Self-defense is a Civil Right! STAND UP! (Infamous Shotgun Video at Freedom Plaza)
This video is dedicated to all the victims of gun violence who could have been saved by someone carrying a gun for defensive purposes.
When a government has repeatedly and deliberately failed to follow its own laws, violated the fundamental human rights of its citizens, threatened the sanctity of a free press, created institutions intended to eliminate privacy of communication, waged war at the behest of special interests that threatens the public safety, killed hundreds of children with drone strikes, imprisoned and destroyed the lives of countless individuals for victimless crimes, stifled economic opportunity to maintain the dominance of the financial elite, stolen from the people through an absurd system of taxation and inflation, sold future generations into debt slavery, and abused its power to suppress political opposition, it is unfit to exist and it becomes the duty of the people to alter or abolish that government by whatever means necessary to secure liberty and ensure peace. A new American revolution is long overdue. We who recognize the illegitimacy of this government will withdraw our material support. We will take every reasonable measure to avoid the theft of taxation. We refuse to serve the federal government with our labor. We reject the authority of the federal government and will resist at every opportunity. We demand an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property. We will provide aid and comfort to victims of the state. We will mark Independence Day not with a celebration of collectivism, but with direct action to create freedom. We will recruit others to this cause and share this pledge. The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC. While some timid souls will say that it is too early, that we can solve this problem through democratic means provided by government, that current levels of taxation are reasonable for the services provided, and that the crimes of this government are merely a tolerable nuisance; it may already be too late. While there is risk in drastic action, the greater danger lies in allowing this government to continue unchallenged. We will not be silent, we will not obey, we will not allow the government to destroy our humanity: we are The Final American Revolution.
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook at http://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else: http://TheFreedomLine.com
► Watch on DTube
► Watch Source (IPFS)
Adam, you mentioned a line in sand. My line is etched in stone. That line is military style rifles. I will not surrender them. This is not the UK or Australia or Europe. My line is shared with many patriots, and by patriots I do not mean holy pole cloth lovers. I mean people who would rather die than be disarmed. The people I'm talking about have a country, but that country is liberty.
There could be a mass shooting every day, and I would still not trade liberty for security. Even with a mass shooting every day, I will not surrender my means of resistance. Our government knows millions of people believe the same, so what can they do to seal the prison being created around us? How can they finally lock people in while they are still armed? They can't.
It took 72 minutes for them to respond. I am reminded of Columbine when they waited for an eternity. While they hid behind fire trucks, innocent people were being gunned down by predators. They are not going to protect us. We have to protect ourselves. We need private security forces, militia, and individuals to stand up to this madness.
The first American revolution started when the empire of the day moved to disarm the people and hang their leaders. Our history books do not teach that fact however. We are not subjects, and we will not be disarmed. Let them try. I refuse to depend on agents of the state to protect myself or my loved ones too. From recent to ancient history, we have ample examples of how the state won't protect us anyway.
Totally agree with you man!
Such a man of principle, i would join you in the defense of liberty ANY day. Thanks for everything you have done man
Love this!!! Nice article, the idea of true freedom is both inspiring and contagious! :)
Until all are free, none will be free.
Thanks
I will be following.
Exactly, thanks for the follow! Will follow back.
Much respect Adam!! I've been really inspired by your videos the past months and by your REAL, authentic expression of the Sacred Masculine Energy. Our Divine right to defend ourselves from VIOLENCE--the self defense principle. The sacred masculine energy of will-power and true courage CAN NOT be stamped out everywhere!! After much, much contemplation of whether to "run for the hills"= flee OR stay and fight this multifaceted monster run by psychopaths ; I have made an spiritual-internal decision to organize with the others and resist. We need to confront this evil entity that is known generally as "government". I will be here for the Final American Revolution. I will NOT go silently into the dark night of totalitarianism AND within my personal interactions with people within my day to day life. If the powers that SHOULD NOT be kill me during this incarnation of Life.....then I'll be back for the next one:) They can't kill our Spirit. Much Love man and will be following!
Thank you for the support, I followed you back!
Most guns wouldn't have helped those at that concern in Vegas. I wrote about the many problems the U.S. has with guns and would love your opinion if you have the time and interest to check it out. For me, an important question is: do we value freedom more than the well-being it brings us?
I don't seek freedom so that I can live a sybaritic life. I require freedom so that I am not reduced to slavery.
So, yes, I value freedom far more than the well-being it MAY bring, because of the suffering it WILL prevent.
I had to look up sybaritic. That's a fancy one. :)
I am plagued by excessive verbosity. You COULD just tell me to shut up =p
It took the police 72 minutes to respond according to one report. The shooter started shortly after 10 PM. The police breached his door at 11:58.
I know what it sounds like, but I would have ran towards the gun fire, not away from it. They took way too long. Where have all the warriors gone?! Have we all become farm animals??? I watch those videos and see people just laying there like idiots. Why?! Take cover. React. Get off the X god damn it.
We don't have a problem with guns. We have a problem with predators. They should be removed from society by any means necessary too. If it isn't a gun, it will be a knife. If it isn't a knife, it will be a vehicle. We need to stop depending on others for our security and provide it ourselves.
Why not a nuke? Or a chemical weapon? The tool used directly relates to the amount of damage done. Yes, we need to deal with predators, but we also should deal with the tools available to those who want to cause the most damage. I'm not saying government laws are necessarily the answer (see my post for more on that).
Yes, why not? You want to pay the costs of maintaining a nuke, securing it, and insuring yourself or your company? Go for it. Governments, as I have written already, have not done a very good job of maintaining those weapons.
Because, in my mind, these weapons only have one purpose: massive wholescale destruction and death. Desiring such a tool, IMO, is not a sign of a healthy, peaceful individual.
It is if that healthy, peaceful individual is under threat from a nuclear power, and nothing else will deter that power from taking what is yours, including your life.
MAD is a thing, and it has been working for longer than Moore's Law has held.
It's kept India and Pakistan from waging all out conventional war, despite the frequent incitements of border skirmishes.
I'm not saying it's good that such deterrents are necessary. I'm saying that wanting to cause wholesale destruction and death isn't why people have nuclear weapons.
The threat of returning violence with violence isn't peace, but it's better than war.
I'd love to get rid of them too, but I do not have a magic wand to wave to make that happen. Without governments though, the market might be able to do it. Again, who's going to insure you if you have one? Who's going to pay the damages when you use it? It would be a bloody expensive mess. Because of governments though, those systems are not in place. Governments, as usual, have special protections, are above the law, enjoy a huge double standard, and have a monopoly on force.
Spot on! At this point, that is one of the reasons that North Korea's leader is still in power, not necessarily because he has nuclear capability, but because China has stated that if Trump tries for a regime change there, like in Iraq for instance, they will step in. That is where the power stale mate takes place, like you have already stated, not peace, but better than war.
I heard a likely scenario this morning. NK gets an ICBM. Then they invade SK. Who's going to stop them?
Oh, you want to stop us? Okay, fine. We'll send an ICBM to Seattle. Are all the people there worth saving the people in SK?
All the while China sits back and laughs... Er, no, they don't sit back. They invade Taiwan.
I don't see how a knife, or even a car, could cause as much death as this man caused.
You say people didn't run for cover, and then in the same paragraph, scolded them for running. Your own words are contradictory. They did run for cover, how many people do you think ranand got gunned down for no reason?
How do you explain to the thousands of people that were directly affected by this vilence that nothing can be done to help?
Tell me how someone having a gun other than the shooter would have helped in this scenario? You gonna shoot someone who is 32 stories up?
You say it took them 72 minutes to respond, but I HIGHLY doubt they weren't on the scene within 10. When did the killings stop? Did everybody get hurt within the first 10 minutes. And there was just a stand off for the last 62 minutes as you say.
You can't just look at this in one single tunnel visioned way. I need you to give me every side of the story with all understanding of the facts before I can take you for anothing other than someone who is stuck in their own.... Wait for it... BiasNarrative.
He could have used a bomb. He had planes. He could have flown a plane into the crowd.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding contradicting myself. You misunderstood my comment perhaps about me saying I would run towards the gunfire as in go to stop it. Yes, people should get to cover, and my post about this incident explains that process.
How can I explain to the thousands of people that were directly affected by this violence that nothing can be done to help? That question makes zero sense. What should I tell them? Predators don't follow laws. Make more laws. Predators won't care. Murderers do not follow gun laws.
Again, as I said in my post about this, having a gun while in that crowd would not have helped unless you ran towards the gun fire. The police responded more quickly than I reported above too according to updated information. Apparently, they were at the room within 15 minutes. Guess what. They went there with guns.
Biased narrative, ehh? I'm a private investigator. My job is to ask questions. You don't want to ask questions? That's fine. It's kinda ironic though with your handle. Is your answer always going to be to disarm law abiding people?
If it is, I have no interest in discussing this with you any further.
Contradiction. You stated, "I know what it sounds like, but I would have ran towards the gun fire, not away from it. They took way too long. Where have all the warriors gone?! Have we all become farm animals???"
That to me said that you were calling everyone who ran away animals and that they should be warriors instead. Yet, directly after, said they should be running away instead of hiding on the ground. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning?? Maybe not.
When it comes to telling those who were affected what can be done, saying, "There could be a mass shooting every day, and I would still not trade liberty for security." You think this helps at all when thousands of people are affected by these shootings by losing someone they love? It is ridiculous, like spitting in their face and saying the loss of that life does not matter because you are too afraid of the government. (Definitely a good fear to have.) But I will say that whenever we have made a change in our government, we made it through mass marches, guns were not needed to gain many of the rights that were not inherent originally in this country.
You say you are a private investigator and investigating is your job, yet what did you NOT do until I asked you about it. You believed they took way to long to respond and decided to spread that misinformation making people believe they took much longer to respond. Instead of explaining that when they were at the door within 15 minutes, I bet peoples lives were no longer in direct danger. That is why I said you were stuck in your own BiasNarrative. You refused to ask questions about the facts that did not make your opinion correct. Instead, you heard one report and took it as a fact because it fell in line with what you wanted to believe. That is my WHOLE point.
No where have I stated that guns should be taken away from people. All I am doing is playing devils advocate and asking you questions that don't fall in line with what your beliefs are.
If you truly want to believe what you believe, and want to keep your weapons at any cost, how will this be explained to those who will lose their loved ones? What is the best way to fix these issues? Do we want people running around like the wild wild west? If that is what you want, fine. Then something needs to be done for those who lose loved ones. Lose their livelihood. As I am sure you know, all actions will have a repercussion. So what can we do? What is your fix to stop these sorts of things from happening?
Also, I have heard reports that the hotel knew this guy was bringing guns into his room, do you know if that is true?
You seem to mistake grants of privilege for rights, when you say:
Guns never gained us any rights whatsoever, either.
We were born with rights, and nothing will take our rights away.
Our rights can be recognized by others, and the private arms in the hands of the American revolutionaries convinced the crown to recognize our rights.
Our rights can be trampled by others, and that is why the aforementioned private arms came into play - and this is exactly what @finnian is going on about.
The wars which the US has lost in the last century were all waged against guerillas using small arms. The US military would be hopelessly fractured if they tried to repress US people as they have in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, and those that set the military on Americans would hang, in time.
The answer to give those people that have lost loved ones is hard, but the truth can be, and always is when the only reality is grief: they should have been armed, and trained to defend themselves.
You seem reasonable. You should be armed, and trained, to defend yourself, your loved ones, and our freedom.
Or, you can just settle for what you get.
Even if it's a bullet in the head from some whacko.
Yes, instead of standing there cowering, I would have moved my family to safety. Then I would have moved in the direction of fire.
That's not a contradiction. Most people, including agents of the state, will not help others. It is a rare breed who'll step up and risk their own life for mere strangers.
Yes, instead of laying there in the open without cover, they should have moved to cover. That's plain stupid to just lay there. You don't have to engage the attacker. Don't stand there like an idiot though either.
Afraid of the government? No, hardly. As I've stated elsewhere, no one is bullet proof. Governments fear armed people. It's the other way around. I'm supposed to combine my rage with cowardice? You expect me to disarm simply because some people get murdered? That's not going to happen.
I decided to spread misinformation? I'm not going to searching around for every post I've made and editing them for future updates. Sorry, I don't have time for that. Maybe you do. More and more information is coming out, and old information will be updated as we move forward.
He finished his job or died from the second shooter. The police didn't stop anything. The man decided to end his life, or he had it ended for him by a handler. History shows that is usually the case too. Police show up too late. My point is that people should not depend on them for their defense.
Let me explain something to you as clearly as I possibly can...
Americans will not disarm no matter what happens. Do you understand? I really don't think you do. You are all caught up in your emotions, and you fail to understand the primary principles of liberty. I cannot explain them to you. Something tells me you're not even an American, or perhaps you are a subject to a crown instead?
Something needs to be done for those who lose loved ones? What exactly would you do? Let's here your grand plan. Whip out your magic wand and make all the predators of the world disappear. Make all the sociopaths have a conscious. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Until you find a way to make that happen, I'm retaining my ability to deal deadly force at a distance.
Yes, actions have repercussions. That's a great way to end this reply, for actions do have consequences. The British crown learned that the hard way didn't they when they moved to disarm the militias and hang their leaders. Maybe the current empire will make the same mistake. My hope is that they do not. Repercussions? I don't believe you understand them either.
There will be a bloody revolution here in the USA before we are disarmed. When myself and my friends say liberty is worth any price, we really mean it.
Just a few points. You posted the 72 minutes comment 2 days ago, at which point we already knew how long it took them to respond. So please don't act like you didn't just read a headline and take it as gospel into the narrative you believed.
Second, again, I never said taking away guns. Seriously. I don't know how I can be more clear to you.
Third, I don't understand how you can be negative towards another American simply for voicing an opinion that is different than yours. Not sure about you, but I feel the first amendment gives me the right to speak my mind. Regardless of my opinion.
Is it acceptable in your idea of America that anybody who doesn't think like you is instantly not American? How do you know what I think or feel or want from the Freedom that I enjoy everyday?
I find it interesting that your opinion is all that matters. It doesn't matter that we live in a republic, that the people have a say and a voice. All that matters to you is your own opinion and damn everyone else.
You are belittling, rude, closed minded, and refuse to allow any other information into your thought process.
What would you say if I had every intention to buy guns and had my conceal and carry license in the "great" State of Illinois. Cause I was born and raised in a small town surrounded by cornfields in the heart of Illinois.
Doesn't matter to you right? Because I played devil's reject and challenged your view point? Even while saying I didn't want to take away your guns.
Sorry, I'm not entertained. This is very important. Sure, I'm an asshole when it comes to liberty. Even joking about further limitations pisses me off. I haven't edited any of my posts about the Vegas shooting, and tons of new information has come forward. Yes, things changed. It doesn't matter how long exactly it took though. They were still too late. The attack was over before they entered the suite.
This is not a republic and hasn't been for a long time. You perhaps don't understand what a republic is either. The difference, the key difference, between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic the smallest minority is the individual. The law comes first, majority rule never applies. Rules are based on common sense and natural law too.
Within natural law and common sense, I will retain the power to use violence in defense of my life and others. If the modern day law changes or the US Constitution changes, I... don't care. I will then be a criminal perhaps, but I will never disarm. Play devil's advocate all you want.
Our government is playing with fire here. You know it. I know it. Some things are not debatable.
Nice, France is a prime example here.
That's a good point. I didn't specifically mention it, but there have been mass shootings in other nations like France where the people are practically completely disarmed. So much for the idea that disarming all the people will stop mass shootings.
Playing devil's advocate here. You have completely open borders with countries that have less gun laws. Not that hard to sneak in weapons. Just throw it in your trunk and drive.
It's like the stupidity of the Chicago gun ban...... All you do is drive out of Chicago...... Genius......
Or this, for example. The necessity of industrial manufacturing is vanishing quickly, across all industries. No one is stuffing that genie back in the bottle.
The freedom to be armed is not granted. It is the very essence of humanity to utilize the laws of nature to organize their defense, and 3D printing is the latest iteration of our grasp of those laws.
It is a natural consequence of being alive and the sovereign source of authority, as you are.
The government, any government, is neither.
There should be no national borders that limit free travel by humans. Are you peaceful? Then you are free to travel. Not peaceful? You won't last long in any civilized area. The only reason we have such laws and the borders is to control people.
In a perfect world, it's be great to have no national borders. But that would involve everybody agreeing to certain standards and rules. :/
We are way far off from that. So many cultural differences it's insane.
To think that by taking away an object to combat bad people doing bad things is a logical fallacy.
The same for applying more laws to law breakers.
There are a great many ways to cause wider death and horror than capping folks with an AK. I'll not go into detailed examples here, for reasons.
There was a reason firearms were used, and we don't currently know what it is.
All I'll say is that the only alternatives to firearms weren't knives or cars. To confine the debate so is disingenuous.
Hypothetically, as I've written elsewhere, let's say it was an arms deal gone bad.
The FBI thinks it is going to catch some terrorists. The terrorists use the FBI to get the weapons they need to carry out the attack. Why else have 23 guns as a lone gunman? It makes no sense.
The FBI has a history of providing actual explosives, bombs, guns, etc. to "catch" terrorists. Therefore, them doing it in this case is not surprising. If you were a terrorist group looking to attack Vegas, setting up an arms deal with the FBI is pretty genius.
That also explains all the cameras and why none of them supposedly recorded anything. They did and either the terrorists or the FBI swapped the media with blank ones.
You say most guns wouldn't have helped, well, which guns would have helped? The important question you asked "do we value freedom more than the well-being it brings us". If this country wasn't armed, would we have, the small amount of freedom we have left? Would there be any "well-being"? It seems to me that the better armed a society is, the freer they are. Take a look at Texas, vs Illinois.
IF Paddock was the sole shooter, which is not certain at this time (we don't even know if he fired a shot. I know of no reports of muzzle flash from his alleged shooting platforms), then a Barrett .50 would have ended his spree quickly.
A competent marksman with various range capable arms could have kept his head down, at worst, and ended him with a good shot. Most bolt action .30 cal rifles are 1/4 MOA capable.
Most shooters aren't.
TBQH, any gun in the hands of someone ready, willing, and able to take it to the murderer would have solved the problem. A Raven .25 (if you could keep it from jamming) and a 32 story elevator ride would have worked.
Claims that nothing could have worked are put forward by those that don't know any better.
I have personally disarmed 3 persons in separate incidents who were threatening me with firearms. No shots were fired, and no police were involved, then or later. Those people never threatened me again, and hopefully learned to practice better gun control.
If someone has a range advantage, which is all that firearms give you, the solution is to close range.
It's counterintuitive, but effective.
I think I have an explanation for the lack of muzzle flash from his hotel suite. He was firing blindly through the curtains and blinds using his bullet drop and known angle perhaps. Also, there's this:
Keep in mind that there's missing spent brass from the hotel room as well. There's not enough spent brass there to explain all the shooting. A second shooter from a different distance as the video explains would resolve that issue. It also helps resolve the lack of muzzle flash from the hotel suite.
Either way though, we are not being told the full truth of the situation. Heck, just go listen to the official police scanner transcript:
It's hard to compare states since it's simple to take guns from one place to another. When comparing countries, however, it's a little different. I reference the abstract of a paper in my post which touches on some of that. It seems the U.S. is unique in terms of wealthy countries dealing with this issue.
In this case, no gun would have helped unless someone happened to have a sniper rifle they could shoot back with or bazooka or rocket launcher or whatever... Essentially just owning and carrying a gun for self defensive would not have helped in this case (or many others).
Understanding that it was guns that also ended this what is missing from most peoples description.
That's a fair point, but as I mentioned in my post, there's a place for highly trained professionals (such as Detroit Threat Management) and a place for everyone else. Even then, lethal force isn't always the only option.
Have they conclusively determined yet if he took his own life or was taken out by the police? I've heard conflicting reports.
Granted. Education and training is crucial. I would dare say there are plenty of private gun owners who have just as much if not more time behind the sights than LEOs. Also, still, as you stated, lethal force is not the only option however in any case where the subject is clearly threatening human lives, it is. My opinion.
They have ruled it as a suicide, but there are many differing theories on this.
Okay, I think something like a bazooka or rocket launcher might be a little extreme. lol Being that the Las Vegas area was already a "gun free zone" and the shooter knew he would have no opposition from anyone that wasn't also breaking the law, it was up to law enforcement and there painfully slow response time to slow him down. A fully automatic rifle shoots 6 rounds per second, any amount of time at that rate of fire is painfully slow. That is also a good reason to use the 32nd floor as his point of attack, takes that much more time for them to respond after he watches them all arrive. On the other hand, if Las Vegas was as free as the constitutions 2nd amendment was designed, there could have been plenty of hunting rifles in the back of all of those "Country Music Loving Fans" trucks that might have provided an instant opposition to the situation before it ever began, which brings us back to the Texas vs Illinois scenario. Even if he decided to proceed, knowing the armed public could easily retaliate, the oppositions long or "sniper" rifle could have made the situation considerably different. He was shooting a 223, there are plenty of hunting rifles that can easily mach the distance he was shooting from, including the 223, a very common caliber for a hunting rifle. When a snipers nest starts taking fire, the sniper has to either eliminate the threat instantly, or duck for cover. My thought would defiantly have been for him to duck for cover being there would have been way more than one threat to have to deal with, from who knows how many different locations. The Chinese wouldn't attack the U.S. on the ground in WWII because they knew there "would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" as Yakomato stated after the conflict. The same would have applied in this situation if the "Law" didn't infringe on the peoples rights in that area.
The .223 is not a common hunting round, unless you're talking about varmints and squirrels. While it is legal for deer in many jurisdictions, it isn't a good round, as it has been designed to wound enemies, and cause enemy forces to spend their resources treating wounded, rather than fighting. Deer are about the same size as soldiers, so tend to be wounded by the round, rather than dropped in their tracks.
It's hard to say the same about the .30-06.
Folks that have never been under fire, have never had to disarm someone threatening them with a firearm, and have never calculated a ballistics table, are poor sources of advice regarding what works, and what doesn't in such situations.
Also, the first threat to the shooter was an unarmed man. He did the right thing, which was to attempt to engage the shooter point blank, where his firearms couldn't provide much advantage.
IIRC, that was when the shooting stopped. I could be wrong. However, if he'd been armed, he could have stopped the shooting for certain then.
The balance of your remarks are right on.
Stay free!
I heard, without a doubt, what sounded like a full auto AK-47 or other 7.62 600 RPM weapon in use. No one knows for sure what it was, but it sure sounded like an AK-47 to me. Other's have suggested it was a belt fed 240. It's more likely, in my opinion, for it to have been an AK though. The full auto I heard was not JUST a bump fired AR.
Absolutely agree with you! Everyday, the DC swamp creatures and the progressive left have been trying to impose new laws to restrict what’s left of our freedom. The recent Las Vegas shooting by “a lone gunman” - Paddock, reminds me of another such incident where a Republican Senator Scalise was hospitalized and the the obvious target were conservatives. Both Paddock and Hodgkinson carried out the fantasy of every "progressives" from Kathy Griffin and Stephen Colbert to Antifa and the college professors that indoctrinated them. They believe that simply accusing you of racism is enough to take away your civil rights and even kill you. Clearly, these incidents were targeted at patriotic Trump supporters.
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Las Vegas shaping up to be politically motivated - “Deliberate act of terror” - (Video)
thats true! every life is valuable
i agree with u man ,gun violence must stop in our society
Congratulations @adamkokesh! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP