Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[Riddler]

Because she could walk ...

You ass, have you ever tried to walk between towns in America,
people who walk across this country are the most harassed travelers.

....fine...and if i'm travelling across your land/yard/property, aren't you going to ask me what i'm doing? who i am?...shoot 1st, ask later?

[SethCohn]

How is this anything different than what I said?

My point was the law is written vague enough, given the myriad laws you can potential break at any moment, that effectively, it's a requirement for mandatory stop and travel id, or at least the equivalent (you must stop if asked, and provide a correct id of yourself, as if you had ID)

[EthanAllen]

How is this anything different than what I said?

My point was the law is written vague enough, given the myriad laws you can potential break at any moment, that effectively, it's a requirement for mandatory stop and travel id, or at least the equivalent (you must stop if asked, and provide a correct id of yourself, as if you had ID)

I said that trumped up probable cause charges occur all the time...It is your word against the police. I have someone dealing with this exact problem as we speak that occurred in Keene over the weekend.

[Jim Johnson]

Because she could walk ...

You ass, have you ever tried to walk between towns in America,
people who walk across this country are the most harassed travelers.

....fine...and if i'm travelling across your land/yard/property, aren't you going to ask me what i'm doing? who i am?...shoot 1st, ask later?

no

[Lloyd Danforth]

Jim would put your ragged ass to work

[Pat K]

"They're jealous. They feel bad because they haven't got the huevos to live free. They wish they could. That makes them fearful of people who do. The fear manifests itself in a dislike of themselves for their weakness, and that self-doubt then becomes dislike of those who have the strength to do what they can't. So, in order to maintain their whimpering dignity, they 'show us' by passing laws that enable their guardians to harass us."
— Bob Bitchin (publisher, Biker Lifestyle,

[FTL_Ian]

Wow.. that really sums them up!

[EthanAllen]

Mere accident of birth is not justification for being ruled by government.  A person can be born here, want to live and, and still not want to be part of the system.  A contract is made when both parties consent.  When one party is not consenting, it's force, not a contract.  The social contract myth makes no sense.

Right...so the exclusive use of any location in an inelastic, scarcity market forces costs upon those being excluded. These costs are a naturally occurring economic phenomena and occurs even in anarchy.

There is no choice in the matter.

So what is to be done about this force that is not subject to a voluntary contract in anarchy?

Local governance as legitimate agency is narrowly constituted to protect life, liberty and labor-based property. They require an obligation to not force any costs upon anyone by exclusive use.

The state on the other hand allows exclusive use without an obligation. A landlord in anarchy is the state.

[David]

Kat, your last article was very well written.

Five years Ian???     I thought you did well on the video.  The part near the end about getting the video of the lady was comical. 

[dan_sayers]

Too bad the gov't has more guns.

If that were true, they wouldn't be so concerned with citizen armament. The reason they are (and why they divide and conquer resolute citizens like Ed Brown) is because there's still more of us than there are of them.

A peace officer may...

I'm no lawyer, so you may be spot on. Just wanted to point out that police have been law enforcement--NOT peace officers--for a long time now.

[FTL_Ian]

Kat, your last article was very well written.

Five years Ian???     I thought you did well on the video.  The part near the end about getting the video of the lady was comical. 

Thank you.  I was very pleased with how quickly I was able to put it together.   

[srqrebel]

This is going to sound a bit redundant, but...

That is a really good video, Ian!

Russell and Jim made some especially good points in the video.

[Jim Johnson]

Too bad the gov't has more guns.

If that were true, they wouldn't be so concerned with citizen armament. The reason they are (and why they divide and conquer resolute citizens like Ed Brown) is because there's still more of us than there are of them.

I think you equivocate on the phrase "more guns".   It may be true that 'our side' may have more members translating into a higher quantity of guns, but 'our side' has neither the quality of their guns nor the moral absence to use them.  They are not afraid to take on the Browns or any of their threateners of violence.  The goal for them is, an always shall be, to loose as few of them as possible with the maximum destruction of their opponent.  That is why they can wait for a moment of weakness and always have the upper hand in an action of violence.  They can withdraw, reformulate and crush any opponent who chooses violence.

The only effective weapon is be non cooperation.  If people choose to say no, the government would have no weapon to use against them except arrest.  They would throw people in jail, maybe by the thousands.  When there is a thousand people saying no behind bars, they would need to have a thousand of them watching and they would collapse under their economic weight.

Everyone who bought a gun, to defend themselves and their families against the government, needs to step out from behind their gun and start noing the head off every government piece of crap that crosses their path.

If you can't just say no, how are you ever going to pull your gun and kill someone?

[dan_sayers]

I think you equivocate on the phrase "more guns".   It may be true that 'our side' may have more members translating into a higher quantity of guns, but 'our side' has neither the quality of their guns nor the moral absence to use them.  They are not afraid to take on the Browns or any of their threateners of violence.  The goal for them is, an always shall be, to loose as few of them as possible with the maximum destruction of their opponent.  That is why they can wait for a moment of weakness and always have the upper hand in an action of violence.  They can withdraw, reformulate and crush any opponent who chooses violence.

"moral absence to use them." I like that. I already grasped the quality aspect, but you're right that their moral absence is an important factor in the equation.

Evil cannot defeat good in a fair fight. So evil has learned to seduce us by convincing us to side with them in a quiet, imbalanced war of attrition. There are many ways they try to accomplish this. They show up with force and threat of force in an attempt to make us believe that their resolve is more grand. If we are ever to win this war for our own liberties, I think we can all agree that rule number one is to not give up. It is my opinion that believing our opponent is in fact more resolute makes one that much more amenable to victimization. I wish to encourage others not to give up or to give our enemy any such satisfaction.

I think we're of similar minds as to how to achieve our end. I think maybe I just place a greater importance on understanding that we have the upper hand, whether that will be any use to us or not. Morale of the troops can make all the difference. Just look at our forefathers, who really did say, "they have more guns than us" but without the "too bad."

[srqrebel]

They show up with force and threat of force in an attempt to make us believe that their resolve is more grand. If we are ever to win this war for our own liberties, I think we can all agree that rule number one is to not give up. It is my opinion that believing our opponent is in fact more resolute makes one that much more amenable to victimization. I wish to encourage others not to give up or to give our enemy any such satisfaction.