First Step: Gun Confiscation Letters Go Out In Connecticut...

[BluesStringer]

An associate sent this to me, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Connecticut Gun Confiscation, LawMakers List. - YouTube

Well, it certainly had the costumes and repetitive muzzle sweeping.

I didn't appreciate the names and addresses of the "hunted" being made public.

Looks like there is going to be blood spilled in the streets of Connecticut.

I do believe patriots from other areas may make a showing in that war.

I have no objection to the names and addresses being published. They should be published, and they were just a couple of days after Sipsey Street sent letters to them all after putting together the list and publishing it on the blog. In fact, if you go to YouTube to watch that video, there's a very short Description which includes a link to Sipsey Street Irregular's blog, so I imagine they're giving credit for the list to Mike. Or maybe he had something to do with the video, I don't know.

I am not a fan of the imagery at all though. Everything Mike has done thus far has been intended to be a dire warning of the unintended consequences of using the color of law to disarm and make felons of gun owners who are such only because of a law they passed. I agree that the imagery of the video makes the principled gun owners of CT out to be bloodthirsty, and worse yet, evil. The overwhelming majority of them are neither. I think their restraint and the lack so far of any major raids means they're winning, the state doesn't know what to do because they never expected 300K+ to ignore their diktat, and everybody knows what a powder-keg the tyrants have created. The gun owners don't want a war, and I doubt many of them would enjoy the imagery depicting them as wanting one in the video. But I don't speak for them. I'm just surmising from what little evidence we have.

I thought the music pretty much sucked too.

BTW, I should not have intimated that the story of confiscation already happening was imminent. I was obviously mistaken about that, and I was out of line for saying anything about it at all until it was published, if ever. I have no reason to believe that it won't be eventually, but for now it's a non-story until something other than my loose lips says something about it. Sorry to all for that lapse in judgment.

Blues

 

[wolf_fire]

Well, it certainly had the costumes and repetitive muzzle sweeping.

I didn't appreciate the names and addresses of the "hunted" being made public.

Looks like there is going to be blood spilled in the streets of Connecticut.

I do believe patriots from other areas may make a showing in that war.

Really? They are the public's representatives. They are to do the public's work by upholding the oath of protecting and defending the Constitution. They are already PUBLIC.

What I didn't appreciate is that the imagery showing law abiding citizens that own guns must be gang bangers and thugs. That pretty much sucked.

 

[BluesStringer]

Thanks for the video link, gunnerbob. I always go to the page a YouTube vid is housed on to see who posted it, what the Description says, and to read the comments if it is a controversial subject.

Like I said above, the Description has Sipsey Street Irregular's blog address in it, and very little else. So I inquired via email whether Mike was aware of it, or maybe had anything to do with it. I find his answer to be inspiring and humble, as well as just a tad bit foreboding, but serious truth-telling is nearly always foreboding. Both gunnerbob and Mike have either the personal experience and/or the vision to understand such serious truths, as Mike recounted (again) when he posted this morning on his blog. It's worthy of a read, as are all the links in it as they serve to explain Mike's vision for the Three Percent Movement and its relationship to what's going on in CO, CT, NY, RI, MD and NJ (I may have missed one or two also), as well as most other states where such bold thievery of rights bubbles just out of sight of a calm, complacent, and sad to say, ignorant citizenry. Here's his blog-post:

I have been asked if I had anything to do with this video. I did not not. Weaponizing an idea.

​

Monday, March 24, 2014

A reader asked if I had anything to do with this video, seeing as how it uses some of my words and my list of Connecticut tyrants. I did not. However, it comes as no particular surprise. This is a video generation.
​

What I had to say to the Connecticut tyrants I said here. But the reason I deliberately made the Three Percent a movement and not an organization was that you can't stop an idea. Indeed, as i wrote after the Hartford speech last year:


​

I walked beside many Three Percenters at the Hartford rally, before and after my speech. You know the gratifying thing? Few of those who carried Threeper flags or who sported Three Percenter patches and tabs on their uniforms knew who I was. THAT is the success of an open source insurgency idea. It is a testament to the greatness of an idea that it is larger and more powerful than the originator. In the end, they will be able to say, "We did it ourselves."​

Gentle readers and Three Percenters, we have succeeded, you and I, in weaponizing an idea. This idea cannot be killed. It can be misinterpreted, profaned and discredited by those who pretend to claim it for their own reasons however sordid, which is why I am so jealous of the brand. But the essence of it cannot be killed. It will go on and on. This is something that the tyrants in Connecticut and elsewhere should consider before it is too late.
​

 

[r1derbike]

Looks like I need to pay closer attention to what's in front of my face! HAR! A senior moment! This is scary. I did watch the video again, and within the first 5 seconds, it references the tyrants.

I'll go crawl under my rock again...and try to find the rest of my grapes short of a fruit salad. For some strange reason, I thought it was a partial list of the innocent owners of the now felonious arms.

Thanks for the posts. Sometimes it takes getting hit in the head with a ton of bricks to clear the stoppage...

...and I agree 100% with the inappropriate music, costumes, and actions of the hooded fools.

 

[gunnerbob]

While I may not agree completely with the manner in which these individuals showed their intolerance to what is happening in CT, deep down inside I am glad that there are individuals who are brave enough to do something like this in our day and age. The video may have some negative effect on the image of gun owners, yes... however, I do think that this will foster anxiety and perhaps (hopefully) fear in the hearts of those who support the illegitimate abuse of authority witnessed in CT.

Mike is correct about ideas, once they're spread and embraced they will never die. Ideas are more powerful than any automatic weapon or bunker buster could ever dream of being. The III% movement shouldn't be the baby of Mike, it should be ours... all of ours. We are the force that makes Liberty possible, we are the ones who must secure its future, it is our responsibility to act. We can not pass this burden on to our children and grandchildren, that is evil and immoral. Though I am only in my 20s I have made what is happening my responsibility, I have resigned to it being my fault that we are where we are... It is only when you take to heart what is happening, make it personal and place the burden upon your shoulders can you then truly push against the injustice with the entirety of your being.

This problem, this country and this world must be as much a part of you as you are of it... Accept the responsibility, however much you feel it isn't yours to be had. I have, this is my fault... this is my fight. This isn't for me, it's for those I leave behind to inherit what I've left to them. Remember, it isn't the money, the possessions or any other material thing that will have you remembered and loved when you're gone... it's the influences you left for others, it's the good you did with your time on this rock.

"Live free, or die trying"

Death is not the tragedy of life, gentlemen. It's being alive without living and it's living without unmolested Liberty.

'Til that day... Godspeed.

 

[billt]

Trust me, my state beats your state in the "better" gun law catagory...

Something else you know nothing about....Keep fantasizing in your bubble. You're good at it.


Not even on the top 10 list here.

http://weapons.about.com/od/gunlaws/tp/top-gun-friendly-states.htm

Or here.

Link Removed

Or here.

Link Removed

 

[SCfromNY]

I applaud all those who say they will resist. I do believe that when the SWAT team arrives at your door anxious to show how manly they are you will not risk your family and your life for a fight you can not win at your door. However, the first time the over enthusiastic SWAT team decides to show "us" how futile it is to resist and it all goes to hell. Families, including children die a deeper resolve will be born. One that letters and thoughts of confiscation could never match. You hope it never happens but there seems to be too many in power looking to put a boot on our necks to prove their superiority. We also should not reject a hidden agenda hoping to implement martial law. A question on many federal employee forms at one time was, "Could you fire on American citizens if ordered to?" Our first and best chance for resistance is 2014 elections. LET"S NOT BE STUPID! IT"S TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE.

 

[boatdoc173]

why don't hey focus on the real threat? criminals with guns NOT law abiders with guns--when was the last time a law abiding citizen committed a felony with a gun?

 

[BluesStringer]

Something else you know nothing about....Keep fantasizing in your bubble. You're good at it.


Not even on the top 10 list here.

Top 10 Gun-Friendly States in the U.S.

About.com is a serious source of information on gun rights? Texas and Florida don't even allow open carry. How could that list be accurate to compare the listed states with Vermont, when Vermont has zero restrictions on how a weapon can be carried? They don't even have a permission slip scheme. That link is completely bogus to show anything worthwhile about gun rights.

Or here.

Link Removed

Let's just look at #10, the first state to come up on that page:

#10 Wisconsin

Brady Campaign score: 3

No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

So you're taking the Brady Campaign's word for which states are "best" for gun laws??? And not having a permit to possess weapons is one reason the Brady's score WI so low???

I didn't even look at the other nine because just like the first link, the first state's listing reveals the source of information is meaningless to anything having to do with gun rights.

Or here.

Link Removed

The #1 reason given for the "Top 6" states at this link is just as idiotic as the last link:

1. No permit is required to purchase or own a gun (a permit may be required to carry it concealed).

And then #2 says, "They are a shall-issue state." Vermont is a no permission slip whatsoever state!

And the kicker about that last link is, guess what the source is for the map they have there? Read carefully - usliberals.about.com!!! HAHAHA!

I think this little pissing match between you two is as childish and ridiculous as any I've seen around here, but dude, if you're going to accuse someone who lives in Vermont of not knowing what he's talking about because the Brady Bunch and a liberal blog doesn't list it as being among the best states in the Union for gun rights, it is clearly you who doesn't know what they're talking about. If someone could wave a magic wand and make all laws across the country as Constitution-compliant as they could possibly be, then Vermont would be the only model to look to to achieve that status.

Good grief, at least read the sources of the information you're supplying! They're all right there in the very first words of all three links you gave.

And to boot, none of this has anything to do with the Intolerable Act in CT!

Blues

 

[billt]

About.com is a serious source of information on gun rights? Texas and Florida don't even allow open carry. How could that list be accurate to compare the listed states with Vermont, when Vermont has zero restrictions on how a weapon can be carried? They don't even have a permission slip scheme. That link is completely bogus to show anything worthwhile about gun rights.



Let's just look at #10, the first state to come up on that page:



So you're taking the Brady Campaign's word for which states are "best" for gun laws??? And not having a permit to possess weapons is one reason the Brady's score WI so low???

I didn't even look at the other nine because just like the first link, the first state's listing reveals the source of information is meaningless to anything having to do with gun rights.



The #1 reason given for the "Top 6" states at this link is just as idiotic as the last link:



And then #2 says, "They are a shall-issue state." Vermont is a no permission slip whatsoever state!

And the kicker about that last link is, guess what the source is for the map they have there? Read carefully - usliberals.about.com!!! HAHAHA!

I think this little pissing match between you two is as childish and ridiculous as any I've seen around here, but dude, if you're going to accuse someone who lives in Vermont of not knowing what he's talking about because the Brady Bunch and a liberal blog doesn't list it as being among the best states in the Union for gun rights, it is clearly you who doesn't know what they're talking about. If someone could wave a magic wand and make all laws across the country as Constitution-compliant as they could possibly be, then Vermont would be the only model to look to to achieve that status.

Good grief, at least read the sources of the information you're supplying! They're all right there in the very first words of all three links you gave.

And to boot, none of this has anything to do with the Intolerable Act in CT!

Blues

Instead of wasting time with all your whining and banter, how about telling me and everyone else how Vermont is "better" than Arizona regarding gun ownership? That is the claim he made. All your nonsense doesn't clarify that, does it? Because you.....or he can't. Now both of you can go back to your little circle jerk in never never land.....OK "dude"? Jesus Christ!

 

[BluesStringer]

Instead of wasting time with all your whining and banter, how about telling me and everyone else how Vermont is "better" than Arizona regarding gun ownership? That is the claim he made. All your nonsense doesn't clarify that, does it? Because you.....or he can't. Now both of you can go back to your little circle jerk in never never land.....OK "dude"? Jesus Christ!

Does AZ have a permission slip system in place? Yes? I do realize that they left it in place to keep the reciprocal agreements (with other states that demand a permission slip) active, but until 2010, AZ was like most other states that require a permit to carry concealed. Vermont has never had a permit system in its entire history as a state, and its state Constitution has been interpreted by their courts as prohibiting one being implemented, so whereas AZ has abolished the requirement for a permit through legislative action, it can change (or lose as the case may be) its collective mind and legislate a whole new, and potentially worse, scheme than it had before.

To me, "can" change vs. "can't" change makes Vermont "better," but it's a fairly insignificant difference for the time being, that I will admit. Also, answering your question about what makes one better than the other in no way should be taken as me not noticing that you failed to address the stank of your lousy, leftist links, choosing instead to call my valid analysis of them "whining and banter" and then saying that I have to answer for a claim that Charles Morrison, not I, made in the first place. I already said I thought both of you were being childish, and the above rant is perfectly consistent with that. Now kindly get back on-topic to the Intolerable Act of CT, the impending showdown between gun owners and the tyrants unless somebody acts responsibly and as adults by repealing that Intolerable Act, or take your sniveling about an unrelated jab at your poor grammar elsewhere. Please.

Blues

 

[typhoon22]

I really like that idea

 

[billt]

To me, "can" change vs. "can't" change makes Vermont "better," but it's a fairly insignificant difference for the time being, that I will admit.

You like to reach, I'll give you that. This whole "permission slip", (CCW), nonsense you keep babbling about, exempts the holder from having to have a background check performed when purchasing a weapon. Which every citizen has to do in Vermont. The Instacheck System is riddled with flaws that can and does cause unnecessary delays, and even complete denials. People have been denied firearm purchases because of traffic warrants. I've been at gun shows where the entire system was shut down for over 1-1/2 hours, forbidding any sales from taking place....EXCEPT for those people exempt by having a current and valid Arizona CCW. For that reason I keep mine current, and will continue to do so. Not having that option is far from "better". Especially when you are not required to have it to carry either open or concealed in the state of Arizona. Also, it's only a matter of time before all states inter connect on a national basis with their state issued permits. There are already bills introduced on the House and Senate floor that will do just that. Where will that leave Vermont with no permit system in place? So once again you have failed to make your point. Morrison made the claim, however you're the one pissing and moaning. And your babble has not made him any less of a jag off for whining and carrying on about grammar. If you want a subject to stay on topic, then don't deflect it to begin with. Now shut up and go away. Preferably BOTH.

 

[gunnerbob]

Ya'll can measure D I C K S later, alright... let's get back on topic. Chuck, Bill and Blues... There have been some good and some not so good points made, however.... the arguing over who's State gun laws a better is off topic, regardless of who started it and is detracting from the real concern being discussed. One of you needs to be a man and restrain the urge to reply back to the other.

Drop it, already! Or, start another thread!

 

[BluesStringer]

Ya'll can measure D I C K S later, alright... let's get back on topic. Chuck, Bill and Blues... There have been some good and some not so good points made, however.... the arguing over who's State gun laws a better is off topic, regardless of who started it and is detracting from the real concern being discussed. One of you needs to be a man and restrain the urge to reply back to the other.

Drop it, already! Or, start another thread!

My last post: Today, 01:42 PM

billt: Today, 03:33 PM

gunnerbob: Today, 07:28 PM

Any questions?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

You are 100% correct Blues and GunnerBob, I am sorry to have disrupted this thread.
What's going on In CT is far more important than who has a better state argument that I started.
It is rather childish and I apologize for taking us off topic.



Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[vernsimpson]

You are correct. CT is (IMHO) a test ground and could be a blue print for the anti's!!!! While some may say that it could not happen in their state, I fear they are so wrong. We have won some victories in a lot of states we have also lost ground in others. We can not depend on just voting for the GOP. We must nominate good strong 2A people who will not fold at the first anti-gun rally!

While most states do have some good points with their gun laws, we still have a LOT of work to do to get back to what our Founders had in mind when they wrote the US Constitution! We need to push, pull, drag and/or any other way we can get our elected morons to know that we are a political force that will not be denied! MOST of us on this and other forums are for 2A but we do have trolls who want to get us fighting amongst ourselves and keep us from banding together to stop the anti's and the libs!!!!


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.[/QUOTE]

 

[billt]

In going back to topic, this is all happening because of one simple reason. It occurs when states continue to keep electing liberal, socialist Democrats. New York, Conn., Mass., California, Illinois, to name a few. These people are socialists, and socialists are, and always have been the party of gun banning. This is becoming irreversible because they buy minority votes by offering "free", rather than freedom. Most all minorities, (you insert which ones), will gladly trade firearms, which they don't give a damn about, for free health care, food stamps, cell phones, name it.

People condemn Republicans, yes even gun people, complaining they're "out of touch". Yet every single major gun law ever signed into law, starting with the National Firearms Act in 1934, has been proposed, sponsored, written, and voted in by Democrats. I'm not saying the Republicans are the end all, cure all. Far from it. But as far as keeping your Second Amendment rights, they're the ONLY hope gun owners presently have. And they are losing ground each and every day. The only way they'll win anything now is if the Dems screw up badly enough, like they have with Obama Care. And that will be very short lived, if in fact it happens at all. There is zero chance a Libertarian will ever be voted into the highest office in the land. The chances get worse every year for both Republicans, as well as Libertarians, as the minority voting block in this country increases, and more and more political correctness gets shoved down our throats by socalists who want any and all opposition silenced. That is fact. Stop looking at this as destruction of your gun rights, and start looking at it as a direct by product of the minority vote. To think any other way is stupid, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control. It is the reason why all of these minorities are here in the first place. Look at every country of origin they're from. There is little to no gun ownership allowed in any of them.......And they could care less.......And on a lighter note. Why won't this forum software allow the posters to separate paragraphs?? It makes reading longer posts very difficult.

 

[BluesStringer]

Actually, "going back to topic" would look something like this - Beware the disinformation efforts regarding the CT standoff between the State Police and the manufactured felons their tyrant bosses created. There are people apparently trying to spark this thing off in CT. Again from Sipsey Street Irregulars:

(Note: This is unrelated to the report that I prematurely mentioned earlier in the thread.)

Oh crap. The disinformation that keeps on confusing.
​

Thursday, March 27, 2014
​

Readers will recall this recent post: "Before It's Disinformation: Purveying Disinformational BS as News."

Now we have this breathless regurgitated excrement, courtesy of some credulous souls and uncritical thinking at PoliticalEars.com: Link Removed
​

​

LATER: And Link Removed Some disinformation firebug has started a prairie fire, the stupid (or deliberately crafty) bastard. Of course the beauty of this from the disinformation artist's point-of-view is that we don't have the resources or time (at least I sure as hell don't) to debunk each and every one of these as they appear and they get picked up faster than ebola.
​

CT is still a powder-keg. Either a truthful report or a false report of enforcement of the Intolerable Act could set that powder-keg off at this point. From the citizen-side of the equation, it is imperative that they know which reports are truthful and which aren't. The only way to claim and maintain the moral high ground is to hold truth up against tyranny as a shield. It won't necessarily avert violence, but it will make the tyrants and their enforcers the aggressors trying to steal peoples' rights via violence, and as everyone on a forum such as this should agree, that would make self-defense with equal violence a perfectly moral response.

Beware the disinformation campaign. Even if the result is the same, the violence it seeks to foment would not be moral in any way, shape, manner or form.

Blues

 

[BC1]

exempts the holder from having to have a background check performed when purchasing a weapon.

Sorry to go off-topic but... isn't a BATF 4473 form required when purchasing from a dealer? Federal regulation not state?