Thursday, May 8, 2014

Neale Osborn's Brotherhood of the Traveling Rants

This week Neale wisely continues to quote Mama Liberty, then comments on the botched Oklahoma execution (my comment: What ever happened to ropes? They work!), then goes on to discuss the validity of the word "hoplophobia" (my two cents: if "homophobia" is valid, "hoplophobia" is double secret valid), and comments on the deterioration of the Constitution and the language. After a nice tale about a home invader getting shot up, we go on to a story about "civil forfeiture," which has a late Roman air about it, and other crap that Holder is up to that Putin would consider overly authoritarian.
Finally, he says the exact right things about the Minnesota guy who kept shooting when he should have stopped, and ends up with a Charles A. Beard quote that I just might make into a quibcag.  And as for todays' illustration, I warned you all that I was running out of cute anime girls doing cute things with guns, so I had to settle for Kagome of InuYasha (犬夜叉) shooting her bow and arrow, which isn't a gun, but is also a good thing. You have to admit that she's cuter than a button, in a coltish sort of way. Hey, if you have some appropriate gifs, or links to some, comment here or email me at rmay@mac.com  Now to Neale:

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 5-4-2014
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

As is our usual wont, we shall open with a very thought-provoking missive from the pen of Mama Liberty. [Link]
If your home was burning, how would you put out the fire? Would you stand on the edge and attempt to smother the sparks jumping out, hoping that you might keep it from spreading? Would you entertain any certainty that you would thereby put out the whole fire soon, or merely hope it would eventually die down and go out on its own?
If the fire was large, and your ability to fight it small, the last course would seem to be the wisest thing to do. If you can't put out the fire, you prevent its spread and wait until the embers cool before you start to build anew.
But what if your neighbors were hauling in logs and throwing them on the fire? What if your neighbors refused to believe you, and ignored the danger to their own houses, preventing you from even putting out the sparks from the fire that was growing and spreading due to all the fresh fuel being added?
If you want to see where it goes from here, read it at the link. I think you'll be interested in the conclusion. I sure as hell was!

Now, I'm not saying the bastard didn't deserve to die for what he did. Hell, if I'd been on scene when he committed his crime, I'da killed the fucker myself, and his victim might still live today. But the badly botched execution this week is exactly why I oppose giving the state the power to murder citizens. These bastards can't even balance a checkbook or write a law you can understand without 5 years of legalese training, so why the fuck are we letting them kill people "humanely" or otherwise? I'm all for the death penalty—at the scene of the intended crime and at the hands of the intended victim (or a well intentioned bystander). But NOT as the result of the government deciding it knows best.

I have a new carry gun, but I haven't gotten to the range to shoot it, so I won't rate it this week. Too much rain.

As promised last week, a brief definition of "Hoplophobe" [Link] it is a word that USMC Colonel Jeff Cooper, gun writer, philosopher, and firearms instructor, claimed to have invented in 1962.
"mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons."
Hell, it's even in some treatises on phobias—
Hoplophobia is listed in The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, Third Edition as well as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. It is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association.
The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the definition of a phobia used by the DSM. For example, one diagnostic criterion of phobias is that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. [9] True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.
Does this not offend you as much as it offends me? [Link] According to the PA Supreme Court, police need no warrant to search your car—stopping you is enough.
"The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search," [Justice Seamus] McCaffery writes in the opinion. "We adopt the federal automobile exception . . . which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so . . ." . . .
"This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law," [Lancaster County District Attorney Craig] Stedman said.
Text of the 4th, however, is crystal clear as to what type of searches we are to be free from.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yeah. So no search is legal without a warrant. And many people will say, "No, but the Fourth Amendment allows for search if there's probable cause." Actually, no it doesn't. Do all of these people have reading comprehension problems? The amendment states clearly that"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

That means that, without probable cause, a search warrant will not be issued. And no search can happen without a warrant. And furthermore, those warrants were not carte blanche approval for unspecified searches into possible infractions.

It's pretty damn clear.

Isn't this a good story? [Link]
Recently a thug in Mountain Park, Oklahoma was looking to make some easy money by breaking into a home and beating up on some defenseless victims. He chose the wrong house. The man violently broke into the home using a large metal pipe and attacked the homeowners.
Sadly for the not-so-bright criminal (but happily for us), the homeowner was well armed and opened fire on the intruder, who was hit several times. The thug naturally ran away from the scene and made it all the way back to his own home where he called emergency services to report that he'd been shot several times.
Poor bastard....... NOT! BWAHAHAHAHA!
Theft by government—it's not just taxes and the RICO Act anymore. [Link]
In one of the most absurd little pieces of news I've read in a while, a Minnesota man was arrested for a crime, had his car impounded and then was found not guilty... but never got his car back.
A Brainerd, Minnesota man who was found not guilty in a burglary at Wakeside Bar and Grill near Hankinson won't be getting his car back.
Despite the jury's verdict, a judge has decided that the car will be forfeited to the Richland County Sheriff's Dept. Adam Bush was arrested last August.
Yeah, you read it right. It's called "Civil Forfeiture", and it's government theft of your property "just because".
Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.
Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
Local communities all over America are taking part in this horribly unjust practice of stealing private property from law abiding citizens just to fill their own coffers
Fucking disgusting, if you ask me. And even if you don't.

Criminal General Eric Holder is now using banks to attack legal businesses he doesn't like. [Link] [Link] The same man who ran guns to narcotraficantes as part of Operation Fast and Furious thinks he should stop gun shop owners and other legal businesses by getting banks to refuse them service.
Under the program, the DOJ, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is attempting to shut down various legal businesses, including firearm dealers, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia and pornography distributors, by coercing financial institutions to close the bank and merchant accounts associated with these businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The businesses targeted follow a 2011 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation bullet in which lists all of the above legal activities and others as "merchant categories that have been associated with high-risk activity" involving "disreputable merchants."
"Although many clients of payment processors are reputable merchants, an increasing number are not and should be considered 'high risk,'" the bulletin reads. "These disreputable merchants use payment processors to charge consumers for questionable or fraudulent goods and services."
And it has worked.
In 2012, Bank of America told a gun company, McMillan Group International, that because the company was expanding into firearms manufacturing, the bank no longer wanted McMillan's business.
"We have to assess the risk of doing business with a firearms-related industry," the bank's representative told operations director Kelly McMillan.
Last month, BitPay, a U.S.-based bitcoin processor, likewise refused to do business with gun dealer Michael Cargill of Central Texas Gunworks due to a similar policy.
And also in March, a Florida couple who own a gun store received a letter from BankUnited informing them that the bank was closing their business account, which they opened seven years prior, and gave them three days to transfer their money elsewhere.
"I was very angry," Elizabeth Liberti told the Miami New Times. "They were very inconsiderate. We had all our credit cards going through that bank."
"All of a sudden, we had to run and find another bank to keep our business going. We shut down for two weeks, and they wouldn't even tell us why."
BankUnited finally gave them a reason some time later.
"This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf, but rather one of industry," wrote branch manager Ricardo Garcia. "Unfortunately your company's line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with."
In addition, the DOJ has targeted porn stars, the porn industry, and people selling pipes and other paraphernalia that may be used for tobacco or illicit drugs. Funny, but they are fine with giving out free needles to heroin addicts (my only problem with this is that tax dollars pay for them) but NOT fine with selling a hookah that can be used with tobacco (or pot or hash).

Several things about this bother me (understatement alert!!), like why does New York have it's own DHS (isn't a federal agency violating our rights in the name of security too much? why do we need a state department to do it too?), but for now, we'll concentrate on the simple part. [Link] New York's DHS is posting signs in stores urging the reporting of people buying quantities of many legal items. Now, the sign is the (now ubiquitous) "If you SEE it, REPORT IT!" sign, with a phone number. The number leads to the NYSafe Act snitch line, where you can rat out your fellow New Yorker for owning icky nasty assault rifles and get a reward. Which is bad enough. But the accompanying letter lists things that they ALSO want reported. Flashlights, MREs, waterproof matches, watertight storage containers which can be used for matches, ammo, and other eeevil things, night vision devices, and gas masks. Not one of these things are illegal to own. So what I recommend is that we all call the number (from a pay phone, if such exists near you anymore) and report purchases of diapers, milk, flour, sugar, crayons, and other everyday items, and declare them to be "Prepper items". call the number everyday. Let's keep'em so damn busy they won't have time to harass us. 1-866-723-3697. Baby Don Andrew Cuomo is depending on you.

Please permit me to meander a bit about this one [Link] First, I totally support your right to shoot a burglar, armed or unarmed, who is in your house. There are no exceptions to this. The age of the burglar does not matter. The sex of the burglar does not matter. The education of the burglar does not matter. Now, to this case, and why the verdict is mostly correct— this man murdered two burglars. The fact that the man hid his vehicle to give the impression the house was empty doesn't matter. That isn't a crime. The fact that he waited in the basement in a chair with beverages, snacks, rifle, pistol, and camcorder doesn't matter. What matters is NLY that AFTER the burglars were down, (by his own words)
"I gave her a good, clean finishing shot."
Here's the facts as I have gleaned them from scouring several accounts of the shooting and the trial. Byron Smith had been burgled several times, and had had enough. Apparently deciding the police don't care, he set out to hunt burglars INSIDE HIS OWN HOME. Pay attention to that phrase, because it's important. He did not go hunting muggers in alleys, he was inside his own house. He then hid his truck, so that the home appeared to be empty. This is not a crime, either. Contrary to the prosecutor's statements, this is NOT entrapment. NO ONE forced the teens to break into the house. And they DID break in. They broke glass to enter. They wore gloves to hide their fingerprints. They were criminals, age irrelevant, sex irrelevant. He then armed himself with rifle and pistol. Also not a crime. He had a camcorder with him, (stupid, buuut) not a crime. These two young criminals then broke into his home (a crime), and proceeded to commit suicide. Here is where the crime is committed by Smith. He shot the first burglar, wrapped him in a tarp, and dragged him into hiding. Then, he waited for the partner. Who he then shot 6 times, jammed his rifle, and gave her that "clean finishing shot". Which is cold blooded murder. I don't give a damn that they were 18 and 17, and
"My son died horribly and for nothing. I think often of what he could have been."
as his mother said. Bullshit. He died because he was a criminal. You taught him poorly, and he bet his life for criminal gain, and he lost his bet. You get no sympathy from me. Honestly, the girl Smith finished off doesn't really get much sympathy from me—she chose to violate the home of a man, and paid the price. But once the perp goes down, unless they are raising their gun to shoot one more time, you cannot shoot again. Period. Bernie Goetz learned that 30+ years ago, and Byron Smith learned that the other day. It's a shame these two budding criminals had to learn their own lesson the hard way, but you buy your ticket, take the ride, and pay the price. And to Mr. Smith—Thanks a lot, you fucking asshole, for handing the anti-gun anti-self-defense Victim Disarmers more ammunition to use in their quest to disarm the American citizen.
Quote of the week—
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
—Charles A. Beard
And that, my friends, is all I have for this week. Enjoy it!

1 comment:

  1. "Botched" implies that the executioner did something wrong. From what I have read, the thug's vein blew after the IV was started. It happens, nothing the "state" could have done differently. I take a lot of IV's due to a medical condition. I have had many veins blow, so many that I got a port installed in my chest.
    This thug just had the bad luck to have bad veins.

    ReplyDelete