Down With Power Audiobook!

L. Neil Smith's
Number 818, April 19, 2015

The difference between libertarianism and every other
social or political philosophy is its answer to the
question "Who owns your life?" Everything else flows
naturally from the answer to that question.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly (and very late) Gun Rant For 4-19-2015 (and the preceding weeks)
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I'm going to start this off with Mama Liberty. But first, an apology. For those who've cared enough to ask, Pop is now in Hospice care, and I've been traveling the 600 mile round trip twice a week to help care for him, PLUS working like a dog trying to get the farm up after a brutal winter (Where the HELL is that "Global Warming" we've been promised? I keep farting and driving my truck, yet the winters are getting COLDER!!!!) and these little missives have fallen to the wayside. Needless to say, I have not devoted the time I normally do to this one. SO please take what you get, and send a few kind thoughts to Pop for an easy transition. MOST of what is going to be here comes from my two stalwart helpers, Gunny Gene, and TJ Mason. Thanks, guys. Now, to Mama (who sent this on several weeks ago, and has kindly let me know she's there for me if I need her—Luv ya, ML) [Link] It's her novel, Consequences, a most excellent read. (I need to re-read it, since I first read the rough draft, months ago). It's a free e-book, download it NOW!!!!

Every choice and action has consequences. Utopia is not an option.
"It" finally happened. The value of the US dollar was at last recognized by the entire world as a negative number and much of the world economic structure that had depended on it collapsed in flames. The container ships stopped arriving and very real threats were made by creditor countries. Very few people could continue to produce much of anything with no cash and no credit possible, so tax revenues vanished. The government could no longer pretend to "borrow" and the printing presses fell silent. And when the checks stopped coming to the millions of welfare recipients, pensioners, government employees at every level...
The manure actually hit the oscillating wind machine and all hell broke loose. The cities burned and the violence of millions of desperate and angry people became the norm. Since most had never learned to restrain themselves, let alone prepare for hard times, soon there was none and chaos reigned.
Consequences is the story of a small group of people who had foreseen this possibility and prepared for it. They have to deal with this chaos, and they are prepared to use as much violence as necessary to defend themselves. As always, there are unintended complications and our heroes must first go out into the holocaust of imploding civilization to rescue some of their own—who had not quite prepared enough.

I really loved the rough draft, and I'm sure you'll love the finished copy.

As those with a brain to think, and eyes to read already know, I'm not a fan of the NRA. But lately, a blatant (and VERY hypocritical) story about the NRA's policy at their yearly gun show and convention has been circulating. It seems they are accusing the NRA of following state and federal laws regarding firearms sales and carry at the convention, and saying the NRA is violating the rights of gun owners. [Link] As is the custom (AND the law) the NRA has made vendors at the sale remove the firing pin or otherwise disable all guns that are for sale, and is requiring all out of state purchasers to have their purchases sent to an FFL holder in their home state. THIS IS FEDERAL LAW IN THE CASE OF SHIPPING THE GUNS, AND STATE LAW IN REGARDS TO DISABLING THE GUNS AT THE SHOW. But that doesn't stop victim disarming anti-Constitutionalists from lying. They CLAIM the NRA is disarming their conventioneers because they don't trust their own members armed, while demanding easing carry laws everywhere else.

There's an old saying that, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Presently, there is a bit of fiction sweeping through the media and left wing blogs pointing out supposed hypocrisy by the National Rifle Association.
The best we can tell, the lie seems to have originated with a woman who has become an expert at making fools out of the mainstream media, Shannon Watts of Michael Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action.

Follow the link, and see where this leads.

A "Well Armed American" story with a caveat—You might well face criminal charges if you actually engage in your right to defend your property the way this man did. [Link]

Keep in mind every state has different laws on the books.So what worked in this story might not fly in your home state.
That's why it pays to know the law so you can act within it when someone tries to turn you into a victim.
When Bert Leasure caught two men stealing from him he did something most Americans dream of doing.
He took the law into his own hands, chased the criminals down, and executed justice to make sure these dirtbags didn't get away with breaking the law.

Follow the link to read what he did (NO, you anti-gun asswipe, he didn't kill anyone). So far, he has not had any charges filed against him.

Remember this awesome Daddy? We mentioned him a while back, and at the sentencing of his son's molester, he had some words for the animal (who received 25 years in jail for his sexual assault on the 11 year old boy AFTER his wonderful beat down by Dad) [Link]

As the video notes, dad wasn't charged in the beating. Frankly, we doubt he'd have been charged if he killed Frolander. The overall result, leaving Frolander alive, may end up being worse for Frolander though.

Frolander's sentencing was last week and he got 25 years. Dad explained after the sentence was passed why he let this animal live. "He's going to learn in the next 25 years why I let him live."
If he's not put into protective custody, Frolander won't live to serve out his sentence. And, what "life" he has in prison won't be good. He can expect to be beaten and raped on a daily basis. He will most likely end up in PC for that very reason. Protective custody is no picnic either, it's typically 23 hours in a 6x9 cell with one hour out. If Frolander survives that, he's not likely to be in any sort of mental state to "reintegrate" into society in 2040.

One couldn't wish for a more suitable punishment.

I find it another example of "Darwin Rules" that idiots would actually storm a GUN SHOP! But that's exactly what happens in this "Well Armed Americans" vignette. [Link] Sadly, one of the owners died, but three of the criminals were severely wounded.

On the afternoon of January 9, numerous robbers allegedly stormed a Shawnee, Kansas' "She's A Pistol" gun store; three were shot and left in critical condition. According to Kansas City's KCTV 5, the incident took place 2:30 p.m. local time. The male co-owner of the business, his wife, and the other co-owner were all in the business when the robbers came in. The male co-owner was shot and three of the robbers were shot. Of the four total, three were listed in critical condition.

He died defending his wife and employees. All in all, a victory for the brave John Biecker, one most men would be willing to accept in defense of our beloved ones. Raise a drinking horn Valhalla for me, John.

One would think Texas would be the one state where gun rights rule, but it isn't. However, Governor Abbot is preparing to move Texas forward—maybe not to Constitutional carry, but at least to adding open carry to the rights permitted to Texans. [Link]

The Texas state Senate has given final approval to Senate Bill 17, a measure that would allow Texans to carry handguns openly in a shoulder or belt holster. The bill passed on a 20—10 vote, with yes votes from every Republican and no votes from every Democrat, except the one who was absent. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been a vocal supporter of the measure.
"Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was the only senator to speak against the legislation on Tuesday, a day after the proposal was hotly debated before it was given tentative approval. Whitmire said the bill would be a "great mistake."
The measure by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, would join Texas with most other states in authorizing open carry of handguns—as long as the person has a state handgun license. Currently, about 826,000 Texans have a concealed handgun license, nearly 3 percent of the state's population.
The bill would be effective on Jan. 1, 2016. Texans can already carry long guns, like rifles, openly. Estes said Texans with handgun licenses "have been vetted and trained, and can decide what is best for them. I have great confidence in our license holders that they will do the right thing." "

Note that the bill STILL requires one to purchase permission from the state prior to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, so this is by NO MEANS a perfect solution. But it IS a step in that direction.

It seems to me that this is proof that carrying might well protect you from this asinine "Knock Out" game that is still running rampant. Link. After all, "players" in the "game" don't actually want to risk their OWN health and safety in order to "play.

On July 31, a Neptune Beach 15-year-old walked up on a man who was alone, minding his own business. The teenager asked the man if he had a Glock. The man, confused, told the boy that he wasn't carrying a weapon. That was all the teenager needed to hear. He punched the stranger in the face, making him the latest victim of the "knockout game," a dangerous pastime that involves knocking out innocent and unsuspecting strangers. Several victims have been killed as a result of the game, and the Neptune Beach victim didn't want to see that happen. He drew a knife after being attacked, a move that was apparently enough to send the teenager and his compatriots running.

* * * * *

Of course, the Neptune Beach incident isn't so much a warning about the Knockout Game as it is a reminder of the kind of situation you can find yourself in on any given day. You don't have to live in Bed-Stuy to run up against violence. No one wants to walk around in a world where they could be attacked at any moment, but that's the world we live in. True, if you are cognizant of your surroundings and don't go out of your way to antagonize people, the chances of running into a violent conflict are slim. But don't make the mistake of believing they are nonexistent.

15 years old or not, that little bastard forfeited his right to breathe when he deliberately verified that his victim was defenseless.

Not that I DO read The Atlantic magazine, but I sure as shit won't read it now. Apparently, like most media these days, they don't respect the Bill of Rights (EXCEPT, of course, for the 1st Amendment). [Link]

Though published on April 1st, there's no indication that the ludicrous ramblings of The Atlantic's column on concealed carry laws was meant as an April Fools' joke. Nevertheless, the reasoning used by the columnist and his insistence that law-abiding permit holders pose a threat to society could only convince a fool that we should roll back our Second Amendment freedoms.
According to the liberal magazine, concealed-carriers put police officers in danger and lead us to a culture where we must "fear our armed neighbors." Apparently, the columnist believes—as many anti-gun liberals do—that people can only be armed if the law gives them explicit permission to carry a weapon. That this is proven wrong on a daily basis is of no consequence. As long as we don't know the guns are there, it doesn't have the social ramifications these liberals so fear.
They fret that concealed carry laws put Americans in fear of saying the wrong thing or insulting the wrong person. After all, they could have a gun. Once again, though, they could have a gun whether or not the laws permit them to carry one. And while no one really wants to live in a world where you could be shot for insulting someone, maybe that tension could help us improve civility. Personally, the fact that loose gun laws might lead us to be more careful with our words...that's not a social consequence I'm going to spend too much time crying about. And, judging from what I've seen, it's not going to happen anyway.
What are you going to do, the columnist asks, "if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans?" Hmm, well, I suppose I'll refrain from physically attacking people and pounding their heads into the concrete. I don't know if that will keep me safe from every would-be shooter, but it will definitely keep me from winding up in the unfortunate shoes of Trayvon Martin. If we're going to cite specific cases, let's be honest about the specific facts.
Finally, The Atlantic sneers at the NRA's argument that Americans are responsible for their own personal safety. According to the columnist, the police response times in Aurora and Newtown prove that law enforcement can arrive on the scene with extraordinary speed. And indeed they can. They got to the movie theater in Colorado within 90 seconds and they got to Sandy Hook Elementary in three minutes. And yet, look how many people were maimed and killed during that miniscule window of opportunity.
Neither James Holmes nor Adam Lanza, by the way, were permit holders. Neither the Aurora theater nor Sandy Hook Elementary allowed guns on site. Still, somehow or another, these murderers managed to carry out their deeds. Strange how that works.

One must wonder exactly where the brains of the reporter for The Atlantic are located. My guess is, he keeps them in his ass.

For years, now, the banks have been required to file "SARs" (Suspicious Activity Reports) if you do anything the government considers suspicious—like take your money out of the bank in sums greater than $10,000 at a time. Or if you take out $5000 cash twice in one week. Supposedly, this will help stop terrorism. (Feeling safer yet?) Now, the government appears to be going to the next level. [Link] Banks are being told to call the cops on you for engaging in such "suspicious activity" as withdrawing as little as $5000 cash. And for good measure, the bank ought to seize your money (temporarily, of course) until the government can "justify" letting you have your property by "Proving that you will use your money for approved purposes."

In an ongoing effort to stop terrorism, the government has now instituted a new policy for all banks.One that, if not complied with, could send bank executives to jail.
The new program is asking banks to notify the government of large cash withdrawals—and is even asking banks to seize your money so they can investigate what you might be doing with it.
How crazy is that?

* * * * *

"[W]e encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps."
So what exactly constitutes 'suspicious activity'? Basically anything.
According to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect to:
"Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more..."
It's utterly obscene. According to the Justice Department, going to the bank and withdrawing $5,000 should potentially prompt a banker to rat you out to the police.

If this type of behavior doesn't bother you, you have something severely wrong with you.

One wonders where doctors and cps get their brains—I think it's from the meat counter. Wouldn't it have been easier (and FAR more humane) to check the lady's claims BEFORE committing her? [Link]

"In this day and age the state will try and make money off you any way they can.
Even going so far as to lock you up for telling the truth as they try and diagnose you with a disorder you don't have.
These kinds of cases are few and far between, but they do show how powerful and unjust the U.S. government can be.
Recently, a woman was held against her will because she told police Obama followed her on Twitter. (Not that that's a good thing, but I digress.)
After detaining her for 8 days they released her and asked her to pay over $13,000 for the trouble."

Yup—they hospitalize, drug, and coerce this poor woman into signing an affidavit that the truth ISN'T true for telling the truth—like many politicians, Obama follows many constituents' social media accounts. And to top it all off, they try to make HER pay the bill for THEIR criminal assault on her rights and body.

Our sole Quote of the Week—

"I believe that there aremore instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual andsilent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison

Here's hoping I have time to do this again next week.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

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!)

Big Head Press