It's a tragedy to see.
I just wish there was a way to avoid being collateral damage during their carnival of self-destruction.
It's completely beyond them why anyone would oppose those things. (Some feel the same about the spyware.)
It doesn't matter how clearly you explain. Some say they supposedly "hate government", too.
They have a deep-seated desire to "respect" those who are the greatest danger to their liberty. A much greater threat than anyone in any other country.
In TV and movies, there are good cops and good military pawns. That's called fiction. Many people fall for the propaganda because they can't distinguish between reality and fiction.
I blame govschooling and the media.
Yes, I realize some of those government personnel were fooled into joining. Some were pressured and couldn't resist. Some didn't see another path. Some needed the money. Some thought it would make them respected. They were innocent victims... at first.
Some wanted to do good. They failed.
Some craved the power they saw coming from such a position- either immediately or down the line. Those are the truly evil ones.
The harsh reality is that they are all hurting, not helping. They are empowering the state by remaining on the "job". That's not an ethical thing to do. It doesn't earn my respect or my thanks. Please quit!
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.
He pointed out that you and I have no expectation of (or right to) privacy in public spaces. You aren't protected by the 4th Amendment in such cases. He says, "Don't hate the players, hate the game". And, that it's just too bad if this upsets "Flock haters".
I have some thoughts on this.
You need to hate the players, too, because they choose to play the game, knowing it's wrong.
Guys like this are why more and more people are getting smart and hating cops. He is siding with government by excusing what it is doing- saying only the Supreme Court can decide otherwise.
I recognize that I have no expectation of privacy in public. I've noticed people taking photos of me more times than I could ever keep track of. It doesn't bother me. The difference is "regular people" aren't photographing me in order to track and control me; to use against me later. Government and its partners in crime are.
Only a cop or other vile government supremacist could pretend not to see the difference.
What about his Bill of Rights claim? The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to random strangers, it applies only to government and those working for government. It doesn't bind you and me; it binds government.
If government is looking for a loophole, that is exactly the situation where there can't be a loophole. Government has no right to photograph or track us because government has no rights. None.
This guy would have been making excuses for slave traders- because that essentially what he's doing now. If that's "patriotic", keep that junk away from me.
Just say "no" to spyware.
The only good Flock camera is a dead Flock camera.
It should also be obvious that the lies all skew in one direction: to make government seem less harmful, less evil, more competent, more essential than it is.
It's also obvious, since government still exists, that most people believe most of the lies. They believe the ones they want to be true, while rejecting the ones they don't want to be true. (Politics makes people stupid.)
They might believe that cops are the good guys, that the government military is securing "our freedom", or that anti-gun rules and Flock cameras keep us safe. Maybe they believe environmental laws protect the environment, or that govschools educate children. Some seem to believe that only a government can create a long, smooth surface.
Why would anyone believe these things, against all objective observation?
Because government told them so.
And even if they know government lies about the things they don't believe, they'll fall right into the lies that they want to believe. They leap in with their arms wide and their eyes closed.
And they'll hate you if you don't join them.
Hating their fellow humans. Choosing a criminal institution over people. All because government lies.
Then a Blue Line Mafia goon, commonly called a "police officer", alerted to a possible "sovereign citizen" [sic] by the Flock cameras he was watching his ex with, rushed to the scene to cause trouble.
Cop: "License, registration, and the animal's health certificate and vaccination records."
Yankee Doodle: "What?"
Cop: "You heard me. Are you resisting?"
Yankee Doodle: "...?"
Cop: "Where are you going, what is your business there, and where are you coming from?"
Yankee Doodle: "Why?"
Cop: "I need your identification."
Yankee Doodle: "My name is Yankee Doodle."
Cop: "That's obviously an alias, and that gives me reasonable suspicion to arrest you."
Yankee Doodle: "What's going on?"
Cop: "Do you have anything on you that I need to know about?"
Yankee Doodle: "No."
Cop: "I smell marijuana- possibly alcohol, too, and is that a gun?"
Yankee Doodle: "I don't understand the questions. This is America."
Cop: "Hey, that looks like an eagle feather in your cap. You're going to prison, boy!"
Yankee Doodle: "I found this feather on the ground, but I don't know what kind it is. I call it my 'macaroni'."
Cop: "So, you are on drugs... "
Yankee Doodle: "What? No, 'macaroni' means..."
Cop: "Stop resisting! DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND HAND ME YOUR PAPERS!!"
In the scuffle, while attacking an innocent traveler and dragging him from his horse, the cop manages to shoot himself in the foot because of the extraordinarily dangerous situation he created.
Cop: "SHOTS FIRED! Officer down! Send backup NOW!!!!!!"
FOX News reports that a probable Antifa-affiliated Democratic Socialist commie attacked and injured a heroic officer who was just trying to keep us all safe. "He should have complied faster." Fortunately for the sake of "lawn odor", he was neutralized by the responding thugscrum. Two officers were injured in the firefight, but it isn't clear who fired those shots. The department promises to "thoroughly investigate" itself before finding that none of its officers did anything wrong.
CNN reports that another "white nationalist" has committed "gun violence", which shows again that only government employees can be trusted to have guns.
MSNBC, or whatever it calls itself now, sat and drooled while eating crayons and paste.
As it is, about the most I could do around here is sit in my yard, near the intersection, and stare at the dirt. Or I could go into someone's cotton field and stare at the dirt. Less fulfilling than you might imagine.
What triggered this?
Seeing the things that "normal people" say about how government treats us and our rights makes me feel sick. Seeing how they'll excuse any violation, saying "if you don't like it, change the law" is disappointing. Any spirit has been drained from these people.
I know it's frowned upon to say so, but they are sheeple. Less than sheep- sheep still have some spark of survival instinct, even if it is weak. There's no animal as ethically weak and empty as a government supremacist bootlicker.
These people will tolerate anything if government tells them it's necessary. I honestly doubt anything could ever cross the line and make them stand up. Their love for legislative rules is too overpowering for them to resist. Oh, they'll protest a little when their puppetmasters tell them to hate a president, but that's about it. And half the time, they'll get that wrong.
The modern world has worn thin for me. Again. I'll probably get over it. Again. At least for a while.
Until then, I'll be the weird neighbor throwing knives and tomahawks in my nonexistent backyard, practicing firemaking in the living room, thinking of things I wish I could order (but don't need), and watching lots of mountainman videos.
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.
It shouldn't require any training as a lawyer or any political expertise whatsoever; just the ability to read and understand what you're reading. (I know that's asking a lot these days.)
This is how complicated it should be:
Someone brings a government rule, policy, or legislation to you.
You read it.
You observe if it is something the Constitution explicitly allows government to do, based on what is actually written, not on interpretations or political wishes...
And then you rule on it by that standard and none other.
Easy-peasy.
An AI could easily do it (although crooked political humans would corrupt the programming for their political agendas).
Does the Constitution explicitly allow government to do this? Let it stand.
Does the Constitution not explicitly allow government to do this? Gone immediately. No delay; no scrambling to save it or to find a way around it. Just gone this instant.
Only political criminals would make it harder or more complicated than that. Yes, that means 99% or more of the government would be done for. That's a good first step.
My evaluation of their performance is even easier: If they rule in favor of government power, they got it wrong. Every time.
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.
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.
Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present).
Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.
I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people.
Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.
And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.
-
*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.
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!
They made calls to several agencies; no one would help, but everyone reminded them it was illegal to keep the hawk.
Government is garbage.
Back when I did a lot of wildlife rescue, I didn't ask permission. I didn't talk about what I was doing. I knew it was "illegal", but I didn't care. I even had state wildlife officials bring me an injured bird of prey once. And he recovered and went free about a month later.
Yes, it was more common for "authorities" to look the other way back then. They are much worse now.
I didn't volunteer to help this person, since their social media post has made the situation public- even more public than calling around asking for help had already done. Plus, they said they had done as they were told and released the hawk to its fate.
When the laws are wrong, good people ignore the laws and bad people enforce the laws.
I did reply to the post, suggesting they keep "authorities" out of the loop and not post about such things in the future, but just do what they can to help. I know the group's resident copsucker will tell me to stay out of it because it's none of my business (she's done it before).
Whether it's intentionally spreading a disease that makes people allergic to red meat, trying to criminalize self-defense, collecting all our data to use against us, or filling the streets with their weaponized drones, it's for "the common good".
And, yet, they'll lie and claim that those of us who don't want any of this garbage are imposing our wishes on others. On them. Oh, the poor babies!
No, this goes only one way.
Telling the control fetishists to leave us alone isn't us imposing our will on them. It's drawing a boundary and telling them we expect it to be respected. They can do whatever they want to each other, just leave us out of it.
