There Is Only One “Law”

Yesterday’s commentary on the Justin Bourque story created quite the stir. In case you haven’t read my thoughts on the matter, I’ll summarize by saying that Bourque was basically walking down the street with rifles, and since police had come to disarm and kidnap him, he was rightfully defending himself by killing them. Now of course, the commentary that comes in response to such a statement runs the gamut, but for now I want to focus on one particular subset. People who support “gun rights” but not the forceful defense thereof.

People would say “It’s against the law to open carry rifles there! Of course the police came after him!”. I agree with this statement, of course. If the issue were that Justin acted surprised, I’d also say he had no right to act surprised. No more than if he knowingly walked through some gang neighborhood wearing the colors of the gang’s rivals. There are neighborhoods like that in New York, where you don’t dare wear blue or red while walking through some places, for fear of being attacked.

There’s a big difference between knowing that something will happen, and having no right to defend yourself against it, however. If somebody decided to knowingly walk through a neighborhood controlled by Bloods while wearing blue, we might call that person stupid, we might advise him against it, but we don’t tend to think it’s okay for the Bloods to assault him just for wearing blue.

If he put on his blue outfit, walked down the street with a gun on his belt, and fended off the attackers, we would tend to call him a hero. He defended himself against violent criminals who attacked him for no good reason. Of course he was justified in using whatever level of force was necessary to do this, up to and including killing the attackers.

If he put on his blue outfit, walked down the street with a gun on his belt, and attempted to fend off the attackers but was overpowered and killed, we would call the attackers unjustified murderers. The fact that he wore blue did not give them the right to attack him, and so when he pulled out his gun to defend himself, their only moral option was to back off. No reasonable person recognizes a right to defend oneself against self defense.

There’s this bizarre exception that people make for police though. Justin had every right to carry a rifle. Anybody who stands up for “gun rights” necessarily understands this. Rights do not come from laws, but rather, laws (in theory) are supposed to protect rights. Everything Adolf Hitler did was legal. That does not mean he had any right to put Jews into concentration camps and gas chambers. It does not mean Jews had no right to live and be free. It only means that “the law” violated their rights.

Likewise, Justin has every right to carry a rifle. “The law” said otherwise. This only means that “the law” violates Justin’s right to self defense. “The law” only violates his right to do as he sees fit with his property. By enforcing “the law” police aggress against Justin, and Justin has every right to use force to defend himself.

There’s some place for discussion of proportionality of force here, but what proportionality can an individual bring to all the forces of the State? When police show up with guns drawn, the force dial has already been turned up to 11. You can’t wrestle your way out of this, they came with the goal of capturing you, and failing that they will kill you. There really isn’t any two ways about it. When police come, your options are to submit, kill, or be killed.

Now, just like the example of walking through the gang neighborhood wearing certain colors, we might say Justin shouldn’t carry his rifle down the street for his own safety. We can say “that’s crazy” or “that’s stupid” but we can’t say “that’s wrong” or “that’s immoral” just because some group of people decided they would use violence against him.

If some majority of people in the neighborhood accept the gang’s presence, be it to keep order, to fend off other gangs, or just out of fear, then we can say that they have just as much of a right to set and enforce rules for that neighborhood as a government does. That is to say, neither has any such right.

There is Only One Law

There is Only One Law

There is only one law, non aggression. Nobody has any right to initiate force against another person. The only legitimate use of violence is in defense of person or property. It doesn’t matter if you’re the Bloods, the Crips, or the State. It doesn’t matter if it’s guns, drugs, drinking and driving, or wearing blue in the wrong neighborhood. Once you cross that line of aggression, you put your life in the hands of your victim. There is no uniform, color, document, or popularity contest that will change this fact.

 

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • Sherry Mitchell

    Nicely written!

  • horatiogalt

    Gun nuts displaying their infantile conceptions of rights and freedom.

    • Pepe Silvia

      today i learned that infants embrace the non-agression principal.

    • Difdi

      Since when are human rights NOT a thing Leftists/Progressives are in favor of?

      Since their Evil Political Opponents came out in favor of rights, of course!

      • horatiogalt

        You have no idea what human rights are, little boy.

        • Commander Bourque is a Hero

          Cops forfeit their human rights when they pick up a gun in service of looting and victimless crime persecution. If somebody like the Commander takes a few out, it’s a good thing.

          • horatiogalt

            *yawn*

          • Matt

            Wow, look, another left-wing troll. Your lack of reasoned argument betrays you, friend troll. If you’ve nothing to contribute but insults and garbage, you should go on back to your cave. There’s no food for you here.

          • horatiogalt

            You deserve nothing better than insults.

          • Sean Stephen Jack

            Oh no we’ve been insulted, whatever shall I do?

            I know. I’ll go clean my guns in case your insults (or anyone else’s) increases to a threat. So I will have a tool to defend myself. You should look into getting yourself a defensive tool, too, friend.

          • horatiogalt

            You poor child.

          • Joe Moulton

            I’m confused. Do you think that you are even presenting an argument, or do you know that you are adding absolutely nothing valuable to this conversation? All you have shown is that you like to call people names, like a schoolyard bully.

          • horatiogalt

            Heh, arguing with gun-fuckers. Now there’s a serious waste of time.

          • paendragon

            …and yet here you remain, adding to all the waste.

            😉

          • Charles

            Why do people like you become vulgar when you realize that you really do have nothing to say?

          • American Patriot

            And YOU are still here…..WHY?

          • American Patriot

            He has a cellphone, he will gladly call a cop with a gun, to save his worthless skin, for he has no personal morals to stand up on his own and face an attacker, he wishes others to do his work for him, which is WHY there are cops (Nazis) to begin with!

            Before cops, people handled every problem they faced, ON THEIR OWN, and the world was better for it, NOW, we have state-sponsored assassins driving around, and the PEOPLE are SUFFERING from being gunned down, pets being shot, and CHILDREN also being MURDERED by these ASSASSINS paid from OUR MONEY!
            Will we keep supporting this tax-supported death squad, or do we stand up and REFUSE to be the VICTIMS of our own STUPIDITY?

          • racerx605

            the best part of you ran down your mothers leg… (jackass)

          • David Triana

            The troll force is strong with this one!

          • Troy Swonger

            You are only insulting your own intelligence.

          • sobrique

            Again… the “Commander” title. You don’t have a clue.

        • miseshayekrothbard

          Neither do you.

        • Difdi

          The right to life, perhaps? How about the right to defend that life? How about the right to the tools required to exercise those rights effectively?

          Personally, I’d rather be an idealistic little boy who knows right from wrong than an all grown up rights hating fascist.

    • Guest

      HoratioHornblower

    • Guest

      Horatiohornblower

    • pandeter

      Ok Mr. Galt, what’s your idea of freedom? And if it varies from mine, and I don’t obey it, how am I free? And if I am not then free, how can you call it freedom?

    • Rick Hiltz

      Please tell me what you do for a living

      horatiogalt

      • Dr. Weezil

        He sits in a cubicle and troll comments on message boards. More than likely he’s fairly well paid for it.

        • Troy Swonger

          How do you get that gig?

  • Commander Bourque is a Hero

    Well said Mr. Cantwell. You’re a brave man. So was Commander Bourque. May the children of the dead pigs feel the pain of a thousand police brutality victims families. Hopefully in our enemy the state’s prison system, Commander Bourque can shiv a few prison guards or throw some semen in their faces. I don’t know if there is a second phase to his mission, but choosing to surrender could mean that he is infiltrating the prison system to execute some more state goons.

    • dagobarbz

      Dear Fan,
      There is no heroism in killing random people doing their jobs. You wanna be a hero? Go to Albuquerque, where people are murdered and anally probed by the PD there.

      Go to any of the towns where people have been brutalized and their pets slaughtered by cops.

      Go after those cops, not some random Mountie doing his / her job. There is no honor in killing the innocent, badged or not.

      • Charles

        Hey, they were coming after him with guns for no good reason.
        Saying “they are only doing their job” is bullshit.
        If their job is to come after you and capture or kill you when you haven’t aggressed against anyone they should think twice about their job.
        Their aggression makes them the bad guys.

        • dagobarbz

          Openly armed in a country that bans these weapons isn’t “no good reason.”

          • Charles

            Spoken like a well indoctrinated statist.
            Banned by whom?
            Some politicians opinion backed up by a gun?
            Some majorities coercive vote that makes authorities out of people not because they are right but because there are more of them?

          • dagobarbz

            You DO understand that Canada is not the United States, right?

          • Charles

            I know. It’s even less free.

          • miseshayekrothbard

            LOL another Canadian patriot. Keep being delusional.

          • American Patriot

            A socialist CESSPOOL, THAT, is Canada!

          • Blair Gebkenjans

            the ban is a violation of rights…. so, good reason

          • dagobarbz

            Apparently the fact that Canada is NOT America and you don’t get to determine their rights escapes you. Look at a map. See that line? Above it is “them.” Below it is “us.” Then you scroll down and you find another line separating “us” from Mexico. Mexico is also not America.

          • Charles

            Hey, I can understand not trespassing on privately owned property but just because the gov’t decrees that it owns Canada, Mexico, the U.S. or any other country, doesn’t make it so. It’s bad enough that they steal your money. Why can the gov’t “own” all unowned land by decree? They never bought it. They don’t have any money to buy it unless they steal it from us.

          • American Patriot

            Government, ALL of government is the rightful PROPERTY of the PEOPLE that CREATED government!
            WE THE PEOPLE do in fact, OWN this government!
            WE THE PEOPLE started it, we have the POWER to DESTROY IT when the time arrives!

          • Matthew Reece

            No one gets to determine anyone’s rights. Rights come from logic, which is absolute, objective, and universal.

          • American Patriot

            BAAAAAA!!!!

          • dagobarbz

            Don’t be sheepish. Just say what you mean.

        • sobrique

          No good reason? He was walking down a residential street, dressed in Rambo-esque clothing, carrying guns, a bow and a knife. They were responding to a call from a frightened citizen. That is their job. It’s completely out of the norm to see anyone walking down the street with guns. The RCMP were protecting from a possible Sandy Hook type of incident. I think that’s such an obvious that it simply doesn’t need explanation so I’m not sure why you’re jumping to the conclusion they were coming after him to capture or kill. They were responding. And yay for them for doing so. Nobody wants another multiple killing spree in a school, a shopping centre, a corner store etc… Do you?

          • Charles

            You’re jumping to the conclusion that they weren’t coming to capture or kill him.
            With the way the police state is today I don’t know if you can afford to be so cavalier.
            Of course I don’t want another multiple killing spree. That’s why I think gun free zones are insane.
            Do you think Bourque should be captured or killed for openly carrying fire arms in public? In a supposed free country?

          • sobrique

            I believe he should have been questioned as to why he was walking down a residential street in the manner he was, yes. I believe his response was nutsy coocoo – murdering 3, injuring 2 others. It was a residential street in a non-war-zone city/country. How terrifying for the neighbours to have to be so worried that they were in lock-down. Do you think he was behaving in a normal manner? What part of Canada do you understand it to be so unsafe you must arm yourself to the teeth? This man is not representative of any group for the cause, he simply lost it for whatever reason his lawyer will represent. I’m hardly being cavalier, I am however, being realistic. Being in a free country does not mean taking a walk, loaded to the eyeballs. Nobody had any idea who or what he was capable of doing and that is why I want to be protected from people like that. This is not Syria or Libya or Iran or Egypt or or or… Ya know? You only have the comfort of knowing you can post whatever you want without reprisal because you ARE in a free country.

          • ashton

            iprobably would have felt threataned upon the sight of him, maybe even drawn and killed him myself if i felt the need. i carry to protect myself and those around me, why ignore such an obvious threat?

          • Tstament

            What nobody seems to notice about this story is what happened next. The only people he shot were the ones pointing guns at him. He didn’t go on to commit a murder spree. He didn’t break into someones home to kill them. If that were his intent don’t you think he’d have done that during the time he was loose?

            Wouldn’t this fact lead a reasonable person to conclude that his intent did not include randomly murdering people?

            As far as gun control goes, I can’t fathom how anyone can agree that eliminating a citizens right to own a firearm is a good idea. Who would have been able to protect themselves had Bourque decided to go on a murder spree? He wasted 5 cops. They were the only line of defense between the people of that neighborhood and becoming easy targets of a mad man.

            Situations like this somehow get twisted into some ridiculous plea to rid the populace of guns. Which doesn’t make sense given the scenario I have just described. It actually happened. The police could not protect themselves, let alone the neighborhood. No one was in a position to adequately defend themselves after the police failed.

            He could have murdered 20 people by the time reinforcements arrived. 20 people that didn’t stand a chance against him because they had no way to produce an equivalent force to protect themselves with.

            Flip it around and let everyone have firearms then Bourque doesn’t make it 20 steps after shooting those police because every neighbor can produce a show of force that will either end in the quick surrender, retreat. or elimination of a man that proved himself capable of killing/maiming 5 trained officers.

          • Charles

            His whole problem could be solved if everything was privately owned. Then, he would have to have the permission of the owner to be on their property or he would be trespassing. In a truly free system he wouldn’t get very far before being stopped by a property owner. When the public “owns” something it means nobody owns it. Therefore criminals can wander about freely.

            That is the solution but few see it.

          • American Patriot

            But having ARMED, GOVERNMENT police ‘troops’ is okay, right?
            You can NOT know if that government assassin will pull his gun and murder anybody either, but you ‘trust’ this government assassin because you are ORDERED TO TRUST the government assassin with your life, WE DO NOT!

          • Bill Agans

            the cops wouldn’t question him. they would’ve shot him on sight & said he was resistin’ arrest. he’s lucky he had protection this time. anytime a cop gets involved, it’s a threat against ur rights & life.

          • trumpsahead

            Yes, and never was it mentioned that he was “trespassing” on someone’s property. So he must have been in his Rights to walk on Public property.
            Had he been on someone’s property, then a homeowner could have used a gun on him and found not guilty, but Burque was within his Constitutional Rights to walk with his weaponry.
            If people don’t like what they see or are afraid that’s too damn bad. If they owned guns maybe they would not be so afraid of a man walking past their property.
            Personally, if I saw a man walking past my house with a rifle and shotgun wearing camo clothes I would assume he was hunting, and if it takes me aback a bit I would keep an eye on him but never call a police unless the man was walking on a neighbor’s property.

            No, the law should protect American citizens, not we citizens must obey laws just because they are laws.
            Hemp & Marijuana laws have always been excellent examples of the outrageous govt laws to protect their interests but never the interests or benefits of the citizenry.
            Screw govt, they are all criminals for criminals. I’m waiting for all out Revolution ’cause nothing else will save us as I cannot believe We the People could take back our country by fair elections, and believe this centralized govt is basically a puppet to the higher powers that be and would never give in to We the People since they’ve been trying to enslave us since the Constitution was written.
            Thanks, I needed to rant. ciao.

          • Bill Agans

            i completely agree w/ u on that. then again, i wouldn’t call the police cuz then they’d send a swat team & tanks to kill him.

          • paendragon

            I think everyone acting “out of the norm” should be shot, too.

            I also think crime-prevention should mean punishing “suspicious” people for crimes BEFORE they can commit them. A pre-emptive offense is, after all, the best defense, isn’t it? Just ask any criminal official!

          • tamajam10

            Sobrique, read up on ‘false flags’ and how THEY are using deadly propaganda against US to make the masses fearful in order to accept a militarized police force to ‘protect’ US from some phantom bad guy. We should be allowed to purchase our own arms to protective ourselves – mostly from a corrupt government fully intent on exterminating most of us.

            “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety..” Benjamin Franklin

          • American Patriot

            I do NOT have to ask ‘WHO’S THERE’ when my door is being kicked down, I REPOND with DEADLY FIREPOWER to STOP an ASSAULT I KNOW is going to occur, and that act is being perpetrated AGAINST ME and MY FAMILY, and YES, I have EVERY RIGHT to KILL when I am being placed in a situation WARRANTING DEATH to ANY ASSAULTING MY HOME!
            This INCLUDES MURDEROUS COPS!
            NOBODY has any right to attack me and threaten me, this IS an ACT of WAR upon MY family, and I WILL DEFEND MY FAMILY from ANY ASSAULT!
            You enter uninvited, I WILL DROP YOU IMMEDIATELY!

          • InalienableWrights

            Just FYI sobriuqe if anyone was killed at Sandy Hook it was the state that did the killing. That was clearly a false flag.

            BTW I often wear BDU’s and I often carry a rifle. And who knows how I might react if I thought that men in funny costumes were going to kidnap me.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Unless he was actually DOING something besides carrying the weapons, there should be no problem. I don’t believe that this went down with some Mounties just coming and asking questions. I’d say that they came with weapons drawn. But hey…I wasn’t there and neither were you.

        • American Patriot

          I would do EXACTLY this same thing….KILL MY ATTACKERS!
          Simply having a rifle is NOT a crime(in the U.S), and any COP that thinks this is so, needs to READ the CONSTITUTION, and OBEY IT!
          THAT, is the SUPREME LAW, not the state or county, or even the ‘fed’. The constitution LIMITS government, it NEVER granted ANYBODY absolute power, and NEVER WILL!
          This is why our pubic officials MUST BE VOTED FOR, they can NOT obtain any official capacity on their own!

      • miseshayekrothbard

        So those three girls should have just willing gone with Ariel Castro and made no attempt to defend themselves?

        • sobrique

          I’m not exactly sure how you can possibly make the comparison of 3 children being kidnapped in the dark of night from their own neighbourhoods by Castro to this. It’s completely irrelevant to this conversation.

      • Jason Wright

        There is a special hel for people who “were just doing their jobs”, and people who defend them using that excuse.

        • American Patriot

          I am just doing MY job of EXTERMINATING the FILTHY VERMIN!
          NO BADGE grants anybody the authority to wage WAR AGAINST ME!
          Your armed assault is PROOF you wish to injure, maim or MURDER ME, and I SHALL NOT ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!
          Once you enter MY domain, YOUR LIFE IS OVER!

      • Wayne Herrod

        You didn’t read the article very well, no one was harmed until the police started the process.

    • sobrique

      “Commander” Bourque??? You’ve just proven yourself to be a complete moron. Do you have ANY idea who this guy is other than someone dressed in semi-combat gear with loaded weapons? Nope. You don’t. And that’s obvious by your decision to call him “Commander”. He and his friends would laugh in your face over that title.
      Of course the police had every right to get him. And he turned on them because they went to see what he was up to? Who protects the innocent neighbours and people on the street from people that decide they can leisurely stroll down the street with loaded weapons and not get a reaction? There are laws protecting innocent people from whackos wandering our streets with loaded weapons, dressed like Rambo or some other lunatic fringe pseudo militia. WE the people have every right to call the cops when we see someone like that. WE the people have every right to be afraid. Had nothing been done can you prove that your “Commander” (you really need to learn about the guy before you laud him with that title) would not have murdered school children or kids on their bikes riding by… or people out walking their dogs? What sort of cries would you be spewing had it been your mother picking her mail up and this guy turned on her. Would you then be extolling the best wishes for him? What a blind fool you are. God help the rest of us for yours and your ilk to believe we live in a society that demands protection from the “pigs” etc… good gawd.

      • Troy Swonger

        If he wanted to kill somebody, he had plenty of time to do it before the pigs showed up. Non defensive homicide is wrong, but at least he did not shoot up a bunch of defenseless kids or other innocent people. When you put on a state uniform and carry a gun, don’t be surprised if people shoot at you when “you are just doing your job”. I always despised the term,”copkiller”, I have never heard of the term “innocent citizen killer”. Are cops lives really more valuable than mine?

        • American Patriot

          Any cop that aims or fores a weapon at me or my family will get the answers he/she is desperately searching for!
          OUR LIVES are NOT property of our employees to do with as they see fit!
          If you think you will enter MY HOME and survive the assault, THINK AGAIN!
          If I don’t drill your brain, my wife will, either way, YOU will be DEAD!
          NOBODY gives another some ‘right’ to invade my home and lay siege to my family and NOT pay for the crime!

      • Bill Agans

        the supreme court ruled that cops r no longer obligated to serve & protect people anymore. their only job is to uphold “the law”. plus, ur 8x more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.

  • Sean Stephen Jack

    You’ve really got to get away from the NAP, Chris. 🙂

    There is no law. There is no objective morality. There is no NAP. There is only the tentative agreements, contracts, and submissions of people to or with other people.

    That being said, you’re still right about Justin. And you’re right about governmental law forcing his hand. I just wish you could get over that NAP hump!

    • Joe Moulton

      The law isn’t necessarily the NAP as it is property rights. I own myself, and therefore others own themselves. It is immoral for me to damage or attack or aggress against property that is not my own.

      • Sean Stephen Jack

        That’s subjective, that’s all my point is.

        • Joe Moulton

          You should read Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior. He goes through the logic behind the NAP being objectively preferable for life.

          • Sean Stephen Jack

            HAHA oh, trust me, I’ve gone through it and read bits and pieces. If you think that just because a majority of people find the NAP preferable and that somenow makes it objective, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • pandeter

            It stems from the self ownership principle and is proven by your ability to think freely. You must not have read very well..

        • Joe Moulton

          It is subjective, but Stefan Molyneux, in his book Universally Preferable Behavior, proves how it is universally preferable. That doesn’t mean everyone has to do it, but it means that if most people followed the simple NAP we would be a lot better off in ourselves and our relationships and that would help the human race kinda evolve to a new stage of being. It’s still subjective, but it is preferable.

    • miseshayekrothbard

      This is a good point actually to help differentiate anarchy from what Chris advocates. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness. Efforts by some to revise this definition over the past few decades are stupid and futile. As soon as there is an agreement/contract/etc, its not anarchy anymore. Youve agreed to give up some of your abilities/powers. That does not mean there is a government or a state, just that its no longer anarchy.

  • illuminarch

    Too right.

    ” No reasonable person recognizes a right to defend oneself against self defense.”

    Unfortunately, we’re not dealing with reasonable people. We’re dealing with people who reflexively sympathize with the aggressor, either out of habit, brainwashing, or the “misery loves company” impulse. “How dare that man step otu of line! If I have to be abused, so does he!”

  • Paul

    This might be the fucking dumbest thing I have ever read. Wow. I thought the gun nuts were all in the states but I guess we have a few up in Canada too. Thank you for exposing others who share these totally fucked up beliefs. You all should be sterilized before you infect the earth with more police hating scum.

    • David Conrique

      Fuck the police

    • miseshayekrothbard

      Canada has a huge gun culture. Get out of your little NDP cave, aka your mothers basement.

      • paendragon

        We’re obese, too – we must have a secret “spoon culture!”

        😉

    • American Patriot

      And the elitist and statist nuts should be sterilized as well.
      There are no such thing as a ‘gun nut’, just FREE PEOPLE wishing to remain FREE from overbearing and corrupt government and their paid assassin squad (cops)!

      SHEEP always bow down, submit and obey like good slaves!

  • Right

    I have the unalienable right to pursue happiness, and the right to exact force against someone infringing upon that right.

    • paendragon

      Unless your subjective idea of “happiness” includes threatening others! (I don’t consider merely open-carrying a gun a threat, until it’s actually pointed at me). Cantwell’s drunk driving threatens others.

      • Right

        Depends on what you mean by threatening others. If you drunk drive in my community, open a method lab, have “consensual” sex with minors or engage in other sorts of nonviolent crimes I actual do reserve the right to threaten you.

        • paendragon

          I think “threatening” people with consequences for their crimes isn’t actually “threatening” them; it’s more like simply warning or alerting them of the impending logical consequences for their free-will, social contract-breaking (and thereby criminal) choices. In other words, “defensive” threats, like all other kinds of attacks, if and when done in defense of one’s self and/or of innocent others, are always Okay!

          😉

          • Right

            Word!

    • Kitties nRainbows

      This is a useless non-conversation carried on by a troll shill(s).

      Give it a rest, you aren’t going to be able to discredit someone by smearing their reputation you losers.

  • Charles

    Hey, I like this Cantwell guy. He tells it like it is. He describes reality real well.
    If I may, … A better word for aggression would be coercion. It covers both force and fraud.

    • paendragon

      I agree that the current libertarian “Non-Aggression Principle” (NAP) allows statist liberals to pretend

      “You aren’t allowed to be aggressive EVER, even in self-defense! Whee!”

      Because “aggression” has too many subsidiary meanings and emotive connotations, (like many words) beyond the main one.

      • Charles

        You simply don’t get it. The non-aggression principle means you don’t aggress on others. It doesn’t mean you don’t defend your property from aggressors. It really is that simple.

        • paendragon

          NO, I simply DO get it, but most liberals here don’t.
          How thick are you, to miss that I was agreeing with your surmise that perhaps “coercion” is a better word?! See, like I said: “aggression” has too many uses in our language: Lawyers routinely declare in the media that they will “aggressively” and vigorously DEFEND their clients’ rights (etc.)!
          So “aggression” has a connotation of “energetic” as well as “initiatory force.” If you hadn’t realized that yourself, why posit that “A better word for aggression would be coercion. It covers both force and fraud.” How did you miss my opening words: “I agree that”…?!

          • Charles

            You’re right. I didn’t understand what you meant. I just saw that one sentence with “EVER” in it and thought that is what you meant. My bad.
            We agree. Coercion would be a better word. It covers both force (aggression) and fraud.

        • Kitties nRainbows

          Yes, he doesn’t get it. On purpose.

          Which is weird because the poster with that screen name used to be supportive but suddenly has turned hostile and started posting crazy ass manifestos and personal attacks. Strange.

          • paendragon

            And yet I haven’t posted any BASELESS personal attacks here. You must be a whiny infantile delinquent liberal.

  • Anthony

    Trying to split straws and say that not all government workers are for the state they simply just took the best job available, is a cop out. Any and all should be reminded what the state is and what it is used for. Anyone that enforces the state is an aggressor. Chris doesn’t advocate for the violence, but sees the justification of understanding how abhorrent the states existence is when one no longer wishes to be a slave to it. That frustration with no outlet, and a complete lack of any representation will drive people to make all sorts of bad decisions.

  • Right

    Cantwell is the Fred Phelps of anarchy, and his proponents are the Westboro Baptist Church of political debate.

    • paendragon

      Not a bad analogy LOL!

    • KAi BhavinPatel

      How wrong can Right be???
      Totally!!

  • Jeff Crawford

    the real tragedy, is that so many here are not aware of these media hoaxes… this did not happen … period.

    • miseshayekrothbard

      You are an idiot.

      • Jeff Crawford

        shhh I wont wake you …

    • sobrique

      Really Jeff? You really believe that? What exactly were you doing when the neighbours that were witnessing on their front lawns, in their yards, on their streets were capturing this on their phones and cameras? These people were watching it from their living room windows… these people were posting on youtube, twitter, facebook as it was happening and the media was approaching them afterwards for their pictures and clips. Somehow I think you missed the boat with that post. Let us know when you wake up! There was no “conspiracy” by the media to create a “hoax”…

      • Jeff Crawford

        k .. lol .. whatever you say hun … yer either on the payroll ..or exactly what you called me originally … good luck with that social media evidence …

        • sobrique

          I think you missed the part about the neighbours posting what they were seeing BEFORE the media got there. The media wasn’t allowed in. Nobody was except cops… Everyone locked in their homes for their own safety. Get it? No media was there – nobody to buy off the media, no conspiracy. Just the folks that were locked in their houses witnessing men being murdered and capturing it on their iphones.

          • Jeff Crawford

            my God ..are you familiar with the string of Hoaxes we’ve been subjected to? if you are expecting me to believe anything that comes out of an “official report” for any of these you are deluded. How did the drill for the exact scenario down in Sackville(sp) , just a few days before go? Those of us who know what is really going on are mighty sick of the parasites that create this garbage and the either brain dead, indoctrinated slaves or the bought and paid for shills that defend them. Take all of the fake social media (I’m talking these so called iphone videos that are as fabricated as Santa Claus) and kindly shove them directly up your ass.

          • sobrique

            Wow… get out much? I’m not sure how exactly you missed all the social media postings from the citizen witnesses… the guy sitting in his living room watching out the window, his wife recording. The neighbours recording everything happening around them. The folks that were trapped in their homes twittering and youtubing, facebooking what they were seeing as it was happening. Not one media type. Not one. Don’t be such a paranoid cultist cliché, hun.

          • Jeff Crawford

            social media postings are worth absolutely nothing .. hun.. it’s well documented that these mediums are utilized by the parasites that create all of this garbage … I noticed you didn’t address the nearby drill ..and I’m assuming you arent familiar with the work done on youtube …exposing the entire thing as a hoax .. including an actual neighbor whistleblower that testifies there were no shots in the area.. but .. then again you are probably being paid to help protect these criminals ..or .. you are just gullible… either one …humanity awaits your realization of reality and morality …

    • Troy Swonger

      The jewish controlled media/hollywood is the biggest degenerative force in this country. If anybody wants to accuse me of anti-semitism, no worries. I will carry that cross if it helps you sleep at night.

  • Lauren Owlsley

    And the magical blue zoot suit and cracker jack box badge also seems to grant the wearers immunity from having to justify the murder of innocent victims either…

    • Troy Swonger

      The state hates prosecuting its own enforcers.

      • American Patriot

        The ‘state’ NEVER assassinates its own murderers!State-sponsored trigger men(cops) will always be protected to murder freely!

  • Sam Hensel-Hunter

    Removal of context and analogies don’t change the facts. “residents in Moncton reported seeing a man firing shots randomly in a neighborhood around 7:30 p.m” If you don’t think the police have an obligation to take action in this scenario, you have no respect for the freedom of these community members.

    • miseshayekrothbard

      That was after the cops came to kidnap him. Before that, he was strolling around bothering nobody.

      • Sam Hensel-Hunter

        Kidnap? Really? He was breaking the law, the police were investigating, he opened fire on them while they were in their car. When he was captured, cops did it without firing a shot. His life was never in danger, a luxury of pulling this kind of shit in compassionate Canada.

        • Sam Hensel-Hunter

          I don’t believe that the law against carrying a loaded weapon is just or necessary, but all things considered(especially the quantity of weapons and ammo this guy had), the police response to this entire mess was restrained and justifiable.

          • Kitties nRainbows

            Could they have thought of any other way than rolling up in three cop cars and threatening him?

            Could they have had an unmarked car drive up and say, “Hey, everything ok? Ok just checking, someone in the neighborhood called in with a concern.” Could they have done ANYTHING but act like the crazy ass bullies they are?

            No. No they couldn’t. They will always overreact and provoke violence from now on, because that is the role they have morphed into.

            I especially enjoyed the US-style “tactical” team, complete with military machine guns and camo goon outfits with the combat helmets. Peace and love Canada, your cops are so much better than everyone else’s.

          • sobrique

            They didn’t have time to threaten. They were murdered in their cars as they pulled up. They were responding to several 911 calls from innocent people that were terrified to see a man walking down their street armed with guns, a bow and a knife. They had no idea he was a commander and a hero before they placed those 911 calls! *cue sarcasm here*

        • God Bless Commander Bourque

          Ha! The Commander’s life was never in danger you say? The Commander risked his life so that we could have less cops in the world, he’s a hero.

          • Troy Swonger

            You and I both know the only reason he is alive is because he wanted to be taken alive. Otherwise there would have been more dead cops, and he would also be dead. I will give him credit for not killing innocent unarmed civilians. When you carry a gun for a living, you accept the risks of being shot at.

      • Troy Swonger

        That is exactly how the jewish media controls the narrative and twists the facts to further the destruction of this once great country.

  • paendragon

    As usual, Chris’ addiction undermines and cancels his logic.

    Re: “The only legitimate use of violence is in defense of person or property. It doesn’t matter if you’re the Bloods, the Crips, or the State. It doesn’t matter if it’s guns, drugs, drinking and driving, or wearing blue in the wrong neighborhood.”

    Anyone who’s every watched “Sesame Street” can tell that “one of these things is not like the others!”

    That’s right, kids! It’s “drinking and driving!”

    See, drinking and driving is a deliberate choice made when sober, to turn off one’s brain in order to enjoy being irresponsible and threaten others’ lives.

    After the first time (“Whoops! That was dangerous and stupid – I’d best not do THAT again!”) the initial act of negligence turns into criminal negligence, when one adds one’s own falsely proud, defiant confession of guilty intent, i.e: “Screw you! I MEANT to do that! Whee!”

    And the logic that Chris, at this point in his life, chooses to ignore, is that non-defensive, offensive threats ARE (‘psychological’) attacks, aka intimidation; bullying; harrassment; coercion; duress; activist agitation; extortion; and of course “terrorism;” and that attacking second (counter-attacking) even with physical violence against them, is in fact a de rigeur requirement for the existance of all deterrant and punitive justice: even the Courts do it, sometimes even years after the crimes, when the criminals are no longer a “present” danger to anyone else.

    Chris often responds to accusations that drunk driving in public is always BAD, with “Where’s my victim, assholes?! Show me my victims!”

    OK, Chris.

    Say that, instead of driving drunk, you chose to brandish your gun at people, screaming “I’ll kill you all!” in public, then pulling the trigger.

    Say that you had a secret laugh, at everyone else’s expense, because you knew you’d only loaded the one round in your revolver (this “trick” probably won’t work with an automatic).

    Did you solicit volunteers first? Have others agreed to your challenge or trick? No.

    There was no contractual agreement that people would let you endanger them, no reciprocol consideration, no contracted exchange of rights and corollary responsibilities, no free-will choices made.

    In stead, in effect, you’re imposing a forced “sale” – slavery! – on others.

    And that’s why driving drunk in public is always wrong, and why you should be defensively counter-attacked (“punished”) for it.

    Now, how about you make the attempt to subdue your addiction, and reply with some rational facts to counter this argument this time, in stead of acting like a little baby liberal by screaming evasive deflective critical thinking logical fallacy ad-hominems like “Asshole!” at me this time, OK, Sport?

    😉

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Give it a rest, you second rate psychopath. =)

      • paendragon

        Ad-hominems are sub-categories of the distractive, deflective evasions known collectively as the critical thinking logical fallacies – they are excuses people use when they don’t have any real facts to reply with; in other words: an automatic FAIL.

        • Kitties nRainbows

          Is that why you wrote a manifesto composed entirely of ad hominems directed at the author of the blog?

          • paendragon

            You have absolutely no reading comprehension skill. And that’s just an observation, not an ad-hominem.

            I used absolutely no ad-hominems against Cantwell, not even valid ones (like, if I were to have mentioned, gratuitously, as ‘Right’ often does, that Chris is “fat”).

            Chris Cantwell often asserts his false right to remain irresponsibly wrong here, when he claims he has a perfect right to drive drunk around other people.

            So, since you seem to support his stance, I can only hope you, your pets, friends, &/or relatives, are injured by a drunk driver – and soon. Then you’ll have to face reality, or else double-down and dig yourself in deeper by cussing out your own innocent pets, friends, and relatives, by blaming them for not getting out of the poor drunk’s way fast enough. After all, if drunks have a right to drive drunk, then it must always only be their victims’ faults whenever they run them over, right?

          • Kitties nRainbows

            Your pathetic attempt at word salad is a waste of your time. Just give it a rest, nutcase.

          • paendragon

            So now like any criminal, all you’ve got are some more evasive lying metaphors and euphemisms to cover for the fact that you’ve got absolutely no facts to argue.

            To turn it around: “Go play in traffic with drunk drivers!”

          • God Bless Commander Bourque

            Millions of innocent drunk drivers successfully navigate their vehicles home every weekend. Only a small handful of them become genuine criminals with victims. These are the untalented ones. The ones that need to practice and get better at drunk driving.

          • paendragon

            Prove it, statistically.

          • Troy Swonger

            You can’t prove everything statistically, common sense says he is right, whether there are statistics or not. Unfortunately common sense is not very common these days.

          • paendragon

            Where can I go to hone my drunk-driving talents? Are there special drunk-driving schools? Will my insurance rates go down as I gain in proficiency? How many people am I allowed to practice-run over? How many pets? How young can I start out? Can my three-year old drink and drive too, at least until he hits something?

          • Troy Swonger

            You have a lot of stupid questions. No need to try to answer nonsense.

          • Troy Swonger

            Drunk driving is certainly an acquired talent honed through many thousands of miles of impaired driving. I gave up drunk driving and the bars after having children, and don’t regret it. It is not worth the risk for me, but I have no right to make other peoples decisions for them.

          • God Bless Commander Bourque

            Mr. Cantwell has a perfect right to drive his vehicle provided no property or people are injured. The fact that you are not happy with some mythical ‘risk’ you have in your head about it, does not matter any more than someone who is paranoid the owner of a Cessna is going to crash into their house.

          • Andy Shambaugh

            Drinking and driving should not be a crime. See when you ticket someone for drinking and driving you are not punishing them for what they have done. You are punishing them for what they could have done. See drinking and driving in it’s self harms no one. Many people drink and drive, and no one gets hurt. Now if you do hurt, or kill someone while drinking and driving then you should be punished. I think it should be murder if you kill someone, and assault if you hurt someone, because you made a decision to put everyone at risk by driving impaired. I do not support punishing anyone for the result their actions could have had though.

          • paendragon

            Turning off one’s brain by drinking is an act of negligence. But it only becomes an act of criminal negligence when it endangers others. Stay home and/or confine yourself and your car to a secure compound where you can only harm yourself, and who cares what you do. But when you’re drunk you’re a threat to others, and since they haven’t consented to be threatened by you, they have a right to counter-attack you for threatening them. Being drunk is a threat to others in itself and that’s why they’re being punished. Getting into a steel-armored thousands-of-pounds weight self-propelled rolling death-machine only adds to the threat.

            Death-threats are crimes in themselves, and so are “only” attempted crimes. If you shoot at me but miss, you don’t get a free “No harm/no foul!” pass for it!

    • God Bless Commander Bourque

      Driving is a victimless crime if you do not damage property or cause injury to anybody. It is none of your business what is in Mr. Cantwell’s bloodstream unless he has victims. No victim no crime.

    • God Bless Commander Bourque

      Driving is a victimless crime if you do not damage property or cause
      injury to anybody. It is none of your business what is in Mr. Cantwell’s
      bloodstream unless he has victims. No victim no crime. Comparing expertly driving after a few drinks to brandishing a weapon in a public place is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. You clearly have a beef with Mr. Cantwell and Commander Bourque. Both of these men are heroes and patriots. Both of them have no victims. The commander has some just kills on the battlefield, and Mr. Cantwell has never hurt a soul with his expert driving.

      • paendragon

        I already covered that: in being criminally ngeligent, he is being a threat to others. Every study known to man shows drinking impedes one’s motor function skills, which one is duty-bound to keep to certain standards when driving any vehicle around others. People have a right to respond to threats with violence. We don’t have to wait for him to make victims of us, even though he may feel, as all criminals seem to pretend to do, that he has the false right to impose his un-contracted-for responsibilities onto other people. If any when he points a loaded revolved at you, but “only” has one round in it, and pulls the trigger, he’s threatened you whether or not it goes off. Would you laugh at him, say “Good one, Chris! No harm, no foul!” and wait for him to try it on you again? Even “only” attempted crimes, are still crimes. If someone shoots at me, but misses, they don’t get a free pass because there’s “no victim, no crime!” Threats ARE crimes in themselves.

        • God Bless Commander Bourque

          Nobody that has not damaged property or harmed another can be said to be a “threat”. You’re just paranoid and raised on government propaganda about the mythical “drunk driver”. Did you contract for the owner of a Cessna to be flying above your home where there is a “risk” it could crash into your home? Just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares. Driving drunk is like any human activity you can get good at it. Unless and until he harms another you can shut the fuck up. He has proven himself capable of exercising his fine driving talents and is probably better than some 16 year old girl at driving. I support his freedom to travel unmolested unless and until he harms another person or property. I drive drunk as needed. I’m very good at it and I’m proud to not let myths inconvenience me. I have never caused any harm.

          • paendragon

            Well I’m afraid that threats do exist, and can indeed be made. If some drunk with a gun (or car) threatens to kill you, would you turn your back on them? As for the Cesna pilot, he’d better not be drunk, is all. When all you’ve got is “shut the fuck up” you’ve run out of facts, and have resorted to being a criminal yourself. Why should I “shut the fuck up!” tardly? Are you gonna crawl through the interwebs and beat me up?

            😉

            “Nobody cares.” Is that a group-might-makes-right argument, or what? Are you really a statist gangster at heart after all? Actually, MOST people care to NOT be threatened by drunk drivers, which is why by far most of us have agreed to help enforce laws against them.

            If I see Cantwell at some rally socking away the pints, and he gets into a car on the drivers’ side near me, I’ll consider him a threat and will respond with legal force. He hasn’t exercised his “fine” drunk-driving skills, as others have reported him running over trash cans at Libertarian rallies before. He’s already harmed others’ property, in public, and so has proven himself to be a menace. Not to mention his public confessions to it.

        • God Bless Commander Bourque

          Nobody can be “negligent” that does all the right things. Did he “neglect” to drive straight? No. Did he “neglect” to go the speed limit? No. He’s fine. Go and lay some flowers at the grave of somebody killed by an inexpert, genuinely negligent drunk driver and leave the talented ones alone.

          • paendragon

            He has deliberately chosen to impair himself around others, and to thereby risk their lives by doing so.
            Like I said, threats don’t have to succeed to remain attempted crimes in themselves. If you aim a gun (or car) at me and miss, you still threatened my life.
            Your argument is as puerile as the Bart and Lisa Simpson exchange where each closes their eyes after declaring they had a perfect right to walk around swinging their arms and kicking their feet, and so it would be the fault of whomever got hit.

          • paendragon

            I don’t agree in advance to let drunks stagger into me, or drive over me. Criminal negligence is pretty-much defined as “Sure, I’m taking risks which might impact you, but I’ll be the one to decide if I’m a risk to you, whether you like it or not!” i.e: “Screw you! I MEANT to do that!” It’s forcing a “sale” others don’t agree to; aka: slavery! How many times do I get to run you over, while I hone my drunk driving skillz?

  • Jason Wright

    A well written and thoughtful article. I agree with it completely.

  • paendragon

    Cantwell’s defense of his infantile delinquency, of his irresponsible, criminally negligent penchant for drunk driving, makes about as much sense as the Lisa Simpson character saying something like this:

    “Well, then I’m just gonna close my eyes and swing my fists as I walk around the room randomly; so if you happen to get hit by my fists, it’s YOUR fault!”

    • Kitties nRainbows

      So you are basically admitting you are a useless shill. From now on, you are going to engage in personal attacks against the author of this blog, attempting to slander him and thereby discredit his message. Not gonna work.

      Thanks to Edward Snowden, a true American hero, we are aware of the tactics of the booger eaters employed at below minimum wage to shut down commentary on the internet. Whether someone is paid to be a bootlicking scum, or if they choose the lifestyle of bootlicking scum on their own for no compensation, the result is the same. They need to be excluded from conversations and ignored.

      And if you aren’t a shill, you are a dangerously obsessed person who will stop at nothing to ruin the life of the person you have targeted. This is textbook anti-social behavior, and people should guard themselves accordingly.

      • paendragon

        Obviously, you’re dumber than shit: it isn’t “slander” if it’s true – and it’s true. Cantwell confesses all the time here to drunk driving, and asserts that it’s his holy right to keep doing it.
        There’s nothing more anti-social than drunk-driving, idiot.

        • livefree1200cc

          I truly fail to see the connection between drunk driving and being anti-social. Especially when drunks are some of the most social people out there. How many people go to the pub, pull up a stool, and drink all night without talking to anyone? You are obviously too young and too brainwashed to remember when EVERYBODY drove after drinking. Those were the most social of times I can remember. People would gather together and have fun, as a community even. Public events included drinking. Police would help someone home if they were too intoxicated. You give the police state much too much credit. They don’t give a rats arse if we drink and drive or who we endanger while doing it – its all about money and control. Submit to them my sheep (oh, you already did, I forgot)

          • paendragon

            How is it “social” in any way to turn off your brain and then (try to) aim your thousands-of-pounds of steel-encased rolling armored death-wagon through some unsuspecting crowds of people you don’t know?! Do you appreciate others’ choice of car-music when it’s cranked way up at stop signs, too? That’s all very anti-social behavior, tardly! And it’s criminally negligent.

            And yes, I am old enough to remember all the idiots driving drunk, no seat-belts, etc – and per capita, there were a lot more deaths back then because of people like them being allowed to, too.

            And in one sentence you praise the police for helping, while the next you accuse the police of taking money and controlling people (but strangely, they can’t control or charge people who aren’t driving drunk, now can they?)!

            Idiot.

          • livefree1200cc

            You really are an idiot – I see everyone else that reads your comments thinks so as well

          • paendragon

            And I’m sure you’re speaking from personal experience as a “rational and intelligent” drunk-driver, no?

            And I notice how you’re really a secret statist (gangster extortionist) at heart, too – “everyone else” i.e: all the other “intelligent” drunk-driving advocates here votes against me! Oh noes! The dreaded group-might-makes-right vote is against me! Heavens!

            I guess if enough of you “intelligent” drunk-driving advocates subjectively vote for or against something (like, maybe, against gravity and for the flat earth) that’ll change them dratted objective facts too, won’t it?

            You obviously prefer to “liveFree” within the confines of your own safe little group of sycophants LOL!

            Can U spell “Hypocrite!”?

            (I knew that you could)!

            😉

          • livefree1200cc

            repeat after me….blah blah blah blah – you’re doing great – I think you have it mastered!

          • paendragon

            Go play in (drunk) traffic!

            😉

  • fed up

    Shooting ANYONE in the back is cowardly. It has strengthened my support of more liberal gun laws. Not in support of the COWARD, but so that the next asshole strolling through a quiet middle class neighbourhood armed, dressed in camouflage, and hiding until the cops come and he shoots them in the back like a true COWARD, can be dealt with accordingly. With proper gun laws, the only 911 call would have been to pick up the pile of camouflaged shit laying dead in the street because of a proper good samaritan. Bouquet was neither hero nor helpful to the gun lobbyists, he was a Walmart flunky with a “poor me” complex. Now he’s going to cost the tax payers an inane amount of money because unlike the outcome would have been in the US, he walked away… Mr. Cantwell, Mr, “commander Bourque is a hero”, you arguments are weak and unfounded. Truly an embarrassment to anyone fighting to maintain the right to own and carry firearms for sport or otherwise. You can own firearms in Canada, you can legally obtain and transport firearms, you can legally fire guns. There was no cause. Nor was he out for a stroll. Its a mindless, childlike argument.

    • God Bless Commander Bourque

      Taking socialized medical care paid for with stolen loot that you didn’t take yourself but got police to take off your fellow Canadians is ‘cowardly’ too. The Commander is a hero, the Commander’s name joins the ranks of many fine patriots. It is great that the Commander’s incarceration is going to cost millions, this is phase two of his mission. He knew what he was doing probably. Hopefully he stabs some prison guards in the heart while he’s in there. You take a job working for the police state, you become the target of the Commander. Simple.

      • fed up

        Following the lack of education exemplyfied by your response I’ll chalk your ignorance and hate up to adolescense. I am however unable to allow your comment to go unanswered.

        1. Police don’t steal the “loot” to cover health care in canada. Tax paying, productive citizens pay for the healthcare. This is another topic, but please be informed before running your mouth. Bourque as I understand was not employed, thus was not contributing anything to health care. Also, It’s not “socialized health care”. Thats not a thing, nor is it the word you were looking for (benefit of the doubt ) Ill let you figure that out.

        The money from fines, speeding tickets, etc go towards funding emergency services and victim services which funds families like those of the slain officers.

        • livefree1200cc

          In other words, the citizens are extorted and forced to pay for healthcare and emergency services. You are the exception it would seem. You get paid enough (most likely a government job where your salary is extorted and forced from other happy taxpayers) where you don’t seem to mind. If you have enough money, taxation is not a problem.

          • fed up

            No government job…I work in construction. You don’t have taxes where you live? No property tax? No Income Tax federal? State? Provincial? Who pays teachers, Builds schools, highways,etc? Taxes and death right? Only 2 things in life that are certain. I give 47% of my income in taxes. I prefer to pay for infrastructure and emergency services than the other places my taxes go.

            Whats your finanical plan look like for a tax free society? That would be fantastic. Realistic? Not one bit….

          • livefree1200cc

            I guess its your right to like paying high taxes. It always makes me smile when someone uses the ‘but who’ll build the roads?’ argument 🙂

          • Nik

            Without taxes who pays for infrastructure. Give me your model on how that works? Do you pay taxes? I won’t make assumptions on your lifestyle, that’s nit fair, but I’m WILDLY curious what your model society would look like without taxes.

            Also incredibly curious what the plan is should there be no more Emergency Services?

            Please note your “Commander’s” Final cowardly actions before being taken into custody. Most sense he had ever spoken. Puddle of shit that he is. His puddle’s of shit friends are now surfacing with the history of uttering death threats targetting police……end of arguement that he wasn’t doing anything wrong I suppose… What’s your next empty excuse as to why he has been wronged????

          • livefree1200cc

            I’ve made no comments about the shooting, so don’t call him my commander. Our discussion is about taxes. There were no income taxes before 1913 and we had plenty of roads by then. The people who wanted the roads and the people who were to use them paid for them. In my town we have a volunteer fire and rescue service. No one gets paid and all equipment is purchased with donation money. Government is about 100 times bigger than it should be and it is costing about a thousand times more than it should. Property tax is the worst one though. You NEVER really own your property as long as you have a tax burden added to it every year. Stop paying the taxes and you lose your property – hence it was never really yours to begin with – you rent it from the state. This was not the intent of the founders and most taxation is unconstitutional in nature as it deprives us of our right to own said property. You probably have no arguments about being given a $200 seat belt fine or the hundreds of other reasons they extort money from the public by our over reaching police state for ‘victim-less crimes’. You are so accustomed to paying fees to be able to walk on public land or fees to be able to fish or hunt, you don’t even give it a second thought that it is our right to be able to move around freely and do these things without being harassed constantly and badgered with fees and fines. I could go on but seeing as you are so programmed to enjoy paying your taxes I’ll stop here. You have swallowed too much of the kool-aid my friend

      • sobrique

        If you were able to drag your mouth out of the asshole of “Commander” Bourque and stopped tickling your tonsils on his dangling turds, you’d be able to breathe in some air, clear your head, and realize that your argument is so incredibly stupid it doesn’t garner anything more than an amusing laugh.

  • fed up

    By the way……..police didn’t show up guns drawn. 3 of 5 shot didn’t have the chance to get out of their cars. What about the police dog caged in the back of the SUV? Did the dog pull his gun out….oh wait… He was caged in the back of the SUV while his handle was shot before being able to get to a complete stop. Bourque maybe was psychic and knew that 32 year old kid was plotting against him alllll that time. So he shot not only the young officer before he could get out, but also the un-armed, caged, police dog. So many completely EMPTY and inane points that there they don’t even require argument. The blatant nonsensical way you have pieced together a way to rationalize these actions is enough to defeat the entire script.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Do you have a link to this information? Why did so many show up?

      • Modersi

        because it’s Moncton fucking New brunswick lol

      • Nik

        Why did so many what show up? Cops? Well after the first 2 were shot IN THE BACKS BY A COWARD, I suppose protocol is not to just say “well, we tried…”.

    • God Bless Commander Bourque

      He shot a police dog too? That’s great. I didn’t know about that particular part of the Commander’s successful mission. Praise be upon the Commander.

      • Troy Swonger

        I am sure he will get charged with first degree k9 cop murder. The pigs kill enough innocent pets, I will lose no sleep over the killing of a trained attack dog. These dogs are not pets, they are fearless assault weapons used by cowardly pigs.

        • sobrique

          He will squeal like a stuck pig when he is introduced to his first boyfriend in the shower. He may not squeal so much as time goes on.

        • American Patriot

          Any dog that is used to brutalize my life WILL get one of several methods of dying:
          1. KICKED to death
          2. SHOT IN THE HEAD
          3. RUN OVER
          4. BEATEN DEAD
          5. ELECTROCUTED

          Keep your DOG on a LEASH and not trained to ATTACK!
          The very nature of your K-9 training PROVES your dog is VICIOUS and MUST BE KILLED as a THREAT to SOCIETY!
          Vicious dogs trained as K-9 attack dogs are actually a DOMESTIC TERROR and a SAFETY VIOLATION of the community, releasing these to assault another is an act of BRUTALITY, TERRORISM and ANIMAL CRUELTY!

      • sobrique

        Whattamaroon

  • God Bless Commander Bourque

    GOD BLESS COMMANDER BOURQUE. HIS SUCCESSFUL MISSION SENDS THE MESSAGE
    TO THE POLICE STATE THAT THERE WILL BE LOSSES ON THEIR SIDE IF THEY
    KEEP KILLING CIVILIANS AND ENGAGING IN POLICE BRUTALITY. The Commander
    is a Canadian Patriot and Hero. May he get the opportunity to stick a
    shiv in a prison guard’s throat and take out another state agent.

    • sobrique

      He’ll probably be raped and become somebody’s girlfriend. Well deserved don’t ya think? This knowledge makes me smile.

  • magormissabib

    Im sorry but the law demands that society administer the death penalty for certain crimes. It does go a little farther than immediate self defense but you could call putting rapists, murderers, kidnappers and the like to death, defending ones ( and loved ones) life and property. I can even go further and say that society should administer the death penalty for certain moral evils such as adultery, incest , beastiality and homosexual sodomy, in the interest of self preservation since punishment for those sins deters others from doing the same and thus staying the wrath of God from upon the land.

    • American Patriot

      Oh boy, killing another because their morals slapped your morals in the face….THAT, is infantile mentality.
      I do not care who does what, when or where. If their acts are not harming or injurious to another, using others for their personal amusement, then WHY should I care what they do?
      Why would it be my business to know, or even care, unless your life is being supported by tax money by working for a state-sponsored assassin squad called police, then you should not concern yourself with the personal lives of anybody.
      The word ‘free’ means the right to live one’s life as THEY see fit, not as government views it. Government IS the bull in the china shop, and always will be, until the people stand up and put a halt to the way government does things. When you STOP being a criminal, things change, but government will not surrender the power the criminal holds over the ‘common people’, and is why government will never stop abusing a people so easy to abuse, why give that up?

      The state never surrenders to popular opinion, if that opinion is conflicting with the views of the state, then the state shall rewrite history to make all views comply with the views of the state, and then demand the people also comply, or they will release those state-sponsored assassins called cops to ensure(force) your compliance!
      If this act is NOT the very definition of terrorist or criminal, then what is?

      FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE MASTERS!

      • magormissabib

        obviously you havent thought it thru. speaking of infantile. When a people defy GODS moral law they bring mayhem and destruction on the land. so cut the crap about its not harming or injurious to another ., The government has a responsibility to protect the safety and well being of the people and nothing is more injurious than bringing the wrath of God on yourslefs by disobedience and rebellion to his plain standards.

  • James Rose

    my avitar is of a 14 yr old afgan boy who hugged a suicide bomber and stopped alot of deaths in his school.
    he is to me a man a real hero and person that we actually needed
    this boy could have saved millions with that attitude
    justin you could have done better than this
    you could have disarmed all the cops
    yeah no shit

  • Guest

    Are you kidding me? He walked up behind the first RCMP officer from behind and shot him in the head! Are you “supporters” seriously all there ? Fuck – maybe your mothers should have had you all tested. I’ve thought I read it all and then I come across this garbage spewing from the likes of the bottomless pit of society.

  • marlene

    Reasonable, sane and absolutely true. great article.

  • BR549

    Great article.

  • American Patriot

    Any cop that assumes his EMPLOYMENT is above OUR RIGHTS, is a FOOL!
    Any that bow to the dictates of his/her EMPLOYEE, shall also be a fool!
    There are NO constitutional amendments for police, no ‘rights’ bestowed upon them, and the fact that they are NOT elected to their jobs, but hired, MAKES them PROPERTY when in those uniforms!
    We have but ONE ELECTED cop, and that is a sheriff, NO OTHERS ARE ELECTED, they are EMPLOYEES, making them PROPERTY, nothing else!
    One does not gain power or authority simply by being hired, you must be elected to that position, and being hired never granted anybody statutory powers nor authorities!
    As employees in a job, do YOU have the power or authority to abuse other workers…no!
    As an employee, do YOU get the authority to search your fellow co-workers as YOU see fit….NO!
    As am employee, do YOU have the authority to ORDER YOUR EMPLOYER around…..NO!
    This is WHY, EMPLOYEES have NO rights nor powers, they are HIRED HANDS, nothing but the PROPERTY of the EMPLOYER, until YOU QUIT YOUR JOB, or are FIRED!
    EMPLOYEES do NOT have any powers above those of their EMPLOYER, and this holds true in EVERY JOB IN THE NATION!

  • watersisland

    A very accurate description of the reality, except it doesn’t present a peaceful means to address things. I’m afraid that this will incite many to believe they have to take those who would impose ‘the law’ to task in a confrontationally violent manner. Being “Right” should not mean being combative.

    The answers and solutions for correcting this delusionally inspired sense of “the law” that governments and the powerful grasp for are many and very indepth to even attempt to address here. You’ve identified a problem that many know to exist….and done it in a very simplified manner–kudos. Now the real work.

    Those are the things that take time and much effort. Wise men don’t make change through violence. Slavery, civil rights, and other transformations have occurred for the most part without violence (the Civil War was not primarily about slavery…and many states had already successfully outlawed it). While the transformation that needs to be acknowledged and changed is far greater than any previous endeavors… I believe that the power of the human mind can succeed in addressing reality for all men to be equally free.

  • Ian Sean

    Two problems with the NAP:

    1. Does not apply between adult sexes. Feminists and patriarchs agree. The Ray Rice fiasco proved this. I discovered it for myself when I was unable to bring myself to hit a woman who randomly (ISYN) tried to bury a Buck 110 in my belly. Disarmed her and scolded her like a child. And I have been about to stab a GUY to death for threatening to punch me if I didn’t hand him my drink, though.

    2. Initiating aggression against weaker folks signals dominance and is THE sexiest thing a hetero male can do, since living things started banging a half billion years ago. The nap is selected against sexually!

    I really want these two objections reconciled because without the NAP I am forced to conclude that might is the only right. And I loathe that conclusion but will live by it if forced to reach it by reason.

    Seriously been thinking about joining the police just because they get that might is right. We sheep know what they do and we tolerate it. It’s been this way for so long I think nonpolice deserve everything they do to us. We will FILM THEM BEATING OUR SPOUSES TO DEATH ffs! How can we claim rights if we aren’t raiding those who do this to us right now?