Excerpt from the rather long and rambling letter: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.
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?
Mikey V. and his fellow retards talk a big game. But when the rubber meets the road, they'll meekly queue up to comply.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Mike considers it an "abuse of first amendment rights" to provoke Mike Vanderbeogh.
DeleteTS, instead of that nya-nya-nya comment, do you have something to contribute to the discussion?
DeleteHow is that not valid discussion? Is provoking someone (or some group) in an effort to try to get them to commit violence for your own political and social gain "abuse of first amendment right"?
DeleteYes it is. I posted today the Fox News discussion in which they actually arrived at the unbelievable position that such is the purpose of the amendment. To offend and insult, that's what it's all about.
DeleteThis distortion reminds me of the way you guys have distorted the original intent of the 2A. Interestingly, you're consistent in your twisting of rights.
And you are quite inconsistent in the way you twist rights. Is provoking a gun owner who talks of violence an "abuse", or is it only an "abuse" when provoking Muslims?
DeleteWhere have I been inconsistent? As Kurt rightly pointed out, I'm using the word "abuse" a bit differently than it's usually used. Quite consistently, I'm raising the bar a bit higher than you guys like it.
DeleteWell, you dodged my question, so I guess I don't know whether or not you are consistent. I'll ask again: do you think Jade is abusing his 1A rights when he tries to provoke Mike Vanderbeogh to violence?
DeleteJadegold's comment doesn't qualify for your defintion of "provoking someone (or some group) in an effort to try to get them to commit violence for your own political and social gain."
DeleteAnd once again, knock off the gotcha attempts. I'm tired of them.
As the letter mentions Jade, so far, in the face of widespread noncompliance in some states and open civil disobedience, the powers that be don't seem to be anxious to push things. Perhaps due to the sheer numbers
ReplyDelete"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."
http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210_1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law
Just recently, we got to see that the process of gun confiscation isn't efficient or cheap even when there is a list of owners available.
"California discovers it’s really expensive to confiscate people’s guns"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns/?wprss=rss_national
There's really no need for armed resistance, the political process has been pretty self correcting over the long run and individual rights have been expanding over that time, including gun rights.
You manage to completely miss the point.
DeleteFact is, universal background checks are favored in OR--and the nation as a whole. Even among gunloons.
Nice to know you support Mikey V's call to kill congressmen.
BTW, six other states have passed universal background checks. Where was Mikey V then?
DeleteTypically, desperate folks get more hyperboplic when the trends are against them.
"Nice to know you support Mikey V's call to kill congressmen."
DeleteJade why do you jump on the old if I disagree with you I must agree with the other guy wagon? Especially when I was quite clear in regards to the use of force,
"There's really no need for armed resistance, the political process has been pretty self correcting over the long run and individual rights have been expanding over that time, including gun rights."
"Fact is, universal background checks are favored in OR--and the nation as a whole. Even among gunloons."
Refer to my previous comment regarding the political process. If the voters of the state want something, they will eventually get it. One has but to look at the midterm elections and the expansion of gun rights to see that.
"BTW, six other states have passed universal background checks."
DeleteLets see, there is another area where the number six comes up...., that's right, there are now six states that have Constitutional carry laws. So far. And there are still some states with bills in the pipeline yet. It will be interesting to see what happens with them.
"Typically, desperate folks get more hyperboplic when the trends are against them."
Considering that the expansion of gun rights has been outpacing the attempts to restrict such rights, guess where most of the desperation lies?
Well Sarge,
DeleteDo you really support the right to civil disobedience in this case? We're not talking about drugs and alcohol. Guns are a fairly serious matter. Let's just let law enforcement do what they need to do. We are a nation of laws, as George Washington prescribed. We know that the U.S.A. is an open, free society. As far as the sheer numbers, leave that to the government and the authorities to figure out. I guess as far as the overwhelming number of pot smokers, we can thank Jerry Brown for understanding that. Prohibition was mostly a joke. Wait for your time to come.
Some idiot who would threaten a member of the legislature is not worthy of consideration.
And as far as California. We're doing fine. Thank you.
"Do you really support the right to civil disobedience in this case?"
DeleteWell FJ, what level of civil disobedience are we talking about? The portion Mike posted only discussed armed resistance when he also mentioned examples of disobedience that were nonviolent starting with just ignoring the law and then moving up to public displays of nonviolent disobedience such as the demonstration in Olympia Washington against the background check referendum.
Do you really support the right to civil disobedience in this case?
DeleteI know you aren't asking me, but, oh, hell yeah!!!
Let's just let law enforcement do what they need to do.
Sure, when "what they need to do" becomes something vastly less evil than gun confiscation raids.
FJ - if you lived in America before the civil war would you be one of the people that turned in run away slaves or reported houses acting as safe havens on the underground railroad? All of those people were breaking the law and that was wrong at that time right?
Delete"grandiose victimism"...If that aint the pot calling the kettle black....thanks for the laugh Mike?
ReplyDeleteI'd really like to hear how you think that applies to me.
DeleteSarge,
ReplyDeleteWhere did California try to confiscate guns? San Francisco? I have trouble keeping track of these things. No cops in my neighborhood unless called. More likely looking for someone in the I-5 corridor, also known as Rose Canyon. I mean in their flying copters.
"Where did California try to confiscate guns?"
DeleteFJ, the article I cited in my last comment discusses California's program of confiscating firearms of citizens who's names come up on a roster when they become prohibited persons for the myriad of reasons legislated in the state.
They seem to be having problems keeping the numbers on the list at the same level. The numbers on the list in California are about half of the most conservative estimate of how many assault weapons weren't registered in Connecticut.
FJ - read the link he provided in his comment. It is an interesting article that California is spending quite a bit of money to track down illegal gun owners with very little to show for it.
Delete