Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

"The Gun Is Civilization"

Discuss anything about life situation.

"The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby lostandfound » Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:27 pm

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.If
you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me
via argument,or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.Every human
interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or
force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the
only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and
try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of
force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on
equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing
with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity
in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed]
mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential
victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no
validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young,
the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society
where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several
ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior
party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a
bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender,
not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as
it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a
force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because
I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced,
only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me
to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me
through reason,
only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can
only be persuaded, never forced.

http://wn.com/William_Norman_Grigg
Last edited by lostandfound on Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

lostandfound has been thanked by:
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

 

FIRST EVER! – Austinites outbid Police in gun buyback counte

Postby lostandfound » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:52 pm

FIRST EVER! – Austinites outbid Police in gun buyback counter-program

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/02/26/fir ... r-program/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5Mg1B4RVE
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby grndslm » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:21 pm

That's just awesome.

I've always heard good things about Austin. It's likely because the people are awake and active.
A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights. -- U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538

"When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty." -- Someone from the Confederacy, circa 1860

grndslm has been thanked by:
User avatar
grndslm
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2763
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: A Rebel Fort
Has thanked: 375 time
Have thanks: 205 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby lostandfound » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:07 am

Austian police are vampires, they draw blood at roadside drunk checks!?

Police prevarication in Austin overlooked with wink and a nod
I ran across a story from a couple of years ago on a local Austin attorney's blog about alleged police testilying which, before the advent of attorney blogs, would undoubtedly have been silently ignored. Don't get me wrong, it was still officially ignored, by the police department, prosecutors, the judge, etc.. But Austin attorney Kiele Linthrop Pace at least did not remain silent, recording the story of an Austin police officer who seemingly, rather blatantly fabricated facts in a probable-cause affidavit.

"It's been a long time since I learned that police officers not only have incentive to lie but that many of them do it all the time," her blog post opens. "As explained long ago by a federal appeals court judge, who was recently quoted in a Wall Street Journal article, 'It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers.' But I was still taken aback by the blatant lying that I encountered last week." She relates that:

the probable cause affidavit that Officer Gerardo Cantu, APD#6111, swore to and filed in this case indicated that he arrested my client for trespassing on a "heavily forested" property at 8212 Sam Rayburn Drive, which contained trees "painted with a purple band" as well as posted "No Trespassing" signs that were "in plain view" on all sides of the property.

As you can see from the street view provided by Google Maps, this is not a heavily forested property. When I drove out there last week, I discovered that it is, in fact, a multi-unit property in a densely populated urban slum. There's a single tree with no purple paint in sight. The only signs posted anywhere on the property do not say "No Trespassing." Rather, they prohibit drinking and loud music in public areas, roaming around, soliciting, loitering, and so forth.

In fact, no element of Officer Cantu's criminal trespass allegation against my client turned out to be true. He just made the whole thing up. The really surprising thing is that he's willing to commit aggravated perjury when it's so easy to prove.

As for the case against my client, I printed out the whole stack of photos that I took at the scene, which included a shot with the address shown on the side of the building, and showed them to the prosecutor at our scheduled pretrial conference last week. She decided that it was in the "interest of justice" to dismiss. Imagine that.
I emailed to ask the Austin PD what happened to the officer in question as a result of this incident, and received a reply from Assistant Chief Patti Robinson declaring, "The case that you mention was reviewed by the Austin Police Department's Special Investigations Unit. It was concluded that there was no merit to this allegation and therefore no violation of law by Officer Cantu."

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2 ... ustin.html
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

lostandfound has been thanked by:
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby lostandfound » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:14 pm

What is the Second Amendment?

It is recognition of a right.

Parse that sentence again: Rights can be either recognized or abrogated but they cannot be granted.

In order to grant something, you first must have it. The State does not possess the right to the people's self-defense (by definition) against either personal tyranny (e.g. a thug breaking into their home) or government tyranny (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

You either accept that you, and everyone else, have an unalienable right to self defense or you do not.

If you do, then the right to possess weapons suitable for self-defense (which most-certainly includes any sort of small arm such as a pistol) is inherently encompassed within that right.

The NRA, the Brady folks and others all in fact argue over nonsense. They argue over "reasonable restrictions." But there are no reasonable restrictions when it comes to peaceable exercise of a right.

None.

Yes, I know that Miller says that short-barreled shotguns are permissible to restrict and there are other cases on the books that bear on this as well.

But laws and rights are not the same thing. Laws either respect or disrespect rights, but they do not bestow them, because the government is not from whence rights flow, and you cannot bestow that which you do not first possess.

This does not mean that there should be no legal strictures for non-peaceable acts - that is, violations of other people's rights. Your right to peaceable self-defense expires when you pull that weapon with the intent to use it for an unlawful purpose (like sticking up a convenience store.)

But the principle of unalienable rights, standing alone, is that no government has a right to prospective constraint upon unalienable rights, as their peaceable exercise is unalienable - that is, beyond any government's ability to review.

It makes many people very uncomfortable when one starts talking about topics in this vein, because everyone, it seems, wants to trade liberty for security in some form or fashion.

Yet a long line of facts and history prove beyond any doubt - reasonable or otherwise - that such trades never secure actual safety, but always sacrifice liberty.

Witness Chicago. It was illegal to possess a handgun unless you were a peace officer and functionally (despite Heller and friends) still is. Yet this has not prevented one thug from gaining possession of a handgun and waving statutes in front of said thug has not managed to stop one bullet in flight.

In fact, the thugs are so impressed with these laws that they burn police cars in front of cops' homes in the middle of the night. The citizens? They (rightfully) refuse to step in and stop it. With what would they stop it? Their good looks? Remember, by definition a law-abiding citizen in that city is not armed!

Nor is this confined to the right to peaceably exist (which is why we have a Second Amendment.) It also extends to the right to travel. Not only has that been turned into a privilege with things like Driver Licensing but it is in point of fact illegal to bicycle while intoxicated in Florida - and many other states. That's right - you can do the right thing by choosing to bike (instead of drive) if you intend to drink and get a DUI anyway. Worse, there's a recent case where the cops arrested someone for drinking in the back of a limousine. That is, the patron hired a driver specifically to avoid the risk of a DUI and was arrested anyway.

Free to go upon the public roadways? A right to travel? Not any more - and we haven't even discussed the TSA and other similar goon-squad nonsense yet.

You want to talk about liberty? Fundamental, unalienable rights? Which ones?

You only have the rights endowed by your creator you are willing to defend.

Today, that's a blank sheet of paper, all in the name of "just a little compromise" or claimed acts "for your safety" (which in fact do not deliver what was promised, and liability for that failure by those in government is then, of course, refused.)

Just ask the 40,000+ dead on our nation's roads every year or the 3,000 ghosts of those who were alive prior to 9/11, all of which were promised "safety" in consideration of giving up their liberty. They got neither, and to top it off a man who was peaceably going along his path in life, who had committed no offense upon the peace, was searched, arrested, tried, convicted and is now in prison because he peaceably exercised an unalienable right.
Last edited by lostandfound on Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby BOBT12 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:38 pm

We need more guns.

Now the ATFB is now letting arms into Mexico in order to blame the crime on the American people, then the Whitehouse will call for the end of the Second Amendment. Obama is blaming the American people. This is an outrageous fraud!

http://www.infowars.com/batfe-secret-op ... der-towns/

We need to have more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Who obeys gun free zones? Gun laws tend to disarm the law abiding . Wyoming has passed Constitutional Carry legislation we should do the same

Study on Multiple Victim Public Shooting (from 1977 to 1999) shows that as criminals know that people are likely to be armed, it is a great deterrent to criminals committing violent crimes. People use guns four to five times more often in self defense than guns are used to commit crime. Sadly, the news media rarely reports this fact. On the other hand, most citizens who own guns are very law abiding. 6.2 million people in U.S. have license 0.05% were revoked for any reason. It was 0.04% convicted of even misdemeanors. Out of 6.2 million people this is pretty good.

People who benefit the most from concealed carry are the poor and minorities who live in high crime areas. Nevertheless, costly and difficult process of obtaining permits, the more of those who would benefit the most are squeezed out of the market. Most multiple victim shootings occurred in a gun free zone.

Finally, Israel permitted most common citizens (1972 about 15% of the population) to be armed. No matter how many police and military they had on the street, the terrorist just waited until the armed presences passed to another area. Some terrorist pulled out machine guns in a mall in the 1970s, however, old ladies pulled out handguns and killed three of the terrorist, and severely injured the fourth. The only surviving terrorist was put into an ambulance and cried to the EMT that it was very unfair that older women shot him and his comrades.

"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)", John R. Lott, Jr.

See the article, “Wyoming Adopts “Constitutional Carry” of Firearms.


Subject: GUN CONTROL STATISTICS

Interesting Lesson In History

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.

Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control; From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control; From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935; From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970; From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956; From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
> > > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns; The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson; With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this antigun control message to all of your friends.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com

BOBT12 has been thanked by:
User avatar
BOBT12
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 472 time
Have thanks: 170 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby lostandfound » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:23 pm

UN-agreement to complete disarmerment. :evil:


http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom-From-War
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Sheriff Residents should arm themselves

Postby lostandfound » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:13 pm

David Clarke: Residents should arm themselves, 911 not best option...
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. set off alarm bells Friday with a radio spot some view as a call for citizens to arm themselves.

In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.

"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/ ... 75091.html

This guy wrote the book on armned and safe> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?
http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn’t tell the whole story. Don’t statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don’t understand is that this “acquaintance murder” number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. “Acquaintance” covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won’t tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn’t this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of “shall-issue” laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn’t allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won’t more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren’t you playing into people’s fears and prejudices though? Don’t politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won’t speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It’s often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you’ll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

The sheriff is no life saver though.

Put Not Your Trust In Federalized Sheriffs

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/20 ... lized.html

“You look depressed.”

“I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence.”

“You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you.”

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell -- the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England -- and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.

“I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County,” insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.

During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to “invest more resources” – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a “Drug Task Force,” and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a “Task Force mentality” in dealing with law enforcement issues.

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for “task force” is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.

Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcotics syndicate.

Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell -- aka David Koresh -- was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record.

If an arrest were to be carried out – and one was neither necessary, nor justified – it could have been performed during one of Koresh’s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of his routine visits to town. Instead, the ATF – seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action to generate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency – staged a paramilitary assault on the religious sanctuary. They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrived at Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confronted the stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.

Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary, and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victims acted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminal clique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to their residence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeen small children.

Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith can remember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993, when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was on the scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in 1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on the Davidians was justified, and that the entire operation was at least a partial success. It’s doubtful that his assessment is shared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.

Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone on record in opposition to the Obama administration’s impending firearms restrictions. All of them have promised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are active collaborators in the same.

Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of “refusenik sheriffs” by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to “uphold the Constitution.”

Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue – in the same press conference -- expressed his willingness to continue his office’s collaboration in the federal “war on drugs” and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available.

Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act as the federal regime’s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply with new federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office – like most others in the country – has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen. During last year’s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an “undercover officer” with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.

“In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcement agencies working together in order to share costs and resources,” insisted Donahue. Those words will almost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when – not “if” – the Feds make it clear that they are willing to “share resources” only with sheriff’s offices who are on board with the gun grab.

Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact that he’s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims was shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate that while she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws, she also “backs the added funding for local law enforcement, especially in schools.”

Her office has a huge budget, a small but significant portion of which is derived from proceeds seized through a federally supervised “asset forfeiture” program.

In 2009, Mims was the “local” face that was pasted onto the Obama administration’s “Operation Save Our Sierra” marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies – including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It’s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against “illegal” plants could be employed to confiscate “illegal” firearms in the future.

Sheriff Mims heroically subdues a violent plant.

A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno County commission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff’s Office. That money most likely won’t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pink slips to her deputies. It’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors will introduce her to a new variety of alchemy -- converting confiscated “illegal” firearms into federal subsidies.

Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens. Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is a childhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: “I believe that the Constitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that no one employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office will enforce or support any laws or executive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land.”

If only those inspiring words were consonant with Sheriff Wolfe’s actions. Like every other sheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates the Constitution on a routine basis.

Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department casually announced that it had found several small marijuana gardens during a two-week aerial surveillance operation conducted with the help of the National Guard.

Acting as the department’s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that Sheriff Brian Wolfe will now “contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed.” Warrants would not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriff pointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have been planted without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect.

The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants – that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana.

Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to “protect the public,” which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department. Wolfe’s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when – once again, not “if” – the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband.

There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or any other substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had to change the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they’re investigating charges of treason or counterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds – and in such circumstances the Feds themselves should be treated as the primary suspects.

If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff’s office receives so much as a farthing of federal funding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago in the case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion of footage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.

The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn’t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California's very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn’t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf's argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: "The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money."

Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We’re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different – at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned.

The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so. But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they would be willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for our guns?

(My thanks to reader Chris Sullivan, who caught the original error in the epigram at the beginning of this essay.)

By way of illustration...

... we see the following act of felonious assault and kidnapping by Citrus County, Florida Deputy Sheriff Andy Cox, who threatens to murder innocent, law-abiding gun owner. It took less than two seconds for this this cretinous, foul-mouthed tax-feeder to drop the pose of superficial geniality. His first instinct, on learning that this harmless man was armed, was to threaten to murder him, because he had been indoctrinated in the belief that Mundanes simply cannot be permitted to bear arms.

When assessing the credibility of "constitutional sheriffs" as protectors of the right to bear arms, bear in mind that sheriffs are politicians and administrators; the patrol officers in their departments are people like Andy Cox.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc0_1358438084
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby Shuftin » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:51 pm

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Jan 25, 2013

By DANIEL HALPER

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.

The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment."

The bill's measures include stopping "the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic," according to the Huffington Post.

The left-leaning website adds: "Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fei ... 97732.html
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 187 time
Have thanks: 374 time

Re: "The Gun Is Civilization"

Postby BOBT12 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:00 pm

We need to fight this nonsense at every level. Dianne Feinstein ought to be on the show "Off Their Rocker" not in the Senate. She is a crazy nitwit.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com

BOBT12 has been thanked by:
User avatar
BOBT12
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 472 time
Have thanks: 170 time

Next

Return to Living and Survival

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred