Fanatical Threatening Letter to Oregon Legislators by Mike Vanderbeogh

Open Letter to the Oregon House of Representatives: Planning on voting for "Universal Background Checks"? The NRA is the least of your personal worries. The Law of Unintended Consequences, Armed Civil Disobedience, and Lex Talionis.

Excerpt from the rather long and rambling letter:

Which brings us to you, today. The NRA has sent out a legislative alert. You will no doubt be contacted by many, many outraged citizens. Let me reassure you, this is the least of your personal worries. What you must remember is that we understand intimately, even if you choose to ignore it, that the velvet lies of your "good intentions" are wrapped around the iron fist of the threat of state violence against those who do not comply. Now this is true of any law you pass -- all are backed up by the threat of arrest and incarceration and, yes, death at the hands of the state police if anyone resists your good intentions and refuses the honor of arrest and incarceration. The thing is, we are not your average criminals. In fact, we are not criminals at all, no matter if the last election has placed you in the position of power to declare us so. However, if you make us criminals, we will be the very best, most successful criminals we can be. For we will not comply.

For there is a difference, as I have said in speeches in the past, between "the law" and the rule of law as codified by the Founders' Republic in the Constitution. Our natural, God-given and inalienable rights are not subject to negotiation, dilution, diminution or infringement, by you or anyone else. For us, it is the height of cruel irony that those of us who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law find ourselves required to become "lawbreakers" to remain in fidelity to that oath. Again, this is not ground we chose. Michael Bloomberg and his collectivist fellow travelers, domestic enemies of the Founders' Constitution, picked this ground. It is ground we have sworn to fight on, and if need be, die on. The question before you today is this: Is it ground that YOU are prepared to actually fight and die on? If we resist your 'good intentions," how many of us are you willing to see dead in order to enforce your will upon us? And once we and our families begin dying at the hands of the state police you send to our doors, can you blame us if your victims return the favor to the people who sent killers operating under color of law?

Gun-rights Advocate’s Rosa Parks Comparison is Deplorable

Local News

I can’t believe that the Post-Gazette would use valuable space writing a huge article talking up someone like Kim Stolfer (“Gun-Rights Advocate Kim Stolfer a Powerful Force in Harrisburg,” March 15). And you couldn’t have picked a worse time to sing his praises.

As an African-American woman who lost her son, Jamar Hawkins, to an illegal gun in November 2013 and as a lifetime resident of Homewood and Penn Hills, I am sickened by Mr. Stolfer and his organization. His “all guns, all the time” agenda is bad enough, but recently he had the nerve to say that a gun-rights rally over an ordinance in Lower Merion, Pa., was “a Rosa Parks moment.”
That’s not just the wrong thing to say — it’s just wrong.

The last I checked, Mr. Stolfer has never been denied access to a seat on the bus, access to a public restroom, access to a job or access to a vote because of his skin color. And I can’t believe that he or anyone he knows has lost his life because some town didn’t want him to fire or to carry his gun in a park.

Tactical Firearms of Katy Texas Defaults on Its Loans and Blames Obama

Why the Radical Right Has to LIE About Gun Confiscation - Because It Is Not Real

Dog Gone at Penigma

The only way for seizure of an illegal assault weapon is through a court-issued warrant, and then only after a court hearing has ruled on the legality/illegality of the weapon.  Simply receiving a letter that your request for registration was too late is NOT grounds for such a warrant, because there are multiple options for possible legal disposal of the now-illegal firearms, etc.  That means that while you clearly had an assault rifle, etc. AT ONE TIME, there is insufficient basis to issue a warrant, because there is absolutely no information that shows you still have that firearm after receiving the letter, and the state themselves provided you with the information to act legally.  The assumption has to be that you are legal and law abiding, not that you are guilty and unlawful. Otherwise you have grounds to dispute the legality of the warrant, and anything that results from it - or so I have been told.  I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be.  However there does seem to be ample support for the basis and success of such a challenge in other contexts, in the form of what is in legal terminology, a motion to suppress  under the exclusionary rule,and the protections of the 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure, as well as possible protection under state Constitutions.

The Real Motive For Going After “Assault Weapons”

Mark America

The founders of our country and the framers of our constitution envisioned a militia made up of every able-bodied male, able to bear arms in defense not only of the country in time of invasion or insurrection, but in defense of liberty if the source of insurrection were to become the legalized sort characterizing every despotic form of government the world has ever known.  Knowing this, it’s important to realize that so-called “assault weapons” are the focus of fear among the anointed who may have other plans for our republic.  It is for this reason that they seek to ban them, because this is the sole weapon classification in broad distribution among the American people that makes a meaningful resistance to arbitrary governmental actions possible.

It is for this reason that the gun-grabbing left wishes to deprive you of so-called “assault weapons,” knowing that they resemble in many respects their military cousins, minus the ability to operate in fully-automatic mode.  In truth, a well-skilled group of veterans, or average citizens could hold off a similarly sized military force for some time unless heavier weapons were brought to bear against them.  From the moment the ATF carried out its botched raid on the Branch Davidians at Mt. Carmel, TX, it was clear to all who watched that a superior force of government agents could be held at bay indefinitely until there was an application of larger, military class weaponry.  So-called “assault weapons” have no application in defense against tanks.  It was in response to this raid that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was crafted.  It’s also worth noting that as much as the broad-based backlash against Hillary-care, the AWB of 1994, passed by Congress in September, was instrumental in fueling the “Republican revolution” in November that year.

What the events in Waco made plain to the elites is that armed resistance is possible, and while it would be relatively easy to contain small enclaves of resisters in compounds simply by the application of superior firepower and military equipment, putting down a wider resistance might prove difficult. On a broader scale, with a resistance across the entire population, perhaps even on the offensive rather than hunkered in bunkers awaiting the end of the world, such a resistance might well overturn a runaway government despite its advantage in heavy weapons and military equipment.  This was a shock to the powers-that-were, and it posed to them a new danger that spoke to a future moment when they might face justice for treason rather than a few dozens or hundreds of isolated radicals being dealt with in swift and severe fashion.

The first paragraphs of the article were dedicated to convincing us that the so-called assault weapons are no more deadly or effective than "Grandpappy’s old-school Browning BAR." Then, inexplicably, he went into this lengthy nonsense about the government fearing them in the hands of the uprising citizenry.

Twice he mentioned "unless heavier weapons were brought to bear against them." I suppose in this guy's fevered mind, the revolution will take place under strict rules in which the government holds back on its superior weaponry. Of course, if they don't there's always the enjoyment of being martyrs for freedom like the Branch Davidians or the Waco Wackos.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.