More thoughts on the Open Carry March #130704

First off, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to not only “keep”, but also to “bear”, arms...meaning that they may not only be possessed, but also held upon their person.

The notion that our 2nd Amendment rights may be regulated in a manner prohibiting the peaceful carrying of firearms in public because there are also restrictions upon the 1st Amendment is, in all actuality, simply ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Restrictions on a person's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly are lawful under our constitution only when used to prevent the free exercise of rights by others.

The dictionary definition of the verb “infringe” is “To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate”. If the right to carry a firearm in a peaceful manner is completely outlawed, the right of the people to bear arms has been infringed, period. The act of bearing arms is, in the very literal sense of the word, merely carrying them.

Obviously, it is illegal to go around randomly pointing a firearm at someone that is not a threat to a person's life or liberty, as that is an infringement upon his right to be secure in his person...a right that is guaranteed by our 4th Amendment. However, peacefully existing on a public street is not a threat to another person. There is a difference between “brandishing” (“To wave or flourish menacingly”) and merely possessing upon ones' person (to “bear”). Brandishing arms is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights, while bearing arms is not.

Now let's move right along and look at the logic of those who are opposed to this demonstration, they fall into three camps. One would be the government officials, namely the DC Metro Police and their spokeswhore chief, who decry the notion of peaceful people carrying guns as a threat to safety...while suggesting that they should be stopped and arrested by force at the hands of people with *gasp!* firearms. The second would be the Obamaton leftist camp who also scream about the supposed threat to public safety...while simultaneously suggesting that the marchers be mowed down by police officers carrying *gasp!* firearms. The third would be the so-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” who want to keep claiming that the march should not take place because it is a violation of the law.

Let's get this straight here. The police say it's somehow “dangerous” for people to walk down the street carrying guns...so they plan to meet these people with guns. And tasers. And batons. And pepper spray. That's absolutely brilliant. Given the statistical accuracy of these “highly-trained brave officers” in on-duty firefights, I'm just not buying the notion that it's somehow safe for them to walk down the street with guns while it's unsafe for you or I to do it.

The Obamatons, self-described “liberals”, “left-wingers”, and those “in favor of common-sense gun laws”, claim that having a bunch of “guntard toothless hillbillies marching down the street with their AK47s is a threat to public safety”. Their solution? When not expressing a desire to see them murdered in the street for walking down it while possessing inanimate objects carried peacefully upon their backs, they are also planning a “counter-demonstration”...one that entails meeting the armed march with squirt guns and water balloons in order to harass, annoy, and assault people peaceably walking down the street. Just to be sure everyone understands this brilliant logic, people having firearms on their person in public are dangerous individuals that should be shot on sight...so the appropriate response, in their eyes, is to pelt them with water balloons. Yeah, people with guns are dangerous, so in order to demonstrate this danger, they're going to actively provoke them with water balloons. That's beyond brilliant. That's Einstein-level genius.

Then we have the folks who are self-proclaimed protectors of our gun rights, but do nothing aside from complain about liberals, worshiping at the altar of Media Personality XX, and claim that because something is considered illegal by the state that it must not be done.

These are, perhaps, the people I take the most issue with. At least the cops and the commies are honest about who they are. I would like to point out that the people at Fox News and WorldNetDaily don't give a rat's ass about you. They don't know your name, they wouldn't speak to you if it wasn't at a book signing, and they really just don't give a flying fuck about your life or liberty. Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, mAnn Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc do not hate people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews...they LOVE these people, because pretending to hate them makes for good entertainment and a healthy paycheck. Pro wrestling is fake, son. Grow the hell up already. Your “No Spin Zone” doormat may impress your neighbors, but O'Reilly and Maher have as much of an impact upon the fate of your God-given rights as Hulk Hogan had on the cold war when the WWF was staging his "fights" against the Bolsheviks and the Iran Sheik. Likewise, self-proclaimed “liberals” and “conservatives” have as much chance of changing this world as fans of the Boston Red Sox and New York Mets. They can hate each other all they want, but in the end, they're nothing more than useful idiots used as pawns by the people who actually do control your life. Real heroes have real mugshots.

The notion that a person should not stand up for what is right, simply because it is illegal, is morally reprehensible. At various points in this nation's history, beer was illegal while slavery wasn't. It took people being willing to stand up for what was right (and occasionally arrested, shot, beaten, hanged, etc) in order for change to be effected.

If not me, who? If not here, where? If not this, what? If not now, when?

Isaiah 6:8, and may the Force be with you.

The locked & loaded march on the White House is set for this year's Independence Day, July 4th 2013.  Adam Kokesh (host of "Adam vs The Man" on YouTube, political activist, former US Marine) is planning on taking one thousand men armed with loaded (but politely slung) rifles across the Memorial Bridge between Virginia and Washington DC.

It will be an illegal march.  Even though the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees every American the right to both keep AND bear arms, the District of Columbia (like most jurisdictions in America) does not recognize the right to openly carry a firearm.  In addition to the Washington DC Metro and US Park Police departments, the FBI and Secret Service will also likely be on hand.

Given the nature of the march, I think it's a good idea for men with families at home to sit this one out. For God's sake, don't be a retard and bring your kids to this, if you're going.

I look at four possible outcomes of this event.  Only one of them works out good for the marchers, and all four will end up badly for government.

1) The march is allowed to take place.  The police ignore it, the march goes through unimpeded and everyone goes home.  The government is shown to be powerless, and the government loses.

2) The march is stopped by police before it crosses the bridge.  The government is shown to be resentful of peaceful people.  The government loses.

3) The marchers are summarily arrested for attempting to cross the bridge.  The government creates a thousand political prisoners.  The government loses.

4) The marchers are mowed down by government agents.  The government creates a thousand martyrs and starts a revolution.  The government loses.

Scenario 1 is very unlikely to happen, for the same reason governments will offer a reduced-charge plea with "time served" to people they've knowingly and wrongfully convicted.  They don't want to lose face and admit wrongdoing.

Scenario 2, which is the stated intent of the march, is also unlikely to happen (in my opinion, anyway) because police officers have a history of pack mentality and hunger for power. 

Scenarios 3 and 4 are, in my opinion, the two most likely outcomes.  Cops, especially when in large groups, appear to love the notion of being "in control of the situation"...and generally like having an excuse to use force, be it justified or not.  That statement is not opinion, but rather, a proven historical fact that has been shown to be true countless times in the past few years. 

This is going to light the fuse.  Like any other time dynamite is used, it's gonna be messy...it may be necessary, but I don't think I wanna be standing next to it.

Peaceful Evolution or Violent Revolution?

Years ago, I was the "small-government libertarian" type, even registering as a republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries (2008 and 2012) and even gave a day's pay to help his son Rand win a seat in the US Senate.  Even though I ran out of excuses and had become a full-blown anarchist prior to the 2012 election cycle, I still don't mind taking a few hours per year of my time to help the system dismantle itself from the inside...which is exactly what I envisioned Dr. Paul's plan to be when he was running for representative and for president.  His son Rand?  Well, I'd say I was a bit naive in thinking he and his father are the same person with the same values, but I digress. 

Back to what I was getting at, it has been years since I held an honest belief that the nation-state we call home could cure itself of its ills, because I believe that statism is the disease it suffers from.  By its very nature, it is doomed to fail.  I also realize that while the philosophy of anarchism (or "voluntaryism" as it is called by those who feel the term "anarchism" carries a negative stigma) has been around for quite some time, there has been no other time in the history of this world where so many people firmly believed and understood that people are not to be the slaves of others in any form, be their chains of bondage literal or metaphorical.

Likewise, there have been only two other times in the history of this nation where grown, thinking, rational men have seriously debated both the merits and the possibility of an armed revolt.  One of those times saw the creation of this nation, while the other came very close to destroying it.

Today, I stumbled across a YooToob video created by one Christopher Cantwell (liberty activist, aspiring comedian, unapologetic drunkard, parking-meter Robin Hood, and the list of hats he wears goes on and on), in which he espoused a view I've held for quite some time. 

I highly suggest you watch it. 

While I do not know Mr. Cantwell personally, we have conversed on occasion via social media networks, and it would appear that we have very similar opinions on this particular subject.  Within our circle of friends, and even outside it with the rest of the country, there is a growing debate.  It centers around whether it is proper to peacefully resist by voting against those who are wrecking this place, simply act as if the state does not exist and peacefully resist by ignoring the actions and edicts of government while being willing to be kidnapped, or to be prepared to actually physically resist with violence when given no other option.

As Cantwell (and countless others within our circles of contact and conversation) are fully aware,  this country is headed straight to hell in the proverbial handbasket.  Those who still haven't decided to eat their "red pill" yet also understand this, even though they don't quite seem to understand why. 

So-called conservatives wish to blame it God supposedly being banned from public schools, legalization of pot, Muslim terrorism, etc.  Those leaning a bit farther to the left seem to think it has something to do with "capitalism", class warfare, the death of polar bears, and the perceived shortage of taxpayer-funded social programs.  Then there's the rest of us, who understand the nature of the state and are generally just pissed off about it.

In the meantime, more and more people are starting to wake up to the fact that our laws have made a mockery of justice.  Our constitution has gone from being "the law of the land" to being some mythical document oft-ignored by those sworn to uphold it, to the point where it is illegal to even cultivate the very plants used to create the paper it was written on. 

Since the beginning of this nation, our laws were written to benefit the men who were wealthy enough to buy the men who wrote the laws.  Today, they call it "lobbying".  Once upon a time, it was called by its true name of "bribery".  There are so many laws on our books that even those charged with enforcing them don't even know what they are...regardless of the fact that most of them had no intention of actually following them in the first place. 

There was once a time when slavery was legal in this country, in the sense of a man being allowed by law to actually own another man as property based solely upon the color of his skin.  Negro slavery became extinct across the nation with the civil war, but the wealthiest among us still desired control over others and would stop at nothing to maintain control over the masses.  It hasn't stopped yet, and has no sign of even wanting to slow down.  Negro slavery was never abolished...it was just expanded to be race-neutral and include everyone not wealthy and powerful enough to be immune to the laws written by the wealthy and powerful.

While bringing up subjects such as disarmament, theft by taxation, a worthless fiat money system, and a nation under constant surveillance and fear of police brutality would have had you pegged as a conspiracy theorist who needed to loosen his tin-foil hat ten or even five years ago, the masses of this country are finally waking up to realize maybe those "kooks" aren't so crazy after all. If these things sound strange, it's likely because you have heard them packaged in a different wrapper and are simply unfamiliar with the root causes of the issues at hand.  I could go on and on with all manner of issues, but these are what I find to be most pressing at the moment.

For the first time since the US civil war (or the "War of Northern Aggression", as we Texans like to call it!), roughly one third of polled Americans think an armed rebellion will be necessary to reclaim our freedom.

**************************************************

So what does it all mean?  Your government hates you, thinks you are second-class, and has every intention of keeping you subservient.  There is a financial incentive to disarm you, rob you, keep you as poor as possible, and beat your ass (or kidnap you, or even kill you) if you step out of line...just the same as every other slave-master throughout history. 

You, as well as the rest of America, has a choice.  You can either continue to hope that voting or ignoring the problem will solve it, or you can realize that the slaves vastly outnumber the masters and overseers and put that opportunity to good use while you still can.

This is not an incitation to violence, it's merely an effort to make you think.  Ready or not, this nation is ready to crash.  You can sit there and wish it didn't happen, or you can strap on your seatbelt and hit the brakes.

The "Lanza Arsenal", dissected...

Tonight, I had the opportunity to view the five search warrants recently released by Law Enforcement authorities revolving around the Sandy Hook shooting spree.

A few of them didn't really deal with firearms or ammunition, so I won't bother bringing up his seized iPhone or the various knives they carted out of his bedroom.  I'll be keeping this strictly in reference to the firearms and ammunition that was seized by the police.

In the first warrant, there appears to be a check and a holiday card.  The check was written by Nancy Lanza to Adam Lanza, for the purchase of what the warrant describes as "C183 (Firearm)".  Either that was a typo, and was supposed to be a Chech-made CZ-83 handgun in .380ACP caliber, or someone screwed up and assumed that the Kodak C183 camera is a firearm.  Neither a CZ-83 handgun or C183 hand-held camera was seized.

In another warrant, a Saiga 12ga semi-automatic shotgun was found inside the Honda registered to Nancy Lanza at the scene of the crime.  According to the warrant, this Saiga shotgun was found alongside "two magazines containing 70 rounds of Winchester shotgun rounds".  Now, call me stupid, but does anyone know where one might buy a 35rd drum for a Saiga?  The largest I've ever been able to find is a 20rd drum magazine.  I know it's not a box-type magazine, because such a mag would be longer than the weapon itself.  Maybe whoever had inventoried the vehicle didn't exactly know what they were speaking of?

In yet another warrant, detailing firearms and ammunition seized from the home of Nancy Lanza, the following items were seized:
1) A "small caliber" bullet*
2) Five rounds of Winchester buckshot (shotgun rounds, including those from the car, now total 75)
3) White plastic bag containing 30 rounds of Winchester 12ga rounds (total now 105rds)
4) "Planters can" containing "numerous .22cal and .45cal bullets"**
5) Four hundred rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22LR rounds, in 50rd boxes (400 rounds .22LR ammo known at this point).
6) Twenty "Estate" brand shotgun shells (total 12ga rounds 125).
7) Forty rounds of "SB" buckshot shells (total 12ga rounds 165).
8) Five 12ga slugs, Lightfield brand (total 12ga rounds 170).
9) Two 20rd boxes of .303 Enfield rounds, one Federal and one PPU.***
10) Wooden box with "numerous" .45ACP rounds.**
11) 100 rounds of PPU .45ACP (100 rounds .45 ammo known at this point).
12) 20 rounds Remington .223 (20 rounds .223 ammo, katp).
13) 150 rounds Blazer .40S&W (150rds of .40 ammo, katp).
14) 40 rounds Winchester .223 (60rds .223 ammo, katp).
15) 30 rounds Magtech .45ACP (130rds .45 ammo, katp).
16) 48 rounds Fiochi .45ACP (178rds .45 ammo, katp).
17) 80 rounds CCI .22LR ammo (480rds .22LR ammo, katp).
18) 120rds PMC .223 ammo (180rds .223 ammo).
19) Six rounds Winchester 12ga buckshot (12ga rounds 176).
20) Two Remington 12ga slugs (12ga rounds 178).
21) Three Winchester .223 rounds (.223 rounds 183).
22) 31 rounds of undisclosed-manufacture .22LR (511 rounds .22LR ammo, katp).
23) One ".323cal Enfield Albian" rifle.***
24) 134 rounds "Underwood" 10mm ammo (134rds 10mm).
25) 130 rounds "Lawman" 9mm ammo (130rds 9mm).
26) Two 20rd drums for Saiga 12ga.****
27) Partial magazine with 10rds .223 ammo (.223 rounds 193)
28) 29 "Miscellaneous" 9mm rounds (139 rounds of 9mm)
29) Three empty AGP Arms shotgun magazines.*****
30) Surefire Gunmag with 8rds 12ga buckshot (12ga rounds 186).
31) Two AGP Arms 10rd magazines, conjoined with tape, filled with buckshot (12ga rounds 206).
32) Savage bolt-action .22LR rifle, containing 3rds of ammo (514 rounds .22LR, katp).
33) Small plastic bag containing "numerous" .22LR rounds.
34) Small plastic bag containing "numerous" .45ACP rounds.
35) Single AGP Arms 10rd magazine filled with buckshot (12ga rounds 216).
36) 50 rounds Blazer .22LR ammo (564 rounds .22LR, katp).
37) Partial box of PPU .303 Enfield ammo containing 9 rounds (49 rounds total).
38) A pair of loose 9mm rounds (141 rounds 9mm).

---------Notes regarding firearms and ammo seized from the Lanza home----------
*The "small caliber" bullet (when used by firearms industry employees, firearm aficionados, and shooting-sports regulations) typically refers to anything .38-caliber (9mm, .38SPL, .380ACP, etc) or smaller.  Because the listing on this warrant was compiled by law enforcement agents whose job is to produce seizure documentation attempting to cast unfavorable light upon the person from whom the items were seized, it may refer to just about anything.

**The term "numerous" may refer to a number as small as half a dozen, or as large as several dozen.  

***Due to the various rounds of .303 Enfield ammunition seized, and the fact that a .323 caliber Enfield was never produced, I am assuming the seized rifle was of .303 caliber and the ".323" designation found in the seizure inventory was a typographical error.

****Please see my earlier thoughts, regarding the possibility of finding "two magazines containing 70 rounds" in the trunk of the Honda.

*****Due to the 10rd AGP shotgun magazines being the most popular model, the largest model made by AGP, and the type found loaded elsewhere in the home, I am assuming the unloaded AGP magazines would be of 10rd capacity.  AGP also produced 6rd and 8rd magazines for the Saiga.

So now, let's look at the total known number of rounds per caliber, as described in the Lanza warrants and seized from the home and car:

49 rounds of .303 British Enfield, for use in the WWI-era bolt-action Enfield rifle.
193 rounds of .223Rem, the type used by the AR15 allegedly used in the shooting.

141 rounds of 9mm Luger
150 rounds of .40S&W
134 rounds of 10mm
178 rounds of .45ACP

564 rounds of .22LR

216 rounds of 12ga

Pistol rounds are typically sold in boxes of 25 or 50 rounds, depending upon brand.  Often, 25rd boxes of pistol ammunition are reserved for top-shelf premium product lines.  It is not common to use such ammo on a trip to the firing range, and it has been well-reported that Adam and Nancy Lanza were both fond of range shooting.  Even accounting for reloading, and taking a five-second break between shots to aim properly, a 50rd box can easily be expended in under five minutes...especially if one has already pre-loaded his magazines, as most people do prior to going to a shooting range.

As such, keeping three boxes of shells for a particular firearm is actually considered "going light" in most circles.

For a .223 rifle, such as the AR15, the same holds true.  A standard-capacity 30rd magazine is easily expended in under a few minutes, taking several seconds between rounds to aim.  The amount of rounds found at the house would be enough to fill six magazines to capacity.

The suggestion that 564 rounds is an "excessive" amount of .22LR rimfire ammunition is truly absurd, considering that shooting several hundred rounds in a single day of "plinking" is actually extremely common.  Prior to the ammunition shortage created by the media hysteria after Sandy Hook, a 525rd "value pack" of .22LR ammo would generally cost less than $20, as it is still the cheapest ammunition on the market.  It is also the smallest commonly-available round, typically used only for target practice or hunting very small game, due to its size.

While it may seem "odd" to some that Lanza would have almost two thousand rounds of ammunition in his home, it's really not when one puts it into context.  Almost 600 of those rounds were for a bolt-action rimfire target rifle.  The other less-than-1100 rounds were for seven different firearms...or, roughly, enough to take each one out to the range for half an hour.

Some might find it odd that a person might keep 2,000 rounds for a given rifle or handgun, but that clearly wasn't the case here. 

Just for the record...

I am an anarchist.  Please allow me to repeat that.  I AM AN ANARCHIST.

My support for the actions of Dr. Rand Paul during his filibuster yesterday should not be misconstrued as support for our current system of government.

Please allow me to clarify.  I am no man's slave.  I am owned by neither a corporation, a democracy, a republic, nor a dictatorship.  I am an individual human being.  My rights were bestowed upon me by my creator, they were not granted by any political charter or "god-damned piece of paper".

With that being said, I was a supporter of Dr. Ron Paul's run for president, in both '08 and '12.  Not because I viewed him as some sort of savior, but because I see the system for what it is.  The "system" is inherently fucked.  Pardon my language, but there is no other useful way to describe it.  It is totally and completely fucked, and has been since the inception of this nation.

The way I see it, we don't really have much of a choice.  What we do have boils down to this..
A) Rocket-ride to socialism, aka "Democrat"
B) Rocket-ride to fascism, aka "status-quo republican"
C) Train's still rolling off the tracks, but someone can apply a tiny bit of pressure to the brakes, aka "vote for Ron Paul".

So yeah, I went and voted in the primaries.  That nigga didn't win.  I wasn't going to waste my time with write-in votes for Paul, nor was I going to vote for some magic underwear assclown like Romney.  I gave a write-in for my uncle, mainly as a joke.

I understand that politics is a sad joke.  I also understand that the majority of this country consists of a bunch of Cheeto-eating football zombies that care more about Kim Kardashian's on-camera fellatio skills than they care about what's happening to them at this very moment.  Say what you will about the system of government we live in, and people like the Doctors Paul who actively engage in it...but if it weren't for Dr. Paul the Elder, I would likely not be considering myself an anarchist today.  I liken him to the "gateway drug" our health teachers warned us about when they described the evils of pot.

He opened my eyes to the idea that an individual owns himself.  He kinda had me at "legalize pot and machine guns, criminalize actions that harm others".  From there, I read on...  So yeah, I supported his run for office, mainly for the purpose of hoping that he would enlighten others in the same manner he enlightened me.

I look at Rand's actions in much the same way.  In a manner unseen and unheard of in my lifetime, a US senator stood on the floor of the senate and demanded an answer about a question of basic civil liberty...and it got a lot of people across the country asking questions.  He did it for 13 hours straight, and made international news in doing so.

In the process of this filibuster, Dr. Rand Paul got a lot of people asking what should be a very basic fucking question.  WHY DO PEOPLE WHO CLAIM JURISDICTION OVER ME, ALSO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO KILL ME IN MY SLEEP WITHOUT EVER EVEN SO MUCH AS PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF MY ALLEGED GUILT?

Is it bad that I support something that makes people ask why someone else is claiming the right to kill them?  If that makes me "bad for the movement", then so be it...

My "State of the Union" post...

Fellow Texans, last night made history.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky did not make history with the length of his filibuster, as it was less than 13 hours long and did not even place him within the top five longest filibusters on record in the US Senate.  What the nation witnessed last night, however, was truly remarkable. 

Several years ago, back during the Bush administration, I predicted that this nation would not last another ten years.  The "America" we were raised to believe in would cease to exist on all levels, and would be replaced by an America that seemed truly unfathomable.

For over a decade, the US has been waging the longest war in our history, against a nation that has been oft-referred to as "The Graveyard of Empires".  There does not appear to be any end in sight, as our government refuses to even define who our actual enemy is in this Orwellian drama of perpetual war.  My children, aged six and eight years, have never known an America that wasn't at war.

At the same time our military has been ravaging the nations of the Middle East with military occupations and bombing campaigns against this unnameable enemy, the government claiming jurisdiction over us has been raping our civil liberties here at home.

For every four prisoners throughout the world, one of those prisoners is locked in a cage right here in America.  We currently constitute only 5% of the world's population, but hold 25% of its incarcerated population in steel and concrete boxes.  The majority of the people imprisoned in America have committed "crimes" that have no nameable victim and are offenses against nothing more than a statute written by unelected lobbyists and voted upon by uninformed legislatures.

The federal government, through secretive so-called "National Security Letters", have effectively done away with the 4th Amendment protection against warrantless searching of your communications by merely stating that they are relevant to an investigation...without even ever having to tell you why or how.

The ongoing fight to remove effective weaponry from the citizens has been ratcheted up, seemingly faster and faster every day.  Three of the nation's four most populated cities have laws that severely restrict the ownership of firearms, effectively disarming millions of people via bureaucracy and excessive requirements for ownership. 

The right to speak freely in a public place has been pissed upon since the introduction of "Free Speech Zones", which are often located far from the very people and/or places that are the target of protest.  It is now a federal felony offense to protest against anyone under the protection of the US Secret Service, provided the object of that protection does not want you protesting.

A few years ago, a CIA-organized drone strike assassinated a US citizen on foreign soil.  He was not engaged in actual combat, but was deemed to be an "imminent threat" to the US and "materially supportive" of Al Qaeda, because he produced DVDs that were critical of the US foreign policy in the Middle East and distributed throughout the Arab world.  His 16 year old son, also a US citizen, was murdered in a separate drone strike shortly after.  To date, there has been no open presentation of evidence that would warrant such extrajudicial killings.  Robert Gibbs, a senior Obama campaign official, is on record as stating that the 16 year old boy "should have had more responsible parents".

We reached a turning point yesterday, however.  John Owen Brennan, a career intelligence officer, was set to be appointed as director of the CIA by President Obama.  While acting as deputy director for the Department of Homeland Security, Brennan was the person who reorganized the US drone program and devised the so-called "kill lists" of non-combatants outside of war zones, which is in direct conflict with countless international laws and even our own domestic law prohibiting political assassinations, and centralized its implementation within the Obama administration's executive branch. 

These crimes were made legal by re-writing the definitions of "combatant" and "combat zone" so vaguely that anyone in any location at any time could be considered an "imminent threat" to the national security of the United States.

Beginning at roughly 10:47am Texas time on Wednesday, the 6th of March 2013, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky began a filibuster to block the confirmation of John Brennan as new director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, and did so for one specific reason:

Neither Brennan, nor AttyGen Eric Holder, nor anyone else within the Obama administration, would provide a definite answer as to whether or not it would be constitutionally permissible to assassinate an American citizen on US soil without that person being tried and convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, if that person was not an immediate threat to the life of another individual.

Let that sink in.  THERE WAS ACTUAL DEBATE ON THE SENATE FLOOR YESTERDAY, OVER WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF THESE UNITED STATES HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL YOU IN YOUR SLEEP WITHOUT ANY SORT OF A TRIAL.

I'm pretty sure this nation's over and done with...but it won't likely matter to people like me, we gotta get some sleep at some point.

In the name of "Officer Safety"

A 70 year old man died this morning.  John Schaefer, an instructor at the Austin Rifle Club, called the Austin Police Department to report that he had been attacked in his back yard by a dog that did not belong to him.

Police arrived at the scene, and saw that Schaefer had a weapon on his person.  The officer demanded that Schaefer relinquish the weapon, and Schaefer refused.  The officer lunged at the weapon, attempting to disarm Schaefer.  Schaefer drew his weapon, and the Austin PD officer did the same. 

John Schaefer was well within the law by keeping a handgun holstered in his waistband when the officers arrived.  He was on his own private property.  The officers were there because Mr. Schaefer called them to report a stray dog that had attacked him. 


In the State of Texas, a private citizen has the right to possess and carry upon his person a loaded firearm when on his own private property, so long as he is not "brandishing" said firearm.  Merely keeping it within his waistband does no such thing. 

As such, the police officer(s) involved have no legal right to demand that he disarm himself, as he was not suspected of having committed a crime.  Lest we forget, this incident happened upon Mr. Schaefer's property. 

Often, we hear of officers disarming law-abiding citizens who happen to be armed, for reasons of "officer safety".  Thing is, if a citizen CHOOSES to disarm himself, that's his business.  If not, tough shit on the part of the officer.  A police officer DOES NOT have the right to forcibly disarm a citizen that is not suspected of a crime, period.

Mr. John Schaefer was murdered this morning by Austin Police Department Officer Jonathan Whitted for refusing to relinquish his lawfully-owned and lawfully-carried firearm upon his own property, and this fact has been admitted to by Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo.

Read more in the Austin-American Statesman