It's a stressful day for me. But I go anyway- I don't always avoid doing things outside my comfort zone. I think it's good exercise.
It was fine. Lots of food, and too many people. But I think I did well.
There's only one relative I can't bring myself to speak to. Years ago, back in the MySpace age, I had reached an agreement with his siblings to rent a house that their parents had lived in (their mom was in a nursing home). Everything was set, and I was happy because the house was far out of town- just like I prefer (or need).
But then this clown found out about the deal and chimed in. He didn't like my MySpace page. He said that because I was anti-government, I would be cooking meth in the home. So, since he was the eldest sibling, the deal was pulled out from under me at the last minute.
Yes, it was partly his property, but we had a deal.
It caused me problems and cost me. But he imagined himself the Good Guy in his white hat.
I'm still angry about it (if I see him). I sometimes wonder if he now realizes he was wrong, or if he even remembers breaking the deal. Either way, he's not worth my time. I never think about him unless I see him, and I only see him at these reunions. He can go in peace- as long as he goes.
This town may be threatening to impose a lot more property rules on the residents. Seeking to punish anything they subjectively don't want to see. Things like "disrepair", "clutter", and so forth.
I overheard two people talking about this, and one of them- from another town- said about her town, "I wish there were more rules". Then went on to complain about a neighbor who uses his property in a way that she doesn't approve of. She is burdened by what she sees when looking in that direction.
The one from here was practically salivating over all the potential violations she can see around town, saying, "They won't be getting away with this anymore".
This attitude disgusts me.
People have a right to use their property as they see fit- as long as doing so doesn't violate someone else's REAL rights to life, liberty, and property. Being offended by seeing something isn't a violation of your rights. It's a character problem.
"But it brings down property values." Good. Then property taxes will be lower.
There's hardly a house in town that wouldn't be targeted for one thing or another, mine included. And since it's subjective, there's really no way to anticipate what's going to get under the mayor's saddle. We've gone through various enforcement obsessions, where the current rulers get tough on one ridiculous thing or another for a year or so, until they pick something else to be up in arms about, and forget about the previous emergency enforcement situation.
I'm already mad at the town rulers for vandalizing two streets this past week by installing "speed bumps". What's next? Flock spyware?
If the town does go through with it, I will be photographing every "violation" at the mayor's property and putting it online. Yes, I will go to war.
No matter how bad it is for the rest of us.
People get tired of fighting, they can't keep watching, and government intends to have its way with us.
I'm not sure what I can do about it, other than change my attitude and accept that this is the way it is at this time, and keep reminding people that there's a better way.
Is the problem internal to me? Or is there a real danger that I need to be aware of? Statists would say- and have- that it's my problem. That this is just how it is, and if I don't get on board, I'm going to be steamrolled.
If someone is violating life, liberty, or property, they are the bad guys. If they are paying you to help them do any of those things, then you're a bad guy, too.
There's really no wiggle room there.
Or Wiggum room, either.
Calling me a "Democrat", a "Leftist", a "liberal", a "commie", a meth addict, a "criminal", or anything else doesn't work. It never will. I'm on the correct side on this issue.
Here's a selection of replies I copied and pasted (all these from one guy) to me (and others) for saying I oppose Flock cameras, and saying they aren't worth the cost:
"Looks ghey. Ill pass""I'm not reading some liberal garbage trying to turn ppl gay" (Both this and the one above were in response to a link to my newspaper column on the subject)"Go get you some meth money we know the truth about you people.""I don't break the law. I'm cool with them""Go play in a road transtifa""You a scrapper? Lol.""Go watch an episode of first 48 and see how handy these are and solving crime from thugs""N!gga you retarded or a crook. Probably democrat"
The problem for them is, I know what I'm standing up for. It has nothing to do with what they want it to be about. I also see what THEY'RE standing up for, and it's hideous and evil.
The scary thing is, you know these people v*te!!
I don't buy the lies that these cameras are an essential tool for solving crime; I'm not afraid of criminals. Even if they were used that way occasionally, it's not worth the loss of privacy and liberty. Not even close.
But some people are not only OK with them; they crave having them watch you and me 24/7.
That's disturbing. And not very smart.
The United States government is much, MUCH worse than the British government was in 1776. Worse than that ambitious government ever dreamed of being. With higher taxes, more meddling, and more presence. Greater evil.
Most “patriots” pretend otherwise.
I get it. People want to celebrate, and they want to ignore unpleasant realities. They resent those who have a realistic understanding of the situation.
And the Declaration of Independence is celebration-worthy. If only they had meant it. The Constitution showed that they didn't. They wanted a State to sit on the world stage more than they valued independence and loved liberty. "Everyone else is doing it!" So that's what they got. That's what they saddled us with. And it has metastasized into this global Empire we see all around us today.
Make a "patriot" comfortable. Forget independence. "Happy Fourth."
You can go here to see how many of those abominations infest your area. And see where they are and where they are aimed. Then use that information as you will.
Someone needs to invent hand-held directed EMP technology that can disable such things from a distance. Or, if they are shielded from EMPs, lasers to burn them out. That's more responsible than using hunting rifles for that sacred task.
Others have said that FOIA requests, public records requests, and/or audits often result in the cameras being removed to prevent disclosure. If you're legally minded, this might be something to try.
On an individual level, I wonder if a small shelf above the slave plate of your vehicle could prevent the numbers from being seen from the height of those spies. Just a thought. Maybe they see it from too far away for this to work. I wonder if there's any spray that would be unnoticeable to the eye, but opaque to the cameras.
Or, if you just want to avoid being tracked by these things, knowing where they are and where they are aimed can help you.
It's important to track the trackers, regardless.
On the other hand, I'm opposed to whatever appears to be happening in Europe (and, to some extent, in some places in America).
It seems (if the reports are true*) that people are being imported (trafficked)-- which is not the same as "immigration"-- and then allowed to archate, almost to the point of being encouraged to do so, while the "native" population (people who have lived there for multiple generations) is forbidden to defend themselves, prohibited from owning or using proper defensive tools, and punished for doing or saying anything about the current situation.
It's no wonder a movie about a man who decides "enough is enough" is making waves around the world.
This is a government-created problem. Entirely government-created. I don't expect government to solve it, or do anything other than make it worse.
Governments seem to be trafficking in people who don't have many prospects at home, then using them to demoralize the "native" population (to gain more control over them).
No one has the right to archate (by definition), and that includes by forbidding self-defense and defense of property. If you then allow archation to happen by protecting the archators and punishing the victims, you deserve whatever fate befalls you when the chickens come home to roost. And they will. It won't matter that you've made it "illegal".
Anyone who tries to stab or behead a random person in public needs to face a universally armed population, and an eternal dirt nap in the company of worms and maggots. The same goes for any political criminal who tries to punish any defender of such victims. They are just as bad.
-
*I tend to believe the reports are true because of how hard the European governments are trying to suppress them.
I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right).
I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.
I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.
I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.
If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.
If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.
Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.
And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.
Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.
If it results in more money for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more data for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more control for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more employees or dependents for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more "responsibilities" for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more reach for government, I'm against it.
If it results in more government, I'm against it.
I'm also opposed to ubiquitous surveillance. I'm not going to damage some individual's doorbell camera because of this. Nor would I support anyone who does.
Flock cameras and that sort of thing are an entirely different matter. The people who destroy the enemies' spy cameras are heroes to me. They are no more "vandals" than Robin Hood was a "thief". They are fighting back against the nasty modern equivalent of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Or worse.
Flock cameras are tools of anti-American spies; dangerous invaders, even if they were born here.
I'm not proud to have reached this point. But if you're going to put cameras everywhere to provide information to government, you are a bad guy. A terrorist! I want you to lose your investment. I want it to not be worth the effort and expense to replace them, even though I know the political criminals will keep paying out the stolen money for these things because they are determined to rule us. Even if it kills us. Even if it means the end of America.
It's not about safety for you and me, but only for the political criminals who want to know what you're doing every second of every day.
I hate them, and I hate their spy cameras.
The ONLY good Flock camera is a dead Flock camera. I think Independence Day could have a new tradition beginning this year.
But, watching the number of people-- including many rich political criminals-- piling on to encourage other rich people be robbed because they are rich, concerns me. Those rich political criminals fanning the flames of hate, greed, and envy from "public office" have the power to actually hurt other rich people they disagree with by imposing legislation.
I've also seen people advocating rich people be murdered because they are "greedy". Because they aren't willing to waste their money on counterproductive "social programs" that the envious person thinks need the money. Gullible morons listen to them and act.
None of this is OK. It's creating a dangerous situation that risks getting out of control.
So how did theft and murder get so popular? Politics- it makes people stupid and at least a little bit evil, too.
I will continue to speak out against this sort of thing- even while clearly stating that any person who gets rich through the political means isn't innocent. But the solution- the only ethical solution- is to abolish the state, not to steal the money and hand it over to The Ancestral Enemy to be wasted and used against liberty. Giving more money to the state is much worse than letting a greedy, evil person keep their own money.
 |
| And then it blocked me. |
A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule.
It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!
The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed!
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.
Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.
I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.
Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!
