Month: November 2004

The Telegraph Keeps Up the Pressure

Today’s op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph keeps the pressure on Parliament to “to grant home owners an unqualified legal right to fight back against burglars who invade their property”. Check it out:

The people have spoken

(Filed: 07/11/2004)

Our campaign to grant home owners an unqualified legal right to fight back against burglars who invade their property has struck a chord with politicians. The Home Secretary has accepted the need for a “rebalancing of the law” in favour of home owners, as has the leader of the Opposition.

Err, no. I imagine they’ve both made noises to that effect, but neither has introduced any legislation to accomplish it. I’m sure “more study is needed” or “such legislation is under consideration.”

Both, however, have equivocated on whether a wholly fresh law is needed. Yet the response of the public has been markedly less ambivalent than that of the politicians. When tackling an intruder under the existing law, an individual, if he wants to escape prosecution or a civil suit from the burglar, can only use what the police and the Crown Prosecution Service deem to be “reasonable force”. The people of Britain do not want a “rebalancing” of that law. As our poll today shows, an overwhelming majority of people believe that the current law is completely inadequate. They believe that householders should have the unqualified right to use force against an intruder in their homes.

This is not a party political issue, or one that appeals only to so-called “Right-wingers”. Support for a change in favour of home owners cuts across the political spectrum. People between 18 and 24 years old are as enthusiastic about restoring rights to home owners as are people aged over 65. Poorer citizens show as much, if not more, commitment to the right to fight back than their richer neighbours.

Yet the politicians, normally so sensitive to issues with great popular support, seem curiously reluctant to do anything about this one. The promises of reports and of commissions of inquiry are a familiar indication of a determination to talk endlessly about the matter while doing absolutely nothing. Although that pattern has become only too familiar from Labour on law and order issues, it would be worrying if the Conservatives adopted the same approach.

Color me surprised. (Not.) As I said, the State has taken control of the legitimate use of force, and it’s not going to give that power up willingly.

It is also not easy to understand the reasons for the reluctance to change the law. In defence of the status quo, it is claimed that it is the job of the police, not the individual citizen, to maintain public order. That would be fine as a justification if there were any evidence that the police could actually perform that role – but of course, they cannot do so, and they never have been able to. It is not just that their response times are often pitifully slow, or that they are frequently so concerned about ensuring that they protect their own officers that they fail to intervene even when they arrive at the scene of a violent crime; it is also that it is impossible for any police force, even one in a police state, to control the lives of the citizens sufficiently to prevent the commission of all violent crimes.

As I pointed out in Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? quite a while back. But it seems to have taken quite a while for the Brits to fully grasp this fact. Not surprisingly, though, because a lot of Americans don’t get it either.

And the State likes it that way.

As long as individuals are left with any degree of freedom at all, some will choose to commit burglary and other violent crimes. It is the politics of fantasy to suppose that it is possible for the police to prevent that from happening – but it is the politics of folly to base the criminal law on that fantastic supposition.

Which pretty much describes British criminal law legislation since, oh, about 1950.

The police jealously guard what they conceive to be their monopoly of the legitimate use of force. It produces the absurd situation we saw last week, when officers entitled to carry guns in London handed in their weapons because two of their number were suspended for shooting dead an unarmed man going about his lawful business. If an ordinary citizen did such a thing, the police would be the first to insist that he should be tried for murder. We do not suggest the two police officers should be prosecuted: we only call for parity between the police and the people. If the police are entitled, when they believe their lives are threatened, to take lethally offensive action, then so should home owners.

Halleluja! They’re even using the words I’ve been using for the last ten freaking years!

Politicians and lawyers also say that any change to the law that explicitly entitles home owners to tackle intruders will lead to more innocent people being accidentally killed or hurt. That is a genuine risk. But that risk has to be weighed against the certainty that there will be fewer burglaries if burglars know that home owners are free to take action against them.

YES! And they will be shocked, shocked to learn that “more innocent people” won’t be accidentally killed or hurt, just as concealed-carry opponents are shocked to find out that “wild-West shootouts” don’t occur and blood doesn’t “run in the streets” after shall-issue CCW passes. But crime goes down.

As we reported last week, when the American state of Oklahoma introduced a law permitting home-owners to take whatever action they believed to be necessary to defend themselves against intruders, the number of burglaries fell by almost half. That fall meant that many thousands of people were not intimidated, terrified and hurt by intruders. It also meant that many escaped being seriously injured or even killed by them. If the protection of innocent life is the central issue – as we believe it is – then a change in the law to allow home-owners to tackle burglars is the most effective, reasonable step to take.

YES, YES, YES!

The people of Britain wish to live in a less violent society, and one in which the weak have some protection against the violence of the strong. Changing the law on self-defence is an essential step in producing that result. It is a matter of urgency: the present lack of clarity in the notion of “reasonable force” leads not only to unjust prosecutions, but to more people being victims of violent crime. That is why we advocate changing the law. We hope our elected leaders will have the courage to implement a change that is both morally and politically necessary.

Keep hammering at them. In any kind of representative government, the only thing that gets their attention is the blinding spotlight of public scrutiny.

Hell might just be getting a touch cooler.

If You Only Read One Post Today…

Read How You Could Have Had My Vote. I don’t agree with everything the young lady said (if I did, one of us would be redundant) but she illustrates plainly and in excruciating detail precisely why the Democrats have been losing votes for the last decade.

And remember the differential – they’re now calling it 52-47, but that’s still only a 5% difference. There were a large number of “Sad Americans” casting ballots for George W.

And think about what she has to say regarding the Republicans, as well.

There’s a sh!tload of people in the “radical middle” who are not at all pleased with either choice.

A Little Clarity is What the SUBJECTS Want, Too!



I believe I’ve mentioned before on this blog the case of Harry Stanley, a good-ole boy (British type) who stopped by the pub on his way home from a furniture repair shop with a table leg in a plastic bag. Some Brit, being a gun-phobe apparently, called the cops with a claim that said table leg was a sawed-off shotgun. Mr. Stanley, after finishing his pint, picked up his table leg and proceeded towards home – however he was met by two “armed response” officers. Fearing his “shotgun,” they both fired at him when he turned at their call. One to the hand, one to the head, Mr. Stanley was dead.

To add insult to injury, just two days before his doctor had told him that his battle against colon cancer was over – he’d beaten it.

That was five years ago.

The initial inquest cleared the two officers of any wrongdoing. After all, under British law it didn’t matter that the officers weren’t actually in any danger, the fact that they believed they were made it OK to use deadly force in self-defense.

Except that only seems to work when the one on the deadly-force inflicting side is a police officer. Remember several months ago while I was arguing discussing this topic with Tim Lambert? He provided pages from an English law text explaining the specifics of the use of force in self-defense. Let me quote that again:

When a defendant deliberately used a lock knife he had opened prior to an incident, and stabbed an assailant after the defendant had received a single blow to the face, it was held that this could not possibly be reasonable. (R v Whyte [1987] 3 All ER 416)

On the other hand, if a plea of self-defence is raised when the defendant had acted under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts regardless of whether, viewed objectively, his mistake was reasonable. So where a policeman shot dead a man who was unarmed and had already surrendered he was still entitled to claim his action was in self-defence if he honestly believed this to be the situation. The test is whether his action was reasonable in the situation as he perceived it, rather than as it actually was. (Beckford v R [1987] 3 All ER 425)

So, in this case, the police actually thought they were in danger because they believed (erroneously) that the table leg was a sawed-off, and thus their use of deadly force was justified. Tragic, but I can understand the reasoning.

Contrast this to the case of Brett Osborn, which I detailed here. Mr. Osborn was confronted by a drugged out maniac, slathered in his own blood, who had broken into Mr. Osborn’s residence and who appeared to be dangerous as hell. Go read the whole sordid story, but here are the highlights: Mr. Osborne stabbed Wayne Halling with a steak knife – which didn’t seem to have much effect, but eventually caused Mr. Halling’s demise since Halling fought off any attempt by EMTs (or their British equivalent) to aid him. Mr. Osborn was then charged with murder! Instead of risking life imprisonment in a jury trial, Mr. Osborn pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to five years. The judge on the case was quoted:

Judge Shirley Anwyl QC said that she accepted that Halling could have been perceived to be “dangerous to others”. But she added: “With hindsight it is clear that Halling was presenting no real danger to anyone but himself.

But the law isn’t supposed to depend on hindsight. It’s supposed to depend on what you believe at the time – erroneous or not.

Now, here’s how Mr. Osborn’s lawyer explained the law, circa 2004:

“The law,” explains Harry Potter, the barrister who, with Charles Bott, would defend Osborn, “does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow you struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.

“Moreover,” Mr Potter continues, “while self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, the Court of Appeal has ruled that if the force you use is not judged to have been reasonable – if a jury, that is, decides it was disproportionate – then you are guilty of murder. A conviction for murder automatically triggers the mandatory life sentence. There are no exceptions.”The legal situation was explained to Osborn by his defence team. Mr Bott and Mr Potter advised him that although they thought it very unlikely that any jury would reject his plea that he had stabbed Halling in self-defence, they could not, in all honesty, claim that it was a certainty. There was a small chance that a jury might decide that his use of the knife was “disproportionate”. The jurors would then be bound, under the law, to convict him of murder.

And apparently that understanding is the one the judge had, because she said:

“By your plea you have accepted that you intended real serious injury. Your use of violence was not wholly unpremeditated in that you did equip yourself with at least one knife.

She added: “I am in no doubt about your genuine remorse and your appreciation of the appalling effect that the killing of Halling has and continues to have on his relatives and friends.”

In her infinite leniency, she only gave Mr. Osborn five years. I’d have given him – at most – a brisk slap on the wrist. (And a pat on the back, in chambers.)

Now, I’d say that deliberately arming oneself with a firearm, aiming that gun at someone, and pulling the trigger would meet the definition of “premeditation,” “an intention to cause serious bodily harm,” and “intending real serious injury,” wouldn’t you? And with hindsight (being 20/20 and all) it is clear that Mr. Stanley was presenting no real danger to anyone, including himself, right? So why should the cops get a different standard?

Now I find out through Mr. Free Market that this current interpretation of the law is apparently going to be applied to police officers – and they’re not at all happy about it. The widow of Harry Stanley has fought for five years to change the decision clearing Police Constable Kevin Fagan and Inspector Neil Sharman of the killing of her husband – and she won. Both officers have been suspended for “unlawful killing” after a second inquiry. (Hindsight must improve with time.) Apparently no charges of murder or manslaughter have been filed against them as of yet.

But other “armed response” officers protested – and turned in their firearms, threatening a strike – because they don’t like the idea of being second-guessed over making life-or-death decisions in split seconds.

Why not? It’s exactly the position that every other British subject is in. Only they don’t get firearms to defend themselves with. They get steak knives.

If they’re lucky.

The BBC asked the question Were police right to hand in their guns? Here are some of the responses, but RTWT:

As a serving PC this case illustrates to me why I would never want to carry a firearm at work. I would never want be in the position of having to make the decision to kill another person. I feel that the only route now open for police officers in the UK now is for us all to refuse to carry firearms, then perhaps there will be a real debate.

Alex, Exeter, Devon

No guns for anyone – let’s rid the world of them. You know it make sense.

Jo, Brighton, UK

Oh, right. I’ll just put on my magic shoes, click my heels three times and chant “there’s nothing like disarmament, there’s nothing like disarmament, there’s nothing like disarmament” and they’ll all just vanish!

This is a sadly typical legal minefield where the only winners are the lawyers. Police officers (and members of the armed forces) are placed in an impossible situation, having to make a split second decision. When later the information they had at the time proves to be wrong they are then accused of wrongful killing. People making these judgements have a lot more information and the benefit of not facing a possibly “armed” adversary. The rules covering armed officers should have been made clear in the legislation so that officers know they will not be maliciously prosecuted if they made a mistake, providing the rules of engagement had been strictly followed.

Ian Hanson, Stockport, UK

And, Ian, please explain to me how the police differ from someone whose home has been broken into by a crack addict looking for something to steal? Why is it that the homeowner must live up to a higher standard than the police officer?

More:

I am a serving Police officer. Although I sympathise with the family in this tragic case we must give officers more protection. What we have in essence is a split second decision to shoot analysed with the benefit of hindsight over five years. I have noticed a real trend towards prosecuting officers any chance given. We are falling over ourselves to be seen to be fair whilst ignoring the effect this has the wellbeing of the officer involved and the moral of their colleagues.

Andy, Bucks

It seems to me, Andy, that the system “falls all over itself to be fair” to the burglars and muggers at the expense of the law-abiding. How about both they AND you getting the benefit of the doubt? The citizens have noticed a “real trend towards prosecuting” THEM at “any chance given,” too. Not much fun when the shoe’s on the other foot, is it?

More Gloating…. Sorry. (Not)

I’m sure everyone is familiar with this picture:

But I don’t think many of you have seen this one.

Just had to pass THAT one on.

The London Sunday Telegraph is Apparently Serious About This

I posted last week about the London Telegraph pursuing legislation to make it legal to use whatever force a homeowner finds necessary to resist a home invader without fear of prosecution. They followed up last Sunday with a column of stories of previous victims that illustrates the problem quite well.

Stories of bravery and tragedy from crime victims

By Karyn Miller

The public gave overwhelming backing last week to The Telegraph’s campaign to allow people to protect their homes and families from intruders without fear of criminal prosecution or compensation claims.

Hundreds of messages of support were sent to the newspaper, many from people, including a former police officer and a security camera manufacturer, who have been subjected to violent attacks in their own homes. Some said they had used force to fend off their attackers only to be arrested and charged with assault. Others argued that the concept of “reasonable force”, with which victims can legally defend themselves, is so ill-defined that the balance of the law is weighted in the criminals’ favour.

Eric Butler, 73, a retired credit controller from Chingford, Essex, said: “The concept of reasonable force is nonsense. I should know: when I defended myself, I had the book thrown at me.”

In 1987, Mr Butler’s plight provoked an outcry. He was attacked on a London Underground train by a man who kicked him in the face, grabbed him by the throat and began banging his head against the carriage.

Only Mr Butler knew that the walking stick he carried concealed a four-inch ornamental blade. As the grip around his neck tightened and he felt his consciousness fade, Mr Butler unsheathed the blade and fought back.

The attacker was taken to hospital with abdominal wounds and later received an 18-month prison sentence. Mr Butler was convicted of carrying an offensive weapon, fined £200 and given a 28-day suspended prison sentence. On appeal the sentence was quashed but the fine raised to £300.

“I still have the stick and if the incident was repeated, I would do exactly the same thing,” he said last week. “Had I not repelled my attacker sufficiently, I wouldn’t have had a second chance.”

Now that you’ve admitted to still possessing an offensive weapon, expect a visit from Big Brother. Mr. Butler was mentioned in the excellent piece All The Way Down The Slippery Slope by Dave Kopel and Joseph Olsen from 1999. Read that. It discusses how the UK got to where they are today.

Readers who rang to back the campaign believed that the law must be changed so that intruders lose all protection once they break into someone else’s property.

Mark Mercer, 65, from Scapegoat Hill near Huddersfield, West Yorks, said: “At long last someone is coming out against the asinine law that protects burglars’ rights.”

In January Mr Mercer, who owns a security camera company, held a burglar at bay with his pocket knife while his wife, Mary, telephoned the police. A second intruder escaped.

“As we waited for the police our burglar, who had a small injury that did not require so much as a sticking plaster, sat on our sofa and announced, ‘I am going to sue you for this.’

“These men entered our house noisily, presumably confident that we would not dare to disturb them.

“What really gets me is that they felt secure in their belief that if action was taken against them they could probably do better out of the compensation than they could out of the burglary.”

Mr Mercer’s burglar was jailed for three years and has not as yet launched his civil action.

Note the “yet.”

Simon Jones, 36, the director of a Liverpool chauffeur company and a former police officer, said: “If the definition of reasonable force was cleared up, there wouldn’t be the problem of criminals suing for compensation. Everyone would know where they stood.”

Mr Jones confronted armed burglars in his home last year, outside a room where his wife and two-year-old daughter were cowering. When they pulled out a 7in knife and threatened to cut his head off, Mr Jones gave them the keys to the Volvo and the Mercedes on his drive. The men were never caught. “I would like to know, for future reference: is the golf club by my bed a weapon or not?” If there was a next time, Mr Jones said, he intended to use it.

There’s that “chilling effect” again.

George Knowles, 62, a former Cadbury’s employee from Birkenhead, Wirral, believed that his parents’ deaths were hastened by a burglary in December 2001.

“As far as I am concerned, my parents were murdered by these men. They never expected to be attacked in their own home.” During the raid Mr Knowles’ 80-year-old father, who had arthritis, was dragged around his house with his arm twisted behind his back. Mr Knowles’ blind mother, also 80, was pinioned to her bed.

The burglars made off with the couple’s savings of £2,000 and were never caught. Mr and Mrs Knowles never recovered from the ordeal and both died within a year. Their son said: “It is time to take a stand. We should have taken a stand years ago. People burgling your home should not be there. If they are, you should have the authority to do something.”

You do. The State just doesn’t recognize it.

Many readers had desperately sad stories to tell. Patricia Clifford, 66, spoke about Bill Clifford, her brother-in-law. The 77-year-old from Aldershot, Hants, brandished a toy gun at youths who had kicked his door, broken his windows and made his life miserable. He was promptly charged with possession of an imitation firearm.

On the day in 2001 that he was due in court, Mr Clifford hanged himself at home. Mrs Clifford said: “Your campaign has my support. What happened to Bill was terrible. He was a law-abiding man all his life. He had been telling the police about everything that was going on, but nothing was done. He never told anybody about being arrested – he was such a proud man.”

I mentioned Mr. Clifford in that months-long argument discussion with Tim Lambert. Mr. Clifford was not the only man to have committed suicide under similar circumstances.

Earlier this year Elizabeth Tighe, who is in her eighties, saw off a knife-wielding burglar with the help of her husband Francis, who stuck his foot out from his wheelchair and sent the intruder flying. The man fled from the Tighes’ home in Bromsgrove, Hereford and Worcester, empty-handed and turned himself in to police.

Mrs Tighe said: “I don’t know what I would have done if he had been more violent, but I would have defended myself – and I should be able to do so without worrying about what the police will say.”

Note that the assailant had a knife. I doubt that he expected a couple of unarmed pensioners to resist.

David Thomas, 64, a retired naval officer from Burnham, Bucks, suggested that the laws on householders’ rights be remodelled on those of the American state of Oklahoma, where householders can use deadly force against intruders. If any injuries or deaths result, householders are immune from compensation claims. Since the law was passed in 1988, burglaries in Oklahoma have halved.

But… but… that can’t be! Those two facts can’t be related! Oklahomans must be bloodthirsty killers just waiting to blow someone away! (But that can’t be responsible for burglars there finding a safer way to make a living.)

“The reason that such laws have not been passed over here is because the British government fears and distrusts the British people,” said Mr Thomas.

That’s been my assertion all along.

Hazel Densem, 59, a nurse from Macclesfield, Cheshire, registered her support for the campaign: “Your campaign is very important. Most of us would do anything to keep our families safe and the law as it stands is simply not good enough.”

Julian Blackwell, the 75-year-old chairman of the Milestone media group, contacted The Sunday Telegraph from his Oxfordshire home to declare himself a “passionate supporter”. He has obtained a legal opinion on the definition of “reasonable force” and hopes to organise seminars to teach people about their rights and how they can protect themselves.

I wish the Telegraph all the best in their quest. I doubt they’ll accomplish much, but at least they’re TRYING. Is the temperature in Hell dropping?

What, No Prices??

Via Kim I find that the Violence Policy Center has provided parents and grandparents a very useful chart of “youth” firearms for our kids and grandkids. How nice! But they left off the prices! How can you be a good shopper if you don’t know what they cost? Anyway, if you don’t want to sully yourself by actually visiting the VPC, I’ve reproduced the chart here.

Manufacturer	Model	Caliber	Weight	Barrel Length	Capacity
Anschutz	1451 Sporter Target	22	6.3 lbs.	22″	10 shots
.	1451 Beavertail	22	6.6 lbs.	22″	5 shots
Armscor	Model 12Y	22	4 lbs.	18.38″	single shot
.	Model 14Y	22	5 lbs.	18.38″	6 shots
Browning	Micro Hunter	22, 223, 7mm, 260,308, 243	6.25 lbs.	20″	5 shots
.	Buck Mark Sporter	22	4.13 lbs.	18″	10+1 shots
Connecticut ValleyArms	Youth Hunter	50	5 lbs.	24″	muzzleloader
CZ	Scout Youth Rifle	22	4 lbs.	16.2″	10 shots
Charles Daly	Field True Youth	22	3.5 lbs.	16.25″	single shot
.	Field YouthRepeater	22	4.75 lbs.	17.5″	6 shots
Henry RepeatingArms Company	Henry Lever Youth Model 22	22	4.5 lbs.	.	.
.	Golden Boy	22	9.75 lbs.	20″	16 shots
.	Mini Bolt 22	22	3.25 lbs.	16.25″	single shot
Kimber	Classic	22	6.5 lbs.	22″	5 shots
Marlin	Model 15YN	22	4.25 lbs.	16.25″	single shot
New England Firearms	Superlight Handi-Rifle Youth	22, 223, 243	5.3 lbs.	20″	.
.	Handi-Rifle Youth	223, 243	7 lbs.	22″	.
.	Sportster Youth	22	5.3 lbs.	20″	.
Remington Arms	Model 700 ADLSynthetic Youth	243, 308	6.75 lbs.	20″	4 shots
.	Model 700 ML Youth	50	7.25 lbs.	21″	.
Rogue Rifle Co.	Chipmunk	22	2.5 lbs.	16″	.
Savage Arms	Model 10GY, 110GY	223, 243, 308, 270	6.2 lbs.	22″	4 shots
.	Model Mark I-GY	22	5 lbs.	19″	single shot

There’s a table for youth shotguns, too, but I’m not much of a smoothbore shooter. My grandkids are four and five. Maybe in a couple of years…

UPDATED: By demand, I’ve added hotlinks to manufacturers and to specific firearms where I could find them. This chart is obviously out of date, as Savage has many more Youth models, for example, and I couldn’t find any mention of some models such as the CVA Youth Hunter.

Go! Explore. Put your kids on your lap and go shopping!

Merry Christmas! And remember: Gun safety starts when you’re young!

UPDATE II: Oh, right. I do all the hard work, but it’s KIM that Glenn Reynolds instalanches. (Like he needs more hits.) 😉

How the HELL did I Miss This?

Varifrank wrote a piece on October 11 very much in the same vein of my “That Sumbitch Ain’t Been BORN!” An explanation of what it is that Americans believe. It’s long, but it’s worth it if you missed it too.

The Secret Weapon

Excerpts:

Americans don’t believe that there is a class of people who should lead them. Americans infact tend to loathe and despise any person who feels that they “Deserve to be in charge!”. We dont see a “lord and master” or messiah in the office of President, we see a man, someone who’s just like us, even when nothing could be further from the truth, thats what we like to see.

—

I then tell them the truth that the dont want to hear:

“Americans share two universal traits. First, all Americans are exiles of some sort, we are all run out, chased out, thrown out, burned out or sold out of all the other countries in the world. No American is in America because things were working well for them in the places they were from. Talk to an American long enough, and you’ll always find the scalawag who escaped from the noose back in county cork, or the ancestor of the kid who was on the run from conscription in Bismarcks Germany and never saw his family again, you’ll find people who are descended from people who were burned from their homes in during a progrom in Minsk, or survivors of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. For most of us, America wasnt our first choice as much as it was our last chance.

Second, Americans share one thing in common with each other that no other person in the world can understand. While the rest of the world goes to bed at night saying “Well if things get really bad, I can always go to the States…” As Americans, we know that we have nowhere else to go. If we dont make it here, there is no where else we can go, and few places that will accept us even if we wanted to go. If America were to fall, we all know that we would not be welcome anywhere else. That, is why we fight so hard, that is why we still hold onto our patriotism and faith whem most of the world has thrown theirs away.

Damned straight.

Satire mode=ON!

A poster over at AR15.com (who wishes to remain anonymous) contributed the following:

I finally got my phone call from Karl Rove’s Soldiers of Christ brigade today. Now that President Bush has been reelected, Operation Red America is now being implemented.

I’m supposed to report for duty at one of my neighborhood churches. We will be issued black battle dress trousers and brown shirts. We were also issued truncheons, jackboots, and gas masks that will filter out hemp and crack fumes. Apparently my assignment will be “camp guard.” In the interests of cost cutting, we were asked to supply our own jumper cables and dog leashes.

We will be trained in suppression and apprehension techniques. The progressives will be rounded up slowly at first, but the pace is scheduled to pick up around Christmas. By next year, all of America’s cultural and intellectual leftist elite will be imprisoned in reeducation camps.

We have waited so long to purge these Great States of America of the liberal disease, and the train is finally rolling.

If any of you wish to join the effort, please IM me and I will send contact info. Hint: non-Christians, non-Whites, and women need not apply.

Oh, BTW, please don’t repeat this to anyone, especially not the Leftists. God forbid they find out.

One of the respondents in the thread commented:

You too? My job is to set up Patchouli oil honeypots in select areas….

Another said:

LOL if I sent that to my mom she would believe it… Even though I haven’t been to church in two decades, despise authority and would much rather shoot at JBTs of the left or right flavor than join them.

Finally, my favorite reply:

What is interesting to think about is how revolting this is to every freedom-loving American. If you tried to explain that to one of the liberal dirtbags, they’d never believe you. They really think that we think like that!