Sunday, January 3, 2010

Neither Sword Nor Shield: Full-Spectrum Civilian Disarmament

The wages of civilian disarmament: U.S. troops shovel the mortal remains of disarmed Sioux into a mass grave at Wounded Knee, January 1891.

"We need to make it clear," fulminated Patrick Lynch of the New York City Policeman's Benevolent Association, "that if someone lifts even a finger against a police officer, their life could be on the line."

Taken literally, this would make a capital offense out of a familiar disrespectful gesture, a salute that is entirely appropriate when directed at officious tax-grazers of Lynch's ilk. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Lynch perceives criticism of the police as a species of crime.

A little more than a decade ago, Lynch (whose surname appears to be one of God's little in-jokes)
attempted to manufacture public outrage over Bruce Springsteen's song "American Skin (41 Shots)."

That ballad described the death of unarmed African immigrant Amadou Diallo, who was perforated by 19 bullets fired by NYPD officers in a perfectly avoidable eruption of gunfire.
The officers were pursuing a rapist, and Diallo -- who, like countless other slightly built young black men, vaguely resembled the suspect -- supposedly provoked an outburst of "contagious gunfire" by reaching into his pants to produce a wallet to show his ID.

Springsteen's song was uniformly denounced as the successor to
N.W.A.'s "F**k Da Police" by a legion of opportunistic pundits who apparently hadn't actually heard it. However, Springsteen's lyrics displayed a degree of sympathy for the four Street Crimes Unit who killed Diallo after one of them mistook the victim's wallet for a gun.

"You're kneeling over his body in the vestibule, praying for his life," sang Springsteen, apparently in reference to the actions of Officer Sean Carroll, who wept openly as he administered CPR in a desperate attempt to save Diallo's life.

The song certainly reflected the opinion that the needless slaughter of Amadou Diallo was, to an extent, a product of racial profiling. It also captured the grim reality that urban residents often have at least as much to fear from the police as from common street criminals:

Lena gets her son ready for school
She says "On these streets, Charles
You've got to understand the rules
If an officer stops you, promise me you'll always be polite
And that you'll never ever run away

Promise Mama you'll keep your hands in sight."

Whatever the merits of Springsteen's treatment of the Diallo killing, his song didn't depict the officers themselves as deranged predators. However, from the perspective of Lynch and other police union officials, Springsteen had committed a form of lese-majeste by focusing on victims of needless police violence.

Hey, Patrick -- I'm "lifting a finger" against you. Care to guess which one?

Proving himself to be as tone-deaf as police dogs are color-blind, Lynch denounced Springsteen for "trying to fatten his wallet by reopening the wounds of this tragic case at a time when police officers and community members are in a healing period." (Lynch's choice of words was singularly inapt, given the role a wallet played in Diallo's violent death.)

Springsteen -- like many others -- didn't perceive the need to treat the police as victims in this episode, given that the SCU officers avoided both
criminal and civil penalties and suffered no professional consequences. Diallo's parents, on the other hand, had to bury their innocent son.

The officers who gunned down Diallo were following legitimate leads in pursuit of an individual who had committed crimes of violence against innocent people. Their actions most likely were the product of panic, rather than depravity. Still, given that an innocent man died at their hands, the SCU officers should have faced some kind of accountability. It's also worth contemplating the likely fate of a civilian who shot and killed a police officer
under similar circumstances.

In that respect it's instructive to recall the travails of
Cory Maye, currently imprisoned (and, at one time sentenced to death) for shooting and killing a police officer who broke into his home during a no-knock drug raid at the wrong address.

If Maye had been gunned down as Diallo was, the incident almost certainly would have been treated as a tragedy, and the public would have been admonished by the police and their media stenographers not to second-guess police officers tasked to do "dangerous work" entailing "split-second decisions."
No similar sympathy was ever extended to Maye, who had to make a split-second decision when dealing with a party of armed strangers who had invaded his home and threatened his family.

According to the State, Maye's actions, though purely defensive, amounted to first-degree murder. After all, he -- a Mundane -- had dared to lift his hand against one of the State's Anointed, who are invested with an unqualified license to kill.

Recent actions by federal courts suggest that while it's perfectly all right for mere Mundanes to keep firearms, actually bearing them is a privilege reserved exclusively for those mockingly referred to by Second Amendment sentinel David Codrea as the "Only Ones" -- that is, members of the State's enforcement caste.

On December 23, the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a civil rights complaint filed by attorney Greg Schubert of Springfield, Massachusetts, who was disarmed and detained at gunpoint by police officer J.B Stern while on his way to court.

After noticing that Schubert was carrying a concealed pistol, Stern erupted from his vehicle in what was described as a "dynamic and explosive manner," racing over and shoving his gun in the attorney's face.
After his gun was confiscated, the attorney provided both his "Class A" gun license and driver's license. Stern kept the gun and told Schubert that he would have to retrieve it from the Springfield Police Department.

By way of a contemptuous parting gesture, Stern insisted that he was "the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." This would help explain the fact -- cited by both Stern and the Circuit Court -- that the neighborhood in which this assault took place is a "high-crime area." Disarming the law-abiding tends to engender, rather than extinguish, violent crime, of course -- but we shouldn't forget that civilian disarmament is carried out for the benefit of rulers, not subjects.

A little more than a week earlier, the U.S. District Court for Georgia's Northern District dismissed another civil rights complaint filed by Christopher Raissi. In October 2008, Raissi was surrounded by police, forcibly disarmed, and detained for a half-hour when he attempted to board the
MARTA train while carrying a concealed firearm. After Raissi was able to produce his license to carry a concealed weapon, his gun was returned to him -- but not before a lengthy and potentially lethal encounter with the police.

In dismissing Raissi's complaint, Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. described possession of a state-issued firearms license as "an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [public transportation] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon." Somehow, according to the judge, this justifies the actions of the police in detaining and disarming Raissi.

John Monroe, Raissi's attorney, points out that the decision means that "everyone seen carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to being stopped, arrested, and prosecuted even if they have a license." In principle, this should apply to police officers as well as private citizens. In practice, of course, this standard means that only law enforcement personnel would have a license to bear arms in public.

A license of any sort, of course, is a government-issued document that transmutes an innate individual right into a State-conferred, and state-revocable, privilege. Raissi's case demonstrates that the only advantage conferred by a firearms license is an "affirmative defense" against a spurious criminal charge.

Advocates of a State monopoly on the use of force would not be appeased if the civilian population were entirely deprived of access to firearms. Efforts are underway to criminalize civilian use of purely defensive weapons.

In early December,
California's Second District Court of Appeal overturned an 11-year-old state law forbidding felons to possess body armor. The law was challenged by Ethan Saleem, a parolee convicted of voluntary manslaughter who was arrested in 2007 when police noticed that he was wearing a 10-pound bulletproof vest.

Representing the tax-feeders: Paul M. Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

"Certainly, Saleem wasn't wearing body armor because he was going to a job interview or going on a date," snarked a
press release from the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL).

In fact, since neither Saleem nor those who were in his car at the time of the traffic stop was armed, and given that he wasn't accused of any other offense, it's only a self-serving insinuation to suggest that he was detained en route to a crime.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, insisting that police are acutely threatened by possession of "military-grade body armor" by felons,
has promised to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

newly enthroned LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has his way, the law will someday be expanded to encompass the entire civilian population:

"The increasing number of assaults with deadly weapons against our frontline public safety defenders is a clear indication that we cannot give violent felons the upper hand. There is
an absolute need for a ban on these types of body armor for anyone other than law enforcement personnel or law enforcement-related personnel. The men and women defending public safety across the state and the people of California deserve no less." (Emphasis added.)

Beck's statement is a tower of non-sequiturs piled unsteadily atop a foundation of begged questions.

Beck begins with the unwarranted assertion that police confront unprecedented danger from firearms; in fact, 2009 (as I've previously pointed out) was a remarkably safe year for police, even in the context of a decades-long decline in the number of duty-related firearms deaths.

Beck somehow assumes that the proposal to ban ownership of body armor by law-abiding civilians follows logically from his desire to restrain violent felons. He compounds that fallacy by asserting that the "people of California deserve no less" than the privilege of being deprived of legal access to a purely defensive weapon.

Newly appointed LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is congratulated by municipal rulers
at his swearing-in ceremony.

Not surprisingly, the LAPPL, which the same police union that describes civilian ownership of body armor as an unacceptable threat, went into paroxysms of outrage over a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision
that imposed modest (and inadequate) limits on the use of Tasers. Specifically, the court ruled that the use of a Taser by a police officer to subdue a mentally troubled but non-violent 21-year-old man constituted excessive force.

In this case, the victim -- 21-year-old Carl Bryan -- lost several teeth when he fell face-first to the pavement after being tasered by Officer Bryan McPherson. At the time of the Taser strike, Bryan and McPherson were separated by a distance of fifteen to twenty feet. Bryan, who had been stopped for a seat belt violation, was throwing what McPherson called a "bizarre fit" but did nothing to threaten the officer or anybody else.

"As every street cop knows, any suspect within 15 feet who is actively resisting verbal commands is a threat to officer safety," sniveled the union. "When a suspect fails to comply with verbal commands, it means the situation is rapidly escalating and some form of force will be required to gain compliance. Non-lethal force is the safest and best way to obtain the needed compliance. Non-lethal force instruments are designed to avoid injury to both officers and suspects by swiftly incapacitating the suspect."

Two problems thrust themselves upon us. The first is posed by the fact that the Taser is not a "non-lethal" weapon; it is a frequently lethal one.

The second problem is best stated as a question: What about those increasingly common incidents in which innocent individuals are faced with unwarranted and improper police demands for "compliance"? Why should we assume that in such circumstances it is proper to protect the policeman by incapacitating the recalcitrant civilian, instead of the civilian taking prudent action to protect himself from a criminal assault?

In this connection it should be noted that a Florida-based body armor company called Point Blank Solutions sells a Taser-resistant fabric called "Thor Shield" that has successfully been tested against stun weapons of up to 900,000 volts.

"In today's marketplace there are more and more non-lethal energy weapons for police, military and civilian use, with no defense from these devices," observes the company, which proudly announces that it has "stepped up to fill the void in energy weapon protection."

Thor Shield is composed of a polyester fabric layered over a conductive material; it is designed to create a circuit loop that will return the electric charge to the weapon without inflicting a shock to the subject.

"If you are hit, the Taser gun won't work," explains George Shultz, who invented the fabric. "We return the voltage back to the gun." Light and breathable, the fabric is thin enough to be sewn into clothing.

Assuming you've been paying attention thus far, you know what's coming next.

G2 consulting, the Arizona-based contractor that serves as the exclusive distributor of the Thor Shield anti-Taser fabric, "is committed to Officer safety." For this reason, Thor Shield "is only sold to Military and Law Enforcement Agencies" under a non-disclosure agreement.

Somebody will eventually reverse-engineer Thor Shield or devise another suitable counter-measure to the portable electro-shock torture device and make it available to the productive segment of the population. At that point the air will be rent with anguished cries about the new threat to "officer safety" and demands for legislative action to criminalize private ownership of Taser-resistant fabric.

Well, if police are permitted to assault and detain peaceful citizens legally bearing arms in public, and civilians are forbidden to wear enhanced clothing intended to protect themselves against bullets and high-voltage energy weapons, we can still cower in our heavily fortified domiciles, can't we? A man's home is his castle, and all that?

Maybe not.

Last November, a measure went into effect in Oklahoma that makes it a felony, punishable by a five-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to "fortify" a home "for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer."

Under the measure, written by Republican (natch) State Representative Sue Tibbs, it is impermissible to "construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed ... to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt."

Predictably, this measure is one of the many disfigured offspring of the War on Drugs, a singularly fecund progenitor of legislative absurdities. The measure specifies that its provisions apply to buildings in which drug offenses are "being committed, or attempted."

However, given the depraved ingenuity of prosecutors, it's safe to assume that some way will be found to apply it in cases without a clear "drug nexus." And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see similar measures -- most likely cultivated by police lobbyists -- cropping up elsewhere.

Given ongoing efforts to criminalize civilian efforts to protect themselves in non-violent fashion against official violence, Patrick Lynch's "lift one finger" standard could be considered a moderate view.

Be sure to tune in for Pro Libertate Radio each weeknight from 6:00-7:00 PM Mountain Time (7:00-8:00 Central) on the Liberty News Radio Network.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Lord! Will, how do you keep from crying when you write about this stuff time and time again? This kind of nonsense reminds me of the book called "The Probability Broach" and the kind of soul-killing society the lead character escaped from. Strangely it sounds like the kind of world we've slipped into.

William N. Grigg said...

MoT, who says I don't cry over stories like this? I can't stand what the bastards are doing to my country, and the plans they're presuming to make for my children.

One of these days I've got to read "The Probability Broach"....

Lemuel Gulliver said...

So "compliance" is required of us at all times.

So if one of these hyenas in uniform orders us to drop our pants so he can pleasure himself with our no-longer-considered-private body parts? Do we have to "comply" - meekly and without excessively strenuous cries of pain? (Which might frighten the officer, he being extremely timid and sensitive, and thereby give him sufficient cause to kill you.)

Don't laugh. This happens routinely in police states.

What if a po-lice (nice word that - meaning an impoverished bloodsucking insect that carries disease and is almost impossible to get rid of,) what if a po-lice officer in a rabid fit of bloodlust tells you to eat dog shit off the sidewalk, and you do not "comply," he would be within "standard operating procedures" to pull out his gun and shoot you dead, your "non-compliance" being construed as a "hostile act" which is implicitly "threatening the officer's life."


Don't laugh. I can see this happening - you are walking your dog, and fail to pick up its gifts to the ecology, and a "po-lice officer," instead of writing you a ticket, orders you to eat the stuff. You think that can't happen? Probably only because these mouth-breathing cretins with IQ's smaller than their penis size have not yet managed to think of that particular way of humiliating the public and exerting their absolute authoritah.

It's only a matter of time before one of these repulsive tax leeches stops scratching his arse and smelling his fingers long enough to conceive of this new way of entertaining himself.

Should be interesting to see how the so-called "judge" would justify this particular instance of extra-judicial and unconstitutional execution (OK, murder) in retribution for "non-compliance."

Lemuel Gulliver.

Crotalus said...

If the companies won't sell civilians the Taser resistant clothes, sew window screen into some of your clothes, but be sure to use the conductive aluminum screen.

The Omega Man said...

If memory serves me correctly, not long ago Will wrote about police in Wisconsin Dells forcing two young men to lap up what they assumed to be urine from the ground after the police allegedly saw the young men urinating in public. The case only provoked outrage because the two young men forced to drink what was believed to be urine turned out to be military personnel on leave--and so, not mere mundanes like us.

It has already happened, and not for the last time.

Anonymous said...


you know, is it conceivable that this whole airline thing was allowed to happen so that govts could introduce these x-ray scanners? i mean, what's 250 dead when you want to control people (sarcasm)? considering every other false flag op, this is a chump change.

and look how some people are now clamoring to have their privacy invaded.


Odoacer said...

The Diallo case is always good to bring up when discussing gun control with an anti-gun liberal. When they say something like "The only people who should own handguns are the police," I reply with "You mean the same people who shot Amadou Diallo forty times?"

Of course, the problem with that case and all others involving innocent blacks and the police is that the professional white-hating, socialist race hustlers turned them into black vs. white issues, instead of individual vs. state issues. As a result, innocent, law-abiding blacks who were truly abused by the police get lumped in with eternal miscreants like Rodney King and thugs such as the Jena Six. This makes it impossible to gain the support of large numbers of white, suburban and rural Middle Americans in opposing police excesses.

As for the case with the felon possessing body armor, I don't really see the problem with that law. Indeed, I have no problem with laws that limit violent felons' rights, such as gun rights and voting rights. Violent felons have demonstrated by their actions that they do not wish to be part of civilized society, so they should not be treated as such.

The ruling striking down the law was not a victory for libertarianism, but another way of making criminals' jobs easier thanks to a liberal judicial anarcho-tyrant. When a California court strikes down a law, it's almost certainly because that law made criminals' jobs difficult in some way, not because it infringed on the rights of law-abiding citizens. I doubt a California appeals court will ever strike down gun control, "civil rights" laws (Fun fact: there is actually a 1995 law in California, signed by a Republican governor, that bans businesses from requiring female employees to wear skirts, the only law of its kind in the nation.), or one of California's myriad taxes.

Anonymous said...


you said:

"As for the case with the felon possessing body armor, I don't really see the problem with that law. Indeed, I have no problem with laws that limit violent felons' rights, such as gun rights and voting rights. Violent felons have demonstrated by their actions that they do not wish to be part of civilized society, so they should not be treated as such."

if criminals do not have rights, neither do you. one's rights come from God, not the state. the state cannot take away something it never gave you.

when you strike down their rights, you strike down your own. remember that you and your group/kind is only a few blobs of ink away from being lumped into the same basket as this guy.

secondly, the guy was an ex-convict. only certain of his rights are suspended while incarcerated, but they are re-instated once free. for instance, the right to bear arms, while in jail, is kinda stupid.

if you agree that ex-convicts can have their rights abridged, or even revoked by the state, then how come is it that when the state stands to profit, it can re-instate a right? i'm talking about how in wars past the state would say, "go to war and we will remit your jail sentence! yeah, we'll give you a gun and train you to kill." why do you think the state should have the monopoly over who gets to have rights and who does not? and where did you or the state get the authority to tell another man what he could and could not do (without respect to crimes that are evil in and of themselves) when that authority does not even rest in man as God created him? doesn't the state get its authority from its people? or do you believe the state can give itself "rights". you cannot straddle a fence. either you are for 100% liberty, or you are against it.

lastly, i kinda hinted at it before. one day, somebody is gonna get in charge who is not gonna like you. whether it be for your skin color, race, religion, culture, wealth, heritage, or what not. whatever the reason, they are gonna look down on you and decide that you don't deserve to be exercising a certain right or freedom. they are going to strip you of your property, then strip you of any means to defend yourself, then they are gonna decide that getting rid of you is the best solution since your type poses a risk to everyone else. and they are gonna round you up, and kill you.

i think the following people would agree that when the state strips you of your rights, then your only recourse may be to fight back:

--6 million jews and other germans,

--hundreds of thousands, if not millions of american indians

--750k+ serbians at the hands of the croatians

--tens of millions of russians at stalin's hands

--hundreds of thousands of guatamalans

--tens of millions of chinese under mao tse tung

--1.2 million armenians

and the list goes on.

i take that back, they do not hold this opinion and i have no way of finding out. and you know why? because their govts disarmed them and then killed them.

so it goes to protect the little guy, the minority, and to fight against any attempt to legislate anyone's rights away. because if you do not, one day you are gonna look to your left and to your right for support, but no one will be there to help you escape the state's police. and why? because you supported sending them all away to the FEMA camps.

maybe once inside, you can get one of those positions where you spy on your own people? i forget the name, it escapes me.

one more thing. follow my dictum: "buy it now before its illegal."


Anonymous said...

the probability broach graphic novel, free online:

R.S. Ladwig said...

Sigh, I guess I need to go and purchase a vest now, mainly because it is apparant the state doesn't want me to.

The not selling of the tazer resistant fabric to us mundanes is particularly enraging for the obvious fact that the overwhelming amount of tazer inflicted violence is from police delivering the shock to the mundane.

It's odd to hear the pathology of those on the other side who support this sort of disarmament, as I had a fairly heated debate over Christmas on this very issue. One really has to be ignorant of history and even everyday police encounters here in the US in order to think that disarming the population would be a good idea. I always asked when I was young, "Why didn't the Jews just shoot the Nazis when they showed up to take them away? Why were they cowering in attics?"

Now I know, the Eric Holders of 1930's Germany got their way and nobody had any guns.

My family members who thought disarmament to be a great leap forward for civilization continued to state "Guns are made for killing!" as though this was some sort of oversight on my behalf. To which I replied "Well, then why do we let police have guns if guns are inherantly evil? If police can use them for good then why can't I?" Of course this form of a level playing field was unheard of to them.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Grigg, if you'd like to see first hand the plans they are presuming to make for your children just watch this uber-patriotic National Guard ad, if you haven't already. Your children are belong to us.

ShadesOfKnight said...

The unfortunate fact is, this is not new. For thousands of years, the law has ever applied to the ruled... not the rulers.

This has been true in EVERY society with any sort of code of laws. The United States is no different; The hypocrisy of our species even goes all the way to the inception of the US: "All men are created equal" written by a man who himself owned slaves (and did so without any hint of noticing the hypocrisy) up until the day he died.

It won't change from within; it can't. All systems of government automatically create these situations and they do so inevitably. And writing about it doesn't change a thing... nor does speaking about it. It only changes (and then only temporarily) when men and women who have had enough rise up and take matters into their own hands. Going back to the aforementioned author, there was one thing he had right... The tree of liberty MUST be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is inevitable.

I for one am tired of reading/hearing these rants. They are true, and they are pointless. We voted for "change" and got exactly what we deserved for trusting a broken system to fix itself. And we will continue to be so abused until we stop it. There is no superman, no lone ranger who will ride in a fix it for us... there is only we the people. And we can sit and wring our hands and cry "woe is us" or we can do something about it. Next time you see a cop tasering a helpless kid, don't write... DO something.

Anonymous said...


As I read your post this morning, on the news in the background they were reporting on the most recent shootings in a 'feral' building in Nevada.

I couldn't help but feel that it was unfortunate that the individual defrauded by the social(ist) security scam only managed to kill/injure two of the tax trough feeder's before meeting his demise.

It is sad that we live in such a country.

In Male Fide
Sic Semper Tyrannis

We are Zimbabwe said...

Isn't it funny how rough and rugged police officers are such sniveling shits. That is like a nation of rugged individuals in fear of panties of mass destruction.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

With regard to the Oklahoma legislation, why not a law requiring every citizen to deposit with local law guys a duplicate front door key to their home, office, apt, etc.

William N. Grigg said...

Shhh! From your lips to Dionysius' Ear, as it were. Don't give Leviathan's minions any ideas....

Re: Dionysius's Ear --

Anonymous said...

"who says I don't cry..."

Will, there are times when I have to catch myself and not tell my own kids all the horrors I KNOW about simply because it would crush their spirit. As adults, and hopefully with some wisdom, it's sadly sobering.

Shades of Knight made the point, something that I've debated with friends, that what we have is the product of long historical fact: that our so called "leaders" and their sturmtruppen have used their position (something they themselves created for their benefit) backed by self written rules... aka "laws" and force of arms, to keep the hoi-polloi in a perpetual state of fear and control. They like to remind you over and over that "this is how it has to be".... Yeah, right! Says you! There is likely not any peaceful resolution to this unless the Prince of Peace were to suddenly appear and even then that occurs after great violence.

No... I see that our situation will have to be ratcheted up before the camels back will finally break (all hoped and planned for by the elite mind you) and violence erupts. Our MSM propaganda machine will be put into overdrive as Fed and boot licking State reps hammer new "laws" while sending in their Jannissaries to get into our face. All carried out, no doubt, to the hallelujah chorus of our nations cowardly and bought off churches.

I'm reminded once more of something George Carlin said, "Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away... they're privileges". SOK is correct in saying nothing is going to change until change is acted upon.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like we need a National "Flip-Off a Cop Day"

William N. Grigg said...

Sounds like we need a National "Flip-Off a Cop Day"

I'm not sure what it says about my character, but I do this -- after a fashion -- nearly every day.

We live about five miles from the Idaho/Oregon border. Right at the border there is a 4-way traffic light that is outfitted with surveillance cameras facing both east and west. This means that we're under surveillance either going into or coming back from Oregon.

Korrin recently had to attend "traffic school" in Ontario after some dutiful Borg (Bastard OReGonian) drone hotlined her for failing to wear a seat belt. In the course of the lecture she was told by an officer that "we see people putting on their seatbelts just before they come into Oregon." This tipped me off to the purpose of those cameras.

Accordingly, both heading into and coming back from the People's Republic I make a point of shooting a double-barreled one-finger salute at the surveillance cameras.

Anonymous said...

A word on citizens wearing body armor. If they try to ban us from that, hit them with the 9/11 song and dance. Ask them this. Why with terrorist in every shadow threatening our live with suicide attacks would they do something so UN-American as deny us protection of millitary grade body armor ? Then say your helping Al Qaeda, your not with us your against us !

Throw there own propaganda back at them !

Anonymous said...

"As for the case with the felon possessing body armor, I don't really see the problem with that law. Indeed, I have no problem with laws that limit violent felons' rights, such as gun rights and voting rights. Violent felons have demonstrated by their actions that they do not wish to be part of civilized society, so they should not be treated as such."

Let me get this straight, if ANYONE just so happens to commit a felony, no matter what the felony is, he should lose his right to personal protection and lose his right to vote? Excuse me, but evidently, you are not keeing up with new laws. Almost EVERY law broken these days is a felony. So with that said, you might need to watch how you are wording things.

Just because a human being messed up ONE time, doesn't make him / her, any less of a human being.

Unknown said...

This is f---ing America. You the people let this happen. You the people didn’t lift up your lazy asses when needed. You the people now are slave of your system. You the people still don’t care what is going on in (your own?) country. You the people care more the freaking Tv shows than your liberty. Now you the people has nothing left but your big screen tv and your six pack beer and potato chips and of course your dept. YOU DESERVED ALL THIS. Pussies don’t deserve liberty but enslavement. Hard to admit all these right? I know, but that what it is now.

Anonymous said...

I've heard the city planners in my former home town lie like dogs about how they were attaching cameras on the street lights to "aid in traffic flow" but behind every so-called good intention is another unspoken evil. Funny how they saw you coming and even though you were thoughful enough to put your seatbelt on (I mean, that was the idea wasn't it?... Safety?) they're johnny on the spot to smack someone down.

Andrew said...

Little by little they chip chip chip away until we CITIZENS not CIVILIANS! are stomped underfoot by the ancient boot of tyranny. Now friends it is not a matter of if we are going to die like the 100s of millions of last century, but when. "Nothing new under the sun" says King Solomon and death by the protectors is older than written words.

5-Pillar Scribe said...

The militarization of American police, Federal, state, county, local, took place under the direction of the training seminars conducted by ADL in 1970s until the present.
Just as at WACO where ADL played a significant role. WATCHDOG NATION

the ADL worked in concert with federal officials by providing “precise documentation” on the Davidian “cult” and “how it operated in the past.”" Although we can only speculate as to the nature of this intelligence, the inherent brutality of the initial raid conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the subsequent tank assault which led to the tragic death of over six-dozen members of a multiracial spiritual community suggest that this questionable information was of an inflammatory nature.

The role of quasi-governmental watchdog groups didn’t cease once bloodthirsty ATF agents cravenly raised their flag above the smoldering Mt. Carmel complex. As Washington officials braced for Congressional hearings and the possibility of answering a number of difficult questions regarding the alleged “disappearance” of key pieces of evidence, watchdog groups stepped forward to wholeheartedly endorse the law enforcement debacle.

“I am more concerned with the victims of militia terrorists than with FBI or ATF excesses,” SPLC figurehead Morris Dees remarked glibly, while failing to articulate a single instance of militia-sponsored terrorism.’” Nevertheless, SPLC “experts” repeatedly attacked those willing to question the Justice Department’s factually untenable (yet media-sanctified) “mass suicide” theory. Mark Pitcavage of Militia Watchdog similarly assailed the allegedly sinister agenda of determined Waco investigators. “These guys have ulterior motives,” whined the pro-government activist to Salon magazine.”

Pregnant women have been tasered for somethin a policeman in the 1960s would have chuckled at and sent her on her way.
You know Bill Bennet said within moments of 911 that "we're all Israelis now"
well for the elite that is probably true but for us, the decent, law-abiding, patriotic Americans, I would say,

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians"

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of n*ggers are either parasites on the dole, criminals, or both. I know it's all Mr. Charlie's fault but it's the truth nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Mr Grigg I did want to bring to your attention this article from a columnist for the Toronto Star, it is so sad, the bullying police, the confiscation of his shotgun, of course the fellow thinks only the police should have handguns but it is a poignant piece nevertheless, perhaps you may feel it worthy of your formidable attention.
With Obama set to sign that treaty with UN giving them effective control of our guns this is a bad time indeed for patriots.

Fiorito: The cops came and took my gun
By Joe Fiorito City Columnist
Published On Fri Jan 29 2010