Preppers Beware: Our Supplies Can Be Deemed Illegal (Part 1 of 3)--Article

Discussion in 'Preparedness' started by Harper, May 23, 2019.

  1. Harper

    Harper Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    46,109
    ---

    Source:
    http://www.survivaldan101.com/prepp...-agents-or-the-national-guard-and-even-regul/


    Preppers Beware: Our Supplies Can Be Deemed Illegal—Not by a gang of armed violent looters, but by the color of law, by local or federal law enforcement agents or the National Guard and even regular armed forces


    [​IMG]
    This is the first part of a three-part article about the risk of having everything we’ve stored taken from us.

    This is one of the most important articles we’ve published. Please read it carefully, because if you don’t understand these issues now, you’ll surely be sadly surprised when they become relevant in some future emergency.

    In the first part, immediately below, we talk about how such ‘un-American’ acts like taking one person’s possessions and ignoring concepts of private ownership (what we used to call, with revulsion, Communism) are becoming the normal accepted situation, and we talk about how such a seemingly flagrant breach of the Constitution could in fact occur. It is important to understand this because too many preppers – while open to the possibility of so many different types of future disasters – are insufficiently open-minded about the type of response from the rest of society when such a disaster occurs.

    The second part switches from talking about what might occur and instead focuses on what laws are already on the books. There are already laws that empower the President to command the Armed Forces to take almost everything we have, in an apparently lawful manner. These are laws, in effect today, that have been passed and approved by (of course) both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and which have not been constitutionally challenged.

    The third part introduces you to an appallingly un-American concept, civil forfeiture.

    The first part is dismaying, but the other parts are terrifying. Please do bravely read on.

    We call ourselves preppers, and we stockpile food and other essentials in case of a breakdown in the normal functioning of our society and an inability to continue to live as we normally do. We feel this is a sensible and prudent thing to do, and something to be encouraged.

    But not everyone sees things the same way we do. Instead of what we consider to be prudently stockpiling in good times, then carefully conserving and using up our resources in a future emergency, some people will describe us as selfishly hoarding. Of course, such accusations will never be made in the present day times, not while our consumption-driven economy benefits from people buying as much of everything as they can afford, and then some more too.

    But what about in the future, when all of a sudden, things which were formerly commonplace become rare, and even the most basic essentials of life – food, water, shelter – become precious and scarce? Will the people who sneered at us for prepping simply ‘suck it in’ and say ‘Our bad, you were right, we were wrong, so we get to starve while you get to live’? Or will they say ‘It isn’t fair that these selfish people have more food than they need, while we are without food – it is only right they be forced to share their food fairly with us’?

    Historically, America rose to greatness on the basis of the first response – people were responsible for their own success or failure. If they worked hard and did well, they got to enjoy the fruit of their labors and the flowering of their success. If they made bad choices, or were lazy, then they suffered the consequences.

    But at some point in the last 50 years or so, that has flipped around. Successful people are no longer praised and respected for their success, and failures no longer feel humbled and embarrassed by their failure. Now we see successful people viewed suspiciously, while people who have failed in their lives through laziness and lack of work now are proud of their failure and demand to be supported. Our entire ‘progressive’ tax system penalizes success right from the get-go, and we increasingly hear the mantra being chanted ‘The rich must pay their fair share’.

    But how much is ‘their fair share’? Certainly, we agree that everyone should pay tax, but is it fair that some people should pay five or ten times more tax than some other people? Is it fair that some people should pay one hundred times more tax than the average person, and is it fair that half the country should pay no tax at all? Increasingly, it seems that many people believe these scenarios to be true.

    (Cont.)
     
    NyracSM, Medicine maker, Guy and 6 others like this.
  2. Harper

    Harper Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    46,109

    There has been a steady shift from the overall tax burden being broadly and equally shouldered by all, to more and more of the taxes being paid by fewer and fewer people.

    According to Tax Foundation.org, the top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

    The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

    Is it truly fair that 1% of the country pays almost as much in taxes as the other 95%? Indeed, the people who clamor that the wealthy are not yet paying their fair share seem to think that the 1% should pay even more and more.

    Furthermore, the government’s role in the nation’s economy is expanding. Our economy is increasingly revolving around government activity rather than around private enterprise, and that’s a recipe for economic disaster – just ask any of the failed communist regimes. What that means is that increasingly people rely on the government for their income – they either work for the government or work for a company that contracts to the government or receive benefits from the government – this is a growing mass of people who have no history of making a living in the private sector; people who have learned to view the government as the source of everything they need in their lives.

    Our economy has become increasingly a government based economy, but it only covers the last ten to twenty years in most cases. It still provides a terrifying read of where our economy is headed.

    One last point on this topic. We’ve shown you the growth in the federal government. Now match that with growth also in state government, county government, city government, and all sorts of pseudo-government organizations. The transition of our economy from one predominantly featuring private industry to one now made up of government organizations is even more widespread than you might have thought.

    So what do this commentary on our nation’s tax system and growth in government have to do with the main theme of this article – the risk of having our stockpiled supplies taken from us?

    We have looked at the nation’s evolving attitude towards ‘compulsory sharing’ – another name for taxation – to show how there is a growing belief, and maybe already one held by the majority of voters, that wealthy people have an obligation to sacrifice the wealth they have created and to give it to less wealthy people. If you agree with us at this interpretation of our changing tax collection policies and social expectations, then you understand the first point we are going to make.

    US Society Now Condones Compulsory Taking From the Wealthy
    Our point is simply this. Today it is now normal and accepted to take from the ‘haves’ and distribute to the ‘have nots’, through an increasingly unbalanced tax system and via an ever larger and larger governmental process.

    People say it is ‘fair’ that wealthy people should pay more and more, and people say it is also ‘fair’ that not wealthy people should pay less and indeed be actively subsidized – not only do such people not pay taxes, but they become net recipients of welfare support.

    We’re the first to acknowledge that there is truly a small percentage of the country’s population that needs support and assistance through no fault of their own. But we don’t believe that this ‘small percentage’ is actually half our entire population. Our definition of fairness and our view of the obligations of citizens, in general, is that all people should pay taxes, albeit to a varying degree. If only a small section of society pays taxes, our democratic process becomes perverted whereby the majority can impose whatever taxation policies they wish on the minority – all cloaked in the nebulous concept of ‘fairness’, of course.

    There’s another element to compulsory taking as well. We’re not just talking about the taking of abstract money from people who have ‘too much’ money. We’re also talking about the increasingly aggressive use of ‘Eminent Domain’ powers for public bodies to take private property and to repurpose it for ‘public good’. Eminent Domain is when the council takes your land to build a new road, for example, and compensates you ‘fairly’ for the taking (if it is land that has been in your family for generations which you don’t want to lose at any price, the council’s view of ‘fair’ may not coincide with your own).

    But the concept of ‘public good’ has insidiously expanded – there have been examples of councils taking land for commercial developments such as shopping malls. The most celebrated example of eminent domain abuse – Kelo vs New London – was contested all the way to the Supreme Court, which, alas, approved the taking of the land.

    There are many other dubious and arguably unfair uses of eminent domain – a search for “abuse of eminent domain” on Google brings 1.28 million results.

    Our point is simply that society’s respect for private ownership – whether it be money or land or pretty much anything else – is dwindling. And that is happening during good times – imagine now, if you can, how quickly the last remaining elements of respect for private personal ownership will disappear in difficult times.

    The Social and Practical Basis for Taking Our Food and Supplies From Us
    There are several things to think about when it comes to considering what would happen WTSHTF. We, of course, discuss these things regularly with other people, and a significant number of people refuse to accept that anyone would wish to take anything of theirs. Much as we wish their views to be correct, we sadly disagree. But it is interesting to see the full spectrum of opinions and denials offered to us.

    Some people will acknowledge that a very small minority – unlawful gangs of ‘bad’ people – might wish to do that, but that the overall forces of law and order will prevent such things from happening.

    Some people will acknowledge that there might be pressure to take our supplies from us, but that the police would never enforce an unlawful order.

    But let’s look at past experiences and events to see if these two denials are founded in fact.

    For the first point – the police and other agencies will protect those who ‘have’ from small groups of unlawful gangs, we have three words to offer. Los Angeles riots.

    Remember what happened during the LA riots in 1992. During six days, large swathes of Los Angeles were in total anarchy, a known 53 people were killed, and more than 2,000 were injured. More than 3,600 fires were set, more than 1,100 buildings were destroyed, and total damage probably came in at about $1 billion.

    The Los Angeles police were supplemented by thousands of other local, state and federal law enforcement officers, and by the California National Guard and regular US Marines and other Armed Forces too.

    All of this happened due to protests about the Rodney King Police Officers trial and verdict.

    Now ask yourself. If a mere court case can cause this, which takes six days to get under control, and requires the airlifting of tens of thousands of additional public safety personnel to bring the lawlessness under control, what happens when a more major event occurs, and when tens of thousands of police reinforcements are not available?

    For the second point (the police would not enforce unlawful orders), we’ll again offer up three words, although one would be enough. New Orleans Katrina. The local police and sheriff’s offices seemed to take more pleasure than expected, and to use more zeal than is common for the Big Easy’s finest at doing anything, when it came to seizing people’s firearms – a blatantly illegal act, and carried out in an area where firearms ownership is generally positively viewed.

    If that’s not enough, how about another three words. Boston Bombing Manhunt. Thousands of law enforcement personnel, dressed in full combat gear like they were each about to singlehandedly go to war against the entire Muslim world, went door to door through Boston suburbs, carrying out house to house searches. They had no search warrants. They had no reasonable cause or suspicion. And, furthermore, their searching was all to no avail – the two bombers were not detected as a result of this house to house searching.

    Make no mistake. People weren’t being politely asked if they could have their houses searched. Their houses were being searched at gunpoint, and refusal was not an option.

    Now add to this the fact that after TSHTF, police officers will be as hungry and needy as most other non-prepared people. They will have a vested personal interest in complying with orders to search and seize food and other valuable supplies. Maybe they’ll even get a ‘finder’s fee’ bonus based on how much food and supplies they seize.

    We’ll be generous and accept that a small percentage of police officers might refuse to go along with any such orders. But for every police officer refusing to comply, there’ll be a dozen volunteers willing to take his place.

    All of the preceding has assumed that taking our food and other supplies from us would be illegal. But that’s not necessarily a valid assumption. Alas, quite the opposite. Please keep reading.


    (Cont.)
     
    Guy, blind & lost, Barry J and 3 others like this.
  3. Harper

    Harper Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    46,109
    Future Legal Support for Seizing our Food and Supplies
    There already is probable legal support for having our supplies taken from us, but we’ll leave that for the second part of this two-part article. Let’s assume, for the moment – as most of us naively do – that there are no laws or regulations authorizing the authorities to take our food and other supplies from us. So let’s think – how could such laws be created, and what would we do?

    Don’t get on a moral high horse and say ‘It is unconstitutional and so could never happen’. Unconstitutional laws are enacted every day, and constitutional laws are applied in unconstitutional manners – that’s why we have the legal system, all the way up to the Supreme Courts of our state and of the entire US – to protect us from either inept or wrong-thinking lawmakers. Every day, courts throughout the country find laws to be badly written and unenforceable (and also, every day, courts also choose to enforce badly written laws that should not be enforced). So it is plenty possible that an unconstitutional law could be enacted (and far from certain that the courts would toss it out, even in good times).

    And, think about it. Politicians are not renowned for either their high moral principles or their own foresight and preparedness, are they? When things go bad, they’ll be among the first to be starving, and among the first to be demanding that we share our food with them.

    So, there’ll be an emergency session of – you name it. Maybe even your homeowner’s association. Your local city council. The county council. And/or the state legislature. There will be legislation drafted in double-quick time and passed almost unanimously even quicker.

    The legislation will probably have at least the semblance of fairness associated with it. It will offer you compensation for the food and other supplies taken from you. You’ll probably be given a check for some fair value for your food based on what it would cost in normal times, or possibly you’ll be given a voucher that can be used to get replacement food at some future time when food becomes plentiful again.

    But how much value is a check, when the banking system has failed? For that matter, how much value would cash be, when there’s no food for sale at any price? How much value is a voucher, when you can’t redeem it for anything and will have starved long before normalcy returns?

    The stark reality is that you’re likely to find yourself confronted with a properly enacted law that ostensibly empowers other people to take just about everything you have from you.

    Now, as for the judicial review of this law and the takings carried out under its authority, how well do you think that is going to go for you? Whether you are liberal or conservative, you’ll probably concede that judges no longer impartially enforce the law (always assuming that they ever did!), but rather, they selectively and actively interpret the law based on their own personal beliefs and values.

    Keep in mind that the judge is being asked to decide if he, too, should be able to share in your food, or if he too will starve while you survive. How impartial a judgment do you expect to get if/when you can get your case heard in a court?

    And there’s the other problem – will the court system still be operating? Even if it is and if you get a hearing in a month, and a judgment in two months, what will you do for the two months (or more, especially if you lose and then have to appeal) while you’re waiting, having already given up your food? One thing’s for sure – the way this will work is ‘take first, argue about it in court later’.

    Our prediction is that if society’s collapse occurs slowly enough for legislative bodies to continue to meet, there will definitely be high-minded seeming emergency laws passed to make ‘hoarding’ illegal. But you’ll quickly discover that the definition of hoarding makes you a hoarder.

    If you think that is unlikely, people were arrested and prosecuted for ‘hoarding’ when they attempted to get ‘too much’ petrol during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in the New York area in 2012 – even in cases where one person was the ‘designated driver’ going to get petrol for multiple families.

    All fairness, all reason, all logic – all these things will be abandoned in the panic that will follow TEOTWAWKI.

    Continued in Part Two and Three
    Our point in this first part of the three-part article series is that a large part of society – perhaps even the majority – condones taking from other people and transferring their wealth and even their property so that other people can benefit. You probably consider this immoral and wrong, but the 50% of the country who pay no taxes seem to have no difficulty with their consciences while all the time demanding that the rich pay more and more, which the takers ludicrously describe as ‘paying their fair share’.

    Even people who might find this an uncomfortable situation at present will get a very different perspective when they see your house as the only one with power, heat, and light, and smell the rich smell of food cooking, in a scenario where they have none of any such things. Some people may respond by simply trying to steal food from you at gunpoint, others will throw themselves on your mercy and beg for food and most likely if you are prepared you can overcome these situations. But the biggest threat will be the people who pass a new law to force you to share everything you have.

    But wait. There’s more. Please attend for the part two (and then subsequently on to part three), where we stop considering future possible scenarios, and instead focus in on the actual laws that are already on the books, and how they give close to unlimited unrestricted power to the President to take anything he wants from anyone at all, for close on any reason.

    We know that sounds impossible to believe, so we back up everything we say with links to formal proof of each statement we make.
     
    NyracSM, Guy, blind & lost and 5 others like this.
  4. Black5

    Black5 Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    5,416
    Location:
    Ozark Mountains
    I believe it is highly probable, and I just flat out expect it to happen. Fortunately, my area is full of older people who stockpile out of habit.

    Unfortunately I live in an area that could become a prime target of just such a law enacted by the urban dwellers a half hour away (by vehicle) that is the county seat.

    Multiple locations for storage if possible is the only answer I see. The prepper's wet dream if holding off the golden horde with his trusty AR -15 won't be worth spit when the rule of law protects the legal marauders and looters.
     
  5. ATsawyer

    ATsawyer Scout

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    1,995
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    You are absolutely right about the 1-percenters. They should get to keep all their money and the those who are poor, unemployed, working for the minimum wage, etc. should shoulder the entire tax burden. America is awash with slackers who should be forced to turn over their entire paychecks to Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers, or Bill Gates since it's obvious that these guys know how to spend their money wisely instead of on just food or health care. I think you're on to something.
     
  6. Harper

    Harper Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    46,109
    I didn't write the article.
     
    Guy, blind & lost and ezra45 like this.
  7. Gumbi

    Gumbi Guide Bushclass I

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    2,676
    Location:
    Iowa
    This was an interesting article, thanks for sharing, Harper!
     
    Barry J and Harper like this.
  8. Duncsquatch

    Duncsquatch Heed the call. Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    10,375
    Location:
    East WA
    If I had cache of food, supplies and medicine... It would be a secret cache of food , supplies and medicine.
     
    Guy, rockett88s, hidden_lion and 6 others like this.
  9. Gumbi

    Gumbi Guide Bushclass I

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    2,676
    Location:
    Iowa
    I realize that you are being sarcastic, but everybody knows that the super rich that you mentioned don't pay any taxes. They start foundations that they have complete control over, and then make donations to their own foundations so that they can deduct from taxes.

    But regardless, taxation is theft anyway.

    Already, police can pull you over and confiscate your cash under the guise of it being drug money or used to distribute drugs. It's becoming more and more common. It's called civil forfeiture.
     
    MAD Punty, Barry J and Harper like this.
  10. slysir

    slysir Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    14,002
    Location:
    Florida
    I had a girlfriend who was 6yrs old living in Berlin in 1945. Needless to say it was a total breakdown of society. Everyone was starving. When she saw my emergency stockpile she told me, with a look on her face I'll never forget, "don't let anyone know you have this".

    -John
     
    Guy, Cueball77, WY_Not and 8 others like this.
  11. LostViking

    LostViking Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,223
    Likes Received:
    19,898
    Location:
    Northern Adirondacks
    If you purchased your secret cache of food, supplies, and medicine with Credit, Debit, or store related Advantage type cards. That offer you a paltry discount for allowing them to track everything you purchase everytime you shop.

    Your secret stash may not be as off the radar as you would like.
     
    Guy, blind & lost and Harper like this.
  12. Duncsquatch

    Duncsquatch Heed the call. Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    10,375
    Location:
    East WA
    Agreed
     
    Harper likes this.
  13. blind & lost

    blind & lost LB#42 Supporter Bushcraft Friend

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    51,137
    Location:
    Florida
    Great points made so far, we need to be more aware of who the real thieves may be.
     
    LostViking, slysir and Harper like this.
  14. Ketchikan85

    Ketchikan85 Tracker Banned

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    792
    Location:
    Tennessee

    I say tax the hell out of the poor.

    Seriously, everyone should pay the same. If you made $10 last year, you pay 10%. If you made $10,000,000,000 last year, you pay 10%. I'm also bloody tired of property tax, that one needs to go away, period. A man should be allowed to own one thing in his life.
     
    dial1911, bluecow, Guy and 4 others like this.
  15. rockett88s

    rockett88s Scout

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    North east
    Ummm... I don't mind holding the government accountable. I'm waaaay more of an anarchist than I am a Libertarian. But whoever wrote this crap was not there. I was. My team was assigned with three other teams in the area of Spruce St and Lincoln St. I was assigned as the Team Leader. The two other team leaders, and the Team Commander in our area were all personally known to me. We were briefed thoroughly, and the operating orders for searches were to knock, ask for the homeowner, explain what the situation was, and ask politely if they would like us to check their homes. We also asked if there were any suspicious signs, such as a door or window that they may have found unsecured, or if there were any outbuilding they wished us to check. We were also thoroughly briefed that if they refused we would politely say thank you, and move to the next home. Of the thirty or so homes that my team checked, we had no refusals. Neither did the guys across the street Most of the folks I spoke with that day were scared. Our job was to make their situation less frightening. We were looking for a guy who threw grenades at our friends four or five hours earlier. We were looking for a guy who killed one of OUR BROTHERS a few hours earlier. Just my two cents worth....

    I don't mind anyone hatin' on the Govmint, nor do i trust the benevolence of any politician. ANY politician... any where at any time.... but if someone tosses a dis at my guys, I may get a tad testy...

    Carry on!
     
  16. MAD Punty

    MAD Punty Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    7,286
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Speaking as the Anarcho-Capitalist libertarian I am, from Massachusetts, and one that has had a huge beef with the way that whole thing went down even at the time it was occurring, this is the first time I have heard it presented that way, and I find it to be a huge relief to hear it.

    Honestly, I am not sure if I was more pissed at the police, or more pissed at the homeowners for not upholding our rights....maybe 50/50.

    As the old saying goes, you can't play the "knock knock" joke game with a libertarian..

    "Knock knock"

    "GET A WARRANT!"
     
    Harper and WY_Not like this.
  17. superpaco

    superpaco I used to think I was really smart.... Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    Location:
    Somewhere near Nashville, presumably....
    Tl;dr.
    But I will say someone paying 4 times as much tax as me is fine when they make (on the low side) 10-100 times as much and the legal system (on which we depend to dispense fairness) has devolved to 'pay for play'. Eat the rich.
     
    Harper likes this.
  18. bluecow

    bluecow Scout

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    1,577
    Location:
    Pine Tree State
    before they get there they will take your 401K's and Roth IRA's to pay for SSI

    the bottom 50% payed only 3% in 2016 per the IRS. So i guess that its okay for me to work 70-80 hour a week to keep going all the while i can point to 4 houses between mine and town where a male ( not a man ) and woman live with children, 4 wheelers, motorcycles, and boats in the drive, AND NOBODY WORKS OR EVER HAVE. I (and no thinking person) has trouble about helping people that need help. yet help dose not mean that the person get to live for ever like the landed gentry. for every sob with a disability of the terminal case of the lazies, thats less $ that could be used to help those that are truly needy.
     
    Harper likes this.
  19. Sierramtns42

    Sierramtns42 Tracker

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    200
    Location:
    High Sierra Nevada, CA
    c
    Unfortunately there are way too many reasons to "dis" your guys. Read/watch the news. I personally had a friend, worked for me, who was sitting at home one night when a bunch of Hell's Angles knocked down his door, burst in, and shot him in the chest while he was sitting on his couch. He played dead, thinking they would finish him if he showed signs of life. They ransacked his house while he lay there. About a half hour later an ambulance (coroner's?) showed up, checked him out, and then rushed him to the hospital. He survived. The Hell's Angles turned out to be police or maybe sheriffs working undercover. They had a search warrant to for a drug search. Guess what - They went to the wrong address. They cold bloodily shot an innocent, unarmed, un-resisting man in the chest. Nothing much happened to them. I'll "diss" them, their superiors, and the whole system that permits such things to go on, and on, and on.
     
    Harper likes this.
  20. Skotelawe

    Skotelawe Guide

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    Land Of The Devil Winds
    Leaving out a moment the fallacy of painting with a broad brush based on an anecdote...

    Where and when did this happen? Have a link to the relevant news reports or court case?
     
    rockett88s and Harper like this.
  21. werewolf won

    werewolf won TANSTAAFL Supporter Bushcraft Friend

    Blog Posts:
    18
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    16,638
    Likes Received:
    36,269
    What scares me is that there are no secrets. Unless you grow your own food there is an electronic record somewhere of everything you purchase if you paid with a CC or used a stores electronic coupon system. That nickel off on the big bag of rice put your purchase on a list that someday may become the list the government will use to come collect your hard earned stash. Big Brother is always watching, you may not realize it now, but the day could come.

    Even growing your own food is not guarantee of safety. You need land to grow big enough amounts to matter, a simple fly over will point out the bigger than normal gardens. Even large water and electric bills will tip the government off to some agriculture potentially taking place on your property
     
    dial1911 and Harper like this.
  22. Sierramtns42

    Sierramtns42 Tracker

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    200
    Location:
    High Sierra Nevada, CA
    This happened a long time ago, maybe 40 or 50 years. The county was Contra Costa in California. He lived in a rural area on a road named Canyon. I lived right across the hill range from him in Alameda county on Tunnel Road. No I don't have any link; this was long before the internet. I also haven't seen him in many, many years.
    As for painting with a broad brush read the news, check the available statistics. Here's a statistic for you. In 2017 the German police shot and killed eleven (11) people. USA police shot and killed approximately 1,000 people. In the USA police are not required to report shootings or deaths to any national agency, so numbers are a compilation taken from available police supplied data plus news reports. The USA has about 3 1/2 times the population of Germany. So if Germany were the same population as us then they would have shot and killed about 38 people; 38 there 1,000 here! Something is very, very wrong. Yes there are many very good and well trained police and some who are certainly not well trained. Furthermore, in general, there seems to be little accountability for many of the shootings. These numbers are easy to find if you care to search the internet. They are not invented and they are fairly consistent across a large number of both official US provided data and unofficial (non-government) provided data.
     
    Harper likes this.
  23. rockett88s

    rockett88s Scout

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    334
    Location:
    North east
    I fear and despise politicians WAAAAAY more than police officers... On occasion Politicians invade the ranks of Police. Finding any relevant data or statistics relating to who shot whom, and then trying to compare those stilted statistics to another country's version of those same stilted statistics is an exercise in futility. Basing hatred of one group or another by casually using such stilted statistics is not reasonable.

    I rose through the ranks in my 30 year LE career from Deputy Sheriff to Shift Supervisor. I have worked with significantly more honest and decent men and women in Law enforcement than the dishonest and shameful politicians and just generally bad actors I have encountered in the ranks of the police agencies I worked with. I do not make blanket statements about all Law Enforcement agencies. It is not uncommon to encounter rogue actors, and agencies where such have created a climate of lawlessness.

    You and I are much more likely to be victimized and to have our rights compromised and trashed through the political process than we are to be so assailed by our local police agencies. The farther away from polite society that I am, the more comfortable I am. The closer I get to the center of town, or to any urban environment, the more paranoid I get about the level of governmental intrusion into my simple, well-prepared life...

    I can remember the Happy Old Days when I could ride up to Bike Week and not worry about State Troopers having license plate readers, or facial recognition cameras at toll booths and various intersections.... I didn't have to pay for everything in cash to prevent my ex-wife (wives???) subpoenaing
    my bank records , which record every drop of gas I purchased .... etc , etc....

    Aaaaah, well... the times they are a changing....
    I don't mind you guys who hate on the nature of our hyperactive security state.... just put the blame in the right place.... it's the Politicians, not necessarily the cops on the job...

    Just saying...
     
    Harper likes this.
  24. dial1911

    dial1911 Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    1,691
    Location:
    Middle Georgia

    We will have to start hijacking Walmart trucks and taking the supplies we need... untraceable. :4:

    I'm wondering (assuming that things have gotten so bad that they're going door to door for food stashes) where their priorities would be- the individuals doing the searching that is... Presumably they haven't been eating either, so...

    In all seriousness- I can fully see big bro stealing everyone's retirement accounts in my lifetime. That should trigger a damned civil war (people vs. govt), but I feel certain that won't happen. The debt is out of control and voters are being bought with gov't handouts. Nothing's going to stop the current system until it's out of it's main resource (cash) and at that point, they will demand all the 401k's, IRA's, etc. for the "greater good."

    I'd continue, but I can hear my heartbeat in my left ear which means my blood pressure is already high enough.
     
    rockett88s, werewolf won and Harper like this.
  25. werewolf won

    werewolf won TANSTAAFL Supporter Bushcraft Friend

    Blog Posts:
    18
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    16,638
    Likes Received:
    36,269
    I got nervous when they started calling SSI an entitlement. We’ve all paid into that our entire lives in the form of a payroll tax. It’s our money; and if a private company went into pension funds and started using them they’d go to prison but the government uses these funds as they wish and now claims the system is underfunded?? Bad enough they have played around with our retirement ages, now we may well have nothing when we do get there.

    Bank “holidays” and crashes have been a part of Americana from the start—hard to imagine we’ve seen the last of them. The last government bailout of banks, mortgage companies and car manufactures etc shows just how close to financial disaster this government really runs.
     
    rockett88s, LostViking, Gumbi and 2 others like this.
  26. Medicine maker

    Medicine maker Guide

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1,835
    Likes Received:
    3,713
    For Jah sake how did I miss this!
     
    Harper likes this.
  27. Glenn Rowe

    Glenn Rowe Supporter Supporter

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2019
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Location:
    IN SoCal, but FROM the Deep South
    [I think you meant SSR, for Social Security Retirement. SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, actually is an entitlement.]

    I agree that Social Security Retirement is an earned benefit. Actually it's required, since there are very few income earners who can legally opt out of paying into it.

    And yes, our federal government controls everything about the Social Security Administration's funds including how/where the funds can be invested, and how those funds can/must be used until they're paid out as benefits. The system is "underfunded" because they've been jacking around with it for decades now. It's like stealing a man's wallet and then charging him with vagrancy ('no visible means of support')....
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2019
    werewolf won and Harper like this.

Share This Page