Watch List = No Gun Rights… Again!

It is amazing to me how bad ideas in Washington never seem to die. They are like vampires, that instead of blood want to suck liberties and freedom away instead. They just keep coming back over and over again. You think you put a stake through the heart of one of these freedom robbing ideas, but nope, here it comes again! Here we are after another horrific terrorist act performed by Radical Islamic Jihadist and again the talk moves to gun control. I have of course written about this before.

However this time I wish to report that someone in the Huffington Post of all places actually has some semblance of the problem and what the NRA is against. Let’s see if the dimwits in the Democrat Party can understand THIS time around. I doubt it, but like a hopeful parent I keep hoping the morons will catch on, but they never do.

As pointed out in this Huffington Post article, it explains the issue with the NRA and these ever expanding black lists from government is the absolute lack of due process involved in getting on a list, finding out you are on it, and getting yourself off it if you are innocent.

It seems the government REALLY hates this whole 5th Amendment thing. It is just too hard for them to go out and present real evidence and hold a trial and all that other “hard stuff”. It is so much easier to just pass a law that says we can strip rights, property, freedom and liberty away with no trial because some government thug somewhere thinks it is a good idea to put you on some type of secret list.

Any Libertarian worth his or her salt hates these watch lists for multiple reasons, but as the article above states the NRA is correct on this issue. Lack of due process is completely unacceptable and it holds true in this case as well. You can’t start having secret government lists that strip people of rights!

Now having said that I wouldn’t start cheering these stupid lists even if due process was used. Why? Because ultimately it involves putting someone on a list that strips liberties away for something that someone MIGHT do down the road, but we aren’t really sure.

If someone has ALREADY broken laws and is ALREADY a terrorist who has ALREADY done acts of murder or terror then LOCK THEM UP! Don’t put them on some list! But wait, what about terrorists that are running around overseas right now. Unless they are American citizens they don’t get rights under our Constitution. If they are Americans AND terrorists then catch them like you would any criminal and prosecute them!

The whole concept of taking people’s freedom’s away because of things they haven’t but might do someday is a very dangerous precedent to start. Plus who gets to decide these definitions? What constitutes an actual terrorist? I know everyone has their vision of what a terrorist is, but I guarantee that government will have a different definition if you allow this and it will be one you won’t like or worse the definition will start getting bigger and bigger to include more people.

It is no accident that members of the NRA and gun rights enthusiasts get called “terrorist” every time they stand up to Congress when the scum bags are trying to infringe on our liberties again. These un-American ass hats know damn good and well that a whole lot of freedom and liberties are suddenly granted to the police, courts and government and taken away from private citizens if you can brand some person or group as a “terrorist”. That is like a government magic word for immediately suspending constitutional rights from a group of people.

So, if we let this go through even with “due process” in place what happens when the media and liberals everywhere are successful in branding NRA members as terrorist? Poof! There goes our rights and we help sell the bill that will allow it to happen.

You see as dangerous as it is to strip people’s rights and liberties away for things they might do someday it is even more dangerous when the government has amorphous ever changing definitions of what or who a “terrorist” is and what constitutes “acts of terror” that will justify this loss of liberty. You just have to know that whatever party is in control of the levers of power will try and brand their POLITICAL enemies as “terrorists” so they can immediately throw them on some list and strip away a ton of Constitutional liberties.

This whole “war on terror” and who is an actual terrorist is just giving people that don’t deserve our trust (government) way too much power and discretion with our liberties.

Therefore, I stand where I did before. NOT ONE MORE INCH when it comes to gun rights or for that matter giving the thugs more power under the guise of “keeping us safe” and the “war on terror”.

I will keep myself safe. I don’t need the government to do it for me. First, they suck at it. Second, I prefer to do these things myself so I know what I am getting. All I need from government is to stay away from anymore of my liberties. Just back off and leave me alone. There are millions of other Americans that think the same thing.

Molon Labe!

 

No Fly List Equals No 2nd Amendment

In his most recent tirade, Chairman Obama of the not so free United States called for… wait for it… more gun control in the wake of San Bernardino shootings. Yes, this guy just keeps getting more creative, innovative, predictable by the day!

His most current idea is anyone that is on the “no fly list” should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights. The LA Times editorial board even thought this idea was terrible. Not exactly known for the libertarian centered views even these guys can spot a terrible idea when they see it.

However this is just the latest terrible idea relating to the never ending always expanding “war on terror”. Every time some lunatic anywhere in the world does a horrible act of terror politicians in America start talking about another Constitutional right that needs to be removed or watered down to “keep us safe”.

The (un)Patriot Act has almost completely gutted the 4th Amendment with secret courts that rubber stamp broad and sweeping open warrants that essentially allow the government to go on a fishing expedition whenever they want. This of course is secret from the person being investigated and has strict gag orders in place anywhere it is used, i.e. your bank, library, or anywhere else they wish to look.

The wonderful tool of Civil Asset Forfeiture allows the Federalies to swoop in and steal your property without ANY criminal conviction. The IRS can steal money from your home, business, bank accounts, etc. simply for suspecting you of a crime under this wonderful government boondoggle. Their favorite recent toy in the box is something called “structuring” where they say ANY series of deposits NOT $10,000 or above is an attempt by you to avoid reporting laws and hence you are doing something illegal.

Police can pull you over, search your vehicle and help themselves to your cash, jewelry and other valuables under the rule “it might have been used in a criminal endeavor” theory of law. Again, no criminal conviction or even charges required. In cases of Civil Asset Forfeiture you will almost never be charged with a crime and must hire expensive attorneys to get your property back. So even if you end up “winning” by getting your own property returned by the time you pay attorney and court fees you still lost.

Americans decided to fight back against some of this abuse and many people use strong data encryption for their phones, email to keep government snoops out of their business. Then along comes the FBI saying, wait for it… we need back doors in this software for, yes, you guessed it the never ending “war on terror”

The sad thing all of these have in common is an attempt to subvert your Constitutional rights at every turn. Once your Constitutional rights are gone don’t expect the government to just give them back. People need to be aware you are getting a bad deal if you think they will make you “safer” in exchange for just one more infringement.

Obama’s recent one on 2nd Amendment rights is just the latest and certainly not the last “discussions” we will have about this or that liberty all in the name of giving law enforcement the “tools” they need to protect us.

In case you haven’t noticed all the words and phrases they use in describing these infringements are poll tested, spin tested words to mislead you. Hopefully people are smarter than that, but given the amount of infringements to date and the never ending stream of new ideas for more I am not hopeful.

Wake up people, the hour grows very late for you to stop this abuse by government.

The King is Above the Law… Again

Well, here is another story of how the DOJ has ruled it is almost unacceptable for local police to NOT have body cameras now, but they [Federal Police Forces] will NOT use them OR work with any local agency that does wear them! So again, another situation of where the rules for the Federalies is different than the rest of us. Of course they have all kinds of professional sounding excuses for why this shouldn’t apply to them.

Of course nobody at the Federal level ever makes a mistake that should be caught on camera. Nobody at the Federal level could have any racist tendencies, which is why supposedly the local police need to use them. Nobody at the Federal level will ever use excessive force that should be caught on camera. Nobody at the Federal level will ever kick down the door of the wrong house in the middle of the night and kill the wrong person. No, that has never happened. Nobody at the Federal level should ever be held accountable for their actions, but the local police definitely should.

I don’t know about you, but I am getting really sick and tired of this two tiered system in the country of the Federal ruling class constantly exempting themselves from the rules and laws they inflict on the rest of us. As if they are untouchable.

I don’t trust the Federal thugs on ANYTHING and I want them on camera 24/7 raw and unedited so that we can see behind all of their closed doors and secret meetings. It is about time they get some sunlight shined up their asses so the rest of us can truly see what jack booted thugs they really are and quit doing stuff that offers up taxes and support for them to grow larger and more oppressive by the day.

All you people out there that constantly vote for candidates that support bigger and bigger government take note here. The bigger they get the less accountable they become as we can see here. If we truly had a Constitutional Republic and a SMALL Federal government bound by a Constitution this would not be happening, but too many people continually see government, mainly the Federal government as the cure for everything.

I trust my local police far more than I trust those thugs. I want them to have cameras period. We need to apply political force to hold ALL levels of government accountable, not just the local government and police. Enough of this it is good enough for you, but not us crap!

Silk Road Prediction Coming True

A while back I wrote a post offering some thoughts on why the government gave Ross Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road the harshest sentence possible. In that post I basically pointed out that the government was terrified that it was so easy to set up such a network. It didn’t require a huge criminal enterprise, lots of cash or vast resources. It basically required a guy with some programming skills and a laptop.

I pointed out that if this catches on even the government won’t have the resources to track down and punish all the people out there. Imagine dot com boom of the 1990s, but instead of creating new businesses for NASDAQ they will be creating new and better versions of the original Silk Road. I argued that is what truly terrified the government and encouraged the judge to impose the harshest sentence possible. Tyrants throughout time have been using this tactic. Catch the perpetrator and impose a horrific punishment for all to see. The idea being that anyone else even thinking of doing the same thing will get this punishment and scare them away. It rarely works and it won’t work this time.

In fact, it is already failing. 2 years after Silk Road was shut down new and quickly improving versions of the same thing are popping up. Again, as predicted before some will get caught and not all of the individuals are as smart as others. This is the nature of a free market. Some fail and some succeed, but each successive effort becomes a little better than the last. We see it again with this endeavor.

The government’s one card they had to play was striking mortal fear of punishment into the hearts of would be upstarts has failed as I knew it would. New markets are forming and flourishing. Some will be caught and the group following them will get even better. I would not be surprised if programmers from around the globe start creating specialized software to help fuel these endeavors. It is like a tsunami and it won’t be stopped. The tighter the government squeezes the more people will slip through their fingers, seems I have heard that before…

Guns and Doctors Shouldn’t Mix

The Bill of Rights, focus on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a considerable amount of discussion circulating over the Internet about the invasion of privacy from doctors and insurance companies asking patients about gun ownership. It is becoming a very politically charged issue. In some cases state laws prevent it (Florida) and in others nothing. There are medical organizations driving this anti-civil liberties agenda and finally some of it is coming from both doctors and/or insurance companies.

There are a number of articles floating around about how to handle the situation if a doctor asks you gun ownership. Many of them discuss “making a statement” or filing complaints and other such actions. I can appreciate the need to fight back, but I am not sure that is the best course of action here.

When I was in college I knew a gentleman that was about 20 years my senior and was coming back to finish his degree and get a graduate degree. By all accounts this guy would be considered a bit off. He was a conspiracy theorist to the nth degree. He would go on long diatribes about social security numbers, the Fed, black helicopters, and any other number of issues. He would go online forums and argue, debate fellow students, write letters, put letters to the editor in the paper and many other activist activities.

Today I have no idea where he lives or what he is doing or even if he is still alive for that matter. What I do know is all the same things he rallied against back then are still issues today. If you believe in or don’t believe in these things is not what is tangent to this post.

One thing I repeatedly pointed out to him was the potential issue to himself from deliberately bringing down a larger and better funded enemy down on his head. I refer of course to the number of bureaucrats, ABC government officials and their countless databases and record keeping systems. I used to offer a metaphor/parable to him. I said if you are walking across your wooden deck with your bare feet and you come across nails poking up a little what are you likely to do? My rhetorical question/answer was you would take a hammer to the offending nail. The nails that would NOT receive a hammer blow were the ones that stayed low and didn’t bring attention to themselves by poking up.

I felt this was a good parable for life when dealing with our oppressive government of today at all levels. If you yell and scream all the time you will bring a lot of unwanted attention to yourself and when the hammer comes out (and it always does at some point) you will be the first one to get pounded down. While I can appreciate and even participate in activist activities you have to know how and when to do it. You have to be smart about it.

In my opinion arguing with your doctor, filing complaints against them or the insurance company, taking to social media to protest, refusing to answer on the grounds that it is none of their business etc. just makes you that proverbial nail poking up on the deck. If you say you refuse to answer because it makes you uncomfortable or you refuse to answer you might as well as just say “yes” because you already did. It will be noted in their file and anyone with half a brain will guess you have guns and are refusing to answer because you are one of those crazy NRA guys. If you take it farther by writing letters, complaints, etc. you simply raise your profile even more.

Let me offer what I believe to be the absolute best solution. I am at the doctor and they are going through their little questionnaire and hit the question of do I own guns. Here is my elaborate well planned, perfectly executed battle strategy for just such a situation… “no” next question.

Yep, that is it. Simply say no with a straight face and move on. In case it isn’t super clear I am telling you to LIE to them. It is none of their business anyway so I feel no moral compunction to tell the truth. It won’t impact the health services I receive in ANY way if they don’t know. I stay out of any databases and I my “objection” is also not noted anywhere. Nobody, but me and wall know the truth. Now doesn’t that sound like a much better solution?

With my solution I might not be an activist and I might be “rolling over to tyranny” and whatever else someone wants to accuse me of. You know what else I also am? Untracked, unrecorded, with no notation in my PERMANENT medical record as having any issues for or against guns. A record that is easily previewed by any number of Federal government bureaucrats. I don’t receive diminished healthcare services, don’t create an adversarial relationship with my doctor, insurance company and most importantly don’t become the proverbial nail poking up on the deck waiting for the hammer to fall.

If you disagree you are free to handle it any way you want. I know how I will handle it.

Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for “Radical” Americans

In the below video former General Wesley Clark calls for the creation of internment camps to segregate “radicalized” Americans from the rest of the population as we did in World War 2 with Japanese Americans. This is an interesting position from a man who had no shortage of criticisms for George W. Bush’s violations of civil liberties. Apparently protecting civil liberties is not really the mission here. Violating civil liberties is fine so long as it is your team doing the violating. Watch the video for yourself…

There are a few issues with his “ideas” of how to protect Americans. First, exactly who gets to decide who is “radical?” Today we might say it is radical Islamic terrorists, but as we have seen before people that believe in strong 2nd Amendment rights have been labeled “terrorists” on more than one occasion. Does that group get put into one of these camps? How about people that believe in any of the other Bill of Rights and is willing to fight for them. Are those individuals now “radicalized” and need to be put into a camp?

We actually have people out there that instead of having freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment that we should create categories of “hate” speech that is illegal and should be a crime. Wow. Who gets to decide what “hate” speech is? Is that just speech you disagree with?

So if someone says they don’t believe in LGBT lifestyle is that now hate speech and said person needs to be put into a camp for being “radicalized”. When we start deciding what speech is protected and what isn’t and are constantly pointing fingers at each other and saying this person or what they said is offending me and they are a “hate” speech person or “radical” for their idea we are in VERY dangerous waters. Add to that the idea that we should start shoving these people into camps and you have the all the makings of another holocaust.

Maybe those people that believe in a strong 4th Amendment and believe that having a warrant before being able to indiscriminately search someone’s house, computer, library records, phone, business records, car is a good idea. Are those people now “wrong thinking” people that are “radicalized?” Maybe they are hiding something, if they didn’t have something to hide they would just agree to the search, right? They must be a radical, maybe we should lock them up in a camp?

The issue is who gets to decide who is radicalized and a threat and needs to go into one of these camps? What is the process for deciding they have to go? Is it just their position on an issue? Will they have to show they are a danger to society? If so, how exactly does this new Minority Report commission convict someone of a crime they haven’t actually done yet, but may in the future?

If we decide to start shoving people into these camps do they have a trial? appeals? Is there a sentencing system or are they simply put in there until they are no longer “radicalized?” Who gets to decide when that has been achieved? What happens to them in this camp? Do they get re-educated or tortured until they have seen the light? What happens to their property they owned before they got shoved in this camp, doe we just divvy it up among the “non-radicalized” people living outside these camps?

See you start getting a lot of sticky questions when you decide it is a good idea to start labeling various people you disagree with as “radicalized” and “terrorist” and decide to start stripping them of civil liberties and locking them up for crimes they *might* do someday, but haven’t done today and quite frankly may never do.

Depending on exactly what “radicalized” group we are discussing here doing a crime isn’t what is happening so much as standing up for freedom. If their only crime is being “radicalized” according to some person’s definition of the word is then some star chamber of people somewhere get to determine that and shove them in a camp until this group starts thinking the right way? Wow. Just Wow, what else can you say about something like this.

The really scary thing is this clown is actually brought on to discuss this on news shows as it should actually be considered a real policy idea. This maniac should not be given a platform anywhere where his ideas are actually elevated to the level of serious discussion.

In addition, this moron was and may be again a presidential candidate. Finally, at one time he was actually a general in the military, you know, one of only two groups, police being the other one, that should have all the guns according to liberals. Now that should scare every single person.

FBI Wants Requirements for Tech Firms to Create Weak Encryption

FBI Director, James Comey has requested that Congress create mandates on tech companies to essentially create a backdoor or weakened encryption of its products to make it easier for law enforcement to read our communications and data.

Here is an EXCELLENT video from the Cato Institute discussing what a terrible idea this is…

First, I encourage you to watch the video. It is only 7 minutes long and they make some excellent points on the issue. I will add some points from my perspective.

As a tech guy that does related activities daily the concept of creating a “back door” or “master key” that only the company can have access to and happily hand over to law enforcement or spy agencies upon request is really ill informed of exactly how encryption even works. ANY vulnerabilities, intentional or not can be exploited by others just as easily as it can be handed over by said companies to the FBI upon request.

Mr. Comey’s remarks about how he is not a tech person and thinks there are a lot of “smart people” in the tech sector that should be able to find a way to “work this out” is one of the most ignorant comments uttered in this debate.

It is ignorant comments like these that have created the millions of pages of regulations faced by American businesses today. Morons in Congress at the behest of special interest groups, like the FBI, in this case make some vague demand to make their job easier and Congress simply passes a mandate! Presto, just like that the problem is solved, yeah! Another problem solved by Congress, what’s next?

Only its not. First, what if encryption software is open source and someone from another country takes this and removes the vulnerabilities and then starts using it for terrorist communications? This would not be an American company or even an American citizen. They would not be subject to the mandate in our country and I guarantee wouldn’t follow it.

What keeps entrepreneurs in other countries from deciding to fill the gap in the market for “back door” free encryption and they sell it overseas from a non U.S. base of operations? The bad guys can still get their hands on it.

Creating deliberately weak encryption technology to make law enforcement’s job easier and simply mandating that this happen is one of the dumbest ideas ever uttered by a politician. Here is a basic truth, sometimes your job is hard.

We should not always be trying to find ways to make law enforcement’s job easier at the cost of our civil liberties and protection of our private communications.

Technologically there is no way to do this without creating vulnerabilities that skilled bad guys all over the world, i.e. China, Russia, etc can exploit to our disadvantage. Your mandate will be ignored by others around the world who will simply create the in demand software that you have barred U.S. companies from creating. Such a move might remove one of our key attributes as a innovative nation in the tech sector at risk.

The terrorist and other bad guys will simply know that there is a back door to the U.S. created stuff and will quickly adapt and go use stronger stuff created by someone else and will continue to do bad stuff. What are you going to do, mandate that all terrorists must use weakened U.S. software?

What you are seeing unfold here is morons that don’t know anything about technology telling those that do to build an inferior product and simply saying things like “there are a lot of smart people that should be able to figure this out” clearly shows you are not one of them. The FBI’s solution won’t solve the problem at hand, but will create many others.

Ross Ulbricht: Victim of Senseless Drug War

Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison on Friday. Another individual that can be added to the long rabble of victims of the U.S. Government’s senseless war on drugs. He was the creator of the Silk Road web site, which ran on the TOR network and took payment in Bitcoin, thus making the trading of what the government calls “illicit” goods easier and more private.

You can read in plenty of other places how the web site worked and the details of the case. What I wish to focus on specifically is why Mr. Ulbricht was sentenced to life? This was the harshest sentence that could be given and even worse than the prosecution itself was asking for.

The minimum was 20 years. Mr. Ulbricht is 31 years of age so a 20 year stint would have freed him when he was 51 and still left him some semblance of life left to live. However the judge literally threw the book at him and gave him what really amounts to a death sentence. He will now spend the rest of his natural life behind bars and never again know freedom in this life. So why give such a brutal sentence?

The first main reason is the government, like most crime syndicates, doesn’t tolerate competition well. The government needs the “War on Drugs” to finance and finish building the huge police state apparatus it has been quietly building for decades. The so called “Patriot” Act, is simply the latest law that was sold to us to stop terrorism, but is really used to stop competition in the drug war (As of midnight Sunday this has been updated to the USA “Freedom” Act).

In addition, the government needs a large slush fund that isn’t transparent to the public to finance off the books military and spy operations around the globe. If these activities were paid for through traditional channels it would require disclosure in the budget (public information) and be subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. Would a good police state allow its subjects to see that kind of stuff?

The drug trade is a very profitable enterprise for the U.S. government and to the extent Silk Road was cutting in on that monopoly was completely unacceptable to the thugocracy running our government. Mr. Ulbricht had to be completely crushed to send a message. The jack booted thugs in the government needed to send a clear message to other young upstarts. You mess with our drug business we will end you and use our kangaroo courts to make it look all nice and legal.

The second reason is far more interesting in my opinion. The technology used to build the Silk Road is readily available all over the Internet. The skills used to harness this technology are available to any web developer worth his/her salt. In other words to set up this enterprise didn’t require vast resources, money, manpower or a large enterprise. It required a web developer with some decent programming skills and a laptop.

Think about that for a moment, some guy in his basement with a laptop can create another Silk Road web site, utilize Bitcoin, TOR, and readily available encryption and create a lucrative marketplace that would literally end the government’s monopoly on the drug trade if it catches on and lots of people do it. In addition, it isn’t just about drugs, in fact, I would argue that is actually a small part of the future.

The real power will come when totally free, anonymous, unregulated, and tax free networks and lassie fare capitalism can truly be practiced without interference from the Federalies. People will be able to buy anything they want without the nanny state blocking it, taxing it, or regulating it.

As new people start to do this they will learn from the mistakes of others. They will learn at the speed of light how to hide more effectively from the growing police state, move money around more quietly and easier, facilitate better more frictionless capitalism and they can do it from anyplace in the world. They will get harder to track and harder to stop.

Such a site can be set up in about month with a little elbow grease. In fact, others have already been set up. Many of them have been shut down, but new ones are coming. Think technology boom, but in this case being used to run circles around the behemoth and slow moving Federalies. The innovations that created our modern Internet can and will be applied to ending the Federalies alternative income schemes and totalitarian control over our lives to exercise truly free markets.

The real reason Mr. Ulbricht was given such a harsh sentence is because he dared open Pandora’s Box, he showed how ANYONE can do this. The government is feeling stark terror right now. They see their precious drug business being usurped by a dude with a laptop. They fully understand that if more and more of these sites pop up that the resources needed to track them all down all over the world and arrest everyone involved will quickly outstrip even their resources and manpower. They are terrified.

Like any jack booted tyrant or animal that is terrified it is lashing out viciously in an attempt to stop the inevitable from occurring. They won’t be successful. More will follow and some will be busted and receive similar treatment, but eventually the market will become unstoppable. They know this. So, in an attempt to strike fear into anyone else thinking of doing this they gave Mr. Ulbricht a life sentence. Not because they care about society, but because he dared to cut into their business and usurp their authority.

Many feel that in this case the punishment didn’t fit crime and is truly an injustice. Sadly it has been this way throughout history. The first pioneers into any endeavor often get the arrows in the back. They die trying to push boundaries and advance into areas unexplored. However his sacrifice will only inspire others.

Others will follow and soon the technology, processes, skills, and brave individuals willing to poke a finger in the eye of the jack booted thugs running the U.S. government’s crime syndicate will grow. Soon they will be unstoppable. The government is terrified.

American Highway Robbery Under the Color of Law

Here is yet another case of “legal” highway robbery performed by police. These incidents are way too common. Asset forfeiture is one of the most abused “laws” in the U.S. and is used daily by cops everywhere that want to rob motorists.

Sadly these incidents are not only legal, based on crooked and abused laws, but the cops often times are shown in photos with the stolen loot, smiling, like they just won a lottery. I guess they did. The media supports them and the entire force of the U.S. government protects them. Highway robbers in the 1700s should have had it so good.

Originally these laws were created to stop drug lords and other criminal cartels from being able to keep mansions, yachts, sports cars, and millions in cash after getting busted for whatever criminal activity they were charged with. Unfortunately as the law of unintended consequences collided squarely with the greed of government what we have today is nothing short of state sanctioned highway robbery.

The various departments that conduct these robberies get to keep just about everything they steal so they are highly motivated to stop motorists and rob them blind under the pretense of law on a daily basis.

Here is the way this scenario typically plays out. A private citizen is driving along doing nothing wrong, but happens to be traveling with a large amount of cash. (sidebar – THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TRAVELING WITH ANY AMOUNT OF CASH IN THE U.S.!) and they are pulled over for a minor, typically made up, traffic violation that “justifies” the stop.

Then the highway robber, err, I mean cop, prolongs the stop and verbally works over the citizen until they get consent to search the vehicle. If they don’t get consent they call in a drug dog who miraculously ALWAYS finds some indication of drugs, even when none are present, to give “probable cause” to search the entire vehicle without a warrant… We wonder why most people don’t believe we have a 4th Amendment any longer!

Upon searching they find the valuables and go on to say it is suspicious, related to drugs or some other illegal activity, etc. then promptly steal it! They do NOT need to charge the citizen with ANY crime to do this. The assets are considered a separate entity from the citizen and can be “guilty” of being from a criminal source without knowledge or involvement from their owner, or so goes the legal theory.

Sometimes these highway robbers will run the person into their criminal boss, err, I mean “prosecutor” so they can threaten the citizen with all kinds of trumped up charges, jail time, etc. unless the citizen signs a paper giving “permission” to the robbers to take their property.

Many times these poor people are minorities, don’t always have a solid grasp of their rights and like most people are intimidated by the brute force of government being applied to them. They don’t have the resources or connections to fight back so they simply lose their assets. Even if they choose to fight they often rack up thousands of dollars in legal bills, wait months or even years to get their OWN property back.

Like most legal entanglements, even if you “win” you still lose because of the money lost to legal fees, stress, time wasted, etc. Even if the state loses, so what, they have an entire police force out that is robbing the next private citizen(s) driving along with “too much” cash or assets ready to be plundered on a daily basis. The odds of coming out ahead are clearly in the governments favor. In the U.S. today, we call this “justice”.

I call it state sponsored highway robbery and the declare the cops, prosecutors, politicians and other individuals that perform it no better than criminals with a bigger gang to enforce their will on weaker people. This detestable and corrupt practice has NO place in a free society among a free people.

D.C. Forced to Recognize Gun Rights

According to this story from the Washington Post, Washington D.C. City Council unanimously passed a law allowing individuals to carry concealed handguns for the first time in 40 years. Here is an excerpt from the story…

Members of the D.C. Council begrudgingly, but unanimously, voted for a bill that would allow individuals to carry the firearms if they meet a number of requirements.

The bold and italicized are mine. This single word is one of the key things wrong with government today. The right to bear arms is an individual right that we are born with. Government never was and never will be the arbiter of these rights. Their ONLY responsibility in this regard is to PROTECT that right from infringement, period. Look at the absolute audacity that they claim that they are ALLOWING someone to exercise a fundamental freedom!

ALLOWING, I really want that word to sink in. I want you to think long and hard about government ALLOWING you access to a fundamental, absolute, and natural right, but again, only under their terms and conditions!

The article goes on to state that they claim to be following the ruling by the court, but in reality are still stopping people from exercising this right. The law that ALLOWS people to exercise this right still let’s the police decide if you have a “good enough reason” to exercise this right. Everything about this is the exact opposite of what government should be doing. They don’t get to ALLOW you to exercise this right any more than they can decide if you are ALLOWED the right to free speech, free assembly, or freedom of the press!

Can you imagine if politicians or the police could shut off someone’s right of free speech because they don’t feel that the person requesting the permit has a good enough reason to exercise this right based on their own made up arbitrary standard?

The article goes to say that people who actually ARE ALLOWED to exercise this right by dictate of the police still must go through 16 hours of training. Again, can you imagine if you wanted to exercise your free speech or freedom to choose your own religion and the government not only got to decide if you had a “good enough reason” but also forced you to go through 16 hours of training first! Since when does the government get to dictate specific training people have to go through to exercise a fundamental right?

The article goes on to quote Marion Barry, City Council member and true lover of freedom and gun rights…

“I don’t believe in guns. I don’t believe in carrying guns,” said council member Marion Barry, Ward 8 Democrat and a former four-term mayor. “I think the public ought to understand that all of us here are doing something we really don’t want to do.”

Well, Mr. Barry, I don’t really give a flying f**k what you believe or that you are being forced to do something you don’t want to do!

First, what you believe or don’t believe has absolutely no bearing what so ever on my rights! Second, the government everyday, hands down laws, regulations and mandates that I don’t believe in and many other freedom loving Americans don’t believe in either, but we don’t get to decide if we are going to follow them! Maybe we should.

We don’t get to cast a vote among ourselves and decide if we are going to follow YOUR laws, but somehow you have the audacity to believe you have that right over other free people? You are truly a piece of work!

I know many in the shooting community view this as a victory and to some degree it is, but it is a far cry from where we should be. Perhaps Americans should start deciding what they believe in and picking and choosing which laws, regulations and mandates they will follow. After all what you believe is meaningless to me so I figure turn about is fair play.