A Veritable Feast Today

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:00:00 GMT
From stanleyscoop:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in one hand, favorite beverage in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!" -- "Jeff Bowman"

From clairefiles:

"We are serfs with firearms. We have the badges of free men, but not the spirit.

"This situation will be corrected one way or the other... we will either lose our serfdom, or our firearms."

-- Boston T. Party

# From Armed Females of America, which, along with Sierra Times, is back in action. The linked site, azgo.org, is "under reconstruction".

A simple plan

# ACLU - The Pizza Order of the Future - this has gone around the net in text form, but they made a Flash video out of it. Shows the computer screen that the person taking your pizza order will see in our distopian future if we don't get the government under control on our privacy. Well done. [claire]

The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your personal life and your habits. They want to track your purchases, your medical records, and even your relationships. The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society.

# Sam T at Ebola World - The George Bush Show, Episode 6 - large Flash video. Some cheap shots at Bush'es intelligence followed by a big-time conspiracy theory. Good for a few chuckles if you've got a fast net connection. Likely not worth the wait over a modem. [root]

# Halffast - Lights Out, Chapter 62, Homecoming is up as the linked PDF (thank you, Obiwan). Yay! It's also at Frugal Squirrel's forum BugMeNot as text (free membership required). Mark's brother tells the tale of his 230-mile hike. High Road discussion on the entire book here. PDFs in ten-chapter increments here (doesn't yet include the latest chapter). [highroad]

# Peter J. Mancus - Letter to Rick Stanley's Sentencing Judge - another tour de force from America's stellar Second Amendment attorney. Linked from my home page, if you want to find it again. [stanleyscoop]

My purpose includes the following: 1) To express support for patriot Rick Stanley who is now a convicted, persecuted, political prisoner in what is suppose to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave under a Constitutional Rule of Law; 2) To express my personal and professional contempt for those prosecutors, sworn peace officers, and judges who had any material role in perverting this nation's laws contrary to Mr. Stanley's rights as enshrined in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which is Mankind's greatest achievement; 3) To sound an alarm; 4) To try to persuade whomever will sentence Mr. Stanley to either dismiss the case with prejudice, despite the conviction, or, in the alternative, at a minimum, to grant Mr. Stanley a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal or to sentence him to the most minimal sentence or both; 5) To try to "influence a public official," as an exercise of my First Amendment rights of Free Speech and to Petition Government for Redress of a Grievance, on Mr. Stanley's behalf; and 6) To dare anyone in Colorado to try to prosecute me successfully for writing this letter, for making it public, and for forwarding it to Mr. Stanley's wife for presentation to you, the sentencing judge, for the purpose of influencing you, hopefully, to be lenient toward Rick Stanley. Facts Briefly, the material facts, as I understand them, follow: 1) Rick Stanley was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for merely carrying a loaded sidearm in a public place, openly, in Colorado, in the belief that the Second Amendment is his nation-wide open carry gun permit; 2) He peacefully, with no criminal intent, merely carried this sidearm, as a responsible exercise of his Second Amendment right; 3) After he was convicted for violating some Colorado or City of Denver ordnance that purported to make what Mr. Stanley did a crime, he represented himself on appeal from that conviction; 4) As his own attorney of record for the open carry violation conviction, he sent a formal legal pleading to two judges in Colorado who had a role in that case, and, in that pleading he claimed he was convicted pursuant to an unconstitutional law, he demanded that these judges overturn the conviction on constitutional grounds, he told them that their failure to do as he requested will trigger a charge of treason against them for their failure to remain faithful to their sworn oath of office to uphold and to defend the U.S. Constitution-which was a condition for them to become judges, and the treason charge would result in a "Mutual Defense Pact Militia warrant" being issued for their arrest if certain specified conditions were not met; 5) A complete copy of this pleading, and the rest of the story, can be found on the Internet at Mr. Stanley's Webpage at: www.stanley2002.org/ ; 6) Mr. Stanley is currently incarcerated; 7) He is scheduled to be sentenced in early September, 2004; 8) He was convicted of two felonious "improperly attempting to influence a public official"by sending them the referenced pleading that he authored and signed; and 9) He faces incarceration of a minimum of about 12 years in prison and a maximum in excess of 30 years in prison.


Apparently, sadly, the Black Robes who presided over Rick Stanley's cases, as a group, have wasted their political capital. They have had their opportunity to prove themselves as Guardians of Liberty. They failed-miserably. Instead, they proved to be Statists who ratcheted us closer to civil war. The rights Stanley stood up for are exactly that-rights, a gift from God, not a privilege which is a matter of Government's grace.

If, ultimately, this nation needs a new lesson in Trigernometry 101, Statists will discover a rule that exists behind the breastbone of all those who value Liberty and who know the ultimate purpose of private arms. That rule is loosely referred to as "Rule .308." Its corollary rules include, but are not limited to, Rule .223, Rule .243, Rule .338.

The Militia is mentioned in the Constitution. When Society's other institution's fail to preserve Liberty, the last institution left with the power to preserve or to restore Liberty is the Militia.

# John Taylor Gatto - The Art of Driving - a chapter from Mr. Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education, available in its entirety at the link. Mr. Gatto is making a documentary, to which you can contribute. [clairefiles]

Now come back to the present while I demonstrate that the identical trust placed in ordinary people two hundred years ago still survives where it suits managers of our economy to allow it. Consider the art of driving, which I learned at the age of eleven. Without everybody behind the wheel, our sort of economy would be impossible, so everybody is there, IQ notwithstanding. With less than thirty hours of combined training and experience, a hundred million people are allowed access to vehicular weapons more lethal than pistols or rifles. Turned loose without a teacher, so to speak. Why does our government make such presumptions of competence, placing nearly unqualified trust in drivers, while it maintains such a tight grip on near-monopoly state schooling?

An analogy will illustrate just how radical this trust really is. What if I proposed that we hand three sticks of dynamite and a detonator to anyone who asked for them. All an applicant would need is money to pay for the explosives. You'd have to be an idiot to agree with my plan--at least based on the assumptions you picked up in school about human nature and human competence.

And yet gasoline, a spectacularly mischievous explosive, dangerously unstable and with the intriguing characteristic as an assault weapon that it can flow under locked doors and saturate bulletproof clothing, is available to anyone with a container. Five gallons of gasoline have the destructive power of a stick of dynamite.3 The average tank holds fifteen gallons, yet no background check is necessary for dispenser or dispensee. As long as gasoline is freely available, gun control is beside the point. Push on. Why do we allow access to a portable substance capable of incinerating houses, torching crowded theaters, or even turning skyscrapers into infernos? We haven't even considered the battering ram aspect of cars--why are novice operators allowed to command a ton of metal capable of hurtling through school crossings at up to two miles a minute? Why do we give the power of life and death this way to everyone?

# Russell Madden at The Foundation for Economic Education - One Freedom - Perspectives on the meaning of "freedom" from Mr. Madden's college comunications class. Personally, I use the word "liberty" instead. We are absolutely free to do whatever we want, and suffer the consequences. Free will is an integral part of being human. It has nothing to do with society. What I want from society is the liberty to excercise that freedom without societal infringements as long as that excercise doesn't directly harm another person. My liberty to swing my fist ends at the end of your nose. [clairefiles]

Every semester I have my communications students define three abstract concepts: love, justice, and freedom. Inevitably, it is the discussion of freedom that generates the greatest amount of controversy and disagreement.

Many of the definitions the students offer contain some suggestion that freedom means acting without limits. You can be free, they imply, only if you are able to do whatever you want or desire. Even if "whatever" includes doing violence to other individuals, even killing them? Yes, they say.

These same students then contend that society could not survive without imposing limits on people in the form of laws, rules, and regulations. Since this is the case, they conclude that we cannot truly be free. The whole notion is a pleasant fiction but wholly impractical.


Freedom is of one piece. It is absolute within its proper context. For those who raise such specious examples as traffic lights "limiting" freedom, it is not the concept of freedom that is lacking but the critic's understanding of when and where such an idea is, in fact, relevant. In a social and political context, freedom "has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion" (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal; emphasis in original). Often labeled "negative freedom," this concerns not the ability to do something but rather the situation in which one's actions are not interfered with by the initiation of force by other people, especially the government.

As for traffic lights, the above definition of freedom explains why such signals and the police power behind them do not imply a limiting of one's freedom. If a driver believed "freedom" meant the right to pass through any intersection whenever he desired, he would pose an immediate physical danger to other unsuspecting drivers using those same roadways. But no one has the right--the freedom--to expose other individuals to the risk of physical harm without their permission. Such an action would constitute an "initiation of force" and thus be incompatible with freedom.


As long as people are not subject to the initiation of physical force, they are free. One does not trade one freedom for another. My freedom does not conflict with yours. Freedom is not "nice in theory but impossible in practice." It forms the essence of proper social relationships, the foundation of a benevolent society, the only way to establish the foundations of morality. Voluntary action leads to personal confidence, individual well-being, and tolerance of differences. Forced action leads to personal doubt, individual degradation, and exacerbation of resentment, envy, and hatred.

One cannot be "partially free." Freedom in a social context is all or nothing. One is either free or one is not. What is possible to discuss in terms of degrees is slavery. Once coercion enters the picture, principles vanish. Our "freedom" today is ours by permission, revocable whenever one group or another grows strong enough to impose its will on the rest.


One can describe "political," "economic," and "moral" freedoms just as one can describe a person's head or arms or legs. But attempting to separate one segment from another, to pretend one aspect can exist unharmed and in isolation from another, is to do violence to the very concept in question. Politicians may encourage the fiction that they can regulate economic freedom while leaving political freedom intact, but both logic and history prove them wrong.

Freedom is a necessary condition for those who would live a truly human existence, and property rights are how we implement that freedom. One can no more detach the two and still say freedom exists than one could detach a head from its body and say the person still lives.

# Old Horseman - The Bill of Rights: First vs Second Amendments - wonderfully clear and concise analysis of what the first two amendments in the Bill or Rights actually say, and how they are currently interpreted. [smith2004]

So, what the First Amendment actually says is:
Congress shall not make any law formally establishing a national religion for the United States of America. Congress shall not completely prohibit the exercise of religion, although it may regulate or place some limitations upon it. Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of people to peaceably assemble to petition the Government for a redress of grievances... Other branches of the national Government, as well as the Governments of the several States and the subordinate Governments therein, may still do as they please regarding the establishment of official religions, outlawing religious practices, limiting or outlawing free speech, press, or the right to assemble.
Yet, somehow, the First Amendment gets read to say this:
No level of Government or publicly-funded business or organization shall support, acknowledge, or show any form of respect for Judeo-Christian tradition or beliefs in any way at any time. Nor shall there be any censorship of speech, press, or expression except for "hate speech" (which is to say anything espousing traditional Judeo-Christian views or contrary to Liberal PC doctrine). Nor shall the right of some people to peaceably (or not so peaceably) assemble for any form of Liberal protest or demonstration be infringed, even if said people are trespassing upon private property or endangering other people.
The Second Amendment says:
A well trained and prepared population of civilians with their own private weaponry is necessary to the security of any free State. No one may infringe upon the right of any American to keep and bear any and all arms he may see fit at any time or any place in any manner.
Yet, somehow, the Second Amendment gets read to say this:
Only the National Guard is necessary to the Security of a free State. The right of the Government to keep and bear arms shall be preserved. Some citizens may be allowed a limited privilege to own some hunting and sporting weapons, within restrictions set at will by any level of Government, including non-elected bureaucrats. Such weapons as the Government decides to allow citizens to own must be stored, transported, and borne in accordance with strict (and frequently arbitrary) Government regulations. Such weapons must be manufactured to meet Government requirements, and records must be kept from the moment of manufacture through the eventual Government-overseen destruction of each weapon. Citizens wishing to own said weapons must pay fees, undergo background checks, submit to Government approved training and evaluation, agree to waive various human, civil, and Constitutional rights, and agree to keep their recorded information up-to-date to make eventual Government confiscation of their weapons more efficient.

# Old Horseman - The Bill of Rights: A Mixed Blessing? - the U.S. Constitution, didn't really need a Bill of Rights. It's good that those rights are stated explicitly, but unfortunately, lots of people have the mistaken notion that if it ain't in the Bill of Rights, government can trample all over it. [smith2004]

# Tara Tuckwiller at The Charleston (WV) Gazette - Couple in anti-Bush T-shirts were arrested at president's speech - Wear a politically incorrect garment, go to jail, in Bushtapo territory. [root]

# Mad Ogre - July 16th, Friday, 2004: Lunchtime - Mad Ogre still doesn't have permalinks, so you'll have to search for this one. Good commentary on the Washington post story BugMeNot everyone's linking to about open carry in Virginia.

This is important. Especially if you are in a state that allows open carry. What the police are doing just doesn't fly. They are trying to enforce illegal gun control through intimidation.

I don't give a rat's ass how "polite" the police are... mere presence is the first rung on the "Use of Force Ladder" as taught by the instructors at my police academy from which I graduated only 6 points from the top of my class.

For a cop to be at the restaurant as a response to a call is fine. But when the officer sees clearly that no threat is apparent, there is no trouble, and everything is cool -- I don't think the officers should disturb the party by interrupting and questioning them. If the party was acting strangely in a way that the officer can verbally articulate as probably cause -- then the officer would be within his rights to disrupt the people in their rights. Having a gun on ones hip is not an indication that evil is afoot. Look at the cop's own hip, and what is hanging off of it.


Let me clarify something. I support the police and consider most of them to be fine or even outstanding people. Perhaps some do not even realize what they are doing. I know I am going to catch some flak for this... but as good and outstanding persons as you cats are; if you are in uniform and on duty, I don't want to talk to you. Because you are an instrument of the State and I wish to live without The State on my back. If I am not breaking any laws -- I don't want to see you, I don't want to speak to you. Sorry. I don't. If you get off duty, take off the badge, and you want to chat or go get some grub or some Cold Ones... it's all good. There are no hard feelings there.

# Bob Barr at FindLaw's Writ - The Federal Marriage Amendment: Why Conservatives and Liberals Alike Should Be Very Glad It Failed - no matter what your opinion is on gay marriage, you should be very glad that the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to pass. It would have been the first time the Constitution had been used to explicitly limit the rights of we the people. It would have opened the door for other restrictions, from both left and right. [muth]

# Gunner - CAPPS II is dead and not dead - apparently the name "CAPPS II" is dead, but the idea of creating a huge database of information to be used to deny airplane travel to us peons lives on (in infamy).

# Kristopher K. Barrett at The Claire Files - Building an AR-15 - Mr. Barrett is building an AR-15 from parts, and posting photos as he goes. He threatened to finish an 80% receiver himself just to illustrate the process, but then bought a lower. [clairefiles]

# KT Ordnance - Products - Mr. Kristi has moved his operation from New Hampshire to Montana and added a few tools to his 80% firearms receivers product list. I updated the address and sample price on my Arms Manufacturers page.

# CNC Gunsmithing is a web site by "Justin", aka jwh02017, illustrating some guns the author made with receivers fabricated on the CNC machines in his father's machine shop. Kule. [ktordnance]

Add comment Edit post Add post