Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 786, August 31, 2014

Laugh, point, and make duck noises.


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 8-31-2014
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

As usual, I like to start things off with a woman I have come to truly respect, despite the sad fact that I have yet to meet her. Mama Liberty has some sage words of advice on statistics for us this week.

The "gun rights" folks need to be very careful when using statistics,even FBI statistics, to "prove" anything. Statistics can and do lie... alot. And omission of data is as serious lie as deliberate bias in the criteria.

And if you read the link, you will see why this matters. [Link]

NOT that we haven't already known it, but this REALLY drives it home. "Our" governments—local, state, and federal—are a bunch of thieves, who write and pass laws our founders would find reprehensible. This smacks to me of something George III would have done, and that Thomas Jefferson would have used in the Declaration as proper grounds for revolution. [Link] Using "Civil Forfeiture" laws, the government steals your property because someone ELSE commits crimes on it. Or lives there, and has a criminal record.

Back in March, Chris's son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside of the home. With no previous arrests or a prior record, a court ordered him to attend rehab. But the very day Sourovelis was driving his son to begin treatment, he got a frantic call from his wife. Without any prior notice, police evicted the Sourovelises and seized the house, using a little-known law known as "civil forfeiture."

Law enforcement barred the family from living in their own home for over a week. The family could only return home if they banned their son from visiting and relinquished some of their constitutional rights. Adding to the cruel irony, their son has already completed rehab, ending his punishment by the city. "If this can happen to me and my family, it can happen to anybody," Sourovelis said.

So that's civilization in Philadelphia. If your child has committed a minor crime you can be deprived of your home or other major property. The city shakes down residents, without trial and without even an accusation, for about six million dollars a year.

Under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their property. Instead, the government can forfeit a property if it's found to "facilitate" a crime, no matter how tenuous the connection. So rather than sue the owner, in civil forfeiture proceedings, the government sues the property itself, leading to surreal case names like Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 2544 N. Colorado St.

In other words, thanks to civil forfeiture, the government punishes innocent people for the crimes other people might have committed. Sadly, the Sourovelis family is not alone. Doila Welch faces civil forfeiture of her home, which has been in her family for 17 years, because her estranged husband, unbeknownst to her, was dealing small amounts of marijuana. Norys Hernandez and her sister co-own a rowhouse, but her sister is still barred from living there because Hernandez's nephew was arrested for selling drugs outside her rowhouse. Welch and Hernandez have not been charged with any crime and both have joined Sourovelis as named plaintiffs in IJ's class action against the Philadelphia forfeiture machine.

These people are thieves. They are an organized crime syndicate. And they exist all over the United States. Philadelphia only stands out because of the sheer audacity of the size of the annual haul.

Your PROPERTY is taken to court, tried and convicted, then stolen and sold. Come the revolution....

This is one scary thought, and it REALLY pisses me off that a man whose writing I have read (and some of them, I enjoyed) supports this crap. [Link] Read the article. THINK over the implications. Then get back to me.

You can inject one under your skin and no one will ever notice. Using short-range radio frequency identification (RFID) signals, it can transmit your identity as you pass through a security checkpoint or walk into a football stadium. It can help you buy groceries at Wal-Mart. In a worst-case scenario—if you are kidnapped in a foreign country, for example—it could save your life.

Microchip implants like the ones pet owners use to track their dogs and cats could become commonplace in humans in the next decade. Experts are divided on whether they're appropriate for people, but the implants could offer several advantages. For soldiers and journalists in war zones, an implant could be the difference between life and death. A tracker could also help law enforcement quickly locate a kidnapped child.

"In the long run, chip implants could make it less intrusive than some emerging ID systems which rely on physical biometrics (like your fingerprints or unique eye pattern)," says Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, author of the book "Distraction Addiction" and visiting scholar at Stanford's University's Peace Innovation Lab.

"This should be a matter of individual choice, but fighting crime should be much easier using chips," adds sci-fi author Larry Niven, who predicted chip implants in the '70s. Niven said he supports chip implantation for security reasons, provided it is an opt-in measure.

"Opt-in measure" my ass! We ALL KNOW that our benevolent and trustworthy government would NEVER make it mandatory. (yeah, right!)IF it were "opt-in" to start, someday down the road (about next Tuesday) the mantra would be "Only criminals, anti-government revolutionaries, and other deviant scum refuse to be chipped!" Wednesday, it will be mandatory, at least for all new delivery-room arrivals, and for anyone seeing a doctor.

And here is another example of an idiotic "Good Samaritan" interfering when a 70 year old man is busy donating to a knife-wielding entrepreneur. [Link] How DARE he do the job of the police. It's people like this who give victim disarmament people the willies! (sarcasm)

One can only wonder what would have happened to the victim of a stabbing had a Good Samaritan not intervened and pulled his gun on an attacker. But what can be said for certain is this…

Because Jeffery Hopkins had a gun with him, and was at the right place at the right time, a violent criminal is now safely behind bars, and gun owners everywhere are yet again vindicated.

The video below details exactly how Hopkins was able to subdue the criminal, and even better, how he was honored instead of vilified for his heroic actions.

There IS video included. Where are the good citizens who acted so bravely for Kitty Genovese in New York City, lo those many years ago? Oh, wait—they're the bastards demanding people like the Good Samaritan in this video give up their weapons because "they never do any good anyway".

A police chief admits the truth—a cop's job is to instill fear in civilians. [Link] Boynton Beach, Florida. Chief Jeffrey Katz defends the actions of his police. (This event happened last year, and is only now raising waves.) One of his cops threatens to shoot a civilian for refusing to stop recording the actions of said cop and his partner.

The footage begins with an officer having a conversation with a group of men in a parked car after a routine traffic stop. When the cop demands to see everybody's ID, one of the men informs the officer that he is recording the encounter.

"Turn that phone off right now," states the officer, to which the man responds, "No I'm not intimidated, I have rights, sir, I'm recording your ass," before unleashing a string of profanities.

The officer then walks around to the other side of the car and gives his badge number but refuses to provide his name, which according to one of the men in the car is "Danish."

"What's your name sir?" asks one of the men, before the cop swats the cell phone out of his hand and drags him out of the car, throwing him to the ground.

Another officer then arrives with his gun drawn before stating, "I'll fucking, I'll put a round in your ass so quick." The cop then opens the passenger door with his gun drawn and the video ends.

And the Boss Pig's defense of these animals runs thus—

According to Katz, the men in the car were "escalating" the situation by "recording the interaction." The officer's actions were justified because one of the men "reached out of his window with a black object in his hand" (a cell phone). Katz also cited a "violent home invasion robbery" that had occurred within a 2 mile radius as justification for the hostile response to the men in the car.

Although the men in the car were foul-mouthed, they could hardly be described to have been acting in an aggressive manner.

Katz asserted that the men were deemed a threat because they weren't displaying an appropriate level of "fear" towards the officers, stating, "When I watch this video, I don't see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with fear of the police."

The men had apparently done nothing to arouse suspicion in the first place apart from 'driving while black'.

As Carlos Miller explains, "That's what it really boils down to in this video. Contempt of cop….The young, black men in this video not only questioned their authority, one of men turned up the attitude after a cop ordered him to stop recording."

Let me inform you, Mr. Katz, of something you might have neglected to pay attention to—the Supreme Court if the United States has ruled that We, the People, have a right to record your thuggish stormtroopers in the performance of their duties. In point of fact, the young man, by informing your thugs he was recording them, even managed to comply with laws specifically designed to punish us for doing so—he informed the cop he was recording, thus making sure to avoid illegal wiretapping rules designed to negate our rights. Your cops acted in an illegal, unConstitutional manner, they engaged in assault and battery in defense of said unConstitutional acts, they acted unprofessionally, one drew his weapon and threatened pre-meditated murder in defense of their actions. And you, Sir, are as guilty as they, for defending their actions. And the boldfaced line (boldfacing mine) shows the truth—a car-full of niggers didn't fear your thugs, so the thugs had to teach them to properly fear the law. And you wonder why Ferguson happened. (Apologies for using the word "ni__er", but that is really what this man means — young blacks didn't fear the cops, knew their rights, and this makes them a threat. It's people like Katz and his bully-boys that keep the Fergusons of this country going)

I've GOT to wonder how this is going to stand on appeal. [Link] To ME, ALL 10 day waiting periods violate the 2nd Amendment, just as background checks, registrations, and ALL licenses or permits do.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP)—A federal judge has overturned part of a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, ruling that it does not apply to those who already own firearms.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled that "10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Californians buying their first firearm will still be subject to background checks and the 10-day waiting period under the ruling, dated Friday.

A spokesman for the state attorney general, Nick Pacilio, said Monday that officials are reviewing the ruling as they decide whether to appeal.

Two gun owners and two gun-owner rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, sued over the state waiting period in 2011.

I guess we'll call it a victory. I HAVE to wonder, though, why a SECOND 10 day waiting period "impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to carry concealed weapons." but the first one doesn't. In addition, Please, Mr. Judge, would you pull your head OUT of your ass and tell us exactly where the Constitution says that the people must be "authorized to carry concealed weapons." What part of "Keep and Bear Arms" mentions authorization, other than the fact that IT'S OUR FUCKING RIGHT YOU IDIOT. THERE IS NO AUTHORIZATION NEEDED IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!!!!!

Now THAT'S the way it's done, son! [Link] And to the whiney-assed liberal whiners who will claim "But it was only a toy! He shouldn't have killed that man!", we do NOT wait to see if the gun works, or is real. When a gun is pointed, you kill the person pointing it. PERIOD.

On August 16, a felon in Shasta County, California, pulled out a toy gun, threatened to take a baby, and was shot and killed by the boyfriend of the baby's mother.

According to Redding.com, when the 38-year-old man showed up at the birthday party of the one-year-old child he and Amanda Rizer share, he allegedly became enraged upon finding her new boyfriend there.

He got into an argument with Rizer's new boyfriend, then walked out to his truck and retrieved "what appeared to be a 9mm handgun." He said that he "was going to take the child" and pointed the gun at Rizer's boyfriend, Matthew Robinson.

Fearing for his life, Robinson pulled out a ".38-caliber handgun" and shot the felon in the chest, killing him.

Officers determined "Robinson fired in self defense."

The deceased felon "was out on bail pending court proceedings for being a felon in possession of a firearm."

Excellent job, Daddy. You protected your child and the mother. I salute you!

And now, for something completely different. The Quotes of the Week for this round shall come from (cue ominous tones) the bastards trying to strip us of, or who already have striped other of their right to keep and bear arms.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police."
—Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore any one who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
—SA Oberfuhrer Bad Tolz, March 1933

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
—Joseph Goebbels

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
—Janet Reno, US Attorney General

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
—Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976


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