This is why Americans should be armed. Do you think it is an accident that these guys set up shop in California, where they know that an average person they come across has no chance of being armed and able to mount an adequate defense?

The founders of our country saw the need of a well regulated, and well armed militia who was able to defend themselves and their country against impending threats. If defending yourself against illegal aliens, who are growing illegal drugs, and threatening Americans citizens on public lands, isn’t what they had in mind, then I have know idea.

When I commented on the original site that this was “One more reason to always be armed,” a guy named Joe responded:

“Yeah, your single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition” — not to mention greater numbers and a familiarity with the area.

“Good way to get yourself shot, more like.”

Since they moderated my reply (I guess I was too extreme for them) I give the basics of it here. Yes, my “single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition.” In fact, that sounds a lot like what I carry in my truck, and my camper.

The fact is that criminals are lazy and unlikely to have adequate training with their weapons. I, on the other hand, took my last Elk on the run at 600 yards and can empty two 13 round magazines into the center of a target at 25 yards in under 12 seconds with my .45 ACP. I’m not braggin, because that doesn’t make me special. Many people I know can do the very same thing.

The point is, if the pot growers would have never confronted the campers had they thought they posed even the remotest threat, which is why they choose to set up shop in places like California, where they know the public has a 99.99% chance of not being armed.

As I’ve said before, being armed is about making the choice yours. If only your attacker has a weapon, he makes all the choices. If your armed, you make your own. That doesn’t even mean that you have to defend yourself. In many situations, caution would dictate that you still comply, and never attack, but even then, as long as you have a .45 tucked neatly into your waistband, the choice is yours.

the adventure life

get outside and play

Marijuana Growers Chase Campers From Natl. Forest

by steve casimiro ? April 20, 2009 ? Post a comment

This week really wasn’t planned to be an all-pot kind of week, it’s just working out that way. (Today’s the stoner new year, right? But if you’re stoned, isn’t every year basically 1976?) Regardless, in Los Padres National Forest, California, two pot farmers scared off some campers in a high-speed dirt road rally that ended with arrests and confiscation of $26 mill in herb. The Santa Barbara County sheriff’s report reads better than I could rewrite, so here it is in its entirety:

New Cuyama – On Friday, 04-17-09, at approximately 11:30 a.m., two adults, who had been camping in the Aliso Park area west of New Cuyama, came across an active marijuana garden. While in the area, the campers were approached by two Hispanic male adult subjects who were tending to the marijuana garden.

The subjects attempted to converse with the campers, however due to a language barrier, they were unsuccessful. The subjects requested that the campers remain in the area, until the arrival of the “boss” who spoke English. The campers became fearful and packed up their gear and left the area. While the campers were driving down the dirt road, they were approached by a pick up truck traveling the opposite direction. As they passed the truck, they noticed the occupants seemed very interested in them. The truck stopped and the driver exited and waived for the campers to come back. They ignored his request and kept driving, believing he was the “boss” that the two subjects had referred to earlier. The driver returned to his truck and began chasing the campers down the mountain. During the chase, the truck came dangerously close to the campers’ vehicle several times.

[Read More...]

The court systems would sure have a lot more time if we could all just investigate and clear ourselves! Apparently, “The Obama” doesn’t have to worry about the trifling opinions of unimportant organizations like the FBI, and the Illinois State Legislature.

Internal Obama probe absolves his team in Blago mess

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Tuesday, December 23rd 2008, 5:47 PM

WASHINGTON – Team Obama cleared itself Tuesday of any role in Rod Blagojevich’s alleged bid to barter the President-elect’s Senate seat – and offered no evidence the Illinois governor sought to sell the slot.

An internal review found Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, talked with Blagojevich and the governor’s top aide to discuss replacements – but that was it.

[Read More...]

As a convenience store owner, but also an everyday person who would find himself a victim of the same natural disaster, I believe I would close my business doors long enough to assess my own family’s needs before I chose to provide the essential supplies, which I own, to other people.

The other issue relevant to the post is that the business owners finances are seldom taken into consideration in the event of a natural disaster in the discussions of price gouging. A business that may typically depend on the profits garnered from 30 tanks of fuel and 4 turns of its dry inventory during a month may be forced during a disaster to make do with only 3 tanks of fuel and one turn of dry inventory to pay all of its monthly bills. By selling all of its inventory at its original price, and not being able to restock and resell, the business guarantees its financial ruin.

Is it price gouging to plan for that lost revenue and raise your prices enough to make up for it?

Wisdom

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Problem with law-breakers….

…may be knowing if you are breaking the law!I have a piece coming out on price-gouging law in NC. Sent the URL around to a few people for comments….(will post it here when embargo ends) A friend from high school writes:

Another argument to explore would be that of the convenience store owner that has plenty of ice but refuses to sell it until he determines the maximum price the government will allow him to sell it for. Ah to have a libertarian convenience store owner that would shut down in a crisis and request the attorney general to come over and determine and price his inventory for him. Would it be illegal to refuse to sell your inventory in a crisis?

One of my assignments took me to Guam where we had a few typhoons, one of which had 180 mph winds. The island was smacked very hard, we lost power island-wide for nine days (and up to 40 in some areas), and the main fuel storage tanks on the island caught fire consuming all available gas that was not already in gas station tanks. Many people had back up generators at home, myself included, but it was interesting to see al the dynamics of the situation in action.

posted by Mungowitz @ 9:09 AM

Bounty Hunter Arrested in ’03 Case

By DAVID CARR

Published: September 15, 2006

Duane Chapman, a bounty hunter and the star of a reality television series, was arrested by federal marshals yesterday morning on charges stemming from a capture three years ago in Mexico.

Skip to next paragraph

Lucy Pemoni/Associated Press

Duane Chapman, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” in Hawaii in January.

Mr. Chapman captured Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir who was convicted of raping three women.

Mr. Chapman, 53, was arrested at his house in Hawaii along with his son Leland Chapman, 29, and Timothy Chapman, 41, no relation.

The charges have been pending since they were arrested in Mexico after the capture.

In a twist that will not be lost on fans of Mr. Chapman’s program, “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” on the A&E cable network, Mexico is seeking to extradite him for posting bail and then failing to appear to answer criminal charges in July 2003.

Read the Rest of This Article in The New York Times

So let me get this straight. Dog and his associates got arrested in Mexico for capturing a violent fugitive who jumped bail in the US (because bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico) and Mexico refused to extradite. Dog and his associates then posted their own bail in Mexico, then failed to show up for court, thereby jumping bail themselves. They have now been arrested by U.S. Marshals who are basically now acting as Bounty Hunters for Mexico, which is illegal in Mexico. So they now have to face an extradition hearing in the United States that could result in them being sent to a foreign country to face charges and possibly be put in a foreign prison for something that is not a crime in the United States, where they were arrested.

Mexico adamently refuses to extradite hardened violent criminals to the U.S., but we seem more than willing to extradite good folk to Mexico for going to get them. There is something wrong with this picture. Dog, I hope you get a judge that isn’t a complete idiot.

Good luck, man.

Wisdom

When is it okay for a representative of a law enforcement agency to ask an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law, knowingly or unknowingly, and then charge them with a crime?

Consider this scenario. Officer Bill Blue is fishing today. Working an undercover sting operation, Officer Blue picks Joe Somebody out of the crowd on the street, pulls him to the side and says, “Hey man, I really need 10 bucks. Will you buy this joint off me?” This is the thirteenth person he’s tried this on today after 12 failures, but Officer Blue knows if he casts his lure enough times, someone will bite. This time Joe Somebody does. “Sure man, I’ll buy it,” Joe says as he starts digging in his pocket for $10 bill. A jerk on the pole and this fish is caught. Officer Blue reels him in and he’s charged with the illegal possession of a controlled substance, and the court date is set. Except this time, there’s a problem. The officer initiated the sale, not the “perpetrator”.

Any lawyer worth his salt would throw the word entrapment into the mix and Joe Somebody goes home a free man. Why? Because the prosecution cannot prove that he would have broken the law on his own accord without the officer encouraging him to do so. That is how our system should work. Our law enforcement officials are supposed to investigate people who are already breaking the law, using undercover officers, informants, and forensics to gather enough evidence on them for a conviction. They are not supposed to randomly select members of society and offer them a chance to break the law. That is why you never hear of the police running a sting of this kind to make a drug bust. It is simply the wrong way to get it done. The basis of our freedom relies on our legal system being a reactionary one that punishes criminals who are already criminals, not a proactive one that sifts through the population in lottery fashion tempting Joe Somebody’s with a chance to break the law.

Continue reading