LANGUAGE!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Coming Demographic and Ideological Shift of the Gun Market
Via WRSA
I’m all for free markets, but this whole panic has created a run on guns that has caused prices to skyrocket. Saw some 20 round AR-10 magazines where the bid was $100 per. Seriously.
On the upside, this run could help us sort out who our friends are and who's just selling out. I’m all for making a profit-even a premium to prevent a run on your store, but if you’re just selling out, then are you’re just selling out?
The government would have you to "turn in" your firearms and such or participate in a "buyback" program. If you're simply going to give up and sell out, then at least consider "selling out" or "giving back to your community" where firearms are concerned.
There are many among us who would gladly say, you give me that gas and I'll gain ground with it. (Lee Greenwood, your party is waiting...)
I thought of another aspect of this run on firearms and the gun grab.
The inventory at those stores has been wiped out. The good news for the
stores is that they made a lot of money. The bad news is that it may be a
while before they can get some more good to sell. Oh and there's that
whole "fiat currency" called the Dollar that is doomed to be worthless
in the near future.
Manufacturer's inventory can't be that far ahead of the stores. "Just In Time" is a part of this industry just like any other-especially with the economy we're in. So I wonder how long those small stores will remain in business if there's simply no inventory to be had? The bills won't stop coming just because the inventory has.
I wonder how many small gun stores might go under-waiting for shipments of goods that will simply never come? (As GardenSERF once said, "When's the last bread truck?")
I’m all for free markets, but this whole panic has created a run on guns that has caused prices to skyrocket. Saw some 20 round AR-10 magazines where the bid was $100 per. Seriously.
On the upside, this run could help us sort out who our friends are and who's just selling out. I’m all for making a profit-even a premium to prevent a run on your store, but if you’re just selling out, then are you’re just selling out?
The government would have you to "turn in" your firearms and such or participate in a "buyback" program. If you're simply going to give up and sell out, then at least consider "selling out" or "giving back to your community" where firearms are concerned.
There are many among us who would gladly say, you give me that gas and I'll gain ground with it. (Lee Greenwood, your party is waiting...)
I thought of another aspect of this run on firearms and the gun grab.
Manufacturer's inventory can't be that far ahead of the stores. "Just In Time" is a part of this industry just like any other-especially with the economy we're in. So I wonder how long those small stores will remain in business if there's simply no inventory to be had? The bills won't stop coming just because the inventory has.
I wonder how many small gun stores might go under-waiting for shipments of goods that will simply never come? (As GardenSERF once said, "When's the last bread truck?")
More @ The Cliffs of Insanity
"This update is current and may be shared as you see fit."
ALERT:
This is first hand intel, verified by one of my trusted unit members. I take it as gospel. You can take it however you like. He visited a local gun shop ( a regular stop, my unit frequents this shop) and the following event occurred. Some portions redacted for persec.
Report from SPC XXXXX: received 01/10/13, 14:00
"I was in a gun shop last night called XXXXXXXXXXXXX. The one with the owner I was telling you about.( a patriot) The Owner was talking to a man about 28-30 years of age who had his wife with him. He was buying a gun for his wife. I heard them talking but couldn't hear what hey were saying. At one point their voices became very quiet but they continued to talk. After the man and woman left, I talked to the owner about a XXXXXXXXX for a rifle.
He asked me if I saw the couple he was talking to and went on to explain that the husband was an Ohio State Patrolman for Gallia county. The patrolman told the owner that he was at a State Police
meeting (Time frame unknown, but recent) in Columbus (OH)and they were asked by the State HQ how they felt about confiscating guns from citizens. He also told the owner that TSA agents (or perhaps DHS?) had been to Gallia county earlier in the month (January) stating that there might be civil unrest and asked them (State Troopers), The County Sheriff, and local township law enforcement the same question.
meeting (Time frame unknown, but recent) in Columbus (OH)and they were asked by the State HQ how they felt about confiscating guns from citizens. He also told the owner that TSA agents (or perhaps DHS?) had been to Gallia county earlier in the month (January) stating that there might be civil unrest and asked them (State Troopers), The County Sheriff, and local township law enforcement the same question.
The patrolman told the owner that he was in Columbus with 10 other patrolmen from the area. He told the owner that he stated he wasn't willing to confiscate weapons and that if they came to his house he (the State Patrolman) 'would kill them'. He stated the other 10 patrolmen conveyed the same message.
My unit member left and reported to me asap.We have elevated our alert level as a result.
My unit member left and reported to me asap.We have elevated our alert level as a result.
Ohio Valley Minutemen 
The ‘fix’ was in; NRA ‘disappointed’ at meeting
VERBATIM
The National Rifle Association emerged from its meeting with Vice
President Joe Biden Thursday with a predictably negative impression.
This column predicted just such an outcome earlier. Biden held off meeting with firearms organizations – with notably the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not invited to the table – until after he had met with anti-gun groups.
In a statement following the meeting, the NRA noted that, “We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.”
Thje statement was picked up by several news organizations including the Weekly Standard, MSNBC and the Daily Caller.
“While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged’,” the NRA statement said, “this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.”
NRA was represented at the meeting by James Jay Baker, former executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action who now works in the federal affairs division.
GRNC issues open letter to Barack Obama
Dear President Obama:
Both Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden have said you are weighing using “executive action” to implement gun registration and licensing beyond even the ban on semi-automatic firearms proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and others.
When the National Firearms Act passed in 1934, Congress still understood that it didn’t have the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate Title II weapons, so it imposed a tax – an exorbitant tax, perhaps, but still a tax. Since then, however, overbroad interpretations of its power to regulate “interstate commerce” have become the norm, and Congress now feels free to legislate gun laws.
IT’S CALLED ‘USURPATION OF POWER,’ MR. PRESIDENT
“usurpation: …the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.” – Webster’s Dictionary
Apparently, however, even congressional usurpation of power is no longer sufficient for you: What you now threaten violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Since you seem to have forgotten it, here it is:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
Is your usurpation of power by circumventing the legislative process a bid to turn our Republic into an autocracy? What will be your next Executive Order? Will it give you another four – or perhaps forty – years in the White House?
IT’S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM
Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?
They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be.
And what happens next, Mr. President? Do S.W.A.T. teams break into the homes of our citizens at night to confiscate arms and arrest offenders? Make no mistake: That is what enforcing this law will require.
And what happens when, inevitably, some resist? Do you honestly believe people will go peacefully into bondage? How many will die as the direct result of your actions?
There is no need to send the Secret Service to my door, Mr. President (although I suspect you might anyway). I am not advocating violence; I am merely saying what others are afraid to.
The real question, Mr. President, is whether you so hunger for power that you are willing to foment what might be the next American Revolution. Will that be your enduring legacy?
At the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidus I, facing demands by the numerically superior Persian army for the Spartans to surrender their arms, responded with what is now expressed as “Molon labe.”
It means, “Come and get them.”
Armatissimi e liberissimi,
F. Paul Valone II
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND AMENDMENT FREEDOM RALLY
Rally will present unified message:
Molon labe – ‘Come and get them’
It is time to demonstrate to legislators that you are serious about defending your rights. GRNC will give you the opportunity to do just that: On Wednesday, January 23 at 12:00 PM, we are holding the Second Amendment Freedom Rally at the General Assembly in Raleigh. Yes, it is during the week, when you work. But it is the only time when we can be sure legislators will see you and get your message, namely that “COMPROMISE” ON GUN RIGHTS IS NOT AN OPTION.
We need to know whether you are coming and how many you will bring, so respond by sending a message to: FreedomRally@GRNC.org This address is not for information. Use the subject line: “__ people will attend,” indicating the number of people, including yourself, that you are bringing. Do not put anything into the body of the message.
Where: Halifax Mall between the Legislative Building and Legislative Office Building in Raleigh. The General Assembly is at: 16 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
When: Wednesday, January 23 at 12:00 PM
Why: Because your rights depend on it
Please note that FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Additional details, including relevant regulations, parking, etc. will be announced in coming days. It is suggested that you schedule an appointment with, or at least drop in on your state House and Senate reps on the morning before the rally. Your state reps can be found at:
‘NATIONAL COALITION TO STOP THE GUN BAN’ GROWS
The coalition organized by GRNC and others continues to grow, and now includes 34 participating gun rights organizations, including 6 national organizations and 34 state groups. Most recently, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership signed on. For a full list, go to: www.GRNC.org
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
- IMMEDIATELY CONTACT YOUR US HOUSE REP AND BOTH SENATORS: Send them an email AND call their offices. Regardless of whether you have contacted them before, do it again. Due to the congressional email system, it is only possible to email your own US House rep, but it is suggested that you CALL all of them. That’s right: “FIFTEEN PHONE CALLS FOR FREEDOM.”
- SIGN THE “STOP THE GUN BAN” PETITION: Go to:www.StopTheGunBan.org Whether or not you have already signed it, forward this to others and tell them to sign it too.
- ATTEND THE FREEDOM RALLY: Immediately send a message to FreedomRally@GRNC.org using the subject “__ people will attend” and indicating how many, including yourself, you will bring.
- SUPPORT GRNC:
Thanks to your generosity, GRNC continues to gain strength, but we will
need more to fight the looming ban. If you have already contributed,
please tell others to go to: http://grnc.org/index.php/join-grnc/contribute
DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
Dear [Congressman or Senator]:
According to reports from inside the Obama administration as reported by “The Washington Post,” the administration plans nothing less than a full assault on American freedom, beginning with universal registration of guns and gun owners.
Beyond even the draconian ban on semi-automatic firearms being proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein – which would entail dramatic expansion of police powers by the chronically abusive BATFE – what the administration proposes will result in the government tracking activities of millions of law-abiding citizens.
Absolutely nothing about any of these proposals is acceptable, meaning no “compromise” is possible. The proposals must die. Period. If they pass in any form, the result will be willful non-compliance by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans who will then become “criminals.” What happens then remains to be seen, but will almost certainly result in violence.
Only you can stop the destruction of American freedom. I will be closely monitoring your actions via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.
Respectfully,
CONTACT INFO
Email BOTH Senators:
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) 202-224-3154 http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) 202-224-6342 http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact/
Email your Congressman:
(To identify your Congressman, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)
Rep. G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (D-01) 202-225-3101 https://butterfield.house.gov/email-congressman-butterfield
Rep. Renee L. Ellmers (R-02) 202-225-4531 https://ellmersforms.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=58§iontree=358
Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-03) 202-225-3415 https://jones.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Rep. David Price (D-04) 202-225-1784 https://forms.house.gov/price/webforms/contact_form.shtml
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-05) 202-225-2071 https://virginiafoxx.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/
Rep. Howard Coble (R-06) 202-225-3065 http://coble.house.gov/contact/zipcheck.htm
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-07) 202-225-2731 http://mcintyreforms.house.gov/contact/
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-8) 202-225-3715 https://hudson.house.gov/contact/email-me
Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-9) 202-225-1976 http://pittenger.house.gov/contact
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-10) 202-225-2576 http://mchenry.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-11) 202-225-6401 https://meadows.house.gov/contact/email-me
Rep. Mel Watt (D-12) 202-225-1510 https://forms.house.gov/watt/webforms/zipauthen_contact.shtml
Rep. George Holding (R-13) 202- 225-3032 https://holding.house.gov/contact/email-me
Clinton Publicly Linked Benghazi to Video Before Woods and Doherty Were Killed
Via Cousin John
On the night of Sept. 11, 2012 — before former Navy SEALs Tyrone
Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by a terrorist mortar strike —
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a public statement linking
the attack against the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, with
an anti-Muslim video, which she referred to as "inflammatory material
posted on the Internet."
Clinton's statement, still posted on State's website, is dated Sept. 11, 2012, and headlined: "Statement on the Attack in Benghazi."
The statement first notes that a State Department officer had been killed in Benghazi — an apparent reference to Information Management Officer Sean Smith, whose body had been recovered at the U.S. mission in Benghazi by U.S. security officers by about 5:30 p.m. Washington, D.C., time on Sept. 11 — or 11:30 p.m. Benghazi time.
The statement then talks about Clinton's communications that night with Libya's president and refers to what Clinton calls "inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
Clinton's statement, still posted on State's website, is dated Sept. 11, 2012, and headlined: "Statement on the Attack in Benghazi."
The statement first notes that a State Department officer had been killed in Benghazi — an apparent reference to Information Management Officer Sean Smith, whose body had been recovered at the U.S. mission in Benghazi by U.S. security officers by about 5:30 p.m. Washington, D.C., time on Sept. 11 — or 11:30 p.m. Benghazi time.
The statement then talks about Clinton's communications that night with Libya's president and refers to what Clinton calls "inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
More @ CNC News
Molotov Mitchell Exposes Media Lies of ‘Sandy Hook’
When he is through, that article of the official Sandy Hook narrative has been completely debunked.
“Adam Lanza did not use or have and AR-15 in his trunk,” Mitchell concludes. In fact, “If I were one of the Bushmaster guys, I would launch the lawsuit of the century against these media outlets for the outrageous and reckless libel.”
Facts can be shocking things. Great job Molotov.
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
VERBATIM
Mark Twain was right. The Current Control gun push is Fueled by Conducting a false Flag Operation (Which Fast and Furious was and the School shootings may be), then Quickly making many false
Claims About Guns, Medical Privacy, Freedom of Speech and of then Seeing
Which Claims STICK.
If they succeed in implementing the desired level of gun control, we'll have to fight. Surrendering arms isn't a safe option. Stephen Halbrook explains why:
Indeed,
gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to
use guns and tend to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind: Should you be so trusting and turn over your weapons you will be put on a "black list" in spite of everything.
On the surface, Obama gun control appears to be more total, affecting everyone equally. Based on Our Experience with the Medical laws, IT's safe to Assume That the laws Would be Applied More to Opponents than to HIS Political Friends. You and I Would be Disarmed, Obama's Partisans Would still be Armed. That's exactly How IT Played out in Venezuela . A huge increase in violence against everyone not supporting dictator Chavez followed.
Morality and War Revisited.
VERBATIM
There is some search activity going on focused on some pieces I wrote on morality and war some time ago.
As an unbeliever.
Those pieces are gone forever, and were erased soon after my conversion.
If you are interested on my views on morality and war, read this biography of General Thomas Jackson. It is available for free at the RL Dabney archive.
It takes some effort to get accustomed to Dabney's style, but the effort is worth it (in this and in other works of his).
A bit of an example of Jackson's thoughts concerning conduct towards the invader:
The character of his thinking was illustrated by the declaration which he made upon assuming this command, that it was the true policy of the South to take no prisoners in this war. He affirmed that this would be in the end truest humanity, because it would shorten the contest, and prove economical of the blood of both parties; and that it was a measure urgently dictated by the interests of our cause, and clearly sustained by justice.
.....
This startling opinion he calmly sustained in conversation, many months after, by the following considerations, which he prefaced with the remark, that, inasmuch as the authorities of the Confederate States had seen fit to pursue the other policy, he had cheerfully acquiesced, and was as careful as other commanders to enjoin on his soldiers the giving of quarter and humane treatment to disarmed enemies.
.....
But he affirmed this war was, in its intent and inception, different from all civilized wars, and therefore should not be brought under their rules. It was not, like them, a strife for a point of honor, a diplomatic quarrel, a commercial advantage, a boundary, or a province; but an attempt on the part of the North against the very existence of the Southern States. It was founded in a denial to their people of the right of self-government, in virtue of which, solely, the Northern States themselves existed. Its intention was wholesale murder and piracy, the extermination of a whole people's national life. It was, in fact, but the " John Brown Raid " resumed and extended, with new accessories of horror, and, as the Commonwealth of Virginia had righteously put to death every one of those cut-throats upon the gallows, why were their comrades in the same crime to claim now a more honorable treatment? Such a war was an offense against humanity so monstrous, that it outlawed those who shared its guilt beyond the pale of forbearance. But as justice authorized their destruction, so wisdom and prudence demanded it, for it is always wisest to act upon principle, in preference to expediency.
Another example, given in the Dabney biography, was when brave federal cavalry unit made a run at his lines, and a fellow officer expressed sorrow over the fact that all but one of these brave men were gunned down or captured. Jackson replied (and I paraphrase), "Shoot them all. I do not wish them to be brave."
Another example. The rapacious nature of the Federalist troops aroused Jackson's righteous indignation on more than one occasion. This link is one. See the Dabney biography for more. A common theme throughout history is the brutality with which regimes try to put down challenges to their power. See Syria. And Sheridan. And Sherman.
General Jackson was fighting for the very existence of his nation and people.
General Jackson was, it should be noted, scrupulous about respecting noncombatants and private property. I wholeheartedly concur with this. This is one aspect of his "black flag" policy that is not often mentioned. Also significant is his obedience of his superiors' wishes, that the "black flag" policy not be employed.
The Federalists Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman, authorized by the tyrant Lincoln, were all too happy to burn, rape, steal, and murder their way across the South, punishing noncombatants and sending baggage trains laden with loot North at every turn. Demonize the enemy, to include civilians, and it is easier to go down the road of satanic atrocity. Anything goes... after all, they're all Secesh... right?
This is the way of Robspierre. Of Marxists. Of Tyrants. I would want no part of any such rabble.
In no way do I believe that his oft-quoted "black flag" statement applied, in Jackson's mind, to anything other than Federalist soldiers (i.e. combatants, and invaders at that):
"I always thought that we should meet the Federal invaders on the outer verge of just right and defense, and raise at once the black flag, viz., 'No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides.'"War is hell. In every case.
It is the duty of the defender to protect his land and people by making the war more hellish on the invaders. It is the duty of the soldier to end the threat as decisively as possible. This should be done without, I would add, assuming the characteristics of Lincoln, Robespierre, Sheridan, Sherman, Grant, and Satan himself...
This is, as Jackson said, the truest humanity.
Court Says Kidnapping Not Serious Enough to Warrant Deportation
Via Don
In what may seem like a bad joke, a U.S. federal appellate court has spared an illegal immigrant convicted of kidnapping from deportation ruling that it’s not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude.
The decision, issued this week by the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, rambles on for 27 pages and is almost comical. “This undoubtedly appears to be a difficult question at first glance,” it reads.
“Kidnapping is a serious crime, and our instincts may be that it would meet the moral turpitude definition. Even for serious offenses, we must look to the specific elements of the statute of conviction and compare them to the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.”
In what may seem like a bad joke, a U.S. federal appellate court has spared an illegal immigrant convicted of kidnapping from deportation ruling that it’s not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude.
The decision, issued this week by the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, rambles on for 27 pages and is almost comical. “This undoubtedly appears to be a difficult question at first glance,” it reads.
“Kidnapping is a serious crime, and our instincts may be that it would meet the moral turpitude definition. Even for serious offenses, we must look to the specific elements of the statute of conviction and compare them to the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.”
More @ Judicial Watch
Two comments on "You Are Being Probed"
Via Michael and WRSA
1. "If you think you know ugly, you haven't seen ugly yet. And I hope we never do. No sane person would ever consider doing something that could possibly lead to such events."
- I agree, and there lies my concern - there are many 'true believers' in the lefty crowd who have no clue what *ugly* actually is. Many of these fools honestly believe that Aurora and Sandy Hook have been personal attacks upon them and their families. Really. For many, the outrage is 100% real, and nearly off the scale in their minds - they may be deluded to consider these events as personal attacks, but they do. So my concern is your "no sane person" clause, and how much sanity we should actually expect from them if this fire gets stoked much hotter in their minds? Now, if you were one of them, and really believed that it was "already a war, so we just have to win it" then you would also believe that "things couldn't get much worse than the war we're already in", right? THIS RIGHT HERE is the sound of the warning siren in my mind - if they're cracked enough to really believe that it can't get much worse, then this is the very reason why they would push this to the absolute ugliest it can get. By the time they see that they were wrong about what ugly *really* looks like, there will be plenty of spilled blood and it will be too late for them to undo it.
2. "If something like this ever starts there's no reason for it to end before it's completely over; cops, government bureaucrats, TSA agents, all will be on the list."
- Again, I absolutely agree: the bureaucracy will get cleaned out; and a lot of other scurvy turds and pompous A-holes will get taken down, as well. Some cheer at that thought, but this is a two-edged sword. Killing starts out as a needful thing, but can easily become a habit, and that is dangerous. The first few kills are the most difficult, the most tenuous. Subsequent kills, you will focus upon confidence and follow through, and then upon technique and speed. By the time you've killed 25 or 30 men at close quarters, you have reduced the challenge to the purely mechanical aspects, and the work is no longer "gruesome", its "invigorating".
When killing becomes easy, any vendetta rises to a Capital offense, unless the man-become-killing-machine has outstanding discipline; so it won't just be the TSA dick and the tax collector who get reduced when TSHTF, it may also end up being *that guy on Craig's list who sold them that piece of crap 6 months ago*. Seriously; just look at the facts. Men habituated to violence tend to seek and maintain a higher level of violence in their lives even when it's not necessary for survival. Examples? When the skinnies in Mogadishu weren't fighting us, they would seek out and fight each other, as feuding clans did in the Scottish highlands in centuries past. Gangs in the US frequently skirmish for no better reason that to maintain their edge and initiate their new members. As with all 'clan' warfare, it is part vendetta, part sport; part survival and part bragging rights.
Once this 'clan violence' mentality has momentum, it is very difficult to bring to a halt, and this is part of the danger for us. Men who do not have the discipline of soldiers will become confident in killing, and this is a dangerous pivot point for the future of Liberty, because decades or centuries of clan/regional vendetta warfare doesn't provide any more freedom than it does stability.
God save us from what we may have to do amongst our own to bring the violence to a halt when the *Legitimate Conflict* is over, lest it devolve into such habituated violence and become a generational curse upon our nation.
LT
~Those who abuse Liberty, sentence themselves to Death!
AnonymousJanuary 10, 2013 6:49 AM
A
while back, years prior to our current troubles, I had a discussion on
this topic with someone in law enforcement: "880K in LE, 80 to 90
million gun owners. Do the math. Do you think all of those 80 million
plus will sit meekly at home waiting for you to knock on their doors?
Every one of your neighbors know in which house a government agent
lives; John and Mary from across the street won't burn your house down
at 3AM with you and your family in it, but I guarantee a number of their
co-workers and friends know they live across the street from you. Today
you're a cop they call on for help; tomorrow you'll be a government
agent that has to be eliminated to protect themselves."
If something like this ever starts there's no reason for it to end before it's completely over; cops, government bureaucrats, TSA agents, all will be on the list. You know that sweet little old lady who works part-time 3 days a week in the county tax office? Somewhere, there's an angry taxpayer who had to pay $150 more in taxes that he didn't think he owed, and that $150 was the difference between new clothes for the kids and eating spaghetti for a month.
It won't be the U.S. Army against the Germans in WWII - one side won't have Sgts, Lts, and Captains who can give orders to troops and expect them to be obeyed. It'll be Ralph and maybe his cousin Chuck, or Harry across town, operating completely independently, each with a network of wives, girlfriends, kids, neighbors, friends, providing intelligence about the enemy. Guns? Sure, some. Gasoline, too. Hacksaws and chains as well - cut water lines and rip power meters off walls, pull transformers out of the ground, chop poles down. Government vehicles don't move well with all 4 tires slashed. New ones? Sorry, Fred's Tire and Auto is closed this month. Don't know where Fred is, haven't seen him, and he only takes cash anyway, no purchase orders. No quarter asked, or given.
If you think you know ugly, you haven't seen ugly yet. And I hope we never do. No sane person would ever consider doing something that could possibly lead to such events. What we're seeing now is a mixture of trial balloons to see what the response such statements produce, and preparing the battlespace for whatever action they think they can get away with.
I really, really, hope sanity surfaces and Some People begin to understand how reality works.
The anonymous gentleman above speaks to two key points which I would like to amplify:
If something like this ever starts there's no reason for it to end before it's completely over; cops, government bureaucrats, TSA agents, all will be on the list. You know that sweet little old lady who works part-time 3 days a week in the county tax office? Somewhere, there's an angry taxpayer who had to pay $150 more in taxes that he didn't think he owed, and that $150 was the difference between new clothes for the kids and eating spaghetti for a month.
It won't be the U.S. Army against the Germans in WWII - one side won't have Sgts, Lts, and Captains who can give orders to troops and expect them to be obeyed. It'll be Ralph and maybe his cousin Chuck, or Harry across town, operating completely independently, each with a network of wives, girlfriends, kids, neighbors, friends, providing intelligence about the enemy. Guns? Sure, some. Gasoline, too. Hacksaws and chains as well - cut water lines and rip power meters off walls, pull transformers out of the ground, chop poles down. Government vehicles don't move well with all 4 tires slashed. New ones? Sorry, Fred's Tire and Auto is closed this month. Don't know where Fred is, haven't seen him, and he only takes cash anyway, no purchase orders. No quarter asked, or given.
If you think you know ugly, you haven't seen ugly yet. And I hope we never do. No sane person would ever consider doing something that could possibly lead to such events. What we're seeing now is a mixture of trial balloons to see what the response such statements produce, and preparing the battlespace for whatever action they think they can get away with.
I really, really, hope sanity surfaces and Some People begin to understand how reality works.
===========================
1. "If you think you know ugly, you haven't seen ugly yet. And I hope we never do. No sane person would ever consider doing something that could possibly lead to such events."
- I agree, and there lies my concern - there are many 'true believers' in the lefty crowd who have no clue what *ugly* actually is. Many of these fools honestly believe that Aurora and Sandy Hook have been personal attacks upon them and their families. Really. For many, the outrage is 100% real, and nearly off the scale in their minds - they may be deluded to consider these events as personal attacks, but they do. So my concern is your "no sane person" clause, and how much sanity we should actually expect from them if this fire gets stoked much hotter in their minds? Now, if you were one of them, and really believed that it was "already a war, so we just have to win it" then you would also believe that "things couldn't get much worse than the war we're already in", right? THIS RIGHT HERE is the sound of the warning siren in my mind - if they're cracked enough to really believe that it can't get much worse, then this is the very reason why they would push this to the absolute ugliest it can get. By the time they see that they were wrong about what ugly *really* looks like, there will be plenty of spilled blood and it will be too late for them to undo it.
2. "If something like this ever starts there's no reason for it to end before it's completely over; cops, government bureaucrats, TSA agents, all will be on the list."
- Again, I absolutely agree: the bureaucracy will get cleaned out; and a lot of other scurvy turds and pompous A-holes will get taken down, as well. Some cheer at that thought, but this is a two-edged sword. Killing starts out as a needful thing, but can easily become a habit, and that is dangerous. The first few kills are the most difficult, the most tenuous. Subsequent kills, you will focus upon confidence and follow through, and then upon technique and speed. By the time you've killed 25 or 30 men at close quarters, you have reduced the challenge to the purely mechanical aspects, and the work is no longer "gruesome", its "invigorating".
When killing becomes easy, any vendetta rises to a Capital offense, unless the man-become-killing-machine has outstanding discipline; so it won't just be the TSA dick and the tax collector who get reduced when TSHTF, it may also end up being *that guy on Craig's list who sold them that piece of crap 6 months ago*. Seriously; just look at the facts. Men habituated to violence tend to seek and maintain a higher level of violence in their lives even when it's not necessary for survival. Examples? When the skinnies in Mogadishu weren't fighting us, they would seek out and fight each other, as feuding clans did in the Scottish highlands in centuries past. Gangs in the US frequently skirmish for no better reason that to maintain their edge and initiate their new members. As with all 'clan' warfare, it is part vendetta, part sport; part survival and part bragging rights.
Once this 'clan violence' mentality has momentum, it is very difficult to bring to a halt, and this is part of the danger for us. Men who do not have the discipline of soldiers will become confident in killing, and this is a dangerous pivot point for the future of Liberty, because decades or centuries of clan/regional vendetta warfare doesn't provide any more freedom than it does stability.
God save us from what we may have to do amongst our own to bring the violence to a halt when the *Legitimate Conflict* is over, lest it devolve into such habituated violence and become a generational curse upon our nation.
LT
~Those who abuse Liberty, sentence themselves to Death!
Montanans will not obey any new federal gun restrictions
Via Billy
Editor’s note: The following was sent to Montana’s congressional delegation on behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Because there is much discussion among gun owners of Montana about proposals by Sen. Diane Feinstein and others for Congress to enact various types of gun control, I though you would appreciate knowing what I hear from Montanans about this.
I speak to you as a person intimately familiar with firearms, with public policy about firearms, as a person accepted in state and federal courts as an expert on firearms, firearms safety and use of force, and as the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Montana’s primary organization asserting the right to keep and bear arms, also affiliated or associated with the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
On behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, I wish to express our unequivocal opposition to any ban on any class or type of firearms, any new registration requirements on any class or types of firearms, any restrictions on manufacture, sale or possession of ammunition feeding devices of any configuration or capacity, and any government intrusion into firearm transfers between private citizens. Any congressional actions in any of these areas would be an infringement upon the rights the citizens of Montana have reserved to themselves.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution — these sections of these foundational documents are not government permission to keep firearms. They are statements whereby the people have reserved these rights to themselves specifically from government interference.
These statements do not create any rights, but simply recognize preexisting “natural rights” which are restricted from government interference. As you consider whatever “gun control” (actually people control) may be offered by Sen. Feinstein or others, I hope you will keep these facts clearly in mind.
“Gun-free zones” are a terrible failure of public policy. Virtually all mass shootings, including the one in Connecticut that has sparked the current wave of media hysteria, happen in places where public policy has incorrectly assured people that they are safe, but where the policy has actually created risk-free zones for madmen, and pools of defenseless victims conveniently offered up for slaughter by failed policy.
Former police officer Ron Avery says, “The only way to check violence in progress, where the victim can neither hide nor flee, is by equal or greater force in a timely manner.“ If Congress feels compelled to “do something” in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, it should repeal the pretense of all federally-mandated or federally-inspired “gun-free zones.”
For any inside the Beltway who actually believe in the effectiveness of “gun-free zones,” I recommend that the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courthouses be declared “gun-free zones,” and that all armed guards and protective personnel in those places be removed. If “gun-free zones” are effective for our kids, they’re good enough for our servants.
Various gun bans, licensing or registration schemes, and/or bans or restrictions of ammunition feeding devices will fail. I won’t bother you with discussion of the fact that any such restrictions will have no effect on criminals or madmen. I believe you already know that.
I do hope to inform you about how strongly the gun owners of Montana feel about their right to keep and bear arms. I have asked around among a considerable number of friends, acquaintances and contacts in Montana. I have not learned of anyone who would comply, for example, with a new federal law requiring them to register or surrender their semi-auto rifles to authorities.
Let me be very clear: Montanans will not comply with any new federal restrictions. The most any such restrictions would do would be to create a huge, new, armed, outlaw class of citizens. And I very much doubt that most Montana law enforcement personnel would cooperate in enforcing any such federal restrictions.
Clearly, the vast numbers of citizens who have bought new firearms in the past month, especially the hundreds of thousands of expensive semi-auto rifles, did not buy these new firearms simply so they’d have them available to surrender if Congress should pass a law demanding they do so.
Since Montana law enforcement personnel are unlikely to enforce any such restrictions, the effect of passage of such restrictions would ultimately be for federal officers to come to Montana to enforce them. Because most Montanans will simply not comply with any new federal restraints on a right they have reserved specifically from government interference, the obvious result would be armed conflict between Montanans and federal enforcers. (I offer this not as a threat or a challenge, but simply as an observation.)
I certainly hope you would not set Montana on the path to an armed conflict with federal enforcers by aiding or supporting passage of any new federal restrictions. That would not be in the best interest of your constituents.
Instead, if you feel compelled to pass some actually corrective legislation in response to the media hysteria over the Connecticut shooting, I highly recommend that you get rid of those dangerous and illusory “gun free zones.”
Gary Marbut, of Missoula, is the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
VERBATIM
Editor’s note: The following was sent to Montana’s congressional delegation on behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Because there is much discussion among gun owners of Montana about proposals by Sen. Diane Feinstein and others for Congress to enact various types of gun control, I though you would appreciate knowing what I hear from Montanans about this.
I speak to you as a person intimately familiar with firearms, with public policy about firearms, as a person accepted in state and federal courts as an expert on firearms, firearms safety and use of force, and as the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Montana’s primary organization asserting the right to keep and bear arms, also affiliated or associated with the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
On behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, I wish to express our unequivocal opposition to any ban on any class or type of firearms, any new registration requirements on any class or types of firearms, any restrictions on manufacture, sale or possession of ammunition feeding devices of any configuration or capacity, and any government intrusion into firearm transfers between private citizens. Any congressional actions in any of these areas would be an infringement upon the rights the citizens of Montana have reserved to themselves.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution — these sections of these foundational documents are not government permission to keep firearms. They are statements whereby the people have reserved these rights to themselves specifically from government interference.
These statements do not create any rights, but simply recognize preexisting “natural rights” which are restricted from government interference. As you consider whatever “gun control” (actually people control) may be offered by Sen. Feinstein or others, I hope you will keep these facts clearly in mind.
“Gun-free zones” are a terrible failure of public policy. Virtually all mass shootings, including the one in Connecticut that has sparked the current wave of media hysteria, happen in places where public policy has incorrectly assured people that they are safe, but where the policy has actually created risk-free zones for madmen, and pools of defenseless victims conveniently offered up for slaughter by failed policy.
Former police officer Ron Avery says, “The only way to check violence in progress, where the victim can neither hide nor flee, is by equal or greater force in a timely manner.“ If Congress feels compelled to “do something” in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, it should repeal the pretense of all federally-mandated or federally-inspired “gun-free zones.”
For any inside the Beltway who actually believe in the effectiveness of “gun-free zones,” I recommend that the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courthouses be declared “gun-free zones,” and that all armed guards and protective personnel in those places be removed. If “gun-free zones” are effective for our kids, they’re good enough for our servants.
Various gun bans, licensing or registration schemes, and/or bans or restrictions of ammunition feeding devices will fail. I won’t bother you with discussion of the fact that any such restrictions will have no effect on criminals or madmen. I believe you already know that.
I do hope to inform you about how strongly the gun owners of Montana feel about their right to keep and bear arms. I have asked around among a considerable number of friends, acquaintances and contacts in Montana. I have not learned of anyone who would comply, for example, with a new federal law requiring them to register or surrender their semi-auto rifles to authorities.
Let me be very clear: Montanans will not comply with any new federal restrictions. The most any such restrictions would do would be to create a huge, new, armed, outlaw class of citizens. And I very much doubt that most Montana law enforcement personnel would cooperate in enforcing any such federal restrictions.
Clearly, the vast numbers of citizens who have bought new firearms in the past month, especially the hundreds of thousands of expensive semi-auto rifles, did not buy these new firearms simply so they’d have them available to surrender if Congress should pass a law demanding they do so.
Since Montana law enforcement personnel are unlikely to enforce any such restrictions, the effect of passage of such restrictions would ultimately be for federal officers to come to Montana to enforce them. Because most Montanans will simply not comply with any new federal restraints on a right they have reserved specifically from government interference, the obvious result would be armed conflict between Montanans and federal enforcers. (I offer this not as a threat or a challenge, but simply as an observation.)
I certainly hope you would not set Montana on the path to an armed conflict with federal enforcers by aiding or supporting passage of any new federal restrictions. That would not be in the best interest of your constituents.
Instead, if you feel compelled to pass some actually corrective legislation in response to the media hysteria over the Connecticut shooting, I highly recommend that you get rid of those dangerous and illusory “gun free zones.”
Gary Marbut, of Missoula, is the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Rep. Duncan on U.S. Gun Rights: ‘We Live In a Republic, Not a Dictatorship’
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) vowed Wednesday to fight any effort by the
Obama administration or members of Congress to enact gun control
initiatives.
“The Founding Fathers never envisioned executive orders being used to restrict our constitutional rights.”
He added: “The president should not be able to act unilaterally when it comes to our constitutional rights. Executive orders were meant as a way for the president to implement legislatively passed laws, not to make law.”
More @ CNS News
Krauthammer: Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Work Unless Gov’t Confiscates Guns
The U.S. differs because ingrained in our history is a culture of gun ownership, protected by the Second Amendment. “We have a system that believes the rights, the Second Amendment in other words, predate the Republic. And the point of having a government as in the Declaration is to secure the rights,” he said. “So unless you’re willing to confiscate, which would be unconstitutional […] these things are not going to have an effect.”
More @ Conservative Byte
Huckabee: Obama Shows Contempt for Constitution in Gun Grab
Former GOP Arkansas Gov. and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee
blasted the Obama White House on Wednesday for Vice President Joseph
Biden’s suggestion that executive orders might be used to curb gun
violence following last month’s mass shooting at a Connecticut
elementary school.
“Does this administration have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the Congress?” he asked in response to an email query from Newsmax. “How can an ‘executive order’ trump not only the actual text of the Constitution, but the checks and balances of power in which no branch could act unilaterally and with indifference to the other branches?
“Does this administration have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the Congress?” he asked in response to an email query from Newsmax. “How can an ‘executive order’ trump not only the actual text of the Constitution, but the checks and balances of power in which no branch could act unilaterally and with indifference to the other branches?
“When Joe Biden and Barack Obama give up the vast amount of guns that
protect them, then the rest of us will consider giving up the guns that
protect our homes and our families,” Huckabee told Newsmax.
Civilian Disarmament – will they try?
I read James Rawles‘ and Bob Owens
post and they did address some of the issues I was having worrying
about what the government will do on civilian disarmament. Basically it
will fail. Now Matt Bracken has written a LONG piece on the same issue. Pat Buchanan and Drudge Report are both warning of Civil War. And I just found John Mosby
over at Mountain Guerrilla. He is another undisciplined snake-eater
(ground ponder version) and rabid patriot and has been training
patriots. These are not backbenchers, these are leaders in the
Patriot / Liberty movement! Several of them ex-officers with years of
experience and have been leaders in the Patriot / Liberty movement for a
long time. In each case, there is death in the air.
James warns the
government will need body bags to go with their billions of rounds, Bob
flatly says he will not give up his guns without a fight, and Matt’s
piece is begging, a SEAL, a shipmate, and a snake-eater is begging the
law enforcement officers (LEO) to not follow unconstitutional orders.
John makes the point that we have already lost the Republic, the only
question is, will you do any thing about it?
I think James Rawles post missed the primary point. I completely
agree that you will not be able to disarm the American people easily,
however will they try?
More @ Charles Carroll Society
Statement on Federal Gun Control from the League of the South
Via Bernhard
LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH NEWS SERVICE
9 January 2013
For immediate release:
The Obama administration is threatening to use Executive Orders to further dismantle the Second Amendment. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) is set to introduce a draconian bill to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, among other things, later this month. Between the two, they are intent on turning otherwise law-abiding gun owners in the South and elsewhere into outlaws with the stroke of a pen.
But won’t these law-abiding gun owners comply with the new “laws?” Won’t they dutifully register their “assault weapons” with the authorities and submit to other restrictions on buying, owning, and transferring firearms? Some will but many will not. They will instead become outlaws.
In the last month, millions of Americans have bought millions of weapons and over a billion rounds of ammunition. They are not buying these expensive things in order to register them or turn them in to the gun grabbers at some point in the future. They are buying them to defend themselves, their families, and their property from whomever might threaten them.
And at present, the biggest threat is the U.S. government itself.
The League of the South, the premier Southern nationalist organization, will not comply with any diminution of our God-given right to keep and bear the sort of arms a free people need to remain free. This means “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. Moreover, we will view any attempt to deprive the Southern people of these tools as a criminal act by a criminal regime.
League President, Michael Hill, noted: “Those in positions of power who exceed the limits of lawful authority ought to be made to live in mortal fear of their transgressions. This is the foundation of a free and healthy society.”
Hill also pointed out that “gun control is not about limiting violence against the innocent. On the contrary, it is about promoting it against the law abiding. Once the citizenry is effectively disarmed, it will be open season for thugs of both the underclass and the ruling class to dispossess the productive and law-abiding middle class.”
The League of the South is an advocate for a free and independent South. Therefore, we understand that a free people is an armed people. And, as Hill puts it: “We intend to be free from the destructive clutches of Washington, DC, sooner rather than later, God willing. And that will necessitate us being armed to defend our liberty for those who would deny it to us.”
For more information on The League of the South, see www.dixienet.org or e-mail us at jmichhill@cs.com.
LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH NEWS SERVICE
9 January 2013
For immediate release:
The Obama administration is threatening to use Executive Orders to further dismantle the Second Amendment. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) is set to introduce a draconian bill to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, among other things, later this month. Between the two, they are intent on turning otherwise law-abiding gun owners in the South and elsewhere into outlaws with the stroke of a pen.
But won’t these law-abiding gun owners comply with the new “laws?” Won’t they dutifully register their “assault weapons” with the authorities and submit to other restrictions on buying, owning, and transferring firearms? Some will but many will not. They will instead become outlaws.
In the last month, millions of Americans have bought millions of weapons and over a billion rounds of ammunition. They are not buying these expensive things in order to register them or turn them in to the gun grabbers at some point in the future. They are buying them to defend themselves, their families, and their property from whomever might threaten them.
And at present, the biggest threat is the U.S. government itself.
The League of the South, the premier Southern nationalist organization, will not comply with any diminution of our God-given right to keep and bear the sort of arms a free people need to remain free. This means “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. Moreover, we will view any attempt to deprive the Southern people of these tools as a criminal act by a criminal regime.
League President, Michael Hill, noted: “Those in positions of power who exceed the limits of lawful authority ought to be made to live in mortal fear of their transgressions. This is the foundation of a free and healthy society.”
Hill also pointed out that “gun control is not about limiting violence against the innocent. On the contrary, it is about promoting it against the law abiding. Once the citizenry is effectively disarmed, it will be open season for thugs of both the underclass and the ruling class to dispossess the productive and law-abiding middle class.”
The League of the South is an advocate for a free and independent South. Therefore, we understand that a free people is an armed people. And, as Hill puts it: “We intend to be free from the destructive clutches of Washington, DC, sooner rather than later, God willing. And that will necessitate us being armed to defend our liberty for those who would deny it to us.”
For more information on The League of the South, see www.dixienet.org or e-mail us at jmichhill@cs.com.
NC: Moccasin Creek Minutemen Alert
VERBATIM
On January 16th, the Moccasin Creek Minutemen will meet with Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison. He will be outlining his position on the 2nd amendment and any infringements of our rights by the federal government.
Fargo Cattle Co Steakhouse
1007 Shepard School Road
Zebulon, NC 27597
Wednesday, January 16th, 2013
7:00 PM
Visit the Moccasin Creek Minutemen site for more information.
Map
David DeGerolamo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)