happen to have a Magic Shield in your pocket!

And then, "However, they are required to conform to the laws that would govern a private citizen licensed to carry in the given jurisdiction."

No! Say it ain't so!

Then, "This means that if Coloradans can't have more than a 15-round magazine ... if Californians can't have more than 10-rounders ... and if New Yorkers with permits are allowed no more than seven cartridges in a magazine ... then that applies to visiting out-of-state cops as well.""

It just can't be!Super Citizens should be allowed to be armed in any way they please when traveling about the country, unlike mere mortal civilians.

Mas finishes with, "The bottom line is, when you hear someone say "The police want to ban these guns/magazines/transfers between law-abiding private citizens" ... don't believe it."

Correction, believe it until you hear them shouting from the rooftops, announcing hey will not enforce such Un-Constitutional laws on their neighbors.Until you see and hear that, don't delude yourself.

"Anyone who actually works with the cops on the street knows that the great majority of them want to enforce existing laws on genuine criminals, not criminalize the law-abiding citizens they've sworn an oath to protect and serve."

If that was true, there would be no such thing as this and this and this and this and this and this.

If the "good guys" were the vast majority, the above would be as rare as hens teeth. They are not.

Texas DPS Officers Didn't Get Away With It... Digitally Raping Two Citizens.

You might remember,  a few months back, two women in Texas allege that a Texas DPS officer digitally raped them during a traffic stop. There is video of the whole incident. To their credit and my dismay, the women being assaulted were amazingly calm and compliant. Perhaps it is because they wanted to live through the rest of the night after the rape was over.

A local CBS station has the video posted here. It is disgusting to watch. One wonders where the husbands and fathers are in Texas.

It started with a traffic stop. The reason for the stop? Littering. Yes littering. Two women were subjected to digital rape by a police officer for littering.

Early on, the first DPS officer decided he was going to search the women. Probable Cause for a search? It doesn't matter. He can always make something up on the spot. For example, "I thought I detected the smell of Marijuana..." or "Furtive movement..." hell take your pick. It doesn't matter the excuse, the officer knows he can get away with it.

He begins trying to bully her as soon as he orders her out of the car. He takes the driver off camera where his body language would not speak to anyone watching the video later, but he could be as intimidating as he wanted to be while using a level tone of voice. He then lies to the second officer who arrives to perform the search, saying, "They're both acting a little weird..." This lends justification to the search in the mind of the second officer. After all, a member of the Gang wouldn't lie to a fellow ( or in this case, sister) member, would he? The female DPS officer then proceeds to digitally rape both motorists.

The driver finally tells the thugs that she has been digitally raped and the officer responds with a simple, "You can go."

The end result was the Texas DPS payed out a settlement of  $185,000.00 to the victims.The officer performing the digital rape of the victim, Kelly Helleson has been charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression. You can read that story here. 

It is not clear if any charges will be brought against the other officer, David Farrell, though he has been suspended.


The attorney representing the victims is quoted, by the local CBS news station, as saying, “It will deter any future misconduct by any police officer or trooper in the future, for sure. That’s part of why they brought this lawsuit,” he said. “This will probably never happen again because of this lawsuit and the attention this has gotten.”

I don't believe this will never happen again.  They did  it this way this time, because they were confident they would get away with it. They have probably done this before. They were rather nonchalant aboutt he whole thing.

The worst thing about this to me is the fact that Texas DPS Troopers digitally raped and sexually assaulted two women on the highway, who they had stopped for the crime of littering, and thought nothing of it. They truly believed they could casually commit sexual assault on two citizens. They didn't see it as a crime. They saw it as doing the RIGHT THING.

Right now, in Texas, there is a DPS officer saying, "Oh well, I'm glad that didn't happen in my department... Oh wait, DPS is my department... I mean, uhhh, I'm glad those two weren't on my squad... Oh wait, they were on my squad... I mean, uhhhmmm, I'm glad I wasn't forced to do that due to some Civilian littering..."

This is where we are in the former US of A. 

I keep hearing how cops must be on their guard against me, for they never know when I might just decide to kill them on a routine traffic stop. It makes me think, if I am stopped for a minor traffic infraction, a cop may just decide to rape me, and if I resist that rape he may very well kill me.

Bullies and Thugs in Official State Costume, are you proud of yourselves? This is your profession. These are your brethren. This did happen. Those were the same Oath Keeping good guys who "would never do such a thing".

Whatcha gonna do about it? Nothing? Thought so.

A FedGoon explains Use of Force

This piece linked from Sipsey Street Irregulars  (thanks Mike!) stirred up quite a hornet's nest of replies. Most of them are what I expected. Liberty minded people, citizens of this Republic, are at the end of their rope with being stomped on and treated like subjects.

My response to "Bob", who authored the piece was as follows (this applies to you State, County, and City boys also):

"Bob" has just outlined the nature and intent of State Employed Goons. One might sum it up like this:

"You will submit to me, because I am your Master and I may kill you if I please."

Isn't that about right?

Quote "And if they violate your rights, you can take legal action against them and their agency."

That is if you are not deceased because the FedGoon decided that he FELT LIKE you assaulted him and decided to "escalate".

US v. Bad Elk is correct. It is lawful and within the natural right of a free man, and the law is very clear on this, to resist arrest or any other action of a State Employed Goon if, before anything else happens, the Goon uses more force than is necessary.

Why don't you just submit and comply with your ass whipping and your broken bones? You can always go to court and beg for redress... right?

Not if you're dead you can't.

Bob, your 5%, 3% and 1%, while noteworthy, as nowhere near the truth.

If the vast majority of FedGoons were such good men, men of honor, men or sterling character, then Waco would never have happened.

If more than half of FedGoons were such stand up good guys, the truth would have been told by whistle blowers and dissenters who had resigned in disgust as the fictional narrative was being told on CNN and their fellow FedGoons were stomping around on the hot ashes of what had, moments earlier, been very much alive men, women and children.

People seek out positions of power over other people, not because they are benevolent wise men, but because they are arrogant power mongering control freaks who cannot not exist on a level playing field.

Why don't you go back to the locker room , or your office and stroke each others' egos and tell each other what super-duper good guys you are. Brag to each other how you clobbered that "perp" who refused to roll over and piss on himself in fear of your imminent awesomeness  Sell it to your own kind, Bob. I ain't buying your snake oil today. I lost my illusion too many years ago.
 
State Employed Goons, you want to know the nature of the problem? Look in the God Damned mirror.

Never mind, you don't want to know.

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. In 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