Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a "safer society." More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.Mike Vanderboegh makes a point.
"Pragmatic" response is swift:
Could we please…not make gun owners look like lunatics in the media for all to see?Swift and bitter:
...Could we please not do stupid shit like this to fuck it up?
Don’t be an asshole. Sorry, thought that was covered in the last instruction to be polite.I'm fighting the clock right now to get done with my planned posts by 9:00. I'll be back later today with some observations.
28 comments:
Honestly, his letter just seemed like an abbreviated version of his "You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences" essay. There was only one difference that bothered me.
His essay made it clear he was just pointing out what the inevitable end point of gun control would be. It didn't really say where he thought we were in proximity to that. His letter suggests, at least to those who haven't read his other stuff, that he thinks that end point is imminent.
Actually, saying the letter bothered me isn't really accurate. I think "puzzled" might be closer, because the tone of it just seemed a little incongruous with his other writings.
I didn't have a bit of trouble understanding his exposure of hypocritical cowards to themselves. They truly don't know they are hypocrites who revel in violence to achieve their goals, while loudly proclaiming their abhorrence of violence. It is willful self-ignorance that they do not know this about themselves. The truth of the matter is that to look closely at themselves would reveal their advocacy for violence against their fellow citizen and his rights, but more emotionally disruptive to them is that they would reveal to themselves their cowardice.
They don't hate violence. They always advocate for it. They just want to hire it done, so they may remain safely out of the way.
All Mike did was hold up a mirror, so they had to look at themselves. Whether they wanted to or not.
Courtesy is not called for. Courtesy is self defeating when it is read as weakness by those who oppose you. And sometimes for some people is it cover for weakness.
Logically, one's enemies will assume if you are afraid to say words that may be received to their displeasure, how much less likely would you be to take unpleasant action against them? What miniscule ineffective slice of autonomy could they leave you, that would have one congratulating himself for his pragmatism and his victory because he didn't lose all?
While of course, he lost all.
As stated above sometimes the call for courtesy to your sworn enemies is a cover for weakness. And often the call that others act in same manner is for fear that the monster in the room will get angry and lash out at everyone, the courteous as well as others.
Ergo, they wish us silent, or polite beyond usefulness. Never realizing that makes the thing they fear more likely, not less.
What I don't understand about our fellow gun rights advocates who object to Mr. Vanderboegh's tone is that if we are not to warn the Enemy of the consequences of pushing us beyond endurance, we are left only with the rather ugly option of pushing back without warning.
As Benjamin Franklin said of the rattlesnake:
. . . Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.
Mr. Vanderboegh has generously given notice.
"Could we please ... not make gun owners look like lunatics in the media for all to see?"
when you read the opinion of one man, and you believe that all gun owners are like this or will be seen like this -- there's no difference -- then it does not matter if you "belong to the club" or not.
you have already accepted an impersonal collectivist framing of gun ownership.
you can never argue about individual rights on these terms.
Mike V wrote the letter and it was overkill. The original idiot that called for registration is not the President, his congressman, his senator, his mayor, or city council so why does one person’s opinion bring down the response that my back is against the wall and shooting is next.
I could understand that when gun bans were happening in the 1980’s, but now that over 40 states have CCW and more open carry and roll back of Morton Grove and Willamette gun bans, why is he shouting fire?
What is driving him to think that now is the time for civil war when gun rights are on the upswing? Does he advocate for Olofson to fight it out against the ATF by shooting rather than the legal system?
The FLDS folk had a better reason to shoot it out when Texas CPS took 400 children; instead they fought it in the public arena of media and the courts. I think that was a better solution. If any people were a target for the differences and beliefs the FLDS were and the solution was by taking their children by CPS. The Texas CPS director has resigned. Questions about their rules and lack of legal protections have been shown to the public.
If Mike V is serious about revolt then he not going the correct way about it. It appears he is just acting out his frustrations and fantasies. Is he angry that gun rights progress has been done without him? Or that other tactics worked to get the Supreme CT to rule it is an individual right?
Do we want to be perceived as a dangerous lunatic fringe? Do we want wiretaps on our phones; our emails monitored search warrants at our homes? Do you really want the attention of the FBI? Why do we need to do that, have we lost the war?
I think the answer to my questions is a simple NO. His tactics are inflammatory not a way to change the public minds. He can try his way but I do not agree it us the correct tactic.
RAH
So I guess if they slander,defame,imprison,rape,rob, and murder us, we still need to have a civil tongue in our mouths. I am disgusted to the extreme of what American Manhood once was, and has become. If you find it too hot, then get out of the kitchen. They are ALREADY doing the aforementioned, anon, or RAH, and they are already doing the illegal wiretapping(and exonerating themselves as Congress just did last week.)monitoring the e-mails, this blog, every blog they don't like, and any one of us can be picked up, arrested, kangaroo-courted into prison and our families turned out into the wild whenever they feel like it and there is not a damned thing any of us can do to stop them, the facts, the truth, and justice be damned. So I guess you figure if your plaintitive bleats are heard least, the crocodile will eat you last? At least have the guts to stand up to these traitors and tell them what will happen if our freedoms are not respected. What are you waiting for, the Black Maria to arrive? Are you going to respectfully yell STOP and if they laugh and proceed, yell STOP again? People like Mike V and myself are probably going to get killed, and while I can't presume to speak for Mike, I just don't give a damn. But I pity you. Starving to death behind that barbed wire is going to be a slow way to get an education. And the funny part is, millions have already gotten it, but nobody seems to have passed it on. Who was your role model while growing up? Barry Manilow?
I'm with Mike. He is just pointing out the ultimate cost of ANY registration/licensing scheme. If it is to be avoided, then it must be UNDERSTOOD by ALL.
The state will escalate any confrontation to the level of violence on ANY non-compliance with standing law. It is important that they AND their constituents understand the consequences. Most of the citizenry believes that virtually no one in any numbers will stand against the state and that as long as they stand with the state, even against their neighbours, they are safe. That isn't the truth and they need to understand it.
I realize that the subject scares the hell out of everyone. It should. That is the point. And it may be the one last chance to avoid it.
I am surprised and appalled at the number of self-proclaimed "hard-core" 2A advocates have begun squeaking like frightened mice because Mike V said something that is no more inflammatory than our Founding Fathers.
Seriously, if you have said something to the effect that you will never give up your 2nd Amendment Right, then what are you willing to do--what are you going to do when it continues to be stripped away bit by bit? Complain and write another letter to elected officials who couldn't care less what you have to say and will only reply with a canned form letter?
.45 Superman is absolutely correct: fair warning is not a threat; it is a promise, a warning...and it is the only moral and just thing to do. We would do well to take a hard look at the Gadsden and Navy Jack flags, and let those words from our bolder and less-emasculated forefathers sink in: Don't Tread On Me.
It's like MOLWN LABE--if you're gonna say it, you better mean it. If you really, truly mean it, then you're prepared to back it up.
If you do intend to back it up, then you need to do some individual soul searching to find out what your personal line in the sand is. Ultimately, it all becomes personal, and when speaking of individual Rights and liberty, you cannot fault a man who is more or less committed than you are to a particular Right. You can, and should, however, fault one who is committed to eroding, stripping, or whittling that Right away from you.
Vanderboegh doesn't threaten people who decide not to have firearms of their own; merely those who have taken it upon themselves to impose their will to decide upon the rest of us. As individuals, we all have the Right to "opt out;" to take a step back or raise our hand and say, "Not me." That's fair warning. That's the rattle on the rattlesnake.
After all, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, anyway? It is a reminder, a warning, a threat if you will. It says, "Hey, Mr. Government Official, if you try to oppress, subjugate, or disarm me, you do so at your own peril because I have the moral right, responsibility, and the duty to remove you--violently and terminally if necessary."
I will end with what I remember of a quote from someone I admire and respect. It is something he said that really encouraged and emboldened me:
If people are afraid to even talk about what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, what makes our enemies think that we'll actually do anything more?
MOLWN LABE
Yes, there is some validity to the point that Mike’s type of extreme viewpoint will frighten the sheeple and nudge them even further into the other camp. That school of thought says that we should convince the fence sitters to step down onto our side, and violent rhetoric is counterproductive toward that end.
The problem with that view is it presumes the “sheeple” en masse are paying attention and can thus be persuaded. It further presumes that that the people are still in charge and can sway the government’s direction. In my opinion, that’s wrong on both counts. The great mass of Americans are wearing blinders, and grow annoyed when they’re asked to pay attention to something beside’s sports and the doings of celebrities. Most find all political topics absolutely abhorrent, and would sooner that you bring up the topic of embalming at a dinner party!
Surely I’m not the only one who’s noticed the government’s near complete disregard for the will of the people. Even on highly visible issues like immigration, closing the borders, or drilling for oil, it seems patently obvious that the majority of citizens have one view, and the US Gubmint has the opposite. On these divergent views, which direction is it that we seem to be heading in; always the direction as mandated by Washington. Those people up on Capitol Hill are dancing to their own piper, and this business of working within the system is getting us absolutely nowhere! Convince 100% of the fence-sitters to to see things our way and what have we achieved: Just one more issue that Washington will turn a blind eye towards.
I’ve spent years watching the pro-gun side of the debate make concession after concession. I completely understand and support Mike’s approach. We’ve damn near given the farm away. It’s high time that the Other Side of this debate take some clear unequivocal warnings to heart about what they risk in pressing us any farther.
Do we risk frightening a few of the sheeple? Certainly, but maybe putting a scare into Mike Sullivan, Carolyn McCarthy, Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer would be worth it!
Appeasement sure hasn’t worked!
An open question;
Would you rather be effective or right?
I don't think anyone has rebuked Mr. Vanderboegh for not being technically correct. And certainly, there is nothing stopping him from talking or even ranting about whatever he pleases.
The question is, is this tactic going to be effective? Does anyone truly believe what Mr. Vanderboegh made Mr. Bialek seriously reconsider his position? Does anyone honestly believe that non-gun-owning voters saw his letter and felt better supporting Vanderboegh's position, or supporting Bialek's position (or anything in the middle)?
Fortunately, in the US, violence and threats of violence are rarely effective and causing physical change (except through unintended consequences - remember the law against firearms on government property arose in response to Black Panthers demonstrating with firearms in front of the California Statehouse).
I will end with what I remember of a quote from someone I admire and respect. It is something he said that really encouraged and emboldened me . . .
If I didn't know better, I'd be blushing--thinking you were quoting me, of all people.
I view Mike V's comments as an effort to get the anti-gun idiots to look at the unintended consequences of their actions. He is correct that they 'bravely' send others to do their dirty work and were it up to their bravery the job would never get done.
Those Fudds protesting Mike don't realize they may be eaten last but they will be eaten just the same.
I seriously invite all so-called second amendment supporters who are afraid to claim their rights to leave.
We have enough trouble fighting those who openly oppose our rights. We don't really need to be worrying about when the faint of heart are going to actively sell us out.
I don't care to hear anymore from those who advise that we should only accept whatever rationing of rights our enemies are willing to allow.
Goddamn! If you really don't want to upset them, join them. That would make them real happy and comfortable. Since that seems to be the important issue for all you weak sisters, go to the other side. I only want people I can trust on my side.
If you don't think I am serious, I will relate something that occurred between me and one of my sons. He was in the military when the questionnaire was passed around asking if members of the armed forces would fire on American civilians if ordered to do so by a superior officer. (By the way, it was not limited to just a few servicemen in a particular force, every one of my sons and other relatives in the military received it and they were in different services and MOS's.)
He told me he would have to assume that his officer had information that he did not and therefore he would follow orders.
I was so disappointed in him, because he was raised better and I had taught him true history and civics. I told him that should such a thing come to pass, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him, or he would have to kill me. That I also had a duty to my country and to the rest of my family that I could not in good conscience allow him to violate.
Thankfully, God, he has since grown in his patriotism and changed his stance and decided that to do as he had believed at the time he would, would be a violation of the oath he took when he enlisted. He has determined to honor his oath to the constitution and country. I thank God every time I think of it.
So when I hear some faux rights supporter say we don't want to upset the people who would destroy us and our republic, I wish them a fate commensurate with their perfidy.
I might also mention that I love this child with all my heart. Just in case any of you think this was a small thing to me. It wasn't.
I am reminded if a short article written a few months after 911, by someone I am proud to know, if only through mutual forum participation. Joel Simon wrote the article I am now quoting from. Here is link to the full story:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe155-20020107-03.html
...Now the quote...
"I fancy myself an honest man. I've never intentionally harmed an innocent soul, and I've never stolen so much as a slice of bread even when I was broke and hungry. I obey every law I can bring myself to, sometimes at the cost of self-contempt. But there are some things I CAN NOT do, and someday those things will be demanded of me. Then I'll be branded a dangerous criminal. And someone will come for me, and I'll resist. Then the shooting will start, and I'll likely be killed. I just don't want to die alone."
"Are you telling me," my friend asked, "That you'd shoot some poor pimple-faced grunt just because he was ordered to be the first one through your door?" I recalled that my friend had earlier said that he was assigned to "counter-terrorism" work in the Special Forces, and that his training had more to do with breaking down doors than storming bunkers. I looked up and met his eyes.
"I have to take the consequences of my choices," I replied, "And he has to take the consequences of his."
I wish I could believe that the original intent of our republic can be restored. I really do. Not long ago I re-read El Neil's and Aaron Zelman's book Hope. I leaned back in my chair and tried to retreat into a fantasy of what it would be like to have someone like Alexander Hope as president, providing a way for us to restore our liberty while punishing those guilty of stealing it from us. I just couldn't do it.
No president like that will arise. Americans won't rise up, either, even when it's too late. In the unlikely event we do organize for revolt, we'll lose. Since I can't imagine living in the future America I envision, I expect to die. And when I die, I don't expect to be surrounded by friends. So enemies will have to do. I just don't want to die alone."
The antis need to let it be...
Nezumi,
Effective? How effective have the pragmatists been? Can we still purchase firearms through the mail without going through a third party? Can we carry our firearms wherever we bloody well please without any paperwork? Can we purchase any weapon or weapon accesory freely without asking permission?
Since the amswer to each and everyone of those questions is currently no, and the answer to all but the last one was yes up until 1968. Please tell me just how effective the pragmatist way has been.
Other than helping to turn a right into a priviledge that is.
As far as the usefulness of armed resistance I seem to remember an incident in TN I believe shortly after WWII where armed citizens removed a corrupt local government from power. However, as that does not sit well with your statement you seem to have forgotten, or dismissed it.
Please also remember that while violence is rarely the answer, when it is the answer, it is the only answer.
Sadly, I believe that we are at that point. The people in power do not believe that the People have the will to respond in an effective manner. Which makes a violent response inevitable.
I know I said I'd post some more on this today, but just was not able to find the time. It's probably just as well that I let this sit a day.
Goodyear, go ahead and lose if you want, I intend to win. And all else I can say is I'm sick of this running crap. What's winning? That's for the winners to decide. The original Patriots had longer odds and less gear, and they still won. Losers talk about what might have been. Winners go home and f#ck the Prom Queen.
Sean, I just re-read both of Mr. Goodyear's posts, and I don't think he said what you think he did.
StraightArrow, +1.
I remember in 2005 I got a call that we might be deployed to N.O. to help out. Over the course of checking my gear and taking care of personal situations, I thought long about the situation and ended up writing a page of why I felt it was a violation of our oath to raise a weapon against an American Citizen, and that my front sight would cover the grape of any Marine who did so. Luckily we wern't sent down to that shithole, and the pictures I saw of Marines who were there left their rifles on the boat.
Anyway, I do think it will be an effective message, and we should really keep coping it and sending it to whatever media outlets will print it. I think the 'sheeple' don't give a shit about gun control anyway and will probably say, 'yea I wouldn't want to fuck with those rattlesnakes.' Look, most people don't even vote, so why would they care about some issue that doesn't affect them? Look the successes of the homosexuals in key states - they overrode a ballot measure! We have even better chances for success because we only demand to be left alone - not special rights or money. We have a truly moral cause and standing our ground and advancing will only yield more victories! Oorah!!
-Member of the 3pct.
Did I read the wrong op-ed? All I read was a piece that pointed out that disarmers are hoping to push the government to violate privacy of property and person -- without just cause -- in the drive to disarm peaceable Citizens. In other words, disarmers are willing to push this country to the point of civil unrest in order to declare general "safety". (But only if someone else does it for them.)
Is civil unrest really such a foreign concept? Doesn't anyone remember the Los Angeles riots?
Last I checked, Mike Vanderboegh isn't the sole spokesman for individual liberty or defense rights; if he is, he's doing it pro bono. Imagine if every newspaper in the country had an op-ed with a similarly direct, non-nonsense message. I'm sure there are more "pro-gun" people than newspapers.
"I view Mike V's comments as an effort to get the anti-gun idiots to look at the unintended consequences of their actions. "
I suspect that was his effort. And I suspect he failed. He approached in a format that forced confrontation, and being confrontational means you brand yourself as the 'other'; irrational, dangerous, and certainly not someone you can work with, but someone you should put down. People don't listen to the 'other'. Had he instead written about 'hey, remember this happened in 17XX and X number of people were killed in the process. Do we really want to lose good, brave Americans pursuing what is ultimately a violation of the Constitution anyway?' at least he wouldn't be coming off as actively threatening other people.
There is nothing wrong with saying 'hey, if you do this, people will get killed, plus it's illegal', as long as you can back it up. Better yet, get an anecdotal example of someone's daughter who was killed while leading an illegal gun raid. Sheeple like anecdotes. But don't say 'you do this an' I'll shoot ya!' That only helps brand you and yours as crazies, and people don't listen to crazies.
"Effective? How effective have the pragmatists been? Can we still purchase firearms through the mail without going through a third party? Can we carry our firearms wherever we bloody well please without any paperwork? Can we purchase any weapon or weapon accesory freely without asking permission?"
I don't know if you've looked around the world recently. Right now the US is the only Western nation in the world I'm aware of where you can legally buy machine guns. It's the only one where 4 states out of five permit you to walk around with a handgun on your person. Take a moment and look at the pressure on the US to change. Mexico is regularly growling about our illegal arms sneaking across the border and stealing Mexican jobs. Canada seems confused about gun control. The UN and Europe... Don't even get started there! We have the highest murder rate around (related more to other factors, of course, but it doesn't help our case any) and a reputation overseas for being crazy, gun-toting cowboys.
Yet here we are in the US and even in one of the most gun-fearing states in the Union I can go out and buy an AK with a bayonet lug and a barrel grenade-launcher doohicky, legally, and pay not even $500 for it.
The US is standing alone as a bastion of freedom on that count. Sure, we aren't getting straight A's, but we're leading the way.
You're upset you have to do paperwork to get your guns? What DON'T you have to do paperwork to get now? I paid a third again for my car in just doing paperwork for it. I'm sure the government would require I fill out forms before I could get an e-mail address, if they could manage it (and in another ten years, they might just). That's a growth of bureaucracy, and no one is going to stop that with death threats.
The battle isn't over by a long shot, but all said, we're winning, and we're winning because we have good, honest people who stick to their guns in the court room and in the legislative chambers. We aren't at the point when we need to start shooting (and if we are, why aren't you?)
Just because we have to fill out tons of bureaucratic paperwork to do something, does not make it right. So pointing out that we have to do so merely makes the point of ANOTHER intolerable act.We're winning? I wouldn't want you to give the after action report for a loss. Yes, oh happy day, we're not at the point where we need to start shooting. We're instead at the point where a great many of us go to jail, facing utter ruin, losing our families and fortunes, and our fellow citizens go tut-tut and change the channel. Make you happy? Yes, why aren't I shooting, indeed. Don't bother asking me questions like that, rookie, I was killing men and women when the only drink you knew was milk. Is that some kind of a half-assed challenge? I have stated clearly and concisely that I will not be disarmed, alive. I'm not some mad dog lunatic who thinks that the best way to deal with gross injustice is to start murdering people. But for taking an actual stand, for getting down to the facts of the matter, you brand those that dare say what is actually the truth, as crazy. Fine, according to you, what don't count as a pinch of shit, I'm crazy. You're yellow. In case you're not sure of the term, means coward. So, off to your sanctuary with Mr. Obvious, and all the "sane" folks who don't want the applecart upset, even if it is full of snakes and leper sores and enjoy the fruits of mediocrity that you so richly deserve. But in case you change your mind, remember I don't share a foxhole with lickspittles, ever.
"Just because we have to fill out tons of bureaucratic paperwork to do something, does not make it right."
I'm not arguing otherwise. But that doesn't mean it's time to start threatening people either. While I'm sure you've felt the compulsion to, do you threaten bankers when then ask you to fill out thirty forms before you can get a loan?
"We're instead at the point where a great many of us go to jail, facing utter ruin, losing our families and fortunes, and our fellow citizens go tut-tut and change the channel."
Great many of us? Do you personally know anyone who has? I sure don't. Now granted, what happened to Olofson is a terrible miscarriage of justice, but, statistically speaking, he's still only 1 guy, which makes him far less common than the number of people who get falsely convicted of murder. The number of people who are falsely put in jail due to gun crimes are tiny. Is every one of them a tragedy? Of course. But we have methods of fighting it. Death threats only make their situation more difficult.
Again, not justifying recent government actions, but I'm simply saying, we're not being oppressed, and acting otherwise is a bit silly.
"Is that some kind of a half-assed challenge?"
It's a genuine question. If our country is so bad, if we're being truly oppressed by a tyrannical government, why are you posting on an internet forum instead of out shooting people? Clearly it isn't THAT bad, or you wouldn't just be putzing around here with the rest of us belly-aching. And I hope you appreciate your own abilities well enough to realize that, if the government decides it's going to break in and take your guns, if you let them choose the time and the place, it will almost certainly be successful, and you will almost certainly not 'take 'em out with me'. The idea of a guy with a job, a mortgage and kids defending himself against a government that can observe when you leave the house and break in with military grade gear at a time of their choosing is a fiction. You can't win a defensive battle like that.
"But for taking an actual stand, for getting down to the facts of the matter, you brand those that dare say what is actually the truth, as crazy."
I never said that. However, because I've come across contrary to your opinion, you're now considering ME misguided, and not worth listening to. This is PRECISELY what the fellow Mr. Vanderboerg wrote to was probably thinking. The difference is, I'm not threatening violence against you, so you feel content to misphrase me and dismiss me, rather than seek legal recourse or threaten deadly violence in return.
".. Obvious, and all the "sane" folks who don't want the applecart upset, even if it is full of snakes and leper sores and enjoy the fruits of mediocrity that you so richly deserve. But in case you change your mind, remember I don't share a foxhole with lickspittles, ever."
Seriously, read over what you just wrote. How do you think you appear to anyone else reading this? I know you're upset because our rights are not being completely respected. I know you're a proud and capable man. But again, what is it you're trying to achieve? Do you want people like me (who was, only a few years ago, a fence-sitter with no knowledge on the situation) to listen to you and possibly agree with you? Or do you want people to dismiss you? Imagine if I called you bad names, would you be any more likely to understand my point of view?
To be clear, I have NO PROBLEM with people using armed violence to enforce their rights. I would be fully comfortable with armed rebellion against the government when it abandons the principles of the Constitution. That is, unfortunately, the nature of things. What I have an issue with is people, intentionally or unintentionally, doing things which seriously compromises my rights, or which unnecessarily increases the possibility of tyranny or violence.
I also have an issue with people giving 'threats'; if the other party doesn't take it seriously, the threat is ineffective and you just come off looking like an aggressive thug who needs to be controlled. If it is taken seriously, the party will anticipate and hit you first, before you can act on your threat. Do, or do not do. Don't advertise before you do it, however. That's just vanity.
And remember, Pride is a deadly sin for a good reason.
A well reasoned and logical approach. I actually don't give a damn what anybody thinks of what I said. Means to have the courage of your convictions. Yes, I personally know people who have had severe trouble because of the Authoritahs and their draconian methods in court and elsewhere. Imagine if I called you a teddy -bear, would you more likely to understand my point of view? I understand that you made a legitimate question. Clearly, it's not THAT bad, because I'm just putzing around on the Internet, belly- aching with the rest of you. Yes, I am just thumping my chest and loudly and safely proclaiming how brave and fearless I am, all the while hiding behind my keyboard, not risking a thing, and causing incalculable harm to the gunrights cause, all the while making a mockery of myself and others like me. Really, I understand, you just want me to shut up or put up, and that announcing my intentions beforehand is not only unwise, but vanity as well, and I am guilty as well of Pride, which I believe,always precludes a fall, and is a deadly sin. And I am soooo glad you'd be fully comfortable with asserting your rights against a tyrannical govt., you have no idea how calm and confident that makes me feel. Let me leave you victorious. I cannot PROVE a thing I say to you, I am wrong in my outlook and my assumptions are just wrong. Yes, it would be an easy task for the govt' to take me down, having a job, family, mortgage,etc, and I would be unaware of their intentions from the beginning, and they would probably get me without incident. I am hapless, hopeless, helpless, without a leg to stand on, and probably not very bright. I apologize for my life, and all I have said that could do anyone, any harm. Allow me to prostrate myself before the laser-like beam of your flawless pronouncements and murmur "All hail, victor". Don't forget what I said about the foxhole.
Nezumi,
I am not sure if you are an id10t, an agent provocateur, or a plain old coward.
I don't care if I wear fewer chains than anyone else. That they wear more chains is their problem, not mine.
Last I checked you are unable to purchase an AK-47 ANYWHERE in the US for less than $500. That is because the AK-47 is a select fire weapon, which can be fired fully automatically. If you are referring to the semi-automatic only versions which have been modified, your statement is still untrue, as in CA, IL, DC, US territories, and I expect other States you are not allowed to purchase a semi-automatic AK replica with removable magazine and bayonet lug, and most assuredly not for less than $500.
As for the lack of knowing someone who has had unpleasant experiences with your buddies the only ones, count yourself lucky that neither you nor your acquaintances have not run afoul of an only one having a bad day. Though perhaps that has something to do with your bootlicking. Unfortunately for you boot licking doesn't always work.
The thing is that Mike didn't threaten, he warned. We are heading toward a period of uglyness and bloodshed. The only way out is for the people who are starting the war to realise the cost. Mike is helping to remind people of that cost. You however, appear to want to see the bloodshed.
It's likely no one will read this, but -
I've worked on a number of civil and criminal cases in which the Feds was the plaintiff.
I've seen so much s**t that I can't believe that the natives aren't down at City Hall with torches and pitchforks.
The bottom line is that most people have NO CLUE where we are right now.
My guess is that most of the boisterous 'from my cold dead fingers" folks will be the first ones to turn in their guns.
I gave up hope a log time ago and folks like Mike are helping me regain some.
Perhaps there are some people out there who are not cowards.
If you want to play patty cake, go back to the playground. When TSHTF, we know we can count on you to "negotiate."
Ned
My guess is that most of the boisterous 'from my cold dead fingers" folks will be the first ones to turn in their guns.
Well, Ned, now that you've edified is with this no doubt educated guess, perhaps you'll fill us in on who would be the last to turn in their guns--is it the folks who say that we mustn't make rude or scary statements about the consequences of putting gun owners' backs to the wall?
Post a Comment