Uhhh, Kathleen Sebelius is still the Sec of Health and Human Services. What the hell are you talking about.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Canada is not free, our SIG rifles were nationally banned by the police today.
- Thread starter Potatosalad
- Start date
Uhhh, Kathleen Sebelius is still the Sec of Health and Human Services. What the hell are you talking about.
The Canadian Press February 28, 2014 8:33pm
Federal government to review RCMP decision to prohibit Swiss Arms rifle
Federal government to review RCMP decision to prohibit Swiss Arms rifle | GlobalPost
Federal government to review RCMP decision to prohibit Swiss Arms rifle
Federal government to review RCMP decision to prohibit Swiss Arms rifle | GlobalPost
French flag? I think you need to study history a little more...
Come and take it - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not sure if it's really Ashely…maybe Ashton(or could be that I just don't know any women from CT
but this LT. definitely needs some schooling from the CSPOA.
Famed Sandy Hook Connecticut State Policeman Says Opposing Gun Grab Is Un-American - YouTube
but this LT. definitely needs some schooling from the CSPOA.Famed Sandy Hook Connecticut State Policeman Says Opposing Gun Grab Is Un-American - YouTube
God knows I hope this can all be fixed through funding the NRA, like minded organizations, and through voting, but history will show that this is only an exercise in futility.
The thought has crossed my mind more than once that maybe we'd be better off if we stopped funding the Pro 2nd lobbying forces and spent that money on more guns and ammo.
If they're going to do away with my 2nd Amendment, my Constitution, my liberty let them try. It seems this fight is coming. I only ask that it comes while I'm still young enough to fight on the front line and that the next generation not have to fight in my place.
This is true, but show me where they compromised, show me where they agreed that certain muskets and all cannons were "unsafe" for the general population to own.
When the republic fails, the bullet still gets to vote. Fixed it for you.
I would argue that if the bullet gets to vote then the republic has not failed. Our founding fathers for saw this day, hence the 2nd Amendment. They knew a day would come when the tree of liberty would have to be refreshed with the blood of patriots, when the power would have to be taken from the government and restored to the individual.
No no you have it all wrong. When you think France you should think "cheese eating surrender monkeys". So someone took a French surrender flag and printed something cool on it.
Update 05/03/2014
We are starting to get attention, the government has given the 12,000 people so far affected a 5 year amnesty from criminal prosecution. This is not good enough as only criminals need amnesty from prosecution of crimes. We committed no such acts and will continue pushing for justice.
We are petitioning the government to rewrite the firearms act to better reflect the rights and freedoms of shooters and hunters. We are demanding action. A big thank you to all who are supporting us Canucks and the NFA, we need all the help we can get.
We are starting to get attention, the government has given the 12,000 people so far affected a 5 year amnesty from criminal prosecution. This is not good enough as only criminals need amnesty from prosecution of crimes. We committed no such acts and will continue pushing for justice.
We are petitioning the government to rewrite the firearms act to better reflect the rights and freedoms of shooters and hunters. We are demanding action. A big thank you to all who are supporting us Canucks and the NFA, we need all the help we can get.
Sipsey Street Irregulars: An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)
The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.
15 February 2014
To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.
Some of you are already working a major case on me, trying to figure out how I may be arrested for violating Conn. P.A. 13-3, which bears the wildly dishonest title of "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety." (What part of "protecting children" is accomplished by sparking a civil war?) Not only have I personally violated this unconstitutional and tyrannical act by smuggling and by the encouragement of smuggling, defiance and non-compliance on the part of your state's citizens, but I have further irritated your wannabe tyrant bosses by sending them standard capacity magazines in my "Toys for Totalitarians" program. I further have annoyed them by pointing out -- and seeking more evidence of -- the existence of Mike Lawlor's KGB file (as well as his FBI and CIA counter-intelligence files). In short, I have made myself a nuisance to your bosses in just about every way I could think of. However, their discomfiture reminds me of the wisdom of that great American philosopher of the late 20th Century, Frank Zappa, who said, "Do you love it? Do you hate it? There it is, the way you made it." Whether you will be able to make a case on me that sticks is, of course, problematic for a number of reasons which I will detail to you in the letter below. I have already done so to your bosses and include the links in this email so that you may easily access them.
But even if you are not working on my case you will want to pay attention to this letter, because tyrannical politicians in your state have been writing checks with their mouths that they expect you to cash with your blood. We have moved, thanks to them, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. Connecticut is now in a state of cold civil war, one that can flash to bloody conflict in an instant if someone, anyone, does something stupid. So please pay attention, for Malloy and Co. have put all your asses on the line and are counting on your supine obedience to the enforcement of their unconstitutional diktat.
I apparently first came to your attention with this speech on the steps of your state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I'd like to quote some of the more salient points of it that involve you.
"An unconstitutional law is void." It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence, the standard legal text. And that's been upheld by centuries of American law. An unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth that we know down in Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the attendant of every evil. . .
Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned -- but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding -- but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will -- when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people -- innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.
You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the "armed men" that Malloy and Company will send "to work their will" upon the previously law-abiding. In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully boy political police of you. So you all have a very real stake in what happens next. But let me continue:
The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. . . The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.
Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them. No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitutional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Let me repeat that, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives -- WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.
Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say -- Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart. As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting -- "Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law" -- and national commentators are at last noticing, my advice to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling, as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let's just look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.
By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.
That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.
And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.
"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day, extrapolating. It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize let alone understand. I told Lawlor:
You, you silly sod, are extrapolating from your own cowardice. Just because you wouldn't risk death for your principles, doesn't mean there aren't folks who most certainly will. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but folks who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of them as well. You may be ignorant of such people and their ways. You may think that they are insane. But surely even you cannot be so clueless that, insane or not from your point-of-view, such people DO exist and in numbers unknown. This is the undiscovered country that you and your tyrannical ilk have blundered into, like clueless kindergarteners gaily (no pun intended) tap-dancing in a well-marked mine field. The Founders marked the mine field. Is it our fault or yours that you have blithely ignored the warnings? If I were a Connecticut state policeman I would be wondering if the orders of a possible KGB mole throwback were worth the terminal inability to collect my pension. Of course, you may be thinking that you can hide behind that "thin blue line." Bill Clinton's rules of engagement say otherwise.
The odds are, and it gives me no particular satisfaction to say it, is that someone is going to get killed over your unconstitutional misadventures in Connecticut. And if not Connecticut, then New York, or Maryland, or California or Colorado. And once the civil war you all apparently seek is kicked off, it would not be -- it could not be -- confined to one state.
This is not a threat, of course. Not the personal, actionable threat that you may claim. It ranks right along with -- no, that's wrong, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE -- an ex-con meeting me in the street and pointing to my neighbor's house saying, "Tonight I am going to break in there, kill that man, rape his wife and daughters and steal everything that he is, has, or may become." I warn him, "If you try to do that, he will kill you first. He may not look like much, but I know him to be vigilant and perfectly capable of blowing your head off." That is not a threat from me. It is simply good manners. Consider this letter in the same vein. I am trying to save you from yourself.
For, like that common criminal, you have announced by your unconstitutional law and your public statements in favor of its rigorous enforcement that you have a tyrannical appetite for your neighbors' liberty, property and lives. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that this policy, if carried to your announced conclusion, will not end well for anybody, but especially for you.
Now let's examine those numbers in the Courant story. You know the size of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Wikipedia tells us that "CSP currently has approximately 1,248 troopers, and is headquartered in Middletown, Connecticut. It is responsible for protecting the Governor of Connecticut, Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, and their families." There are but 1,212 email addresses listed on the state website to which this email is going, which presumably includes everyone including secretaries, receptionists, file clerks, technicians, etc. Now, how many shooters for raid parties you may find among that one thousand, two hundred and forty eight that Wikipedia cites, or whatever number will be on the payroll when something stupid happens, only you know for sure. I'll let you do the counting. They are daunting odds in any case, and as you will see, they get more daunting as we go down this road that Malloy and Company have arranged for you. (By the way, don't forget to subtract those on the Green Zone protective details, for your political masters will certainly see their survival as your mission number one.) So, how many folks would your superiors be interested in seeing you work their will upon? And of these, how many will fight regardless of cost?
Let's assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in your state. I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number -- not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners, but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable act upon them. Of course you will have to come prepared to shoot them. That's a given. They know this. So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe is righteous self defense.) Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, after the first shots are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call. These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war makers who sent you. This gets back to that "when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote." One ballot, or bullet, at a time.
This is all hypothetical, of course, based upon the tyrants' appetites for these hitherto law-abiding citizens' liberty, property and lives as well as upon your own willingness to enforce their unconstitutional diktat. And here's where you can do something about it. The first thing you have to realize is that the people you will be targeting do not view you as the enemy. Indeed, you are NOT their enemy, unless you choose to be one.
Again, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Of course you may if you like cling to the slim fact that a single black-robed bandit has ruled the Intolerable Act as constitutional in Shew vs. Malloy, but that will not matter to those three percent of the resistors -- your fellow citizens -- whom you target. They no longer expect a fair trial in your state in any case, which leaves them, if they wish to defend their liberty, property and lives, only the recourse of an unfair firefight. So to cite Shew vs. Malloy at the point of a state-issued firearm to such people is, well, betting your life on a very slender reed.
Thus, my kindly advice to you, just as it was to Lawlor, is to not go down that road. You are not the enemy of the people of Connecticut, not yet. The politicians who jammed this law down the peoples' throats are plainly flummoxed by the resistance it has engendered. In the absence of a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision do you really want to risk not being able to draw your pension over some politician's insatiable appetite for power?
There are many ways you can refuse to get caught up in this. Passive resistance, looking the other way, up to and including outright refusal to execute what is a tyrannical law that a higher court may yet find unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Do you really want to have to kill someone enforcing THAT? Just because you were ordered to do so? After Nuremberg, that defense no longer obtains. (You may say, "Well, I'm just a secretary, a clerk, you can't blame me for anything." Kindly recall from Nuremberg one other lesson: raid parties cannot break down doors unless someone like you prepares the list in advance. In fact, you have at your keyboard and in your databases more raw, naked power than any kick-in-the-door trooper. And with that power comes moral responsibility. Adolf Eichmann didn't personally kill anyone. But he darn sure made up the lists and saw to it that trains ran on time. When the first Connecticut citizen (or, God forbid, his family) is killed as a result of your list-making, do you think that because you didn't pull the trigger that gives you a moral pass?)
So I call on you all, in your own best interest and that of your state, to refuse to enforce this unconstitutional law. There are a number of Three Percenters within the Connecticut state government, especially its law enforcement arms. I know that there have been many discussions around water-coolers and off state premises about the dangers that this puts CT law enforcement officers in and what officers should do if ordered to execute raids on the previously law-abiding.
You have it within your power to refuse to initiate hostilities in an American civil war that would, by its very nature, be ghastly beyond belief and would unleash hatreds and passions that would take generations to get over, if then.
Please, I beg you to understand, you are not the enemy, you are not an occupying force -- unless you choose to violate the oath that each of you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. For their part, the men and women who will be targeted by your raids took an identical oath. Can you think of anything more tragic than brother killing brother over some politician's tyrannical appetite?
I can't. The future -- yours, mine, our children's, that of the citizens of Connecticut and indeed of the entire country -- is in YOUR hands.
At the very least, by your refusal you can give the courts time to work before proceeding into an unnecessary civil war against your own friends and neighbors on the orders of a self-anointed elite who frankly don't give a shit about you, your life, your future or that of your family. They wouldn't pass these laws if they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny. You are not the enemy. Don't act like one.
Sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL
The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.
15 February 2014
To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.
Some of you are already working a major case on me, trying to figure out how I may be arrested for violating Conn. P.A. 13-3, which bears the wildly dishonest title of "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety." (What part of "protecting children" is accomplished by sparking a civil war?) Not only have I personally violated this unconstitutional and tyrannical act by smuggling and by the encouragement of smuggling, defiance and non-compliance on the part of your state's citizens, but I have further irritated your wannabe tyrant bosses by sending them standard capacity magazines in my "Toys for Totalitarians" program. I further have annoyed them by pointing out -- and seeking more evidence of -- the existence of Mike Lawlor's KGB file (as well as his FBI and CIA counter-intelligence files). In short, I have made myself a nuisance to your bosses in just about every way I could think of. However, their discomfiture reminds me of the wisdom of that great American philosopher of the late 20th Century, Frank Zappa, who said, "Do you love it? Do you hate it? There it is, the way you made it." Whether you will be able to make a case on me that sticks is, of course, problematic for a number of reasons which I will detail to you in the letter below. I have already done so to your bosses and include the links in this email so that you may easily access them.
But even if you are not working on my case you will want to pay attention to this letter, because tyrannical politicians in your state have been writing checks with their mouths that they expect you to cash with your blood. We have moved, thanks to them, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. Connecticut is now in a state of cold civil war, one that can flash to bloody conflict in an instant if someone, anyone, does something stupid. So please pay attention, for Malloy and Co. have put all your asses on the line and are counting on your supine obedience to the enforcement of their unconstitutional diktat.
I apparently first came to your attention with this speech on the steps of your state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I'd like to quote some of the more salient points of it that involve you.
"An unconstitutional law is void." It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence, the standard legal text. And that's been upheld by centuries of American law. An unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth that we know down in Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the attendant of every evil. . .
Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned -- but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding -- but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will -- when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people -- innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.
You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the "armed men" that Malloy and Company will send "to work their will" upon the previously law-abiding. In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully boy political police of you. So you all have a very real stake in what happens next. But let me continue:
The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. . . The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.
Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them. No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitutional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Let me repeat that, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives -- WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.
Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say -- Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart. As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting -- "Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law" -- and national commentators are at last noticing, my advice to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling, as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let's just look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.
By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.
That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.
And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.
"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day, extrapolating. It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize let alone understand. I told Lawlor:
You, you silly sod, are extrapolating from your own cowardice. Just because you wouldn't risk death for your principles, doesn't mean there aren't folks who most certainly will. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but folks who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of them as well. You may be ignorant of such people and their ways. You may think that they are insane. But surely even you cannot be so clueless that, insane or not from your point-of-view, such people DO exist and in numbers unknown. This is the undiscovered country that you and your tyrannical ilk have blundered into, like clueless kindergarteners gaily (no pun intended) tap-dancing in a well-marked mine field. The Founders marked the mine field. Is it our fault or yours that you have blithely ignored the warnings? If I were a Connecticut state policeman I would be wondering if the orders of a possible KGB mole throwback were worth the terminal inability to collect my pension. Of course, you may be thinking that you can hide behind that "thin blue line." Bill Clinton's rules of engagement say otherwise.
The odds are, and it gives me no particular satisfaction to say it, is that someone is going to get killed over your unconstitutional misadventures in Connecticut. And if not Connecticut, then New York, or Maryland, or California or Colorado. And once the civil war you all apparently seek is kicked off, it would not be -- it could not be -- confined to one state.
This is not a threat, of course. Not the personal, actionable threat that you may claim. It ranks right along with -- no, that's wrong, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE -- an ex-con meeting me in the street and pointing to my neighbor's house saying, "Tonight I am going to break in there, kill that man, rape his wife and daughters and steal everything that he is, has, or may become." I warn him, "If you try to do that, he will kill you first. He may not look like much, but I know him to be vigilant and perfectly capable of blowing your head off." That is not a threat from me. It is simply good manners. Consider this letter in the same vein. I am trying to save you from yourself.
For, like that common criminal, you have announced by your unconstitutional law and your public statements in favor of its rigorous enforcement that you have a tyrannical appetite for your neighbors' liberty, property and lives. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that this policy, if carried to your announced conclusion, will not end well for anybody, but especially for you.
Now let's examine those numbers in the Courant story. You know the size of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Wikipedia tells us that "CSP currently has approximately 1,248 troopers, and is headquartered in Middletown, Connecticut. It is responsible for protecting the Governor of Connecticut, Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, and their families." There are but 1,212 email addresses listed on the state website to which this email is going, which presumably includes everyone including secretaries, receptionists, file clerks, technicians, etc. Now, how many shooters for raid parties you may find among that one thousand, two hundred and forty eight that Wikipedia cites, or whatever number will be on the payroll when something stupid happens, only you know for sure. I'll let you do the counting. They are daunting odds in any case, and as you will see, they get more daunting as we go down this road that Malloy and Company have arranged for you. (By the way, don't forget to subtract those on the Green Zone protective details, for your political masters will certainly see their survival as your mission number one.) So, how many folks would your superiors be interested in seeing you work their will upon? And of these, how many will fight regardless of cost?
Let's assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in your state. I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number -- not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners, but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable act upon them. Of course you will have to come prepared to shoot them. That's a given. They know this. So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe is righteous self defense.) Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, after the first shots are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call. These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war makers who sent you. This gets back to that "when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote." One ballot, or bullet, at a time.
This is all hypothetical, of course, based upon the tyrants' appetites for these hitherto law-abiding citizens' liberty, property and lives as well as upon your own willingness to enforce their unconstitutional diktat. And here's where you can do something about it. The first thing you have to realize is that the people you will be targeting do not view you as the enemy. Indeed, you are NOT their enemy, unless you choose to be one.
Again, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Of course you may if you like cling to the slim fact that a single black-robed bandit has ruled the Intolerable Act as constitutional in Shew vs. Malloy, but that will not matter to those three percent of the resistors -- your fellow citizens -- whom you target. They no longer expect a fair trial in your state in any case, which leaves them, if they wish to defend their liberty, property and lives, only the recourse of an unfair firefight. So to cite Shew vs. Malloy at the point of a state-issued firearm to such people is, well, betting your life on a very slender reed.
Thus, my kindly advice to you, just as it was to Lawlor, is to not go down that road. You are not the enemy of the people of Connecticut, not yet. The politicians who jammed this law down the peoples' throats are plainly flummoxed by the resistance it has engendered. In the absence of a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision do you really want to risk not being able to draw your pension over some politician's insatiable appetite for power?
There are many ways you can refuse to get caught up in this. Passive resistance, looking the other way, up to and including outright refusal to execute what is a tyrannical law that a higher court may yet find unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Do you really want to have to kill someone enforcing THAT? Just because you were ordered to do so? After Nuremberg, that defense no longer obtains. (You may say, "Well, I'm just a secretary, a clerk, you can't blame me for anything." Kindly recall from Nuremberg one other lesson: raid parties cannot break down doors unless someone like you prepares the list in advance. In fact, you have at your keyboard and in your databases more raw, naked power than any kick-in-the-door trooper. And with that power comes moral responsibility. Adolf Eichmann didn't personally kill anyone. But he darn sure made up the lists and saw to it that trains ran on time. When the first Connecticut citizen (or, God forbid, his family) is killed as a result of your list-making, do you think that because you didn't pull the trigger that gives you a moral pass?)
So I call on you all, in your own best interest and that of your state, to refuse to enforce this unconstitutional law. There are a number of Three Percenters within the Connecticut state government, especially its law enforcement arms. I know that there have been many discussions around water-coolers and off state premises about the dangers that this puts CT law enforcement officers in and what officers should do if ordered to execute raids on the previously law-abiding.
You have it within your power to refuse to initiate hostilities in an American civil war that would, by its very nature, be ghastly beyond belief and would unleash hatreds and passions that would take generations to get over, if then.
Please, I beg you to understand, you are not the enemy, you are not an occupying force -- unless you choose to violate the oath that each of you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. For their part, the men and women who will be targeted by your raids took an identical oath. Can you think of anything more tragic than brother killing brother over some politician's tyrannical appetite?
I can't. The future -- yours, mine, our children's, that of the citizens of Connecticut and indeed of the entire country -- is in YOUR hands.
At the very least, by your refusal you can give the courts time to work before proceeding into an unnecessary civil war against your own friends and neighbors on the orders of a self-anointed elite who frankly don't give a shit about you, your life, your future or that of your family. They wouldn't pass these laws if they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny. You are not the enemy. Don't act like one.
Sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL
Allusion: an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly. White flag = French flag... And no, I didn't misspell illusion.
Regardless, calling him a Muslim as if that has any bearing on his qualification is ignorant.
As far as Muslim loyalties go, I'd challenge anyone to show me a prior US political figure who's boostered Islam/Muslims more than our boy Barry. But isn't that getting away from the discussion a bit. Not getting much news down here on the plight of our brothers in arms in Canada. What's the latest?
this was an excellent and well thought letter to the state-the unfortunate truth is: anyone can die for what they believe in a true patriot is willing to kill for what he, she believes in. unfortunately that time is drawing closer and closer.
What does an appointee being Muslim have to do with anything? Also, if you were trying to reference the nominee for Surgeon General, he's Indian, which doesn't necessarily make him Muslim.
Object to his youth, lack of experience, political activism, etc... Don't be a dick and base your objections on his skin color or religion.
I'm trying to find the pic of the 2 hot Swiss chicks riding bikes to a civilian marksmanship event. Both had a Sig over their shoulder.
They didn't seem to have any problem with any type of "gun control".
They didn't seem to have any problem with any type of "gun control".
No comment on whether he's Muslim(probably not), but born to an Indian family in England and growing up in Miami..I doubt he attended the Baptist church on the corner either. But to the question of why one may question a particular religion…Well when that religion's stated objective seeks to make subservient all other religions and governments and bring them into submission to it's Theocracy…then that religion(Islam) and its governmental structure are incompatible with ours, a Constitutional Republic. And that would be a form of one's "political activism" that we'd be objecting to. History has a way of giving perspective like no other. I'm a believer in the God of the Bible…I would want those who make policy and law that rule my life to be believers as well and also have a firm grip on the beginnings of this Nation and it's underpinnings. I don't want foreigners(aka Barry) with little respect or knowledge for our Constitutional, Republican form of Government trying to remake this country into their own little european socialist utopia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFiwzMHog4E
and for my friend above...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...Iac9bTDU1RDTVqmatHlQc58g&ust=1394844901240971
Last edited:
I think you're confusing xenophobic propaganda with reality. That's a very cherry picked view. Plenty of Muslims (I would say the vast majority) are contributing members of American society with no ulterior motives. They're not the enemy. Also, foreigners like... U.S. citizens?
Here's a little more civil disobedience for the brainless anti-gun lobby.
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-residents-set-fire-to-gun-registration-forms/
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-residents-set-fire-to-gun-registration-forms/
What a bunch of shit! This is only to keep the tyrannical royalty in power. Just as it was 250 years ago for us. People need to start simply saying no. I'm not one for protesting but if folks stop paying taxes that how things get changed. Voting is bullshit. Money talks! Stop paying the greedy tyrants and they won't have power.
Mr. Ferret,
Potatoes have skin, I have skin, thus... I am a potato.
Maybe you'd consider this media outlet to be more trustworthy.
N.Y. gun activists burn registration forms - Washington Times
Google this "ny residents burn gun registrations" and out of 5 million hits of the first couple will be infowars or prisonplanet. So apparently it isn't moot to quite a few people. It just so happens that places like infowars, prisonplanet, WND, Drudge…all report things the mainstream state media steer away from. Some say that is on purpose, brainwashing if you will. Hmmm, who in Barry's admin said we need to be brainwashed on the issue of guns? http://www.infowars.com/the-vetting-holder-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-on-guns/ Whoops another infowars link, must be false.
I love this country where I can choose my news from people who share some of the same ideals. 2A, its the one that protects all the others.
Last edited:
Let us know how the audit goes, mmkay?
Forgive me but I am not following...please explain a little.
Really? I'm just joking around, I guess you didn't get it. You suggested stop paying taxes as a form of civil disobedience. In light of recent events (since 1913) those folks over at the Internal Revenue Service have made example of many. They have guns and scary badges.(or is it scary guns and badges…I can't remember) I was just trying to make a funny…which when you think about it, isn't really very funny, I guess.
Anyone else not get the funny?
Maybe I should have said, "ring ring…hey tango-down, its the IRS, they're calling to schedule your Audit"
No, still not funny, never mind.
Last edited:
Well Canada is UK lite, no constitutional rights like we have here, not full serfs like the Europeans but close when it comes to rights like we enjoy. I feel for you guys, but I wouldn't register any arm ever, and I definitely would never turn in a weapon. Let them come and get them and decide what you want to do then and there.
Mr. Ferret,
Potatoes have skin, I have skin, therefore I am a potato.
Maybe you'd consider this media outlet to be more trustworthy.
N.Y. gun activists burn registration forms - Washington Times
Google this "ny residents burn gun registrations" and out of 5 million hits of the first couple will be infowars or prisonplanet. So apparently it isn't moot to quite a few people. It just so happens that places like infowars, prisonplanet, WND, Drudge…all report things the mainstream state media steer away from. Some say that is on purpose, brainwashing if you will. Hmmm, who in Barry's admin said we need to be brainwashed on the issue of guns? » The Vetting ? Holder 1995: We Must ?Brainwash? People on Guns Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! Whoops another infowars link, must be false.
2A, its the one that protects all the others.
Navy SEALs blew up the WTC too huh?
WTF? How the hell does 9/11 have anything to do with this thread. How about we actually stick to the point? Gun confiscation and individual rights.
Please forgive the ferret. Some people have uncontrollable visceral reactions when something of "infowars" is introduced. Maybe he is related to Piers Morgan, I don't know. But you are correct back to the thread at hand and how there are actually some media outlets that support 2A, and then there are those that just can't quite see the need for the people to be armed. I'm gonna get my news from those who actually understand the concept of a free people having arms…like this guy…Ben Swann.
Piers Morgan's Anti-gun Argument Destroyed in Reality Check - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/BenSwannRealityCheck
Piers Morgan's Anti-gun Argument Destroyed in Reality Check - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/BenSwannRealityCheck
We're not Free in the USA either. And sometimes even though you go through the proper judicial channels to protect your rights, you realize YOU'RE STILL A SLAVE.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WsMcsy0D3v8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
SUBJ: Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE
DATE: March 12, 2014
Sir or Ma’am,
Last week the BATFE Raided EP Armory based on a determination letter that had deemed the 80% Polymer product to be a firearm. The determination letter that the BATFE used to obtain warrants against EP Armory is based on incorrect information about the manufacturing process. The BATFE has been notified of their error and the incorrectness of their determination based on this error.
This week on Monday, March 10th the BATFE threatened to raid us even though they are fully aware that their determination letter is factually incorrect. They requested that we turn over a list of every customer that had purchased a polymer lower from us and turn over the remaining inventory that we have.
Our customer’s privacy is of the utmost importance to us. I cannot in good moral conscience turn over a list of names to the BATFE just because they unduly threaten us with an unjust raid based on information they KNOW TO BE FALSE!
For the time we are SAFE! We were granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the BATFE on March 11th. The following is the declaration that I made during the process of obtaining this TRO:
Declaration of Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
In regards to the events surrounding Ares Armor’s interaction with EP Armory’s products and the threats made towards Ares Armor by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE.) The following declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I, Dimitrios Karras, state:
1. During a meeting with the BATFE around the end of 2012 that was unrelated to EP Armory’s product, the Agent that was present very strongly requested that I turn over Ares Armor’s customer list. He intimidated me with the possibility of criminal charges if he was not satisfied. This was the first attempt the BATFE made to intimidate Ares Armor into turning over private customer information.
2. An 80% lower is an industry term for an unfinished receiver that is not considered to be a firearm.
3. EP Armory manufactures an 80% lower receiver made from polymer.
4. Ares Armor purchases and then resells many products one of which is the 80% Polymer Lowers that are made by EP Armory.
5. In the regular course of business I have seen many different 80% AR-15 receivers.
6. EP Armory’s product is no different than standard 80% receivers that are sold openly and that the BATFE has consistently determined to not be a firearm. EP Armory’s product is in compliance with previous BATFE Determinations and is not a firearm.
7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory’s manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.
a. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-3. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a firearm are as follows:
1. Milling out of fire-control cavity.
2. Selector-lever hole drilled.
3. Cutting of trigger slot.
4. Drilling of trigger pin hole.
5. Drilling of hammer pin hole.
b. EP Armory’s product is consistent with the BATFE’s many previous determinations.
c. At no time during EP Armory’s manufacturing process are any of the aforementioned 5 operations in a state that could cause a reasonable person to believe that EP Armory’s product would be considered a firearm.
8. The BATFE has been appropriately informed of their mistake. However, even though they have no determination that is based on fact, they are knowingly using their fiction based determination to intimidate Ares Armor with threats in order to inappropriately gain access to information that is private and should be protected.
9. I received communication on or about 3/10/2014 from our legal counsel (Jason Davis) that the BATFE was in the process of obtaining a warrant against Ares Armor based on their incorrect determination of EP Armory’s Product. I was advised that the BATFE had offered to forego obtaining a warrant if Ares Armor was willing to:
a. Hand over all of EP Armory’s 80% Lowers.
b. Turn over Ares Armor customer’s private information to the BATFE.
In exchange for turning over our customer’s private information the BATFE said that they would not “raid” Ares Armor’s facilities and would not pursue “criminal” charges. This made me feel as if I was being extorted. I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.
10. I have been unjustly threatened with raids and criminal charges in an attempt by the BATFE to obtain information that is private and protected. The BATFE has expressed interest in obtaining Ares Armor’s customer list in the past and is now attempting to strong-arm us with undue threats based on information they know to be incorrect.
11. I am now in constant fear for the safety of my employees, my customers and myself.
Executed March 10, 2014 Oceanside, CA
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dimitrios Karras
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WsMcsy0D3v8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
SUBJ: Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE
DATE: March 12, 2014
Sir or Ma’am,
Last week the BATFE Raided EP Armory based on a determination letter that had deemed the 80% Polymer product to be a firearm. The determination letter that the BATFE used to obtain warrants against EP Armory is based on incorrect information about the manufacturing process. The BATFE has been notified of their error and the incorrectness of their determination based on this error.
This week on Monday, March 10th the BATFE threatened to raid us even though they are fully aware that their determination letter is factually incorrect. They requested that we turn over a list of every customer that had purchased a polymer lower from us and turn over the remaining inventory that we have.
Our customer’s privacy is of the utmost importance to us. I cannot in good moral conscience turn over a list of names to the BATFE just because they unduly threaten us with an unjust raid based on information they KNOW TO BE FALSE!
For the time we are SAFE! We were granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the BATFE on March 11th. The following is the declaration that I made during the process of obtaining this TRO:
Declaration of Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
In regards to the events surrounding Ares Armor’s interaction with EP Armory’s products and the threats made towards Ares Armor by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE.) The following declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I, Dimitrios Karras, state:
1. During a meeting with the BATFE around the end of 2012 that was unrelated to EP Armory’s product, the Agent that was present very strongly requested that I turn over Ares Armor’s customer list. He intimidated me with the possibility of criminal charges if he was not satisfied. This was the first attempt the BATFE made to intimidate Ares Armor into turning over private customer information.
2. An 80% lower is an industry term for an unfinished receiver that is not considered to be a firearm.
3. EP Armory manufactures an 80% lower receiver made from polymer.
4. Ares Armor purchases and then resells many products one of which is the 80% Polymer Lowers that are made by EP Armory.
5. In the regular course of business I have seen many different 80% AR-15 receivers.
6. EP Armory’s product is no different than standard 80% receivers that are sold openly and that the BATFE has consistently determined to not be a firearm. EP Armory’s product is in compliance with previous BATFE Determinations and is not a firearm.
7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory’s manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.
a. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-3. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a firearm are as follows:
1. Milling out of fire-control cavity.
2. Selector-lever hole drilled.
3. Cutting of trigger slot.
4. Drilling of trigger pin hole.
5. Drilling of hammer pin hole.
b. EP Armory’s product is consistent with the BATFE’s many previous determinations.
c. At no time during EP Armory’s manufacturing process are any of the aforementioned 5 operations in a state that could cause a reasonable person to believe that EP Armory’s product would be considered a firearm.
8. The BATFE has been appropriately informed of their mistake. However, even though they have no determination that is based on fact, they are knowingly using their fiction based determination to intimidate Ares Armor with threats in order to inappropriately gain access to information that is private and should be protected.
9. I received communication on or about 3/10/2014 from our legal counsel (Jason Davis) that the BATFE was in the process of obtaining a warrant against Ares Armor based on their incorrect determination of EP Armory’s Product. I was advised that the BATFE had offered to forego obtaining a warrant if Ares Armor was willing to:
a. Hand over all of EP Armory’s 80% Lowers.
b. Turn over Ares Armor customer’s private information to the BATFE.
In exchange for turning over our customer’s private information the BATFE said that they would not “raid” Ares Armor’s facilities and would not pursue “criminal” charges. This made me feel as if I was being extorted. I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.
10. I have been unjustly threatened with raids and criminal charges in an attempt by the BATFE to obtain information that is private and protected. The BATFE has expressed interest in obtaining Ares Armor’s customer list in the past and is now attempting to strong-arm us with undue threats based on information they know to be incorrect.
11. I am now in constant fear for the safety of my employees, my customers and myself.
Executed March 10, 2014 Oceanside, CA
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dimitrios Karras
While this thread discusses the loss of the right to "bear arms", we need to understand, that particular right is the one that protects the others, it is the last line of defense against such mongrel RINOs of doublespeak linked below. And while Mr. Graham, is really talking about the 1st Amdt., a thinking person knows that if he believes he can trample the 1st, the 2nd is just a formality to be stripped at will, his will. Oh yes, this mouthpiece for the NDAA has declared your Homeland the new battlefield, and as such, even though you may be a citizen, you don't actually have any Constitutional rights. WAKE UP AMERICANS! Who is the real enemy? Molon Labe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSV6iqxL2s0
And the answer from this girl has more testosterone than 10 Spartans…(if you want to see the burning…and I do recommend it…watch part 2)
http://youtu.be/Qeyrp-V3Jvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSV6iqxL2s0
And the answer from this girl has more testosterone than 10 Spartans…(if you want to see the burning…and I do recommend it…watch part 2)
http://youtu.be/Qeyrp-V3Jvc
There are 200-300 million guns in the U.S. I don’t see folks just handing them over to anyone period. Besides it is not going to happen, not in my lifetime anyway. But talking about it sure is a great way to get folks fired up. The subject does keep them from focusing on real stuff like election finance reform, or too big to fail banking reform.
You all talk about the Govt. like they are to blame for this mess. But the truth is the burden of responsibility falls on us “The People” in a self governed society that’s the way it is. But we have become so selfish and self righteous we can’t work together on anything anymore. Sad but true.
Many talk of insurrection because the founders said we could throw off any abusive Govt. But the founders in their wisdom also gave us the vote so we would never have to bear arms against oppressive Govt. again. We could vote them out.
I never in my life thought I would see the day when the office of the President was so disrespected. Disagreeing or disliking someone is one thing. Disrespecting the office weakens our nation.
My 2 Cents. I hope I did not fracture any rules.
You all talk about the Govt. like they are to blame for this mess. But the truth is the burden of responsibility falls on us “The People” in a self governed society that’s the way it is. But we have become so selfish and self righteous we can’t work together on anything anymore. Sad but true.
Many talk of insurrection because the founders said we could throw off any abusive Govt. But the founders in their wisdom also gave us the vote so we would never have to bear arms against oppressive Govt. again. We could vote them out.
I never in my life thought I would see the day when the office of the President was so disrespected. Disagreeing or disliking someone is one thing. Disrespecting the office weakens our nation.
My 2 Cents. I hope I did not fracture any rules.
I don't think you get that it already is happening, a little at a time. So I guess that's ok as long as it's not in "your lifetime"??? Agree 100% that "we the people" bear much of the responsibility for putting up with this, and it being tolerated is why we see so many bumble butts in lordship over us. I'd be more than happy to join you in some other thread about throwing the bums out because they refuse to initiate any meaningful fiscal reform. (go back and watch Reagan stump for Goldwater in '64-the speech was "a time for choosing"…tell me what has changed other than names and smaller numbers)
BUT this is not the TOO BIG TO FAIL thread. This is the THEY'RE COMING FOR YOURS thread.
And there is one person, ONE, who bears the responsibility for how the office of the President is respected or disrespected.(and I could give a rip what party he's from)
Speaking out strengthens our Nation, capitulating to and enabling driveling doublespeak is what weakens it.
My 2 cents. Thanks for chiming in. Peace
Last edited:
You should read "Unintended Consequences". It isn't coincidental that human history is full of insane regimes that subjugate its citizens. Subjugation not limited to removing the population's ability to defend itself. That is the first step. You think that our inability to pass financial reforms is slow now? It's the same disease that is behind the erosion of our firearms rights. Take away their defense, take away their wealth and control their access to medical care....I don't think we have seen the tip of the iceberg.
The reality is that it can happen anywhere. Another reality is it has only happened when the populace could not defend itself. The third reality is that the erosion of all rights, not only firearm rights, happens a bit at a time over long periods.
It's like Cancer.....by the time you realize it, you're toast.
I have 5 kids. I don't want to see it to happen to them either.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, its like a weekly story now, Feds or Law Enforcement behaving badly and people showing how FED Up with the heavy handedness, Federalies overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution and basically treating the people like criminals. The good news is, when the masses stand together, there is nothing they can do but back down or kill us. (Nevada Rancher for example, he got the word yesterday or today that he can go back to business raising his cattle. I guess the Feds are leaving)
I came across this article from a friend in the fight to keep our arms. Enjoy.
Real Americans Are Ready To Snap | NCRenegade
I came across this article from a friend in the fight to keep our arms. Enjoy.
Real Americans Are Ready To Snap | NCRenegade
CSSA Reference. (target shooting, shotgun, rifle, pistol, biathlon, free pistol, cowboy shooting, SASS, IPSC, PPC, IPDA, full-bore rifle, gun ban, gun control, handgun ban, C68, gun registry, confiscation, gun rights, self defense, RKBA, Canada, gun
Im moving there in about 2 years (paperwork time for family class sponsorship) and Im reading up on all the regulations and restrictions and what I may encounter when I bring all my rifles across... It hard for me a freedom loving citizen to comprehend how repressive canadian government is...
Canadians are pussies anyway, I was up in Toronto when the Jays won the WS and every one on young street rioted, cops just watched people break glass windows out of stores n loot then they would stand in front of the empty stores. DO what they did in CT when they were ordered to turn in their AR's and 350,000 didn't and said FUK U!
Was that up in Canada years back when some rich ( T ) holes tried to turn an indian reservation into a golf course, the police cars were upside down on fire when the Indians broke out the 50 cals, that shit ended quick, Indians stayed on their land.
Similar threads
