E-Mail 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

17 Comments

  1. Regarding Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, it reminds me of a quote:

    “If you are for gun control then you are not against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun – you’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you are very pro-gun. You just believe that only the government (which of course is so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.”
    – Stefan Molyneux, January 7, 2016

    Stefan has a YouTube channel.

  2. I live in the state of Texas. I don’t know exactly what is being seized but i will say it is a border state. I know for a fact that there is a lot of money that goes south from illegals. And a lot of vehicles that are seized due to drug trafficking. I would imagine that a border wall would reduce that figure significantly.

  3. They are all wrong…again.
    The wall on the southern land border is sucking the oxygen out of the room just like every politician in DC.
    Last time I checked, there are air and sea ports that require security. The northern border is also a concern even though patriots in the redoubt have part of that well covered.
    The Government must secure all borders. The bad guys are watching with smiles on their faces.
    The President should expand the discussion.

  4. The topic of asset forfeiture is not unlike any other issue that people have an opinion on. Pick any topic that limits your freedom, and you will most certainly hear the loudest support for it from people who have absolutely no experience in the matter. This is why nothing ever changes and the ridiculousness continues. Pick any hot button topic and notice who it’s supporters are…

    Tougher Gun control is pushed by people who do not own, or shoot guns.
    Asset forfeiture is supported by people who have never had their property taken by government.
    Stiffer prison sentences is supported by people who have never stepped foot inside a jail or prison.
    Utah’s new DUI law dropping to .05… supported by the Mormons no less.
    Increasing taxes being supported by people who have the most to gain from public money.

    It seems we will give credibility to anyone with the least experience these days.

  5. The Canadian Border should be secured as well. Every day 300 Haitians and Nigerians run illegally into Canada from the US with expired visas. You really need to restrict visas because this is costing Canada a fortune in welfare and deportation hearings, that’s if we can catch them.

  6. Icom IC-R6 scanner,

    I noticed that he was using a digital voice recorder, does anyone have a recommendation on one, maybe that uses a SD disk and removable batteries?

  7. No one has a right to drive a vehicle on public roads. No one has a right to fly an airplane. The qualifications for engaging in these activities are controlled by the state. They are not protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed Prohibition that became law under the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment eft it to the states to determine issues related to the sale of alcohol. Most states restricted alcohol purchases to those 21-years-old and older. A few states allowed those over 18 to purchase alcohol, at least until the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds. As far as I know, an 18-year-old cannot legally buy alcohol anywhere in the US today.

    Perhaps someone can point out to me where 18-year-olds are barred from exercising the same legal rights exercised by the population in general except for this new issue of purchasing “assault weapons.” The 2nd Amendment protects that right, so a license should not be needed. Of course, in the 1990s there were legal restrictions put in place with regard to the sale of these rifles to everyone, but their possession was still legal, and there was no age restriction.

    Were sale of “assault weapons” limited to, say, those under 65, there would be a great outcry against age discrimination. I wonder how successful the proponents of these new laws will be against those of cry out against age discrimination against those under 21.

    I will be the first to admit that I have not studied the legal precedents in detail. I ask, however, exactly what constitutional restriction on the 2nd Amendment gives the anti-gun proponents the right to discriminate on the basis of age under this new law?

    It will be interesting to see how all of this works out in the courts, although the process is unlikely to be very fast.

  8. Asset Forfeiture

    Ah yes, that paradigm of due process. Like every other law which basically comes down to the means justifies the ends. By people that have power and have the guns. So, you’re guilty till you prove you’re innocent. After they’ve taken your money to do so.

    An American of middle eastern ancestry was traveling home with a lot of cash to share with relatives not too long ago. The bright lights at the airport grabbed his money and refused to give it back even when he went through the appeals process.

    The Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C. stepped in to take his case. I don’t know if it’s been resolved yet. Incidentally, it’s a charity that fights for economic freedom and was on the top lists by Charity Navigator recommended by JWR not long ago.

    The easiest way to solve the pain and suffering caused by this unfair and awful law is to change it through Congress and not the courts.

    Don’t hold your breath though.

  9. If you drive I-15 or I-5 you can be stopped for no other reason than the possibility of asset forfeiture. I suspect that the police are actually looking for drug smugglers and money runners for the cartel. I mean I think the police are trying to do what the law intended. But the problem for me occurs when they take some poor schlub’s money or car who isn’t guilty of selling drugs or working for that cartel. So the problem is in the oversight not being adequate to prevent this miscarriage of justice. It would be easy to fix but they don’t because in their mind once that money is confiscated it is their and they do not intend to give it up. THAT is where the problem is with this law. There should be a simple inexpensive and not time consuming way for the innocent caught up in this dragnet to get justice. Law enforcement should WANT this to happen but they do not and that is where they have gone extra-constitutional

    Many years ago in high school history our teacher told us of the origin of the word “highwayman”. In merry old England the robbers would often stop travelers who lacked adequate protection or size and rob them. So the king put a quasi-military “highwayman” into force to protect the travelers. But the highwaymen were not paid particularly well and they realized they were in the perfect position to use their power and knowledge to steal money from unprepared travelers. So they did, hence the modern meaning of highwayman. That is what our police have become when they take money and property from innocent people.

  10. I absolutely believe that words matter. In the process known as “asset forfeiture”, money is not “seized” or “taken”. It is STOLEN. Please call this disgrace by its rightful name.

    2. I agree. And the remedy is to create a simple process where the individual(s) whose assets were taken could appear before a judge and prove the assets are legally his and not part of a crime. The police/DA should have no recourse if the individual proves his case but to return the money. If on the other hand the money is “dirty” anything the individual says under oath can be used to prosecute him. After all we all AGREE that if this is drug money and if the person carrying the money (or assets) is prosecuted for that crime THEN the assets can be constitutionally forfeited, right?

  11. QUOTE
    The article points out how recently high school students threatened to walk out of school because of the “scary” resource officer there to protect them. The TSA says they are phasing out the most effective bomb/drug sensors (canines) because they have pointy ears and are scary to children

    Police Thugs don’t belong in school. Except I would homeschool, I would ENCORAGE any student to walk out until these unconstitutional, brutal, thugs, are removed from Schools. And we can bring back marksmanship classes.

    TSA? Really? And Canines are NOT always the most effective. Are they tested to see if they are just responding to their handler (like Smart Hans the Horse that could apparently do square roots) or are really detecting drugs, or bombs?

  13. BUILDING THE WALL IS A FORCE MULTIPLIER FOR CBP OFFICERS AS IT CHANNELS ILLEGAL BORDER ACTIVITY TO A AREA THAT IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN APPREHENDING ILLEGALS, ISIS, DRUGS, GUNS AND MONEY. IT WII ENHANCE THE SOVIGENTRY OF THIS COUNTRY AND THERE IS NO PLACE TO BUILD SANCUTARY STATES, TOWNS OR CITIES WITHOUT ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS WELL AS ORDINARY U.S. CITIZNS NO MATTER WHAT RACE OR COLOR OF SKIN. ONLY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMMING IN LEGALLY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT WILL ASSUMILATE INTO OUR CHRISTIAN CULTURE AND LIFE STYLE ACCEPTED AS VALID U. S. CITIZENS AS THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS BEING PROSTUTED BY CRIMINALS WHO WISH TO DESTROY THE U. S. FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
    THIS IS BAISED ON PERSON EXPERIENCE AS A ‘BORDER RAT LEO’, ON THE U.S. – MX. BORDER FOR + 20 YEARS SERVICES ! “BEEN THERE DONE THAT!”

  14. “Here’s hoping Trump stays strong over the issue.”

    If Trump were serious about the wall, he would have acted during the TWO YEARS he had a Republican majority in Congress. The wall is just the reality TV president putting on a good show.

Comments are closed.