Category Archives: Rant

Whatever The Market Will Bear

I am not complaining, in fact my life is working out just about exactly as I’d planned and the future looks quite good, but I am now living in the state with what last I checked are the second lowest wages in the nation, and I am no longer seeing auto repair as being worth the stress, bullshit from customers and expense of tooling, and I am therefore about to leave the field and likely never return apart from perhaps occasional side work and of course building and fixing my own toys. There simply is no reason to run myself into the ground when I can make the same or more money for considerably less effort and stress, that is just the common sense possessed by all living creatures.

Hard, annoying work demands a pay off, or people won’t do it. If they don’t do it, society suffers set backs. It’s a simple thing anyone should be able to understand. It’s hard to find good mechanics these days, and it’s east to see why. Expecting someone to have similar levels of skills and knowledge to a doctor and paying them a thoroughly laughable wage clearly is a failing strategy. People often use the term “whatever the market will bear”. One thing the market won’t be bearing is me using my many thousands of dollars worth of tools and many years of experience to fix your shit for chump change. (not that the customers pay chump change, just that mechanics get a chump change cut, especially in some regions) Not happening, at least not for long.

While the wage issue in the southwest is a result of arbitrary borders, a lack of much industry, fractional reserve lending as well as a few other abuses from the state, for me, this transition to the next phase of my life also puts in perspective how people who truly believe in socialism are hack jobs with no real world skills and no respect for themselves or anyone else, to the extent that not only do they not want to have to earn a living, they actually want a system of organized crime to use the threat of lethal force to steal things for them.

The idea that everyone will work hard and contribute their skills with no added or reduced pay for what they’re worth is the foundation of socialism. This thought process is not only blatantly illogical, it is also extremely dangerous.

So, to all you statist socialists out there, fuck you. Get a life. Go make something of yourself. Stop being whiny, sub human, genocide prone garbage.

You Are A Bigot, A Hypocrite, And/Or A Dumbass

According to USA Today, as of January 2015, 58% of people in the United States are on Facebook.
Based on that, combined with my own research, using a sample group of ‘people whose posts show up on my wall’, I can say with a relative degree of certainty there is a minimal 40% chance that if you’re American, you’re a bigot, a hypocrite, and/or a dumbass.

Let me start with this statement:

You have never read the Qur’an.

I see so many people claiming that all Muslims are, no matter what, to be mistrusted without question. Often cited are all of the ‘horrible things’ written in their holy scripture. This is presented as fact, by people claiming it as common knowledge.
It might be true. In fact, I would be unsurprised if it is true. But you don’t know that. You’re only parroting what others have parroted before you.
Have you read the Bible? There’s some pretty terrible shit in that book too.

There is an off chance that you are reading this, and by some miracle HAVE read the Qu’ran, and are still offended; Fuck you, how does it feel to be unfairly generalized?

There is one piece of literature I definitely HAVE read, however, and that is the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which clearly state that the government has no authority to legally favor or legally prohibit practice of any religion. Punishing people because they are Muslims would effectively force them to renounce their religion in order to be treated like everyone else under the law.

This Amendment exists, and is the very first such amendment, for very good reason. The people that founded this country were once persecuted for their beliefs as well. It sucked.
Now everyone wants to actively discriminate against a certain group of people, and say that it is in the best interest of a country, one of whose keystone tenets was to legally prohibit such discrimination.

People in this country are also still hounding on about how the state of racial inequality in the United States has never recovered from the intensely segregated pre-Martin Luther King Jr. era.

You know what? You’re right. It hasn’t, because every time we start to make some progress, you fucking hypocrites go and find someone else to hate. Is that how you propose to ‘mend the race relations’ of the last 200 years? By finding a new group we can all hate together?

The first amendment, just like the second amendment, is not up for interpretation. The amendments are written very clearly and concisely, and if you believe there are multiple ways to read them, you need to go back to school and seek out a competent grammar instructor.

Here’s another statement for you:

If you believe that all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States because a minuscule subset of them are terrorists, but you do NOT believe that all police departments in the United States should be immediately dissolved because the subset of them that commit violent felonies against innocent people are just ‘a few bad apples’, then you are a fucking hypocrite.

There are few things that piss me off faster than a hypocrite. If you can’t hold opinions on two subjects without them contradicting each other, then why the hell should the rest of us take them seriously?

Third statement:

You are responsible for your own safety.

If you are so terrified that you are willing to sell your soul to the government in the hopes that they will protect you, you are a pussy. Freedom is a verb. You have to work to keep it. You have to want it, and you have to be willing to hold to your convictions. It is better to be right than to be popular.

If you are that terrified, then take steps to protect yourself. Take steps to ensure that you are safe from any potential attackers, whether they’re Muslims or not.

Fourth statement (I’m on a roll here):

If you are willing to have the government forcefully infringe your will upon other peaceful people just because they don’t want to live their lives the way you do, I have some pretty heavy news for you: YOU are a bigot, and in fact, a terrorist. And no matter how hard you argue, you have no counter for that.

bigot
[big-uh t]
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one. Forcing other people that do like guns to not have guns because you can’t be trusted with one?
Bigot.

Don’t believe what is written in the Qur’an? Don’t subscribe to the Muslim faith? Fine.
Want to employ the ‘services’ of government employees to force out or keep out those who do believe in such things?
Bigot.

Don’t want to do Heroin or Crack? These things don’t appeal to you? Hey, smart decision.
Want to literally ruin people’s lives by stealing their money, costing them their careers, and locking them in cages for the best years of their lives because they happen to enjoy a bit of Meth on the weekends?
Bigot.

Not attracted to people of the same gender as you? Don’t feel comfortable at a gay bar or an LGBT community center? That’s your choice.
Want to have a law written to force those who are attracted to their own gender to forfeit rights they would otherwise have had as a straight couple, posing the rhetorical question “What will I tell my kids?” because you lack the parental skills to talk to your kid about life for five fucking minutes?
Bigot.

I know what to expect in the comments, too. Really.
“Well, I’m not a bigot because xyz passage in the Syria-bible that those terrorefugees believe in says blah, therefore its true that they have violent beliefs!”
Bigot. For you see, even if you are technically correct [and I’m not saying you are or are not], you are still a bigot. If we were to bar entry to, and export any religious groups who have ever had any sort of mass killing or genocide associated with them, we would pretty much be left with nobody in this country, besides maybe a Buddhist or two.

Ask the Native Americans how they feel about a new group of people being blanket-hated and stopped at the borders because some of them ‘might be terrorists’. If they don’t laugh in your face and call you an insensitive hypocrite, let me know. I’ll do it for them.

RANT: Fox 2 News are Propagandists, not Journalists.

Fox… It wasn’t about guns. It was never about guns. Just because a person happens to be armed for their own protection does not mean that everything they do has to be spun in such a way as to claim they were doing it because they were ‘gun activists’… even if on separate occasions they ARE gun activists.

You are journalists. Or at least you claim to be… after all being a journalist would require some measure of journalistic ethics, one would think, and you’ve thrown those directly out the window.

Your story [http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/29253919/online-video-of-confrontation-with-oakland-county-sheriff-deputy-brings-threats] takes a man who was simply exercising his first, second, and fourth amendment rights and had them violated, and instead of asking the question ‘what happened’ or ‘why’, you simply assumed [incorrectly] that this was all about guns, you assumed [incorrectly] and subsequently asserted [also incorrectly] that his conduct [simply filming on public property] was illegal, misrepresented the situation to a ‘gun rights expert’ in order to solicit the most unfavorable response possible, and threw it all together in an effort to defame someone all because he was doing the very thing that keeps you assholes employed.

It’s about you as much as it is them. It is to demonstrate what happens when you try to actually use these ‘rights’ we are supposed to have, that are supposed to be recognized in [not granted by] the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sure, you have the right to freedom of press… unless its negative press, in which case we will violate your fourth amendment right to be secure in your person, papers and posessions. You have the freedom of press, unless it goes against the agenda of those who write our paychecks, in which case we will misrepresent the facts as best we can, report on all the dirt we can find even if it is completely unrelated to the incident being discussed, and dismiss you as a ‘lunatic’.

Imagine if, while compiling footage for this ‘story’ [pronounced “bullshit”], you were approached by a policeman who demanded to know everything about you simply because he didn’t appreciate being filmed? If you value your privacy at all, as you should, you would decline. What if, then, he decided he was simply going to steal that information from you without your consent? That would make that officer a criminal.

AN OFFICER THAT ILLEGALLY STEALS IDENTIFICATION FROM A PERSON WHO IS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS IS A CRIMINAL

So what do you, as ‘journalists’, do about it? You take their side. You don’t research the laws, you don’t try and see both sides, you don’t read the Bill of Rights again, you simply see a badge and assume they are always the good guy, ignore logic, reason, and the law of the land, and take their side. YOU TAKE THE SIDE OF THE CRIMINAL.

THIS COUNTRY IS BECOMING LESS FREE, AND YOU ARE COMPLICIT!
THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE ARE VIOLATED EVERY DAY BY AN EVER INCREASINGLY ENCROACHING GOVERNMENT AND YOU DEMONIZE THE PEOPLE THEY VIOLATE!
YOU PREY ON THE FEAR OF THE PEOPLE BECAUSE FEAR DRIVES RATINGS AND RATINGS DRIVE REVENUE! THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY LEFT IN YOUR ORGANIZATION!

Fox, I implore you, stop writing propaganda and go back to news.
At this point, I’d be more likely to believe Stephen Glass.

RANT: A Rebuttal

Today I wanted to comment on something I read from a friend of ours from Wisconsin, known on YouTube as chuckley54494

He shared this post from a police officer:
a rebuttal

In my usual style, I’ll be addressing this point-for-point.

“People like this uses the system just to be assholes…”

Not so… in fact we’re not ‘using’ the ‘system’ at all… we’re mostly disgusted with it. I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have beyond your own emotions to support this assessment. For now, its just an assumption, and you know what they say about when you assume…

“I had an encounter with one a few weeks ago we had a concerned citizen calling in reference to a man walking down the street with what appeared to a automatic weapon .”

Again, I wonder what criteria you’re using to suggest that it ‘appeared to be an automatic weapon.’ Whether or not a weapon is automatic is a mechanical property, not a cosmetic one. A GT40 kit car may look like a GT40, but to say that it looks like a V8, or that it looks like its all-wheel-drive would be a sort of ridiculous assertion. Pulling someone over because their vehicle looks like it might be breaking emissions laws, or looks like it is beyond street-legal horsepower, or ‘looks like’ it has any other cosmetically ambiguous internal functionality is a cop-out [pun-intended], and a way for you to attempt to assert your incorrectly perceived authority, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or logic.

“I saw a weapon and it did look like a AK 47.”

Not surprising. Its the most imitated/copied/produced firearm in the world. And if you were to have diarrhea in a glass it might look like chocolate milk, but if you find it on the counter and didn’t see it get poured that would be a rather shitty assumption, wouldn’t it? [oh, more puns!]

“He asked me if he was being detained I stated yes he was while I was inspecting the weapon…”

While you’re inspecting the weapon? You need reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon is illegal, if the weapon is your reason, and ‘it looks like its fully automatic’ is just not strong enough, as discussed above. If you can’t articulate the crime you believe is being committed, and your reasonable observations as to why you believe that crime is being committed, you can’t detain us.

“…and course he wanted to quote Constitution to me…”

Of course. And if a taxi driver was purposely taking the wrong way around town just to run the meter up, his passenger dare not say anything to him because, damn it, he’s a professional.

“At that time I stopped him , and informed him I was giving him lawful command to stretch his arms out for the side and turn around I was going to seize his weapon for inspection.”

You know, just because you say the command is lawful doesn’t make it so. If you want to prove me wrong, I have a glass of chocolate milk for you.

“He stated he was going to sue that was fine I was still going to inspect his weapon. there is something called reasonable suspicion and I explain that to him.”

You’re right, there is something called reasonable suspicion. There’s something called a million dollars too. So far I haven’t seen either one. Even if you did have reasonable suspicion, however, unfortunately for you the standard for detainment is ‘reasonable articulable suspicion’. If you can’t articulate it, then tough shit, that’s called a ‘hunch’, and we don’t have time to cater to your superstitions.

“I explained to him I had reasonable suspicion to assume his weapon could have been fully automatic which he would need a stamp etc at that time he shut his mouth because he knew I was right.”

This was discussed above… you did not have any reason to assume that the weapon was fully automatic. In fact, you had a legal obligation to assume it wasn’t unless you have some specific evidence indicating otherwise.

He did not shut his mouth because he knew you were right, he shut his mouth because he’s smart, and he knows that sociopaths like you look for any reason to fine or kidnap an otherwise normal person, possibly ruining their entire lives, just because your personal opinion is in disagreement with theirs.

“I expected the weapon and it was in fact a semi automatic. I gave his weapon backs and informed him he was no longer detained and was free to go.”

You expected what? Oh, I assume you meant ‘inspected’. Although… with the way you’ve articulated this post I doubt you would have noticed if it had ‘fully automatic’ stamped on the side of the receiver. Truth is, as discussed above, he was ‘free to go’ the entire time… but you would have killed him for it.

“to all the officers looking at this video keep that in mind go take some courses there are a few things on our side.”

There are only two sides, Liberty or Statist Tyranny. If you were on the correct side, we would be on the same side, and this wouldn’t be an issue to begin with.

“Don’t be afraid to do your job if you have concerned citizens your number one job is to see to it that they are protected and safe.”

Don’t be afraid to do your job, even if it is in violation of the very principles you took an oath to stand for? I think your moral compass needs recalibrating.

I agree that your number one job is to see to it that concerned citizens are protected and safe, but I think you and I have a different idea about what that means. You see, we people who you are detaining are also citizens, and we are concerned that you do not have any concern for our rights, or regard for us as people. We are concerned that you immediately take the side of the person calling against us, without observing the situation for yourself. Ensuring that concerned citizens are protected and safe means observing us, realizing we are not a threat, and that we have the means to protect ourselves, and going about your business.

“It’s going to be people like these people that are going to ruin it for everyone once the government decides to make these laws even stricter.”

As if that’s an inevitability, right? Well guess what… you’ll be more to blame than us. If the government does decide to further trample on our civil liberties, they cannot possibly do so if the police refuse to enforce the unjust regulations. But I have a feeling you’ll be right there with them, or else you wouldn’t be so resigned to your outlook.

“I don’t understand what’s the need of walking down the street was an AK when you can easily carry you a nice concealable weapon and not drawing attention.”

You can have the element of surprise, or you can have the element of deterrent. Both are valuable.

In terms of liberty activism… most of the time people are happy to hear the things we have to tell them about their liberties, but a concealed weapon would not instigate those conversations. A firearm is a tool, like any other. However, like any other tool, there are many ways to use them, and to many differing ends. Don’t be so closed-minded.

“soon one of these activist are going to be shot and killed by a citizen for someone suffering from post traumatic stress, or by some thug wanting to take a his weapon.”

Always a possibility, although in the former scenario lack of a firearm is not likely to prevent that, and even if it were the larger issue there is the way our medical system treats mentally ill individuals. The latter scenario, while possible, has been shown to be unlikely by almost all of the hard numbers available on gun ownership and carry vs violent crime.

It is possible for you to be killed by your seatbelt in a car accident, depending on the scenario. It may be 100 times less likely than a person being killed because they were NOT wearing a seatbelt, sure, but it’s possible. It has happened. Would you force people not to wear seatbelts because of that possibility?

“they don’t realize they’re making themselves a target.”

…for cops apparently.

“I’m a gun in fanatics and when off duty I do carry two weapons in fact.”

Good for you. When you’re on duty, however, that seems to be a different story. I’m not a gun fanatic, I’m a Liberty fanatic, and let me tell you… it’s a full time affair.

“But 90% of the time I’m concealed it’s all about the element of surprise”

That’s a nice unqualified opinion, and you’re entitled to that, just as we all are. However, it doesn’t give you any legal authority over those who disagree with you.

The element of surprise is great for waiting for a crime to happen and being able to shoot the perpetrator. However, I’d rather deter the crime from happening. Sadly there aren’t statistics for that because it is impossible to document all the times a crime does NOT happen or the times someone is NOT shot.

You are just another citizen. You are another person on the street. You will receive as much respect as the next person by default. However, understand that when you detain me for something you know is legal, that default level drops immediately. “It could be fully automatic” is really just your way of saying “I’d love to bust you for something.” You knew it wasn’t.

If you truly want to see to it that us citizens are protected and safe, then stop making us unsafe by stopping us and pointing guns at us and threatening our livelihood and our freedom and our lives, and illegally enforcing your opinions under color of law.

-EC

Lockdown at Lamphere High – The FULL Story

IMG954006

On March 4th, 2015, local liberty activist Shawn Nixon went for a routine walk though his local neighborhoods and along main roads (video below). This is normal activity for him, and members of the community recognize him well. Although he is a law-abiding, honest citizen, he is known well to his local law enforcement, Royal Oak Police of Royal Oak, MI. Some examples of his previous encounters with ROPD can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. What makes Mr. Nixon so controversial to some is the fact that he takes a rifle with him on his routine walks. While it is not particularly shocking to most people in his area (because he is recognized easily), certain police and school administrators decided to disrupt the educational environment on March 4th at Lamphere High School in Madison Heights, MI because Mr. Nixon was going on one of his routine walks.

Below is a local news report about the incident.

So this man broke no law. Where’s the controversy? The only issue appears to be the fact that he went near a school. Let’s examine that.

If a person is going on a routine walk down the street, would you expect them to take a different route to avoid passing the school? Of course not, but you might argue that carrying the rifle is needlessly scaring people. So if the police and school officials do not trust Mr. Nixon walking by the school with a late 1800s bolt-action, five-shot rifle, does that mean they would trust him if he did not have a rifle? It seems that the only irrational concern with the local media is that he had a rifle. However, he clearly did not intend any harm toward the school’s occupants. Therefore, why the overreaction? The police in Madison Heights have had contact with Mr. Nixon before, as this video shows. They know who he is, and why he goes on his walks. Yet they lock down the school anyways. If this isn’t brainless, then I don’t know what is.

The rifle does not make Mr. Nixon dangerous. If anything, five shots from a long, heavy, awkward piece of Russian hand-made junk makes Mr. Nixon MORE defenseless from a sudden attack.

This is why he also carries a semi-automatic pistol. Would the media, police, and school officials react the same way if he only carried a handgun? I would argue that fourteen rounds of .40 S&W (in his handgun) is more deadly than only five rounds of 7.62x54R (in his rifle), yet the RIFLE is the concern. He could also legally carry the pistol completely concealed, because he has been verified to be legally qualified to possess a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.

Think honestly to yourself for a minute: if Shawn Nixon, noted liberty activist of metro Detroit, had walked past Lamphere High School with a dozen concealed pistols, would the school have locked down? Of course not, even though he is far more heavily armed than with just a handgun and rifle in plain view.

He uses his rifle as a silent, non-violent form of activism. While a small portion of the people who see him are genuinely and irrationally fearful of him, the vast majority of the people don’t even notice. Out of the people who do notice his rifle, they are mostly curious. Many are supportive, and will honk and give thumbs up constantly. A lot of people will see him, see his rifle, and be genuinely confused:

“I have always been told that guns are bad, but I just saw this man walking down the street with two guns, and no one got hurt.”

Mr. Nixon’s walks have a definite value in desensitizing the people that see him. Some gun rights supporters are concerned that his activism may hurt gun rights long-term. I can only ask those people the following: if you are so concerned that government will take rights away because someone if exercising them, who is at fault? Is it Mr. Nixon, the Government, or is it YOURSELF for not demanding that your rights be taken seriously? Mr. Nixon would seem bland and mainstream if we ALL stood with him.

During Shawn Nixon’s walk on March 4th, he was initially confronted by his “friends” in Royal Oak Police. In typical fashion, Royal Oak PD let him have his space when he declined to talk to them. While only a quarter-way though his walk along 13 Mile Rd between John R and Rochester Roads, he began to be stalked by Madison Heights Police.

This pissed him off. I mean, it SHOULD piss him off. The police are not only harassing him with a  metaphorical velvet glove, but they are using their scarce police resources (paid for by the taxpayers) to literally STALK him while he is breaking no law. MHPD reported to the local media that they did not obtain a name from him on this walk, and that is because THEY ALREADY KNEW HIM. Madison Heights Police are under no legal obligation to even respond to a 9-1-1 call of legal activity, let alone stalk him.

Mr. Shawn Nixon confronted these officers after a short time. While I myself would NEVER advocate willingly talking with police, Mr. Nixon has a great deal of practice, and is arguably an expert at motivating them to leave him alone. He is the type of man that is literally enraged with the double standards that police employ, highlighted on this occasion with one officer’s willingness to hold his hand on his firearm during the encounter Mr. Nixon had with MHPD. The officer, affectionately called Officer Wyatt Earp, literally was almost taunting Mr. Nixon with the extra rights that he, as a Law Enforcement Officer, believes he has by touching his firearm while Mr. Nixon stands there.

Video from March 4th, 2015

OK, so let’s step back for a second and look at that. What you see is not a crazed gunman just arbitrarily screaming at the friendly neighborhood police. What you see is a free man who is literally enraged to the point of insults that he is being stalked, softly harassed, and intimidated into not continuing with his activism. No matter how you slice it, would you be any happier if police harassed you for no lawful reason?

I will admit that I feel sincerely sorry for those officers. They woke up at 5:30 am and went to work just like any other person. They do their metaphorical 9 to 5 job and go home to their families like any other person. They are being coerced into following Mr. Nixon by their superiors, and they are only guilty of blindly following orders. They themselves have been brainwashed into believing that they are not harassing Mr. Nixon, that Mr. Nixon is a crazy nut, that they are doing a service to the community, and that they are the victims. Make NO mistake: MR. SHAWN NIXON is the victim here, as well as the students who continue to have their learning interrupted by the school’s irrationality.

Mr. Nixon and I returned to the area one week later, on March 11th. We were disappointed that Madison Heights PD had advised the school to lock down again, even knowing who we were. They OBVIOUSLY know Mr. Nixon is not dangerous, and I have a significant amount of notoriety within many police departments in Oakland County as well. Neither of us are strangers to them.

Ridiculousness will often remain ridiculous, ignorance will often remain ignorant, and irrationality is ALWAYS irrational.

Shawn Nixon would like nothing more to be left alone by the police so that he can work a 9 to 5 job and raise his five-year-old son. Is that so much to ask?

–James

RANT: If the Police Police the Police, Who Polices Them?

“The department is conducting an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified.”

Read that again. Let it sink in.

“The department is conducting an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified.”

That little gem of absurdity has been included in every single article I have read recently regarding a police shooting of an unarmed person.

Let me start by saying this: It is possible for an unarmed person to be a threat to your life, and there are circumstances when shooting an unarmed person can be justified.

However, this line appears underneath dashcam footage showing literal executions of people with their hands up or who are being otherwise nonthreatening.

Here is one example, but certainly not the only.

So often, this will happen, and so rarely will anybody be charged, even in the face of this kind of evidence. We cannot let this continue.

Murder is murder, whether you’re wearing a funny costume with a shiny pin or not.

Do you know any cops who are friends with other cops? Better question, do you know any cops who are NOT friends with other cops? Have you heard of the ‘thin blue line’? Do you think it is common knowledge that cops do not get traffic tickets, that cops cover for other cops when they do stupid things that would normally land the average citizen in jail or with a hefty fine?

I bet I know how you answered all of those questions.

Now consider this. When “The department” conducts “an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified”, what you have is these people who don’t give each other tickets, cover for each other’s stupidity from racist comments to drunk driving and more [too many to cite, I’m sure you can find some], who refuse to cross that thin blue line and take out their own trash, and they are the ones deciding whether their fellow officers were justified.

Now let me show you this definition of a term you’ve probably heard before:

Conflict of Interest

noun
1.
the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence:
The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.
2.
the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.

If “The Department” conducting its own “internal investigation” to determine whether to imprison the people who have been refusing to fine and imprison them does not qualify under that definition, then I don’t know what does.

Anybody who knows me, however, knows that I try not to offer problems without potential solutions

One Suggestion:

Privatized IA. Those investigations are not handled by the department, and they do not have monetary incentives. They are to be performed by volunteers, perhaps selected similarly to a jury and viewed as your civic duty. Lets see how many of these shootings go unprosecuted then.

Have a better idea? Let me know in the comments.

-EC

RANT: Cops are the only ones ‘trained’ enough to carry guns.

swat_backwards-1024x777

This is a common argument I hear by the anti-gun crowd… You can’t have guns, only ‘highly-trained police officers’ should have them, you know, on account of them being ‘highly trained’.

I call bullshit.

Cops are often highly trained, but not in the use of firearms. They are ‘highly trained’ in psychology and coercion methods. They are ‘highly trained’ in getting you to admit to a crime whether you committed one or not.

But when a cop does have to use their weapon, how often do you see dismal hit ratios? How much time do police really spend training, beyond their ‘requirements’?
I’m sure it varies, like anything, but many times it is not nearly often enough.

According to the New York Times, in cases where NYPD officers intentionally fired a gun at a person in 2006, they fired 364 times, and hit their target 103 times.
There are a lot of factors that could have been involved there, and I was obviously not at every one of those shootings, or any of them, but that’s a lot of bullets that went who-the-hell-knows-where. Like the bullet in Burlington, IA, that was destined for a family pet but instead lethally struck a woman in the chest in front of her 4-year-old child earlier this week.

Look at the picture at the top of this post… you might have seen this guy if you follow police-related and 2A related news on the web. That is a SWAT officer. He has a very nice EOTech sight mounted on his AR-15 platform rifle.

Backwards.

EOTech sights like that one are holographic… a side effect of which is that they DON’T WORK BACKWARDS, its just like looking through some glass.
This is why you’ll also notice that his rear ironsight is flipped up [instead of down and out of the way like it would be if the sight was functioning correctly]. The sight adjustment controls are facing the front of the rifle instead of the operator.

Another thing many people were too distracted by the sight-mounting debacle to notice is that the weight of the firearm is being rested, not on the handguard, which appears to be of a free-floating variety, but on the end of the barrel, which would cause the barrel not to be in correct alignment, which means that even if the sight WAS mounted correctly, the weapon would not be accurate. That style of handguard was designed to prevent this sort of thing.

I’ve taken many people shooting, and I can confidently say that by the end of their first lesson, if not at the start of it, either my imparted knowledge or their sheer common sense would have tipped them not to do any of these things, and why. This is basic usage, not even something I would consider ‘high training’. And that guy is SWAT… supposedly the ‘highly trained’ pinnacle of heroism selected from the already ‘highly trained’ pool of officers in the department. The ‘Best of the Best’, so-to-speak.

Being a cop doesn’t mean you are ‘highly trained’, and not being a cop does not mean you are not minimally ‘proficiently trained’ if not ‘highly trained’.

Law abiding gun owners generally train more than people who only carry as part of a job. People who spend thousands of dollars on mechanics tools because they love cars and understand the utility of being able to fix your own are generally going to be much more proficient than someone who was issued a basic ratchet set and a half-hour overview on engine mechanics the day they started their job at the tow-lot/impound yard/auto parts store etc. It shouldn’t take much imagination to understand why.

So next time someone thinks that only ‘highly trained’ officers should carry guns, take a step back and think about how many ‘normally trained’ police officers that would exclude.

I would feel far safer around one passionate gun owner who is armed than I would standing in the lobby of a police station. My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

-EC

RANT: The Police Protest Illusion of Ferguson

I am so sick of all this stuff about the police in the media. From Mike Brown to Tamir Rice to Antonio Martin, there’s been a lot of pro- and anti-police rhetoric on both sides. Let me explain:

The people you might consider the typical people to vote for a Democrat, especially some of the poorer Democrat-voting demographics,  are pissed about the police right now. Especially a lot of blacks. A lot, not all. There are people all over the country that are protesting the police. I’ve seen media of human chains blocking roads, protesters throwing fireworks at police officers brawling with protesters near gas pumps, people storming a police precinct, and all kinds of other junk. This is how much of “the left” sees these events.

The people you might consider the type of people to vote for a Republican are supporting the police right now. They see the protesters as irrational, immature, and simply picking a fight.  They are spreading the word that we all should support our police officers in these trying times, especially after the murder of two officers in New York City. This is how “the right” sees much of it.

But here is where the magician tells his secrets: its all an illusion portrayed by government and media to get us all more conditioned for whatever comes in the next few years. The supporters of the protesters are getting an irrational and indiscriminate hatred towards all police, but for all the wrong reasons. The police in the United States are more corrupt than you could imagine, as a general rule. They enforce all kinds of laws all the time that are completely unjust because there is no victim, yet we ignore it. They coerce you to pay the city money for a rolling stop, and will lock you in a cage if you don’t. If you resist this clearly tyrannous act, you will be killed. However, the police that killed Mike Brown and Antonio Martin, for example, are not just normal police thugs! They acted in legitimate self-defense, from what we can see. They ARE NOT worth this kind of protest when you have road pirates harassing people for victimless traffic infractions!

What is even better is that the supporters of the police are being duped with the same media content! Its a double whammy! The police supporters see the Ferguson protesters for what most of them are: irrational and indiscriminate. But they lump all of the corrupt officers into the “good guy” category because the protesters are so obviously flawed! The police supporters will now blindly ignore any real reports of police abuse, because they will now lump it in with Ferguson and Rodney King.

Bottom line is that each political party in the USA is bought and paid for by the same divide-and-conquer elites, and that this is all part of the plan to get us all irrationally fighting with each other. We need to accept that there’s a lot of problems with police, and that sometimes they are NOT murderers.

RANT: Deputy Pulls Gun on Me, But He Gets Extra Rights

Back in July, I had an interesting encounter with an Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy in Oxford Charter Township, MI. I think the short video below sums it up pretty well:

That’s right. He was impeding traffic, we both happened to have the same destination (I was meeting my grandmother for lunch at a local restaurant), and I decided to confront him for the clear traffic law double-standard. When I initially approached his vehicle, he drove away. So, I went inside. When I saw that he had re-parked, and was just trying to avoid me, I made a second attempt. He wasn’t surprised when I returned, he was pissed off at my persistence. The rest is history.

But the story doesn’t end there. An interesting comment thread on that video began. It is pasted below:

——————————————————————————-

Never approach an officer in his vehicle. He or she is in a vulnerable spot while sitting down and we do not know what your intentions are by approaching us. We don’t know you want to “ask a question”. I’d do the same thing. Get the officers attention and let him or her come to you.

Never approach a citizen in his vehicle. He or she is in a vulnerable spot while sitting down and we do not know what your intentions are by approaching us. We don’t know you want to “ask a question”. Get the citizen’s attention and let him or her come to you.

Let me clarify: I’m not saying that citizens should pull guns on police during routine traffic stops, just like I’m saying that police shouldn’t pull guns on people for walking up to an occupied patrol vehicle. I’m just saying that this deputy committed a felony by pointing his gun at me, but I would have more than a reprimand if I did the same thing. Surely you can appreciate that line of logic.

 

I’m all for what your doing here. Informing people about their rights but police don’t walk up to citizen’s cars for no reason. And if they don’t have a reason to stop you instead of fighting with them on the streets about the stop being illegal, fight it in court. That’s why we have court. And I believe the officer said “you ha your hands in your pocket”. That’s why he pulled his gun on you. All I seen was the officer holster his weapon. Not to say he didn’t point it at you. And if your upset about it being a felony if you did that. Make a formal complaint or something along those lines.

+Blue 5-OH He broke the law, so I approached his vehicle. If I break the law, a police officer will approach my vehicle. Does that mean I have the right to draw my weapon on him? After all, a stranger wearing what COULD be a real police uniform is walking up to my vehicle. I don’t want to have the right to just draw my sidearm on police when they have not made any valid threat (as the law defines it) towards me, I just want police to be held to the same (if not higher) standards as the rest of the citizenry. Remember that police are not the military, so they are “mere” civilians too.

I did not need to file a complaint. Someone, either one of the local police officers that watch my videos or a viewer that is completely unrelated, forwarded this video on to his Sergeant. A formal reprimand was placed on his record for talking on the phone, which led to his impeding traffic (which is, admittedly, already a pet peeve of mine). An email was sent out to every deputy in the county (since this man was a deputy) advising not to allow this situation to happen again by breaking simple traffic laws. I only know this because I have a few sources on the inside, and I know you can only take my word for it.As well, I honestly do not remember if my hand was in my pocket. If it was, he still had no legal grounds to draw on me. I did not pose a threat to him in terms of death, great bodily harm, or rape. If I had drawn a weapon and made movements to point it at him, then he can draw and fire. Anything else is felony firearm assault or attempted murder, per Michigan law.

MCL 780.972 provides that “[a]n individual who has not or is not
engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly
force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she
has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if . . . [t]he
individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force
is necessary to prevent” the imminent death, great bodily harm, or
sexual assault of himself or another individual.”

MCL 750.82 provides that “[…] a person who assaults
another person with a gun, revolver, [or] pistol […] without intending to commit
murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a
felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of
not more than $2,000.00, or both.”

Is it so much to ask that we all be treated equal under the law? This deputy for a reprimand for a felony. I wouldn’t get the same treatment. He could have shot me and there would be no debate. This isn’t the first time an officer has pointed a gun at me (yes, the camera doesn’t show it, but it was pointed at me), and yet, knowing the risk, I approached him anyway. Because he’s wrong, I’m right, and I’ll die knowing that for a just cause: standing up to corrupt government and their corrupt officials.

Now, do us all a favor: prove to me that there are still good police. Admit that I am making a logical, rational, and well-supported point that those with badges are treated differently than those without. You can enjoy the special treatment all you want (that is, if your penname describes your current career), just admit that the inequality of liberty here exists and is a problem.

—————————————————————————–
Just for backup, here is a screenshot of the most thumbed-up comment for the video:
Comment
Now, consider my bias, which I really need not explain if you are already on this website. As such, I do make mistakes. I learn when I do. So I ask you: am I right in this?

RANT: Why Getting Offended Over Religious Imagery is Bogus

…Just saw an article about a city council ‘approving’ a menorah display.

Dude… Christmas Trees, Menorahs, whatever, why does this require approval? Just f****** do it, why does anybody care?

Not Jewish? Great! Don’t go. Offended by the mere *sight* of a Menorah or some other imagery that isn’t part of your religion? Then I have news for you… you’re an a******!

After all, isn’t one of the keystones of Freedom the ability to have differing opinions and beliefs? If your skin is so thin that the mere *sight* of something that reminds you of this keystone of liberty literally enrages you to the point of involving the Government, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your f****** priorities.

I’m not Canadian… does that mean I get violently angry when I go to a hockey game and see a Canadian flag displayed for the visitors from our neighbor to the north to enjoy? After all… *I’m* not Canadian, so *I* shouldn’t have to be ‘subjected’ to the injustice of being reminded that there is an entirely different country next door that has the absolute audacity not to be part of the USA!

If you don’t believe in a god, than how can you possibly be offended by it? How can you be so enraged over something you don’t believe exists?

To someone of the Jewish faith, it is very important, a staple of their beliefs. To someone who is not Jewish, it is a f****** candle holder. When was the last time you can honestly tell me you were offended by a f****** candle holder?

To someone of the Christian faith, in a lot of cases the Christmas tree [although actually a Pagan symbol, but I digress] is a staple of their yearly family tradition. Not Christian? Well then guess what? It’s a f****** tree! Do you go out in your backyard and start shouting at shrubbery when nobody is looking? Because if not, then shut up, and if so, then get help.

Athiests who do this stuff confuse me the most… you don’t believe ANY god exists… so you can’t even make the argument that they are slighting your deity or something. You should, at best, respect that people have differing beliefs, maybe have a productive and civil discussion about it if possible, or at the very worst, chuckle to yourself because you believe it to be silly, and leave them alone because it will not affect your day even remotely.

This is why I like the agnostics… they admit they don’t know, therefore they leave people who believe they do the f*** alone.

I don’t care if you’re Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, or a damned Satanist, if you aren’t physically hurting someone or infringing directly upon someone else’s rights, then by all means, go for it. You aren’t affecting me one bit.

I don’t really care if this post blows up like it probably will, because the fact is that I am right, and much like asking the government to ban the practice of one’s religious beliefs, you aren’t actually likely to ever make a measurable difference in my opinion.

Live and let live, or go live where nobody else does.

[E] |==|=..|…|…| [F]
Hey look… the rant tank is almost empty. Guess its time to stop.

-EC