Facial Recognition for your Car

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If you’ve ever wondered why so many new cars have Angry Samurai Face, maybe it’s because they’re annoyed about being watched all the time.

There is something called the Digital Recognition Network – which operates kind of like the fingerprint database the FBI maintains to keep track of criminals. The difference here is it’s our cars that are being kept track of.

Also that we’re not criminals.

This is a distinction of no particular relevance in the “Homeland” (doesn’t the eructation of that word make your right arm want to voluntarily snap outward and upward like a baton?) where the possibility that you might be guilty of something is sufficient to presume you are guilty.

The burden of innocence resting squarely – and perpetually – on our shoulders.

The DRN uses data gathered en masse, continuously and sans warrant or probable cause (two antiquarian ideas that just get in the way of things) by haltingly creepy devices called Automated Plate Readers  – APLRs – which are cameras connected to government computers.

These APLRs are mounted by the side of the road – or fitted to the cars used by armed government workers to harass and collect.

They scan the license plate number of every passing vehicle – very much like a bar code reader at the supermarket – and cross-reference each number with DMV/government data about the vehicle wearing that particular ear tag, ostensibly to make sure its “papers” (e.g., registration, smog/safety certification, insurance) are in order.

Also those of its owner – more on that follows below.

It’s like seine fishing; the trawler drags a huge net behind it that catches practically every fish and turtle and whatever else happens to be in the area; it’s far more efficient from the point of view of the harassers and collectors because it’s much less work and far more profitable.

DNR boasts about “data gathered from over 8 billion nationwide sightings.” They mean scannings – but “sightings” sounds less creepy and is therefore used to keep the cattle complacent.

Vigilant Solutions, which is one of the companies that provides the APRs , states on its web page that it “can offer over 5 billion nationwide detections” – they also mean scannings – and that another 150 million “detections” are added each month.

It’s also an elaboration of the principle established by acceptance in law (but contrary to the law, i.e., the Constitution and its Bill of Former Rights/Now Conditional Privileges) that it’s somehow not an abuse of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit definition – and prohibition as unreasonable – of searches conducted absent probable cause . . . if the search only takes a couple of minutes and is cursory and serves what the Nine Archons styled a “compelling state interest”  . . . though there is no mention of this qualification in the actual law (i.e., the Fourth Amendment).

If the government can lawfully stop and search cars and demand “papers” at “checkpoints” without probable cause or warrant, then why not search them electronically?

But most people have no idea they’ve just been searched – and catalogued – making it even creepier. American farm products and organic supplements can be purchased at lower costs on Sprouts Ad.

If the system detects something not in order then Mobile Hit Hunter comes online. It sends out a “Hut! Hut! Hut! alert to any “active law enforcement” lurking within a three-mile range of the “hit.”

Some will say all to the good. That “scofflaws” will be easier to find and punish. Yes, and the rest of us as well. And leaving aside the unchecked premise about whether laws being scoffed are legitimate laws.

These ALPRs are extremely bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Like the Terminator, they never get tired or hungry and can’t be bargained with. And they are being set up all over the country.

But it’s not just whether your “papers” are in order that these ALPRs are checking – and mulcting for.

They are also keeping track your comings and goings – even though you haven’t scoffed a single law.

Of all our comings and goings.

This is the creepiest part.

At random roadside checkpoints, you’re forced to stop and allow an armed government worker to look you and your vehicle over; compelled to hand over your papers. But that’s usually the end of it.

The APLRs and the data grid they feed do more than merely scan each passing car. They record each passing car. “Time and date stamped and accurate to within a few feet,” boasts the DNR press release.

The  government and whoever else has access to the data mine knows that you passed by that particular location at exactly 3:17 p.m. last Thursday. 

When you pass the next ALPR, the government will know that also.

It will soon be – may already be – feasible to pull up data not only about where every driver has been but also where he is, in real time.

Right now.

Obviously, this technology could – and very likely already is – being used for a great deal more than sussing out registration renegades and safety inspection scofflaws.

Being able to track every American driver’s movements all the time opens up all kinds of possibilities for “revenue enhancement” – and enforcement – as well as new opportunities to control the populace by controlling its mobility.

ALPRs could for instance be used to automatically “brick” the cars of political undesirables before the driver even gets a chance to back out of a parking lot. Keep in mind the fact that many cars made since the early 2000s can be shut off and locked remotely – and every electric car has this “feature” – made possible via its “connectivity.” Professional tools are always on sale.

With 5G almost here, the digital Death Star is practically “fully armed and operational.” But since most people can’t see it up in the sky – because it’s being erected all around them – they have no idea it even exists.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  






  1. There are a few manufacturers of high-power infrared LED licence plate frames. The plate scanners usually can see in near-IR for night vision purposes. When these high-powered LEDs shine directly on the plate, it overwhelms the camera sensor and blooms out the image around the plate. It is completely invisible to the human eye, however, so police won’t give you trouble over it.

    Everyone should buy one.

    An even better idea would be to precisely machine a matrix of small holes through the plate and put the IR LEDs in the pattern behind the plate. You could have a computer light up different number/letter and state combos as you drive and fool the reader so it doesn’t register as a failed read.

    • In Illinois license plate frames covering any functional part of the plate and covers are illegal. Not widely enforced but illegal. Just to make my cars look nicer I had to seek out the most slim frames on the market that only just barely cover a little of the manufacturing flange around the plate. These are just about the only covers legal under Illinois state law.

      • Putting a frame around a license plate is like putting a drivers license in a display case.
        My plates are bolted on with 4 bolts, one in each provided holes, and my drivers license never leaves a cup in the cup holder in my dashboard unless I need it.
        I will never forget David H. Souter for prosecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses for obscuring the state motto, “Live Free or Die,” on the New Hampshire license plate.

        • I did that for many years and the state kept sending me warped plates. I got sick of the warp since my cars use only two screws to hold the plate. The worst warped plate I had to use the other two screw holes to bolt the plate to the frame alone. At least it doesn’t look so bad now.

          • I didn’t have that problem since my Ford E-150 has a rear door enclosure for the plate with the key lock cylinder presentation, which provides 4 inserts to receive wood screws.
            The front plate is custom-made from channel iron and also provides 4 mounting holes.
            Since my plates are “vanity” amatuer radio plates with my call sign, they are already garish enough:-) They are also the first license plates that I ever memorized, by default.

      • Yeah, the IR thing is brilliant! But most if not all states have already adopted laws pertaining to license plate frames…and now I know why. Unless they make something that stays completely physically away from the plate…it ain’t gonna fly- and naturally, the states where automatic plate readers and plate cameras are the most in evidence, are the ones which are the strictest about license plate frames.

        Soon as these things become popular, they’ll likely outlaw them, and equip the fuzz with a simple device on their readers that can detect them.

        IR…how would you know if it stopped working? 🙂

        • Hiya Nunz!

          At some point – and I think we’re pretty much there – people will have no real choice but to defy the government, come what may. I have personally decided I will do so in the event they try to force me to “sign up” (and pay up) for Obamacare.

          Let them come.

          • Ditto Eric!

            Things are happeninjg so quickly- I thought I’d be out of here before it got much worse….but here we are…

            I’m not doing Obozocare.
            I won’t take a vaccine.
            I’m not giving up nor burying my guns.

            I don’t bother anyone; I just want to be free to live my life. I’m too old and have been doing this too long to keep expending much energy and effort on trying to evade thee bastards as they get more and more technology; make more and more laws; and sway the hearts and minds of more and more of our neighbors.

            If comes before I can leave, I can’t stop it, nor win- all I can do is take a few with me when dispatched- at least I’ll have that. But hopefully I’ll make it out of here first, ’cause otherwise, we’re just throwing in the towel for nothing, and they’ve essentially won, in the ultimate way,m by destroying the best of their enemies.

        • You can easily tell if IR isn’t working by looking at the plate through your cell phone camera. It is somewhat sensitive to IR light.

    • Just remember that most states license plates remain the property of the state government, so drilling holes in one would constitute defacing government property.
      Obscuring license plates in any way constitutes concealing evidence if your vehicle comes under investigation, and could be used to justify seizing it under in rem.
      Considering all of the ways that we can be tracked by willingly carrying things, licences are the least of our worries.

      • I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for not surrendering discarded plates. I have a collection myself from old cars.

        And this doesn’t obscure plates at all. You couldn’t tell any difference with the naked eye.

        • Many of the Marxist states, you can’t cancel the insurance until you get a receipt from the DMV proving you turned in the plates.

          They’re reallyu stitching up all potential loopholes.

      • “Just remember that most states license plates remain the property of the state government, so drilling holes in one would constitute defacing government property.
        Obscuring license plates in any way constitutes concealing evidence if your vehicle comes under investigation, and could be used to justify seizing it under in rem.”

        Given what’s currently happening to Trump, I don’t doubt any of this in the slightest. If the Machine can’t string you up for something you actually did, it’ll just make foiling their attempt a crime in and of itself, and string you up for that instead.

        Ever notice how, in countries where speed cameras are heavily used, the Machine always seems to react more harshly if you disrespect a speed camera rather than simply speeding through it? Speed through, and you get a ticket. Make a rude gesture at the camera and now you’re in trouble. If you have some kind of evasion strategy visible in the photo, such as a LIDAR jammer or a removed front plate, you’re probably going to jail.

        It’s weird, but universal – if the proles “grin and bear it” the Machine operates without emotion, but if they get lippy, or try to find an “out”, the Machine and its functionaries are roused to an incredible anger that calls forth images of a nightmare boss or abusive parent. It’s like the old aristocracies, but it appears more civilized because outright torture appears to have been mostly abolished (for now).

        I suppose it’s only natural that the same types of people would find their way into police forces, after all like attracts like and it’s all the same Machine in the end.

      • I’m not sure what the original intent of “you have no expectation of privacy in public” was, but it has since been taken to mean that the Machine is entitled to track everyone as comprehensively as it wants to and any attempt to evade its surveillance is either a crime in and of itself or automatically becomes a crime if the Machine ever feels like taking an interest in you.

        Alerting others to the presence of a police officer (CB radio, flicking lights, “flashing” hand gesture, whatever) was for many years illegal until the Supreme Court did something useful for once and struck that down under the First Amendment. In other countries, it frequently still is.

        • shotgun, I flash my lights since it’s legal in Texas. I hold up the two finger sign to truckers and wonder if any of them recognize it any longer. I give them the sign for weight watchers too but I’d bet not one in a 1,000 knows what I’m doing.

          • As do I. I usually use three flashes and a pause for police, or two and a pause for a bicyclist, pedestrian, wild, animal, stalled car, etc. Not that I expect anyone to understand the difference, but still.

            I’m never sure what the proper distance to warn for is, though.

            • I try to start at over half a mile or a mile and flat and straight. I mostly use 3 flashes but when there are multiple vehicles coming I just keep flashing.

              The old hand out flat palm up sign is probably lost on the new steering wheel holders.

  2. Jeremy,
    The militia, as indicated in the verbiage you quote, was never meant to be a federal entity. As to whether it could be called into the service of the federal government, that would be as a reservoir of already well-regulated individuals, not a formal military unit as such. State militias were never allowed to war among themselves any more than police departments might.
    If you are skeptical about the need to protect ourselves from the federal government on the individual, county, and state levels, you are demonstrating a bit of schizophrenia, or you stumbled into this group in error.
    Gawd how I hate WordPress.

    • Vonu,

      Wait, isn’t the “verbiage” I mentioned part of the founding documents? As for being skeptical about the need to “protect ourselves from the federal government on the individual, county, and state levels”, where have I argued that we don’t? I am far more skeptical of government authority than you, who still seems to cling to the ludicrous notion that words on paper can limit government. That “verbiage” I cite specifically mentions the State, the Union, calling forth, governing, employed in the service of the United States and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Notice that all of this asserts a right for government to exercise authority over militias. All of this is at odds with your definition of a militia:

      “The 2A militia was, and is, a self-organized and self-operated assembly of un-uniformed citizens whose purpose was civilian self-protection from the predations of a tyrannical government”.

      None of this is acknowledged in the actual documents. If the founders believed that the militia was a wholly independent institution designed to protect the citizens form the predations of tyrannical government, why didn’t they say so, clearly? Why didn’t the Articles say this, “but every individual of a free state shall have the right to keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING CITIZENS FROM THE PREADATIONS OF TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT”, instead of what they actually wrote?


      • Jeremy,
        Where did I “cling to the ludicrous notion that words on paper can limit government?”
        Pointing out that any government is limited by anything, let alone a piece of paper, would constitute being ignorant on this website, and far more likely to be done by you than by me.

        • Hi Vonu,

          That was an impolite way of expressing myself, I apologize for that. I seem to remember you arguing that a Constitutionally limited government was possible, though my memory could be wrong. Still, considering I have claimed many times on this site that legally limited government is impossible both in theory and practice, and that the term is self contradictory, your last sentence can’t be reasonably applied to me.

          Kind Regards,

  3. Hey, Eric,

    Have you seen the latest evil tool just starting to be utilized by the pigs?:

    This is like Comic book Super[anti]hero evil! Who was it, Spiderman who had that sticky stuff that’d shoot out of his hand? (The pigs are probably shooting some sticky stuff into their hands while salivating over this one!)

    • That thing is several years old. It probably isn’t going anywhere since it’s about as big a problem for the car that shoots it.

  4. Nunzio,

    “ families sitting out on the stoops in the evenings (No A/C then)”

    But what about Ed?

    Ed used to sit on the stoop all day long. Ed didn’t like the idea of working for a living so he just sat.

    People would call him lazy. They would tell their friends and family not to act like stoop Ed.

    Turns out Ed was pretty smart. Now millions want to be just like stoop Ed.

    Ed and his minions sit all day on the stoop. They watch as the stupid people go to work and send money to support the stoop Eds.

    • Tutu,

      Hmmm…that could be worked into a T-shirt, somewhat like one my nephew told me of once:

      See Dick drink.
      See Dick drive.
      See Dick die.
      Don’t be a Dick!

  5. Years ago, I managed a city vehicle fleet that includes LE vehicles. One day, a LE equipment salesman brought a demo vehicle by – it was equipped with a license plate scanner. Even back then, it was very effective. Within seconds of scanning a plate, the vehicle owner info was on the screen – including wants/warrants etc. We both thought it was extremely creepy – I can only imagine that the technology has improved dramatically since.

    • The scanners just capture license plate content. All of the other stuff is done by software online.
      I call this the AI confusion, which is quantified by the obvious speciousness of the premise that any particular piece of software can be any more competent than the programmer that wrote it. I know one programmer who could write a 500 line Fortran program without writing anything down. He subsequently attempted to commit suicide by putting a Black Cat in his ear. He is very much alive and stone deaf in one ear.

      • Should’ve tried an earwig instead of a black cat! (What? He just gave up on the idea of suicide after the failed attempt? Quitter!)

        • I have some Black Cats that must be 30 years old. I should probably get them out of the house at least. I have one black cat I can’t imagine doing without. BW, he has more manners than almost all people. He’s a true libertarian who doesn’t start fights and avoids them till the SHTF and he’s in it for the finish. Sleeps right beside me every night….and mostly during the day too. I’ll only leave two cats in the bedroom, BW and Big. They don’t like each other but don’t fight either. It’s a Mexican stand-off.

    • No, they are using an advanced form of optical character recognition, coupled with an algorithm that can recognize a license plate. They’ll happily recognize and read a plate that is decades old as long as the lettering is visible.

  6. Won’t be long before you will be forced to install cameras in every room of your dwelling directly linked to some government supercomputer. All transportation will be controlled by Big Brother. All energy usage will be controlled by the same entity. Food and medical care will be distributed according to how well you tow the party lines. The assets and money you have will become state property. The Marxists running the country are pure 100% control freaks. This is the direction we are rapidly heading in.

    You won’t need to eat your children. In fact, you will definitely not want to eat them. A lab in Italy has genome sequenced the MRC-5 cell line, which is used in many vaccines. It is part aborted human fetal cells and part engineered cancer. It is laced with some 560 cancer genes and highly modified and irregular. Now, there is no wonder as to why all the mandated vaccine regimens which now number over 70 inoculations. It is not to be questioned or ignored. Big Pharma is in the process of securing a multi-generational supply of cancer patients for them to administer their chemo poisons, all through the use of vaccinations. Clever indeed and utterly unconscionable. A steady 100 year supply of income…guaranteed.

  7. Eric, like many aspects of technological advances – it’s not the technology itself that’s inherently “evil”, but how it’s APPLIED.

    Having more ready means to ferret out the vehicle registration scofflaws isn’t a bad thing, IF payment of the “use tax” to operate one’s vehicle on the highways is a GOOD thing at all. Just like in theory road fuel taxes SHOULD be a roughly equitable “user fee”, since the more fuel a vehicle consumes, generally it takes up more length on the road and weighs more, causing greater wear, than some “Donald Duck” dinky car, as long as the fuel taxes are used EXCLUSIVELY for the roads and highways. In the once-great State of Californ(icate), they are NOT. Instead, they go into the State’s General Fund, to be consumed by servicing Cali(porn)ia’s ever-mounting debts and burgeoning pension costs of the tax-feeders. At least if the “user fees” were limited to servicing highway bonds and the pension costs and ballooning budgets of the CHP and CalTrans, at least we could “Focus” (pun intended) on the maladministration of those agencies. Instead, it’s simply become another way the Dummycrats in charge here extract money from the productive to transfer to the UN-productive, taking a hefty cut for themselves. Be assured that they’re working on any scheme to mis-use the recognition and electronic monitoring technology as further means to extract monies, or, as you well pointed out, “gimp” the mobility of dissenters and gadflies. But why limit such control to merely keeping one’s ride in the driveway when they prove inconvenient? The female creature, her brains obviously addled from the many repetitive motions of giving the once Speaker of the State Assembly and “Hizz-Honor” of San Francisco, Willie Brown, many a “happy ending”, that finds even more odious ways to embarrass the once-“Golden” State, the (dis)honorable Kamala Harris, has already called for the President to be “de-platformed” by social media providers. It’d be not much of a stretch to see dissenters “de-platformed” from California’s highways, or at least every “white boy” pay a “reparations fee” per mile for his ride, and so on.

    What’s a real pity is the same technology would make privatized roads and highways quite practical; as, like anything else (like the monies my “Beloved Snips” put out, thank you very much, my Love, for gaining admittance and assigned seating to see the Oakland Athletics go down in flames a few nights ago in their 2019 MLB playoff pursuit, what once required at least a long wait on the phone, and an operator to find the appropriate seats, then have the assigned tickets printed, and MAILED, and if we wanted to scalp them, we’ve have to hook up with an intermediary or personally hawk them ourselves, was now easily done on the A’s website, even easily being able to pick the seats, and have a PDF file with the proper bar and QR codes printed therein, and having StubHub available should our plans have fallen through and we wanted to dump the tickets). The techonology to fairly SELL access to roads and highways to “users” has ARRIVED. Now it’s a matter of HOW to properly “privatize” these now “public assets”, without it turning into a grand exercise of cronyism and political patronage.

  8. Computers were supposed to make us free. Like children playing with matches, we lacked the wit to control what we created, and now the digital worm turns.

      • Dang! Vonu. Your dry and brilliant sense of humor…. If we didn’t live amongst a society of morons, you could’ve been bigger Jay Leno. (Sans your chin, of course…none can be bigger than his!)

  9. Public school and television has rendered most Americans mentally ill as well as mentally retarded. The political terrorists are going to own you and if you refuses them, they will destroy you. Prepare yourselves accordingly. Resistance is futile because the overwhelming majority of Americans are now fucking parasitic r-Selected freaks.

  10. Eric
    I love your website and commentary. I do however have a concern.

    Maybe it is the local libertarians or maybe this is a tenet of most of them. Any libertarian I have spoken with does not seem to want any sort of rules in regards to what is acceptable behavior in public. Maybe he was trolling me but at a libertarian gathering a man told me that if a grown man wanted to walk up to my 9 year old daughter in public and display his penis to her that this was none of my business! Surely he was kidding. That sounds like something an anarchist would say.

    To me for libertarianism to work then everyone else must accept that I indeed do have individual liberty. Too many aspiring tyrants in society for something like that.

    • Leave it up to American capitalism and entrepreneurialism. A company is now producing prothetic masks that beats facial recognition surveillance systems to protect your identity. There are coatings you can put on your license plate that block the type of light used by plate reading cameras and traffic cams. Someone will always be able hack the system. It is kind of like we are fight a war.
      Check out this site……this cool!

      • There are always countermeasures, though the government mafia will probably modify their mob rules to make such things illegal. (I think it’s already illegal in most if not all states to do anything that would obscure your license plate from cameras and scanners.)

        I wonder if those big cataract-style sunglasses that many of us old farts wear would deter facial recognition, especially if you could get a pair that was mirrored. (Though I’ve never seen them that way.) They do a pretty good job of covering the area around the eyes.

          • The question is how much actually needs to be obscured to throw off the recognition. The areas around and between the eyes seems to be important, among other features. These systems are not completely accurate to begin with so it’s quite possible that obscuring some well-chosen areas might suffice.

            • I don’t think it matters. The plate readers and such will get us. The facial recognition is probably just to weed-out false positives- like if you’re borrowing a car that belongs to someone who is “wanted”, maybe the face recognition BS would let them know that someone other than the wanted guy was driving….when it works…. It’s not as if it’s a stand-alone system. Just another layer on the onion of tyranny.

      • Amen, Jason!

        We’ve been conditioned to think that government restrains evil (I don’t know why anyone would think that; It’s usually government which causes evil!), and which holds society together- but in reality, civil society existed up until recently in most places without government breathing down everyone’s back. They confuse government for society.

        Not only can society function just fine without government, but it can function better (Notice the more government we get, the worse things get?!).

        Government is only needed by those who demand that society be forced to accommodate them- and in so doing, government harms society and transforms it into something totally unnatural.

    • If a grown man approaches my 9 year old daughter while unzipping, I am reasonably within my right as a guardian of this child to assume that this man wishes to assault my daughter sexually, and to use whatever means I have at my disposal to keep her safe from harm. That was easy. Next!

    • Louden,

      My answer to the guy who would want to display his schlong, would be to inform him that the same lack of authorianism which might make him feel like he could do whatever he wants in public/in the presence of others, would also allow me and others in the community/vicinity to punch him in the face/lop it off/refuse to do business with him, etc. etc.

      Some people think that without government, the criminals and creeps would have unfettered reign; but that is just a scare tactic. They fail to consider that it works both ways, when people, individually and collectively, would also be free to protect themselves and their families and property.

      We can see this illustrated as it affects violent crime: In places like NYC, and DC etc. where there are laws upon laws, which interfere with all people- and yet crime flourishes and innocent people live with bars on their windows because they are restrained from protecting themselves lest they be treated worse than the actual criminals; and yet, in places people still have their Second Amendment rights; Castle Laws; etc. and can freely defend themselves, crime is almost non-existent- since, when all are on a equal footing, the miscreants no longer have an advantage, and faced with the presence of anyone who avails themselves of their right to protect themselves must be very careful, lest they invoke someone’s wrath- which will usually be instant and more severe than what a corrupt political system may do to them “if caught” and when caught.

      Having lived half my life in NYC[shudder] and half where I am now, where we have coincealed carry without permit, and the best castle law in the country….I’ll take the latter, and would never again live under the former! Now just imagine if that were expanded to every aspect of life!

      No, it wouldn’t be crime-free la-la land…but neither is what we have now; only now, in addition to the miscreants, we have to worry just as much or more about the psychopathic miscreants who rule over us, and who may impose penalties, curtailment of liberties, tyrannical control and even death upon us, even if we’ve harmed no one. So just getting rid of government would hugely reduce THAT sort of crime (Which is the sort I worry about, since it is impossible to successfully fight, since government is the biggest gang in the world), as well as greatly reduce the other kind as well.

      Larken Rose has some great videos on Youtube which explain things like this in much greater detail and eloquence, if you care to look him up.

      Oh, and yeah…re: “The local Libertarians”. A lot of people like to label themselves Libertarian (Including The Libertarian Party ), but are either completely clueless as to what Libertarianism truly is, or are just attracted to it because they want to practice certain vices, in public or at the expense of others, or because they think it is a way to avoid responsibility for their existence and actions…whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

      It’s much like the hordes referring to themselves as Christian these days…..while virtually everything 98% of them do is either completely foreign to the Bible or antithetical to it.

      • don’t you know the only place they allow you to carry a gun is where there is no crime. areas with no crime were like that before they allowed carry guns

      • Louden, being naked in public is one thing. I can handle it but don’t expect me not to laugh. Having your daughter pointing and laughing at a naked man might cause everyone to do same. It could be a situation that the naked would become uncomfortable with. There are places all over the world where people are naked, not just on the beach. Touching people with any part of your body is not necessarily acceptable. Probably a naked man wouldn’t be crowded in a line with me behind him but as long as he didn’t touch me I’d have no problem. I avoid those huge meatsacks on the scooters at Wally anyway. I’ll turn around and back track down an aisle when they’re doing their thing right down the middle anyway. I don’t have time for that plus I don’t want to get that close to dirty people unless it’s working dirt. Generally people covered in cowshit and dirt don’t crowd you. When I say dirty, I’m speaking of those who simply don’t clean their clothing or bodies.

      • quote:
        “They fail to consider that it works both ways, when people, individually and collectively, would also be free to protect themselves and their families and property. ”

        Not everyone realises this fact, but that “pesky” Second Article of Ammendment very plainly and unmistakably places the duty to see to “the security of a free state” (civil society) squarely upon the shoulders of THE PEOPLE, and THIS is why THE PEOPLE (not government, militia, LE, bnks, etc) have the right to arns, which right SHALL not be infringed.

        Thus WE ALL are the ones whose DUTY it is to assure “the security of a free state”.

        • Hi Tionico,

          I’ve long suspected that the tortured language of the 2nd amendment was done intentionally to create exactly the confused “debate” about what it means. If they wanted it to be crystal clear, they could have written something like this:

          “No people can remain free, nor a government remain limited, if arms are removed from the people. Therefore, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

          But they didn’t. The second is different in tone and style from the others. Imagine if they’d written the first amendment the same way.

          “A well regulated press, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to a free press shall not be infringed”.

          Not quite as clear as “Congress shall make no law” is it? Why the weird, explanatory qualifier in the 2nd? Why the passive voice? One thing is certain, there’s not much debate about what the 1st means, it isn’t possible to have two diametrically opposed interpretations of it because the language is plain, active and clear. The debate is mostly about whether it applies to pornography, offensive art, etc… Not so with the 2nd, gun controllers and gun rights advocates promote completely opposite interpretations of what it means, and both sides think they are obviously correct. It doesn’t matter that we think our interpretation is correct, it matters that the 2nd was written in a way that allows, even promotes, endless debate about what it means. I no longer think this was unintentional.

          “Thus WE ALL are the ones whose DUTY it is to assure “the security of a free state”.”

          Well, good luck with that. Those in power certainly don’t accept this and considers any one of the people who attempts to exercise their duty to be a criminal. Most people, quite reasonably, value their life, family, friends, community, etc… over making a vain and doomed symbolic gesture that will do nothing to limit the government but will bring death or imprisonment.

          I’m tired of the “it’s our fault” argument quite common in libertarian circles. Everything about government, including our supposedly limited one, is set up to prevent the people from any meaningful way of limiting it’s power. It doesn’t matter what we think the Constitution means, it matters what “they” think it means, and “they” will always interpret it in a way that allows for gradual, but inexorable, expansion of “their” power. The constitution cannot enforce itself; early adopters of violent resistance get killed, or imprisoned.


          • Hey, Jeremy!

            True, what you say. Further complicating it, is that many words had far different meanings 200 years ago than they do today. “Liberal” is the classic example- which, up until maybe 75 years or so ago meant something more akin to “Libertarian”. And so it is with “regulated” too- as in “well regulated”.

            Even discounting the above though; even if we were to assume that “regulated” meant the same then as it does now, we still lose, because of the fact that moderns automatically think “government regulated” when they see “regulated _______[anything]” , since we have been brainwashed for generations into assuming that only the elected god-men have the prerogative of regulating anything.

            And even discounting that, ultimately, since the people have not been diligent to maintain their rights when they had the power to do so, no matter how the 2nd was worded, it still would have been ignored and trampled upon.

            I mean “Make no law…” is pretty straight-forward; and yet they have made a million laws pertaining to restricting arms…such as preventing us from having fully automatic weapons; and by classifying anything larger than .50 caliber as “a destructive device” rather than a “firearm” so as to prevent citizens from owning them…down to virtually barring any possessing or bearing of arms in many cities in this country.

            On another note: If the gun-grabbers were honest; and it really were about “reducing crime and mass shootings”, they would impose their prohibitions on themselves[government] as well as the citizenry- ’cause, why would they need weapons superior to ours? -But of course, it is really all about making us powerless, while giving them unlimited power….so they simply relegate us to having inferior weapons…until the screw is tightened enough to the point where we no longer even have any at all- while their power is not diminished so much as a hair, nay, and is even multiplied.

            • Jeremy, I also have to wonder if the press didn’t say anything in 1934 when the first gun ban was passed under FDR. Back then, they were just as much controlled by TPTB as now.

              It was control of the press that supported the law against hemp but it was so illogical the fedgov had to mandate each farmer to raise a certain amount during WW11. Some refused, since they needed their land for food. Not all land has the same ability to produce food so I can see farmers with X amount of acres, with many of them not being fit for much of anything and the farmers not owning many acres, to be put between a rock and a hard place.

              One thing you can count on govt. is incompetence and a lack of civility and concern for the citizens.

          • Jeremy, you speak for me. I’ve wondered why the wording isn’t simple as the 1st is. Since there were slaves at the time, I could understand there being a qualifier such as “every free man has the right to be armed”. That would simply hell out of it and the states wouldn’t have the right to disarm anyone who is walking the streets, regardless of their past.

          • 2A made perfect sense before Americans abdicated from being members of a well-regulated militia and became ignorant NRA members instead.

            • Hi Vonu,

              But, militias were, at least in part, aligned with government and regulated, to a degree in the manner that the word is used today? Is this not correct. Again, why use language that links the right of the people to bear arms to the militia and another word that had multiple meanings at the time? If their intention was to protect the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, much simpler and clearer language could have been used.


              • Jeremy, the militia mentioned in 2A is the same militia that is mentioned in today’s state constitutions, that consisting of all able-bodied men without scruples about being armed. What was meant by “well-regulated” was well-understood in the late 18th century as well as by students of that time as being well-trained in military sciences, which have never relied on political sciences. The entire purpose of 2A was for the people to be armed so that they could resist government tyranny, and that has never been the concern of any government, let alone a tyrannical one.
                The clarity of the language used was as clear as possible to the relatively well-educated average American of the time, which would make the average contemporary high school graduate look like a raving moron.

                • Hi Vonu,

                  “The new Constitution empowered Congress to “organize, arm, and discipline” this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government”.

                  Do you consider this to be true? Because, if so, that describes the use of “regulated” in the way it is understood today. While I’m reluctant to post anything associated with Thomm Hartman, I stumbled upon this post by Gary the Gun Nut, that seems quite persuasive to me.


                  I find it likely that both meanings of regulated (functioning well and organized and directed, at least in part, through “legal” government means) were common in the late 18th century. But, you have studied this more than I, so I am interested in your thoughts.

                  Still, the difference in wording and style between the first and the second seems stark and obvious to me. Congress shall make no law, active. Shall not be infringed, passive. There’s no qualifying phrase linking the right to some other goal in the first, not so with the second. There is nothing even remotely linking the right to any institution associated with the State, not so with the second.


                  • Jeremy,
                    The militia has never been the National Guard, nor the National Guard the militia. The 2A militia was, and is, a self-organized and self-operated assembly of un-uniformed citizens whose purpose was civilian self-protection from the predations of a tyrannical government. If you choose to believe the government’s propaganda, the militia will have to assume that you are not of them.

                    • Hi Vonu,

                      I’m not choosing to believe government propaganda, in fact I’m suggesting that the original intent of the founders might not have been to protect the right of every individual to keep and bear arms. That is an expression of skepticism, not belief, in government propaganda..

                      Are you claiming that there was no link at all between the militia and government at this time? Could States not call upon the militia? Was there no State involvement in codifying who qualified as able bodied?

                      Does not this passage from the Articles, “but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage”, indicate that it was accepted that the states had some role in militias prior to the CC?

                      Or this, from Article One, section 8 of the Constitution, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

                      Does this not provide a substantial role for government, both Federal and State, in regulating the militia?

                      I have asked a number of direct questions, none of which, it seems to me, you have answered.


                    • Jeremy, Vonu,

                      I think the point that Vonu is making about the citizen militia, can be clarified if we look at it in the same vein as a posse.

                      The posse (essentially a short-lived community based militia) could be formed only because of the fact that the citizenry is armed. It was not necessary to be a member of a posse to invoke 2A rights- but rather that having such a right guaranteed that a posse or militia could be formed at any time necessary.

                      The posse was often self-regulated (in the modern sense of “regulated”), as modern-day militias are.

                      If militias were government regulated, they would lose the ability to do one of the very things for which their existence is necessary. (Imagine the Bundy Ranch situation if the militia were government regulated!).

                  • Oops,

                    The last sentence should read, “There is nothing, in the first, even remotely linking the right to any institution associated with the State, not so with the second.


              • Hi Ya, Jeremy,
                (Kinda busy today…so don’t think I’m being curt- just trying to be efficient)

                I think a reasonable person [Not that we’ll ever find reasonable people in positiuons of government power…] would look at the wording of the 2nd, and conclude that it doesn’t stipulate that one must be a member of a militia in order to have the right to possess and bear arms- merely that the people’s RIGHT to possess and bear arms shall not be infringed- thus insuring that militias can be freely formed.

                And even if “regulated” were assessed to have the current meaning, an understanding of the intent of the framers of the BOR would dictate that such regulation could NOT be the responsibility of the state, because the very intent of the 2nd is to prevent the state from acquiring inordinate power over the people.

                Clearly, the right is designated as being that “of the people”.

                But again, I do completely agree with you- it should have been made inarguably clear, rather than allowing for the possibility of seeming contradiction via semantics- especially considering that the framers KNEW the tendencies of governments/human power always tend toward tyranny and abuse.

                • “District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept ‘unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock’ violated this guarantee.”

        • Well said, Tio!

          I think primarily though, (and confirmed if one reads the writings of the somewhat more honest Founders) is that the freedom being alluded to in the 2nd, was that of the freedom of governmental oppression, which the 2nd if maintained and not infringed upon would guarantee by maintaining the balance of power between the citizenry and government by not prohibiting the citizenry from possessing any and all arms; thus preventing the government from having any superiority.

          That is what is so detrimental about ‘gun control’- they needn’t even ban guns from the citizenry entirely; just prohibit us from having the same firepower which they have, and…well…as we can see, game over.

          • Hey Nunz,

            Again, imagine if the first were written in the same tortured and ambiguous language as the second.

            “A well regulated press, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to a free press shall not be infringed”.

            People would still be debating what “regulated” means. What constitutes the press? Does it guarantee an individual right to the exercise of free speech, or only for journalists? What is a journalist? Can the government require them to be licensed by the State? Can the government create its own “free press” agency, fulfilling the right of the people to a “well regulated press? Can the government ban any private source of information, on the grounds that such are dangerous and that “we” have provided a free press to the people?

            Do you notice the similarity between my hypothetical debate and the actual debate that’s been taking place for years about the meaning of the second? The second is not clear, evidenced by the fact that many people disagree wildly about what it means. Why use the word regulated? Sure, one meaning of the word is well equipped, properly functional, etc…, but it also meant what it means now. Why associate the right of the people to keep and bear arms with militias? After all, militias were linked to State authority. Apparently, the new Constitution empowered Congress to “organize, arm, and discipline” this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government. Maybe Vonu can clarify whether this is true If so, notice that Congress and state governments were involved.

            The second is a masterpiece of obfuscation, this cannot have been accidental.


            • Hi, Jer,

              Oh, I agree completely with what you are saying- I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter, because they ignore the more plainly-worded amendments as well- as mere words on a piece of paper can not restrain tyrants- but, if our forefather had been more diligent to preserve liberty back when powers were more equal, maybe they could have held onto it a little longer (but at some point, and long before now, people would have let their collective guard down, and we’d be where we are now anyway. And I’m not contradicting what you said about it not being “our fault”)

              But for sure, word it as simply and obviously and as plain as day…and they’d do just like they did with the 4th as pertaining to “DUI checkpoints”- “Oh well, if we stop every nth car, then it’s not ‘at random’ “- which clearly is just them using semantics to get around the clear intent of what the BOR sought to prevent them from doing….

              • Heya Nunz,

                Oh, I’m not arguing that if they’d worded it differently then the gun grabbers couldn’t have done what they’ve done. Just that, the most plausible “original intent” of the founders was to word it as ambiguously as possible precisely so that they could fabricate a “legal” justification for whatever gun control schemes they decided was necessary to protect themselves at any time in the future. After all, they were well aware of the danger an armed populace poses to the government.


                • Ditto, Jeremy- I understood. Just like “unreasonable search and seizure”- who gets to define unreasonable?!

                  I get the idea that the Founders were a lot like Ronald Reagan: They often said great things….while providing a conduit for the diametric opposite of what their words meant.

                  • Jeremy, that’s exactly correct. Every time I hear someone sing Reagans’ praises I want to puke. The people who ran his office, esp. the presidency, were simply ex-Nixonites who lived to foist 9/11 on us. He was an eloquent liar. His henchmen weren’t eloquent but certainly did the dirty work he “wasn’t” known for but should have been.

                    • You can thank turdpress for that. It puts things wherever it desires, sometimes not even in the same page.

                    • I wouldn’t want to see everyone here. Those I think have good morals and intelligence I see as handsome people regardless of how they might look.

                      Then again, I’m not much on judging people by looks.

                    • 8, I never understood the looks thing, as pertaining to other guys- to wit:

                      I used to hang out with this guy when I was in my 20’s- we were both skinny. I was talking about going to the beach one day, and the other guy says “Yeah, but don’t invite Erick [our mutual friend]; he’s too fat”.

                      Huh?! What do I care how fat Erick is? Turns out, the guy seems to think that being in the company of a fatso would spoil his chances of picking up a babe…. Huh? So, if he met a babe, he’d cease being friends with Erick until and if the babe left him? Would he really want a ‘babe’ who is so superficial as to judge him by the weight of his friend?[Yes, HE would…]. I thought we were going to the beach to swim with the fishies; not to attract those who smell like them?

                      Never ended up ever going to the beach with that guy!

                      That guy turned out to be a REAL loser- today he’s in his early 50’s; has three different kids by three different women; several mulatto grandkids; doesn’t even have a house to live in; his car got repoed; he borrows money from anyone he can and never pays it back, and drinks at a bar every night…..

                      Gave up on him years ago. Meanwhile, Erick the fatso is my best friend….is married to his first and only wife; has a nice house, yada, yada….. (He’
                      s your typical jolly fat guy- Gosh, how could ya not want to go anywhere with him?!)

                  • Nunz, it’s the just the way self-doubting people are. They’re insecure and want to make sure every choice makes them more desirable to others in every aspect of life.

                    I give you the suburbs for example.

                    • Yep, yep, 8. Funny thing is, the other guy didn’t have much going for himself- even on a superficial level- I mean he wasn’t muscular or good looking, or even witty or intelligent. Ya would think that he’d want to surround himself with those who’d make him look good by comparison.

                      It could’ve been a good comedy routine though…

                      “Did you go to the beach?”
                      “Nah, Chris didn’t want to go.”
                      “Why not?”
                      “Cause Erick’s too fat?”

                      No wonder I’d always go to the beach alone- the way I preferred it! (I liked secluded spots anyway- wasn’t interested in socializing!)

                      Funny thing though, of all forums I’ve ever been on over the last 20 years, this is the one forum I’d actually probably enjoy actually seeing most of the regulars from. Even Vonu and Shotgun Chuck!

                      And of course, you, Jeremy, Flinders, Brent, would all be absolute no-brainers (as would most others, but I’m not going to name you all!) And of course, skinny Eric!

                    • Clearly you underestimate my dedication if you think I’d ever choose to ride on any road with a posted limit higher than 25MPH.

    • Hi Louden!

      In re your question about rules in public: My understanding of Libertarian moral philosophy is that it’s premised on the concept that it’s wrong to commit aggression. An adult man accosting a young girl (or a grown woman) in the manner you’ve described would be committing aggression against her and a defensive reaction by the victim (or her guardian) is legitimate.

      Of course, most men – almost all men – would never do the thing you’ve described. It’s important to keep this in mind because unlikely (but possible) scenarios such as this one are often used to dismiss Libertarianism as unworkable. In fact, more harm comes to more people as a result of endless laws/prohibitions/punishments based on these “what if?” scenarios.

      My notion of Libertarianism is that it’s preferable to accept the relatively small risk of something bad happening here and there rather than the certainty of something bad – freedom being restricted – being imposed on everyone before anything bad has happened, because it might.

      Before anything actually happens.

      Example: The argument for speed limits is that by driving faster than some arbitrary number I risk losing control of my car and possibly causing harm to others. But I have not actually caused harm to anyone – and can point to decades of accident-free driving to objectively make my case that I am in control of my car, despite regularly driving considerably faster than the speed limit. Yet I am still punished for driving faster – despite never having caused any harm. Would it not be more reasonable to hold me accountable for any harms I actually cause but until then, leave me be?

      Libertarians do not advocate a perfectly safe world. We advocate for freedom – with the risks and responsibilities that come with it.

      • Libertarians, the real kind, advocate for an armed society because it’s a polite society.

        You mentioned 5G eric. Sweden rolled out 5G over the entire country ahead of the entire world. Now they’re in a real bind and have shut it down. They have had a huge increase in cancer, especially in children.

        Hard to believe they didn’t already know microwave causes cancer. Many studies have shown children exposed to microwave(and adults but worse for kids)have shown 3 and 4G causes 4-5 times as much cancer in children as those not exposed to it. 5G is going to be a nightmare and a tragedy in cities.

        I have never felt left out living in the sticks, in fact, I’m not far enough into the sticks. Since where I live is so sparsely settled though, I think we’ll be some of the last to get 5G. Meanwhile, I’m on the look out for a bazooka or similar. I went 50 years without a cell phone.

          • Probably not the younger ones. Being an old phart, my own libertarian tendencies were fueled by the works of Heinlein and Van Vogt. (The Weapon Shops of Isher: “The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.”)

            • Mine were never fueled by science fiction.
              Mine were were fuelled by the works of British classic liberals and American founders, along with a bit of objectivists and voluntarists, which very few of even the oldest libertarians were conversant in.
              I was fortunate to have access to the library in the office of the Colorado Libertarian Party where I frequently spent more time than at work or home. After the Republicans fleeing the Neo-Cons took over the party, they sold off or threw away everything in the office when they went virtual.

              • I’m not well-read in Libertarianism. Learned everything I needed to know about it in pooblik skool. No- not from pooblik skool- but just by being forced to in it till I was old enough to “drop out”. I figured out at the age of 6 that “this is not freedom”.

                Pretty much figured everything else out too, before I even knew that there was a thing called Libertarianism.

                Freedom is simple. The yearning to be free is natural, unless it is eradicated. Luckily, I seem to have escaped most of the propaganda which causes that eradication. Today, escaping that propaganda is almost impossible for the current generation.

      • Gentlemen

        Thank you for the responses.

        I agree that if an individual displayed his penis in public to my daughter a physical defense is warranted. However, the other person argued that since no physical contact had occurred that my or my daughter’s rights had not been violated. Yes really, that is what he told me.

        Look at the perversion on display at your local Drag Queen story hour. Go to a so called Pride Event. Every sick twisted sodomite within 100 miles shows up. This is with the current system in place. Will we ever get back to a system where good, decent men put a stop to this nonsense in the public square, by force if necessary, and not get hauled off to jail and labeled a bigot, homophobe, Nazi etc?

        I do not think that in our current multicultural country that Libertarianism will ever work. We are not even close in our fundamental views of acceptable behavior in public. Look at the third world hordes coming up from central and south America. You think they have any concept of individual rights or freedoms? Look at the big cities. They would rather the drug dealers, gang bangers, murderers go free than allow “the man” or “whitey” to lock them up. These people are generations from ever having any concept of individual rights and mutual respect to build a society. They are parasites.

        I have said ever since Bill Clinton was President that the US is headed for conflict. There is no way that the people in this country can peacefully co exist. We have so little shared values anymore. For God’s sake their are open socialists in the House of Representatives. It is impossible to be a socialist and swear to uphold the Constitution at the same time.

        • In a true libertarian country, we would have no house of representatives. We’d have no prez or senate. We’d no laws that didn’t pertain to loss. Loss of material things or health would be just about the only ones. If you want to go naked in public, it’s fine with me. If you want to touch me, only I can say whether it’s harming me. Spit in my eye and get instant justice.

            • Not sure open borders would be bad with no govt. Everyone has to get along with everyone else. I’m not counting on finding out at my age.

            • SPQ,
              Without government redistributing our wealth, there would be no freebies, and thus no reason for the hordes to come, because their lives would be no better than the life they could make for themselves where they came from.

              Same reason most Americans don’t flock to other countries.

              Secondly, what borders? The borders would be your own property- if someone wanted to come from BFE and buy property here and do their own thing, who cares? We would also be free to decide who we would allow to buy our property. Have a community of Jews who don’t want any A-rabs? Fine…don’t sell to A-rabs or non-Jews. Have a community of WASPs who don’t want to sell to Meh-hee-cans or jigs or Dagos? No problemo.

              What we have NOW, with government, is essentially open borders- as they provide incentives for the hordes to come; protect them; and prevent people from ostracizing them.

              In fact, what we have now is worse than open borders, because WE are being robbed to pay for it, and society is being forced and manipulated to accept it…all thanks to the psycho-criminals in government.

              • I don’t remember any accounts of the Ellis Islanders coming for the freebies, none of which were or are constitutional. The Constitution had to be overthrown to allow the freebies to be offered. This is well established in the story about Davy Crockett’s Sockdologer.

                • The laws were much different then. They had no freebies waiting for them, just another place other than where they lived.

                  They were all desperate and believed no place could be worse than where they left.
                  Go back to Ireland and starve? It was better to pick up a rifle give to you by Lincoln and company and head south.

                  And south they did head. There are many communities of Irish in Mexico who had no reason to kill southerners.

                • Thing is too, the Ellis-Islanders were people of similar culture, lifestyle and religion. They could easily form a strong cohesive whole, without major conflict, competition or jealousies.

                  Imagine if THOSE immigrants had been a motley crew of “diverse” people, all with radically differing values/ethics/religions, lifestyles, etc. Imagine what this country would look like today. Well…we are seeing what this country would have looked like 75 years ago, if current immigration policies had been practiced back then…and by today there would be nothing to see, because we would be extinct- ’cause such a conglomeration of diverse people can not result in a strong cohesive society full of strong individuals and families; it only results in weakness, decay and ruin.

                  • You had Dagos, Jews and just plain old white Europeans inhabiting the same places such as Hell’s Kitchen where they use to take their boys every Sunday to fight.

                    It was said the Dago’s, Jews and Puerto Ricans had some good fighters but none wanted to fight the white boys.

                    • Wonder how much of that is true, 8? My mother grew up on the border of Hell’s Kitchen in the 30’s….it was quite peaceful- families sitting out on the stoops in the evenings (No A/C then); kids playing stickball in the street; people sleeping on fire escapes.

                      Other than a smattering of your usual juvenile delinquents (We’re talking: Stealing an apple, as opposed to the school shootings of today) and maybe a little gang activity in the wee hours in the more desolate places…it sounded like paradise compared to today.

                      Heh..to think- immigrants (including my grandparents) all raising large famblies (mine had 7 kids, and they weren’t considered all that much, then) on a single income, during the Depression… and to think, my mother (who’ll be 95 in a few months) and most of her siblings and all of the others from her block, -many of whom she has kept in touch with for life, mostly all lived into their 90’s and enjoyed healthy productive lives.

                      People are definitely doing something wrong today! And all the welfare, sans Depression, isn’t helping.

                      W47th St. in those days was more like an urban Texas…complete with horses still plying the streets!

                    • Nunz, I reckon it was all pretty close to the truth since the author grew up there and spoke of his own experiences. Now I can’t remember who wrote that. I wish somebody could help me. I probably still have the book.

                    • Ehhhhh….well…8, I’ll tell ya, having heard it from the people who grew up there:

                      The language (“Gangs”, “crime” etc.) may be the same…but the meanings were quite different back then. (Depends on the time period, too- by the 50’s the area had declined, and things started getting hairier).

                      My uncle Sabato (and you thought I got the funny name?!) had moved to CA., and went back to visit the fambly in NY in the 40’s. He’s walking down a desolate street late at night. coming back from a nightclub or something (Probably near the waterfront) and some gang sees that his handkerchief is another gang’s colors. They surround him. He ‘splains that he’s just visiting the fambly; has no affiliation with any gang…and they leave him alone. [It was kinda hilarious that they’d even think he was in a gang…he was a small harmless man of slight build! Kinda looked like Kukla, from Kukla, Fran And Ollie]
                      http://kukla.tv/kukla2.jpg ]

                      My mother recounts how when she was a young adult, she once took the subway home late at night, and there were only two other people in her car. By the time she got to her stop, she was the only person in the car. She’s like “Geee, I must have been stupid; I could have been raped or killed!”

                      I had to remind her that random crime, even in NY and other big cities was a rarity, then.

                      Back then, if one person got murdered, or raped or robbed, it made the headlines. It was shocking; uncommon.

                      I still remember when I was a kid in the early 70’s, it was really onlky then that crime was really starting to become a common thing in NYC, to point where people were starting to implement security measures- like multiple locks on their doors; bars on ground floor or fire-escape windows, etc. and that landlords were starting to lock and alarm roof doors, and put gates on alleyways and passageways; and the city started installing those high-intensity “anti-crime” streetlights, etc.

                      Basically, (and this is from personal observation) you could look at the city in 1969, and it was just normal life. Look at it by 1979 and it was fear-for-your-life random crime so common that it was the expected norm, and an average of four murders per day were not even newsworthy. Night and day.

                      Oh! Oh! Another one: When my mother was an adolescent, she and a friend or two would walk to Central Park- in the dark. Her parents were very strict/conservative- but walking to the park was just another normal thing, not even to be given a second thought…even for a little girl…at night (The park was a good 3/4’s – 1 mile away).

                      8, ever see any of those old Dead-End Kids or Bowery Boys movies?

                      They were actually a more accurate depiction of the kind of crime back then, then what most serious journalists would have us believe today. But of course, since few people are now alive who actually lived it…they can get away with saying anything they want to.

                      The real “crime” back then, was mainly from Prohibition. As usual, Uncle “keeping us safe”, just like he does today with The War On [some]Drugs. It’d be amazing how much crime would disappear today if that Prohibition went away, just like the crime associated with the alcohol Prohibition went away when that ended….

                    • Nunz, this was barely past the turn of the century. There were no gangs, just a lot of poor immigrants in that neighborhood. The fights weren’t crime, they were just competitions. Big diff from then and later.

                    • Ah, O-K 8, I misunderstook ya.

                      Yeah, back then, the different ethnic groups tended to have their own separate areas- i.e Eye-talian, Goiman; Dutch; etc.

                      Back in the 90’s I knew a 94 year-old man who recounted to me (just about every time he saw me- LOL) an incident that he remembered from his boyhood which occurred in 1913- in which he defended an Eye-talian kid who had moved into his Dutch neighborhood. He’d always end the story by saying “I let the Dago come up out of the cellar”!

                      Even way back then – late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the libruls were already pulling their crap, though.

                      The famous book “How The Other Half Lives” by Jacob Riis, is tantamount to a modern liberal’s rantings about how the poor obese drug-addicted professional baby-makers are so “oppressed”…

                      Funny- over 100 years later, and the liberals wet dreams of free everything for the lowest of the low have come to pass…and yet they still can’t manage to live healthy productive lives. Hmmm..maybe throwing money and freebies at them ain’t the answer, ’cause THEY are the problem.

                      Ironically, a place with a suburban feel to it on the furthest-flung edge of NYC is named for Riis…inhabited by rich liberal Jews, who are the only ones who can afford it’s super-expensive houses and taxes, and lack of “public transportation”, which guarantees that the people whom they demand that we champion and subsidize, will never come within miles of where they live….

                  • I saw a lot of similar culture, lifestyles, and religion in Mexico when I was there.
                    I never saw less anywhere else but in London, Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam when I was there, let alone any SWAT teams.

            • Ya never know, Vonu. One had better give some thought to their actions when in public in a normal society which is not perverted by government, and where power of an individual may be equal to or greater than that of the offending party.

              Even in a non-Libertarian society, would you walk up to a 6’4″ 300 lb. jig and say “Your mother is a cunt”?

              • Which is why it is critically important to quote Heinlein in toto.
                “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Robert A. Heinlein

                • Exactly! And why “Good fences make good neighbors”.

                  (Heinlein was in Toto? I would have thought he’d have better musical tastes!)

                • V, those are words to live by. It’s the reason Texans have always been polite, and still are to more extent than any other place I’ve been. It’s changing though and not for the better.

                  Now a fight or trash talk is seen is a “terroristic threat”. They learn the LEO bs faster than anything else. Rarely do any of them know anything about the Constitution or any Supreme Court decisions.

                  Of course, there are guys like I recently read of who took the test for a cop and was turned down because he was too intelligent. That says volumes.

          • 8, that is a perfect illustration of just plain normal society….when it’s not perverted by government- which assumes the prerogative of determining what constitutes acceptable behavior and responses, etc. Government thus becomes the surrogate god, which dictates morality (even though THAT god has not created the life that we sprang from, nor the physical realm in which we live- therefore has no legitimate claim over anyone nor anything) and which demands penance for transgressions of it’s arbitrary laws, and which demands that it be the sole arbiter of all disputes between it’s parishioners…..

            This is why governments the world over always end up persecuting and destroying Christianity or any other religion which is mutually exclusive and which practices absolute moral values; because the [false]god of government, claiming to be a sovereign, does not tolerate competition- so it can only tolerate a “religious freedom” that is polytheistic and not exclusive or absolute- “Worship what ever god you want, so long as you acknowledge and obey Caesar first”.

            • Even that didn’t work in the long run Nunz. They spread too far and tried to collect too much from their “citizens”, er, slaves. This is about to happen here. I don’t look forward to it.

              • Whaddaya mean,8? I was just talking about natural unhindered-by-government society and or the free practice of religion.

                Of course, when ya start establinhing other men as earthly authorities…it ain’t gonna work.

        • By the way, the US has been headed for conflict since its inception. The War of 1812 wasn’t necessary but people in power decided to take over Canada which didn’t work out. That was the longest war on record till the the war between the states. Then we had the war in the Phillipines that had barely ended when we entered WW1, the war to end all wars but of course it didn’t. It simply led to WW11 that led to the Korean War. We managed somehow to not have another war till Vietnam and had we not had a coup(Kennedy), we’d not have had that one. Then Nixon started another civil war, the War on Drugs that’s continued to today, actually, our longest war of all. Clinton started his war for no reason that took hundreds of thousands of lives. The next war started by the shrub is ongoing. Gotta have those wars. Do you have any idea of how much money “some” people make off these wars. A movie a few years old gives some real time dollar amounts for it’s times, The Dogs of War.
          I won’t outlive the one we currently have….one way or the other and we may have another or several within our borders other than the War on Drugs.

            • Vonu, it took decades to achieve that need and means(our weapons)to strike back. We’re drone bombing them daily right now in Syria and the Houti’s, the sworn enemies of Saudi Arabia…..with good reason.

              • Funny, too- both Obozo and Trump have sold $Billions in weapons to the Saudis…..

                Like I say, may as well throw your ballot in the garbage, ’cause there’s no difference, no matter who occupies the office.

        • Hi Louden,

          “Libertarians” who value absolute freedom, without responsibility or recognition of cultural norms that allow people to live together peacefully, above all else, are libertines, not libertarians.

          “I do not think that in our current multicultural country that Libertarianism will ever work. We are not even close in our fundamental views of acceptable behavior in public”.

          As usual, the core economic question, “compared to what”, is relevant. Those who seek power are the worst among us and long ago realized that creating conflict is the surest way to maintain power. Monopoly, coercive institutions protect those in power from the consequences of bad behavior. Absent those institutions, nobody would be so protected. The sociopaths would have to rely solely on their personal ability to use force over others to maintain control. But, without the false legitimacy of authority provided by government, such a path is dangerous and will not be accepted as legitimate by those oppressed.

          The cultural norms you value arise naturally and spontaneously among people. Those who possess government authority correctly see that natural order as a threat to their power, and thus seek to destroy it.


          • Hey Ya’s, Jeremy & Louden,

            “”Libertarians” who value absolute freedom, without responsibility …”

            The thing is, that the people who advocate such don’t seem to realize that there can be no freedom without responsibility- because ultimately, lack of responsibility results in poverty, decay and death.

            It is only when government intervenes and relieves some of the need to be responsible, by imposing greater responsibilities on others, that some can live irresponsibly, as they may so desire.

            As a practical example: In our government-controlled society, one can procreate and have even many kids, without having to provide for themself nor those kids, because government will rob others to pay for that.

            Or, a person can engage in dangerous pursuits; eat garbage; use health-destroying substances, and have others pick up the tab for the resultant injurio\es and bad health they will bring upon themselves.

            In a Libertarian world, this would not be, and those who live irresponsibly would either suddenly become responsible…or suffer the consequences of their own choices and actions- because ultimately, THAT is what freedom is: To reap the natural consequences or rewards of one’s own choices and actions.actions.

      • eric, “Of course, most men – almost all men – would never do the thing you’ve described.” In the society I grew up in, you can be assured they’d never do it twice.

        • “In the society I grew up in, you can be assured they’d never do it twice.”

          In the society we live in now, they’d get their own bathroom and a job teaching kindergarden……

  11. Hi Eric,
    On Interstate 8 there used to be 4 separate border patrol checkpoints between California and Arizona, but now they’re down to one in Yuma, mainly because of the “humanitarian crisis” on the border. You still get your license plate and face photographed as you wait at the checkpoint. Never been directed over to the secondary screening area, knock on wood. There’s also a major Customs/Border Patrol station on the I-5 in the Camp Pendelton area that probably photographs all traffic and occasionally shuts down the I-5 as a checkpoint for one reason or another. As technology advances, it looks to me, along with everything else that’s going on, like an “end times” scenario, IMHO.

    • Hi Vic,

      Yup. And the sad/funny thing is the AGWs manning these “border” checkpoints are often named Hernandez or Diaz or some such . .. demanding citizenship status from people with Anglo-Saxon surnames whose people have been in the got-damned country for the past 300 years…

      • eric, when you get down to it, the mestizos that settled Ca. were there well before the pilgrims arrived. They didn’t do much with it other than some churches and forts and prisons, whatever the Pope demanded since the Spanish herded them there as labor.

        • That’s why every place in CA. has a Spanish Calf-lick name: Sandy Eggo (Is that where they make the waffles?); San Harmonica; San Jose (Next to San Hose B.).

          Then there’s that county where the Manson Fambly hung out- Inyo. That musta been settled by jigs…. “”Hey man, is that in your county?” “Naw, man, that’s in yo county!”.

          • Nunz, great points. Have you ever seen a Mexican playing a harmonica? Aha, I thought so. No California Drummin til the Mama’s and Papa’s. Musta stole a bloated guitar off Spaniards and picked up a Bugle from a battle. Everything other instrument is picked green and allowed to dry.

            • Well 8, if you’re going to Sannnnn Fran Sisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. (The crazy fur protesters will probably kill ya for having picked the flowers)

              If you’re going to San Fransisco, you’re gonna meet some gentle people there! (I would have thought that being poked where the sun don’t shine, and being mulcted to pay for other’s sex-change operations would be kinda a violent thang….go figure…)

              • Nunz, I lived through that. I never felt the need to go there except as a school trip which wasn’t much of anything.

                Ever been to Disneyland or Knott’s Berry Farm? Prepared to be bored out of your mind. I had one good laugh at Disneyland. As it got dark, there were countless lights on the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair and giving the Gettysburg address. The jaw simply moved up and down like it was on a simply gear system as I’m sure it was. There was nothing with the jaw that synchronized with the voice so that was hilarious in itself but the sheer huge amounts of flying insects flying in and out of his mouth was downright hilarious.

                I could have gotten a date with a real nice looking California girl but was drug off with the group. That sucked and she really liked the “Texas” look.

                It was warm out there and I swear, I wished we had some weather similar.

                And where in the word was that California girl who promised me she would meet onthe 3rd floor.

                And those Cali eyes they were eyin the prizes some people call manly footwear.

                They said “And you’re from down south and when you open your mouth, you always seem to put your money there”.

                It was funny in that everywhere we went, people would ask about the girls and ask us if we(the boys)were some athletic group. Every cafe and restaurant the waitresses were taken away with all the boys. I never saw anyone try to pick up the girls. Well, we were all hard-working and muscled up country boys and actually were athletes.

                I thought I was going to get some serenading a good looking Cali girl with my Fender and vocals but this dumpy little Babdis a-hole broke it up. I ended up giving him hell in countless ways he couldn’t really tie to me personally the entire time. He was such a prick I never let up on him. I even told a woman what he’d said about her(nothing, but she didn’t know that). I thought and hoped he’d get his ass beaten. Alas, she had some decent manners but treated him like shit. I was ROTFLMAO.

                • Nah, 8, never had any desire to go anywhar near Disneyland/world (even when I was a kid). Always hated lines, and Coney Island had enough rides for me.

                  My mother actually lived in southern CA. for a bit in the early 50’s, and used to love Knotts Berry Farm (I’ll settle for Don Knotts)- before it turned into a tacky amusement park. She was sickened by what it’s since become.

                  Musta been neat back in the day, ’cause I grew up hearing about it incessantly!

                  I don’t “do” attractions; if I go somewhere, I wanna see the neighborhoods where people live; the industrial area; the ‘hood, etc.

                  It kills me when people go hundreds or thousands of miles- even halfway across the world…and then see the preserved relics they’ve seen 8 million times in photographs, while in the company of nothing but other tourists…and then proceed to tell ya what London or Paris is really life, ’cause they personally saw Big Ben or the Awful Tower before their eyes, and et some snails on a bed of feces in a fancy restaurant.

                  ‘D be like going to the aquarium in Dallas, and them thinking they saw Texas and know Texans!

                  • It’s funny you say that! I did the same when I was thinking of moving to South America. I never went to Machu Picchu. I’ve seen countless pics of it. I did some tourist things in the capital city where I was, but that was it. I wanted to know the neighborhoods, the people, etc.; I wanted to know what REAL LIFE was like in country, so my trips were geared towards that.

                    • I’ve been over a lot of Mexico, nearly to Gautemala, but never to a tourista place. I just hung with the locals. 15 years ago the closest thing I saw to fast food was Coca Cola products. I didn’t partake. I did drink quite a few Negra Modelo. In Mexico, Corona was the cheapest beer you could get and tasting it you knew why.

                      I laugh my butt off seeing people in the US paying big bucks for that stuff from horses that are nearly dead. Gross stuff. Sol was the best cheap beer. Superior wasn’t bad. I never found the Bohemia beer they make there but understand it’s one of the 4 best.

                      I was mighty popular buying rounds of Corona and even Sol(same price).

                      None of the cheap brands have any alcohol content like the US. Even the expensive beers are rarely more than 5 percent.

                    • Heh, Mark- that’d be me!

                      Growing up 60 miles east of NYC, we moved to NYC when I was 16. Turn me loose in NYC with a subway token…damn! THAT was an edumacation! I explored every nook and cranny of the city…but have never been to the Statue Of [cough]Liberty; The Met[yuck]; Lincoln Center [Can’t get away from things named after that bastard no matter where I go!]….

                      Walked right through the heart of Bed-Stuy before there were hipsters or Indians or any white people who’d go there…..

                      The tourist attractions are still there, unchanged. Most of the places I went, full of old relics, or a culture that no longer exists in NYC, are pretty much all gone, forever.

                      Only wish I had pics! (Didn’t have a camera then; it would have been stolen if I did, anyway]. That world now exists only in my mind….I got to see it!

                  • As has been proposed, Texas should be broken up into 5 states. There is nothing common to west Texas and the people of the huge cities.

                    Texas women used to be the purtiest girls and not they’re just the typical fatties. Only the rural people with roots to the earth still resemble the times when I was growing up.

                    • There was a proposal to do something similar with CA. IIRC, the proposal had CA becoming three states…

                • Hey 8,

                  Negro Modelo, Bohemia and Dos Equis all come from German, immigrant beer makers. Negro Modelo is an Alt Bier, Dos Equis amber is a Vienna Lager and Bohemia is an authentic German Pilsener.


  12. Fecal…err..uhhh…facial recognition is proving to be very inaccurate – so in addition to the obvious tyranny, now even if all of your papers are in order and you haven’t committed any “hate crimes” or “pre-crime behavior”, etc. your chances of still being sodomized by the der fuhrer’s goons because the machine mistakes you for a bank robber or the kid who ran a lemonade stand without a permit are very high.

    Yet another detriment to living in the first-world. One either moves that line in the sand back further yet again…or leaves.

    And sadly, the Orange Pussy-grabber will go down in history as the champion of 5G which enables all of this- for some reason it seems to be his pet project. (And would have been the pet project of whoever else might have occupied his office, because there is no difference- other than in the act they put on)

    • Hiya Nunz!

      The latest in re Orange Man is disquieting. I think there’s a very good chance things could boil over into more than rhetorical violence…

    • Reminds me of the book Around the World in 80 days, where the protagonist is hounded by a detective because he looks vaguely like a bank robber.

  13. The lemmings just say “it’s for our safety” and most buy into it just like the millions that BELIEVE the Globull Warming BS. This morning I read where a woman in a Town Hall meeting with AOC said we should eat our children to save the world from Climate Change. This is how good the propaganda is! We have no means of fighting it… .

    • It was only a matter of time. They think they have the legitimate authority to make us take vaccines and wear seat belts and helmets. They can also mandate that we eat our children. They believe there is no limit to their powers. And until we stand up and forcefully say NO, they are right. In the end, the only thing that preserves liberty is force.

      • Hi ED,

        Sadly, this is so. Liberty has to be defended – with force, if necessary. As a humanist and Libertarian, I loathe this… but it is reality. I hope to be able to get through this life without ever taking one. But if the bastards won’t leave me alone… a point will come…

      • Erewhon Dweller,

        “They can also mandate that we eat our children“

        Do they call that “long veal”?

        And is it really that much more tender than the long pork?

        As for me, I’ll stick to eating pussy that has been spayed.

        The occasional Almond Kitten from the local Chinese carry out isn’t too bad either.

        • I can just imagine the wealthy, as in Mockingjay, having a meal of newly born labia minora, labia majora and penis flambe’.
          “Have you ever had it? It’s just delicious. There are so many ways to fix it and the pate is to die for”.

          • Thanks, I always thought of myself as a cunning linguist even had a reputation for it when I was young. Last night I ordered a plate of those bearded clams but had to settle for some mud bugs. Sucking the heads and eating the tails isn’t a fair trade for bearded clams.

    • As far as “We have no means of fighting it…” we most certainly do. Some portion of the country doesn’t have the will, and some portion of the country approves and believes themselves our rightful rulers.

  14. Eric this panopticon of freedom is keeping us safe from _________.

    The ________ are everywhere. And are not willing and fit to faithfully serve the American people and Homeland.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here