Having done nothing at all
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 3rd, 2019 at 7:48 pm
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” — Ayn Rand
I’ve added to that the notion that government, and true criminals (the violators of the rights of others), are de facto allies, that the more innocent (for no one is purely innocent) are the enemies of both. The more innocent the man, and the more bright and thoughtful in the pursuit of truth, the greater the threat he poses to the de facto alliance.
Wasn’t it Stalin who said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime”, or something similar? Same concept. Either you’re a genuine criminal because you violate the rights of others, or you’re a “criminal” only because the government says so, because they couldn’t get you any other way, the latter being the primary target.
Getting down to the basics, we have the Ten Commandments (the original ones, not the ones re-written by the papacy), which are perfect and complete, and spell this all out, and on the other hand we have people of criminal mind who reject the Commandments outright, because they are criminals. Worse still are those who, in their lust for status, station and “authority” seek to place themselves above the giver of the Commandments and sit in His place.
This is where Ayn Rand could not go; to that basic, ancient and Great Controversy between the devil and the Savior.
January 3rd, 2019 at 10:20 pm
I thought it was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the NKVD under Lenin who said, “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime”, but it’s such a trenchant saying about citizens obeying the law under a police state, it doesn’t really matter.
Certainly it kept Stalin’s work project camps filled in the 1930’s.
January 4th, 2019 at 12:13 am
I will bet a dollar that nobody comes after this guy. The last thing Boulder wants is a court case where their unconstitutional law is reviewed by competent authorities.
January 4th, 2019 at 1:06 am
They won’t come after the gun.
And they won’t come after the man, right now.
They don’t have to. Because by virtue of him being a sudden felon, with all that implies and entails, loss of rights and persona non grata, they own him now.
They can come for him later, when it suits them.
January 4th, 2019 at 10:47 am
Lyle, very well-said!
January 5th, 2019 at 5:34 pm
We’re ALL guilty of ‘something’… sigh
January 6th, 2019 at 12:32 pm
JTC, we will have to see. Boulder city is notorious for being petty and vindictive. But the city attorney and police chief are clearly not supportive of the ludicrous ordinance.
January 6th, 2019 at 6:10 pm
SPQR, no prosecution and conviction, no felony record.
It will be the same for now in fla where our scared rabbit republican governor now senator slapped a package on us that put us in the company of NY, MD, and Cali. But his replacement and more importantly the three new scotus that will be a solid conservative majority will buy us some time and hopefully nix that shit.
But make no mistake; they have decided that using manufactured after the fact felonies to attain control and strip us of our rights and ability to defend them is their way forward. They won’t stop trying.
January 6th, 2019 at 8:41 pm
there’s more potential in red flag laws, because those won’t grow sympathetic news columns like Caldara self-identifying did.
Every seizure will be trumpeted in the media as “we just saved a life!!1!!111!” They’ll base seizures on an edgy social media post, or a disagreement with a provocative neighbor.
And yes they’ll circle back for Caldara when the conditions favor them.