Blowing Away
Police State Smokescreens

by Angel Shamaya
Founder and Executive Director of KeepAndBearArms.com
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com 

Copyright 2000, KeepAndBearArms.com, All Rights Reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without express written permission by the author. Reprint in full will be freely granted -- with prior written approval -- in any format where it will serve the cause of Liberty as exampled by America's redcoat-besieged Founding Fathers -- provided the intentions are to create positive forward motion on behalf of our worthy cause.

December 20, 2000

A friend of mine once told me, "If you stick your head up, somebody is going to try to chop it off, and it will probably come from an ally." I guess I know what he means now, and when it happens, it's utterly disgusting. If you read this, you will see what I mean. To help keep a confrontational topic as light as possible while leaving no stone unturned, I have also distilled the humor out of this situation. Sometimes ya gotta laugh to keep from crying.

A well-known Second Amendment-supporting police officer in the gun rights community has attempted a public Character Assassination -- with me as his target. This good gentleman and his worthy associates have publicly called me a "lying, fabricating, deceiving, cop hating, fear-mongering, hateful rhetoric spewing, naive and greedy Shamey Sham Scam wretch and whacko" in defense of the Second Amendment Infringers and their tactics. My accuser's scathing response to a recent news report I wrote has received wide publication through "gun channels" on the internet. In fact, the person who gave it the widest distribution and urged the recipients to forward it claims to have a list that is "several thousand strong." A lot of people received it, and read it -- and some of them even believed it.

But what lies beneath this gentleman's disparaging announcement is his unabashed stand for what I call "Cops First, American Freedom Second." His love of and respect for the many good men and women in law enforcement who daily put their lives on the line to keep our streets safe has been placed above his commitment to the Second Amendment. I stress this point because it is urgent that we understand it before continuing any further, so I will repeat it plainly: my accuser's Actions are coming from Love. Having been in and around law enforcement for most of his adult life, he knows the great challenges his badged brothers bear, and he is their champion true. Unfortunately, his love of the badge is misprioritized above his love for and understanding of Freedom -- and the trouble he's having resolving that issue has been directed squarely at me.

If you have some time and would like to get the most out of this document, click here.  Another way to read this document involves reading Leroy Pyle's Attempted Assassination of My Character and then clicking on the text where you agree with him or would like to see my response. But you'd miss a lot of what these people have done to attempt to cover for their support of the enforcement of unConstitutional gun laws if you skipped over the following sections. The highlighted ones are most enlightening -- but so are the rest. There is also information contained herein about how my accusers are using the same tactics against JPFO/CCOPS, as well.

If you really want to get the most out of this document...

1. First read the first report I wrote about a recent gun confiscation conducted by the ATF here in Arizona. This is the report from which many of my Accuser's quotes are derived.
   
   

2. Next, read Mr. Leroy Pyle's recent announcement to our community from start to finish without clicking any of the links. I have provided the text, in full, below this introduction.
   
   

3. Then, before going through my following responses, come back up here and ask yourself these questions:
   A) How do I now feel about Angel Shamaya?
   B) Do I believe anything Mr. Pyle has said about Angel Shamaya?  
   C) If YES, then how much of what Mr. Pyle has said do I believe about him?
   
   

4. Go back through Mr. Pyle's announcement and use the linked words to investigate for yourself -- before you draw conclusions. Explore and examine all the links. Leave no stone left unturned.
   
   

5. Proceed to Part 2 of this document where I have taken care to distill from this experience some of the fundamental tactics used to defend the police state:
   False Accusations
   Tactics of Discrediting
   Alarming Beliefs Held by Some Police Officers
   Being an American
   
   

6. Conclusion

Following are many foundations of a Police State Mentality that can and must be questioned at every turn.

Character Assassination Attempt

(Killing the Messenger)

Following is the exact text of what was sent out far and wide about me, including to some of our own KeepAndBearArms.com members. This announcement was sent out by another of my would-be character assassins, Chris Stark -- to his list he claimed on 12/15/2000 to be "several thousand strong." Recipients of his message in at least one online forum were urged to "please forward."

Note: Mr. Stark also published this announcement on his own website here: http://www.goa-texas.org/cgi-bin/alerts/mb.pl?PN=113 - where you will see the words "by Chris Stark." I've never understood why he does that when someone else authored the piece, but understand that Chris Stark did not write the following; though he may have helped, Leroy Pyle wrote this libelous and instructive piece of history. And they published it on one or two other public forums frequented by liberty advocates, as well -- smearing me at will along the way.

Click any text that is underlined to be taken to my response. Start reprinted material: 

07 December 2000
Innocent Until Proven Guilty!
by Leroy Pyle
The  Second Amendment  Police  Department
http://www.2ampd.net

Go to  http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/

An article on KABA attracted attention by its obvious exaggerations and bias. KABA editor, Shamaya, had gone out of his way to create the perfect story. BATF had served a warrant on a gun store and Shamaya's story of the incident included every gun owners worst dream. The BATF "storm troopers" said and did everything that you have ever heard a government agency gone bad do, in spades and did not even deserve the slightest peep in the press. The story was too perfect and begged an investigation.

Angel wasn't there, of course, and had traveled to visit the store owner to conduct his "interview". You can see this story at:

http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/atf.htm

Shamaya's e-mail address is [email protected].

To the layman, it may have appeared legitimate. To anyone familiar with procedure, it was like hearing the "news" report on a semi-auto revolver. It stank.

I asked Shamaya to produce the affidavit that he claimed was in his possession, but he explained that the store owner did not want to make that public until he prepared a response. I asked, repeatedly, over a period of time, to try to let him ease away from his fabrication.

Melissa, a list member of the [email protected] discussion group insisted on evidence to prove my claim that the story appeared exaggerated. She repeated it enough that I looked around for a copy of the affidavit. Shamaya had faxed it around, so a copy came my way. It wasn't until I reviewed it closely to answer Melissa that I realized what a fabrication Shamaya's story really was. I could not believe the outright lies, clearly proven by merely comparing his "news" with the affidavit.

This has nothing to do with the store owner, or the validity of the affidavit. I hope that the store owner will take advantage of every legal device afforded him.

It has everything to do with the "news" story that Shamaya created on his website. If you compare his "news" to the affidavit, it is clear that he lied. It wasn't until I hit "reply" to Melissa and started cutting and pasting some of the elements that I realized just was a fabrication the story was. Granted, there are some who prefer to believe the "news" :-). For the curious, compare the "story" to the affidavit at http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/.



e-mail to Melissa:

Melissa, you seem to be desperate in your attempts to deny the fear mongering and hateful rhetoric contained in Shamaya�s news items. And, really, you may be reading it the same way most folks read the anti-gun news reports in the newspapers, just taking it for face value. We all depend on our own personal biases and life experiences to make decisions on these things.

Let me point out what I consider to be biased reporting and lies. This is just me and Joe and Bruce and cops, so take it for what it is worth:

The title sets the tone, don�t you think? A lengthy investigation took place where the dealer is alleged to have committed numerous violations over a period of time. Those reports were reviewed by a prosecuting attorney, an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy, and the warrant was served. All procedures were correctly followed and administered. Remember, there are people who violate the laws. I am surprised you don�t see the bias in the title, itself, since it would be just as easy to speculate that the ATF was going out of their way to avoid violating the suspect�s rights by studying the evidence further prior to an arrest. This is a common procedure, but Shamaya knows nothing of it, and could care less as long as his news gets your attention:

ATF Rips Off Another Gun Dealer in Arizona
Confiscates 274 guns and 3,000 Form 4473's
Without making an official arrest or even filing charges

by Angel Shamaya
Director, KeepAndBearArms.com

Shamaya writes: "On October 25, 2000, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent approximately 30 federal and local agents in stormtrooper attire to confiscate firearms from a dealer."

That�s a lie. They wore windbreakers to identify them. Intended to prejudice, no doubt.

Shamaya writes: "These government operatives also confiscated guns Jerry held on consignment for several customers, and they also took his personally-owned firearms along with guns he'd been storing for an ailing friend."

The affidavit demonstrates that Jerry was illegally and repeatedly selling guns marked personal use. I, too, feel sorry for Jerry�s ailing friend, and recommend that he kick Jerry�s rear, warrant or not! No one can deny that the ailing friend was intended to inject emotion. Would you?

Shamaya writes: "When I called ATF today to find out if it is standard operating procedure to want only damage collector's items when they are stealing them, Larry X said..."

That is another Shamaya lie and a very good example of how he reports news in an inflammatory manner. They didn�t steal the evidence. And as further evidence of Shamaya�s youthful naivet�, he goes on to express some surprise when the person on the other end of the phone wanted to know who the blazes was calling. I mean Melissa, read what he said to the guy over the phone. Wouldn�t any sane person expect to be considered a nut with such a question?

Shamaya writes: "so there was a new tape in the player and the tape was rolling. But ATF confiscated the tape that shows them unnecessarily and irreparably damaging Jerry's property -- and broke his VCR in the process. I am sitting here reading -- for the third time -- the search warrant, given to me by Jerry himself, and I can't seem to locate the words "video tape" anywhere on the warrant."

Another Shamaya lie. The affidavit clearly defines certain evidence, and anyone with half a brain can read page 4 at http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer and see that a videotape is clearly included.

Shamaya writes: "(Was ATF afraid to let people see what abusive and disrespectful people they are? Why else would they cover their tracks like common hoodlums? Maybe Special Agent in Charge and Group Supervisor Marvin G. Richardson or Assistant SAIC, Joe M. Gordon -- overseers in this outrageous act of violence -- can answer those questions. Or perhaps Robert C. Gantt, the agent who secured the search warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson -- the judge who presided over Bob Stewart's preposterous hearings -- can help shed some light on how a tape can be stolen when it's not on the search warrant.)"

An obvious Shamaya lie, to anyone who read the affidavit. It is clear that the investigation alleged repeated violations in the store involving customers. The affidavit was intended to obtain evidence of those transactions. What better source than the surveillance camera? Was it not intended to capture illegal activity? Well, it did, and it may be used for evidence as intended.

Shamaya writes: "The Mesa police assisted in this raid, as well, earning themselves a demotion in the eyes of every gun owner in Arizona. Congratulations, officers. You helped assault a Good Guy and alienated a whole segment of the society you are supposed to protect and serve. Nice goin'."

Shamaya now tries to paint the local cops as bad guy, and paint them with his broad brush. Who the blazes is he to say his lying articles represent ALL Arizona gun owners? It is a safety procedure to place uniforms in the vicinity of a plain-clothes operation to assure neighbors of the validity of the operation. Makes sense, doesn�t it? But common sense often escapes Shamaya when he is writing "news".

Shamaya writes: "Jerry's crime? Apparently, in Mesa, the city has an ordinance requiring gun dealers to have a "pawn permit" if they sell used firearms -- or so he was told while a team of armed and consistently disrespectful "men" busied themselves stealing 274 guns with an estimated value of approximately $300,000. "How much is the pawn permit," you ask? $100.

A BIG TIME Shamaya lie. Read the affidavit. Is there even the slightest reason to believe that the only violation was a neglected pawn permit? Let�s face it, Melissa, Shamaya was making his own case, the truth be damned! And he runs the lie up the flagpole for all to see, including his "take" on the chance that lying is not enough, with:

Shamaya writes: "Except for that little permit said to be required in Mesa. And that is only if the ATF was telling the truth. (Some of them are incorrigible liars, you know. ATF sends super-secret special agents who impersonate other people's identities into gun dealers' businesses to attempt to trick them into committing technical violations, so they are not only liars, they are entrapping imposters, as well.)"

Melissa, it is beyond me how you might miss the obvious bias in this "news" report. I can understand that you might miss some of the lies, but clearly, a comparison of the Shamaya "news" and the affidavit shows lies.

You may not agree that Shamaya lied, but I am sure many who compare the "news" with the facts will see the obvious lies. And it has nothing to do with whether you agree with what ATF does, but by how this is being "reported". Have you ever heard the expression, "You can�t win in a piss-fight with a skunk?" Once you are proven a liar, how is the public expected to view future "articles?"

How can Shamaya express indignation over alleged abuses when he has to lie to prove the abuses? And if he lied about the case based on the "testimony" of the store owner, wouldn�t you be a little wary of his "testimony"? The store owner participated in the many violations over a period of time. He then tells Shamaya if you are to believe Shamaya:

"Jerry Michel gets the closing statement today, as follows: "If these guys will do this to me over some $100 permit when I was already licensed to sell firearms, I shudder to think of what they would do to someone over a $10,000 violation." If you wish to contact Jerry Michel of Specialty Firearms, here is how you do so: (480) 962-0913  1055 N. Mesa Drive, Mesa Arizona 85201."

The store owner lied about his violations. So, Melissa, can�t you see the possibility that Jerry lied to Shamaya, who then fabricated his story using more lies and emotional rhetoric to create the "news"?

The abuses have to be addressed, Melissa, but we don�t have to make them up. If we "cry wolf" and are caught lying, what affect [sic] does that have where there is a serious abuse and we try to call out?

Sincerely,

Leroy Pyle
The  Second Amendment  Police  Department
http://www.2ampd.net

Back to the Top

07 December 2000

By the time you have finished this correction of the misstatements made about me, you may understand why I find great humor and fascinating irony in the fact that Mr. Stark and Mr. Pyle launched their public attack against me on Pearl Harbor Day.

Back to the Top

Innocent Until Proven Guilty!

In the very same report my accusers called "Innocent Until Proven Guilty!," they have convicted a yet uncharged gun dealer of being guilty until proven innocent.

Back to the Top

Go to http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/

Mr. Pyle telling you to "Go to http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/" was, to some, egregious. As I said in my second report over this gun confiscation,

"I will produce as much of this affidavit as Jerry permits, as soon as he says I can do so. Though it's now a matter of public record available to anyone, I respect this man enough to do what he asks. I also respect the opinions of Neal Knox, Larry Pratt and David Hardy (former NRA lawyer who is still closely allied with them), and they all suggested to not pound on this too much until ATF files charges."

Publishing false information about a man who just went through every gun owner's nightmare is not the best way to positively influence the gun community on his behalf, as evidenced by Mr. Pyle's convicting him as being guilty until proven innocent.

And the preponderance of "pounding" has been necessitated in defense of Mr. Michel from "Second Amendment" allies.

Because this document is being used falsely (in at least some ways) against a gun dealer by his own community, here is the link to the affidavit: http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer/. We hope some of the people who were turned against Mr. Michel will revisit their opinions -- and then base them solely on the facts after reading this entire message. (If the pages are no longer there, we can hopefully assume Mr. Pyle has read this message, realized his mistakes, and stopped his attacks on Mr. Michel. If that is the case, please know the the only text in that document that bears on the truth in this matter is contained in the text below or on my website, where it will remain.)

Back to the Top

Leroy Pyle

Leroy Pyle has done a great deal of good for the cause of gun rights. You can see his KeepAndBearArms.com archive here: http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Pyle. I hope when people see the mistakes he made against me that they will go easy on him. While I disagree with some of his positions including his choice to prematurely convict a gun dealer and side with the ATF in this gun confiscation, he fights on our side a heck of a lot more than most Democrats, and we should remember that. I am hoping he comes around to the full support of the Second Amendment as intended by the Founders, and I am not giving up on him, at all. Quite the contrary, I am pulling for him to make the shift to supporting the Real Second Amendment as opposed to the watered down version many people including gun owners have been willing to accept from their masters -- and I believe he can. 

Please read my assessment of this situation throughout this document and see if we can come up with ways to help him and other law enforcement officers understand that the Constitution, the Oath to defend the Constitution and Freedom come before following unConstitutional orders.

http://www.2ampd.net

Mr. Pyle has quite a nice archive going on his own website. If memory serves me correctly, he is the one that actually came up with the name of his organization, but we did discuss various names for the new Pro Gun Police Organization we agreed our community needed. 2ampd.net and the Second Amendment Police Department were, in part and in conjunction with several other liberty-focused people, a KABA project. Mr. Pyle even commandeered the email discussion list called KABACops, at my request/urging. (As of this writing, he is still holding our KABACops list hostage -- refusing to return the list and list controls over to KABA after repeated requests including a legal notice from our President.)

Mr. Pyle gave me his American Express card over the phone and in email, telling me to procure the domain name in the name of KeepAndBearArms.com -- as his show of commitment to working together. After thinking about it for a few days, I refused -- as a show of mine. After reading his accounts of how he'd had problems arise during his time with NRA and LEAA, I told him I wanted him to maintain full control of his organization -- and that we'd support him in whatever ways we could including publishing whatever he sent us so long as it fit our mission.

I have only ever refused to publish one thing that Mr. Pyle wrote: It's the GUNS...Stupid!.  He strongly supports the so-called "war on drugs." Along with many civil rights activists, I stand in direct opposition. The fact that the WOD is being used to violate more rights than any other civil matter in modern times coupled with the fact that a great many of our own members would have eaten him alive had I published it, I politely refused. The fact that our site is about guns and his article is much more a "down with drugs" type of message made it all the less sensible to divert people's attention away from our primary objective. Had it been more about guns and less about supporting the "war on drugs" because drugs are "bad" or "wrong," I'd have published it anyway. We've published quite a few things with which we personally disagreed. Disagreement is good... when it is civil and leads to reasoned debate.

Back to the Top

part 2

obvious bias attracting attention

Quoting My Accuser:  "An article on KABA attracted attention by its obvious exaggerations and bias."

This depends on how you define the word "bias." I can see this two ways. See bias.

Back to the Top

part 2

exaggerations

Quoting My Accuser:  "An article on KABA attracted attention by its obvious exaggerations and bias."

After having reviewed my news reporting to which Mr. Pyle has taken exception, here are the exaggerated statements I see that I made:

1)  "ALL"

In this paragraph:

"The Mesa police assisted in this raid, as well, earning themselves a demotion in the eyes of every gun owner in Arizona. Congratulations, officers. You helped assault a Good Guy and alienated a whole segment of the society you are supposed to protect and serve. Nice goin'."

For accuracy, the phrase "every gun owner" should say "many gun owners," and the phrase "a whole" should say "an important."

It should read:

"The Mesa police assisted in this raid, as well, earning themselves a demotion in the eyes of many gun owners in Arizona. Congratulations, officers. You helped assault a Good Guy and alienated an important segment of the society you are supposed to protect and serve. Nice goin'."

I completely agree with Mr. Pyle's analysis of the phrase "every gun owner." I commit to being attentive to the use of absolutes in future reporting unless I am speaking of absolute truths -- in which case I will defer to the Truth before "political correctness."

2) A different version of "ALL"

In this sentence:

"They strip people of their possessions and livelihood for insignificant, petty technical violations as a way of life. It's who they are."

It should read:

"The strip people of their possessions and livelihood for insignificant, petty technical violations as a way of life. As far as gun confiscations go, it's who the ATF is."

This statement and a couple of others were so absolute as to not allow for the POSSIBILITY of good things I have heard a couple of gun owners tell me the ATF does. For example, I had one anti-smoking person tell me he likes the BATF's hassling of tobacco outlets.

In fairness, if anyone wishes to write an article about the many good and worthy aspects of the federal, right-infringing entrapment professionals who confiscated Jerry Michel's guns over unconstitutional gun laws, feel free. We'll print it. Submit it here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNPAdd.asp.

That includes any of the agents who took his guns, too. I have said exactly what I think about them, so I will gladly let them offer their opinions of what I've said, and I will publish their rebuttal on our site as soon as I see that it has been Submitted. Here is my note to the agents who robbed Jerry Michel at gunpoint. Hopefully one of them reading our site will pass it along:

Mr. ATF Gun Confiscator, 

I will happily publish your version of what you did at Specialty Firearms. However, because so many agents in your organization have created and subsequently justified the image of you gun confiscators as liars through the repeated use of fake identities in your bid to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I will need to verify that you're not using one of the aliases you used to trick Mr. Michel before you stole his collection. Please provide the following along with your submission:

1. Your full name, address and telephone number along with your email address
   
   

2. Full names and phone numbers o 5 people you know personally, including your closest living blood relative, and please throw in their ID's as well.
   
   

3. The full list of all ATF employees including addresses and phone number in digital computer format so I can cross reference the names of your 5 personal friends -- to make sure you aren't giving me names of other agents who may be impersonating someone else on your behalf.
   
   Based on prior knowledge of the activities of your agency and its representatives, I consider these Requirements for your Submission to our Humor Section to be reasonable.

Back to the Top

part 2

inflammatory

Quoting My Accuser:

"...a very good example of how he reports news in an inflammatory manner."

Inflammatory:  Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
Dictionary.com

Mr. Pyle is correct in asserting that my news reporting was inflammatory. I was then and am now inflamed with the ATF in general and with and their actions in this case, and I habitually say what I think and how I feel most directly. And, while I obviously had and thus have Good reasons for speaking so creatively about our modern day redcoats, I am also quite aware of what some people consider to be the unproductive aspects of intentionally inflaming the poor, abused, misunderstood Waco Killers. I will share my observations in hopes you will see something new for yourself -- or at least that you'll understand where I come from when I am purposely being inflammatory. First, a quote from a guy I understand:

"A gentleman is someone who never gives offense unintentionally."
~~ OSCAR WILDE

Here are the things I see as Good about my use of hearty inflammation in this particular report:

1. It helps some people get ticked off, mad, angry, upset, outraged... inflamed.
   
   

2. Getting inflamed about a violation of our constitutional rights is often the first step -- for many people -- into getting busy.
   
   

3. A good number of people in the gun rights community do not understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Seeing/reading someone taking an overtly outraged stance has caused some of them to look closer at what I was so upset about. Those who look closely must analyze their beliefs about what is and is not acceptable from our government. Some of those folks will wake up and realize just how unacceptable the ATF's actions were. (See Second Amendment.)
   
   

4. And after having had the ATF get raked over the coals in 70's and early 80's for their abuses, and after having watched them cull 75% of the gun dealers out of the herd in just the last few years -- confiscating all gun records -- it is smart to assume they don't listen to reason or view the Second Amendment in its proper historical light and probably never will. While there may be individuals within ATF who support RKBA, as an organization, their track record show a lot of sewage rolling downhill from their ranks.

Here are the things I see, in part, as Unproductive about my use of hearty inflammation in this particular report:

1. To those who read between the lines and understand the dire constitutional violations being foisted upon our People by the ATF and other unconstitutional law enforcers, the facts can speak for themselves. The already (truly) converted don't need help getting ticked off when presented with facts.  (See Preaching to the Choir.)
   
   

2. Too many inflammations in the same article leave some people with the impression that I am a raving lunatic. (I have never denied being a raving lunatic, by the way. By our current society's dilapidated and government-indoctrinated standards, I am quite insane -- and enjoying it.)
   
   

3. To people who are just sticking their feet in the water in the gun rights issue to gain a foothold of understanding as to why We Who Care stand so strongly for the right to keep and bear arms, a first pass through an article with widespread use of inflammatory words and phrases can sometimes have an effect of turning them off or pushing them away. And we never get a second chance to make a first impression.

And, other than the very slight shifts in phraseology you will find in this message, I stand by the words I wrote as valid. Because the ATF and the Second Amendment are like oil and water, until we take the F out of ATF, they can go suck an egg. (That isn't what I really want to say, but I'm being a good sport about these hired Infringers -- in this section.)

Inflame Thy Oppressors to Draw Them Out

O' wandering brethren oppressed,
Thy heartland is so long besieged --
Brought to thine knees by dark masters,
And nary a soul seems egrieved.

Speak not of your foes like they serve thee.
Sing never a word in their praise.
Give unto the land all the boldness you can,
And Lead us to Liberty's Days.

My countrymen urge to be gentle
With servants who steal by the gun.
They scream to be kind and civil,
But tuck their young tails and run.

O' Brothers and Sisters of Freedom,
Listen not to these cowardly cries.
Until you shout down your oppressors,
Ne'er shall we see bluer skies.

~ Angel Shamaya, 15 December 2000

Recommended Reading:  

Murder By Gun Control  by L. Neil Smith

Back to the Top

part 2

bias, obvious bias, intended to prejudice

Quoting My Accuser:  "An article on KABA attracted attention by its obvious exaggerations and bias."

bias
v. tr. bi�ased or bi�assed, bi�as�ing or bi�as�sing, bi�as�es or bi�as�ses.

1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

First, I'll address the "unfair" aspect, which I believe is what Mr. Pyle was suggesting. Given my views on the Second Amendment and the clear contrast between my position and that exhibited by Mr. Pyle, I understand why he would view my report as unfair toward the ATF. To him, it was. 

But not to me. To me, I was gentle with government agents who are by very definition traitors.

The extent to which the ATF went over the allegations I believed at the time were held against him necessitated -- in my opinion -- harshness toward their activities. In fact, knowing everything I know about this case as of this writing, I feel the same level of ire I did before. (More, actually, because I have had to invest so much time in defense of the Second Amendment from people within our own community.)

Second, the "influence with prejudice" aspect, I confess. I am personally biased, and everything about our organization is most heavily biased -- in support and defense of the Second Amendment. Anyone who has read our Mission should know that by now.

And I believe it is safe to say that the people who are attracted to KeepAndBearArms.com are attracted here because we exhibit such socially-unacceptable "obvious bias." 

But the Truth still comes before our bias. If you doubt that, prove me wrong -- and that includes any anti-gun person who thinks there is something false printed on our website. After reading this entire document where I methodically address each of Mr. Pyle's grievances, if you are still convinced that I need some explainin', submit an editorial to our site, and show me the light. If you find a mistake or false statement on our site -- anywhere -- we will quickly correct it, as usual. (All we ask is that you don't hurl insults and false accusations all over the internet until you bring it to us in a civil manner in a rebuttal -- like a gentleman/woman.)

Just to make sure nobody around here is feeling misled by our "obvious bias," I will tell you what type of bias to expect from me personally, and from our many other writers in general. I will state this as a "we" and trust that our members will correct me in an article if I am wrong. Assume that the truth comes before any and all of these biases we so enjoy:

• We are biased for individual and societal Freedom, Liberty and Sovereignty as outlined in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
  
  
• We are biased for Americans and their rights, and we are biased against any and all oppressors of every fundamental right as outlined in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. 
  
  
• We are biased for the love of God (or whatever spiritual or natural source from which you draw your inspiration, including your holy Self if you're an atheist) and Country, Honor and Dignity, and we are heavily biased for Truth and Justice and the REAL American Way.
  
  
• We are biased in any honorable way that will serve to convert people in joining us in stopping the assaults taking place against gun owners with "laws" and by "law" enforcers -- including and most especially the ways that are politically incorrect and thus tweak peoples' gizzards and sets them straight as they come unraveled. (See Police.) 
  
  
• We are biased for innocent until proven guilty, and for INNOCENT CITIZENS DON'T GET TREATED AS GUILTY UNTIL THEY ARE PROVEN GUILTY.
  
  
• We are biased for stopping Blatant BATF Entrapments over unconstitutional gun laws.

I am biased for my gun dealers, whether they live in Kalamazoo Michigan, Palm Beach Florida, New York State or in my own back yard. They get screwed, I get screwed, and I'm refuse to sit around and invest my precious time and energy saying a bunch of niceties about the federal thugforce who: lied about Jerry Michel, stole his property, conspired to implicate him through sheer trickery on asinine technicalities, rushed in with amateurish elephant-sized holes in their case, treated him like a criminal when he isn't, stole things that weren't even on their phony unConstitutional "warrant" and congratulated themselves for a job well done while once again confiscating guns and gun records that hold the names and addresses of my countrymen on them.

I'm just not built to sweet talk about thugs with badges. Candy-coating tyranny makes about as much sense to me as putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Bull in a China shop I may be, but I must be effective, or I wouldn't have such a respected peer attacking me with so many flimsy arguments it takes me a week to effectively set them all straight and explain how deep his ruse truly goes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am fairly biased...

But the Truth still forever comes first.

Back to the Top

part 2

perfect, too perfect

Quoting My Accuser:

"KABA editor, Shamaya, had gone out of his way to create the perfect story."

I see no perfection in this ATF gun confiscation. 

In fact, I see quite the opposite: flaws. Lot of them. From the methodologies employed all the way down to the foundation of the unConstitutional sewage upon which the ATF's "case" floats, there are a good many imperfections, and some of them are grotesque.

Mr. Pyle's assertion is incorrect.

From the Lexington and Concord perspective, the "perfect" story would have turned out much differently.

Back to the Top

part 2

"storm trooper"

Quoting My Accuser:

"The BATF "storm troopers" said and did everything..."

This is one of the examples of a Diversionary Tactic I call Severity Lessening.

Mr. Pyle has taken exception over and over again in various internet forums with the "storm trooper" description I used in my report of the ATF gun confiscation he is defending. Unbeknownst to him, I have seen the video of the entry of the first several gun confiscators.

I don't know what definition of a "storm trooper" Mr. Pyle holds as valid. If "storm troopers" are the guys in Star Wars with shiny white armor suits, then no, they didn't look like storm troopers. (My first relationship with the term "storm troopers" did in fact come from that movie.) To me, a guy coming in with a fully automatic machine gun, others with arms drawn and aimed, bullet proof vests, backup guns exposed, thigh holsters, aiming their guns to kill anyone who doesn't yield to their order to submit, well, they are a'troopin for a storm. It's a term, to me, to describe an aggressor ready to kill if you don't submit, and they were, I assure you. For what? Was it justified? I say NO, and so does the Second Amendment. 

I got the term "storm trooper" in reference to this case from the description Mr. Michel gave me. His experience of having many armed and body-armored people pointing guns at him and tearing his place apart gave him the feeling of being "storm trooped," whatever that means. Were you in his shoes, you might feel the same way. 

I think the term is not only fair but accurate -- an opinion shared heartily by the man who was "legally" assaulted. I don't know if there is a legal definition of "storm trooper," but I did go have a look at Dictionary.com's definition, which states:

• A member of the Nazi militia noted for brutality and violence.
• One who resembles or behaves like a member of the Nazi militia.
• A member of a force of shock troops. (these troops did shock Mr. Michel quite thoroughly)

I didn't know that term would even be in a dictionary, but Dictionary.com is quite thorough. (I recommend its regular use for the improvement of your Vocabulary Muscle.) I also didn't know the Nazis called their better-developed version of our Rights Infringers "storm troopers," either. I learn something new every day.

But I sure can see why Mr. Pyle didn't like the term, and here we come to a touchy subject for Mr. Pyle and some of his associates. In his worldview, using the word "nazi" anywhere on the same page with the word "cop" is taboo -- even if you are relating a story where the actions of rogue officers directly resemble the actions of Hitler's finest. Don't do it in their presence unless you would like a hearty discussion about how you are a cop hater or a nincompoop. (Cops don't say nincompoop, and neither do I, but I am choosing to be polite while still making some very challenging points.)

But having now verified the actual dictionary definition of "storm trooper," I must say it does bear some direct resemblance to the truth of what I wrote. "Storm troopers" are known for brutality and violence, and in gun circles, to some extent, so is the ATF. If you don't believe me, ask the 80+ dead people who once lived in Waco, Texas but made a premature departure to the pearly gates because someone was alleged (in a search warrant affidavit) to have done something so onerous as to warrant murdering little children who weren't alleged to have done those things -- with, among other lethal methods, a deadly combination of CS gases and fire. (If memory serves me correctly, the Nazis used gas and fire to kill innocent people, as well, did they not? See above definition re: "behaves like a member of the Nazi militia" and repeat after me: WACO.)

Am I saying "all" ATF people are brutal and violent? Certainly not. For example, the support staff in ATF offices probably wield nothing more dangerous than a stapler and a hole puncher. Though they are the support structure for treason, they themselves are -- at least some of them -- decent people.

But some people with the ATF have punched holes in human beings who had never hurt anyone, and we consider that brutal and violent. The people within the ATF who behaved -- in the past -- in storm trooper-like ways were wearing what the people who stole Jerry Michel's property were wearing, so my phrase Mr. Pyle picked at was not only correct in the spirit in which it was passed on, quoted and intended, it is technically correct, as well.

I hope this satisfies Mr. Pyle's grievance regarding the term.

Back to the Top

part 2

everything

Quoting My Accuser:  "The BATF 'storm troopers' said and did everything that you have ever heard a government agency gone bad do, in spades and did not even deserve the slightest peep in the press."

Well, no. They didn't throw CS gas into his shop and make him choke to death and die a painful, violent death like the little children died in Waco. And they didn't shoot him multiple times, either. So, no, the BATF didn't do "everything that you have ever heard a government agency gone bad do".

I did not say or suggest that the BATF "said and did everything..."

Bear in mind that Mr. Pyle attempted to discredit me for, among other things, exaggerating. (For a touch of humor, see The Lighter Side of This Mess.)

Back to the Top

part 2

did not even deserve the slightest peep in the press

Quoting My Accuser:  "The BATF 'storm troopers' said and did everything that you have ever heard a government agency gone bad do, in spades and did not even deserve the slightest peep in the press."

I consider this phrase to be all of the following:

• an attempt to lessen the severity of the gun confiscation, to minimize the situation
  
  

• an attempt to make me out to be a bad person for drawing your attention to an ATF gun confiscation by using my writing skills effectively to assure that it made you as mad as it made me
  
  

• an indication of the "he had it coming to him" mentality
  
  

• an insult to the Founders and the many men who fought and died to preserve our freedom (including those who work for the ATF but are ignorant of the true meaning of the Second Amendment and thus work for an organization who consistently defiles it under the honorless, failed-at-Nuremburg guise of "just following orders." See "infringe".)

Mr. Pyle would have you believe that the gun confiscation was no big deal.  Sadly, he has also been successful at getting other gun owners to agree with his position.  (See Guilty Until Proven Innocent.)

Plus, I am the press, and I broke the story. Discriminating against me because I have original material not picked up by the Associated Press seems less than helpful to the cause of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Back to the Top

part 2

begged an investigation.

Quoting My Accuser:   

"The story was too perfect and begged an investigation."

Yes, it did beg an investigation. Before receiving Mr. Pyle's rebuttal we are now analyzing, I would say I had invested a good 60 hours engaged in various aspects of investigation, including the following:

• speaking with the gun dealer by phone (30 or 40 times or more) and in person (4 times so far)
  
  

• speaking with the gun dealer's attorney (5 or 7 times by phone)
  
  

• calling ATF's offices on two occasions
  
  

• speaking with a reporter at the Phoenix New Times (None of the other local rags even gave this "legal" assault a mention, which is probably good in that they, like Mr. Pyle, would probably have held Mr. Michel guilty until proven innocent.)
  
  

• going to to federal courthouse 5 times (I went once for first affidavit and 4 times for 2nd affidavit -- and the 2nd affidavit still wasn't there as of Dec. 6, so Mr. Michel hasn't been given the opportunity to know what ATF said to get the second warrant signed.)
  
  

• writing up now 4 reports (5 counting this monster) during which calls to Mr. Michel and Mr. Hardy have proven most helpful to verify information before publishing it
  
  

• investigating what was being said about Mr. Michel behind his back during the attack by Mr. Pyle and his associates -- and responding to some extent in attempts to damage control on Mr. Michel's behalf

During Mr. Pyle's investigation he never spoke with the dealer or his attorney before attacking me publicly in defense of ATF's gun confiscation -- and before he and his associates condemned the gun dealer as guilty until proven innocent. Why? Since our colleague is calling for an investigation, why hasn't he spoken with the accused?  (See Conclusion.)

Back to the Top

part 2

"interview"

Quoting My Accuser:  

"Angel wasn't there, of course, and had traveled to visit the store owner to conduct his "interview"."

Neither of us were there, of course, and I never said I was there. And I did "interview" Mr. Michel, in person and on the phone, so many times I've lost an actual count. Why Mr. Pyle never "interviewed" Mr. Michel before convicting him is still a curious and unanswered question.

This line was designed to throw doubt about the validity of what I told you. Mr. Pyle wants you to doubt what I told you for a reason. Do you know what that reason is? (See Conclusion.)

Back to the Top

part 2

Shamaya's e-mail address is

As if I don't get enough email (7,724 unread as of this writing to me plus at least 2,000 in various web-based forms I am frustrated I haven't found the time to read and reply to), Mr. Stark and Mr. Pyle sought to get people to send me some hate mail for "lying" to the community. It worked. I have received threats from four KeepAndBearArms.com members that if I didn't stop lying to them, they would cancel their memberships and ask for refunds. (Considering that I didn't lie, you can imagine how much fun that was.)

Back to the Top

part 2

Procedures for Tyranny

Quoting My Accuser:  

"To anyone familiar with procedure,..."

"All procedures were correctly followed and administered."

Why is a "pro Second Amendment" ex(?) police officer who swore an oath to defend the constitution and has the words "Second Amendment" in his organization's name legitimizing a federal gun confiscation with the word "procedure" when the "laws" said to have been violated by the gun dealer are repugnant to the constitution and are thus -- according to the U.S. Supreme Court -- null and void? (See Marbury vs. Madison.) 

This is another of many comments that point to a fundamental difference in the way Mr. Pyle and I view the Second Amendment. (See Second Amendment. See Contrast.)

I say one of two things is at play here:

1. Leroy Pyle either doesn't understand the Second Amendment as intended by the Founders, or
   
   

2. his first allegiance is to defending "law" enforcers, followed by his second allegiance, RKBA. (See Cops First, American Freedom Second.)
   
   

3. (At least 43 people have suggested a third, but I don't want to say it; it's too disturbing.)

There is no acceptable "procedure" that supports infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms; it simply "shall not be infringed." 

In a nation besieged with anti-gun legislation that directly contradicts the intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when the majority of the national law enforcement community gives First Priority to "administrative procedures were correctly followed," it is only a matter of time before war.

Back to the Top

part 2

Comparing me to Anti Gunners

Quoting My Accuser:  

"...like hearing the "news" report on a semi-auto revolver."

"...the anti-gun news reports in the newspapers..."

My analysis of the IRONY of these two statements is as follows:

• Mr. Pyle is the one taking the anti-Second Amendment position in this matter,
  
  

• I am the one taking the PRO-Second Amendment position,
  
  

• and he has attacked me so vigorously because he doesn't want people to see that what he subtly suggests about me is true about him, not me.  (See Cops First, American Freedom Second.)

(See The Lighter Side of This Mess.)

Back to the Top

part 2

"that he claimed was in his possession"

Quoting My Accuser:  "I asked Shamaya to produce the affidavit that he claimed was in his possession, but he explained that the store owner did not want to make that public until he prepared a response."

This is untrue.

I never "claimed to have possession" of Jerry Michel's affidavit in the report Mr. Pyle quotes -- or at any time before the report Mr. Pyle quotes. In fact, I claimed just the opposite -- at least twice in the same report from which Mr. Pyle quotes me -- that I did not have the affidavit.

That false statement by Mr. Pyle was used to turn people against me, costing me time and energy and possibly costing our "greedy" organization desperately needed money -- when Mr. Pyle had the truth in his possession, published on his own website.

Mr. Pyle erred egregiously in his zeal to support the ATF's actions -- to defend the gun confiscators.  See The Comparison Mistake.

Back to the Top

part 2

asked, repeatedly, over a period of time

Quoting My Accuser:  "I asked Shamaya to produce the affidavit that he claimed was in his possession, but he explained that the store owner did not want to make that public until he prepared a response. I asked, repeatedly, over a period of time to try to let him ease away from his fabrication."

This is also a false statement. 

Mr. Pyle never "asked, repeatedly, over a period of time" me for the affidavit. With "asking" comes respect and good intentions and a second party who receives your request -- and that didn't happen. By the time I realized he was wanting me to provide the affidavit, it was already apparent he was siding with the gun confiscators, so he wouldn't have gotten the affidavit anyway. If that isn't enough -- in your mind as the reader -- to invalidate the above false statement Mr. Pyle made, read the following:

First, if something was so important as to legitimize a negative (and fraudulent) report about me all over the internet, a phone call would been appropriate. But Mr. Pyle never picked up the phone to call me even though all of the following are true:

• He has my telephone number.
  
  

• He has called me several times in the past.
  
  

• He has been a featured writer of ours on this site since at least 5/16/2000.
  
  

• We had just spent time together at the fantastic Gun Right Policy Conference in October.
  
  

• He had called just a couple of weeks earlier to discuss the publication of his It's the GUNS...Stupid!. 

But my phone never rang when he was allegedly "asking repeatedly, over a period of time" for the affidavit.

Second, supposing he still suggests he "asked repeatedly, over a period of time" via email, I submit the following:

1)  Mr. Pyle did send me ONE request to see the affidavit, on November 8. If I saw it before, I honestly don't remember seeing it in the email flood. (Had I seen and understood the urgency of this message, I would have touched base with Jerry to make sure it was OK with him to send it to allies -- and I would have easily convinced him these gentlemen were on our side. I thought they were.) 

2)  The very next mention of the Jerry Michel raid I can find in any email communication from Mr. Pyle took place on Nov 18 when he was expressing his extreme distaste over my reporting complete with accusations much like we see in this message. In this message, his very next "asking," he said accused me, on a public domain email list, of the following:

"Using the articles that I uploaded to KABA to deny their anti-cop leanings..." November 18

"KABA is quick to jump on any excuse to demean law enforcement..." November 18

"...crying wolf..."

"...obvious bias against LEOs on the KABA website..."

3)  These sentiments do not denote what I consider to be "asking," that was exactly his second "asking" and wasn't sent to me but rather published to a public domain email list (still no phone call), and Mr. Pyle's tone -- had I even seen this firsthand -- would have left me no choice but to refuse to send the affidavit to him; he was defending the ATF in their absurd actions.

4)  I received his second "asking" as a forward from someone who joined his list to defend my name after he started bashing me and KeepAndBearArms.com on yet another internet discussion list.

ASK Mr. Pyle to send you a string of court-admissible (unaltered) emails to prove his claim of "ask[ing], repeatedly, over time".  He cannot.

Because it never happened. 

The fact that Leroy Pyle said he "asked, repeatedly, over a period of time" was self-destructive for these three reasons: 

1. his telephone records cannot show you a single phone call during the time period in question,
   
   

2. his archived internet discussion list archives do not have a record of such "askings",
   
   

3. and neither do his personal email files.

I find this level of fraudulent information being propagated about me to be nothing less than atrocious, for these reasons:

1. Mr. Pyle suggested I was withholding information to deceive people.
   
   

2. Mr. Pyle urged you strongly to buy into his ruse.
   
   

3. And I did no such thing.

Back to the Top

part 2

fabrication, outright lies

Mr. Leroy Pyle of the Second Amendment Police Department has accused me to thousands of people that I lied/fabricated. The scathing rebuttal he wrote about my report contains no fewer than 21 accusations of lying/fabricating.

But there wasn't a single "outright lie" or "fabrication" in my entire report. Not one.

I don't intentionally mislead people. And I would not be so stupid as to jeopardize my future credibility and the success of our organization as a cog in the Liberty Machine just to convince you of how little respect I have for the ATF. I just sent a letter to them telling them that to their face, for goodness sake. (A letter I sent them on Thanksgiving Day -- amidst the attacks and even threats from Mr. Pyle and/or his associates -- is archived on our site right here:  http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1609.) 

The concept of lying and/or fabricating suggest willful or intentional misleading or deception. When one of several supporters emailed me that Leroy Pyle was calling me a liar, I was shocked that he had the nerve to make such absurd accusations again.  I still am.  (He has done this before.)  

I believe the foundation of Mr. Pyle's false accusations of lying and fabricating rest in The Comparison Mistake. 

But I believe the Inspiration for him to make those false accusations is far more important than the mechanism by which he made his bid to discredit me. (See Conclusion.)

If this laborious response to Mr. Pyle's false accusations of lying and fabricating doesn't solve the mystery, you didn't read it all, or somebody needs to show me. I've gone through 200+ hours -- with a fine toothed comb, every word I wrote -- and based it on the information I had at my disposal at the time I wrote it, and I still don't see one lie. I've asked several people I trust the most to look this all over and tell me I lied, and they can't.

I asked the people I trust the most to be fair and impartial -- and rip me a new one if I deserved it.  Here is just a sample of what came back to me:

Melissa

The Melissa Mr. Pyle was quoting is quite a liberty advocate. She joined his list -- on her own volition, without my asking -- after he began making false statements about me and KeepAndBearArms.com on another list. She attempted to right the false accusations and clear my name and was met with some interesting responses. For example:

Trying to Discuss the "Nazi" Comparison

When Melissa was young, family members described horrifying firsthand experiences under the Nazi regime. She tried to explain her viewpoint relating some police activities to the police activities made famous under Adolf Hitler. She was respectful and dispassionate. Mr. Horn's response to her sharing her early developmental sensitivity to brutal police activities was precisely as follows:

Joe Horn:  I recall that you were talking about your reasons and qualifications re: 2A activism and you mentioned the holocaust affected you at an early age. I would like you to define what you mean by the holocaust and then tell me how it affected you.

Melissa:  I was referring to the annihilation of millions of people in Nazi-controlled Europe... I learned what happened when I was 8, complete with graphic stories and movies and meeting survivors... it was horrible, and I lived in fear of my life for many years after that. I lived in fear because I thought any day, the Nazis would be smashing down my door.

Joe Horn:  You poor baby, fear is such a terrible thing to endure. All us big nasty soldiers must have had a picnic in our wars. Is it nazi soldiers that our widdle girl fears, or is it just American soldiers, or worse, evil American cops. Your whining is pathetic.

Here are the 10 favorite websites of the woman Mr. Pyle was quoting and defaming: 

Quoting My Accuser:  "Granted, there are some who prefer to believe the "news" :-)."

I consider this statement to be all of the following:

• an attempt to make anyone who believes the validity and accuracy of my reporting feel stupid for believing me
  
  
• another revelation of Mr. Pyle's need to cast doubt on my reporting as a subterfuge for his semi-Second Amendment and Cops First, American Freedom Second leanings
  
  
• an attempt to portray his vicious attack as somehow humorous and light by providing the people he sought to turn against me with a smiley face  :-)

Back to the Top

part 2

[email protected] 

In my personal experience and that of two other very strong patriotic activists, bringing up the issue of cops breaking their oaths to defend the Constitution by enforcing infringing gun laws -- on the [email protected] list -- is a good way to get attacked. (See Cops First, American Freedom Second.)

Back to the Top

part 2

faxed it around

Quoting My Accuser:

"Shamaya had faxed it around, so a copy came my way."

The "faxed it around" could easily leave people with the impression that I was sending Mr. Michel's affidavit to anybody who asked -- everybody but you. Such is not the case. 

I faxed the affidavit to three people: Neal Knox, Dave T. Hardy, and John Arbon of CPHV.com. 

Mr. Pyle used that phrase in attempt to suggest to you the following:

• that I was withholding information from him with dishonorable intentions

• and that I was withholding information from you with dishonorable intentions

Nothing could be further from the truth.

(See The "Withholding Information" Accusation.)

Back to the Top

part 2

a copy came my way

Quoting My Accuser:

" Shamaya had faxed it around, so a copy came my way."

Mr. Pyle's "so a copy came my way" is most interesting jockeying for position. I sent it over to John, John to Joe Horn, Leroy's right hand man.

John faxed it to Mr. Horn thinking he was on our side; he was wrong, and I'm sure he regrets aiding and abetting people who are attempting to justify and legitimize a federal gun confiscation under circumstances with which he is very familiar -- attacking his friend in the process. (John has been friends with Mr. Michel nearly four years.)

Back to the Top

part 2

The "Withholding Information" Accusation

Mr. Pyle has tried to paint me like a "withholder of information" because I took Mr. Michel's attorney's advice  and the advice of Neal Knox and Larry Pratt and didn't publish the warrant or affidavit after I did receive it. Dave T. Hardy's reasons for not printing the affidavit, and the gun dealer's desire to not have false information spread around the internet that would be used against him in the court of public opinion were enough for me to conclude that I would not publish it. 

After seeing how appalled Mr. Michel was by what was alleged on that document, and after he spoke with Dave Hardy about the (lack of) sensibility in publishing something that would get used against him in the court of public opinion even though, to him, it wasn't true, I offered the gun dealer an agreement to get his permission to send it to specific people who might help in the case. I even called Mr. Michel to get permission to send it to Neal Knox. 

(I left the radio business because I got tired of being around news vampires who trashed people for principle-less reasons to climb some ugly ladder. And I take the defense of our dwindling number of gun dealers more seriously than almost anything but truth and honor, especially under the circumstances in which this "raid" was conducted.)

And it turns out that the leaders whose advice I heeded were correct, though in an unexpected way; Mr. Pyle and his associates convicted Jerry Michel in their court of public opinion, turning his own community against him, smearing him by flatly stating that unproven allegations are factual realities and attacking me for accurately telling them they are incorrect to do so at this juncture. And other "pro Second Amendment" people have jumped on that bandwagon, it seems, based on a report from Mr. Pyle that is partially disproved on his own website, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

It is time for this matter to be settled in a court of "law," where facts of the case yet unknown to but a few will close this matter with finality. I have not and will not present certain facts in this case on the internet -- at the request/suggestion of Mr. Michel, his attorney, and two other highly respected leaders in the gun rights community. Anyone who suggests that because I didn't print the affidavit after I received it I am a "withholder of information" is correct. And I would do the same thing for you if you were in Mr. Michel's shoes, too, even if "pro Second Amendment" cops were badgering me to show your hand to the ATF.

The saddest part about this mess is that I DO have additional information to share with you about the Jerry Michel case, but I'm having to invest time disproving false accusations hurled by one of our own who is busy attacking him and me in defense of traitors.

Back to the Top

part 2

The "Comparison" Mistake

Mr. Pyle has asked you to expect me to do the impossible -- and to convict me of the harsh things he has said about me based on my not having the ability to do so. 

At least six (6) times in his scathing rebuttal, Mr. Pyle asks you in one way or another to compare my first report with the affidavit he published (against the gun dealer's wishes and the advice of his attorney) and draw a conclusion that I lied through my teeth.

Quoting My Accuser:

1. "comparing his "news" with the affidavit."
   
   

2. "If you compare his "news" to the affidavit, it is clear that he lied."
   
   
   (This is a true statement to the letter and would certainly be useful in discrediting me -- if I had the affidavit, had seen the affidavit, or if I had even heard what was on the affidavit when I wrote my first report on the gun confiscation Mr. Pyle is defending and justifying.)
   
   

3. "compare the "story" to the affidavit"
   
   

4. "A BIG TIME Shamaya lie. Read the affidavit."
   
   

5. "obvious Shamaya lie, to anyone who read the affidavit"
   
   

6. "comparison of the Shamaya "news" and the affidavit"
   

Following is a quote from the report Mr. Pyle has used in his attempt to discredit me which plainly states that I didn't have the document Mr. Pyle tells you I should have used as a basis for my reporting. (Mr. Pyle published the report that contains this quote on his own website. If he has removed it, click here.)

Please bear in mind that I said the following before Mr. Michel and Mr. Hardy said not to do it: 

"We will procure the search warrant affidavit as soon as possible and post it on KeepAndBearArms.com."

Meanwhile, I ask you:  How was I supposed to print something from an affidavit when I didn't have it in my possession, had never even seen it, and had never heard from anyone what the ATF had written on it?  

I may be insightful from time to time, and I may occasionally make an accurate prediction -- but I never professed to be clairvoyant.

Back to the Top

part 2

Retraction & Diversion

Quoting My Accuser:

"This has nothing to do with the store owner, or the validity of the affidavit. I hope that the store owner will take advantage of every legal device afforded him."

"...nothing to do with the store owner..."

The "nothing to do with the store owner, or the validity of the affidavit" phrase is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that exactly the opposite is true. That is ALL this matter is about: the illegitimate infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. My accuser's attempt to centralize the gun community's focus upon "procedures" is little more than an excuse he uses to avoid having to call upon police officers to honor their oaths to the Constitution.

"I hope that the store owner..."

After Mr. Pyle's support of the ATF and a gun confiscation, his guilty until proven innocent attitude, and his putting Cops First, American Freedom Second had been exposed, he came back out and said something supportive of the gun dealer. Before, Mr. Pyle said the following, exactly as stated on our website:

"I am not familiar with Jerry's case other than what Shamaya has written and the affidavit contents, and have no reason to contact him or his attorney...I couldn't care less about the outcome of the criminal proceedings."

The sentence he uttered immediately after that one I neglected to print last time: 

"Heaven knows, crooks are a dime a dozen."

In reference to a man who still has not been charged.

Mr. Pyle also never intervened while his associates were saying Jerry was guilty of the crimes for which he has yet to be charged, nor did he step in and put an end to the slanderous things they said against him. He has also placed blame on Mr. Michel in this very rebuttal to which I am now responding.  

Why did Mr. Pyle toss out a "hopeful" word about the man he was convicting?

1. After I reported exact quotes on what he and his friends said about the innocent-until-proven-guilty gun dealer, he realized he'd better come up with something that shows support, lest he be painted as the "Cops First, American Freedom Second" person he has shown himself to be.
   
   

2. He offered a decoy in hopes of receiving agreement from more than just the police state apologists in the gun community.
   
   

3. So people would keep listening to him as he trashed this gun dealer in the very same libelous smear.

Back to the Top

part 2

fear mongering, hateful rhetoric

Quoting My Accuser:    

"Melissa, you seem to be desperate in your attempts to deny the fear mongering and hateful rhetoric contained in Shamaya�s news items."

I consider Mr. Pyle's statement to be all of the following:

• an attempt to suggest that there is no reason for some good, healthy, natural-instinct quality fear
  
  

• an attempt to suggest that you shouldn't say unkind things about traitors  (See Inflammatory.)
  
  

• an attempt to bolster an exaggeration claim against me
  
  

• a revealing of his own desperation (as projected on Sweet Melissa, wife of Neal) to protect the ugly fact that a 20-year Second Amendment fighter puts people who infringe on the Second Amendment above the Second Amendment itself

If Mr. Pyle fully understood the Second Amendment, he wouldn't be so quick to condemn a patriot's flaming verbal volleys aimed at these gun confiscators. And here is the biggie:

My outrage and ire pushed his button so good and hard in an area he doesn't want to deal with that he had to lash out in order to bring his issue to the surface for resolution.

I am curious as to why telling people about a horrendous ATF gun confiscation that stripped a man of 274 guns valued at over $300,000 and my being nasty about these hired federal gun confiscators is considered "hateful rhetoric" -- from the perspective of someone who has professed for so long to be a strident supporter of the Second Amendment. That is precisely why I published eight questions for 2ampd: I would like to understand the answers to those questions from Mr. Pyle's perspective to gain some clarity about how he can both support infringing federal gun confiscations on "legal" (unconstitutional) technicalities while also claiming to support the Second Amendment.

Guns are our last hope for keeping from being utterly enslaved as a nation. The ATF is among the biggest threats to gun dealers (our sources for guns) based on their "sting" operations and treating minute technical infractions of unconstitutional "laws" as though they were heinous crimes of violence. When they break laws (according to Dave T. Hardy) to assault and rob an innocent (until proven guilty and who maintains his innocence of all charges) man, would Mr. Pyle and his team have me flatly support their "just following orders" as they seem to? Sorry. No can do. I'm just not built to sweet talk gun confiscations or those who conduct them, and a traitor with a badge is still a traitor. We just see it differently; that's all.  (See Emotions.)

What About Fear?

And as far as "fear mongering," it's not like gun dealers and gun owners shouldn't have a certain level of fear with what is going on -- with what the ATF is systematically doing. The ATF and the liberal media bragged in "reports" last week about weeding out 74% of America's gun dealers since the Brady Law was passed. Can LEO's fully understand what we learned from Lexington and Concord?

Call me a "fear mongerer," and call my ire toward federal gun confiscators "hateful rhetoric" if it paints your wagon; I just call 'em like I see 'em. I don't respect the ATF's gun and gun record confiscation methodologies or tactics -- or the "principles" upon which they thrive. If Mr. Pyle thinks lowly of me for saying that strongly, I can accept that. I don't understand it, and I certainly don't like it, but I can accept it. Here is more red meat for Mr. Pyle:

1. Sugar-coating tyranny makes about as much sense as putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. 
   
   

2. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms needs to remove the "Firearms" from its name and get out of the Right Infringing business.
   
   

3. And until we get the "Firearms" out of their name, when they abuse my gun dealers  or gun owning compatriots, I will call them what they are: traitors.

Mr. Pyle behaves with his "hateful rhetoric" accusation -- hurled not only at me but at Aaron Zelman, as well -- as if hating tyrants and those who do their bidding is a bad thing. Mr. Pyle doesn't understand the difference between Hatred and Righteous Rage. While I rarely actually say "I hate ___," I can certainly say I am mad as all hell about ATF confiscating guns after an 8 months sting operation when all they really needed to so was sit Jerry down and spell it out to him where they were about to actually go so far as to investigate him. They didn't give him a WARNING, no matter how you read his affidavit -- and the laws themselves deserve NO RESPECT from an American.

A man I now consider a close friend and a very trusted Advisor who served in Vietnam and was discharged as a Master Gunnery Sergeant and who also worked 6 years on Texas Highway Patrol and 4 years as a Texas Ranger in law enforcement told me, 

"If I was a cop in Mr. Michel's jurisdiction and I was aware that he was potentially doing something that could get him in trouble, I would have looked him in the eye and told him if he did it one more time he was going to jail. I would have given him a warning to alert him to any said violations, and I would have pushed him hard to make sure he understood the severity of the situation. This was not handled appropriately. My job is to uphold the law in relationship to its Constitutionality, therefore, I would have approached him with dignity and respect for my badge, my office, and my position." 

This friend of mine has a lot of friends who are cops, some of whom Mr. Pyle probably knows. He has this attitude -- shared by many good cops -- because he puts American Freedom and the Right to Keep And Bear Arms above the enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws. We need more men like him from former and current law enforcement to stand up for the Constitution and the REAL Second Amendment.

We need people willing to get angry and to express their anger and their outrage about gun rights infringements vocally and en masse.

And look at all the good that came out of my expressing myself so honestly and forthrightly. We got to expose a weakness within our own community fully, and now we get to heal it. I hope Mr. Pyle takes this opportunity to revisit his beliefs about what the Second Amendment really means.

Back to the Top

part 2

Depend on the Truth

Quoting My Accuser:  

"We all depend on our own personal biases and life experiences to make decisions on these things."

Yes, we do. And that includes a longtime law enforcement officer who still has his foot in the squad car trying to promote a watered down version of the Second Amendment, too. I say: 

Second Amendment Lite is a short road to tyranny, and we need ex LEO's to stand against gun confiscations, not for them.

I ask our esteemed colleague to consider this:

Rather than depending upon on your "own personal biases and life experiences" with law enforcement, please Depend on the Truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment -- and call on your brothers in law enforcement to uphold their oaths to the Constitution. 

You can do it, and you will get so much support from gun owners it'll be worth every bit of effort it requires. 

There IS a way to create safety for police officers to keep their oaths, period. The belief that they'll all get fired is hogwash if enough of them stand up for their rights to keep their oaths. Get rid of the belief called "no way" and replace it with a commitment called "right now."

And if enough cops get vocal about their right to keep their oaths, we can turn this boat around.

Police officers not only have a right to keep their oaths, they swore they would keep their oaths, and they must do so or they are illegitimate rogues by definition. They've been in the middle area too long, and it's time to come back home to the Constitution. You are the man for the job, Leroy. We can figure this thing out. But you gotta let us blaze our cannons when the redcoats come callin'. Especially the federales.

Back to the Top

part 2

The "title" Attack

Quoting My Accuser:

"Let me point out what I consider to be biased reporting and lies. This is just me and Joe and Bruce and cops, so take it for what it is worth:"

"The title sets the tone, don�t you think? A lengthy investigation took place where the dealer is alleged to have committed numerous violations over a period of time. Those reports were reviewed by a prosecuting attorney, an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy, and the warrant was served. All procedures were correctly followed and administered. Remember, there are people who violate the laws."

I know I'm not the only one who reads those lines and thinks, "this guy is for gun owners? Why is he not only defending gun confiscations, but explaining how legitimate this one was when the dealer hasn't even been charged yet, and using that word "procedure" again?"

Replaying the Title:

ATF Rips Off Another Gun Dealer in Arizona
Confiscates 274 guns and 3,000 Form 4473's
Without making an official arrest or even filing charges

The title is accurate, and I stand by those words and will continue to do so. Mr. Jerry Michel was ripped off. They took guns that aren't even required to have serial numbers because they existed before the time where serial numbers were required: antiques. They took black powder rifles, too. (and 3,000 Form 4473's) 

Are we to believe Mr. Michel was fueling the black market in muskets?

Even if I agreed that the ATF has a "right" to confiscate guns, the fact that they took muskets in itself makes the title accurate. But I don't recognize the ATF's "right" to do any such thing, even if every unAmerican, constitution-killing judge in the land said they did.

The "title attack" is is a very good tactic if you want to make people doubt the veracity of every single thing said in the writing. Look at what has been done to John Lott with his accurate title:  "More Guns, Less Crime."

Why is a longtime Second Amendment advocate reminding us -- by drawing attention to the actual words themselves -- that he supports the confiscation of private gun-purchase records of 3,000 of our countrymen?

I hope it isn't for these reasons:

1. to make people think this is acceptable
   
   

2. to numb people to the reality of the increased pre-confiscation potential now held by the Waco Killers

Back to the Top

part 2

a prosecuting attorney

Quoting My Accuser:

"Let me point out what I consider to be biased reporting and lies. This is just me and Joe and Bruce and cops, so take it for what it is worth:"

"The title sets the tone, don�t you think? A lengthy investigation took place where the dealer is alleged to have committed numerous violations over a period of time. Those reports were reviewed by a prosecuting attorney, an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy, and the warrant was served. All procedures were correctly followed and administered. Remember, there are people who violate the laws."

The name "prosecuting attorney" scares the Hell out of me when we're talking about unConstitutional gun law prosecutions. Here we have a guy whose job is to prove that a gun dealer broke some "law" that is repugnant to our constitution and thus null and void, and the last thing on his mind is the Second Amendment. He is paid to prosecute. In this case, he's paid to persecute gun dealers with "laws" that would make the third President of our nation, Thomas Jefferson, spit blood.

And Mr. Pyle asks you to trust the intentions and loyalties of such a person while simultaneously disregarding much of what I said, starting with my accurate title.

Back to the Top

part 2

prepared and presented to a judge

Quoting My Accuser:

"Let me point out what I consider to be biased reporting and lies. This is just me and Joe and Bruce and cops, so take it for what it is worth:"

" The title sets the tone, don�t you think? A lengthy investigation took place where the dealer is alleged to have committed numerous violations over a period of time. Those reports were reviewed by a prosecuting attorney, an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy, and the warrant was served. All procedures were correctly followed and administered. Remember, there are people who violate the laws."

Dave T. Hardy, Jerry Michel's attorney in this case, relayed to me in plain language how easy it is to get a judge to sign a search warrant. Here is what he said to me:

"The U.S. Magistrate's position is a coveted position because it is so cushy. Compared to other judges, police officers, and even legislators and most attorneys, they don't have much work to do. This fact gives them the time to review cases and affidavits closely, but they usually just grab a pen and sign it.

I really like Dave.  He talks straight.  We're going to get along well.

I like another gentleman with whom many are familiar, and for the very same reason: Honesty:

"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one, which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ...And their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."  ~~ Thomas Jefferson

Back to the Top

part 2

approved the legitimacy

Quoting My Accuser:

"Let me point out what I consider to be biased reporting and lies. This is just me and Joe and Bruce and cops, so take it for what it is worth:"

"The title sets the tone, don�t you think? A lengthy investigation took place where the dealer is alleged to have committed numerous violations over a period of time. Those reports were reviewed by a prosecuting attorney, an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy, and the warrant was served. All procedures were correctly followed and administered. Remember, there are people who violate the laws."

The legitimacy of an affidavit ordering a gun confiscation cannot be tested without these documents as the arbiters: 

• United States Constitution

• Bill of Rights

Therefore:

1. The judge did not "approve the legitimacy" of this gun confiscation,
   
   

2. and Mr. Pyle's assertion is false.

I am concerned that this false assertion may have been believed by the people who read it. Here is why:

1. People in law enforcement consistently believe in, support and act on this very same false assertion, and
   
   

2. It is false but people believed it anyway -- rather than simply thinking it through.

There is only one Second Amendment, and it means exactly what it says.

Back to the Top

part 2

ATF as Good Guys in This Raid

Quoting My Accuser:  

"I am surprised you don�t see the bias in the title, itself, since it would be just as easy to speculate that the ATF was going out of their way to avoid violating the suspect�s rights by studying the evidence further prior to an arrest."

When it is suggested by members of our own community to assume Liberty's Transgressors to be innocent while we assume our brethren to be guilty, My Friends, we'd best get busy.

(See The Lighter Side of This Mess.)

Back to the Top

part 2

knows nothing of it

Quoting My Accuser:  

"I am surprised you don�t see the bias in the title, itself, since it would be just as easy to speculate that the ATF was going out of their way to avoid violating the suspect�s rights by studying the evidence further prior to an arrest. This is a common procedure, but Shamaya knows nothing of it..."

All I need to know to interpret the actions of federal gun confiscators under these circumstances is this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (See Marbury vs. Madison.)

I also have information relating to this case that comes from one of the smartest attorneys on our side telling me "I know exactly how we are going to win this case."

What else do I need to know?  

More Truth for Mr. Pyle to either fight, ponder or simply accept:

Any law enforcement officer who disobeys his oath to the Constitution and enforces unConstitutional gun laws is -- in so doing -- a bane on our society. 

In the words of the immortal Percy Bysshe Shelly,

Obedience
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth
Makes slaves of men.

[bane: A cause of death, destruction, or ruin]

To prove the messenger wrong, you must first contemplate the message.

Back to the Top

part 2

could care less

Quoting My Accuser:

"This is a common procedure, but Shamaya knows nothing of it, and could care less as long as his news gets your attention:"

Anyone who tells you I don't care about each and every fundamental aspect of what it will take to get our nation back on its feet again has some ulterior motive (or several), and should be regarded with caution -- and treated with calculating and reasoned inquisition.

But to assert that I "couldn't care less" about the ATF's unconstitutional gun stealing procedures is also an inaccurate statement. I care very much to see it come to an end as soon as possible.

Back to the Top

part 2

The "windbreaker" Apology

Quoting My Accuser:  "That�s a lie. They wore windbreakers"

FALSE STATEMENT

To dispense with the accuracy of Mr. Pyle's statement, I submit the following for your consideration:

1)  Mr. Pyle doesn't know what the people who came and stole Jerry Michel's 274 guns were wearing; he was not there.

2)  Mr. Pyle hasn't seen the video; I have. So has John Arbon, who states, 

"They were certainly wearing more than windbreakers."

Who shall we believe? Someone who was there, or someone who wasn't?  (Or is Mr. Pyle getting his information from the ATF?)

I saw the video myself. Here is what may prove helpful in court, barring unforeseens, of the "raid":

The men who came into his business were wearing bullet proof vests, a couple had thigh holsters with backup guns, and at least one of them was carrying -- in the most menacing way you can -- a fully automatic HK-MP5. (That is the gun we saw pointed at Elian Gonzalez while he was crying and screaming.  Mr. Pyle stood up just after the Elian raid and defended Janet Reno's actions down in Miami.)

Windbreakers are for ball games. 

HK-MP5's and bullet proof vests are for urban warfare.

(See other failed Tactics of Discrediting me.)

Back to the Top

part 2

Minimizing by Number

Mr. Pyle has been a busy would-be Character Assassin these last weeks. I don't know how many emails I've had forwarded to me containing various insults, distortions and outright libel, but it has been many.

One of the tactics he has taken to attempt to discredit me involves the number of people who were present at the Gun Stealing Festival at Specialty Firearms. He has even inspired other people to write me hateful notes calling me a liar. While I find it unfortunate that Mr. Pyle is attempting to lessen the impact of numerous armed people coming after one lone gun dealer who hasn't hurt anyone, to assuage his rumblings that I fabricated the number "30" (I didn't.), I offer the following information:

I quoted the gun dealer.

I got the number "30" from Jerry Michel, who said during our first interview that his best count was possibly over 30. I rounded down. 

I confirmed with the eyewitness.

The closest corroboration to that number has come from John Arbon, who was there when I spoke with Jerry the first time. When Jerry said he counted at least 30 and I asked John if that seemed accurate to him based on what he saw, he said, (and I just confirmed this quote with him):

"I didn't count them, but I wouldn't doubt it. There were a lot of law enforcement guys there from various organizations for just one gun dealer." 

John Arbon also told me (recently) that there were at least 16 that he saw. And that was just in the front part of the store and outside; he didn't have the opportunity to go into the back room. 

"30 would not be stretching it," he told me. 

And he arrived much later than when Jerry said he counted 30 agents. 

I reported both numbers.

I also published -- in the same report Mr. Pyle quotes -- that John Arbon definitely saw at least 16 people. (If we all agree that I should be crucified at high noon because we are quibbling over how many agents came to ruin one man's life when I presented both numbers and quoted the people present, I accept the fact that you disregard a portion of the very report being used to smear me.) Go read my first report as published on Mr. Pyle's site, and see both numbers there for yourself. I used the larger number as the primary one I reported because I got it from the man who was the target of this gun confiscation I am being smeared in defense of.

I have also seen a couple of very petty emails from people who claim to know Jerry and to doubt that there were 30 people there due to the size of his store, but the whole "number issue" quibble, I say, is nothing more than a divisive diversionary tactic to move away from the fundamental issues at hand: ATF gun confiscations.

Where is the "fabrication"?  I can't quite see it.

See Severity Lessening.

Back to the Top

part 2

recommend that he kick Jerry�s rear

Quoting My Accuser:

"I, too, feel sorry for Jerry�s ailing friend, and recommend that he kick Jerry�s rear, warrant or not!"

So now we know that if you get assaulted by the ATF and have your guns confiscated, if you have possession of one of your friends' guns when the federal gun confiscators come for your collection, Mr. Pyle will urge your friend to kick your rear -- based on what the ATF writes on a piece of paper, so long as it looks like "proper procedure."

Mr. Pyle's Implications:

1. The ATF-assaulted gun dealer is guilty until proven innocent
   
   

2. because it's his fault all these infringements on his Second Amendment RIGHT happened,
   
   

3. his friends should turn against him,
   
   

4. and so should you.

Shall we all hail the patriotism and decency of The Second Amendment Police Department?

Back to the Top

part 2

Don't Tell People The Truth?

Quoting My Accuser:

"No one can deny that the ailing friend was intended to inject emotion. Would you?"

That was how I wrote Mr. Michel's account when I took notes, and the word "ailing" was superfluous other than to offer a reason as to why Mr. Michel would be holding someone else's guns. Mr. Michel has been helping his mother in her later years with the profits from his gun store, too. She is also ailing. I represent a true depiction of a nasty situation and Mr. Pyle seeks to make swiss chess of my so doing as if it is somehow wrong to FEEL for a man who just got his entire life ripped out from under him by the Second Amendment Infringers Mr. Pyle is defending -- while trashing me with accusations aplenty that are patently untrue.

To find out just how absurd the "intended to inject emotion" phrase is, see Emotion.

Back to the Top

part 2

They didn�t steal? But it's all gone...

Quoting My Accuser:

"They didn�t steal the evidence."

See Evidence. Go look up the definition of the word "steal." 

Yes, they did.  (I have a feeling this report is one more Great Divider of the gun community into two groups: The Jefferson Second Amendment Group, and The King George Second Amendment Group. I stand with the Founders.)

I also believe we need to replace the term JBT's (Jack Booted Thugs) with JFO's (Just Following Orders). The only reason I don't like that one better is that it too closely resembles Aaron Zelman and Richard Steven's group. (You too, Ken.)

Back to the Top

part 2

evidence

Mr. Pyle referred to Mr. Michel's stolen property many times as "evidence." He told the world in his scathing attack on my character all of the following about this federal gun confiscation:

"They didn�t steal the evidence."

"The affidavit clearly defines certain evidence..."

"The affidavit was intended to obtain evidence..."

Etc. ad nauseum.

What Mr. Pyle calls "evidence" is what Mr. Michel calls his property, his mother's medicine, and his retirement. We've got a Grand Canyon between us on this issue; on my side is the Second Amendment, and on his side are the Infringers.

He rests his case on "procedures" that are administered by people whose webs put our country's future into places that would make Ben Franklin keel over with a heart attack.

I rest mine on this:

If we could take this case back and have it be tried by men of sterner stuff than the cowards running around our country these days, the Evidentiary hearings run by our Founding Fathers based on the highest law in the land would not only exonerate Jerry Michel, they'd be having a good old fashioned hanging of 16-30 oath-breaking order followers -- for treason.

Back to the Top

part 2

youthful naivet�

Quoting My Accuser:

"And as further evidence of Shamaya�s youthful naivet�..."

Mr. Pyle has called me "kiddo" a number of times alongside rude insults for my stance on the Second Amendment, as have a couple of his associates -- and they've used a few other assorted age-based slaps in the face, as well.

People who have an age advantage over someone they perceive as an adversary sometimes resort to the "discredit by age" tactic. Walter Mondale tried it on Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. tried it on Bill Clinton, and the smarter man won that game both times.

If Leroy Pyle's extra 20 or so years he has on me are expressions of where my patriotic priorities will be when I reach his age, I don't want to get that old.

And if he continues to boisterously support, defend and justify the federal gun confiscations conducted by the Waco Killers while simultaneously attacking uncharged and untried gun dealers who maintain their innocence, he is wise to consider me an adversary.

There is one Second Amendment, and I am using my youth to defend it. You'd think someone committed to Freedom would appreciate the fine work I've done in this last year -- and that I have the energy to do it.

And I suppose he is right about my naivet�: 

The name of his organization I helped launch and promote is called "The Second Amendment Police Department," and I was naive enough to believe the name was legitimate.

Back to the Top

part 2

express some surprise

Quoting My Accuser:

Shamaya writes: "When I called ATF today to find out if it is standard operating procedure to want only damage collector's items when they are stealing them, Larry X said..."

"And as further evidence of Shamaya�s youthful naivet�, he goes on to express some surprise when the person on the other end of the phone wanted to know who the blazes was calling. I mean Melissa, read what he said to the guy over the phone. Wouldn�t any sane person expect to be considered a nut with such a question?"

Mr. Pyle interpreted that piece of dialogue much like he did the rest of it: from his squad car.

Go back and read my first report knowing that I wasn't surprised at all; I was delighted.

Most people are scared of these gun confiscators; I find them rather amusing.

Regarding my accuser's ponder over my sanity, I only have this to say:

"In an insane society, a sane man must appear insane."

And would you rather have this "nut" be for Freedom, or against it?

Back to the Top

part 2

anyone with half a brain

"...and anyone with half a brain can read page 4 at http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer and see that a videotape is clearly included."

We encourage Mr. Pyle to use the other half, too, and read below.

videotape is clearly included

Quoting My Accuser:

"Another Shamaya lie. The affidavit clearly defines certain evidence, and anyone with half a brain can read page 4 at http://www.2ampd.net/azdealer and see that a videotape is clearly included."

Here is ALL of the text on Page 4 of the affidavit:

1. Indicia of custody, care and control of the premise.

2. Records of contract with individuals for the purpose of buying, selling, trading, and shipping or otherwise disposing of firearms.

3. Any records pertaining to the purchase, acquisition, transfer or sale of firearms.

4. Any photographs of the above described items.

What I said is accurate: 

"I can't seem to locate the words "video tape" anywhere on the warrant."  

And I can't, because it's not there. Where is the "lie"?

See Insulting Your Intelligence.

Back to the Top

part 2

The Insult to Your Intelligence

In my original report, Mr. Michel was under the impression the ATF had taken his video surveillance recording of the "raid". According to Mr. Michel's testimony, the ATF had broken the player when trying to steal it. When dismantling Mr. Michel's store for good, a friend (to whom I have spoken) found the tape stuck in another video player, and thus I reported a piece of information that later turned out to be false (thank goodness). (Apparently, these agents pulled the tape out of the recorder and put it into a player to watch what they'd caught themselves doing -- and broke the VCR trying to get the tape back out.)

But the spirit of what I wrote about their having taken the video was right on the money. In the following quote from Mr. Pyle's attempted character assassination, please note the bolded section:

Quoting My Accuser:

LP:  Shamaya writes: "(Was ATF afraid to let people see what abusive and disrespectful people they are? Why else would they cover their tracks like common hoodlums? Maybe Special Agent in Charge and Group Supervisor Marvin G. Richardson or Assistant SAIC, Joe M. Gordon -- overseers in this outrageous act of violence -- can answer those questions. Or perhaps Robert C. Gantt, the agent who secured the search warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson -- the judge who presided over Bob Stewart's preposterous hearings -- can help shed some light on how a tape can be stolen when it's not on the search warrant.)"

LP:  An obvious Shamaya lie, to anyone who read the affidavit. It is clear that the investigation alleged repeated violations in the store involving customers. The affidavit was intended to obtain evidence of those transactions. What better source than the surveillance camera? Was it not intended to capture illegal activity? 

Let's Stick to Logic:

This would be funny if Mr. Pyle wasn't serious. In dismantling this attempted Justification for this assault against the Second Amendment, please Bear these things in mind:

1. First and incidentally, not many gun dealers are likely to conduct illegal activity and record it on their own video surveillance equipment -- Darwin Awards notwithstanding.
   
   

2. Now, these agents knew Mr. Michel's store had only been open for a couple of minutes as evidenced by the fact that they jumped him just minutes after he arrived at the store.
   
   

3. These agents claim on their sworn statement (affidavit) to have audio and video proof that the gun dealer broke their unconstitutional "laws."
   
   

4. These agents claim and operated as if they already had enough "evidence" to justify taking over $300,000 worth of property -- and putting him out of business, probably for good.
   
   

5. But Mr. Pyle would have us believe that their intention was to obtain "evidence" on that video...
   
   

6. Implying that the ATF agents believed that something had been picked up on the video in two minutes time...
   
   

7. And suggesting that that "evidence" picked up in the two minutes time would somehow help their case -- when they already allegedly have enough "evidence" to justify having taken 274 of Jerry's guns and putting him through the ringer.

I was born at night, but not last night.

And everything I hypothesized based on Mr. Michel's testimony in our first interview turned out to be not only accurate, but foreboding: The ATF wanted to hide something.

When you watch the video from Mr. Michel's surveillance, you see that the very first thing these agents did after securing the building was say, "Secure the video." And they cut it off.

Questions to Consider:

1. If everything the hired federal gun confiscators were about to do was by the book and based on standard procedure, why would the very first thing on their mind be to kill the video? 
   
   

2. Why would they immediately turn off this recorder even though they knew they had hours of work to do, unless they felt it would show them doing something they shouldn't be doing?  (See if you can come up with just ONE logical reason for them to immediately make sure they didn't record their activities. Then let's hear your logic.)
   

3. Why are some law enforcement agencies so upstanding in their practices and methodologies they willingly allow a camera crew to travel with them on their beat -- but ATF says "secure the video" as soon as they secure the building?
   
   

4. What might the ATF have been trying to hide?  (We will report on the condition of Mr. Michel's guns as soon as these redcoats return them.)

I stand by my words, other than to offer a retraction about the tape having been stolen.  (I am Glad I was wrong on that one, too, believe me.)  Between 16 and 30 or so professionals (depending upon whose testimony from my first report you choose to believe), they couldn't get the tape out, so they left it, and it won't disappear from an evidence room.

There are at least 10 copies out there, too.

Wrapping This One Up

After Mr. Pyle asked you to believe the absurd notion that the ATF was taking the surveillance video as "evidence" because it was intended to capture illegal activity, he said, 

"Well, it did, and it may be used for evidence as intended." 

There is NO way Mr. Pyle can know that the tape captured "illegal activity" in the two minutes Mr. Michel was in his store -- or ever. This statement comes from the man who told us this case "begged an investigation." How many other police investigators use such "logic"?

Back to the Top

part 2

paint the local cops as bad guy

Quoting My Accuser:

"Shamaya now tries to paint the local cops as bad guys, and paint them with his broad brush."

Beware the man who tries to make you feel bad for telling the truth.

If we are to believe Thomas Jefferson (please do), by American standards, any cop who violates his oath to the Constitution and participates in a gun confiscation IS -- in so doing -- a bad guy. They called them redcoats back in Mr. Jefferson's day, but the issue is exactly the same; the reality of guns being used to take guns from people who have hurt nobody is as evil now as it was in 1776. Anyone who disagrees with that statement but calls himself a Second Amendment Patriot is mistaken; he's caught up in second amendment lite.

Mr. Pyle attempted to diminish my fellow countryman's respect for me with this sentence, but all he did was understate my expression, so I will now talk straight and speak a true statement on this matter, and let the chips fall where they may:

"Bad guy" is much too kind; the most accurate word in the English language to describe someone who uses the force of the gun to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, by definition, a traitor.

Back to the Top

part 2

Makes sense, doesn�t it?

Quoting My Accuser:

"Shamaya now tries to paint the local cops as bad guy, and paint them with his broad brush. Who the blazes is he to say his lying articles represent ALL Arizona gun owners? It is a safety procedure to place uniforms in the vicinity of a plain-clothes operation to assure neighbors of the validity of the operation. Makes sense, doesn�t it?"

Uniformed cops showing up to "assure the neighbors" that an unConstitutional act is valid assures me that those cops do not understand the Constitution.

But I can see how it "makes sense" to someone who puts Cops First, American Freedom Second.

Back to the Top

part 2

common sense?

Quoting My Accuser:

But common sense often escapes Shamaya when he is writing "news".

Another inference you could arrive at from reading this is that -- if you don't agree with Mr. Pyle's semi-Second Amendment position-- you don't have common sense either. 

Definitely see The Lighter Side of This Mess to appreciate what we learned from this comment.

Back to the Top

part 2

Shamaya writes:

Quoting My Accuser:

Shamaya writes: "Except for that little permit said to be required in Mesa. And that is only if the ATF was telling the truth. (Some of them are incorrigible liars, you know. ATF sends super-secret special agents who impersonate other people's identities into gun dealers' businesses to attempt to trick them into committing technical violations, so they are not only liars, they are entrapping imposters, as well.)"

Given what happened and the circumstances surrounding the case, I stand by every word.  (See Some.)

Some

Quoting My Accuser:

Shamaya writes: "Except for that little permit said to be required in Mesa. And that is only if the ATF was telling the truth. (Some of them are incorrigible liars, you know. ATF sends super-secret special agents who impersonate other people's identities into gun dealers' businesses to attempt to trick them into committing technical violations, so they are not only liars, they are entrapping imposters, as well.)"

Some = not all.

Back to the Top

part 2

Diversion from the Issue

Quoting My Accuser:

"...it has nothing to do with whether you agree with what ATF does..."

To Mr. Pyle, you should not judge my reporting based on your opinion of what the ATF does. That is like a judge telling a jury they have no right to judge a case based on its merits -- including the legitimacy of of the law itself.

(See Cops First, American Freedom Second.)

Back to the Top

part 2

Attempted Blackballing in the Community

Quoting My Accuser:

" Once you are proven a liar, how is the public expected to view future "articles?" "

I consider this statement to be all of the following:

• an attempt to get the reader to assume that I lied, and then

• to make people project future mistrust in me and thus simply disregard me

• an effort to discredit me as a leader in the gun rights community

• an effort to convince leaders not listen to my ideas, or to me

• and a very enlightening mirror for Mr. Pyle.

To answer his question, which I now perceived as having been posed about him:

Well, when you write "future articles", I will read them closely knowing that you are likely to be supporting an inferior, revised version of the Second Amendment. You still have much to share, and I will read it. I just won't be so accepting of what you say. And when cops and federales are involved in unConstitutional gun confiscations, I'll expect to get ripped by you when I accurately and creatively remind people that they are traitors.

For other examples of Attempted Blackballing, see "cry wolf" and "caught lying."

Back to the Top

part 2

emotional rhetoric, injecting emotion

Quoting My Accuser:

"No one can deny that the ailing friend was intended to inject emotion. Would you?"

"...using more lies and emotional rhetoric to create the "news"

Some of the beliefs you could obtain from these statements include:

• Don't use emotion.

• Don't feel.

• I'm bad because I share enough details that your feelings get triggered.

• We shouldn't express our feelings intensely.

• Don't feel sad about Jerry's friend getting stuck in the mud along with Jerry.

• etc.

Nonsense, all of it.

Along with being physical, mental, spiritual and sexual, human beings are emotional creatures. Most serious activists are serious activists because they feel deeply about this cause and about our freedoms. While most gun writers are doing their best to be "poised" and "dignified" and "logical," anti-gunners are using rich, emotive messages in word and imagery to convincingly convey their socialist leanings. 

FEEL.

If you don't want to feel angry, upset, outraged, furious, incensed, sad, depressed, excited, energized, pumped up, scared and about a hundred other emotions, run away from this cause right now. With allies attacking allies on Pearl Harbor Day in defense of gun confiscations, we'd all better get in touch with how we are feeling -- to express it.

While my would-be Character Assassin suggests there is something wrong with invoking emotional responses from people in your writing, speaking, artwork, music or whatever medium through which you convey your passion, I say go for the deepest, richest, highest, lowest, sharpest, lightest, strongest or most subtle EMOTIONS you can source.

(See Ailing Friend. See Inflammatory. See Humor.)

Back to the Top

part 2

"cry wolf"

Quoting My Accuser:

If we "cry wolf" and are caught lying, what affect [sic] does that have where there is a serious abuse and we try to call out?

Crying wolf is when you scream out that something bad is happening but it really isn't.

Something bad did happen.

Therefore, Mr. Pyle obviously doesn't think it was bad.

This is also an example of Attempted Blackballing to make sure the truth I share doesn't get exposed so he doesn't have to work through his Cops First, American Freedom Second issue.

And he's minimizing what happened to get you to join his semi-Second Amendment position.

Don't fall for it.

Federal gun confiscations on asinine technicalities are bad.

Back to the Top

part 2

caught lying, what affect [sic] does that have

Quoting My Accuser:

If we "cry wolf" and are caught lying, what affect [sic] does that have where there is a serious abuse and we try to call out?

Let us know once you locate a serious abuse that needs addressing.

This is an attempt at blackballing the messenger of a message he doesn't want to hear. See Attempted Blackballing.

Back to the Top

part 2

Sincerely,

I believe Mr. Pyle meant that when he signed his name to the document where he libeled me with false information. He's so smitten by his misaligned priorities regarding Cops First, American Freedom Second and his support of the semi-Second Amendment, he actually believes he was doing the world a favor by ripping me a new one publicly. For his sincerity, I ask people to be gentle with him and give him the space to work his way out of the squad car and into the Constitution.

Back to the Top

The 

As in: The Second Amendment Police Department

With such a thorough demonstration that Mr. Pyle either doesn't understand or doesn't support the Second Amendment as written and intended by the Founding Fathers, I offer the possibility that the word "The" in the name of his organization be changed to an "A." He does support "A" Second Amendment, as evidenced by his long and respected record, but it is the revisionist second amendment lite that receives his first Allegiance. (See Cops First, American Freedom Second. See Second Amendment.)

Back to the Top

part 2

Second Amendment

It is a simple matter to discover the true meaning of the Second Amendment.  All you need to do is read from the writings of the people who founded our nation.

In hopes Mr. Pyle and all others who support the second amendment lite (revisionist version that allows for a seemingly unlimited number of infringements), I provide links that you may click to in order to arrive at the Truth.

• Our Second Amendment Archive

• Sentence Diagram of the Second Amendment

• The Federalist Papers

Definitions:  

• Right

• People

• Keep

• And

• Bear

• Arms

• Infringe

• Militia on Dictionary.com

• Militia as Defined in U.S. Code

Until you stand up and support the REAL Second Amendment, your support of the second amendment lite is damaging to our cause.

Or, in the words of Jim at OneGoodShot.com, 

"If you're not working for the Second Amendment, you're working against it."

Do not police the Second Amendment; Second Amendmentize the police.

Back to the Top

part 2

Police

We Are Still Waiting

We published an Open Letter to Law Enforcement back in September. We are still eagerly waiting for intelligent, civil and well-intended articles reflecting the same spirit of cooperation found in that letter.

Without communication -- and healthy discourse -- these issues will not go away. Ignoring the illness  does not heal a patient, and Lady Liberty is sick.

Any time. We are still waiting.

See The "Anti-cop" Accusation.

This is the end of my responses to actual statements made in Mr. Pyle's most recent public Character Assassination attempt.

Part 2, below, offers additional analyses of what it looks like when someone places Cops First, American Freedom Second.

Back to the Top

part 2

Part 2

Other False Accusations

Following are the other false accusations Mr. Pyle and his law enforcement associates have angrily tossed about in their bid to discredit me and my strong position for the Second Amendment.

1. The "Greed" Accusation

2. The "Anti-cop" Accusation

3. The "Authority Problem" Accusation

4. The "Divisive" Accusation

5. Accusing me of Doing the Unthinkable (the attorney smear)

6. The "Withholding Information" Accusation

Other Tactics of Discrediting

Following are some of the tactics Mr. Pyle and his law enforcement associates have used in their attempts to discredit me and my strong stance for the Second Amendment. They have done this in their commitment to avoid resolving the very real issues that concern a great many gun owners when it comes to the enforcement of unConstitutional gun laws. While some of these issues arose between us as individuals (on public domain email lists and internet forums), the archetypal patterns revealed in their methodologies can be applied to anyone who covers for the police state. I also want you to know that I myself have engaged in some of these behavior patterns, finding myself unconsciously protecting the police state, as well. I illustrate these patterns in hopes you will identify your own support of the police state -- and that you'll pass what you learn on to others. (The items that aren't hyperlinked are easy enough to show in Mr. Pyle's ways; I just got bored with this project and wanted to get back to serving our members.)

1. Stifling the Conversation

2. Attempted Blackballing

3. Attacking My Name

4. "Holier than Thou" Attitude

5. Bashing the Truth

6. Justifying unConstitutionality

7. Dividing Allies

8. Intimidating

9. Killing the Messenger

10. Diverting Attention

11. Severity Lessening (Minimizing, Denial)

12. Apologizing

13. Blaming

14. Assumption of Guilt

15. Justification/Excusing of infringements

16. Get on the bandwagon

17. Threats

18. Ad hominem

19. Attacking my name

20. Legitimizing

21. Hostility Toward Citizen Input

22. Intolerance (refusal to address honest statements)

23. Too Bad, Deal with it!

24. Hiding & Stealing Evidence -- KABACops list and archive

Disturbing Beliefs and Ways of Being Some Police Exhibit

Following are some of the beliefs Mr. Pyle and his law enforcement associates have revealed in their attempts to discredit me and my strong position for the Second Amendment.

1. Guilty Until Proven Innocent

2. Cops First, American Freedom Second

3. Obligation to Break Oath to Constitution

4. Grudge Holding
   

Being an American

Following are some foundational concepts covered throughout this document that relate directly to what it means to be an American.

1. Grudges & Forgiveness

2. Honor

3. Principles

4. The Second Amendment

5. Traitors, Tradition and Treason

The "Greed" Accusation

Mr. Leroy Pyle and his associates have accused me (and Aaron Zelman/JPFO/CCOPS) of being in the Liberty Movement out of greed. I have also heard and seen other murmurs around the internet suggesting the same thing. I submit the following evidence and information for your consideration in this matter:

• "Greed" Quotes from My Accusers
• Reality Check -- The Facts
• "Greed" Conclusion
• "Greed" Solution

"Greed" Quotes from My Accusers:

The following things have been said about me and my organization by Leroy Pyle, Bruce Emmott, and Chris Stark -- the gentleman who gave Mr. Pyle's false accusations and slurs the widest distribution

"...fear mongering against the police is being carried too far, and is just being used as a money raising feature by both JPFO and KABA." ~~ Leroy Pyle

"...greed getting ahead of all that professional presentation and investment." ~~ Leroy Pyle

"It is sad that so-called leaders in the RKBA have to resort to creative and inventive articles to make a buck on the back of law enforcement."  ~~ Leroy Pyle (He accused me of this on November 23, 2000, Thanksgiving Day. It was the anniversary of the day my only blood brother passed away by suicide with a gun. I was doing my best to finish Suicide in the Gun Debate to get it published on that day.)

"[Leroy,] I hope you disassociate yourself from Mr. Shame for good this time. Please do not let him promote you or your org on his website. You are only playing into the hands of a very crafty and self-serving wretch, and he is getting rich doing it!" ~~ Chris Stark, the person who provided the widest distribution for Mr. Pyle's smokescreen and who consistently badmouths Aaron Zelman of JPFO (I pray he wakes up and realizes that we can be on the same team.)

"...his sole interest is fomenting distrust of law enforcement in some misguided attempt to rally support - and money...what his agenda really is, i.e. promoting "Angel Shamaya" and his money making website." ~~ Bruce Emmott, in a letter to our friends at SierraTimes.com written on December 14, 2000 (Thanks for the heads up, J.J. and Ed.)

"Greed" Reality Check -- The Facts

To present my side of the "greed" smear, I submit the following:

1. Everything on our site is given away to site visitors for free. We have never coerced anyone into giving us support. We do have a membership section, but I haven't stopped in there much lately to see what is ado in the forums, because my focus is and always has been to keep information flowing to as many people as possible. Ask any non-members reading this sentence how much it cost them to do so. I could have put this document into a booklet and sold it, but I prefer to get vital information to as many people as possible. (If any printer/publisher would like to discuss putting this document into a booklet to get it out to more people, contact me.)
   
2. I have invested all of my savings and gone deeply (as in, more than ever in my life) into debt building KeepAndBearArms.com up to the point where it now stands.
   
   
3. Before I launched this project, I was buying a gun whenever I wanted to. The only new guns I have purchased since launching it were not bought, they were traded, and I lost money/value in the trades -- in order, primarily, to get a revolver for my girlfriend's safety and a "decent" battle rifle. (She liked the look of the Walther, but didn't like how it shot or that it jammed. Revolvers don't jam. And I settled on a rifle that is greatly inferior to the one I would prefer to own as my personal liberty-defense rifle, too -- because of money.) 
   
   
   The only exception to that is a single, inexpensive antique gun I purchased as a gift to the man who was the inspiration behind this entire project. (Without him, none of this would have been possible; it's a small token of appreciation and admiration.) 
   
   
   I really desire a good stainless .44 magnum revolver with a 6 inch barrel, and I'd like a Springfield M1A, too. And some reloading equipment, a generator, and several other things I that might one day come in handy. Had I not assigned myself to this cause, I'd have those items and many more; all of them now sit on the wish list I simply ignore.
   
   
4. When we launched KeepAndBearArms.com, I was living in a 3350 square foot home nestled up to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve with coyotes and jackrabbits and quail in the back yard. It was our dreamhouse, the nicest place we'd ever lived -- one of the quietest places in all of Phoenix where you usually hear nothing more than songbirds. When we moved in, I could have covered the entire monthly expense myself. Even as these gentlemen were attacking me for being "greedy, getting rich, etc.", we were moving out -- for financial reasons -- into an apartment 1/3 the size. What we hear outside now is a freeway, leafblowers, sirens and our neighbor waking up and making racket at hours that directly conflict with our schedules. (I will begin unpacking once this report is complete.)
   
   
5. I have gone without needed exercise, rest, relaxation, sleep and even decent meals more days in the last year than in my entire life all put together. During that time, I have labored all waking day, nearly every day, (one handful of days off in over a year, and then I was thinking about the movement anyway) to the detriment of personal relationships including my own relationships with myself and with my girlfriend, bless her heart. (I have talked to at least 4 people who've sacrificed their families to the point of emotional extinction for the cause. I know the feeling, and so do the people who want my time.) I have been frustrated for quite some time because I am unable to do more, give more and because I don't have the resources at my disposal to implement the many visions I have for our organization and this cause. On a personal health level, I have gone from my ideal weight to ten pounds lighter. And these simple facts are the tip of the iceberg.
   
   

6. I take some customer service calls from time to time. I just took one today from a truly special man in California. 73 years old and he's been fighting for our freedoms since before I was born. He switched over to our Internet Access Service recently, he's new to computers and figuring this maze out, and we invested 20 minutes together to resolve the problem. The problem was not with our service; it was user error. And I am really glad he called.  It wasn't thinking about the something like $7 or $8 our bank account receives each month; how much money we are receiving into our cashflow was the last thing on my mind. (I did wonder why more people don't support our ISP service.)  What stuck with me the most about this American was:  

   1. He left AOL to support our internet access service on principle, and  

   2. He left me with such a good feeling about We The Next Generation picking up the fight and getting the job done I offered him my vow to continue and urged him to know that our nation's future will be preserved in Liberty. 

   All in a day's "greedy" work.

"Greed" Conclusion:

If these things are indications of "greed," I'm greedy. Where the money results of my "greed" are I do not know. We see the bottom of the piggy bank consistently, and we have put all but the basic necessities right back in to this project. Our webmaster -- God bless his soul -- agreed to work for 25% of his going rate because he is committed to this cause, but we are still several thousand dollars behind on paying him -- and he's not complaining. Unfortunately, he is having to put much of his time into other projects to feed his wife and two children. With him full time and the money to fund our Vision...

Yes, I certainly did all of the above out of choice, sacrificing the comforts and pleasures of life for a greater cause -- because I chose to do so. And I wouldn't change a thing other than to have created better communications systems for our organization to know that people are not waiting with unanswered questions.

But I take this "greed" smear as one of the darkest and most vicious acts of libel I have encountered to date -- more so even than the preposterous notion that I would lie about the one and only Dave T. Hardy -- because it has resulted in some less thinking members threatening to ask for refunds on their memberships at a time when we are facing the harsh reality of potentially having to stop what we are doing because our bank accounts don't meet our overhead.

Yes, we have had visions of taking the "for profit" side of this organization public in order to use stock market money for the cause. (See "Greed" Solution.) But I certainly haven't even begun to entertain notions of how that might help me financially, because, quite frankly, the lack of support we've received overall has left me with the impression that the vast majority of gun owners don't support anyone but the "Zero Tolerance Enforcement of unConstitutional Gun Laws" NRA. And my own "personal life" will be irrelevant in the long run if we don't stop the onslaught of tyranny in our nation, so I work. 

Before I knew Mr. Pyle was so into supporting people in dishonoring their oaths to the constitution, I even offered to build a professional quality website for him and hand the controls over to him -- at KABA's expense -- and then build a membership system for 2ampd in order to help him raise funds. Why? Because an organization requires money in order to survive and grow, and I believed in Leroy Pyle. His organization has the potential to be a driving force for the American Pro Second Amendment Law Enforcement Community. But our Contrasting Priorities brought out his need to resolve his semi-Second Amendmentism.

And when we were launching KeepAndBearArms.com, I told Mr. Stark I had visions of being able to generate enough money to help him dedicate himself fully to the cause rather than having to work a conventional job to take care of his family. His response was to accuse me of "hiding something" -- the same attack he launched against Brian Puckett of Citizens of America when Mr. Puckett was asking people to support his fantastic project.

I am glad we live in a "free market" society, but I guess you can't really say our organization is run like a "free market" or "for profit" organization; we give everything away for free and trust that our work is substantial enough that we'll be supported -- "greed" smears notwithstanding.

Marxists rob banks and taxpayer coffers to finance their anti-rights causes. We have to resort to less "glamorous" ways to earn the money used to protect your rights. I am surprised that the fans of free-market economies would object.

Anti-gun people and organizations receive millions in donations; I get picked apart by people "on our side" because I have to eat. Go figure.

"Greed" Solution:

I have had a vision for over a year of having KeepAndBearArms.com owned by We The People. 

I have written out my visions as I've trudged along the Gun Rights Activist Path. The earlier versions, if I were to stop and go back and read them, probably need some upgrading to reflect what I have learned since that time, but my desire has never changed -- nor has my vision.

I have a vision of a for-profit, publicly traded company, with private shares for all members, dedicated to the uncompromising foundational principles laid out for us by our Founding Fathers. I have not developed this idea nearly to the extent I would like to if I had the Plan, Structure and Resources in place to get it done, but here are a few of my ideas as to why this would be a good thing:

1. to generate money from the public free market and apply it to many worthy projects toward our unified outcome
   
   

2. to create buying power through online purchases such that, as we grow, gun owners become a national Money Force that demands immediate attention when you cross our Constitutional Path (The Hammer of Purchase Power is a sadly untapped goldmine of political force. I could write a long article on this issue alone -- off the top of my head.)
   
   

3. to generate attention as we gain in the markets -- for our cause
   
   

4. to do something that has never been done to show Liberty's Adversaries that they will never win and had best find alternative solutions to dealing with bad people unless they seriously want to start a ruckus
   
   

5. to assist many (could become many hundreds) of gun rights activists currently working conventional jobs to generate the money they need to live while working for their passions: your freedom  (Think AOL, Amazon, Yahoo, etc. Now apply it to Gun Rights.)
   
   

6. to tap the People Power of those many dedicated full time employees and apply it most specifically to the cause of Liberty
   
   

7. There are other reasons to create a large, publicly traded company whose foundational principle is preserving and restoring American Liberty based on a NO COMPROMISE interpretation of the Second Amendment. Use your imagination, and let it expand.

Next time someone tells you KeepAndBearArms.com is about "greed", please ask them to read this Document. 

And do remember that there are likely a few anti-gun people throwing monkey wrenches into the worthy areas of the movement where uncharted territories are being explored. Some of them are paid by the Marxists. The term is Agent Provocateur.

Back to the Top

part 2

The "Anti-cop" Accusation

Quoting My Accusers:

1. "Using the articles that I uploaded to KABA to deny their anti-cop leanings..." ~~ Leroy Pyle, November 18, 2000
   
   

2. "JPFO and KABA seem to be in a contest over who can vilify cops most!" ~~ Leroy Pyle, as posted on a fantastic website called TheFiringLine.com, December 16, 2000 (The title of his post was "Is it 2AM or is it just MONEY?", once again also publicly making The "Greed" Accusation -- with no logical information to back up that false claim, either.)
   
   

3. When the Sheriff-elect of Dekalb County in Georgia was just assassinated, someone posted this to Mr. Pyle's list on December 18, 2000:
   
   
   > DeKalb County Sheriff-elect Derwin Brown was shot 
   > and killed in front of his Decatur home last night, county 
   > authorities said today. Public Safety Director Thomas Brown 
   > characterized the shooting as an "assassination."
   > http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/newsatlanta/dekalb_sheriff.html
   
   
   Chris Stark responded with the above quote and added this bit of libel:
   
   
   "An assassination? Did this person learn to hate cops from KABA, JPFO or CCOPS?"
   
   
   Interestingly, here is Joe Horn's response to Mr. Stark:
   
   
   "I'm betting money it was a cop that killed him..."  Joe
   
   
   And another list member -- a current LEO -- responding to Joe by saying, "Yeah, I'd put money on that too."

They know from experience in law enforcement that there are cops who would assassinate other cops, but Aaron Zelman and I get labeled as "anti-cop" for telling the truth about the Second Amendment and those who break their oaths by infringing upon it. Why?

Don't Talk About It

Mr. Noam Chomsky is a linguist and a U.S. media and foreign policy critic. His critical analysis of the issues that negatively affect our social structures and dogmas has earned him a great deal of respect. A quote from Mr. Chomsky serves so well right here, I don't know that I could say it any better:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ~~ Noam Chomsky

When you talk about your righteous rage toward the Infringers of Constitutional rights, it stands to reason that people who put certain Right Infringers above the Constitution will not like what you have to say. And when you point out the fact that they swore to prioritize in the other direction the day they were handed the badge, their broken honor leaves them only two choices: reprioritize in accordance with their oath, or attack. The first choice is called The High Road.

But Mr. Pyle and his associates would prefer to view the efforts of people like Aaron Zelman and myself simply as "anti-cop." They accuse us of taking the easy way out of this mess -- when we are heading right to the front lines from which they run.

The fact that I respect cops who keep their oath to the Constitution makes the superficiality of the "anti-cop" accusation apparent. The fact that I have published everything save one or two articles Mr. Pyle and his associates have sent my way makes it rather appalling. Or amusing, depending upon my mood. (See Humor.)

The Truth

Holding a public servant up on the pedestal of his own honor is not only a service to our society and to humanity, it is a service to him. Calling someone "anti-cop" for clearing higher ground for law enforcement officers is an insult. In truth, not expecting a hired public servant to keep his sworn oath to the Constitution is doing him a disservice. In breaking that oath, he is dishonoring himself, his countrymen, his community and his nation. Supporting a police officer in breaking his oath to defend the constitution is a blight upon him and you. You who refuse to hold police officers and all other public servants to their sworn oath are the ones holding the real anti-cop position.

See also: Painting the Cops as Bad Guys. 

Back to the Top

part 2

The "Authority Problem" Accusation

Authorities, Authority, and THE Law

The following relates to Authority as pertains to the physical world in which we live. (This analysis is already far too sizable in its scope to address the issue of Spiritual or Natural Authority.)

Joe Horn has stated on at least two occasions that I have "an obvious problem with authority." Bruce Emmott echoed similar sentiments. And I would bet my best rifle they would still say that to this day. In his brusque manner of trying to make me and thus this issue go away, Mr. Horn said the following about me on a public domain email list:

"I would suggest he get counseling about his unresolved anger issues involving authority as well as his fear of the police." ~~ Joe Horn, November 27, 2000

My response in the here and now is this:

One of the reasons Mr. Horn, Mr. Pyle and his associates have a difficult time with me is that I have never and will never consider them my "authority". As I see it, along with some other police officers I have known, they have Cop "I'm the authority" Problem.

Herein lies the rub: We salute to different authorities. 

My worldly authority is the Law of the land: the United States Constitution -- and the Bill of Rights that were necessarily added before the Constitution was able to be ratified. There is no finer socially-binding document I have seen. And it is the one true legal Authority in our nation -- no matter how many Revisers of Historical Fact attempt to convince you otherwise.

These good gentlemen mistakenly perceive themselves as "obligated" to obey the statutes, edicts, ordinances, decrees and executive orders -- the enslaving Devices wicked men use to ensnare our People. (Do not capitalize the absurd term "executive order" any longer. We are not a monarchy; we serve no king.)

I don't have that Problem. I don't think I received that gene -- or program. True story:

When I was in 6th grade, my honors Reading teacher was known for being one of the nastiest women in the school. When classes were assigned and people began chattering about "who they got" for their various classes, when Mrs. McClanahan's name came up, older kids issued warnings based on personal experiences. 

One day, sitting in the front seat closest to her desk, after finishing a test before anyone else and certainly acing it, I wadded up the "coversheet" she required us to use to make sure other kids didn't cheat -- and threw it three feet into the trashcan next to her desk. She got up, reached into the trashcan and recovered my spent coversheet, handed it to me, and very seriously told me to eat it. (One whole, bleached, 8.5 x 11 blank sheet of paper.)

With hesitation, I said, "No," and I told her to eat it. 

But she insisted, and she got right in my face. "Eat it!" she said, louder and more forcefully. "No!" I responded, matching her volume and tone. "You eat it. I'm not hungry."

My shocked classmates didn't even laugh. "Nobody laughs at Mrs. Clanahan," they created for themselves -- based on her success at creating her to be "the authority."

She sent me to the principal and downplayed the event to him when I told him what she tried to make me do. He backed her up completely and gave her full leeway on how to punish me. She gave me the only "D" I ever got in my entire scholastic career. The test was a final for that 6-week period, and she had given me a ZERO.  

The person I considered to be the second brightest person in the class asked me why I didn't eat it. She got an "A".

Two lessons:

• Nobody is truly an authority over you until they actually exert that authority in some way or unless you simply accept their authority as legitimate.

• But be prepared to accept the consequences of bucking any authority that truly has the power to exert itself.

Applied to Gun Rights and "Law" Enforcers:

• No gun confiscator is going to make me eat paper -- or even remotely consider eating paper.

• And I am prepared to get life's big "F" to make my point.

See Other False Accusations from 2ampd.

Back to the Top

part 2

The "Divisive" Accusation

The truth cannot divide a people; it can only reveal the division that is already present.

Some people will likely castigate me for pointing out the many facts throughout this Treatise. People who put Cops First, American Freedom Second already are. Former NYPD Bruce Emmott said the following about me in the letter he sent to my allies at SierraTimes.com:

"...he is a divisive voice. KABA.COM has taken the lead in driving a wedge between law enforcement supporters of RKBA and civilians by repeatedly injecting inflamatory statements into his alleged support of law enforcement."

What Mr. Emmott and his colleagues have trouble grasping is that I would fight tooth and nail to protect a police officer on the streets who needed my assistance, and I support the badge in more ways than they know. But when they use guns and force to infringe on the Second Amendment, they go from being law enforcers to oath-breakers -- and I don't sweet talk traitors. [KABA.com is a German website. If you're going to spread false information about me, at least get it right, Mr. Emmott: KeepAndBearArms.com.]

Oath-breaking cops use guns and force to physically infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the people they are hired to serve. Calling people who point out these infringements "cop haters" for simply telling the truth is the true act of division in this matter. And the division taking place is this:

We are dividing the issue at hand from the smokescreen being used to avoid dealing with it.

In his biography, Leroy Pyle says the following:

"The Chief of Police of my department, Joseph D. McNamara, became an outspoken critic of the rights of citizens to possess firearms. I don�t think it an exaggeration to describe him as HCI�s poster boy. I credit him with initializing the very effective effort to drive a wedge between law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement. " ~~ Leroy Pyle, taken from his bio

Little does Mr. Pyle realize that in supporting infringements on the Second Amendment and staunchly defending the Infringers -- as he has done in this case with Jerry Michel -- he is showing up over here like McNamara Jr.

These gentleman are attempting to divide Liberty's Allies by accusing me of being divisive.

Back to the Top

part 2

Accusing Me of Doing the Unthinkable

Attempting to Discredit Me By Promoting that I lied about Dave T. Hardy defending Jerry Michel

Mr. Pyle and his associates actually began spreading rumors that I lied about Dave T. Hardy defending Jerry Michel. Their emails were obviously effective, too. One person who received their libelous statement said this about me on a public domain email list. I removed his name and email because I don't have the time, energy or desire to participate in more cannibalistic anger-fests, and because his erroneous statements were made, in part, thanks to smears by Mr. Pyle and his associates.

This gentleman sent the message to a public domain email discussion list in communication with Mr. Pyle and others who side with him on this issue. Mr. Pyle's associates chimed in and suggested I was lying about who is in fact Mr. Michel's attorney.

Attacking my name

Grade School Tactic

Following are various adaptations Mr. Pyle, Joe Horn and Chris Stark have used in order to demonstrate their maturity. This revelation of "dirty laundry" is simply to show you how far someone will go in attempt to avoid dealing with an important issue:

"Sham" (All of them have used this one on numerous occasions. Mr. Pyle was still calling me "Sham" right up to the date of my publishing this document.)

"Shame" (Brought forth initially by Mr. Stark, possibly as a result of his own shame issues, I lost count how many times he has used this approach.)

"Mr. Shame" (Mr. Stark has used this one dozens of times in public domain circles, most of them after I asked him to please stop.)

"Scam"  (All of them have called me a "Scam" more than once.)

"Scammy Shame"  (variations on a theme)

"Shammie sham"

"Devil Shame" (To my knowledge, only Chris Stark has used this one, and he has used it at least twice that I know of on public domain email lists that were forwarded to me by more than one person. He has also sent an email to me personally addressing it this way, and contained in the email were many more sneers.)

Marxist Tactic

Mr. Pyle's former NYPD associate Bruce Horn has revealed a new approach from 2ampd that reminds me of the Character Assassination attempts we've read about in history books. He sent a letter to our friends at SierraTimes.com, from which I excerpt the following:

"Imagine my surprise, and disgust, to scroll down your lead page and find you promoting Keep and Bear Arms as a voice of the 2nd amendment."

"Note I put the name "Shamaya" in quotes - reason being that is not his name. Have you investigated that fact? ... To the point, "Angel Shamaya" is not now, nor has he ever been, a voice worthy of respect in the 2nd amendment community."

Apparently, Mr. Emmott or one his associates have launched an investigation against me. They must have tapped a government computer and found out that I went through an adoption and a legal name change.  I'm actually interested to see how far up the Federal food chain their contacts go. If they find my birthname, we'll know that they are tapping privacy-restricted databases nobody in the general citizenry can access unless they are working with certain government databases or are very good hackers.

And you can believe they haven't located that information yet or they'd be spreading more slurs about my birthname around the web. They really don't want to deal with the fact that a police officer who breaks his oath and infringes on the Second Amendment is a traitor.

It's funny -- in a sick sort of way. I thought I wouldn't be printing my entire life history including legal documents, birth certificates, etc. until we got to be too much for HCI to deal with and they went for the throat. I NEVER thought the need might be precipitated by people "on our side."

If a majority of KeepAndBearArms.com paid members think the history of my birth, adoption and legal name change are more important than the work I do, I will be happy to scan a bunch of documents into my computer once we get our regular flow of information back on track so we can give our Cops First, American Freedom Second "allies" more fuel for their anti-Second Amendment fire. But it's more interesting to watch them behave like Democrats in the Clinton Administration -- and to see how much energy they'll put into "proving" nothing.

If I thought it was worth it, I'd research public figures who were publicly attacked -- because their name at birth was different than the legal name they'd long carried -- when they hurt somebody's feelings with the truth.

Back to the Top

part 2

"Holier than Thou" Attitude

Some police officers simply believe they are better than you are just because they are police officers. For example, the following came from Leroy Pyle to me when I attempted to address this issue with him:

"Sham, Have you ever taken an oath? For anything? Have you ever served your country? For anything? Have you ever held a position of responsibility? For anything? Just curious.  Leroy"  (December 16, 2000)

He wore a badge and I didn't, so he is superior, right?  (The answer to all of his questions is "yes.")

Then there was 25-year NYPD, Bruce Emmott's letter to SierraTimes.com attacking my character and attempting to divide us, where he stated the following about me:

"He has no law enforcement or military experience, no legal experience, and no experience anyone can find in the firearms field at all - yet he positions himself as one who knows what is going on."  (December 12, 2000)

To them I'm just a mere citizen and am thus not supposed to tell the truth when their LEO community ignores a sworn oath.

When police officers who put oaths above the Constitution get high and mighty with you, don't buy it. They are hired to protect and serve, and they swear to uphold their oath to the Constitution before they are officially on the job. Anyone who tells you differently will probably use these other tactics with you, too. Watch for them.

If anything, the "holier than thou" attitude should be going the other way. Law enforcement officers are, after all, your servants.

Back to the Top

part 2

Severity Lessening (Minimizing, Denial)

Quoting Another of My Accusers:

"I don't know if anyone really knows just how extensive the corruption is within the Federal police side. We hear of various problems like Waco and the such, but how many thousands of Federal police are there? What is the actual percentage of Fed police that are baby killers? The media is great at making it look like we are under siege, when we are not." ~~ Chris Stark, 12/1/2000

The message in this Severity Lessening:

1. We are not all under siege every day of our lives, 

2. so the problem is not important enough to call attention to.

3. Therefore, don't talk about it.

Should we also not discuss outright violations of civil rights based on race now that racially-motivated crimes are comparably non-existent compared to pre-civil war times?

Four examples of Severity Lessening from Mr. Pyle in his attempted character assassination:

• The Windbreaker Apology

• 16 or 30 is irrelevant

• "storm trooper" minimization

• the "no press" attempt

Attempting to lessen the severity of Constitutional abuses of fundamental rights is a slippery slope to increased infractions of those rights. Such an attitude promotes decreased communication, and decreased communication leaves the door open for abuses to continue. One abuse is too many. We need to talk about the breaking of oaths, develop plans to deal with oath-breakers, and address every oath-breaker in our country until the abuses of our rights are a thing of the past.

When constitutional abuses are excused and their impact minimized, they continue. In the words of a popular television character played by Damon Wayans on a sit-com:

"Homey don't play dat."

Back to the Top

part 2

Justification/Excusing of Infringements

Excuses and justifications for infringements against the Second Amendment come in all shapes and sizes. Here is a recent one that was sent around the net just three days after Mr. Pyle's attempted assassination of my character:

"Having an FFL is not a patriotic act, it is a business decision that one makes, knowing it is heavily regulated, like cars and driving and being a doctor, while hoping for a profit.. Business is fraught with hazards of the regulatory kind. Get over it" ~~ Joe Horn, 12/10/2000

Some beliefs you could pick up if you bought into Mr. Horn's erroneous statements include:

1. Providing access to guns by gun dealers is not a patriotic act,

2. nobody should feel bad for dealers who get bowled over by tyranny,

3. if the Infringers take them down they had it coming,

4. and you should find that acceptable.

None of these things is true. In fact, the nicest word that comes to mind in response to such justification and excusing of Second Amendment infringements is "hogwash."

Let's correct each one in terms of putting the Second Amendment first and public servants second:

1. Providing arms to patriots in a noble cause in service to the traditions that maintain Liberty and Freedom.

2. Dealers who get tyrannized should not only be our concern, we should assert our unified support in direct ways that are felt and heard by our oppressors.

3. Infringers have "it" coming if they don't back off. If you don't believe me, look at history, and visit that statement in 10 years and see if it didn't turn out to be a prediction.

4. No infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is acceptable. NONE. 

Back to the Top

part 2

Too Bad, Deal with it

Quoting Another Accuser:

"Newsflash: Break the law and if your luck is bad, you may meet the cops. Consequence for your actions is what cops deal in." ~~ Joe Horn, December 10, 2000

From the opinion that infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable, Mr. Horn's statement is factually correct.

But that doesn't make it right.

Any "law" that infringes on RKBA is -- when enforced -- a violation of a basic civil right. We know there are problems or we wouldn't be pointing them out. Please help us solve them from your side of the fence rather than passing them off as "the way it is."

Back to the Top

part 2

Hostility Toward Citizen Input

Sometimes when citizens attempt to get their voices heard on the issue of oath-breaking public servants, they are met with outright hostility. For example:

From: Leroy Pyle  <lpyle@p...>
Date: Sat Dec 2, 2000 10:42pm
Subject: RE: [ca-firearms] Re: More About Peace Officers and Gun
Prohibition
http://www.egroups.com/message/2ampd/2684

"So screw you who are so cavalier in your "opinions" about how police should do your work for you. You are ignorant in the ways of a police department. You know nothing more about the police than Sarah Brady knows about guns. It is no wonder we are losing. Some of you are truly idiots!"

One possible interpretation of the above:

Don't tell us we are wrong even when we are. We are the mighty police, and you stupid peasants should be grateful.

Pass on that one, too. We must point out the abuses by "law" enforcers just like any other abuses of rights. We must talk about this issue openly, and it would be nice to have assistance from the pro Second Amendment law enforcement community.

Back to the Top

part 2

Intolerance

I will spare you the 22 emails I have from people asking me how to deal with the type of intoleration Mr. Stark has shown them. 

I hope we all learn how to listen to various opinions and learn from what people are sharing.

Back to the Top

part 2

Dividing Allies

Quoting My Accuser:

December 16, 2000

"Sham," (Mr. Pyle's making fun of my name has become a consistent pattern. See Attacking My Name.)

"You seem to be taking a lead in this anti-cop stuff. You trying to win over JPFO subscribers, or what?"

            "Leroy"

Now that there are a couple of pro Second Amendment organizations talking about the things Mr. Pyle doesn't like to talk about, he seeks to turn our supporters against the other group, a vice versa. Why he doesn't like to talk about them is explained in Conclusion.

Then there is the letter Mr. Bruce Emmott sent to Sierra Times on December 12, 2000, printed unedited, below:

From: 'Saurus <[email protected]> 
To: <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:17 PM 
Subject: Keep and Bear Arms link 

Hello, I was recently sent to your site bya friend in the RKBA community as a companion site to Newsmax.com for plain speak.

Imagine my surprise, and disgust, to scroll down your lead page and find you promoting Keep and Bear Arms as a voice of the 2nd amendment.

By way of introduction, I am a veteran of 25 years in the New York City Police Department, from which I retired in 1994. My website, at http://www.geocities.com/bemmott will further list my credentials. At one time I was considered by "Angel Shamaya" to be a strong voice from the law enforcement community and one of his "featured writers." I am also on the Advisory Board of the 2nd. Amendment Police Department - in Cyberspace, a site run by former LASO deputy Leroy Pyle. Note I put the name "Shamaya" in quotes - reason being that is not his name. Have you investigated that fact? Also note the past tense of my connection with KABA.com.

To the point, "Angel Shamaya" is not now, nor has he ever been, a voice worthy of respect in the 2nd amendment community. In fact he is a divisive voice. KABA.COM has taken the lead in driving a wedge between law enforcement supporters of RKBA and civilians by repeatedly injecting inflamatory statements into his alleged support of law enforcement. He has taken to referring to local police officers as "minions of gun grabbing politicians" and "jack booted thugs" bound and determined to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. His rants have led me and others like retired LASO deputy Joe Horn and Leroy Pyle to separate ourselves from his organization under threat of legal action. I had to threaten him with action to get articles I had written for others groups removed from his site - articles he adopted on his own without asking permision from myself or the group they were originally written for. His latest barrage of outright falsification and mistatement of law enforcement has been his support for Arizona gunshop owner Jerry Micheals - recently the subject of a BATF action pursuant to a federal search warrant. It's intweresting that this fellow uses threats of legal action against anyone who contradicts his information while at the same time misrepresenting law enforcement officers statements and making libelous statements

- such as he has done repeatedly to me personally.

May I suggest you take a look at Leroy Pyles website at www.2ampd.net and see what the real story is. I assure you my claims can be backed up by information archived by Leroy -

copies of statements made in forums to and about myself, Joe Horn, and Leroy Pyle by "Shamaya" himself, in his own words.

Aligning yourself with "Shamaya" or KABA.COM has destroyed your credibility with me and others in the community who view Shamaya as a firebrand who came from nowhere less than a year ago and claims support among the community. He has no law enforcement or military experience, no legal experience, and no experience anyone can find in the firearms field at all - yet he positions himself as one who knows what is going on. Others have posited that his sole interest is fomenting distrust of law enforcemernt in some misguided attempt to rally support -

and money - for his agenda. I can certainly understand that position, and I would agree with it.

I have deleted my bookmark to your site as I no longer consider it to be worthy of my interest or trust. Sites that point well meaning people to sites that defame police officers and law enforcement in general are of no interest to me. If Sierra Times supports the law enforcement community - especially those who absolutely support the 2nd amendment - it would be wise to separate itself from KABA and "Angel Shamaya", as have many other groups who have come to see what his agenda really is, i.e. promoting "Angel Shamaya" and his money making website. Of course he will deny anything anybody writes, but then that is the way he operates.

Bruce Emmott 
NYPD, retired 
Advisory Board member, 2nd Amendment Police Department

You'll pardon me if I don't bother handling the many false statements sent to our good friends at SierraTimes.com by the man who offered to "break my body into little tiny pieces" when I told him the God's honest truth.

He who attempts to divide Brothers who unify on behalf of True Liberty cannot rest easy in his heart. 

Though I have studied diligently a certain book from which I excerpt the following quote, I quote it with hesitation -- because I am still learning my own lessons in this strange and wonderful life and have much to learn. But the following speaks so well to this issue, I humbly share these time-honored words:

"The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you."  Deuteronomy 19: 18-19

JPFO/CCOPS

I have labored at great length in this treatise to illustrate a portion of the many false accusations and outright libelous statements made by Leroy Pyle and his associates about me and our organization. During this time period, my accusers have also shown increased hostility toward Aaron Zelman and his organizations, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Concerned Citizens Opposed to a Police State. Like me, Mr. Zelman has been accused of being a cop hater, a fear monger, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Our mutual accusers have used the same smokescreens against him they have used against me.

I could put a great deal of time and energy showing you how my accusers' tactics have also been directed toward Mr. Zelman, his associates and their work. I've got dozens of emails -- many of them now on public domain discussion list archives -- validating this statement: what has been launched against me has been launched against JPFO/CCOPS, as well.

Mr. Zelman's new approach (through CCOPS) to helping educate people about various aspects of the increasing usurpation of our liberties is controversial. While many people look the other way, he dives right in on key liberty issues that simply must be addressed. Whether or not you agree with his methodologies, I ask you to look to his intentions -- and his track record for Freedom.

While I have not read every word Mr. Zelman and his associates have written and I have not compared all of the many ad hominem attacks being hurled in his direction, I HAVE confirmed the falseness of some statements my own accusers have made about Aaron Zelman, JPFO and CCOPS. These unfortunate false statements about JPFO/CCOPS/Zelman have not only confirmed what I already knew about our mutual naysayers, they reveal some patterns of aggression toward the truth that cause me a good deal of concern.

In short, listen to what JPFO/CCOPS are saying and filter it through your own mind and sense of reason long before you filter it through the questionable intentions of the people who did their best to do me in. Aaron Zelman's record of patriotism is long and strong. If you feel less than satisfied about what he is doing, offer constructive feedback and provide he and his team the opportunity to hone their well-intended presentation into one that better speaks to your own needs and concerns. 

I am a member of JPFO, and I will be renewing my membership, as well. I will now join CCOPS in hopes the support will assist Mr. Zelman, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Holder and Rabbi Mermelstein in their continued efforts to cull challenging distinctions from the unAmerican things taking place in our society. If I see them say or do something that goes against the grain of my own reason and intellect, I will do what any gentleman would do: approach them and resolve the issue with civility.

For more information in this document about the things being spoken against JPFO/CCOPS by those who are now proven to have repeatedly born false witness against me, look to any of these sections:

• Dividing Allies 

• Intolerance

• The "Anti-cop" Accusation

• The "Greed" Accusation

Back to the Top

top

Back to the Top

part 2

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The following statements are precise quotes Mr. Pyle has given us to help demonstrate the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude that some police officers have toward citizens who find themselves entangled with the "authorities."

• "The affidavit demonstrates that Jerry was..."

• "The store owner participated in the many violations over a period of time."

• "The store owner lied about his violations."

• "Jerry lied to Shamaya, who then fabricated his story using more lies..."

"The affidavit demonstrates that Jerry was illegally and repeatedly selling guns marked personal use." 

Even if Mr. Michel lied through his teeth in his interview with me, this is still a false statement.

The affidavit doesn't demonstrate that Jerry did anything. The affidavit demonstrates that what is written on it is written on it. Presumption of innocence is a foundational structure in our society that deserves the utmost respect.

Blind-faithfully believing that anything the ATF says on an affidavit is true -- after what they did in Waco -- is a sign that something is seriously wrong here.

"The store owner participated in the many violations over a period of time."

How could Mr. Pyle could know this to be true?

Even if he were an undercover ATF agent or simply had good connections at the ATF, he lives in Chicago, so he'd have to be going by what another agent told him; his "certainty" would be coming from hearsay so it wouldn't be certainty, it would be speculation based on hearsay. If he were quoting that agent, he would still only would be quoting hearsay.

And even if another agent sent him the alleged audio recordings the ATF alleges they have in their possession, audio recordings can be doctored rather easily. Give me a large enough archive of speeches made by Hillary Clinton and I could create a realistic sounding recording of her telling you how much she respects the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and Liberty.

The only way I can see he could make this statement with certainty is if he was provided video evidence allegedly in the possession of the ATF.

Mr. Pyle, have you been provided a video image of Mr. Jerry Michel "participating in many violations over a period of time"? If not, what evidence do you have to make your statement?

Please bear in mind that Mr. Pyle told the world he "asked, repeatedly, over a period of time" to see the affidavit.

"The store owner lied about his violations."

See above and immediately below. (See The Comparison Mistake.)

"Jerry lied to Shamaya, who then fabricated his story using more lies..."

As this statement was made not once but twice, I am going to make this as clear as I can to assure that Jerry Michel's name is cleared in this matter:

1)  Jerry had not yet seen the affidavit at the time he made that statement.  (See The Comparison Mistake.)

2)  As far as he knew, according to him, the hired government agents who were stealing his property right before his eyes and were fully prepared to kill him if he resisted in any way whatsoever were telling him lies to attempt to get him to "confess to something." Find me an honest cop anywhere who can say that never happens.

3)  Jerry Michel stated, and I quoted him as saying -- in the same report Mr. Pyle used to attack me -- that he had been accused of making strawman sales, as well. (See The Comparison Mistake.) If Mr. Michel was attempting to "hide" the fact that the ATF said that about him while they were ripping him off, why would he authorize me to print the fact that an ATF agent accused him of making strawman sales in the very report from which Mr. Pyle quotes? 

In Jerry's mind at the time I published my first report -- before he saw the affidavit -- the assault against him took place, according to him, " over some $100 permit" -- like he told us. Whether or not Mr. Michel committed infractions against unconstitutional gun laws Mr. Pyle defends is irrelevant in this matter.

To say "Jerry Michel lied" and that he "participate in the many violations over time" when Mr. Pyle has never spoken to Mr. Michel or seen any evidence to prove he lied is perhaps the single most disturbing aspect of this entire exchange for this reason: 

One of the most widely known and longtime respected defenders of the Second Amendment from the law enforcement community vehemently holds a gun dealer as guilty until proven innocent.

Had Mr. Pyle been covering this story, I can only imagine how he'd have written it up.  

Back to the Top

part 2

Cops First, American Freedom Second

I told these gentlemen some time back that we should iron out our differences in private -- as honorable men. Some time back, we had another heated skirmish over this same fundamental issue, and it escalated way too far, on both sides. What started as sincere attempts at discussing the issue of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws later deteriorated into profound contrast in our fundamental priorities. Over this period of differences of opinion, we have seen some of the heartiest statements I've seen to date -- from the gun rights community -- in defense of the Police State Mentality. Here is one of many:

"To anyone out there who says I or ANY other cop should abandon our primary responsibility to their family and walk away for people who don't support what we do ANYWAY, I say ... F*** Y** - get over it. That's right, my primary responsibility is NOT to you, it's to my family..."  (November 24, 2000)  Bruce Emmott, former NYPD

Leroy Pyle has also placed the blame for police abuses on gun owners:

"I am more aware of the "us vs. them" attitude, Chris, but it doesn't seem to be coming from the cops!"  Nov 20, 2000

Then there is the blind faith some cops exhibit in any law enforcement agency, as exampled by the following quote from Mr. Emmott when I attempted some reasoning with him:

"So the ATF fabricated the entire document, committed numerous counts of perjury, all to persecute this poor guy - is that what you're saying slick?"

Well, why not? They've done it before. Not only that, there is at least one major false statement on the affidavit that we know of, so why not more? And why is the ATF even there? Who gave them authority? And is that authority legitimate? (NO.)

Though dozens of great quotes from various founding fathers would have served to drive home many of my points in this lengthy message, I'd planned on refraining from The Quote Technique in lieu of letting my words stand on their own -- but I can't resist just this one:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~~ Samuel Adams

Then there are the more subtle justifications for disarming people whose sole "crime" is possession of a gun the State Worshippers continue to ban. In his controversial article Just Following Orders, Leroy Pyle said,

"I am concerned that it has become a catch-phrase among firearms activists to criticize law officers for enforcing current laws...I wonder at the wisdom of such rhetoric."  Leroy Pyle, 2ampd Co-founder

Criticizing cops for violating our rights is, to Mr. Pyle, "rhetoric." In placing responsibility on whose "fault" it is that police follow orders that include gross violations of civil rights, Mr. Pyle goes on in his article to list a host of the people and groups he says are truly to blame, and says, "They give the orders that your police are obligated to follow." [emphasis mine]  "Obligated." If a police officer is told to go do X, according to Mr. Pyle and some of his key, threat-making associates, the police must do it. Strapping an able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 with a felony for possessing a militia rifle is "an obligation." We must keep that in mind in California as Mr. Pyle's "obligated" peers set about enforcing the "assault weapons" bans. 

But aren't peoples' lives and liberties also obligations? And isn't it an obligation we owe this and future generations to keep our nation free -- and make it freer? And when the obligation to remain alive and free meets the "obligation" to infringe on rights to make a paycheck for a family, which obligation is more important? Which is right? There is a Superior principle here. Why it isn't emanating from 2ampd, I do not know. Perhaps they will write a lucid article that can make sense to gun owners whose lives, fortunes, families, liberties and sacred honor are regarded as less important than cops' paychecks.  Submit it here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNPAdd.asp.

Back to the Top

part 2

Grudges & Forgiveness

I don't know how many times I've heard one gun activist complain about another, but one is too many, and I've done it myself. Enough already. If you've got a beef with someone, get over it. Show some stones and put Principles before Personality. If they pushed your button, find out if there is a lesson to learn for yourself.  If there is, learn it.  If not, move on, please. We've got a lot of work to get done in the days ahead, and it won't happen if we keep cannibalizing. Support your countrymen, appreciate their strengths, help them build up their weaknesses, and let us press forward in unity.

If you've got a grudge held against me that is diminishing how you relate to me, spit it out. Don't send me a book; send me a simple statement in as few words as possible, let me respond, and let's move on. I'll probably publish your message so other people can listen to you say your piece, but I will withhold your email address and name if you ask me to do so.

If you are more committed to being adversarial toward allies than in being unified toward Liberty, resolve it and heal, and get support from a friend if it will help you do it faster. Every one of our issues as human beings comes up in order to heal. Give yourself the gift of letting go of baggage that isn't serving you. You deserve the extra ease in your body and in your life, and you'll be more effective for the cause.

Send any grudge you hold toward me right here.  I'd appreciate some help from an ALLY to monitor that email address so I can respond to people choosing resolution -- in a timely manner.  We don't want to hear about your grudges you have with other people, either. Clear it up with them like an adult. Grudge Monitor:  [email protected]

Honor

We all have honor; it is innate. Some people just don't use it, so it atrophies. This is true of all roots of Character.

The reasons I see that semi-Second Amendment police officers shackle their own honor in infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are as follows:

• ignorance of the real meaning of the Second Amendment

• putting Cops First, American Freedom Second

• ego reasons: to be "right" and protect their current belief systems

• fear of standing up and showing the next level of courage required to get cops turned around

If you know the true meaning of the Second Amendment but are only supporting an inferior, unAmerican version of the second amendment Lite offered by the revisionists, you are being played as the fool -- by yourself -- and your honor is taking a beating.

Ignoring your honor to justify infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is one of the many characteristic of a traitor.

Back to the Top

part 2

Principle, Principles, Priorities

Let's keep this simple. 

Whatever you put first comes from your most important principle. 

Principles are expressed as priorities. 

Priorities are revealed by what we do.

In the case of the ATF thievery against Jerry Michel, Mr. Pyle's Higher Priority is clearly outlined in Guilty Until Proven Innocent, Cops First, American Freedom Second and throughout this entire document.

When people protect misprioritized beliefs, they lash out to avoid being exposed by resorting to tactics that detract from civility. We have all done it in one way or another, and that "all" most certainly includes me.

And when we know our principles are misprioritized, what we must heal is the guilt of having misprioritized -- and repair the damage that has been done to our honor.

The solution is an appropriate Priority Shift.

Back to the Top

part 2

Traitors, Tradition and Treason

Traitor  n.  (Dictionary.com) One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Traitor \Trai"tor\, n. [OE. traitour, OF. tra["i]tor, tra["i]teur, F. tre[^i]tre, L. traditor, fr. tradere, traditum, to deliver, to give up or surrender treacherously, to betray; trans across, over + dare to give. See Date time, and cf. Betray, Tradition, Traditor, Treason.] 1. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country. See Treason.

Tradition  (Dictionary.com)  1. The act of delivering into the hands of another; delivery.

Treason n. (Dictionary.com)

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The roots of words hold great power and rich meaning, and the interconnectedness of words is a most fascinating subject, indeed. When you look up the word "traitor," you are referred to the words "tradition" and "treason."

As pertains to the infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Traitors do all of the following:

1. defile the tradition of arms, keeping arms, bearing arms, enjoying arms, learning arms, and passing on all of the above to future generations
   
   
2. defile their own country and are usually too ignorant to know it
   
   
3. defile the future society in which their own offspring must live
   
   
4. defile their own honor
   
   
5. and find transparent ways to say all of the above is not true.

And there is no such thing as a "sometimes traitor." If you're a great guy 95% of the time but the other 5% of the time you are infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, sweet talk yourself all you want to; you're still a traitor. There is one Second Amendment; either you support it, or you don't.

Back to the Top

part 2

Preaching to the Choir

It is important to understand with KeepAndBearArms.com that we are not only preaching to the choir. Some people find their way onto our site and into our email distribution systems to either investigate or to mole. Those here to investigate are not "choir" at all; they are often countrymen and women looking for new insights, reasons, ideas and understandings. 

We eagerly publish new articles that cover similar topics covered previously for the following reasons:

1. When each of us is peeling off another layer of our own indoctrination Scars, new realizations surface.
   
   

2. These precious kernels of truth, when expressed with authenticity, are enlivening to behold.
   
   

3. Each of us is a unique person with unique ways of expressing the concepts through which we ascend, and some people hear something multiple times but never "get it" until it is said that one perfect way. (Our site is very much about "getting it" -- and then passing "it" on.)
   
   

4. The more people who "get it" and pass "it" on, the sooner we can all rest assured that our Liberty Job is done. (People have told me it will be a "never-ending battle" to restore The Republic, but I refuse to accept that program, thank you. We can, and we will.)
   
   

5. And finally and possibly most importantly, as evidenced by Mr. Pyle's support of anti-Second Amendment gun laws and their enforcement, some people who consider themselves "choir" are not choir at all; they still have a few things to learn.

Back to the Top

part 2

Threats? Made by 2ampd People, Directly to Me
(in court-admissible email)

Following are examples of how far Mr. Pyle's closest allies have gone in order to "protect and serve" their Cops First, American Freedom Second misprioritization. These two statements were sent to me by email and posted on a public domain email list when I took issue with the fact that these gentlemen were convicting a gun dealer before he ever even got arrested or charged with anything:

Joe Horn, former LAPD <[email protected]>:  

"I will be watching my brother officer's (who are still in uniform) backs. Others of us will, too. That's a warning to Militia types, wannabes and self appointed Messiahs who appear from no where to lead you disenfranchised masses to the promised land. We look like everyone else, too, and you'll learn what Vietnam was all about. Those of you that remain associated with Shamaya the unknown, will live to regret it. Better you than me."

Mr. Horn lives less than two hours away from me.

Bruce Emmott, former NYPD <[email protected]>:  

"If the time ever came when we should cross paths - I will give you exactly 5 seconds to retract your statement about my patriotism and devotion to my country before I break your body into little bitty pieces. Take that to the bank asshole."

Mr. Emmott didn't like it when I called him on his choice to hold Jerry Michel as the Bad Guy and ATF as the Good Guy in their "raid". I questioned his patriotism for siding with the right-infringements conducted against Mr. Michael. I wish I could take the statement back, but I can't; his position is unAmerican.  Mr. Pyle's response to him when he made that statement was, "Oh, you sweet talker." To them this is all amusing horseplay, I suppose. To me it is about our nation's Liberty.

I initially wasn't convinced either of these advisors to Mr. Pyle meant, literally, that they would do me bodily harm, and Bruce is more or less an admitted hothead -- like many rugged individuals, myself included -- who rarely holds back from saying how he feels. And he lives in New York, so I suppose I'm safe here in Arizona. 

But after continuing to receive in forwarded emails the vicious, sneering attacks against me (and people defending my name based on the facts) by Mr. Horn, I'm now actually wondering if he meant it. It's a weird feeling when you hear some strange noise outside your house and wonder if it's an unstable retired cop coming to help you "learn what Vietnam was all about." 

Protect and serve. Second Amendment. Defending the ATF and making threats in defense of their position.

(To all of the good police officers out there reading this, please do not think for a second that I believe you engage in these behaviors just because you are a cop. If you honor your Constitutional oath, you are my ally. If you don't, click here.)

Other quotes from Mr. Horn that leave me wondering if he meant it:

"Sham the Scam has no more point of View than did Josef Goebbels." 12/11/1000

"I am not your ally if you don't stand for truth, you consider all cops nazi thugs and promote hatred. Sham stands for that and you pimp his line here." 12/11/00  (Note: Nobody I know of has ever told Mr. Horn that all cops are anything. Such a statement would be false, as we all know or know of pro RKBA cops.)

While I defend the REAL Second Amendment as he defends gun confiscators, if Mr. Horn's aggressive attitude toward me continues to rage, I do have one friend who would be delighted to sign release forms and meet Mr. Horn in the dojo. My friend has even offered to buy Mr. Horn's gasoline for the two-hour journey. If threatening violence against a Patriot for simply telling the truth is truly Mr. Horn's preferred course of action, in order to help him get his needs met, I am willing to assist in this meeting: (602) 485-5000. Otherwise, I will simply take Mr. Horn's threat as nothing more than the bullying and intimidation tactics some cops are known for -- based in his unfortunate inability to handle the truth.

I would prefer getting together for a cup of coffee once he revisits the Second Amendment and realizes that supporting the enforcement of unConstitutional gun laws is unAmerican. And we can always meet on Yahoo.com for a gentlemanly game of chess. I'm sure he's a very tough fellow, but I want to know what his mind can do when he's not busy protecting and defending the ATF's illegal actions.

Back to the Top

part 2

Ad Hominem

What is Ad hominem?

(Dictionary.com) -- Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:  Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.  A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the principles, interests, or passions of a man.

In other words: attacking the debater as opposed to his arguments. (Al Gore debating George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidency)

It is important to understand the difference between ascribing an accurate but offensive term to someone as opposed to simply name-calling or personal attacks. HUGE difference. A traitor may get offended when you call him what he is, but if he fits the description, it is not ad hominem; it's reality. It's up to him as your opponent in the debate to refute your claim. If he is a gentleman, he will refute your claim or concede. If he is not, he will debase his own character by resorting to name-calling or by skirting the issue with smokescreens. Good examples of advance cases of ad hominem are found in the False Accusations section.  (See also: inflammatory and tactics.)

And I am no stranger to the use of ad hominem, believe me. I can use it well, just like anyone else, so please don't hear this like I am saying I have never used it. (I wonder if anyone has gone their whole life without resorting to ad hominem.) But I have also been accused of using ad hominem when in fact I was speaking the truth and using words people refused to define and explore, as well. I do urge you to use Dictionary.com before you tell your debating opponent he is attacking your character.

Examples from My Accuser

When Mr. Pyle was confronted on his own list about attacking me, his responses yielded a litany of false accusations, this being among them:

"I confess, I responded to the little prick in less than respectable terms."

Of course I am not a little prick in the truest sense (and that Leroy ain't the first person who couldn't win a debate with me and thus called me that, either), but the point is partially illustrated. Superficial ad hominem such as simple name calling is just that: simple. It is when simple ad hominem becomes an advanced case that leads into character assassinations that we must address the cause. (For a very ugly example of advanced ad hominem, see The "Greed" Accusation.)

Responding to Ad Hominem

Now that these gentlemen have taken such hearty exception with my accurate descriptions of Liberty's Transgressors, I have gotten a really good lesson in the need to respond in more instructive ways. When someone attacks me with ad hominem, if I perceive their conversion to my way of thinking as worthy of my time and attention, I will respond with more compassion. Here is an example:

"You whining sissies remind this old fart of teenagers who hate daddy because he is the authority in their lives and they are restrained by daddy's very existence." ~~ Joe Horn, 12/10/2000

My here and now response:

Friend, this ain't whining; it's righteous indignation. I've linked those two words so you can go see where I am coming from and debate me on the topic at hand. 

Reading the Second Amendment and the historical information behind it would help solve this problem. It might also help if you returned in your heart and mind to the time you served your country in Vietnam, Joe -- and stuck your nightstick in the closet for a week or two. I value your great experience and presence as an American, and I want you on our team. Will you consider the many things in this treatise and get back to me? I'd like to speak with you by phone as soon as you are ready.

Mr. Horn doesn't have to receive the sincerity of my communication, and he may resort to various tactics to avoid playing his role in the debate, as well -- but the truth has been presented, so my part is done.

Back to the Top

part 2

Rebuttal Guidelines

I will be happy to publish a rebuttal written from anyone who has read this entire document and who either

1. Fully supports The Jefferson Second Amendment, OR

2. reads the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights from start to finish before writing it.

Back to the Top

part 2

The Lighter Side of This Mess

It is important not to take this all too seriously, especially since we all have a lot of work to do to get our country back on its feet, so I thought I would point out to you what I find humorous in these attempted assassinations on my character by Mr. Pyle and Mr. Stark. Each of the following gave me a good laugh:

1. In the same message he called Innocent Until Proven Guilty, he proved to us that he holds the gun dealer Guilty Until Proven Innocent -- and said: "common sense often escapes Shamaya".
   
   
2. Chris Stark and Leroy Pyle launched their kamikaze attack on my character on Pearl Harbor Day.
   
   
3. And in the report where he said 
   
   "The abuses have to be addressed, Melissa, but we don�t have to make them up.",
   
   he did --
   
   precipitating an addressing of his abuses.
   
   
4. He asked you to expect me to do the impossible:
   
   If you compare his "news" to the affidavit, it is clear that he lied.
   
   and to mistrust me because I didn't do it.
   
   
5. Chris Stark and Leroy Pyle have both done the following:
   A) said that the NRA should not push the "zero tolerance enforcement" line,
   B) defended the actions of the one of the worst kinds of "zero tolerance enforcement" there is,
   C) and called me "Sham."
   
   
6. And he told us a judge did something that judges don't do when it comes to gun confiscation warrants:
   
   "... an affidavit was prepared and presented to a judge, who approved the legitimacy..."
   
   
7. He accused me of:  "If we "cry wolf" and are caught lying..."
   
   while doing it,
   
   and secured for himself the very result he tried to place upon me.
   
   
8. He accused me of things he can't prove while accusing me of things I disproved...
   
   and in the same editorial sought to make you mistrust in me.
   
   
9. He compared me to anti-gunners while taking a zesty stand against the Second Amendment.
   
   
10. He insulted your intelligence while attempting to cast doubt about mine.
    
    
11. And my personal favorite, Mr. Pyle suggested that you could have the following attitude toward the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:
    
    "...speculate that the ATF was going out of their way to avoid violating the suspect�s rights..."
    
    in defense of their having violated the Amendment after which his organization is named,
    
    while asking American Patriots to succumb to the Procedure Farce as justification for something that would make George Washington and his boys start shooting.

One final quote from the character assassination attempt where an ally attempted to destroy me among my own peers for calling 'em like I see 'em: 

:-)

Back to the Top

part 2

CONCLUSION

In order to address the oath-breakers in law enforcement, gunowners must act in unison. Supporters of the REAL Second Amendment must unify and address the issue. We can pull together and make solid headway, and we seek the assistance of LEO's who put the Constitution first. There is a way. There is a way.

To the "Second Amendment" police department, "the ATF's actions were completely justified." I beg to differ. Though Mr. Michel claims their sworn statement is rife with falsehoods, even if he did EVERYTHING they said he did, he didn't deserve to be treated like he has been -- AT ALL. Leroy Pyle simply disagrees, and I find that odd considering he's been aware of the assault against American Liberty and gun RIGHTS for the last couple of decades.

Those who support the enforcement of liberty-infringing "laws" are better off offering their allegiance to the NRA than to KeepAndBearArms.com. The NRA does a great deal of good, but we disagree where it counts the most: enforcement. They take the easy way; we prefer the Real Second Amendment. Oddly, Mr. Pyle signed on to our Project Exile Condemnation Coalition denouncing the NRA's call for "zero tolerance enforcement," but he not only supports the enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws, he backs his support up by smearing and libeling people with character assassinations who denounce a real, live gun confiscation -- and by defaming the victims of the ATF.

There is only one Second Amendment.

As a result of Mr. Pyle's strong defense of the Waco Killers, I have taken it upon myself to procure the following three domain names on behalf of KeepAndBearArms.com:

ATFWatch.com    ATFWatch.net    ATFWatch.org

We would like assistance in putting together a list of ATF abuses in graphic detail. If you are interested in participating in exposing the bowels of this company of redcoats, and if you have web design experience under your belt, send an introductory email to [email protected]. If you have any detailed information about any in a long list of ATF abuses, send that information, too. (Please do NOT add this email address to ANY address lists.)

Why Has Mr. Pyle Attacked Me?

Recent lesson from a nephew

Part 1

Rachel really loves her sister's children. They live up in Michigan, and she lives here in Phoenix, Arizona. Rachel called her sister today to touch base and see how things were going, and Kathy told her they'd just had 14 inches of snow (ugh!) and were snowed in. When they were done talking, Kathy handed the phone to her three year old son Marco. He happily got on the phone to talk to aunt Rachel from his blustery, wintry world and asked the following question:  

"Is it snowing at your house?"

Rachel said, "No, Marco. We live in Arizona and it's warm and the sun is shining." 

Demarco replied, "My bike is all covered up to the seat. It's snowing. Is it snowing at your house?"

Rachel said, "No, Marco. It's a nice warm day here, honey."

He resisted. "No. At your house. Is it snowing there?" he asked again. 

"NO, Marco. We live in Arizona. It's nice out today."

Marco went on to say that it was snowing at Rachel's house, period. "NO! At your house. It is snowing!"

To Marco, the world consists of his immediate surroundings: snowed in house, freezing outside, toasty rooms, and his bike is covered up to the seat. He even got agitated when she continued to work with him to understand that she was wearing short sleeves while he was snowed into his house-world -- and he told her she was wrong.

And Rachel laughed and enjoyed being with him as he experienced a rattling of his current worldview. His perception was limited to that which he could currently perceive and comprehend; it was the whole wide world, and doggone it, it was snowing.

Part 1 Lessons

1. When a worldview gets challenged, a human being must either resist the challenge and stand upon that which they currently believe, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, or
   
   

2. They must explore with an open mind the challenge of their worldview in order to rise to the next level of understanding.

Part 1 Applied to this situation

Mr. Pyle's unwillingness to put the Second Amendment before the enforcement of unConstitutional "laws" requires him to contract into resistance when his worldview is challenged. This dynamic, some say, gets "harder the longer a belief is held as true." Don't buy that nonsense; it's a false statement. Human beings can make radical, lasting, life-changing shifts in one single moment. 

Mr. Pyle's solution to his worldview dilemma rests in the Principle upon which his misprioritized beliefs stand.

Part 2

When Marco was done matter-of-factly telling Rachel that it was snowing in Phoenix, Arizona, he handed the phone back to his mom, Kathy. Kathy had heard the discussion and laughingly said the following to Rachel: 

"He really wanted it to be snowing at your house and for your bike to be covered in snow, too. Why didn't you just tell him it was snowing in Phoenix?"

Rachel answered, 

"Because it isn't."

Part 2 Lessons

1. Some people will encourage you to go along in support of someone else's skewed worldview.
   
   

2. Don't do it.  If you do, all you'll be doing is supporting the continuation of their disassociation from Reality.
   
   

3. The best way to reconcile opposing worldviews is through discourse where ad hominem and tactics are cast aside in favor of the truth.  (See Police.)

Part 2 Applied to this situation

Gun owners and "law" enforcers who know it is wrong for a law enforcement officer to break his/her oath to the Constitution have been "going along" with the enforcement of those unConstitutional orders for far too long -- accepting them as "just the way it is." Enough is enough. Stand Up for the Constitution, Lawman. You swore you would, now do it.

The Constitution says what it says, the Second Amendment means what it means, and law officers swore they'd uphold those words. 

It's not snowing.

Contrast

Contrast our positions for moment to really appreciate the explosiveness of the fundamental issues in conflict here:

Mr. Pyle calls this yet uncharged gun dealer a liar and has never so much as spoken to him and has no way to prove he lied. Meanwhile, I went over every word of what I quoted the gun dealer as saying, twice, to make sure I represented him accurately and honorably so as to preserve and protect his reputation.

Mr. Pyle defends the affidavit so fiercely he's willing to trash me to every email address and website he can reach in defense of the "procedures" used to confiscate this man's guns while disregarding the egregious anti-Second Amendment nature of the gun confiscation itself.  I say the document -- and every "principle" behind it -- is a wholly illegal statutory Enslavement Device that directly violates the foundational social Contract upon which our very nation was founded.

The contrast between our two positions is stark.

Final Appeal

I stated the following earlier, and I will share it again and then come back, resolve the feeling that is left from its message in tough love, and call this treatise complete:

Though I have studied diligently a certain book from which I excerpt the following quote, I quote it with hesitation -- because I am still learning my own lessons in this strange and wonderful life and have much to learn. But the following speaks so well to this issue, I humbly share these time-honored words:

"The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you."  Deuteronomy 19: 18-19

Though the message on the surface of that powerful quote may seem to be one of animosity, I assure you: it is about love. Rooting out those things that block our Second Amendment right from being fully exercised is a vital step toward restoring the Republic. The message I ask you to take away from that passage -- and from this entire Document -- is one of love and understanding. We must not cast aside our brothers in law enforcement who endanger their honor while using tactics to avoid dealing with hard issues. Rather, we must convey to them the following:

We see your infringing transgressions as wholly separate from you as a person, and we honor you as one of our society's warriors. We are grateful to you for putting your life on the line against the dregs of our society. We respect you for that immensely.

We also ask you to understand that our Second Amendment rights are more important than your job. We have done nothing to harm you, and your using guns and force to infringe upon our rights is no longer acceptable. We know your superiors are politicians, but we refuse to accept that or any other excuse for disobeying your oath as our public servant. You swore you would keep it, now be your word. Let unConstitutional gun laws go unenforced.

We truly hold that you can cease your infringements and come back into the fold of American Brotherhood once again -- by refusing to take up arms against your countrymen. The whimsical law-passings of legiscriminals pale in comparison to our nation's liberty, and the cause of freedom could use your worthy attention. And we believe there are ways yet unexplored that you can keep your job and your oath at the same time.

Infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of the citizens you are hired to serve goes against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the evil must and will be stopped.

We offer you the option of having a choice in this matter.

We will be keeping our guns.

Assess your principles.

Remember your honor.

Do not behave like a traitor.

You say I am wrong? Very well. Leave your tactics at the door, debate your excuses and justifications until there is nothing left to debate, and let's see who wins.

Resolution

We think it would be much better to work in unison with the people who have chosen ad hominem attacks over civil discourse. If they are up to the task, let the debate begin.

Back to the Top

part 2