Indispensable Tip

We see this happening (in Beverly Hills, even):

Trump supporters have been holding weekly rallies in Los Angeles and about 200 of them were gathered in Beverly Gardens Park in Beverly Hills on Saturday.
But a few dozen Black Lives Lives Matter people showed up to “counter protest” and got violent. They came apparently trying to start fights with the Trump supporters.

…which engenders well-meaning advice like this:

A Navy Seal Instructs Americans on How to Deal With a Violent Mob

I read that, and apart from the usual “stay away from where there’s going to be trouble” bromide, I noticed one glaring omission from our SEAL buddy in the event that the SHTF:  if you’re going to shoot a gun from inside your car, remember to put in earplugs first.  (I’m assuming that you have at least thirty seconds warning that Bad Things are about to happen, and I’m also assuming that like me you always carry a couple of those little orange thingies in your pocket.)

I cannot stress this enough:  if you touch off a round (or two, or three) inside a car without at least some hearing protection, you will suffer severe and possibly permanent hearing loss.

If you don’t carry these little things in your pocket when you go out, you should start getting into the habit.

Here endeth the lesson.

Difference Of Opinion

Shooting off into the darkness, Mitch Berg suggests that this pic proves that the Socialists are deranged:

Me, I think it’s a combination of wishful thinking and the “cult of personality” — an excellent example of totalitarian art as created by Nazi Germany of their hero:

At least the Nazis used a realistic (albeit fanciful) depiction of their hero.  Our modern-day wannabe totalitarians have to rely on their stumbling standard-bearer as a comic-book superhero, and his sidekick in her best “tonight I’m gonna blow Willie Brown” costume.

What a shambles.

Open Season

It’s not often that I read a long article that starts off with me getting angry (remember, my general mood is best described as “irritable” at the best of times) and having my anger grow to nigh-ungovernable rage.  But this article managed to get me there quite effortlessly.  Here’s a taste:

On his way to hunt on his father’s land during the first week of December 2017, Hunter Rainwaters was driving a side-by-side through the property when he noticed an oddity positioned roughly 4’ off the ground. He popped the brakes, backed toward the object and looked in surprise at a trail camera belted to a tree.
“I didn’t see any words or stickers on it, but I knew right away it wasn’t ours,” Hunter Rainwaters recalls.
Following the hunt, he drove back onto the family property and spotted a second trail camera attached to a tree with several branches removed to allow for an unimpeded lens view. Rainwaters dialed his father’s cellphone, and described the two cameras: “I was shaken up when my son called and I knew immediately it had to be the TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency),” Rainwaters recalls.
Deeply disturbed, Rainwaters arrived home later in the afternoon and took a look at the two cameras, mulling over whether to remove the pair. Two days later, with Rainwaters in limbo on what action to take — both cameras disappeared.

“The cameras were collecting pictures of us hunting, driving and just our lives,” he adds. “One of the cameras was even recording footage up to the back of my tenant’s house.”

That’s bad enough.  But it gets worse. (And I’ve added emphasis.)

Can the government place cameras and monitoring equipment on a private citizen’s land at will, or conduct surveillance and stakeouts on private land, without probable cause or a search warrant? Indeed, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Welcome to Open Fields.
The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance, but for roughly a century, SCOTUS has ruled that private land — is not private. Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual’s immediate dwelling area, according to SCOTUS.

Had the government agency mounted their little snoopies on utility poles on the public road off the property, I would have just shrugged.  But to come onto the land without a warrant or permission?

Somewhere, Feliks Dzerzhinsky is chuckling his ass off.

Me, had I discovered this shit on my land and ascertained that there was no label that it was government property, I think I would have moved well back out of range of the camera and performed a little long-range shooting exercise.

“After all, Yeronner, I actually thought it was poachers, scanning my land to see if there was any game for them to hunt illegally.  I never for a moment thought that this skullduggery could be the work of the Gummint!

(My other thought was to plant a Claymore mine at the base of the tree, but no doubt someone’s going to have a problem with this. )

Apart from my beef with the bastard government agency, my equally-enraged beef is with the fucking shysters on the Supreme Court.

Just as I don’t need some asshole judge to “explain” the meaning of the Second Amendment to me, I don’t need these turds to “explain” the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to me, either.

Private property is just that:  private.  And the sole function of government — any government — is to protect that right and ensure that it isn’t transgressed, by anyone.  Looking at the Fourth, I can see the problem:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, in the exquisite nature of lawyers to parse the law literally and look for loopholes, the word “houses” is taken to mean just the area enclosed by walls, and thus government agents can pretty much run roughshod over one’s outdoor property (just as the TWRA did in the above story), as often and for any reason they deem fit.

Izzat so?

Listen:  everybody knows that the nature of government — of all governments — is eventually to oppress otherwise law-abiding citizens.  The only way this can be preempted is to force the would-be oppressors to convince a judge that what they want to do has a clear and compelling justification.  If the judge is just going to sign whatever they put in front of him and pat them on the head as they go on their way… what’s the fucking point of having a judge in the first place?

I’ve said this many, many times on this blog before:  whenever you get a situation where an individual starts whacking government officials and agents, the vast majority of the time it’s because the government is messing with his property in some way or another.  So do not be surprised when landowners start taking potshots at these bastards.

And if I were sitting on a jury to judge a homicide charge against the landowner under these circumstances, I would die before voting for a conviction.

I’ve slotted this post into the “Two Minute Hate” category at the top;  let me tell you, the hatred is going to last a lot longer than that.

Dude Means Business

Cops raid some bad guys’ place, find this:

Of course, this will have to be banned because of all those drive-by chainsaw massacres.

I can’t help thinking that this beast is mainly for intimidation purposes — not to mention that the carrier needs to be fairly muscular just to carry it around.

That said, in the hands of law enforcement, I can’t help but think that it would be a decent riot repellent — although a simple bayonet would have pretty much the same effect.

Quote Of The Day

“The Democrats’ hateful, moronic comments are beyond the pale, and the Democrats know it, but they don’t care because they have nothing to offer the public debate but rage, resentment and quackery. Until other Democrats stand up against this hysteria, they’re admitting to the country their party has no claim to national leadership.” — Republican Tom DeLay (TX), January 2001

Or, as the late and much-missed Acidman put it:

“I could tolerate leftists if they had any coherent ideas for a better way to do things. But they don’t. They cling stubbornly to failed brain-fart dreams that have been attempted over and over again with disastrous results, but they never learn. When better ideas come along, they simply screech and holler at them, then fling feces like the monkeys they are.”