Bull Frog
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
The High Road - rec'd the following from JPFO, might prove of interest - this is the thread from which I got the link to the JPFO alert that I mentioned yesterday. I said that I thought that if a cop attempts to disarm you at a traffic stop when he finds out that you have a CCW permit, you should stop him, with extreme prejudice. This understandably shocked a few of the discussion participants. So I explained myself thus (edited slightly from what I posted):
I tend to shock people when I speak candidly. I used to be sorry for that, but no longer. The time for pussy-footing around is past. It is, in my opinion, very likely impossible to regain our lost liberty by peaceful means. Wish it weren't so.
I have not come to the place I'm at idly. I have read and thought about it hard for the last four years. It's been over two years since I realized that the war on (some) drugs is a crime and everyone involved in its enforcement is a criminal. When I changed my focus to the right to keep and bear arms, it didn't take long to realize that the gun laws are also a crime, a much worse crime, and everyone involved in enforcing them is also a criminal, a much worse criminal.
I started a thread a while back on the LEO board at ar15.com, asking the assembled Law Enforcement Officers* whether they had experienced a conflict between honoring their oath to protect & defend the Constitution and their duty to enforce the law. Not a single one could think of a single existing law that would cause them to experience that conflict.
And the courts have agreed, over and over. The drug war exceptions to the Bill of Rights, especially the fourth amendment, are legion. "Compelling state interest" or some other blatant hogwash. Laws forbidding simple possession of anything are incompatible with the fourth amendment. But instead of ruling on their obvious unconstitionality, time and again the courts have weakened our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. So a person who cares about his right to remain unmolested, barring presentation of a warrant, issued upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, has no choice in today's world but to defend his property against all comers, uniformed or not.
Not that we can challenge unconstitutional laws in the courts. We peons don't have "standing" unless we've been arrested for violating the law. So in order to even make a Constitutional test, we must put our liberty in jeopordy.
And the same goes, in spades, for the right to keep and bear arms. There are enough bad cops out there that I need to be able to defend myself, at all times. That a cop would attempt to disarm me makes it more likely, from my perspective, that his intentions are evil. Any cop who thinks that his safety conflicts with my Constititutionally guaranteed rights needs to find another line of work.
Personally, I've seen too many stories of bad cops and kangaroo courts. I have lost my respect for both the police and the courts. I am an outlaw. I can rely on no one but myself for the security of myself and my family. But I am not a criminal. I do not hurt other people or steal or damage their property. And should I do so unintentionally, I make restitution. Yet I am afraid of the government, afraid of the police. They are much more likely to cause me harm than un-uniformed criminals. And at least the un-uniformed are honest about their criminality. The Mafia doesn't attempt to mask their protection racket by calling it "law". But the government steals half my income in taxes, and people are so well brainwashed that they look at me funny when I call it theft.
I'll end with my two favorite L. Neil Smith quotes.
From The Atlanta Declaration:
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."
Posted by Neil at the smith2004-discuss Yahoo group:
"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
"I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
Footnote:
Law Enforcement Officers* - gawd, how I despise that term. It contains within it everything that's wrong with our government. Any law that needs to be enforced has no right to be. Real crime is reported by a victim or a witness. There is no need for the police to go out looking for it. And soliciting it (sting operations) is disgusting, despicable. No victim, no crime, no matter how many people voted for it.
Albany (NY) Times Union Editorial - Patriotic doubts - two top Justice Department "officials", one who helped draft it, have spoken out about the dangers of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in the light of the continued imprisonment, without charges or legal counsel, of Jose Padilla.
How might the attorney general respond to arguments that he's discarding the principle of habeas corpus? What might President Bush say? Or all the senators who voted to confirm Mr. Ashcroft as attorney general, or all those in Congress who support the Patriot Act? As it happens, the word comes from an official Justice Department spokesman that the case of Mr. Padilla is off-limits as long as it's pending in court.
Sorry, not good enough. Not when what's actually pending in court is the very legality of detaining criminal suspects under the conditions Mr. Padilla finds himself incarcerated. Let's hear the government's argument for indefinite detention without legal representation. Oh, and pardon us if we interpret the lack of an argument as further evidence that there is no plausible argument.
Michael C. Ruppert at From the Wilderness - The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11 - why Mr. Rupert has not been pushing the physical evidence that proves the official 9/11 story cannot be true. It won't make any more difference than the physical evidence disproving the official stories of the JFK and RFK murders. [smith2004]
"I don't for a minute believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. And no one has ever seen a video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon because there isn't one. It doesn't look like the WTC towers collapsed because of the impacts and the way that they collapsed doesn't make sense. But if I, with some measure of journalistic credibility, and my readers on Capitol Hill and in universities start writing stories about these things, I wind up in either a journalistic suicide mission, or in the improbable place of having to explain where the airliner that didn't hit the Pentagon went or how the towers were brought down. There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."
Garry Reed, The Loose Cannon Libertarian - The Moneycrats of Oz - run a stupid wasteful ineffective advertisement, and what would a normal company get? No more ad money. But what does a government organization that does this get? More ad money. "Drug Money Supports Terror", "1-800-MEDICARE", the new twenty dollar bill, the war on obesity. Grrr...
KeepAndBearArms.com - Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Second Amendment Case - Silveira v. Lockyer will not be heard by the Supremes. [smith2004]
People are sitting in jails and prisons for nothing more than exercising their Second Amendment rights -- and these Justices know it. But they obviously prefer letting innocent people rot in prison to doing their job for the Bill of Rights.
A more thorough statement is forthcoming. For now, we wanted people to hear it from us rather than on the streets or from some gloating pack of gun grabbers.
Claire Wolfe at Backwoods Home Magazine - Santa's Subversive Stocking Stuffers - some holiday gift ideas from Hardyville. [claire]
Kim du Toit - Kel-Tec Sub 2000 (9mm, .40 S&W) - Kim reviews my newest toy. [kimdutoit]
I know that all guns give the GFW Brigade fits, but, like Orwell's animals, some guns must give more fits than others.
I would imagine that an inexpensive gun constructed largely of plastic polymers which can fold up for easy concealment would therefore rank high on the "Guns Which Frighten Dianne Feinstein" list.
Such as the Kel-Tec SUB-2000, for instance.
The Bull Frog division of Cortec Corporation sells innovative products to protect metal against corrosion. Their products were featured (PDF) in the January, 2004 issue of Guns Magazine. Rust inhibiting emitters, rust removing liquids, firearm cleaners, lubricants, and wipes, oil, coolant, and fuel additives, gun sleeves, motorcycle and car cocoons. From the ZAP Enterprises Bull Frog page, where you can purchase the full line on sale for the fall:
All BullFrog products contain metal-seeking VpCls that seal and protect metals with a self-repairing "Molecular Umbrella". This "Molecular Umbrella" seals metals against the air and moisture that cause rust and corrosion. BullFrog VpCIs bond electrochemically with metal surfaces to form this protective "Molecular Umbrella".I ordered an Emitter Cup for my safe and a package of Gun Wipes.
