Guest Post: Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military - William Burroughs

Revolution?  Yes, it all sounds rather “extreme”, but the cold hard reality of our era is not going to comfort us with diplomacies and niceties, so honestly, why should I have to sugar coat anything?  We live in extreme times and there is no longer room for prancing around the ultimate consequences of that which is taking place in America today.  This country is increasingly sliding towards the edge of internal conflict.  The Liberty Movement and true Constitutionalists see it, subsections of Republicans and Democrats see it, and most of all, the federal government sees it.  In fact, they may even be counting on it. 

Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond.  The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it.  You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.  Our rights have been made forfeit.

There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore.  The separation is absolute.  It is undeniable.  It is vast.  It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict.  All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…       

Though made to appear “complex”, the gun control debate is actually an incredibly simple issue.  It all boils down to a couple of questions which gun grabbers rarely ask:  How does the 2nd Amendment affect the future?  That is to say, what was the original intent, and should we still value that intent as it applies to tomorrow?  And, what will really happen if it is forcibly removed?  Gun opponents act as though they are unaware of these questions, or maybe they don’t care.  However, it is vital to their safety and the safety of our culture in general that they do finally consider the bigger picture. 

We’ve all heard the prefabricated gun control talking points before.  Some of them so old they predate us.  They are numerous and most of them incredibly thin.  The gist of the anti-gun position, though, could be boiled down to these three points...

Common Anti-Gun Arguments:

1) The 2nd Amendment is “outdated” and no longer relevant in today’s modern society.

2) We do not want to stop you from “defending yourself”, or interfere with the American tradition of hunting, but people do not need “military assault weapons” for either.

3) Your claimed freedom to own guns should not supersede my freedom to live without fear of guns.  We exist in a society, and our society requires us to give up certain freedoms so that it can function.

Again, in response to these arguments, I have to ask, what does the 2nd Amendment mean for the future?  What was its original intent?  Gun control advocates would like to ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically protects a broad application of gun ownership, but when they cannot deny the legality of it, they instead turn to more abstract and existential methods of attack.  They try to twist the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to further their goals.  To respond briefly to each of the above fallacies:   

1) The right to self defense from ANY threat, whether it be an individual, or a criminal government, does not “outdate”.  It is a universal and eternal freedom.  It is a foundational pillar of natural law.  Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, I would still have the inborn right to arm and protect myself and those I love, and the best way to do that is to own firearms.  The men who drafted the Constitution were far more intelligent than any pithy gun grabber today, yet, these socialist errand boys seem to believe that they have “surpassed” the wisdom of the Founders.  The amount of ego required to fuel such an attitude boggles the mind…

Gun violence and violence in general will not end simply by banning firearms.  The very idea that any society can remove all weapons from their sight is naïve to begin with.  Criminals always find a way.  Murder, rape, and mayhem will continue until you confront the root problem, which is the human mind, and the human heart.  Only when these two things are balanced in all people will violence end.  Disarming good men and women has never made a society “safer”.  When the power of defense is removed from the people, someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse their weakness.  The most armed entity of the time invariably becomes the subjugator, and usually this is the government.  Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations.  The guns were gone, and still millions upon millions died.  Modern day Mexico is a perfect example of a disarmed population that is now living in terror because of criminal organizations (which, of course, still have guns).  Disarmament does NOT end gun violence, it only changes the dynamic of who uses that violence, and it makes innocent victims easier to attack.

2) Because the legal argument over the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is essentially over, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun rights do indeed apply to individuals, and not just collective bodies like the National Guard, gun grabbers are now reverting to the argument that we ARE allowed to defend ourselves with firearms, but the kinds of firearms we are able to use can still be limited.  The goal of this argument is to fool gun owners who only possess conventional firearms (hunting rifles) into believing that they will not be personally affected if they support a ban on military style weapons.  These wishy-washy hunting enthusiasts are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” because of their gullibility.

All gun confiscation programs start by chipping away at the outer barriers of gun ownership.  Like termites slowly chewing away at the wooden skeleton of a home, anti-gun proponents start small and end by destroying the entire edifice.  Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land.  That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes.  Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern.  Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption.  We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult. 

Gun grabbers will argue that our government is not the enemy because it is derived through democratic elections.  They will say that we can change it anytime we like in the voting box.  I would point out that regardless of which party is placed in power through elections, nothing in terms of our direction as a country has been changed, and, that both parties support almost identical policies.  For instance, Obama has come out in favor of nearly identical policy initiatives to Bush, and I can almost guarantee that many Republicans will sign onto the gun control efforts of Democrats despite their supposed pro-gun rhetoric.  When the two party system becomes a one party system, voting becomes irrelevant. 

Finally, they will admonish the idea of an armed citizenry keeping the government in check as a “fairy tale”.  They will claim that in the face of modern military might, constitutionalists would be crushed.  For what can an AK-47 do to an F-15?  Apparently, they have never heard of Afghanistan, which has used AK-47’s and 30 year old armaments to repel two technologically advanced armies; the Soviet Union and the U.S.  Of course, the Afghanis did not allow themselves to be disarmed…   

3) Here is where we get into the nonsense of intellectual idiocy.  The only real skill which academics seem to have is jumbling piles of logical fallacies together to make a single argument that sounds “rational”, but, in fact, isn’t.  The third debate point is an extremely collectivist one, and collectivist arguments generally exploit the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal freedoms in order for the group to function. 

The truth is, the group does not matter.  The perceived collective concerns and fears of a mass of people are not relevant.  All that matters are the concerns of the singular man or woman, and whether or not those concerns are legitimate.  If a person “fears” guns and gun violence, then that is their private problem, not the problem of our entire society.  We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them.  We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns.  Just because a portion of our country shares this individual fear does not make that fear any more credible, or any more our problem.      

Do They Know What They Are In For...?

Feinstein’s campaign for gun control is not hers alone; it has been the overall establishment’s work in progress for decades.  I covered the broad based arguments of gun control advocates above because I wanted to illustrate the tangibility of gun ownership.  I want to show you where we stand as constitutionalists, and I can say confidently that our moral and intellectual footing is strong.  To be clear, when defenders of a particular idea are right in their position, they are much more likely to fight and die for that position, and they are much more likely to win.  

In the beginning I asked what the 2nd Amendment means for the future of this country.  Not only if it continues, but if it disappears.  If I was a gun control proponent, I would weigh the aftereffects of my actions carefully, because the penalties will likely be dire…

I have heard it argued that Americans are passive.  We didn’t rise up against the last Assault Weapons Ban. We didn’t rise up against the Patriot Act.  We didn’t rise up against TSA molestation.  We didn’t rise up against warrantless wiretapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens, or even the NDAA.  The people who make this point, though, are not looking at the larger issue.  It is one thing for our government to pass legislation; the wider application of that legislation on our streets and at our doorsteps is another matter. 

Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective.  The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.  It reaches far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990’s, calling for the creation of a massive database of almost all gun owners in the United States.  This database will require citizens to submit their EXISTING firearms to cataloging, and the owners to be filed and fingerprinted like criminals. 

The bill will ban the outright the sale, manufacture, and transfer of at least 120 models of firearms (which have not yet been named).  It will ban the manufacture and sale of most if not all semi-automatic rifles and the bill specifically targets handguns as well.  Large capacity mags and mag fed weapons will essentially disappear from gun stores.  Though, those guns designated as “hunting rifles” will be exempt (for now).

Feinstein has also openly agreed with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo that government buy back programs (forced selling of firearms at a reduced price) and even physical confiscations are on the table:

To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States.  If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands.

Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons.  Why?  Because gun registration reeks of fascism!  Some might call this “cliche”, but let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:

- Classified guns for "sporting purposes"

- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).

- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history.  We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.

The database itself is truly the crux of it all.  It basically begs to be defied.  When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner.  Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into.  The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response. 

The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement.  Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous.  At least, that’s what the headlines will say.  In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right?  But then again…

What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s.  Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest.  Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind.  We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.

Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:

"European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue."

"Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past," Abramson said, adding that "the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway."

The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms.  Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations?  They can't have it both ways.  Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren't.  Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein's gun grab bill?  

To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution.  Count on it.  It is not a matter of what we "want", it is a matter of what is necessary.  Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything.  When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds.  Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws - Edward Abbey

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TuPhat's picture

I think some people just don't get your comment.  I couldn't walk for a year either.  And it must have been so rough on my psyche that I can't remember anything that happened to me for that whole year.

Agent P's picture

Every crowd is going to have its share of Baby Dick Joke haters.

Harbanger's picture

Unless you're a Jew or a Muslim, there's no reason for it.  It only creates problems as that skin was never meant to be exposed 24-7.

Papasmurf's picture

I know someone who's circumcision was done with pinking shears.  He has a frilly dilly.

Papasmurf's picture

Circumcision is a cruel and brutal procedure.  After I had mine done, I couldn't walk for a year.


You have to stop yanking it long enough for it to heal.

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

Wait - who's "choice" is implicated with the circumcision?


Seems like there's a little hole in your effort here if you're crazy enough to think that the removal of healthy, sensate tissue, without consent {leaving aside if it becomes medically necessary, or a choice later in life} is fucking barbaric no matter what your tradition says about God giving you land in exchange for doing it.


Why was it that God could never give clear title to the Hebros, anyways>??  Always seemed to be some other cats already living there.... 

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Seems like there's a little hole in your effort here if you're crazy enough to think that the removal of healthy, sensate tissue, without consent

Wait - are you referencing just the child's foreskin, or the whole unborn child?

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

Interesting point, but while I don't think it's the government job to tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant, it is the government's job to tell people that they don't get to cut off bits of me because of their peculiar religious beliefs.


Again, the problem is the lack of consent and the lack of anything like a solid medical reason overcoming the general ethical standard of bodily integrity.


But people who want to make it {only} an assault on Jews aren't going to let you make the secular argument... that way they can call you an 'antisemite' and not even begin to address the merits... which is the tactic of the neocons and Bill Kristols of the world too............... yaaawwwwnnn...



hedgeless_horseman's picture



I do not understand how you, and so many others, can live with such obviously contradictory beliefs.  What really concerns me is that you want to make me, and everyone else, live in the same way.

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

What I don't understand is how people like you see a contradiction.  What concerns me is you seem totally unwilling to summon anything like a rational argument.


Here's mine:  No one has a right to cut pieces off of my body because of their beliefs.  what is inane or illogical about this premise>?

I'm on the side of liberty and personal freedom - you're on the side of people practicing barbarism and imposing their will on the unconsenting persons of others, while pretending to be on the side of liberty.


You idiots seem to conflate the religious freedom of a parent with the bodily integrity of a newborn who has no beliefs at all.


If you were consistent, you'd stick with the rest of the old testament, and demand to be stoned to death for whacking off in your mom's basement.


hedgeless_horseman's picture



No one has a right to cut pieces off of my body because of their beliefs.

That is exactly what would happen to you if you were aborted, just many more pieces.  So you must be pro life?

Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm pro- leaving the government OUT of choosing what a woman does with her body.

I'm pro- NOT monitoring a woman's fertility to enForce MAN-made laws forcing birth into variable circumstances NO GOVERNMENT has a say in.

you're posts here, with pictures, are really valuable lessons in exactly how amrkns will turn on each other, and turn IN each other, in the future - putting up pictures of your "neighbours" with tattle-tale descriptives, along with all your smug foodie posts - which would be commendable were you not so full of you and your family's righteousness - will you be submitting your wife and daughters to the inevitable gov't. monitoring of their fertility cycles?

because once that zygote personhood is in place, there will HAVE to be monitoring of the bodies for COMPLIANCE - I'm sure you'll be right up front to make sure it runs smoothly, camera in hand.

you people really need to think these things through, and get out of your little "I want" role-playing - they want my guns?? NO WAY!!  they want to control woman's bodies for enForced birth?  sure, bring it on, we needs more kids in poverty. . .

Cathartes Aura's picture

aaaaaand, the inevitable anonymous downvotes.

lrn2argue, or getthefuckout.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Your arguments are always so fallacious it is hard to know where to start, but of course that is exactly your intent.

Cathartes Aura's picture

yes, my arguments are too hard to reply to.

I get it.

flattrader's picture


Forced pregnancy based on religious beliefs enforced by the state is a violation of personal liberty.

Take your religous anti-choice crap and pedal it elsewhere.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Take your religous anti-choice crap and pedal it elsewhere.

I assume you mean anti-choice for mothers, not anti-choice for the child. 

Either way, where, exactly, have I indicated I am anti-choice for either? 

If you cannot find an instance, what does that say about you? 

This is apart from the fact that you either support parents' "personal liberty" to chose circumcision...

Forced pregnancy based on religious beliefs enforced by the state is a violation of personal liberty.

...or you are a hypocrit. 

Which is it? 

Can I chose to own gold fish?

Can I chose to defend my life, and the lives of my children, using a firearm?


flattrader's picture

Your seemingly clever attempt to muddle the issues of abortion, circumcision and goldfish is pathetic.

What an idiot city council does in SF regarding house pets has nothing to do with the other two issues involving medical procedures that affect adults and minor children.  If you can't see that, a court certainly will.

Though I expect the circumcision and goldfish issues to both end up in court.

This also has nothing to to with the 2nd Amendment.

Your attempt to twist the issues and tie them together indicates if nothing else that you are bored.  Find a hobby.


Abaco's picture

So you don't think it is OK to cut off bits of you but it is OK to cut up all of you without consent? Got it - your logic is clear</sarc>

TuPhat's picture

You make a lot of inane comments.  What's your problem?

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

What's inane about that comment?


Removing healthy tissue from someone, without medical reason, on a person who doesn't/can't consent...  is somehow a matter of "liberty" to you?


It's done to someone else, shithead.  no one's arguing you can't have it done to yourself - have at it.


What's your problem?

mercenaryomics's picture

Hmm... is it within a woman's right to circumcise her male child while it is still inside her?  

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture



What about circumcising or FGMing a female fetus?  If it's good for the goose, it's good for the vulva, no?

Harbanger's picture

I don't know why people are equating circumcision with abortions.  Neither is right because there is a human being involved without a choice.  I'm not in favor of abortions but I'm not against the morning after pill or other similar methods.  At what point does 2 cells become a person, I don't know but their has to be a limit, say 30 days after a missed period, that's it, if you didn't decide by then, it's already a full human being and it's desire to live over rides your rights.

Cathartes Aura's picture

zygote personhood.

it's all the rage. . .

flattrader's picture


All the rage because the anti-choice crowd is clearly losing the culture war.  It's a last gasp.

Cathartes Aura's picture

aye, the rage is very apparent at this stage of the game.

even here, after a year of "RPRevolution" - the same ignoring of facts continues, the same fraternal lovefest despite all that has taken place.

the Son is still polly-ticking though, so I'll keep poking the hornet's nest of hive mind thinking, in the hopes a few will at least acknowledge what they're promoting.

best wishes as always.

mercenaryomics's picture

To declare someone "dead" a doctor checks the heartbeat; without a heartbeat, no life.  So when a fetus gains a heartbeat it is alive, not before.  I think that's logical to me so that's how I prefer to define it. 

Michaelwiseguy's picture

MSNBC is Queer Eye for the Insane Guy Baby Killer news channel.

Sparkey's picture

It is wonderful to see someone fighting to stop the mutilation of defenseless baby boys, people who engage in this practice should be jailed, now on to abortion; I think it is perferable to abort the children who have no parents who want to nurture them, if you have shares in prison corporations your desire for profit may be your your motive for opposing this, yet; the human misery created in these children, and the harm it does to our society is prevasive and unrecognized. Apparently poor people have children to get larger checks, if we offered these Mothers, even a Thousand dollars cash, to have an abortion, many would take it. The problem is; it,s not the baby they want, it is the income the baby can generate that is wanted! (Abortion is good! if you don't think so, tell us; How many unwanted children have you adopted?)

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

Sorry, but it's clear you aren't familiar with what a "contradiction" is in logic terms.


I don't like Feinstein either, not at all, but laws having to do with what you can do with your own body can't be juxtaposed with laws going to do with what you can do to others.


My freedom to get a tattoo is not inconsistent with my lack of "freedom" to hold you down and give you one.


If you think the government has the right to tell women that she must maintain a pregnancy - that the government can tell her what to do with her body - that's your opinion, but please don't think it's a "contradiction" to hold that while Congress or state government has no business telling a woman she must give birth, it does have business telling the local gangmember he doesn't get to shoot me, stab me, or cut my ear off because of his 'beliefs.'


If you think that a parent has a right, absent medical need, to cut off healthy, sensate, possibly erogenous tissue because of their own beliefs  - then there's no simply arguing with you, and all you're doing is begging the question each time you pretend to debate it on the merits.  



Contra principia negantem non est disputandum...


hedgeless_horseman's picture



Do you think that a parent has a right, absent medical need, to cut out a healthy, sensate, fetus because of the parent's own beliefs?

Cathartes Aura's picture

do you believe that the government, and the people IN government that will inevitably enForce; these laws, have the right to monitor women's fertility, in order to maintain control over her womb?

because that's the next step in your line of thinking - if you make zygote personhood a reality, then you will get the employees, TSA style, to make sure of compliance.

go there.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



do you believe that the government, and the people IN government that will inevitably enForce; these laws, have the right to monitor women's fertility, in order to maintain control over her womb?


Do you believe the government has the right to prevent me from owning goldfish?

Do you believe the government has the right to prevent me from circumcising my son?

Do you believe the government has the right to prevent me from aborting my unborn child?

Do you believe the government has the right to prevent me from defending my life, or my family member's life, with a firearm?


You go there.

Cathartes Aura's picture

you're not making your point, nor sticking to the subject in my post that you replied to.

IF you want to enForce monitoring a woman's fertility to prevent abortions, THEN how do you suppose government will accomplish this?  given the trajectory government is currently on. . .

you're free to defend your family, just keep your OPINIONS away from other people's family - stop granting the government control over other people's decisions that don't mesh with your beliefs.

end of.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Not going there?  Avoidance? 


Cathartes Aura's picture

a common tactic here.

next amrkn revolution, lulz. . .

Cathartes Aura's picture

and just for the record - I don't "believe" in granting the "government" ANY power over the individual, so get yer goldfish, guns and baby, have at it, just get the fuck out of everyone else's business.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



I don't "believe" in granting the "government" ANY power over the individual

In regards to the Feds, I am pretty much in agreement with you.

Peace be with you.

Cathartes Aura's picture

law enForcement at EVERY level needs to be reigned in,

Military Drone Flights in the United States

While the U.S. military doesn’t need an FAA license to fly drones over its own military bases (these are considered “restricted airspace”), it does need a license to fly in the national airspace (which is almost everywhere else in the US). And, as we’ve learned from these records, the Air Force and Marine Corps regularly fly both large and small drones in the national airspace all around the country.

Another Texas law enforcement agency—the Arlington Police Department—also wanted to fly its “Leptron Avenger” drone for narcotics and police missions.

Interestingly, the Leptron Avenger can be outfitted with LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technology. While LIDAR can be used to create high-resolution images of the earth’s surface, it is also used in high tech police speed guns—begging the question of whether drones will soon be used for minor traffic violations.

More disturbing than these proposed uses is the fact that some law enforcement agencies, like the Orange County, Florida Sheriff’s Department and Mesa County, Colorado Sheriff, have chosen arbitrarily to withhold some or—in Orange County’s case—almost all information about their drone flights—including what type of drone they’re flying, where they’re flying it, and what they want to use it for—claiming that releasing this information would pose a threat to police work.

For example, the University of Colorado (which the FAA said has received over 200 drone licenses) requested a license in 2008, not just to study meteorological conditions but also to aid “in the study of ad hoc wireless networks with [the drone] acting as communication relays.” And Otter Tail County, Minnesota wanted to use its drone, not only for “engineering and mapping” but also “as requested for law enforcement needs such as search warrant and search and rescue.”


people need to pay attention to the power of all government, including what their local law and schools are collaborating in.


N. B. Forrest's picture

What you don't realize is that a majority of those Californian's like this Maxist shit.  They'll build a monument to her

Citxmech's picture

They better get started soon or they won't be able to afford one.


Too bad all the magazine capacity and weapons ownership restrictions in California aren't having the effect they were signed into law for. WTF, Feinstein ? Got logic for explain ?

Same with Illinois, New York State, and both Connecticut and Mass.

All kinds of gun control going on there, and the crime rate has skyrocketed in those states anyway.

Statistics are a bitch, bitchez 

F. Bastiat's picture

Socialism is, for all intents, instinct. Reference Igor Shafarevich's brilliant work on the subject: (Socialism in our Past and Future)

and  (The Socialist Phenomenon)

petolo's picture


CH1's picture

You are mistaking "anarchy" for "chaos."

The word anarchy implies neither violence or disorder, only the absence of rulers.

If there are "sides" or uniforms, it ain't anarchy.

GoldMInerJoe's picture

Economics 96.... whatever the fuck


Your a Fucking idiot. Seriously.