Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Living Freedom by Claire Wolfe. Musings about personal freedom and finding it within ourselves.

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Claire Wolfe

Sometimes I am so afraid

Saturday, January 26th, 2013

Sometimes I am so afraid.

Since Newtown, I’ve been afraid — as I suspect we all have despite our anarchic bravado — of what the hoplophobes and control freaks will try to do to us with the deeds of one hopped-up wacko as their excuse.

I’m not afraid of DiFi’s proposed “assault weapon” ban. Oh, don’t mistake me; I hate it, despise it, loathe it, and have many unspeakable thoughts about it. But I don’t fear it. It probably won’t pass. And as we know even better than the banners, even if it did, it’s all about cosmetics. We’d be losing rights but only scraps of fuctionality.

The thing I most fear is a ban on private sales.

Nothing would stop private sales, of course. It’s just that every private sale could be a threat of 10 years in prison. And we’d learn to distrust people who ought to be our peaceable trading partners: “Is this one an agent provocateur?” “Will that one snitch if they put pressure on him?”

A private-sale ban is even more fearsome because the NRA and the R-Party will go for that one, and the most gun-hating people in Congress (Lautenberg and McCarthy) are already customizing bills to give their alleged opponents something to “compromise” on.

Some FFLs will even be in favor or it because they’ll think it’s a way to use government against the competition. Or force more of us to bring them transfer and background check business.

It’ll be only a closing of the true “gun-show loophole” at first. You and I will still be able to sell our possessions privately to our neighbors and friends. The NRA will tell us what a “reasonable” compromise they helped achieve and oh by the way, send Your Great Protectors another contribution.

But when tightening the screws on gun shows doesn’t halt violent crime — and it won’t — then … well, you know.

But of course, a lot of us are not going to fall for any of this. We’ve already made up our minds not to cooperate because government must never be allowed to know where all the guns are. They must never be allowed to know.

Because once they know, the fuzzy line we’ve all argued about for years is fuzzy no more: we will have crossed from being free people to being serfs. Not to mention easy victims.

And that’s why a private sale ban is so much worse than losing the easy ability to have “a shoulder thing that goes up.” Because there will be some compliance. Too much of it. And there will be grand non-compliance.

So sometimes I am very afraid. Not that DiFi and Carolyn McCarthy will come marching door-to-door to pull our “liberty’s teeth.” (I’d love to see them try; and let them bring Chuckie Schumer, Josh Sugarman, Frank Lautenberg, and Barack Obama along for the task.)

But afraid of living in a war zone. Maybe not all-out war; I’d be surprised to see that in my lifetime (thank heaven). But something like the gang wars of Prohibition at least — the fedgov being the biggest gang. Sporadic violence; but always the threat. Never the sound sleep at night.

I can see secession, too. A wall of Rocky Mountain west states rises between east and left coasts. Eastern Washington and Oregon join Idaho rather than go on living under Puget or Portlandia rules.

That part’s a little exciting. No, a lot exciting. But still … too “interesting” in the Chinese-curse sense to wish for. You know what’s going to happen when DC, New York, and Massachusetts declare war on Wyoming and Idaho.

I wish these people who are so eager to have their agents control us would just quit poking the sleeping rattlesnake with a stick. The rattler won’t hurt you if you leave it the heck alone. Because they won’t leave it alone — and because I really don’t think they understand the power they’re so eager to let loose (and I mean the power on both sides — their government’s power to do evil and Americans’ power to stand when standing is undeniably needed) — I am so afraid.

But now is not the time to be afraid.

—–

To be continued …

39 Responses to “Sometimes I am so afraid”

  1. MJR Says:

    Hey Claire,

    When the Canadian government brought in registration of all firearms including non restricted ones (long guns) they put in place the requirement that all gun owners had to be licensed and all sales/registrations had to go through the RCMP. The work around that kept a lot of sales legal but not registered was to lease the firearm. The agreement worked by writing a lease agreement that covered the cost of the firearm for a term of a 100 years. There was a lot of bluster from the feds but in the end, the lease agreements held up in court. This looks like the solution for the person to person sales dilemma.

  2. Claire Says:

    Wonderful Canadian solution to a Canadian problem. And you guys did eventually beat back that registry, didn’t you? And wasn’t the compliance rate something downright silly?

    But I don’t think leases are a solution for us. I suppose some might try it — though courts in the U.S. are much likely to side with the fedgov. But for us, if private sales are banned, there is no polite, Canadian solution.

    You guys were the ones who sided with King George III, remember?

  3. Victor Milán Says:

    Of course there’ll be compliance. Especially from the NRA and other cop-groupie types.

    There will be even more noncompliance. Which is a thing the government cannot afford. And since when has that stopped them?

    The “loophole closing” will immediately and inevitably increase black market transactions.

    I’m not eager to live in the implosion of the current order. It is however coming, for a number of causes. Indeed, it’s happening – has been for a while. There will come a point at which it accelerates catastrophically. And the harder the government presses for a firearms ban, the more likely they are to trigger a complete breakdown.

    I understand feeling fearful. In my case, that kind of fear isn’t my friend, because it saps the very resources I’ll need most to prepare for trouble – and deal with it when it happens.

    It might be worth reminding yourself, when you feel fear, that you’re already more advanced than most of us in preparing for what’s ahead and getting closer.

  4. Jim B. Says:

    As the Prof. from Heinlein’s Moon is a Harsh Mistress said, “When laws are tolerable, I tolerate them, when I find them intolerable I break them.” But yeah, others would be the weak links.

    Get kits and 80% receivers, get a lathe and mill and learn how to use them. Get ammo whenever and where-ever you can and stock up.

    As for when the conflict finally comes, well, the saying on the back of this shirt best sum up my out-look on the matter:

    http://www.rangerup.com/warriorclass.html

    Let me pay the price so other don’t have to.

  5. Logan Fyfe Says:

    Gonzalez,Texas vs Albany, New York

    http://www.freeimagehosting.net/eie9p

  6. Richard Says:

    As I’ve said before. When people are faced with ten years imprisonment for a non-crime it will end badly. I’ve had a fascination with seeing how much people take before they snap and the reaction over the past few years. And let me tell you that they snap for far less and the reactions range from suicidal to all out one person war. This doesn’t end well if the psychos in the District of Criminals pass anything like you pose in your article. That much I know and your forecast is spot on.

  7. Joel Says:

    You guys were the ones who sided with King George III, remember?

    Ouch. It’s January in Canada, Claire. Don’t dump on the poor slobs more than they’re already getting. ;^P

  8. Kent McManigal Says:

    I can’t make myself be afraid. And I’m not sure why. I really don’t want my kids to have to live in the world I see coming- but my wants don’t seem to matter much to the universe.

    So, I’ll just do what I do.

    Oh, and that rattlesnake isn’t sleeping anymore. ;)

  9. Bear Says:

    Claire, you’re a lot more optimistic than I. I recall other people saying the ’94 AWB wouldn’t pass (mostly because they just knew the Democrats would be afraid of what would happens at the polls next). Of course, I recall even SKS prices going through the roof because more folks weren’t so sanguine.

    I doubt that the dumbass’s AWB 2013 will pass as currently written (but given Heller, I’m not going to wager on that); it’s the coming “compromises” that worry me (among other things; see my first-look S150 analysis: http://www.bussjaeger.org/s150_analysis.html). Great Ghu, the b@st@rds are starting with legislation to specifically limit the Constitution. I’m not really a Constitutionalist; at best it’s seriously flawed, but at least it used to be a poorly constructed dike that held back some of the flood waters. No more.

    I do think that universal background checks are a shoo-in. Too damned many people refuse to see the problems inherent, the Dems want it for future confiscation, the Reps want it for “law enforcement”.

    This…
    Victor Milán: “I’m not eager to live in the implosion of the current order. It is however coming, for a number of causes.”
    Richard: “And let me tell you that they snap for far less and the reactions range from suicidal to all out one person war. “
    …is why it worries me. Like Victor, I think an implosion is going to happen. Probably the slow leak sort, but — again — I’m not optimistic enough to bet on it. Like Richard, I see a lot of people on the edge. They won’t take well to a rapid implosion. A lot won’t take well to anything.

    But they aren’t snapping for “far less”. They’re snapping (and will snap) for more. They’ve been piling up years of frustration with being demonized in the media, seeing their net worth evaporate due to “QE” and other inflationary practices, being blown off and laughed at by “their” legislators.

    But the ones who “snap” still aren’t the ones DC should worry about. The ones who suddenly snap now will mainly react without much thinking or planning. They’ll go out in fast, relatively harmless, isolated blazes of glory.

    The problem is the folks who already quietly broke, and are just treading water. They just don’t care much anymore. They don’t see a lot of point in holding on and working to fix things. They think; they’ve been thinking. And they can plan. I think the feds recognize this problem; I think that’s precisely why there has been so much emphasis on “mental health checks”. They aren’t concerned about stopping real pyschos like the Columbine/VT/Tucson/Aurora/Newtown shooters. All those guys had clear histories of trouble; most had been reported for just that. The feds want to find the quiet, rational guys with no hope and a plan, who are a threat to DC.

    Because those guys are a hundred/thousand/million one-man trained guerilla units. Shock units.

  10. EN Says:

    I’m afraid, but definitely not because of gun grabbers. Everything in my soul tells me there’s more to this than meets the eye. I believe they’re trying to establish the premise that the constitution, and much of our case law, is void. But it won’t work out like it does in their international socialist wet dreams. It will be messy and complicated and law will break down far faster then they anticipated as they have no way of controlling it. In Mordor they believe they are the law… but wait until they find out that the rest of us don’t believe it. It would be my guess that before Obama’s term is up he will be the Mayor of Mordor, and have little control beyond that. And that won’t be as pretty as some Libertarians dream. I was reading in Drudge about gangs kicking blacks out of neighborhoods they traditionally controlled. Right before the election a Hispanic gentleman of some education informed me that “It’s not whites who are the problem, it’s blacks. The ones that are not on welfare work at the DMV, so naturally it doesn’t work very well.” Not exactly the truth, but like all such statements, there’s a large element of truth involved. I fear the future way beyond our current overlords ability to change it. A slow burning chaos is developing. I know if I hide my guns I’ll find a use for them. Our idiot overlords are not going to gain control, they’re going to lose it. And what comes next? That will be the worry. I guarantee you it won’t be the rule of law.

  11. MamaLiberty Says:

    I’m very afraid for my sons and grandchildren, still living in California without much hope of getting out any time soon. I am afraid for my friends and coorespondents all over the country who live in or near big cities. That is where this conflict will be centered, and it’s not going to wait until the PTB attempt gun confiscation. There’s a whole lot more going on here than just that, though it will be the catylist for many.

    In fact, it’s already started with riots at food stamp offices, a growing race and gang war in the cities, and the continued breakdown of families and communities… It’s been “started” for quite a while. I think we’re about to see the beginning of the end.

    But control? No, the idiots in Mordor will never gain anything like the control they lust for. The harder they try, the more destructive and murderous they get, the more they will lose.

  12. Pre-press veteran Says:

    I learned some time ago, but like reminding myself, that fear – that leads to action – is a survival instinct. Fear of the type, that leaves us like deer in headlights, is deadly fear. Also useful: Fear is: Fantasized experience appearing real. My imagination is often, my worst enemy.

    That said: the “illegal” words popped out of my mouth, on their own, with no filter, the other day. Fortunately, in a place with people who were thinking the same things… so I wasn’t in real danger. Nevertheless, the atmosphere in the room was resolved; and grim. I got lucky; but the next person may not. I am one of those, who feel the weight of what has been added on, one little “reasonable”, “fair” thing at a time. I also feel the draft blowing through all the traditional constitutional protections that have been stolen away in the dark of night by people who do not mean well — no matter what words come out of their mouths.

    I don’t think this fear is my imagination running away with me. Too many people feel the same way. Some of them are even in Congress — but they are tiptoeing across the eggshells. I’m taking my fear and using it to fuel practical action… just in case. Bear’s perspective is probably close to the truth; I don’t think it’s something that we’ll see broadcasted and discussed in any specificity, anywhere online.

    EN:
    “It will be messy and complicated and law will break down far faster then they anticipated as they have no way of controlling it.” Not just the rule of law, EN. The FED and the gov’t and their masters and cronies have rolled the monetary dice… and when those dice come to a stop, it is more than likely going to be something none of their computer models predicted. Those two things together – by themselves – make me think that it’s better to take steps now, and maybe be a year or two too early, than to wait until one second or minute too late.

  13. Pat Says:

    Amen, EN. You’ve said it well.

    1) Mordor is rampant with “ālegists” (my word), those who believe in no law, so use too many laws to negate the legitimacy of the rule of law. Alegists would like to believe that the law is what they make it, nothing more or less. But the Constitution was understood, even by Federalists, to be a guideline for a new country; without it, no country exists here.

    2) One of the worst laws passed was the Civil Rights Law, which was neither civil nor (Constitutionally) legitimate in its quest for equality. It opened the same Pandora’s box to the blacks that the formation of modern Israel opened to the Jews.

    3) Survivalist tactics are just that — a means to survive. Gulchers/homesteaders/ preppers living in their chosen setting will have a tough enough time; everyone else won’t make it at all.

    4) America’s salvation (if there is any) may well depend on the Hispanics who have lived under worse conditions and come here willingly. They want a better life, and know from experience that it can be found only in a stable and free political environment. Some South and Central American countries are striving for that now. People from the South may be here to pick up the pieces.

  14. Kent McManigal Says:

    I don’t “believe” in the rule of law, either.

  15. Tim Says:

    Thank you for writing this Claire. I’ve been trying to make this point on various sites, because I think universal gun checks (no private sales) is being prepped as the “reasonable compromise” with the expected failure of an AWB. I think the former is as bad as the latter, because it sets the groundwork for a national registry.

    Keep banging this drum lady!

    Thanks. Tim

  16. Tahn Says:

    Does anyone know if the new “mental disorders” listed in the 2013 APA handbook still include the mental disorder of thinking government is too big and powerful (“oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD) ? That would be an ironic (but sick) method to deny ownership of firearms to people suffering from this mental disease.

    I mean we wouldn’t want crazy people to be able to buy guns, right?

    http://www.offthegridnews.com/2010/10/08/is-free-thinking-a-mental-illness/

  17. Ellendra Says:

    Fear can be a great motivator, if it’s controlled by reason. Personally, I’m pouring mine into my building and gardening plans. I’m even thinking I should grow out certain things so I can build up enough seed to share with the local farming community. The township where my land is would be pretty well set up to be self-sufficient, except for the seeds most of the farmers use. An emergency heirloom stash of things like sugar beet and millet could be an asset there.

  18. Pat Says:

    Kent said: “I don’t ‘believe’ in the rule of law either.”

    First of all, Kent, I’m not sure if you’re saying “belief” doesn’t fit the issue here, or you don’t truly think the rule of law is valid.

    I didn’t read Hasnas’ article completely today, though I have read it before (and saved it, and have re-read it for clarification). But let me say this.

    In an anarchical/libertarian society, e.g., there are no rulers, but there are rules that members of that society must follow or be kicked out (run out of town, shunned, or in criminal cases, must pay restitution or might be eliminated permanently, depending on the transgression). These rules constitute “laws” as much as written pieces of paper in a court of law. No group of people will flat-out refuse to establish ANY form of rules when they attempt to live together.

    I never thought the “rule of law” was intended to be as concrete in addressing *specific* laws as Hasnas suggests. Just because this is the way the rule of law has been interpreted and handled, doesn’t mean that’s what rule of law was meant to be.

    I think the rule of law was supposed to be differentiated more generally from the “rule of men”; i.e. men do not make laws to suit themselves as they meet situations that arise, but rather their laws/rules are laid down in advance as an objective touchstone from which to embark on the socio-legal journey in any given society. The statement of the Sovereign Individual is as much a “rule of law” as the Constitution (the difference being it applies to one person only, whereas the Constitution supposedly applies to a group of people). But the Statement is just as much “law” to that person – or damn well should be! – as the Constitution is sacred to some Americans. And a group of Soveriegn Individuals living in an enclave are still beholden to that particular rule of law, as much as we are today.

    Again – I’m not sure how you meant your statement in the first place.

  19. Tahn Says:

    The “Rule of Law” = Mala In Se

    The “Law of Rules” – Mala Prohibita

  20. bumperwack Says:

    Your all kulaks now…

  21. Shel Says:

    I do not expect a peaceful result from this. In the ’70′s, in law school, I took a course titled Philosophy of Socialist Law, taught by a Yugoslavian refugee who had been a former judge. He told us that central to Lenin’s plan, there had to be an extra-constitutional act to allow socialist takeover of a country. Hussein, our president, has to know this from his years of Marxist tutoring. With the reported “litmus test” of willingness to fire on American citizens to gain high level military promotion or even to retain command, to the millions of hollow point handgun rounds bought by the DHS, and to the rapt attention of senators when hearing testimony about militia, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4ev2xkRJgI&, where the attention clearly appears to be directed toward looking for weaknesses and a way to conquer rather than understand their problems, I cannot see events continuing to unfold slowly. Especially when the Republicans cave in at every turn.

    It looks, right now, to be an arms race between the American public and their government. Shortly after coming to office, Obama signed a law allowing the government to spend like drunken sailors. Then Obamacare got passed without being read by anyone who voted on it and gives the federal government life or death power. Immediately after the past election, the flap about gun control restarted. Obamacare taxes started in 2013, conveniently after the 2012 elections. In 2017, conveniently after the planned 2016 elections, Medicare will “bundle” all payments to hospitals, which will then dole out portions to staff and physicians, etc. Many physicians will retire at the end of 2016 to avoid this and probably create a “crisis” in health care, which will provide an excuse for stiff rationing of that care.

    Consistent with this pattern, I’m expecting the federal government to become so aggressive in going after the citizenry that even Lenin’s useful idiots will recognize it. I believe it’s most likely to occur, barring an intervening event, almost immediately after a national election, either 2014, or almost certainly after 2016, especially if Obama is granted a third term. One particularly dire prediction can be found at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52005#.UOcoWgI02Fw.facebook

    Shortly before Christmas, I ate at the local Chick-fil-A, where some young people were singing Christmas songs to the accompaniment of a guitar. It felt almost bizarre, as if I were in an action movie and the scene was a festival where the protagonists were running around with murderous intent. I only wish I could have my country back. But at least I’ve been able to live in possibly the most wonderful one that ever existed.

  22. jesse bogan Says:

    Since the “rule of law” is effectively dead (See fast and furious for just one example, Jon Corzines theft for another… the examples are endless) there is no longer any reason to obey their silly dictates. One rule for me, another for thee is not what We the People agreed to. Since they have placed themselves above the rules, and since they (supposedly) work for us, the “rules” as they hand them down no longer apply to us either.

  23. MamaLiberty Says:

    Depends on what “the law” is. The law of non-aggression actually pretty much fills the bill. It is the only “rule” we need, really. Any rules made that violate it would be seriously problematical in any free society, I’d think.

    No human being has the right, under any circumstance, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force. The counterbalance to this is, of course, the absolute right of self defense.

    The making of many unrelated “rules” is usually the source of much mischief, or downright evil, for they cannot but help lead to conflict and even tyranny.

  24. Kent McManigal Says:

    There are rules- don’t initiate force, don’t steal, don’t trespass or harm other people’s property, and don’t defraud.

    Then there is “law”- based upon none of those real rules and enforced by thugs. The Rulers rule, through enforcers enforcing these counterfeit “laws”. This is all “Rule of Law” is. And it is all at the whim of the puppeticians and enforcers. Their “laws” are never applied uniformly- and should rarely be applied at all to anyone.

    I believe in Zero Aggression and not stealing, but not “laws”. “Rule of Law” is nothing to me.

  25. Tahn Says:

    Bro Kent,

    My understanding of the “rule of law” is that it is mala in se, laws against evil that the whole world recognizes as evil. Murder, rape, robbery, arson, theft, property crime. I know that you agree with me that these acts are evil and wrong.

    My understanding of mala prohibita is, the rules that men make up to control others, as in can’t buy beer on sunday, must wear a turban, can’t get high, can’t have sex with someone. Whatever, “law of rules”.

    I believe in mala in se, the rule of law.

    I do not believe in mala prohibita, the law of rules.

    I doubt we disagree on concepts, only terms.
    Peace and Love

  26. EN Says:

    And right on time: “Let’s Give Up On The Constitution” http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/27/CBS-Runs-Segment-Calle-Lets-Give-Up-On-The-Constitution

    Does anyone trust folksy, grandfatherly types when they speak with all the pretended innocence of child molesters against the constitution? Because politicians have ignored it we don’t need it, particularly the clauses that protect individuals. I love his line, “None of my friends can believe it, but I’m skeptical of ‘most’ forms of guns control”. I know I sure as hell don’t believe he’s against gun control.

  27. Pat Says:

    “I doubt we disagree on concepts, only terms.”

    I agree; I doubt I’d have difficulty understanding and living among any group of people who comment here. But daily life isn’t as simple as one rule (or several); life incorporates every exigency, and that’s where society becomes complex, even a libertarian society.

    Kent, I understand what you’re saying – but I think it’s a matter of semantics as far as defining “rule of law” is concerned. You’re applying it only to the society/societies that we know, and how they have acted historically.

    But – even if you are correct, there is always some situation which demands explanation, and the “rule” will become “law” very quickly, and the two will become one. I don’t care how it’s set up – written or oral, specific or general, principled or not — or what you call it — it’s still the “law of the land” in any given society.

  28. Pre-press veteran Says:

    Well, one of the “rules” that’s being broken by those who govern — often enough and aggressively enough — that we must stop dithering… is the one that has existed within US society since the beginning:

    one group – no matter how large or small – can not impose it’s value, beliefs, customs, science, or “world view” on others. We are all free to believe and live as we choose… with the only restriction being on how that life impacts on those around us. This rule was the basis of trust, respect and civil society. It’s a rare bird these days.

    This traditional “rule” has become endangered over the last years and it is stressing the relationship of trust between the government and the governed.

  29. Pakkinpoppa Says:

    What it will do is…if you buy a blaster after the law takes effect, you’re going to have to keep it or transfer one between dealers. It’ll introduce a new type of “pre-ban”…”pre private sale ban”.

    Meaning if a person has a blaster purchased prior to the ban it’d be easier to sell and justify it being gone than if, say, someone bought an item with the Form filled out then wanting to sell for any reason.

    I tell everyone this is what the ultimate goal is, and why DiFi’s bill is deliberately made to be so awful, scary, repugnant, that any compromise will be accepted.

    I also assume the “prohibited class” will be expanded greatly. Once the 68 “F” ban was put in place with dubious possibility of recovering said rights…then the slope was greased.

    This is going to suck big time.

  30. Pakkinpoppa Says:

    I purchased a “scary black rifle” on “Buy A Gun Day.”
    I would not have sold another to finance the purchase had I known what was coming. Up to that day I hadn’t bought “new” in over 5 years. Oh well.

  31. Jay352 Says:

    That’s the thing…Once they make us criminals,we are.We then have nothing left to lose

  32. feralfae Says:

    Well, as far as I know, I’ve been an outlaw since I was a teenager in SNCC, and so, I figure I don’t have far to fall.

    And it’s always those pesky government rules about where we can eat, where we can go to school, what we can carry, what we can grow, where we can protest, where we can walk, what we can say, what we can write, and even what we can think. Government agents claim that they are able to tell what we are thinking by how we squint our eyes.

    As if reading emotional expressions is something the Thieves, Scumdwellers and Assaulters are able to do, distracted as they are by their power to grope and scope us! Kings made silly rules that they used against peaceful people, and kings may be called politicians, but they are the ones who are warped and twisted thieves. Because we sure aren’t thieves, murderers, assaulters, or any of those other things they warn others about when they speak of us or try to tread on us.

    And those Real Laws? They have been the point of most sages, elders, wise ones, and prophets, who taught in most religions around the planet for a long, long time, and it seems those of us who obey the Real Laws are the ones being interfered with by those who make up silly rules and ignore the Real Laws. We are not the ones driving families from their homes, or sending children off to kill other children.

    And you can join us all here http://www.freedomoutlaws.com/ where you will see many of our smiling faces, and please add yours. And welcome.

    Hang out your “Time’s Up” flag, and maintain your peaceful, helpful, honest life.
    The worst they can do is kill us, and if they do, I’m coming right back to misbehave some more.

    Peace, Freedom, and molon labe.
    Blessings, and **
    feralfae

  33. IndividualAudienceMember Says:

    I left a comment on another site, I thought of you, and few others, when I read the last line, it was this:

    “And so, family by family, they will utter those lines: “You and who else?”

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/01/26/will-you-submit-obey/#comment-61852

    Fear evaporating stuff, imho.
    … And resolute reinforcing.

    Also, I’m still not joining facebook, and I don’t see a purpose to the freedomoutlaws.com page other than it’s a bit like facebook? Or, what am I missing here?

  34. IndividualAudienceMember Says:

    Be careful, there’s morons in costumes running around out there, Don’t post the wrong kind of photo, or else you might get rich with a lawsuit(?) if you live through the encounter:

    According to reports, police initially believed that Gaines was holding a handgun in the photo. However, police say the gun in question turned out to be a BB gun.

    The photo depicted Gaines holding his daughter, Paradise Gaines, along with the BB gun. Police say that the close proximity of the gun to the child created a substantial risk of physical harm.

    Police say they found the BB gun at the residence after the arrest was made.

    http://www.fox19.com/story/20718582/man-arrested-for-endangering-child-in-facebook-photo

  35. pdxr13 Says:

    Pat Says:
    January 27th, 2013

    2) One of the worst laws passed was the Civil Rights Law, which was neither civil nor (Constitutionally) legitimate in its quest for equality. It opened the same Pandora’s box to the blacks that the formation of modern Israel opened to the Jews.

    Do you mean the 14th Amendment, or the various bits leading up to 1965? The result is that most Natural Born White State Citizens are behaving like US Persons: lowering the bar for what a “Free Man” means, while slightly upgrading Black privilege to “equality”. Being a 2nd/3rd class Federal privilege-user (lacking armed natural rights) is better than being a chattel slave, but only a little!

    4) America’s salvation (if there is any) may well depend on the Hispanics…

    If a person considers Mexico a success in personal liberty and a standard of how a free country works. I don’t.

  36. Pat Says:

    To pdxr13:
    I meant the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which essentially started the downhill trend of other laws, forcing some people to do what they didn’t want, in order to give to another people (blacks, in this case. And later, laws which forced an imbalance of prejudice toward women, and against men, as well.) E.g. a restaurant owner might have to serve any black (or anyone else) whether he wanted to or not. Blacks should be served, of course; there should be no bias against them – but an owner has the right to serve, or not, whom he pleases for whatever reason.
    It also started the downhill trend of political correctness which would be laughable today if it wasn’t so seriously prejudicial.

    I wasn’t referring to Mexico at all, but to the Hispanics in the U.S. (and including Cubans, Haitians, et al) who come to America for political and economic freedom and/or advantage. Currently I suspect they may be — MAY BE, as I said in that comment; I don’t know that it will happen — the only ones who, with their growing population here, might still appreciate what America could offer, and fight (by vote and influence) to turn the tyrants out. (It may even be why Mordor is set against their coming into the U.S.: if their numbers increase, they might turn around the socialist/fascist direction.)

    But this blog is not about these subjects, and I apologize for getting it off topic originally.

  37. Pete Says:

    For what it’s worth I was at a libertarian event in Houston last Saturday (Jan 26). Ron Paul spoke at lunch break. He advised us all to ignore any new laws to register firearms, such as the new laws in New York. The government lies to us all the time, he said, so we should feel free to lie to them.

    That’s exactly what I plan to do.

  38. Lugh Says:

    Hispanics? As in Mestizo illegals? You think they are our salvation? They are invaders given the green light by the Globalists and Federal Goverment. You see a multi-racial country cannot be a Nation…

    If by Hispanic you mean Whites of Spanish heritage, that’s a diffent thing. When I hear of a Spanish name getting a Purple Heart, I look at the picture: almost always a White guy.

  39. Claire Says:

    If this thread degenerates any further into racism, I’m going to lock it.

    Freedom is about individuals. Group hatred is for statists.

    Besides that, I don’t want anybody pointing at this blog saying, “See, all those (libertarians, gun owners, etc.) are just a bunch of closet Ku Klux Klansmen.” You white power guys and nativists have places of your own where you can conduct your “we’re better than everybody else” circle jerks.

    This is my “home” on the Internet and while some rowdy discussion is more than welcome in the living room, the drunken uncle spouting about “those people” while staggering around with a lampshade on his head is an unwelcome guest.

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.