Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 784, August 17, 2014

The IRS Will Never Find Us in the Asteroid Belt


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 8-17-2014
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

AS is our preferred wont, we shall open with the words of Mama Liberty. [Link]

Those who hate and fear guns, wanting to disarm everyone, seem to ignore the fact that most people who own and use guns are seriously committed to the basic safety rules outlined below. All of these, and more, are diligently taught in every sort of firearms training and reinforced through peer pressure in every situation where responsible gun owners meet. Even though no clear statistics are available to point to, it would appear that the greatest number of "accidental" discharges of a gun occur at the hands of Police and a few others who violate these basic rules. In both cases it is a matter of negligence, arrogance and stupidity, not lack of information. With something like 100 million gun owners, and possibly 400 million guns in circulation, the vanishingly small number of such "accidents" is further proof that gun owners in general do care very much about safety.

As with any set of rules, there is a body of rationale standing behind them, and it is very helpful to explore this, especially with people who are new to shooting. I present this section to every handgun and self defense class, and it spurs a great deal of deeper thinking and understanding of these rules.

Needless to say, the Victim Disarmers will pooh-pooh the facts, and merely claim we're all crazy gun fondling psychopaths bent on violence and destruction. Of course, if that WERE true, there'd be one hell of a lot more firearms violence, rather than an ever DECREASING amount of it (other than in places where gun ownership is strictly controlled, like Shitcago!) Finish reading. You KNOW you want to!

I GUESS I oughta put in my two cents on Ferguson, Mo. Well, other than what I have below on protecting property from looters! LOL. So here goes. First, I have NO idea who is right or who is wrong. I'm thinking that blocking traffic is NOT a shootable offense, though I MIGHT run your ass over if I'm trying to get my wife or kid to the hospital at the time. I also find it questionable that the police took 5 days to "reveal" Mr. Brown's heinous criminal acts of which the shooter/cop was unaware. I have to admit that I find it amusing that "journalists" are being gagged, and arrested. Isn't it funny how they bitch when THEY are the ones getting busted for trespassing? That being said, I just don't get how a "Protest for justice" requires one to break into stores owned by your neighbors, Molotov cocktails, and days of rioting. It's often amused me how when poor people riot, they tend to wreck their OWN neighborhoods. Overall, I think that no matter who it turns out is guilty, the people of Ferguson are going to be the losers.

So now we have anti-Constitutionalists demanding the U fucking N to interfere in our right to self defense!?! [Link] Let's start with the article. In it's entirety. It's fairly short.

United States civil rights activists pressed the United Nations to take more action against "Stand Your Ground" laws passed in over 20 American states.

The groups made their case in a hearing with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, explained in her testimony that her son was killed by a man who considered him a threat, and she brought up Stand Your Ground laws.

According to the committee report, in her testimony provided to the panel, Fulton asked the committee "to challenge the State Government to work with local authorities to repeal the Stand Your Ground law to make a future for people of color."

Ron Davies, the father of Jordan Davies, a teenager shot and killed by a police officer in Florida, also provided testimony to the panel. The committee report noted that Davis requested that the committee "ask the State party to revise the Stand Your Ground laws, which violated human rights."

Both Davies and Fulton's testimonies were included in the Statements by Impacted Persons.

According to Reuters, UN committee Vice Chairman Noureddine Amir noted that African American males were seven times more likely to die by firearm homicide, citing Stand Your Ground laws as one of the causes. "I understand that these disparities arise from factors such as subconscious racial bias in shootings, the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws and the existence of predominantly African American and economically depressed neighborhoods with escalated levels of violence," he said.

So first, we have Trayvon Martin's mother claiming Trayvon "was killed by a man who considered him a threat, and she brought up Stand Your Ground laws." OK, lady, we understand your son is dead. We feel for your loss. But he was in a physical altercation after attacking a man, and he was killed for it. If he hadn't confronted the "creepy-assed cracker" and instead walked to a well-lit area and hollered for police (or used his cellphone to call 911, rather than his girlfriend) he'd probably still be alive. SHE calls it racism, Zimmerman, with a history of working on behalf of black people, calls it self defense. In NEITHER case does the UN have anything at all to do with it. "Fulton asked the committee "to challenge the State Government to work with local authorities to repeal the Stand Your Ground law to make a future for people of color." ". IF she feels that shooting criminals or other attackers in self defense is eliminating the future of "people of color", then she has, apparently, no faith that "people of color" can avoid criminal activities. Hmmmmm.

Next, we have another distraught parent demanding the UN (again, which has NO ZIP ZERO ZILCH NADA authority or power in this case) to "ask the State party to revise the Stand Your Ground laws, which violated human rights." So let me see if I get this right, Mr. Davies. Self defense is a violation of human rights. Passing a law that says you are not obligated to run away from an attacker or other criminal, and have the right (DUH!!!!) to defend yourself using any means you deem necessary including lethal force violates the rights of the attacker!!!! Hello! What about the rights of the fucking VICTIM to keep their property and person safe from predation?

And finally, we come to this last statement, from the UN dipshit, committee Vice Chairman Noureddine Amir, who "noted that African American males were seven times more likely to die by firearm homicide, citing Stand Your Ground laws as one of the causes." and "I understand that these disparities arise from factors such as subconscious racial bias in shootings, the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws and the existence of predominantly African American and economically depressed neighborhoods with escalated levels of violence," NO, the main cause of African American males being 7 times more likely to be shot is because most crime committed against African Americans is BY African Americans. And these African American criminals not only wind up being shot in the course of committing crimes (by black and white victims alike), they ALSO tend to shoot the hell out of each other during confrontations over territory, suppliers, and just as part of gang initiations. NONE OF WHICH has anything to do with SYG laws except when the victim is engaged in criminal activity and pays the price. Now, will there be an occasional and deliberate misuse of SYG to justify murder? Humans being humans, YES. Does a bad person, misusing a good law that protects victims from needless prosecution or lawsuits for defending themselves, justify declaring that a law is a "human rights violation"? Absolutely not. Nor does SYG law justify racial shooting -- it justifies shooting criminals committing crimes. It does not say "Only shoot blacks", nor is the use of SYG a racist act, or a sign of subconscious racism. CAN it be misused for racist purposes? Yup. Are most uses of it racist? Nope. And under ANY circumstances, do SYG laws violate human rights, or do they have ANYTHING to do with the UN? NO FUCKING WAY!

I can already hear the anti-Constitutionalist Victim Disarmament crowd crowing over this one. [Link] Under Gobernator Ahnold Schwarzeneggar, Kahleefourneeyah passed a law in 2007 requiring all firearms added to the "not unsafe" (and thus legal to sell) list to have firing pins installed that "microstamp" a unique serial number on each brass casing when the gun fires. This law is not supposed to go into effect until the technology is available to make it possible to comply. Of course, that isn't going to stop the state attorney general.

Last year Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris decided that a law signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 would now be put into effect. The law requires every pistol sold by a dealer in California have a serial number on the tiny tip of the firing pin so that it imprints an identifying mark on the ejected casing of a fired cartridge. Without this, a pistol cannot get onto the "not unsafe" list. It was agreed upon at the time of passage that the law would not go into effect until the imprint technology was developed.

The problem is this is real life. Nobody has developed the technology to make a stamp on the end of a firing pin reliably and successfully so as to consistently leave a serial number on a brass casing. When Smith & Wesson and Ruger asked the California Department of Justice where to get these firing pins, the Department of Justice had no answer. So as a result, no new pistols can be added to the dwindling list of "not unsafe" pistols allowed for sale in California.

This has already caused Smith & Wesson and Ruger to call a halt to gun sales in the Quake State. Now, do not take my objection to a law with which it is physically impossible to comply as SUPPORT of the law once the technology becomes available—I do not. Such a law MANDATES universal registration of firearms, which, needless to say, is absolutely not acceptable in any way. On the bright side, this law HAS opened up job opportunities in Kahleefourneeyah for enterprising young entrepreneurs to supply Kahleefourneeyah's gun owners with new black market firearms, so that Kahleefourneeyans can continue to possess the means to forcibly change the government when they finally decide they have had enough.

Isn't it funny how people, er, politicians try to hide from their constituents what they've done TO their constituents once election time rolls around? [Link]

Red state Democrats who voted for the failed Senate gun control bill in April 2013 have been scrambling lately to focus their campaigns on anything but guns and gun control. With November closing in, they've even asked Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly to stay out of their states to avoid a shift in focus to guns or gun control.

But the reality is that Senators Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Al Franken (D-MN) all voted for the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill in 2013—a bill that would have ended the private gun sales which free people have enjoyed in this country for nearly 220 years. It would have implemented an expansion of background checks from retail sales to private and forced every would-be gun owner to pass the same background checks Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara), Ivan Lopez (Ft. Hood 2014), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), James Holmes (Aurora theater), and Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood 2009) passed, to name a few.

When Hagan voted for gun control, those around her said that doing so would bolster her chances of re-election in 2014. But by the end of last year, she was already losing ground because of the vote. It is, therefore, not surprising that she doesn't want a photo-op with Giffords and Kelly right now.

So sorry, assholes, We, the People, have long memories, and we're not gonna take it anymore. So long, suckers.

Sigh. Another example if how no civilian can possibly defend his or her self and others with a concealed gun. [Link]

In an Orrville, Alabama Dollar General Thursday, a suspect burst in waving a gun. He threatened to kill everyone in the store. Luckily, he did not get that chance. A customer pulled out their concealed firearm and shot the suspect in the chest. He died instantly.

The Good Samaritan is being called a hero by some, but investigators are making sure this person has a permit. So this customer is not going to face any charges, but is currently under investigation. The name of the customer was not identified.

And this is how you put a stop to random killings in schools, parks, movie theaters, shopping malls, and stores. All it takes is one individual with a concealed carry permit to stop the perpetrator in his tracks. You simply need one security guard, teacher, pedestrian, or patron to carry a gun legally and be at the right place at the right time. This is how you stop school shootings. You don't stop random killings like these by taking away the guns of the law-abiding citizens. Rather, you keep guns on them so they can protect the rest of us.

After all, it is HIGHLY unlikely this poor "suspect" actually intended any harm. All he wanted to do is engage in a little light-fingered capitalism, and raise some peoples' adrenaline levels. Besides, this "gun nut" should have waited to see if anyone would actually be harmed before taking this poor man's life. The shooter was probably a racist, besides. And at the next link, we see that gun nuts and tattoo artists have the nerve to guard their property from rioting protesters in St Louis. [Link]

Nobody is robbing St. Louis Ink Tattoo Studio anytime soon. Or County Guns, for that matter.

The two north county businesses share a storefront in a Florissant strip mall less than ten minute drive from the epicenter of last night's riots in Ferguson.

* * *

After hearing of the roving bands of looters, Mike Gutierrez knew he had to protect his tattoo shop. He brought a posse with him, including Adam Weinstein, owner of County Guns, who was acutely worried about criminals getting their hands on his merchandise.

"We didn't want them coming in here and then running around with a bunch of free guns," Weinstein told Daily RFT when we arrive at the store around 12:30 a.m. this morning. Weinstein was outfitted with an assault rifle, pistol and tactical vest. Gutierrez cradled his own rifle in his hands

So let me see if I get this straight—these men decided to infringe upon the rights of local rioters to steal guns and wreck a business. And they were among the few businesses that DIDN'T get trashed during the riots? How dare they do the police's job for them -- do they want to put the police out of work?

It's most likely a case of "Too Little, Too Late", but it certainly is nice to see a congresscritter appear to remember exactly for whom he works. [Link] Unfortunately, his fellow Republicans will remember that they voted FOR the laws that permitted groups like the EPA, DOE, SSI, and the FDA (to name but a few) paramilitary-style SWAT teams, and refuse to back the bill. And OF COURSE the Democrats won't back him, because it's THEIR Messiah who is taking it to extremes in order to give him a militarily-armed force that has never sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

According to a 2006 GAO report, no less than 137,929 armed law enforcement officers in 104 agencies work for the federal government. Besides agencies under the Justice Department, Defense and Homeland Security, there exists a myriad of armed OIG agents who investigate largely regulatory crimes.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the number of criminal investigators in non-traditional civilian agencies mushroomed from around 500 in 1973 to over 3800 by 2011.

This includes such diverse groups as the seven agents for the Peace Corps, a pair of special agents of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the 52 criminal investigators of the Environmental Protection Agency's OIG.

This growing trend of heavily armed regulatory agents has led to such controversial actions as the raid of a California organic grocery store suspected of selling raw milk by the FDA, a predawn raid by agents of the Department of Education of the home of a suspect being investigated for student aid fraud, and the recent solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for .40 caliber submachine guns.

Just one example there shows that extremes to which the government is going—WHAT THE FUCK does the Peace Corps need a SWAT Team for? It's bad enough that police of ANY kind are permitted to don military style clothes, conceal their faces, and engage in military assaults on American citizens. Why the hell are we tolerating groups that are not even cops to do the same?? (Yeah, I know, Mama, but it's hard to get TOO many new concepts through their skulls at one time!)

This law just makes sense. [Link] In recent years, we have seen homeowners who shoot cops engaging in serving un-Constitutional "No Knock" warrants get prosecuted for felony murder and even murder under special circumstances, where the death penalty is mandatory, for killing a cop. And the cops killed isn't even at the correct address. funny thing is, when the cops go to the wrong address and kill the armed homeowner who tries to defend his home, the cop usually walks away with at worst the loss of a job, and usually with one hell of a lot less. Don't want cops shot breaking in to an armed homeowner's house? Then eliminate "No Knock" warrants. After all, cops are SUPPOSED to serve a warrant, not engage in an armed pseudo-military assault upon a suspect who, EVEN if they get the correct house, is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The headline sounds sensational. And many news sources are milking it for all its worth. A recent change in law in Indiana allows citizens to resist anyone who forcibly enters their house if there is a reasonable suspicion that they intend harm to the occupants. That includes lethal force if that is all that will do the job:

The Castle Doctrine law says that if someone has entered or is attempting to enter your home without your consent, you're legally permitted to use a reasonable amount of force to expel the intruder from your residence. If you reasonably believe your life or members of your family are in danger, you can use lethal force. The revision to Indiana's law simply states that public servants aren't exempt from such treatment.

When stated in that way, it doesn't sound quite as radical as many are being led to believe. The recent change of law in Indiana was actually a correction of a previous ruling that had basically given police completely free reign to enter into houses and do what they wanted, while giving citizens absolutely no recourse to resist uniformed intruders—even if the police were engaging in harmful and/or unlawful activities.

In the 2011 case Barnes vs. State, The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." Which is absurd. That means that, no matter what a police officer was doing, citizens could not exercise reasonable measures to protect their homes. That amounts to forcing citizens to allow militarized police unrestricted quarter in their homes. I seem to remember a Revolution that was fought over something along those lines.

Unless someone knocks on my door, waits for my answer, and identifies himself as a police officer WITH A WARRANT prior to entry, they are valid targets for a few .45acp JHP slugs or a load of 12 gauge buckshot. And might I add that bursting through my door shouting "POLICE!! WE HAVE A WARRANT!!" is NOT properly identifying yourself—this same method has been used in criminal home invasions that are NOT by cops.

Freedom of speech issues here? [Link] No light bar, half the cops out there these days are driving unmarked cars, and it has a transformers logo and saying on the side, and this guy gets arrested for "impersonating a police officer!

BRAINTREE, Mass. (AP)—Police patrol cars are usually Fords or Chryslers, not Maseratis.

So when a patrolman in Braintree, Massachusetts, spotted a Maserati resembling a police cruiser over the weekend, he pulled it over.

Deputy Chief Wayne Foster tells The Patriot Ledger the luxury Italian vehicle's body was painted black and white with a police-style shield on the doors, and police-related decals.

Foster said the door shield wasn't accompanied by the usual police phrase "Protect and Serve," but rather with "Decepticons punish and enslave."

The driver told the officer who pulled him over that he was actually assisting police "because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle."

The driver, whose name was not made public, was summoned to court to face a charge of impersonating a police officer.

Methinks this is stretching things, even with his stupid comment. So now we cannot two-tone a car? Or put stickers on it? Remember, the shield is on the side, NOT where people he approaches can see it. So it's a black Maserati. NO ONE with a brain would consider that a cop car, EVEN if you grant that cop cars are legitimate vehicles in the first place! :)

Humor break! Humor break!

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him.

He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible," said the man.

St. Pete continues, "That's Abe Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that he only told two lies in his entire life."

The man asks, "Where's Obama's clock?"

St. Pete replies, "Oh, they keep that one in Jesus' office. He's using it as ceiling fan."

And if they put Obama's fan next to Chris Christie's, they could power a hovercraft!

This is just too fucking sad to be funny. [Link] This brain dead bitch has the NERVE to claim we should arm rebels—in other words, a militia of un-enlisted citizens fighting an oppressive government for freedom, while demanding we disarm our own militias—un-enlisted citizens who AREN'T even fighting their government, but who just demand retaining the ability to do so.

...former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn't buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said.

This is just ridiculous. And people get offended when I refer to this imbecile as Hillarious Rotten Clinton...

And now for the Quotes of the Week.

"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again; poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves."—D. H. Lawrence

"One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street ... these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time."

"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician."

"The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory."

"All the people constitute the militia—according to the Founding Fathers. Therefore every able-bodied man has a duty under the Constitution to become part of the 'well-regulated' militia, specifically to understand and perform well with the individual weapon currently issued to the regular establishment .... Thus one who has not qualified himself with the M-16 may not be considered to be a responsible citizen." (Four from the good Colonel)

And that is a wrap for this week.


Was that worth reading?
Then the author says, why not:


payment type


This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)
TLE AFFILIATE

Big Head Press