I don't usually do this...

Okay, if you know me, you know I'm a gun nut. I'm a hard-core supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and my gun collection is the type that makes Charles Schumer wet himself. That said, I generally don't discuss specific areas of theory in this arena, as I reserve this blog's "gun talk" mainly for discussions involving the legal aspects of owning firearms.

However, I saw something I felt the need to share tonight. Interestingly enough, it doesn't actually involve the use of firearms directly. It's more of a "something to think about, if you're anticipating the possibility of being somewhere where firearms might be used" situation.

For instance, the probability of a police officer ever actually NEEDING a bullet-resistant vest is highly unlikely...but that doesn't mean they don't generally wear one as part of their uniform.

Tonight, I saw a video from a while back, and something struck me as something that should be instinctual for anyone that has ever trained for the possibility of being in a firefight. It's from a few years ago, but the video involves a situation where police officers end up in a firefight with a homeowner who is distraught about his domestic situation.

In what was either a very calculated display of marksmanship, or a very lucky shot for the homeowner, one of the officers is struck in the neck and begins to lose blood very quickly. In the video, you can see him holding his neck as he runs away from his position toward the safety of backup officers.



As seen in the video, the officer collapses from the loss of blood. At the 0:50 mark, you can see his fellow officer arrive to assist him.

Here's the kicker. If you look closely, the first thing the officer does is reach inside the collar of the wounded officer. He's looking for a "drag handle". They're put there for a reason. It's so a man can grab you with his weak hand and pull you to safety, while still holding his weapon with his strong hand.

You'll also notice that when the officer did not find the drag handle, he was forced to holster his weapon so he could put a hand under each arm and drag the man to safety.

Two things happened here, that could have been prevented had the officer been wearing a vest equipped with a drag handle. First, the officer could have saved valuable time by being able to grab the handle and run. When you are at distances of less than 100 feet, and the average handgun round will cover that distance in 1/10th of a second, every moment counts. Second, you'll notice that the responding officer had to holster his weapon in order to use both hands to grab the wounded man and drag him to safety.

Not having a drag handle on his vest placed both men in greater danger than they already were. Not only did it take additional time to holster the weapon and place both hands under the wounded officer's arms, but it also required taking a weapon out of the fight.

Some may say that having a 200lb weight in the left hand would have left the right hand in a position of inconsequentiality, but I disagree. While dragging a 200lb weight obviously requires effort, it's not exactly a super-human feat of strength...and unless you're a straight-up poon, you can drag such a weight with one hand.

Obviously, you're not going to be an olympic-quality marksman while dragging a 200lb weight...but you'll still be able to get off a few rounds of suppression fire, which makes all but the most disciplined or deranged people stop and think. This is somewhat difficult to do if you've got your pistol in your holster and both hands under some sweating bloody dude's armpits.

Some people think dragging a human body one-handed cannot be done without help. Physiology says otherwise. What matters is the grip. If you can get a good solid grip on something, you can pull it one-handed, unless it's simply too heavy to be pulled at all. The reasoning for this lies in the fact that the average human hand is capable of gripping far more of a load than the rest of the body can handle, and "dragging" is done with the legs.

When one hand has a good hold on the load, the "working" portion of the body forms a triangle. Both legs form the two lower points, and the gripping hand's shoulder forms the upper point. When there is no solid gripping point such as a drag handle, both hands are needed to act as "hooks" under the arms of the wounded man in order to even out the load. If you are a grown man attempting to drag an 80lb child, things may be different...but if you're a grown man attempting to drag another grown man, putting one hand under the armpit of that man will only result in your hand slipping down that man's arm as his body stays in place.

The drag handle acts not only as a solid gripping point, but also as a load center. Being positioned in the center of the back, the wounded man's body does not shift to one side or the other. When the load center is pulled, the remainder of the body is pulled with it without shifting to one direction or the other.

Think of a boat trailer. When you hitch up to it, you go to the tongue of the trailer. It is one centralized lead point being pulled, and the tires act as the two lower points on the triangle. You'll notice that a trailer is not hitched up by two points on the tow vehicle's bumper. A dragged body is essentially the same thing. The handle acts as the "trailer tongue", while the buttocks act as the "tires".

Imagine a wounded body without a handle, as it compares to a trailer. Instead of hitching up to a ball on the bumper, you've got a pair of ropes tying onto each side of the trailer. Towing such a trailer is all kinds of awkward, you don't get the same speed, etc.

So essentially, what I'm saying is, let this be a lesson. I apologize for going on and on ad nauseum about its importance, but...

If you find yourself being in a situation where a bullet-resistant vest is important, you should contemplate the reality of the situation. Again with the automotive analogies, I ask you to liken yourself to a truck as viewed by an insurance adjuster after a collision.

Your kevlar vest is like having a frame-mounted pipe bumper that covers the radiator. It's going to keep you from being completely screwed if you smoke a cow or a small tree. That doesn't change the fact that there's a LOT of other parts to your truck that may render it "totalled" in the event of an accident.

The human body isn't much different. Your kevlar vest is going to protect your "motor and radiator" (i.e. "heart and lungs"). It's not going to do anything for your neck, your arms, or your legs...and if you get hit in one of these places, there exists a strong possibility that you could bleed out.

Look at the O.J. Simpson case. That's where many people learned about how much blood is expended from a neck wound, if an artery is cut. Then, take a look at most people who commit suicide by cutting...they go for the wrist. Point is, if you hit an artery, you bleed out fast. Your vest doesn't cover most arteries. Your vest covers less than half of your exposed body. While "bleeder" injuries are more easily treated than puncture wounds to a vital organ, they are every bit as serious if not treated in a timely manner. As a reminder, rewind that video and see how the wounded officer went from running while holding his neck to falling down in a ditch, in a manner of seconds.

As a reminder, remember that your average standard-size handgun STARTS at 9mm, and works up from there. That's more than 1/3 of an inch, minimum. They are typically loaded with hollowpoint rounds, and they typically expand at least 1.5 times as large as their initial diameter. If you're hit with one, and it happens to be on that 60-70% that isn't covered by your vest, there's a good chance that it's going to make you bleed profusely.

Also remember that even in states that outlaw "high capacity" magazines, there's still ten rounds in it. If you drop, you're no longer a moving target. Every moment that someone has to reposition his gear in order to move you is a moment the shooter has to take aim again. If your help has holster his weapon to help you, that's two stationary targets the shooter has opportunity on...and if he has to put both hands on you, he's less mobile, which means you're both at greater risk even when the two of you get mobile.

Something to think about...

The Arkansas Problem...

Today, I watched live streaming video of the most vile and corrupt people I've ever seen...but before I get into that, here's a bit of background.

I was about 16 years old, laying in bed watching television one night, when a documentary came on. I had been waiting to see it, because I had previously seen where the seminal heavy metal band Metallica had allowed their music to be used in a feature film.

I was (and still am) a fan of Metallica, and this case was something I hadn't heard about, so I watched it. I thought it was supposed to be a work of fiction. By the time I had finished watching "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills", I damned near vomited.

Black t-shirts? Check.
Fan of heavy metal music? Check.
Distrust of our (in)justice system? Check.
Social misfits? Check.

Well, that pretty much describes me at the time. I couldn't help but wonder how completely and totally screwed up our justice system could be, when three people could be convicted of the most heinous crime on the books in Arkansas...with the only "evidence" being other peoples' opinions of their character, and an error-filled confession coerced from a mildly-retarded teenager who had been interrogated by the police for 12 hours.

I've been following this case since then, and cannot fathom how this could have happened.

One man was told that he might possibly be paroled from his "Life plus 40 years" sentence, but would be so old that his life would be meaningless. He'd be too old to drive, too old to work, too old to screw, and too old to do just about anything else that a man might want to do while living in the free world.

Another was told that, no matter how old he lived to be, his "Life without parole" sentence would mean he would never again breathe another breath as a free man. The entirety of his life's remainder would be spent behind bars. Every waking moment of his life would be spent locked in a cage, until the day when that life finally came to an end.

The third was told that, unlike the other two, he would not be spending his time in prison wondering how old of a man he would be when he finally succumbed to natural causes, because the State of Arkansas was going to speed up that process for him. He would be strapped to a gurney and pumped full of poison, killed at the hands of the state.

The years have progressed. The documentary filmmakers have produced two additional works about the case. New evidence has been submitted to the courts. A hearing was set for December, in light of evidence that DNA had been tested and found to not match the victims or the convicted...meaning someone else was there at the scene of the crime.

Yesterday, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin walked out of a "Supermax" prison in Arkansas, while in the custody of sheriff's deputies. Today, they walked out of a county court house as free men.

Sadly, however, they have received no justice and may have to keep fighting for the rest of their lives if they ever want to see it.

As part of an agreement reached with state prosecutors and the defense team, prosecutors agreed to a sentence of "time served" in exchange for a guilty plea to a lesser charge. These men are still convicted felons, and branded as murderers.

The lead prosecutor for the state actually had the balls to stand up this morning in front of television cameras, and claim that this was done to preserve the state's money. Really? "The state" tried to execute one man, and imprison two more for the rest of their lives, for crimes they didn't commit. You're certain that they are guilty of sexually mutilating and murdering three innocent eight year old children, but you think "justice" is served by letting these men go?

Or, could it be, that the prosecutor is a useless excuse for a human being? He's more worried about the state being deprived of tax dollars for wrongfully trying to kill one man, and wrongfully imprisoning two more? If you know you have a case, what are you afraid of?

Sir, you are a chickenshit. You should be publicly beaten for not immediately acknowledging that the State of Arkansas screwed up severely, apologizing to these men (and their attorneys, and their families, and also the families of the victims for not seeking to find the people responsible for the crime), and then showing them where to fill out the forms for the millions of dollars worth of compensation you owe them.

Instead, you had the balls to stand up on national television and say that you "pray these men have been rehabilitated". Are you kidding me?

To shoot, or not to shoot?

About a week or so ago, a policeman named Robert Lasso was shot dead in the back yard by a Pennsylvania homeowner named George Hitcho Jr.

Here are the known facts of the case, as recorded by the court:

1. Lasso was called to the home by someone other than Hitch or his spouse.

2. The incident did not take place at the front door, but at the back door.

3. There was no evidence of a disturbance at the home, other than the 911 call.

4. Hitcho owned two dogs, who were in the yard.

5. Lasso repeatedly pointed a Taser electrocution device, alternatively, at Hitcho and his dogs.

6. Lasso called for backup, and his backup ended up being the Chief of Police.

7. Lasso was told to leave the property, and to not come back without a warrant.

8. The Chief ordered Lasso to “shoot the dogs” with his electrocution device.

9. Upon such an order, Hitcho “pulled a shotgun” and fired one round, striking Lasso.

10. Lasso was taken to a hospital where he later died, while Hitcho was taken into custody and subsequently charged with homicide.

Now, let's look at the inferred facts of this case. I say “inferred” only because they require the use of basic logic, not because I'm some kind of a psychic.

1. Lasso, upon being told to depart from the premises, had no lawful authority to be on the premises unless he found probable cause or exigent circumstances to give him such a legal right. It is highly doubtful that such a thing occurred, considering it was neither brought up in court, nor did the officer ever attempt to enter the home.

2. The dogs were obviously not “attacking” Lasso, if he had time to wait for backup to arrive.

3. The incident occurred at the rear door of Hitcho's home, and not the front door, which indicates that the officer did not hold any reservations about exceeding his authority after finding no evidence of a disturbance after knocking on the front door.

4. Hitcho was still obviously in his home, as evident by the fact that a shotgun was close at hand and neither officer had a firearm drawn. Unless the shotgun was cut down to far below the legal overall length of 26”, one does not simply “pull” a shotgun without it being noticed beforehand by two trained police officers. As evident by the fact that no where in the numerous newspaper reports or the court record was an illegal firearm mentioned, it was a legal shotgun. Even a pistol-grip shotgun of minimum legal length is incredibly difficult to hide on one's person, unless that person is wearing a full-length heavy coat capable of concealing both the length and the large outline of a shotgun.

Since that is settled, let's go over some basics of the law.

1. In order for a law enforcement officer to legally be on a person's property, one of four things must have occurred.

   A) A warrant has been signed by a judge, granting said LEO permission to be on the premises.

   B) The officer has seen probable cause of a crime having been committed, or immediately about to be committed.

   C) Exigent circumstances exist, such as hearing someone scream.

   D) The LEO has the homeowner's permission.

   In light of the absence of these four things, the officer had a legal duty to depart the premises immediately when told to do so. He also had a legal duty to not return to the property without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or probable cause, because he had been told not to do so by the homeowner.

2. Pointing a Taser electrocution device at a human being is no different than threatening him with a firearm, a lead pipe, or a knife. It is meant to inflict incapacitating pain, which is an assault upon the person, if not done within the confines of the law. Threatening assault is a crime.

3. The threat of force is no different than the actual use of such force, with regard to warranting a response to such force. In other words, if someone unlawfully points a gun at you, the response of shooting that person is every bit as warranted in that situation as it would be if they had actually fired shots at you with intent to kill.

4. A person has the right to protect his life and property using any force necessary, up to and including lethal force.

Now that we've gone over the facts, here's my take on it...

The cop had no business whatsoever being in this guy's backyard, period. It's obvious that no one was in the backyard, since no one was there at the time of the incident (other than the two cops) and there is no record of anyone having been in the back yard. If the circumstances would have given this cop the authority to go into the back yard, those same circumstances would have allowed the cop to kick down the door and deal with the situation...and the cop's duty as a public servant would have demanded that he do so. Instead, he went on a fishing trip in the back yard.

The cop was on private property, and did not immediately leave upon being asked to do so. In the absence of lawful authority, that makes him a trespasser...and guilty of a crime, himself. Pointing a Taser electrocution device at both the subject of his “investigation” (read: FISHING TRIP IN THE BACK YARD) constituted a threat to the man's life and property.

The cop was shot for trespassing and threatening, end of story. It's sad that he had to die, but he brought it upon himself.

What's it gonna take?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm an anarchist. No, not one of those guys who runs around spraypainting circled "A"s on other peoples' property, smashing windows that don't belong to me, wearing black, and advocating socialism. No sir, I'm a REAL anarchist. I'm a man who believes that no man has the right to aggress upon another man.

I'm not alone here, I've got some pretty good company. Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ are a few notable anarchists. Note, when I say "Anarchist", I mean, a follower of the "Non-Aggression Principle". But what does not aggressing against another person have to do with a philosophy of not accepting a government? Well, it's quite simple...all governmental power is derived from aggression against someone.

At its basic level, we must understand what is necessary for government to operate. It cannot function without mandatory taxation, which is THEFT for any who do not consent to it. That is an aggression against property. Refuse to pay taxation? You're going to jail, which is an aggression against liberty. Resist jail using physical force? You're going to be dealt with violently, which is an aggression against life itself.

So there you have it...government, even at its most basic level, cannot exist without aggressing against life, liberty, and property of those subjected to it non-consensually. That's just dealing with taxation. Now look at laws geared toward dictating how people are allowed to act morally, financially, and physically...or, for that matter, laws dictating how one is required to act when speaking to a member of the "enforcer class".

Any law which carries a legally-binding penalty for non-compliance will ultimately result in death for anyone who resists the law to its intended end, provided that person is not captured alive and dealt with by the courts. Yes, even a minimum monetary fine for not wearing a seatbelt. If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you'll be issued a ticket. If you refuse to pay the ticket, you'll have someone show up at your door and physically attempt to arrest you. If you resist arrest, you will be physically assaulted. If you resist assault with physical force, force will be escalated until you either succumb, or are killed.

Where am I going with all of this? Well, today, I read an article about the Republican Party of South Carolina's state-level leadership calling for the immediate resignation and/or other means of removal, of two members of the party's local-level leadership. This call was based solely upon their agreement with words expressed in an article "When Should You Shoot a Cop".

Yes, the title of that article is a bit shocking, and it was meant to be. It does, however, go forth and discuss basic logic.

A) The average person has an inalienable right to "X".
B) Often, law "Y" is written and passed, and infringes upon the inalienable right to "X".
C) The authority the enforcers of "Y" are granted, under color of law, is derived from document "Z" that recognizes inalienable right "X", and states that no agent enforcing "Y" may infringe upon "X".
D) If the enforcers of "Y" have no authority to infringe upon your right to "X", because such an authority is non-existent in "Z", then the enforcers of "Y" are in the wrong and would be assaulting you if they attempt to infringe upon your right to "X".

Now let's look at something here...a man wearing a badge has no more authority to infringe upon your right to speak your mind freely on a public street, than a convicted felon has the authority to rob you in a back alley in the middle of the night.

The difference? Well, if you were confronted by a man wearing a ski mask in an alley and he wielded a club and told you he was going to beat the shit out of you unless you handed him your money, the grand jury would laugh and high-five each other as they no-billed you for putting a 9mm slug through his face.

Now on the other hand, if you were confronted by a man wearing a badge on a street corner, and he's wielding a club and telling you that you're going to jail if you continue to speak your mind (and he's going to whip your ass if you resist being arrested), the grand jury would be begging the court system to fast-track you to the Huntsville death chamber if you put a 9mm slug through his face.

So please, for the love of Jodie Foster, can someone tell me the difference? I'll tell you what the difference is. If you're unarmed, the difference is about two minutes. That's about how long the cop is going to argue with you, before physically assaulting you for resisting his false authority...whereas with the thug in the alley, he's going to start beating your ass immediately. Either way, you're going to lose all of your money. The kicker is, unless you're carrying several hundred dollars in cash, you're going to lose LESS money when you get robbed by the thug in the alley.

What really bugs me about the police is not that they are protected agents of the state, which requires them to physically aggress upon my fellow man. It's the fact that they've been doing it for two hundred years in this country, to the point where people seem to think it's somehow okay...or that it's somehow "different" when they do it (as opposed to an ordinary criminal without a badge), or that it's even actually necessary for society to function!

I've always found my fellow Texans to be a strange breed, when it comes to their general unwavering support of the "Public Servant". The same people who rail against "government oppression" when "liberals" take office, bitch about how "oppressive" helmet laws are, etc. would have a conniption if someone were to get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and answer a request for "license and insurance" with a hollowpoint slug. These people also seem to be the most vocal opponents of gun control, for reasons I can't truly fathom. Maybe the 2A has something to do with shooting skeet?

Before I go further, I want to be upfront about something. I wish no harm upon anyone. I'm not a violent person, and I'm certainly not advocating violence upon cops based solely upon the fact that they happen to be cops. I grew up with about half a dozen of them locally, and there's a few that have been close to my family since before I was born.

That said, let's look at the modern world-wide history of homicide within the past hundred years. Obviously, battlefields had quite a bit to do with racking up that number. Then, there's religious fanaticism. So-called "terrorist acts" and "organized crime" add further still. Interestingly, these four categories are so inter-related it makes gathering statistics about it rather difficult.

Then we get into the biggest killer in modern history. Government-sponsored genocides. Hitler had about 9 million (that "six million" figure you hear about were just the Jewish folks he killed...it doesn't include the gypsies, cripples, retards, homos, etc). Stalin wiped out somewhere around 20-25 million. The Khmer Rouge took out somewhere between 1 and 3 million, depending on whose estimate you use.

Do you realize what is necessary to kill a million people using small arms? It takes a LOT of cooperation by people willing to serve the state, for various reasons. It may be fear, it may be financial compensation, it might be a genuine belief that he's doing the right thing, or it might even be the status one receives from the community when one wears a special insignia on his shirt.

Wow. That sounds a lot like many of the cops out there on the street right here in Texas. Do you know the difference between an SS officer dealing with the "Jewish Question", and a Texas cop telling someone he can't speak his mind on a public street corner?

IT'S ABOUT TWO MINUTES, IF THE GUY ON THE STREET CORNER PUTS UP ENOUGH OF A FIGHT...

When in the face of extreme adversity...

I often find myself comforted by reading Daniel, Chapter 6. Most people (even those who aren't very religious, or for that matter, have any religious belief at all) have at least an inkling of recognition regarding the story of Daniel being thrown into the lion's den.

A great many people, however, do not know the back story to this event. To put it into a generalized perspective so that even my secular readers may grasp it, there was a wise man named Daniel. He was a fine upstanding man who lived according to the non-aggression principle, and he was well-known in his community. Within his community, there was a group of government officials known as "satraps".

They were jealous of Daniel and his position upon the moral high ground, but could find no fault within him, for the purposes of destroying his position within the community. They convinced King Darius to pass a law which went against the non-aggression principle, and made the penalty for such a transgression to be death by lion.

You see, Daniel had done no wrong to any man, but continued upon his path as he found to be righteous. The bureaucracy found fault with this, and created a law to destroy him, because he was not one of their own.

Daniel held his position, and did not yield or change to what he knew to be righteous. His punishment was to be thrown into a den of lions, with the assumed goal of him being killed and eaten in a most violent manner. The next day, the king called out to Daniel. Daniel answered, in Chapter 6 Verse 21, that he was still alive. God had spared him from an unjust punishment, which had been meted out for the act of violating an unjust law.

To put a modern spin on this story, let's fast-forward from the time of Daniel to a few years ago. That's back when everyone was still using MySpace as the social network of choice. In 2006, I was injured in a motorcycle accident, and I spent a couple of weeks at my father's home. I couldn't walk because the scabs on my knees would start bleeding after taking a few steps, so I spent a great deal of this time either on my couch or on the computer.

After getting bored with all the random nonsense of MySpace, I started digging around a bit and found some of the political forums on there. It was there where I met Riley O'Neil, founder of the MySpace Libertarian group. I also met Jim H. (and don't forget his wife B...first names have been redacted to protect the guilty!) of "Jim's MySpace Republicans"...a group started when he got thrown out of the main Republican forum. Me and Jim had (and still have) quite a few debates, but I think I've finally brought him over to the dark side! Along the way, I've become acquainted with quite a few people within our movement. A few of them, notably Catherine Bleish and Adam Kokesh, have become quite famous...Cat has been listed by the SPLC as an "extremist" and has appeared on Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory", while Adam has his own television show on RT America.

I also stumbled across a website known as BureauCrash.com, which was dedicated to a non-aggressionist "voluntaryist" (i.e. the "real") form of anarchy. Reading up on the goings-on there taught me quite a bit, and I came to learn of the people I write about today.

Several months ago, while forking over ransom money (read: BAIL) for a friend accused of some harmless "crime" that had no nameable victim, Pete Eyre and Adam "Ademo Freeman" Mueller were arrested for having the audacity to film the interaction. They were in a public place that had no reasonable expectation of privacy (trust me, there were CCTV cameras in the place, recording the incident), and they were filming people who earn their living on the taxpayer's dime. There was no reason whatsoever that they should not have been allowed to film the interaction.

Furthermore, there was no law stating that they could not film there, there was no sign stating that recording was prohibited, nor was there any written policy that prohibited filming in that area.

Nonetheless, the two were arrested under New Hampshire's "wiretapping" law. Keep in mind, this law was designed to prevent private individuals from being recorded during private conversations. It was used, in this instance, for the purposes of incarcerating and intimidating people known to be "enemies of the state" for having the intelligence to record their interactions with those who purport to serve them...with, or without, the consent of those being "served".

Yesterday, my friends Pete and Ademo entered a New Hampshire courtroom, facing years of imprisonment and a felony criminal record that would follow them for the rest of their natural lives. They didn't take a plea. They did not set up a "legal defense fund" for the sake of hiring a high-priced lawyer. They didn't try to get off the hook by focusing on technicalities.

Instead of taking the "easy way out", they took it on the chin. They stood before a jury of their peers, and stated their case, ready to face the consequences of their actions...knowing that instead of celebrating a victory today, they might be informing people like me where to send money for their commissary as they begin a stint in state prison.

There are, however, two things that really irk me about the situation that unfolded today.

First and foremost, is the "Blue Wall of Silence" in this ordeal. I grew up with quite a few people who grew up to be cops. A great deal of them are, in spite of the badge, still relatively decent people. One of my greatest friends happens to be a deputy sheriff on the verge of retirement, and he's one of the most morally-upstanding people I know. That said, I've heard absolutely nothing from the Law Enforcement community condemning the actions of the people involved in this case, which is a crying shame. You cannot build the public trust when there exists a "wall of separation" between the people the police are paid to serve, and the people themselves. On a regular basis, we see video of police misusing and abusing their authority. There's a possibility that it may be a rampant problem with police in general, and there's a possibility that it may be "a few bad apples". If it's "a few bad apples", then shouldn't the 'boys in blue' be trying to do something about it? Rogue cops on an authoritative rampage does nothing but sully the good name of decent cops, and I know there are still a few out there.

My second issue with this ordeal is the fact that there is absolutely no recourse for the lost time and money involved with Pete and Adam, short of hoping that a federal court would hear a civil rights lawsuit. I normally bitch about the expense of federal government, but this is one of those instances where I'd gladly pay. You see, when a man is accused by an officer of the law and takes his case to trial, he stands to potentially lose everything. If he wins, he loses slightly less. Unlike a civil trial, where the loser has to pay the winner's attorney fees, a criminal defendant is still going to lose every bit of the money he spent on a legal defense. He's going to lose every bit of the money he lost because he was defending himself, instead of earning a living. This does not count, of course, the cost of lost sleep, depression, anxiety, and paranoia that comes with facing quite a bit of time in jail.

And yet, Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller took it like free men. They said "No! We do not accept your artificial authority!" At great personal expense to themselves, they fought the powers that be...and in the tradition of Daniel, they exclaimed, "Yes! I am still FREE!"

A Declaration of Separation...

Before going any further, I'd like to say that this is not an "original" idea per se, but rather a slightly "individualized" twist on something I found this afternoon that has apparently been circulating since ca. 2008-2009. You may read the original version at ZeroGov.com, or find any of the myriad repostings of this letter by searching the phrase "Declaration of Separation".

Regardless, I've made it individualized, as this is something I find necessary for a document such as this. It appears to be what I've been thinking all along, put into words in a better manner than I could have done on my own.

I would give credit to the author of the original version, but it was disseminated anonymously. Think what you will of it...

To The Governments & People of Earth:

I claim the right to exist, and I will defend it. I do not seek to overthrow anything. I do not seek to control anything. I merely wish to be left alone. All I ever wanted was to live in peace with my friends and neighbors. For a long, long time I bore insults to my liberty; I took blows, I did what I could to avoid injury and I worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. I no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for me, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish me. I hereby reject them all. I hereby withdraw from them all. I hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity. I now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. I will not initiate force, but I do reserve the right to answer it. I did not choose this – it was forced upon me.

To The Governments of Earth:

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of my property and my decisions, of my travels and even my identity. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: I reject your authority and I reject your legitimacy. I do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon me, and no legitimacy. I have forsaken you. I am no longer your citizen or your subject. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. I am not merely an angry young person. This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that I no longer accept unearned suffering as my role in life. For long decades I sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. I took no actions; I suffered along with everyone else. But after having my limits pushed back again and again, I have given up on your systems. If my fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. I will not try to stop them. I, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon me. – From now on, when you hurt me, I will bite back. If you leave me alone I will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. I are happy to live quietly. But if you come after me, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do. You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

To The People of Earth:

I seek nothing from you. I do not want to rule you and I do not want to control you. All I wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, I will be a helpful neighbor and generous acquaintance. I will remain an honest business partner and trustworthy employee. I will not, however, be a sacrificial animal. I reject the idea that others have a right to my life and my property. I will not demand anything from you, and I will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon me. I have left that game. I reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. I will shortly explain what I believe, but I am not demanding that you agree with me. All I ask is that you do not try to stop me. Continue to play the game if you wish; I will not try to disrupt it. I have merely walked away from it. I wish you peace.

To Those Who Will Condemn Me:

I will ignore you. I welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom I am willing to expose my innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing? I would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day I will have to accept slaughter for my crime of independence, but not yet. Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose my philosophy, you oppose my existence. My presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill me than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human. You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but I know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, I know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, I was raised with you. I played with you in the schoolyard, I sat next to you in the classroom. I watched as you had your first tastes of power. I was the boy standing next to you. I am not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

What I Believe

#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. I accept those responsibilities and I embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to me (avoiding consciousness), I accept consciousness and choose to act in my own interest. I do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do I take refuge in crowds. I am willing to act on my personal judgment, and I am willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: I believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that I oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: I do not believe that my way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. I expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and I am prepared to deal with them. I do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for me. I agree to see to them myself.

#4: I believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: I believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: I believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: I believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. I accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: I believe that humans can self-organize effectively. I expect them to cooperate. I reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: I believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: I believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: I believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others – either directly or through intermediaries – and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

My Plans:

I do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm – mine, and the old realm – although I demand that they do no damage to my realm. I are fully opposed to any use of my realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds. I expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. I expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. I expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies. I will consider traps laid for me to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join me are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of a new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

I am Free and Unashamed.

That "80% Club"

That's what they call us. By "US", I'm referring to those of us within "the movement". "Libertarians", "freedom activists", "sovereign citizens", "anarchists", etc. We're all part of the "Eighty Percent Club". That adopted name came about, because it's generally understood that with any given two people from any given two groups within the movement, they'll agree on 80% of the issues we face.

We should probably change that name to the "Twenty Percent Club", if we're not going to make a drastic change within the movement. Our greatest asset, as well as our greatest detriment, is our passion. WE ARE the ones who "ate the red pill". WE ARE the ones who give a shit. WE ARE the ones who view ourselves as individuals.

Unfortunately, our passion will drive us to sitting around and bickering about that 20%, instead of focusing on the other 80% that we agree on with the guy sitting next to us. It's really time to get over it.

Okay, so you agree that involuntary taxation is slavery, government education is a joke, gun control should be abolished, and our "war on drugs" is a failure. Why would you piss away your life arguing with the guy standing next to you about whether or not "9/11 was an inside job", instead of focusing on the other 80% of things that matter? See where the 80/20 split is coming into play?

It's just not the "9/11" issue. It could be any number of things, I'm just using that example because it's the one I see most often. We spend so much of our time worrying about that one issue, when we could be spending our time a bit more wisely and proactively.

Those of us within "the movement" know that our "enemy" is statism. We may not agree as to its degree of control over our lives, what it has done, or what should be done about it. We do, however, agree that it is our enemy. Many people disagree with the notion of armed revolt, and just as many disagree with the idea that *not* properly utilizing our lamp posts is a good thing. We all agree that something must be done. Let's get over the bickering, and work toward dismantling Leviathan before it becomes so powerful that our grandchildren's grandchildren will never be left alone...