Jump to content

Mr Thrall

Members
  • Content count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Mr Thrall

  • Rank
    Grunt
  • Birthday 01/02/1966

Converted

  • Gender
    male
  1. Bare foots world is a great site ! Be warned though. Some of the information on the website will blow your socks off. Prepare accordingly.
  2. Militia of Montana does not seem to exist online anymore. I know of membership dues that were sent in over the last 5 years and payment had been rejected. There does not seem to be much internet activity for Montana militia folks. Also, this article above was posted Posted By: Cowgirl May 22, 2013 6:40 AM. Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in china, but the related article from the cowgirls post regarding the MHRN (hilarious) was an interesting insight into the minds of cowards and idiots. http://www.mhrn.org/publications/specialresearchreports/MHRN%20Report%20-%20Coordination.pdf
  3. Be very careful. This has been well orchestrated. So let's say that the "tip" if such a thing really happened had made it's way to the local field office....Then what? The FBI could go SWAT him in the middle of the night ? Lock him away ? What could they do over HEARSAY. Just because the talking heads want to tell us the "facts" after the fact, does not mean that any of it is truth. Here is the point... This is all to get everyone hot and bothered enough, and BLIND enough to grant the government more power to control us. Essentially what they want is to arrest, kidnap, or murder individuals for PRE-CRIME. If you want to be safe and keep your kids safe, maybe, just maybe, don't send them to gun-free zones to be indoctrinated to worship government and to learn stupid crap like in the event of a school shooting, hide in a closet. What nonsense. But why should any parent be responsible for their child's education, when massa government will learn them real good to be obedient citizens. This is all divide and conquer, and we are all losing. The FBI dropped the ball ? Nonsense. The FBI usually plans the domestic terror attack and dupes a loser to begin a futile attempt and then arrest the loser and claim glorious victory. The FBI is playing COY. They will garner support for more Orwellian legislation. Individuals will cry for more security from the terrorist and to protect the children, while allowing the government to legally do whatever, whenever. And we will have asked for it all. WAKE UP SLAVES....
  4. When Should You Shoot a Cop? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw [/b][/size] Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981 – Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3] The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public. Castle Rock v. Gonzales WASHINGTON – June, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. The police didn’t respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnaping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver. Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene. Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, its police department, and the three individual police officers with whom she had spoken under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Federally-protected property interest in enforcement of the restraining order and alleging "an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations." A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected Gonzales's substantive due process claim but found a procedural due process claim; an en banc rehearing reached the same conclusion. The court also affirmed the finding that the three individual officers had qualified immunity and as such could not be sued. The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public. Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197 According to the complaint, Yolanda Davidson was stabbed four times by Jack Blackmun while in a public laundromat. On three earlier occasions women had been stabbed at the same or nearby laundromats. The evening before Yolanda's stabbing, two police officers had the laundromat under surveillance when another stabbing occurred; the police chased the suspect but failed to catch him. The next evening the officers had the laundromat under surveillance for the purpose of preventing assaults and apprehending the felon. The officers were aware of Yolanda's presence in the laundromat throughout the surveillance. After about an hour of surveillance, they saw a man on the premises who closely resembled the attacker of the previous evening and, while watching him for 15 minutes, identified him as the likely perpetrator of that assault. As the officers watched, the suspect entered and left the laundromat "several times." The officers did not warn Yolanda. Eventually she was stabbed. Yolanda seeks to recover from the city and the officers on the basis of causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect, and failure to warn. The causes of action in negligence allege that special relationships existed between Yolanda and the officers as well as between the assailant and the officers, each of which imposed a duty of care on the officers. fn. 1 Defendants demurred, contending (1) that no "special relationship" giving rise to a duty of care existed under the allegations of the complaint, and (2) that, in any event, the action was barred under the immunity provisions of Government Code section 845, which absolve a public entity or employee of liability for failure to provide adequate police protection. fn. 2 Without indicating the grounds for its ruling, the trial court sustained the demurrer. On this appeal, plaintiffs maintain that neither of the defendants' arguments support the trial court judgment. 1982 -A husband and wife who were assaulted in a Laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct. The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6 The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived. Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead. Appellant has failed to plead facts supporting an assumption that a special relationship existed between decedent and the San Jose Police Department. The allegation that the police had responded 20 times to her calls and had arrested her husband once does not indicate that the department had assumed a duty toward decedent greater than the duty owed to another member of the public. The police may have responded repeatedly to her calls, only to discover that she was not in danger. Absent an indication that the police had induced decedent's reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide her with protection, it must be concluded that no special relationship existed and that appellant has not stated a cause of action. The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. Linda Riss v. City of New York Linda Riss, an attractive young woman, was for more than six months terrorized by a rejected suitor well known to the courts of this State, one Burton Pugach. This miscreant, masquerading as a respectable attorney, repeatedly threatened to have Linda killed or maimed if she did not yield to him: 'If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you'. In fear for her life, she went to those charged by law with the duty of preserving and safeguarding the lives of the citizens and residents of this State. Linda's repeated and almost pathetic pleas for aid were received with little more than indifference. Whatever help she was given was not commensurate with the identifiable danger. On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her 'last chance'. Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused. The next day Pugach carried out his dire threats in the very manner he had foretold by having a hired thug throw lye in Linda's face. Linda was blinded in one eye, lost a good portion of her vision in the other, and her face was permanently scarred. For all of these reasons, there is no warrant in judicial tradition or in the proper allocation of the powers of government for the courts, in the absence of legislation, to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public. Quite distinguishable, of course, is the situation where the police authorities undertake responsibilities to particular members of the public and expose them, without adequate protection, to the risks which then materialize into actual losses (Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75, 180 N.Y.S.2d 265, 154 N.E.2d 534). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Rehnquist's opinion stated that although the DSS's failure to act may have made it liable for a tort under Wisconsin state law, the 14th Amendment does not transform every tort by a state actor into a violation of Constitutional Rights. Specifically, the act of creating a Department of Social Services to investigate and respond to allegations of child abuse may have meant that Winnebago County assumed a duty to prevent what Randy DeShaney did to Joshua DeShaney, and failure to fulfill that duty may have constituted a tort. In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. 1991 – In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” but failed to remove him from his father’s custody. Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803 Professor Van Alstyne has stated: "A public entity is not liable for injuries caused by 'failing to enforce any law.' Govt C § 818.2.public employees enjoy a similar immunity: They are not liable for injuries caused by 'failure to enforce an enactment.' Govt C § 821. 'Law' is broader in scope than 'enactment,' including not only statutes, ordinances, charter provisions, rules, and regulations, but also state and federal decisional law as far as applicable in California. Govt C §§ 810.6, 811. ... The immunity in § 818.2 prevails over statutory entity liabilities that do not clearly indicate otherwise. Govt C § 815(b), 815.2(b). ... For example, it supersedes the liability imposed by Govt C § 815.6 for failure to discharge a mandatory duty." (Van Alstyne, California Government Tort Liability (Cont. Ed. Bar 1964) § 5.46, p. 154.) An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the ‘Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BN6Q5cygCs Just a quick thought here at the end. I understand that it is a lot of information and a taboo topic, but what about the fact that nearly 99% of all the millions of laws, statues and ordinances in the country are IN FACT in conflict with the true original constitution. Think about that for a second. If 99% of the laws are null and void because they are in conflict with the "supreme" law of the land, then wouldn't the vast majority of law enforcement that police do everyday be a crime ? So the next time you hear about about an individual being assaulted, kidnapped and extorted for not wearing a seat belt, don't just say, they should have been wearing the damn seat belt. Instead ask yourself, what crime was really committed here? How is the state/city the victim? Wouldn't the individual that was actually trespassed against be the victim? What authority does that individual wearing a badge and gun really have over you? To say that one individual has rights that you do not have, MAKES YOU A SLAVE !
  5. About 50% of individuals that live in this country do not have to pay tribute in the form of Federal taxes. Not sure I am interested in those who leech off of others, even if they are brainwashed into believing that they are seemingly entitled to my time and energy.
  6. Monster slingshot with homemade "Bonecrusher" ammo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L28hnM5yyx8
  7. Is there a rubber gasket in that there container ? Viewed the attached file and answered me own question. Looks like you have a few boxes or MRE's ready to shovel in there ! DON"T FORGET THE TOILET PAPER !
  8. When the SHTF, what will your choice of lead, copper, polymer, ETC... slinger be ? Is is a tricked out 10/22 with 1,000 rounds in your bag ? Maybe A Mosin Nagant complete with yugo tins of surplus 7.62x54r at the ready? How about a bargain 308 with a scope 3 times the gun ? Maybe it's something more exotic like a lever action in 500 S&W ? AK, AR, VEPER, or Shotgun with a rifle barrel somewhere in the mix ? Do you go for keep it simple stupid, or do you fancy something more like this...
  9. Here is the link https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/25/brother-las-vegas-shooter-arrested-child-porn-charges/798888001/
  10. https://www.ebay.com/itm/T3200M-Wireless-AC-Gateway-Better-Windstream-T3200/172938567340?hash=item2843f11eac:g:EtsAAOSwsBtZ61k5
  11. Common sense will tell you that the auto glove is not under the purview of the BATFE. Finding common sense and respect for our god given natural rights at the BATFE is an exercise in futility. I believe the real questions to be asked revolve around the creation of the ATF and their subsequent "rulings." Clearly the ATF is unconstitutional. I have not seen an amendment to the constitution that states that the right to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed ? Furthermore, the BATFE's rulings are given the force of law. Meaning that with absolutely no LEGISLATIVE action from the congress, the BATFE can make and enforce laws. Does anyone remember how a bill becomes a law? Don't forget that any of the BATFE's "rulings" are enforced with violent force, extortion, kidnapping, and force up to lethal force. So what exactly is the supreme law of the land, with god's law to the side for the moment ? Is it the original organic constitution or an un-elected bureaucrats ruling behind closed doors ? If the answer is easy to surmise, then why would anyone think that working within the same system to affect change will work? Don't forget, it's not only the 2nd amendment that is there to place limits on the government on our god given rights dealing with guns. The 9th and 10th also place limits on the government as well when dealing with our natural given gun rights. Heck, in relation to the BATFE's use of force, kidnapping, ETC... they are completely in violation of the 8th amendment as well. It's important to understand exactly what the constitution is and what it is not. Reading and critical thinking skills are important. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that the 2nd amendment gives them some type of right, I would be a few hundred federal reserve notes richer. A multi headed, soul sucking enemy needs a multi faceted understanding and course of remedy to deal with. Simply saying that the constitution protects me is just not good enough.
  12. A few years ago finding the original PDF of the study was a piece of cake. Just a few years later and it has become much harder. Linked below is a website that explains what the Eglin Effects study is and how the bomb used in the OKC bombing, according to the official report, could not have caused the damage that it did. Put a firecracker in your hand, light it and keep your palm open. Try the same thing with the fire cracker in a clenched fist. Enjoy. http://911blogger.com/node/15154 [/url] " In short, this study supports the conclusions of Brigadier Gen. Benton K. Partin (Ret.) who submitted his report to Congress in the summer of 1995, where it fell upon deaf ears." CONCLUSION "While the truck bomb at the Murrah Building, and the test device at the ETS were not identical devices with identical conditions, the two events have similarities that are significant enough for comparison. Further with the ETS having less integral strength than the Murrah Federal Building conclusions drawn directly from the ETS have a built in margin of error thereby eliminating the likelihood of drawing erroneous conclusions with respect to the minimal effects anticipated from an explosive blast. It should also be noted that the test device at Eglin had the benefit of highly trained individuals constructing it. Furthermore the explosive material was small enough to be assembled in a single dense package and was of a high energy compound thereby assuring peak performance. The Murrah device was composed of individual drums of approximately 600 lbs. maximum capacity. Eight drums would be the minimum required containment for 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. By having the explosive mixture in many containers efficiency is lost because the explosive is not densely packed. With air gaps between the drums they become in effect eight separate explosive devices working in unison. Efficiency would also be reduced if detonation was not obtained simultaneously by all eight barrels. If some of the barrels depended upon others for detonation you have what would in effect be staggered explosions, while for all purposes these would be indistinguishable, this would result in a variety of shock waves leaving the assembly at different times. The air gaps would also result in the barrels attempting to cancel each other out as the individual shock waves meet in the air gap. The net effect would be to produce an initial shock wave pattern that is elliptical in nature and would result in much of the explosive energy taking a focus directly vertical from the assembly. While the pattern would eventually circularize and form a spherical shape much energy and therefore efficiency is lost in this transition. Because ANFO is also a low energy explosive (approximately 30% that of TNT) and due to the inherent inefficiency of eight barrels forming the explosive assembly, it is doubtful that the device produced blast pressures close to the calculated maximum potential blast pressure. This being the case it is doubtful that the radius of damage even approached the 42.37 foot range as calculated herein. Due to these conditions it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. In fact the maximum predicted damage to the floor panels of the Murrah Federal building is equal to approximately 1% of the total floor area of the building. Furthermore due to the lack of symmetrical damage pattern at the Murrah Building it would be inconsistent with the results of the ETS test one to state that all of the damage to the Murrah Building is the result of the truck bomb. The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure as there are certain similarities with the resultant damage to the Murrah Building and with tests two and three. It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself. As can be seen from the tests conducted at Eglin Air Force Base under known conditions producing damage to reinforced concrete structures is difficult. Reinforced Concrete exhibits damage resistance that is far above other types of construction including precast concrete masonry. The procedures used to cause the damage to the Murrah Building are therefore more involved and complex than simply parking a truck and leaving. Additional study beyond the scope of this case study will be required in order to properly interpret the damage, describe the actual chain of events and fix the cause of the damage which occurred there on April 19, 1995."
  13. I believe that I understand where you are coming from. Essentially that it is up to the individuals that live here to be informed, to be vocal and to participate in voting, calling representatives, ETC.. You said that "our current situation can be traced back to inaction" and I do agree to a degree with that assessment. The underlying issue here, and it is the true crux of the issue, is that with the way the government has been run, especially since the civil war and it's fraudulent "reconstruction" amendments, the emergency powers act and/or the emergency banking act of 1933, the congress of 1871, the change of public use to public good, and for good measure lets throw in the NFA act of 1934 as well, It has replaced any semblance of us as natural living humans with corporations known as persons. With this devious and treasonous development, they have seemingly taken away our god given rights and have replaced them with privileges. The point of the exercise, is to point out, that no matter who we seemingly elect, campaign for, etc.. we are not actually championing rights, rather begging for permission or permits. The government is a casino and the house always wins. The government encourages us to work within the "system" to affect change. This right here is the very problem. I understand that this might seem silly, unreasonable or just plain stupid, but I have found that it is rather correct to the situation. For instance, the government used subtle measures to get us to this point. The government will get us wrapped up into conversations about public safety, the children or terrorism. They will speak of reasonable gun control. Reasonable laws, statues and ordinances. They will talk about compromise and left and rights meeting in the middle. It is all an illusion that we have been entranced by. The left right paradigm is false and is designed to get different groups to be at each others throats instead of having all those different groups unite against the one true facilitator of our lost natural rights. To say that one man or one group of men have rights that you do not makes you slave. To say that one man or group of men are not bound by the same restrictions as you makes you slave. God grants rights and man grants privelages. We clearly seem to collectively believe that we have gun privelages, not gun rights. The evidence is in the pudding. Look at the long list of gun control measures enacted since 1934. It is staggering, repulsive and clearly an attack on our sovereignty as humans. That line in the sand has moved quite a ways over the decades, Hmmmm ? We have let "reasonable" government PR infect our thinking and our souls. It has never been about gun control, rather, human control. In summary, this issue is much deeper, complicated and painful than most would want to admit. But to first understand what the problem is, we have to be able to identify the disease. All this talk about gun control has always been the governments way of making us all look at the symptoms, not the real underlying disease. Finally, to explain further my statement about agreeing with you to a degree. You are absolutely right about the problem, or a large part of the problem being inaction. The inaction I speak of would have nothing to do with voting. The action I speak of would have more to do with actually physically resisting those that would "create" and then enforce such terrible, violent, and immoral rubbish. We are in this situation because we have collectively allowed it and with every loss of natural rights made an excuse, justification or decided to let the fear of violence against us control our lives and choices. Being controlled by fear is no way to live, but I will not say that it is flat out stupid.
  14. http://www.extremaratio.com/catalog/product/view/id/1761/s/mamba-hcs/category/21/ The knife is a nice size for many applications. Good enough for around the camp, in the truck or for stabby time. The real selling point here is the innovative quick release system and the built in MOLLE attachment. Certainly not thick enough for heavy prying applications, but a well built knife worthy of the 130.00 price tag.
×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy