ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama bypasses Congress

The totalitarians don't have the votes to disarm America, so they're going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders.
The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Let's see them try it.  If nothing else, it might put an end to the use of executive orders.  More likely, it will explode the last tattered vestiges of the veil that disguises the dictatorial nature of the ruling oligarchy in Washington DC.

And yes, I know Republicans have used executive orders too.  That's because they're part of the problem, not the solution.

Labels: ,

212 Comments:

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 1:02 PM  

No one is going to care at all. Americans will sleep through this rape of our 2nd amendment rights just as soundly as they slept through the others

Anonymous Daniel January 15, 2013 1:04 PM  

Obama can't move unilaterally on bladder control, for pity's sake. If the dude is willing to pin himself down with taxpayer-provided henchmen for life, he sure as heck doesn't concern me with his fundamental obsession with the guns of his father's dreams.

I hope, when he signs it, he points his fingers and makes "pew! pew!" noises.

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2013 1:08 PM  

Hey, remember when democrats were terrified of bush and his imperial presidency?

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2013 1:13 PM  

This kind of move is exactly why the oligarchy selected O-bomb-a as their front man. He keeps the naive "left" silent as they establish a totalitarian crony state.

Anonymous Anti-War Guy 2005! January 15, 2013 1:17 PM  

BUSH = HITL... er...never mind.

Anonymous Stilicho January 15, 2013 1:18 PM  

Get your filthy paws off my guns, you damned dirty ape!

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 1:19 PM  

Let's see them try it. If nothing else, it might put an end to the use of executive orders. More likely, it will explode the last tattered vestiges of the veil that disguises the dictatorial nature of the ruling oligarchy in Washington DC.

Come now, it's much more likely that nothing will happen. The GOP will whine. And that's that.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 15, 2013 1:19 PM  

THUGOPOLY.

RIP: AMERICA.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum January 15, 2013 1:21 PM  

Great... Here I was hoping that the book Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Matt Bracken would remain in the "Fiction" section of my home library...

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2013 1:22 PM  

> The GOP will whine. And that's that.

Likely. But it's remotely possible the House will grow a pair and refuse to fund this nonsense by refusing to raise the debt limit. That would definitely take Obama's mind off of gun control.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 15, 2013 1:27 PM  

Yep. And millions will scramble to to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Yawn... teach your children well.

Anonymous Matt Strictland January 15, 2013 1:33 PM  

This highly depends on what he does. If it effects "moral support" like studies and maybe a ban on imports, nothing will happen. These thing don't matter and from what I see leaked in the NYT this is the bulk of what I am expecting

In any case I'm not worried about the GOP. They don't have the votes or enough ethical Democrats to do what needs to be done.

What worries me is the 3% crowd. Figure if just 3% of gun people decide that Obama is a tyrant we have a full fledged civil war on our hands and that has great potential to spiral out of control. Nobody is really prepared for it, me included and as vulnerable and brittle as like everything is, we might end up with a lot more hurt than is called for over this overeach.

Scuttlebutt seems to show people leaning this way and that scares me

Anonymous Passinthrough January 15, 2013 1:35 PM  

This is interesting, Obama has enough balls to issue and clearly unconstitutional executive order? The puppet masters grow bold. Man proposes and God deposes. Prepare for judgement it's going to be a wild ride.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 1:40 PM  

I can imagine the government banning gun ownership for most of us. They don't need to confiscate. Just wait until some guy uses a gun to save his family from violent intruders. Government makes an example of him, imprisoned for life or executed. Then some right wingers accidentally shoot some government agent somewhere, Obama calls them terrorists and sends some drones to take them out. After that, very few Americans will be brave enough to use their guns. Then government offers a tax rebate for turning your guns in. Then they offer a bigger tax rebate to snitch on your gun loving neighbor.

Anonymous Gwst January 15, 2013 1:42 PM  

The fight will move to the states after this.

Already has, as a matter of fact.

If you care, become active at the state level.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 15, 2013 1:43 PM  

^ this, a million times.

they will "ban guns". then they will do nothing to enforce the ban and let everyone keep them. but if they catch anyone selling a gun or using a gun, goodnight.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 1:49 PM  

@Vox Day

According to the Politico Article:

"The executive actions could include giving:

-the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns

-more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws

-pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies

Good lord....Call out the Militia and defenders of liberty!!!

I just don't see where these proposals, executed via Executive Order rise beyond the mundane and completely constitutional.

Anonymous fnn January 15, 2013 1:50 PM  

Something I'm sure a lot of us have often wondered about:

Of course, this has it all backwards. The guns are supposed to protect something other than themselves – property, family, liberty, anything. Instead, Americans are only willing to use their guns in order to defend their guns.

Anonymous A Visitor January 15, 2013 1:52 PM  

Dear Leader's planning on using children tomorrow. He just keeps lowering the bar. I don't have any faith the Republicans will do anything of substance, just whine (as many have said). There was one who says he'd consider introducing articles of impeachment. Until he actually does, I'm not putting any merit.

I just had a conversation with a friend, after quoting Dear Leader: “I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.” For once, I agree with him. We need to do more. We need to impeach, try, and convict him for high crimes (Benghazi, use of E.O. to excessively skirt around Congress, bringing shame upon the office of POTUS), kick him out of office. Next, at the state level, we start re-implementing mandatory marksmanship classes for high school, start a pilot program for grade school. If said pilot program is successful, start rolling out countrywide.

That should make the kids safe.

On a personal note, I am so glad my parents took an active role in my education, especially with firearms. They're great parents.

Anonymous kh123 January 15, 2013 2:01 PM  

Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act, here we come...

Anonymous Mina January 15, 2013 2:05 PM  

fnn January 15, 2013 1:50 PM: great link. exactly what's been on my mind.

Anonymous RedJack January 15, 2013 2:08 PM  

How is this playing in the EU Vox? Just curious if anyone is even paying attention.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 2:11 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 15, 2013 2:12 PM  

Let's see them try it. If nothing else, it might put an end to the use of executive orders. More likely, it will explode the last tattered vestiges of the veil that disguises the dictatorial nature of the ruling oligarchy in Washington DC.

So, VD, you'd rather simply have a plain out-in-the-open tyrannical dictatorship than the soft subtle evil that our overlords exercise over us now?

Are you living in America again? Or not?

What good will come of having evil out and in the open and in our faces? (There's nothing behind that question, I ask it plainly.)

Anonymous Loving tribute to Falco January 15, 2013 2:14 PM  

I didn't notice where any of these executive orders "disarmed" the American People.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 15, 2013 2:19 PM  

From Drudge : Obama to surround himself with children when announcing new gun regulations...


Reminds me of another Hussein.

Except Saddam never attempted to disarm his countrymen.

Think long and hard about that, folks.

Anonymous Yamamoto's Ghost January 15, 2013 2:20 PM  

Soon.....we invade Amellica! Banzai!

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 2:23 PM  

Looks to me as though the "Mocha Messiah" has chosen his cross!

Sayonara, Sucker!

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2013 2:29 PM  

> So, VD, you'd rather simply have a plain out-in-the-open tyrannical dictatorship than the soft subtle evil that our overlords exercise over us now?

What makes you think Vox would rather have either one? But it is what it is.

Blogger JohnG January 15, 2013 2:29 PM  

I don't know about (all) Americans rolling over. Try finding ammo now. I'm going to have to look for some alloy stuff for my pistols and scour the net for some .30 caliber bullets.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 2:32 PM  

@Tad

"I just don't see where these proposals, executed via Executive Order rise beyond the mundane and completely constitutional."

I agree, but the tone coming from the junta has suggested the use of executive orders to accomplish their objectives if Congress doesn't cooperate. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 2:34 PM  

Last time I saw a survey on the subject, less than 20% of Americans considered the current government "legitimate." That's a shocking number. It means that there's nothing actually holding the country together at the moment (and I don't mean holding the various states together in the Union, I mean holding the people together in a common system). The only reason we haven't already had a revolution or civil war is because no better alternative has presented itself. Predisposed to suffer evil while evils are sufferable and all that.

But a better alternative can come about in two ways. One, something actually better than what we have now could look like it was actually achievable. Or two, the more likely case, is what we have now continues to get worse until it reaches the point that nearly anything would seem an improvement.

Obama and the rest of the DC crowd who are so quick to ignore the Constitution as inconvenient forget that while it's not just the thing that gets in the way of them making whatever rules they want, it's also the thing that says we're supposed to abide by the rules they do make. If they trash the one aspect, they trash the other as well.


Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 2:35 PM  

@Loving

I didn't notice where any of these executive orders "disarmed" the American People.

No, you didn't. And you won't. There will be no gun confiscation. It's as though our gun nuts need some sort of justification for being nutty and are willing to make up that justification. Odd, but cause it's never been a requirement in the past.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 15, 2013 2:38 PM  

Just wait until some guy uses a gun to save his family from violent intruders. Government makes an example of him, imprisoned for life or executed. Then some right wingers accidentally shoot some government agent somewhere, Obama calls them terrorists and sends some drones to take them out.

Tell me, has your technology advanced such that you could locate a second body buried under the intended occupant of a grave?

Not that I have any experience in such matters. I tend to leave the bodies where they fall--but I am a warlord, not a survivor.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 2:39 PM  

What worries me is the 3% crowd. Figure if just 3% of gun people decide that Obama is a tyrant we have a full fledged civil war on our hands and that has great potential to spiral out of control. Nobody is really prepared for it, me included and as vulnerable and brittle as like everything is, we might end up with a lot more hurt than is called for over this overeach.

If the executive orders put forth do not actually confiscate guns, than the 3% who decide that Obama is a tyrant and go into open war making will not start a full civil war. They will simply be put through the meat grinder of the government. They will not win sympathy from the rest of the country (which, even though only a small portion of the Revolutionary Americans fought, a larger number gave support & comfort to the rebels).

VD will most likely be just as wrong about this as most things he tries to predict.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 2:40 PM  

Last time I saw a survey on the subject, less than 20% of Americans considered the current government "legitimate."
That's really interesting - do you remember anything about the survey? Do you think it used "legitimate" in the question or headline? I can't find it after a few minutes of looking around.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 15, 2013 2:40 PM  

The assault on the Constitution continues apace: http://t.co/QngRU0jB

Australia is prime proof confiscation could indeed happen here, Tad's lame attempt at sophistry aside.

Gradualism is a much more silent and insidious way to get rid of firearms that outright statements of intent.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 2:42 PM  

Gun Registration, Confiscation, Extermination

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 2:45 PM  

There is nothing in the Constitution of the US that includes executive orders or ANY of the other powers that have become so commonplace these days. How can anyone be charged with violating an excutive order of the president, other than those serving in the US military? Yes, this is tyranny in pure form. Yes, Mr. Obamba is a friggin dictator.

But what is even more disturbing than the EXTRAORDINARY executive authority is the IDEA, which we have not seen in a long time, and that is one part of the country deciding that another region of the country must obey their will. We had that prior to the last Civil War in this country. Southerners were not pressuring Northerners to live and believe as we did in the South. We have the same problem today and Mr. Obamba is a perfect reflection of that IDEA....YOU will do as I say and believe as I say and do it because I say so. This is oppression by a tyranny and I have every God-given right to resist tyranny. No compromise? No negotiation? Nothing short of submission? THAT will require force and it will be met by force.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 2:51 PM  

I don't have a lot of patience today for talk about how paranoid gun owners are. Myself and a fair portion of the people I know were just made into criminals today by New York's legislature for owning Ruger 10/22's with the standard 10 round rotatory mags. (if you want to be technical, I am not a criminal yet as they graciously gave us a year to sell something that has been in the family for over 50 years).

If you know what a 10/22 is, you know how absurd this is. If you don't know what a 10/22 is you don't know enough about guns to open your mouth on the subject.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 15, 2013 2:51 PM  

Yes, it is certainly damning that the end goal of America's gun culture is the preservation of said gun culture. Not the preservation of what that gun culture was set up to preserve.

Even gun confiscation is not cause for Civil War. It is just cause for people hiding the guns no one knows they have.

If you think a revolution would lead to a better America, a more Constitutional America, you are foolish. There are forces every bit as passionate about guns as any Constitutionalist, and better organized to boot. They would take a revolution and use it as an opportunity to push a decidedly unfree and regimented society.

Anonymous Stilicho January 15, 2013 2:53 PM  

Nice link, Conan.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 2:58 PM  

Cuomo is a tyrant. There's nothing the least bit reasonable about banning a 10/22 and it exposes the lies from the left that they're after anything less than total confiscation.

In a few years, if given the chance, they'll come back for any weapons that weren't already banned.

Anonymous Daniel January 15, 2013 2:59 PM  

Define "disarm."

Anonymous DT January 15, 2013 3:00 PM  

Just wait until some guy uses a gun to save his family from violent intruders. Government makes an example of him, imprisoned for life or executed.

Welcome to California!

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 15, 2013 3:00 PM  

If you think a revolution would lead to a better America, a more Constitutional America, you are foolish. There are forces every bit as passionate about guns as any Constitutionalist, and better organized to boot. They would take a revolution and use it as an opportunity to push a decidedly unfree and regimented society.

And what have you now, exactly?

Blogger ray January 15, 2013 3:04 PM  

More likely, it will explode the last tattered vestiges of the veil that disguises the dictatorial nature of the ruling oligarchy in Washington DC.


your Pharaoh's already arrogated to himself the Executive Privilege of snatching, caging, torturing, and/or murdering any u.s. "citizen" he wishes, anywhere in the world -- with no oversight from courts, nor from anybody else

doutless Michelle "signs off" on hubbie's midnight snatches . . . cause only the Little Lady REALLY knows who the terrerists are across the globe

the gun-snatch is merely the next, inevitable, step

the Women who have ruled "your" cuntry for decades now will CHEER at your arrests, and at your abuse and imprisonment, as the world is made just a little Safer for demonocracy

Anonymous Mina January 15, 2013 3:06 PM  

I love how they say "common sense measures" - this is feel good talk designed to shame anyone who disagrees.

I have been involved in a fight for many years (10+) that force-ably takes private property from citizens (sometimes right in front of crying children and screaming mothers) and/or greatly restricts those citizen's rights to full enjoyment of their private property.

It is always termed as "common sense measures" for the ultra-good motive of "better public safety". Who is going to be the bad guy and say no to that?? They term it the way they do for a reason.

In other words, "You need to sacrifice some of your rights (but just the easy, common sense ones) for the greater good." They don't term it this way for a reason, and they certainly never overtly come out and admit that anyone's rights are being infringed on ANY level. (And well, even if they being infringed, it's just the bad people that we all don't like or trust, right?? so that's ok.)

The reason that this is a huge crock of shit is because everyone on that side knows that public safety is not going to be positively impacted by the sacrifice of the citizens who find their rights infringed. It's all a lie. The stinking of the fish starts at the head.

Go back to Prohibition. I re-reviewed the entire history last night and you can see we are following that same exact script, word for word. Just take out the word "alchohol" and its variations and replace it with "gun".

What I find fascinating about the gun control fight today is how exactly parallel it is to the fight I have been part of for years and then looking back and finding that Prohibition was just the same as well. It's uncanny.

The other side has to see the truth in it, too. The only possible answer is that they don't care, they are following the script because they want the outcome that is expected.

Not the one they say they want.

Anonymous Porky? January 15, 2013 3:06 PM  

BO could not care less about disarming the citizenry. On the list of things he'd like to see it's like #379. This is political theater designed to polarize and affix blame to his political enemies, and make him look like a good, compassionate protector. Period.

You guys are falling for Alinsky Rule #9 and #12 like a bunch of suckaaz.



Anonymous Signe January 15, 2013 3:09 PM  

the Women who have ruled "your" cuntry for decades now will CHEER at your arrests, and at your abuse and imprisonment, as the world is made just a little Safer for demonocracy

George Soros is a tranny? Who knew?

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 3:11 PM  

To those who do not see gun control as sufficient reason for civil war, let me ask you.....at what point (in your mind) would armed resistance to tyranny be justified? Lemmie see....

Unfair tax plan?
The elimination of representation, by the use of executive orders to circumvent or frustrate the Congress?
Unlawful assasination of American citizens, or shoot on sight, or indefinite detention?
Undeclared foreign wars and interventions?
Suppression of free speech?
Establishment of a state religion, contrary to the beliefs of Protestants and Catholics alike?
Aiding and abetting foreign invaders?
Differential treatment under the law?
Corruption of the blood?
Ex post facto laws?
Denial of reasonable bail?
Confiscation of private property?
Domestic spying on American citizens?
Complete removal of all rights to privacy?

Is there ANYTHING that our opponents can imagine, that would be sufficient cause for the use of violence in the defense of liberty?

If you cannot imagine anything important enough to fight over, then here is your fair warning.....stay out of the way and you probably won't get hurt.

Anonymous Alexamenos January 15, 2013 3:11 PM  

I think I'll go buy another handgun or two in honor of President Djigaboo's recent pronouncement.

(the "D" is silent)
(is that raciss?)

Anonymous DT January 15, 2013 3:17 PM  

I don't have a lot of patience today for talk about how paranoid gun owners are. Myself and a fair portion of the people I know were just made into criminals today by New York's legislature for owning Ruger 10/22's with the standard 10 round rotatory mags. (if you want to be technical, I am not a criminal yet as they graciously gave us a year to sell something that has been in the family for over 50 years).

I realize before I say this that it can be extremely difficult to do.

Leave New York. Take your family, investments (i.e. money in a home), and whatever economic productivity you represent, and just leave.

Then, to the best of your ability, do not not invest or engage in commerce with any company based out of New York.

And make it widely known why you are doing these things.

If you do this, it won't matter. If every gun owner in NY did this, it would. It would literally destabilize NY's economy and shatter their tax base.

The right needs to think a lot more about actions which are peaceful and legal but which also twist the arms of politicians who are out of control. I realize it's harder for the right having jobs and all, but still.

If you don't know what a 10/22 is you don't know enough about guns to open your mouth on the subject.

Describes pretty much every liberal. And Tad.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 3:22 PM  

@DonReynolds

To those who do not see gun control as sufficient reason for civil war...

I can just see the history books now...

"Citing the Presidential order to more vigorously enforce gun laws, many American's took to the streets, shooting and murdering those that supported the increased enforcement of gun laws. The short lived revolution known as "The Don't Let Them Enforce the Laws Uprising" came to quick end when the instigators were found weeping in the corner of a local federal building and hoping to hide from the federal agents that showed up with a warrant."

LOL....Take to the streets, Don. Take to the streets!!

Anonymous Salt January 15, 2013 3:24 PM  

If you know what a 10/22 is, you know how absurd this is. If you don't know what a 10/22 is you don't know enough about guns to open your mouth on the subject.

Good rifle to reference, being excellent for varmint.

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 3:25 PM  

@Porky?: BO could not care less about disarming the citizenry. On the list of things he'd like to see it's like #379. This is political theater designed to polarize and affix blame to his political enemies, and make him look like a good, compassionate protector. Period.

You guys are falling for Alinsky Rule #9 and #12 like a bunch of suckaaz.



So what do you suggest? That we drop our pants, bend over, and try to enjoy it, because they're going to screw us in any event?

Anonymous Todd January 15, 2013 3:28 PM  

The One has become the "The Lawless One"

Anonymous Razoraid January 15, 2013 3:28 PM  

Loving Tad: I didn't notice where any of these executive orders "disarmed" the American People.

Once you believe you are entitled to decide what I may and may not have, you’ve made the case for the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous Preparation Tad January 15, 2013 3:30 PM  

Tad thinks 10/22 is an adjustment setting for an expandable butt plug.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 15, 2013 3:32 PM  

"LOL....Take to the streets, Don. Take to the streets!!"

Unfortunately you will likely get to see violent mobs takes to the streets, but it won't be us "gun-nuts",

We are prepared to defend ourselves from the poor cretins should they make the mistake of bringing their foolishness our way.

Unarmed victims from neighborhoods of the less prepared will likely be cowering behind their doors wishing they had one of those scary looking rifles and a few full hi capacity magazines handy. Or perhaps they will be on the phone frantically seeking the aid of one of their extremist, gun-enthusiast acquaintances they were recently trying to persuade to accept some more reasonable gun control.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 3:42 PM  

Matt Strictland..."What worries me is the 3% crowd."

Thank you, Matt. My dad and I had the best laugh over your 3% figure. (Maybe that is an accurate figure in some places.) But I can assure you that the 3% is incredibly tiny estimate of those gun owners that would resist tyranny. I suspect this tiny figure is bandied about for three reasons:

1. Mostly to assure the women that their support of Obamba's efforts to save "even one child" is a safe and peaceful idea. All this civil war nonsense is just boogie man talk to scare the women. (Women who are married to these gun owners, already know better, so this is for those unmarried women who normally support Obamba anyway.)

2. To try to convince the 3%ers that they are wildly outnumbered, even by their own fellow gun-owners, thus a very tiny and extreme minority opinion. (They already know better too.)

3. To assure the disconnected nation of sheep that any possible mishap or incident can be easily dispatched by the lawful authorities, with the usual examples, but without any disruption or inconvenience to the public at large. Which should only make the news on tv more interesting but not threatening or scary. The 3% of the gun owners are much more numerous than Al Qada, but mostly old white guys.....and they are impotent sissies anyway, especially those in the Red States.

Anonymous RINO January 15, 2013 3:53 PM  

Confiscation without representation!

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 3:56 PM  

I do find it interesting that Obama has announced plans to have a human shield present when he announces his gun control measures.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 3:57 PM  

Texas Gun Owners Locations Published (Map)

Blogger Giraffe January 15, 2013 3:57 PM  

You got it backwards DonReynolds. The 3% is an expression of confidence:

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

Anonymous Razoraid January 15, 2013 3:59 PM  

Nice one, Conan.

Anonymous Tallen January 15, 2013 4:02 PM  

To those who do not see gun control as sufficient reason for civil war...

I can just see the history books now...


Why'd we shoot at the British again?

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 15, 2013 4:07 PM  

@ Tad

"Citing the Presidential order to more vigorously enforce gun laws, many American's took to the streets, shooting and murdering those that supported the increased enforcement of gun laws. The short lived revolution known as "The Don't Let Them Enforce the Laws Uprising" came to quick end when the instigators were found weeping in the corner of a local federal building and hoping to hide from the federal agents that showed up with a warrant."

LOL....Take to the streets, Don. Take to the streets!!


Citing Parliaments order to more vigorously enforce musket laws, many colonists took to the streets, shooting and murdering those that supported the lawfully ordered restrictions by the king's subjects. The short lived revolution known as Colonial Insurrection came to quick end when the rebels were found weeping in the corner of a local colonial government building and hoping to hide from the British soldiers and agents that showed up with a warrant.


Oh giggles and mirth take to the streets, colonists. Take to the streets!!"

I am sure many a loyalist shared your position before the onset of hostilities of the American Revolution. Don't underestimate the likelihood of violence. Americans of all stripes have been disatisfied with government for years, the economy is far worse than the officials will admit, and the government has contiued to exercise injustice upon injustice with us, many far worse than the parliament inflicted on its own subjects. America isn't the land of it never happen's here.

Anonymous Jack Tar January 15, 2013 4:10 PM  

Why'd we shoot at the British again?

Because Tad wanted some of that "rum, sodomy, and the lash" action?

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 15, 2013 4:14 PM  

Most law enforcement were in the military.
Majority of those in the military will not enforce unconstitutional laws against its own people.
They all know its the gun control people that art the bad boys. so the real question is to the gun control people what you going to do when they come for you bad boy bad boy

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 15, 2013 4:19 PM  

Of course he'll bypass congress. Weepin' Johnny and his bathhouse of brokeback boys will line up to fellate him for it as a reward. BTW, just for the record, Mittens would have passed gun control even more easily. The fix has been in for a long time and its still amazing how few comprehend it. All the advances made by the NRA and allies over the past two decades will be reversed in a couple of weeks. Stroke of the pen, law of the land - cool!

Also, just for the record, congress would be fully within their authority to impeach this worthless evil usurper, for this and much else. They won't do it of course, because they all dance to the same banksta bossa-nova that D'Won Mocha Messiah does. Note that Eric "My People" Holder got away scot-free with a completely lawless gun-running operation involving the government shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels. Despite all the Repuke huffery and puffery last summer, Eric Holder still has his job. They could have impeached his criminal ass too, but chose not to. Whatever happened to that big hoo-hah to "audit the Fed" which so many of the lying psychopaths signed onto last year? Up in smoke faster than a Benghazi "consulate"! Death, ruin and damnation to the Banksta Banana Republick - the true axis of evil on the planet - and all who support it.

Anonymous Keep The Steers, Kick Out The Queers January 15, 2013 4:21 PM  

I'd stay the hell out of Texas, Tad:


"WOAI LOCAL NEWS
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State
measure would make any federal firearms legislation passed by Congress or approved by Presidential order unenforceable in Texas
Jim Forsyth


A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.




Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.



"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.



Toth says he will file his measure after speaking with the state's Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who has already vowed to fight any federal measures which call for restrictions on weapons possession.



Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.



"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.



The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'



"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.



Texas is the second state to propose a measure to shield the state from the impact of any gun possession restrictions imposed by Congress or by Presidential order. A similar measure was introduced in Wyoming last week."


Anonymous Porky? January 15, 2013 4:30 PM  

rienzi: "So what do you suggest? That we drop our pants, bend over, and try to enjoy it, because they're going to screw us in any event?"

Is that seriously the first option that came to your mind?

Anonymous Red Comet January 15, 2013 4:32 PM  

Good lord....Call out the Militia and defenders of liberty!!!

I just don't see where these proposals, executed via Executive Order rise beyond the mundane and completely constitutional.


All you've got is some guesswork from a Politico article (notice the "could" when they talk about what Obama's orders could include) and vague statements from a few fellow traveller Dems. How about you get back to us once the actual orders get released?

Also you never answered my question from the previous topic: if you're so against certain established freedoms and property ownership in America then why don't you move to a country that shares your views instead of trying to force them on citizens here that don't want them?

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 4:34 PM  

@cogitans

Don't underestimate the likelihood of violence.

Believe me when I tell you that the likelihood of violence of the type these folks are contemplating can't underestimated enough.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 4:37 PM  

@Red

if you're so against certain established freedoms and property ownership in America then why don't you move to a country that shares your views instead of trying to force them on citizens here that don't want them?

But I already live in a country where my views on the nature of freedom and property ownership are shred.

Anonymous FP January 15, 2013 4:41 PM  

"Get your filthy paws off my guns, you damned dirty ape!"

Thats raciss!

Its going to be interesting to see what happens with the "Guns for America" rallies this weekend at state capitals. A local radio station here in Oregon is helping to promote it. They've got a "permit" for fours hours and are making sure people know the rules (open carry if you've got a ccw is allowed, some gov buildings/areas are no go for any guns).

The Dems control the Oregon legislature this time instead of a split. They're already trying to pass a ban on transferring high cap mags.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 15, 2013 4:43 PM  

Most law enforcement were in the military. Majority of those in the military will not enforce unconstitutional laws against its own people. They all know its the gun control people that art the bad boys. so the real question is to the gun control people what you going to do when they come for you bad boy bad boy

I see this type of statement all the time. Here's the thing you're failing to grasp. LE and military had no problem with slaughtering scores of unarmed women and children in Waco, TX two decades ago. Not a single one involved has fessed up to the atrocity. In fact most of the instigators and enthusiastic butchers were promoted up the ladder of the FBI, etc. Going forward to Katrina 2005, the OK National Guard willingly obeyed completely lawless, unconstitutional orders issued by the corrupt Cheef of Pohleece, the Ebonics-fluent Eddie Compass, to confiscate guns from law-abiding homeowners. Nobody refused the orders, much less turned their own weapons upon the person who issued the order to send the treasonous POS to his eternal reward - which is what they would actually have to do in order to stop such an order. So, the widely-touted notion of the military being filled with constitution-loving patriots is about as realistic as expecting Republicans not to fellate the Magic Negro.

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 4:49 PM  

@Porky?: rienzi: "So what do you suggest? That we drop our pants, bend over, and try to enjoy it, because they're going to screw us in any event?"

Is that seriously the first option that came to your mind?



No, but it seems to be just about the only option that doesn't entail resistance of some sort, and your statement seemed to decry any type of resistance as a strategy.

Now I understand that you were probably warning us that all the gun stuff is just the magician's hand distracting us from what is really going on. Nevertheless, we shouldn't give those people an inch on any point whatsoever.

Anonymous Daniel January 15, 2013 4:52 PM  

But I already live in a country where my views on the nature of freedom and property ownership are shred.

Word, Tad. That you do. Word up. We are in total harmony on so many levels.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 15, 2013 4:53 PM  

This limp wristed fella we are ruled by has never even shot a daisy BB gun, much less handled a real firearm.

Although he has handled single shooters at a bathhouse in Chicago I hear tell........ quite effectively if we can believe the eyewitness reports of the since deceased witnesses.

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 5:07 PM  

TAD said: @cogitans

Don't underestimate the likelihood of violence.

Believe me when I tell you that the likelihood of violence of the type these folks are contemplating can't underestimated enough.



Fidel Castro arrived in Oriente Province with 19 men, and fewer guns than Nate probably keeps at home. His "revolution", to that point, had been one giant clusterf**k. At that point, it would have been difficult to imagine his eventual success.


Most people, quite frankly, are wussies, and will go to the gas chambers without a peep. However, among those millions upon millions of gun owners, there are probably more Fidel's, Raul's, and Che's, than the Batista's in Washington would be comfortable contemplating.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 5:13 PM  

@Rienzi

Most people, quite frankly, are wussies, and will go to the gas chambers without a peep. However, among those millions upon millions of gun owners, there are probably more Fidel's, Raul's, and Che's, than the Batista's in Washington would be comfortable contemplating.


You are mistaking patriots for those people you call wusses. And as for the "Fidels and Rauls and Ches" you imagine populate America in some small portion, I suspect these folks are unlike Fidel, Raul and Che insofar as they will break the minute their attention is caught by the likes of HoneyBooBoo and The Bachelor.

Anonymous brentg January 15, 2013 5:22 PM  

I won't do too well is prison so I figure - go for broke if they are coming for me. Get your family out if at all possible and... The next thing I see is Jesus. And he'll let me know if armed resistance was his will or not.

Granted, talk is cheap until it is really happening.

Anonymous kawaika January 15, 2013 5:25 PM  

German Occupied Great Britain: The Official Secret Document, 54-56:

The Possession of and Trade in Arms and Ammunition

The possession of and traffic in arms (whether firearms or otherwise) and ammunition is strictly forbidden except as provided in the following articles.

Article 1.

All members of the police force and customs and forestry services, lawfully appointed by the Authorities of the occupied country, are authorized, when on duty, to carry arms and ammunition. Certain classes of persons, such as private guards and watchmen of isolated buildings, who by reason of the special duties they have to perform, should be armed, may be authorized by special decision to carry arms and ammunition.

Article 2.

Any person wishing to trade in sporting arms or to manufacture or sell ammunition shall make a declaration stating the class of arms and ammunition which he desires to deal in or manufacture, to the German Military Authority in the county.

He shall make a classified return of the stocks of arms and ammunition he holds and shall keep a register of the goods he manufactures, buys and sells.

These registers shall be always open to inspection to the Military Authorities of the county who may determine if the size of the stock is justified by the sales and purchases.

Article 3.

Sporting arms shall only be sold to persons in possession of a gun license, as laid down in the article below.

Ammunition shall only be supplied to persons in possession of an ammunition card. Kind and quantity is subject to conditions specified on the said card with the view to the importance of the shooting and the nature of the game.

Shooting of game.

Classification of Sporting Arms.

Arms authorized:

1. Sporting guns with 1, 2 or 3 barrels.

2. Sporting rifles with 1,2 or 3 barrels.

3. Sporting guns for shot and bullet.

4. Sporting repeating rifles.

5. Rifles similar to Flobert rifle.

Arms not authorized.

1. Sporting rifles having an effective range of more than 300 m.

2. Sporting rifles of the same bore as a military rifle.

Remarks:

Sporting repeating rifles shall be authorized only to the extent of 10 percent of the total of sporting arms authorized.

Anonymous BillB January 15, 2013 5:27 PM  

Even if the president had lawful executive order power, the 2nd amendment circumscribes that nonexistant authority. The 2nd, violated by every gun law in the US, allows for no regulation by the feds or the states. What the states can regulate is activity, i.e. murder or injury resulting for the use of a firearm. The feds don't even have that authority. The feds are constitutionally limited to police/punishment powers in roughly seven areas. There is no blanket police power in the federal government.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 5:28 PM  

We do not have long to wait. Prince Patrice Lamumba will tell us gun owners what he has decided tomorrow, surrounded by little kids. Lemmie guess, at the dramatic moment he will pat one on the head and say...."if it only saves just one child, we must do whatever we can"....just as the violin music drags out a few tears.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 5:30 PM  

Don't Underestimate the Cowardice of Mercenaries! Even the Hessians who were German Warriors SURRENDERED in Droves during the Revolution to save their lives.

These pissant podunk Deputy Barney Fifes really aren't going to jeopardize their retirement plans for some knee-grow Idi Amin jr.!

I think we can ALL AGREE that Jews always go TOO FAR!

This time they will be lucky if they get the option of leaving, IMHO.

Anonymous RedJack January 15, 2013 5:31 PM  

MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 15, 2013 4:14 PM Most law enforcement were in the military.
Majority of those in the military will not enforce unconstitutional laws against its own people.
They all know its the gun control people that art the bad boys. so the real question is to the gun control people what you going to do when they come for you bad boy bad boy

The majority of the US active military and police forces would stuff you in an oven and turn it on if ordered to. They are trained to follow orders, and the pressure to do so will be so extreme that they will kill their fellow citizens. Hell, they did so in the Civil War.

Believe what you want to, but history is pretty clear. The Army of the State will do its bidding, until that Army views the State as a threat. With the majority of the brass being in the pocket of Obambi and his boy band, don't expect any protest from the Military about bombing Texas.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 15, 2013 5:43 PM  

@Tad.

Shut up, Tad!

The Welfare/Warfare state is dying. It's economy and monetary systems are imploding. Social, political and economic collapse are imminent. A great war is coming.

Shut up, Tad. You too, dh. We don't need you.

Anonymous Rip January 15, 2013 5:49 PM  

While I agree the ultimate position regarding no regulation of firearm ownership, appeals to the Constitution is faulty on 2 fronts. First, they don't care. Politicians have been shredding it since the ink dried, even those that crafted it and lied about their true intentions as to why. Second, and I know this isn't taught anymore, but the second amendment was never intended to apply to state governments. So, while King Hussein is absolutely overstepping his authority, state legislatures are not. I've seen several comments stating that state laws regulating firearms are unconstitutional, and this just isnt correct in the originality sense. Further, the amendment that was later "interpreted" by the SC to retroactively apply the bill of rights to state governments is itself unconstitutional in that states were forcefully occupied and denied federal representation until their governments ratified, a power very clearly not given the federal government.


Argue based on freedom and fundamental natural rights, but not some shitty piece of lambskin.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 5:51 PM  

@BillB

You are correct that the executive branch does not have the AUTHORITY to in effect repeal the second amendment, but he does have the POWER to do so. The constitution is only effective in as much as there is the power and will to defend it.

Anonymous Rip January 15, 2013 5:52 PM  

Sorry for the typos, doing this On a phone at the bar

Anonymous Red Comet January 15, 2013 5:54 PM  

But I already live in a country where my views on the nature of freedom and property ownership are shred.

If you share the views then why do you keep posting pro-gun control stuff that a majority of people in the US don't want? Are we to believe public outcry and record arms and ammunition sales are imaginary?

Unless of course you didn't mis-type "shared" and you actually did mean "shred(ded)." That would actually make more sense than whatever lie or piece of misinfo/disinfo you intend you post in response to this.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 15, 2013 5:57 PM  

The New York Anti-gun law is stunning. The Senate voted on the bill a few minutes after receipt (Monday night), the house did not even allow it to be viewed for the customary 3 days (passed this afternnon). Quite a coup.

We will have to wait to see what the Half-blood Prince comes up with tomorrow on the Federal side.

While I very much doubt that folks are going to actively fight any laws in the streets, I would suggest that few will obey the new dictates. The fact is that serious gun folks have already fled NJ, NY, CA, MA, CT, Maryland etc for some time. Those that have crossed over into PA from the surrounding states are simply going to ignore the laws; at least that is how it appears in my local. There is simply a mood of no more compromise. No folks will nto shoot there local police but I doubt the local police will be doing much enforcement of laws. This will especially be true if the laws are executive orders.

Consider the new State weed laws: Since 1937 it has required a federal tax stamp to hold and use, yet the stamp cannot be purchased. The laws were always federal that prohibited use though local through federal police enforced these laws. Yet as of today something like 4 or 5 states are not enforcing the law, they have in effect nullified it. It brings to mind the 1830 tariff crisis between the federal government and South Carolina. Another nullification crisis is coming. Not only with drugs, but now it is likely with guns. We are entering a period of extreme lawlessness, and folks are not likely to disarm in such a period, despite any laws to the contrary. Something like 7 states have already said the federals have no jurisdiction over arms made in their state and not exported out of that states borders, two states have proposed nullification of any new laws (Wyoming, Texas).

The mood is turning ugly. We are blessed to be living in interesting times.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 15, 2013 5:58 PM  

Shutup,Tad

Anonymous Van January 15, 2013 5:58 PM  

I realize that the self-described "ilk" are engaging Tad in debate more for the benefit of other readers than to convince Tad. Remember, though, that Tad is engaged in the same activity.

Most liberals I've known have slipped and admitted that a total ban on private gun ownership is the goal. When I was an ignorant liberal many years ago, this was my position.

Tad is not arguing in good faith - on any topic. There is no debate between liberal and conservative. There is no commonly held philosophy, with disagreement on some of the details. There are two mutually exclusive worldviews on individual liberty and the role of government. To claim a belief in liberty, people like Tad must redefine words and twist logic (something known as lying to simpler folk).

You can belive in liberty, or you can be a lying tool of tyranny (like Tad). Obviously, the ilk know this. But it needs to be pointed out from time to time, if only for the many silent readers.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 6:02 PM  

@Bill

Even if the president had lawful executive order power, the 2nd amendment circumscribes that nonexistant authority. The 2nd, violated by every gun law in the US, allows for no regulation by the feds or the states. What the states can regulate is activity, i.e. murder or injury resulting for the use of a firearm. The feds don't even have that authority. The feds are constitutionally limited to police/punishment powers in roughly seven areas. There is no blanket police power in the federal government.

Bill, are you a student of the Constitution and Constitutional Jurisprudence as well as Constitutional Theory? I ask because If you are, I'd love to know how you rebut Scalia's defense of certain regulations of guns and gun use in Heller.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2013 6:03 PM  

Throughout history most of humanity has been serfs to a small corrupt political minority. Nothing changes. If this were ancient Egypt, the vast majority of people would believe Pharaoh to be descended from the gods. And we’d be that small minority stealing glances at each other and snickering.

Anonymous Daniel January 15, 2013 6:04 PM  

Or, as good old Senator Grassley once tweeted: "#99countymeetings newhampton 44ppl Ethanol Guns Czars F&F debt limit&14thAmend Fed&monetary Horse Slaughter InterestRate ObamaCare Estate"

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 6:05 PM  

@Rip

Second, and I know this isn't taught anymore, but the second amendment was never intended to apply to state governments.

You don't think the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation doctrine are taught anymore???

Anonymous Rip January 15, 2013 6:06 PM  

Tad

Scalia was wrong. Next.

Blogger ajw308 January 15, 2013 6:07 PM  

They are trained to follow orders
Forget the orders, most will do whatever it takes to keep the pension and the paychecks coming.

See the YouTube video where they tried shooting the woman protester in the face with a rubber bullet? They were all laughing about it in debriefing. I think there are some cops who'd work for free if they could dish out mayhem with impunity and those who wouldn't, well, they'll still man the blue wall.

Jesse Ventura has a statement on gang loyalty. It's based on his time as #3 guy in the Mongols Motorcycle club as well as politics. He says that while in a gang, your first loyalty is to the gang, the second loyalty is to the income generation mechanism, and the last layer of loyalty is to your friends in the gang. Guess where this leaves us when TSHTF?

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 6:08 PM  

@van

You can belive in liberty, or you can be a lying tool of tyranny (like Tad). Obviously, the ilk know this. But it needs to be pointed out from time to time, if only for the many silent readers.

You won't find a bigger supporter of the right to own and possess arms than me. One difference, however, between me and other supports of the right to possess arms is that I don't believe it is a violation of the Constitution to ban private ownership of nuclear weapons or Surface to air missiles, while other here certainly do. (I'm not sure about you). The notion that our rights are without limit is without merit.

Anonymous Rip January 15, 2013 6:09 PM  

Tad

It certainly isn't taught that it was itself ratified in a blatant unconstitutional manner. Reading is fundamental, retard.

Anonymous Signe January 15, 2013 6:11 PM  

And as for the "Fidels and Rauls and Ches" you imagine populate America in some small portion, I suspect these folks are unlike Fidel, Raul and Che insofar as they will break the minute their attention is caught by the likes of HoneyBooBoo and The Bachelor.

I've noticed that the number one consumers of liberal entertainment programming are conservative white male gun owners. Even more of those men watch soap operas and chick flicks. It's true. Tad told me so.

Anonymous Signe January 15, 2013 6:13 PM  

You won't find a bigger supporter of the right to own and possess arms than me.

You owe me a new keyboard, Tad!

Anonymous stevev January 15, 2013 6:14 PM  

@Keep the steers out. Kickout the queers:

And Texas will cave just as they did with the proposed TSA legislation when the FedGov made it clear they would ban flights into/out of Texas.

Admirable legislation, I just don't think it will really come to pass, lamentable as that is.

And no, I am not signaling complicity with Tad's views.

Why has no one answered the ridiculous characterization "Americans are willing to use their guns to ... defend their use of guns" with the obvious? The guy provides the answer in the previous sentence. All of us who'd use our guns in any sort of insurrection WILL BE using them to defend Liberty. It's the entire point. Criminalizing gun-owners for ANY type of gun is an outright declaration that their Liberty is in jeopardy, and that jeopardy comes in the guise of gun-control legislatior OR Executive Order. It's infuriating to watch simple points clouded over and over again.
And yes, Tad, this form of violence is justified, or else all who've given their last measure in previous fights for Liberty have died in vain. That we're even debating the issue is because they made the sacrifice and this nation exists, such as it has become.

Anonymous Cavalry Officer January 15, 2013 6:15 PM  

"The majority of the US active military and police forces would stuff you in an oven and turn it on if ordered to. They are trained to follow orders, and the pressure to do so will be so extreme that they will kill their fellow citizens. Hell, they did so in the Civil War."

This amuses me greatly given that a vast number of officers joined the Confederacy and much of the Union's army was made up of enslaved immigrants. In the organization I belong to there are routine discussions of secession and personal reactions to it. The most hostile was "I'd go home to Montana."

Of course, as a Combat Arms officer (name tells which, precisely) I'm in an entirely Southern/Midwestern White Male environment so this doesn't hold for the entire military. Just the part that actually fights.

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 6:18 PM  

@ VAN: I realize that the self-described "ilk" are engaging Tad in debate more for the benefit of other readers than to convince Tad. Remember, though, that Tad is engaged in the same activity.

Most liberals I've known have slipped and admitted that a total ban on private gun ownership is the goal. When I was an ignorant liberal many years ago, this was my position.

Tad is not arguing in good faith - on any topic. There is no debate between liberal and conservative. There is no commonly held philosophy, with disagreement on some of the details. There are two mutually exclusive worldviews on individual liberty and the role of government. To claim a belief in liberty, people like Tad must redefine words and twist logic (something known as lying to simpler folk).

You can belive in liberty, or you can be a lying tool of tyranny (like Tad). Obviously, the ilk know this. But it needs to be pointed out from time to time, if only for the many silent readers.



Extremely well-said. Bravo.

Blogger Giraffe January 15, 2013 6:28 PM  

Who knew Tad was a member of the pink pistols?

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 6:36 PM  

@ JohnG,

try www.right2bearammo.com

i think they have some 5.56mm and .308 left. i just bought several hundred rounds and got more on the way.

frenchy

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 6:43 PM  

@ TAD: You are mistaking patriots for those people you call wusses. And as for the "Fidels and Rauls and Ches" you imagine populate America in some small portion, I suspect these folks are unlike Fidel, Raul and Che insofar as they will break the minute their attention is caught by the likes of HoneyBooBoo and The Bachelor.


Back in the stone age, when I was a destroyer sailor, some of the most evil, vicious, "bash babies brains out and laugh about it" people I've ever known, used to slurp down their Cheerios in the mess deck on Saturday mornings while watching cartoons on the television. Did Fidel and Che watch "Sabado Gigante"? Hey, maybe they would have liked it.

Something more up your alley. In the movie, "Papillon", Steve Mcqueen and Dustin Hoffman don't want to take the fey, gay guy on their escape attempt. He reminds them that he is the only one of them who is actually a killer.

Never, never, never underestimate your enemies. Road to ruin Tad, road to ruin.

Anonymous ridip January 15, 2013 6:45 PM  

Interesting bit o' gun shot news outta St. Louis. A student shot (one of?) the school's financial advisors at Stevens Institute of Business and Arts today. Perhaps not big news, but it could be indicative of what happens when you sell broke people useless classes they can't afford while the economy is in the tank. It seems natural that we will see more of this sort of thing as it becomes obvious the education bubble has popped, the training being given is worthless, and you can't bankrupt out of the student loan debt.

So far we know the individual targeted was a white male in his forties. Living in the area, I'll let you guess the likely background of the shooter. The local CBS affiliate describes the school's location thusly, SIBA is located in the vibrant loft district of downtown St. Louis, emphasis mine.

Being very familiar with the area I can tell you vibrant fits both in the sense they mean it and the sense in which it is used here. The cops have to cordon off the street during the weekend party hours to keep the under-aged out and the over-raged in control as they flood in from Illinois because East St. Louis, IL decided to close their bars 2 hours earlier and let St. Louis, MO deal with the fallout.

F U Illinois, everything you are and everything you stand for.

Mina and company, Nate's right. Get your asses out of there. We'll take any sane, gun-toting Ilk over here in the Big Mo.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 6:53 PM  

@Giraffe

Who knew Tad was a member of the pink pistols?

AquaMarine....AquaMarine.

Anonymous Anonymoose January 15, 2013 6:56 PM  

Probability of gun confiscation in the near future is VERY low. Obama has no reason to institute such a ban because it would compromise the long-term viability of the Democratic Party to take advantage of demographic shifts. Probability of tighter enforcement of existing gun laws on the state level, assuming states do not liberalize gun laws further, is likely. An Assault Weapons Ban is unlikely because Republicans would destroy their chances of reelection if they allowed ANY such bill to pass.

Blue States such as New York may see tighter regulations, but I think these will be quickly phased out. If they aren't, those who want to keep their guns (nothing wrong with that) will leave. Also, any strong ban would have to contend with the Heller decision by the Supreme Court. It is true that the State, in times of "emergency" will circumvent normal legal procedures. However, such circumvention usually has overwhelming popular support. It is abundantly obvious that mass shootings do not strike most Americans as emergencies (and they aren't), therefore it is unlikely that a circumvention of Constitutional limitations is going to happen.

American opinions on Gun Control have remained stable. America as a whole doesn't have much of a crime problem. Criminal behavior is heavily concentrated in its underclass (with most perpetrators and victims being black), with most non-underclass members remaining unscathed by violence. Gun ownership has increased, Gun Rights Advocates have won enormous victories in the last decade, and there's no sign of those victories being drawn back.

"Gun Nuts" while they talk a big game are unlikely to go out and kill anyone, otherwise they would have already and we would see a statistical relationship between owning multiple assault rifles and being a violent criminal. Fact of the matter is that most gun owners who own large numbers of firearms are highly law abiding, financially well off, and mentally stable. So much bluster on the internet about fighting the Government is posturing, as is 99% of what anyone says on the subject of Gun Control.

The places that Military and LEO members would most likely comply with any non-Constitutional order are places where Gun Control would find plenty of support, and even then they would be the MOST likely to be against such measures. Places where Gun Control is not looked upon as necessary or good will have no support from LEO or Military elements as far as boots-on-the-ground are concerned. There are other ways to suppress gun ownership of course, but aside from freezing financial assets, most of those methods would require at least LEO cooperation, which especially at the upper-middle-class white right-winger level would be difficult to gain.

I do think however, that if somehow the otherwise inconceivable (and HIGHLY unlikely) happened, and The USG went after guns, you WOULD see LEOs being shot. National Guard wouldn't necessarily be called in because it's unlikely they would be summoned by the governors (No state of emergency when it's just a handful of deaths), who would probably be against such confiscations in the first place. There would be a slight uptick in violence, with the government finally deciding such a pointless measure is not worth the effort.

Anonymous civilServant January 15, 2013 7:05 PM  

The majority of the US active military and police forces would stuff you in an oven and turn it on if ordered to.

This amuses me greatly


I asked a U.S. Marine with combat experience whether rank-and-file Marines would confiscate Americans' civilian weapons or fire on American citizens if so ordered. He thought about it for ten minutes and then replied "Half would and half would not." This would indicate an effective compliance rate of .25 and an effective mutiny rate of .125 for existing units. Combat effectiveness of such units would be at similar levels. Remaining units will be paralyzed or otherwise ineffective.

It is worthwhile to consider unit composition. Combat units largely are comprised of ... those who view themselves as citizens. Compliance with such orders may be lower. Support units largely are comprised of ... those who seek steady paychecks. Compliance with such orders may be higher in such units, while mutinous units will be incapable of any effective action. One may provisionally conclude that combat units which comply will be few in number but adequately supplied while mutinous units will be fewer in number and unsupplied.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 7:05 PM  

The White House didn't say a word about gun control. They said they could do some things by executive order to stem gun violence. That's not the same thing, but right-wing nutjobs hear what they want to hear.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2013 7:06 PM  

Sadly, most people have a very simplistic worldview and an unsophisticated understanding of human nature, especially regarding those in positions of power.

They’re children. Most are like a little boy who gets in the car of a pervert after promises of candy. They simply don’t know any better.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 7:06 PM  

Last time I saw a survey on the subject, less than 20% of Americans considered the current government "legitimate."
That's really interesting - do you remember anything about the survey? Do you think it used "legitimate" in the question or headline? I can't find it after a few minutes of looking around.


I don't recall exactly where it came from - I think I ran across it on Richard Fernandez's Belmont Club over on PJMedia maybe 6 - 8 months ago. Nor do I recall the exact wording, but I do remember that although a large majority of people thought the government was illegitimate, there was no consensus on the reasons. Liberals thought it was illegitimate because it didn't do enough. Libertarians thought it was illegitimate for doing too much. Conservatives thought it was illegitimate for doing the wrong things.

The upshot that I got out of it was that our society is doing a piss-poor job of being a polity. It's not just that we no longer agree on the right way to get to our goals, we no longer agree on the goals.

The wages of groupism.


Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 7:13 PM  

@JackAmok

I do remember that although a large majority of people thought the government was illegitimate, there was no consensus on the reasons. Liberals thought it was illegitimate because it didn't do enough. Libertarians thought it was illegitimate for doing too much. Conservatives thought it was illegitimate for doing the wrong things.

This couldn't be a question of "legitimacy", but rather "Approval". And it sounds like the question of the "Congressional Approval Rating" which has hovered in the 15% to 30% rate for some time now.

"Legitimacy" is an entirely different thing.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2013 7:17 PM  

@Anonymous January 15, 2013 7:05 PM That's not the same thing, but right-wing nutjobs hear what they want to hear.

... and childish left-wing state-worshipers hear only what they want to hear.

I have news for you; the government isn't a benevolent god that loves you. The narcissistic psychopaths that run it aren’t going to establish a happy utopia that you can frolic in. They’re not interested in you at all. They’re interested in power and they serve only their ego.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 15, 2013 7:18 PM  

@ stevev

It's infuriating to watch simple points clouded over and over again.

That's Tad's job, stevev

Which is why I simply say,

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous Tad, You Suck January 15, 2013 7:23 PM  

You suck, Tad.

Anonymous Porky? January 15, 2013 7:37 PM  

I like Tad.

Then again, I like botulism.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 7:42 PM  

So what do you suggest? That we drop our pants, bend over, and try to enjoy it, because they're going to screw us in any event?

The answer is to involve yourself in the political process.

Considering the top vote getter here for the ilk was either a self-described protest vote, or alternatively, a decision not to vote, it's unlikely.

All the evidence suggests that gun owners talking about revolution are simply delusional. Nothing is likely to change, and the existing gun laws have been on the books for years.

Anonymous Cavalry Officer January 15, 2013 7:54 PM  

civilServant: You're very right about unit composition. Combat Arms are predominantly White and Southern/Midwestern, and for now at least, entirely Male. Support units are not.

I disagree that mutinous units would be incapable of effective actions. After a decade of encountering them, a working knowledge of IED construction exists and hunting rifles that are more powerful than an M4 are plentiful.

Anonymous civilServant January 15, 2013 8:02 PM  

I disagree that mutinous units would be incapable of effective actions.

I was referring to supply units. A supply system is an organic whole. Components of a supply system have little independent functionality.

Of course combat units are another matter. But a modern combat unit divorced from its supply system is near to being an orphan.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2013 8:11 PM  

> We will have to wait to see what the Half-blood Prince...

That title is too much of an honor for him.

Anonymous rienzi January 15, 2013 8:15 PM  

@dh: So what do you suggest? That we drop our pants, bend over, and try to enjoy it, because they're going to screw us in any event?

The answer is to involve yourself in the political process.


Hey chief, how's that working out for the Tea Party folks? Sent a bunch of people to Washington and got a steaming pile of manure in return.

The political process is where TPTB send you go when they want you to expend a lot of energy, and accomplish nothing.

"Won't be fooled again". -The Who

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 8:21 PM  

@dh

The answer is to involve yourself in the political process.

BINGO!!! If the current stalemate in Congress tells you anything it is that your representatives are responsive to their constituency. Furthermore, time after time it is demonstrated that well oiled, well organized single issue political movements can make a difference if a show of commitment is made in legitimate political spheres.

Anonymous Van January 15, 2013 8:29 PM  

Tad prefers a well oiled single movement as a show of commitment.

Anonymous willneverpostagain January 15, 2013 8:30 PM  

Ridip,

Over in the Metro-East here.

Amen, brother.

Blogger mmaier2112 January 15, 2013 8:52 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger mmaier2112 January 15, 2013 8:53 PM  

Tard: "But I already live in a country where my views on the nature of freedom and property ownership are shred."

Irony. It's best when it's unintentional.

http://obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/Irony-Motivational-Poster1.jpg

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2013 9:03 PM  

Probability of gun confiscation in the near future is VERY low. Obama has no reason to institute such a ban because it would compromise the long-term viability of the Democratic Party to take advantage of demographic shifts.

The gun guys can't comprehend this. The democrats would have to be incredibly stupid to make a naked gun grab. For that might just energize the right. And why would the democrats want to do that when all the winds are blowing in their direction? It is in the best interest of the democrats to continue current policies such as third world immigration to permanently seal their majority status. The worst thing they could do is to rile up their opponents over guns before they have complete political dominance.

The Vietnam War got average kids into the streets to protest and burn draft cards. But those protests were used to advance other issues that on their own would not have brought the kids out into the streets.

Likewise, a naked gun grab would energize the right to hit the streets. Once united by this cause, possibly other causes such as reversing the tide of immigration, ending affirmative action policies, etc. would also be added to the mix. Once you energize a group over a big issue, it is not terribly hard to add other items to the mix. Until the democrats reach their permanent majority status, it would be unwise to do anything that could unite the sheep on the right and possible turn a few of them into wolves.

The Kryptonite of right wingers is the Constitution. Follow it and get the Supreme Court to OK your actions, and you will have them eating out of your hand.

Anonymous cherub's revenge January 15, 2013 9:06 PM  

Myself and a fair portion of the people I know were just made into criminals today by New York's legislature for owning Ruger 10/22's with the standard 10 round rotatory mags.

A 10/22 shouldn't be outlawed, but it should be shunned as the inaccurate hunk it is. Marlin model 60s - have 2 made over 25 years apart, open sights, both through a rabbit's eye at 40 yards all day long out of the box with cheap Thunderbolt ammo.

10/22 might be good if you're trying arc in at one hiding behind a tree though.

Anonymous RedJack January 15, 2013 9:13 PM  

Cav officer.

I believe what you said, but history is different. Remember what happened in Katrina, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Philly when they bombed the commune. You are talking about one unit. How does that play out further? And think of this. There is a reason Obama wants the troops out of Afghanistan by next year.

Following orders is often the least painful (at the moment) choice. Look at the famous Miligram (spelling?) experiment, and other similar ones. This blog, because of its style and subjects, artracts those who don't fit in to the mainstream modes of thought. The personality types are such that we are not prone to following authority (libertarians are far over represented here). Yet that average enlisted and officer are not that way.

I have a lot of cops in my family. Many of my friends are cops. They have told me they would follow any order, as it was their job. If the laws are wrong, that isn't their job to decide.

These are family and friends that I have known all my life who told me they would kill me if ordered to. Because it is their job, and they identify with Being a COP more than anything else. I, and everyone else, is the OTHER.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 9:14 PM  

"The answer is to involve yourself in the political process.

Considering the top vote getter here for the ilk was either a self-described protest vote, or alternatively, a decision not to vote, it's unlikely.

All the evidence suggests that gun owners talking about revolution are simply delusional. Nothing is likely to change, and the existing gun laws have been on the books for years."

Rubbish. Just because many of us refused to vote for Romney in the general election doesn't mean we aren't "involved in the polictical process." I believed Romney would have been likely to propose gun control legislation and that Congress would have more willingly followed him than Obama. I stand by that.

Anonymous RedJack January 15, 2013 9:15 PM  

The democrats would have to be incredibly stupid to make a naked gun grab. For that might just energize the right. And why would the democrats want to do that when all the winds are blowing in their direction? It is in the best interest of the democrats to continue current policies such as third world immigration to permanently seal their majority status. The worst thing they could do is to rile up their opponents over guns before they have complete political dominance.
Because humans are not patient people.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2013 9:20 PM  

Following orders is often the least painful (at the moment) choice.

Don't count on guys in uniform standing up for you. To borrow a line from Uncle Joe, "It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army." And it will take a brave man to stand up to his chain of command. Most won't.

Anonymous American Pie January 15, 2013 9:25 PM  

Red Jack

I have a lot of cops in my family. Many of my friends are cops. They have told me they would follow any order, as it was their job. If the laws are wrong, that isn't their job to decide.

Dude, its not Fascism if WE do it!

Anonymous Shutup, Tad, You Idiot. January 15, 2013 9:29 PM  

@ Tad

BINGO!!!

MIAT (Most Idiots Are Tads)














Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 9:29 PM  

DSM City Council Meeting last night



farmer Tom

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 9:35 PM  

The democrats would have to be incredibly stupid to make a naked gun grab.

Perhaps, but Obamuh was heard saying this to VP Bidden in the Honky House:

Infidel defilers. They shall all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 15, 2013 9:49 PM  

40 yards all day long out of the box with cheap Thunderbolt ammo.

The Thunderbolt used to be the most reliable 22 cartridge for the semi auto 22. Things have come a long way. Big and slow with lots of momentum to eject and load the next. Stingers were bad ass, but just get a 22 mag.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 9:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 15, 2013 9:52 PM  

Speaking of guns, all y'all know Glock is best right?
Or so I hear.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Kremlinologist January 15, 2013 9:58 PM  

See Vox, spending eight years studying the former Soviet Union and then doing a Ph.D. dissertation on the dietary habits of Ukrainian peasants during the summer of 1933 of the Holodomor is not looking so stupid now, huh?


Now, the healing may begin.

Anonymous zen0 January 15, 2013 9:59 PM  

@ Red Jack

They have told me they would follow any order, as it was their job.

Have you ever asked them if they ever heard of the Nuremburg Trials? Bet they don't have a clue.

Anonymous outlaw x January 15, 2013 10:09 PM  

"Have you ever asked them if they ever heard of the Nuremburg Trials? Bet they don't have a clue. "

Not you Zen0, but most people are full of shit, they know, we talk and they are not going to follow illegal orders. I live within 2 miles of a military base and have a chance to talk to them often. The Elite are scared as Hell right now. They are bluffing.

Blogger The Aardvark January 15, 2013 10:17 PM  

Anonymous sez: "The White House didn't say a word about gun control. They said they could do some things by executive order to stem gun violence. That's not the same thing...."

How precisely would this "stemming" be accomplished otherwise? I guess we'll find out.

Anonymous Anonymous January 15, 2013 10:19 PM  

"That's not the same thing, but right-wing nutjobs hear what they want to hear."

You should hear the shooting in Chicago every night.

- Rahm

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2013 10:19 PM  

> They are bluffing.

I don't think Obama understands poker. I'm not sure he knows how to bluff.

Anonymous Signe January 15, 2013 10:29 PM  

I don't think Obama understands poker. I'm not sure he knows how to bluff.

But the real question is, does his handler?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 10:41 PM  

They have told me they would follow any order, as it was their job.

A job is something you get paid to do. Pretty soon, the paychecks are going to start bouncing.

Maybe that's why the fascists are pushing so hard right now....

Anonymous Outlaw X January 15, 2013 10:51 PM  

"A job is something you get paid to do. Pretty soon, the paychecks are going to start bouncing.

Maybe that's why the fascists are pushing so hard right now...."

You got three kinds of soldiers.
1) Lay down their weapons and go home (majority)
2) Turn the gun on the men who gave the illegal orders (Small minority)
3) The assholes who will do anything they are told (Minority)

The latter is screwed.

Blogger Log January 15, 2013 10:54 PM  

Outlaw X, you are an incorrigible optimist. 1 is the extreme minority. Almost everyone follows their paycheck.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 15, 2013 11:00 PM  

Outlaw X, you are an incorrigible optimist. 1 is the extreme minority. Almost everyone follows their paycheck.

Am I? They got family and extended family too. Think again. I shall continue to be "incorrigible" and right. THINK!

Anonymous Porky? January 15, 2013 11:11 PM  

Tad: "I don't believe it is a violation of the Constitution to ban private ownership of nuclear weapons or Surface to air missiles"

I'm still waiting for your constitutional argument for this...

("Scalia said so" is not a constitutional argument.)

Anonymous David January 15, 2013 11:26 PM  

Actually I don't there is a law against owning a nuclear weapon...you just can't buy, sell, or transport one.

So if you build your own nuke on your own property I suspect that would be legal, as long as you managed to find all the materials in a legal manner.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 11:27 PM  

11B..."Don't count on guys in uniform standing up for you. To borrow a line from Uncle Joe, "It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army." And it will take a brave man to stand up to his chain of command. Most won't."

I agree that soldiers will follow orders when manning their posts or operating their equipment, but that is seldom the case. Lots of down time in the military....all part of the hurry up and wait thing. Plenty of opportunities to go AWOL.

The US Army has not executed a deserter since WWII. Most soldiers know that. They know how easy it is to go "over the hill" to their homes and they can be AWOL 120 days before they are deserters. Soldiers also know that prison is a much safer place than combat. During the height of the Vietnam conflict, the Army was losing more than 100,000 soldiers to desertion A MONTH. The Army was melting away, especially after the draft ended in 1971. Where are all these deserters? Some are still in Canada (and other places). Many of them took advantage of Jimmy Carter's blanket amnesty program. Yeah, it was scary and inconvenient, but there was no actual punishment.

Keep in mind that the average age for soldiers and sailors is very young. Not many are career lifers. This age group did not fall the second time for the Obamba bs.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 15, 2013 11:28 PM  

Tad: "I don't believe it is a violation of the Constitution to ban private ownership of nuclear weapons or Surface to air missiles"

You forgot other indiscriminate weapons such as grenade's. We can make them if we need them, legal or not. IDE's were made not purchased. Your problem seems to be with discriminate weapons. Which law abiding citizens have every right to own. To say that we do not (and want nukes)is to to say we want to kill indiscriminately, which we don't.

You are making terrorists out of people who wish to defend their family and a damn asshole for doing so. I didn't fire bomb Dresden and never would, but you trust a government that did?

Tad, You are a fucking IDIOT!

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 11:29 PM  

Outlaw X, you are an incorrigible optimist. 1 is the extreme minority. Almost everyone follows their paycheck.

Log, you're missing the point. How do you follow a paycheck that stops comming? Levithan has already run out of other people's money and is now attempting to get by on unicorn farts.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 15, 2013 11:34 PM  

How to be invisible to drones

Anonymous David January 15, 2013 11:34 PM  

Let's also not forget in a few years you will be able to print your own gun from 3D printers...if you think confiscating over 200 million weapons is hard...

Blogger Log January 15, 2013 11:40 PM  

The debt ceiling will be eternally raised, and paychecks for federal employees, including the military, will always be issued.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 15, 2013 11:40 PM  

Outlaw X...."You got three kinds of soldiers.
1) Lay down their weapons and go home (majority)
2) Turn the gun on the men who gave the illegal orders (Small minority)
3) The assholes who will do anything they are told (Minority)

The latter is screwed."

I tend to agree with this assessment. The majority are not bloodthirsty enough to want to use their weapons on civilians, no matter how one-sided it would be. Many of the heavy weapons would actually be pretty useless in fact. An Abrams tank would not have much to shoot at, unless you used them to knock down buildings. A cruise missile would work well against important military targets, but would be kinda pointless against civilians or factories or airports. These are really terrible weapons but the overkill is not going to set well with the young soldiers. They will have no stomach for murdering their own fellow citizens, regardless of the politics. This has been the history of the US military. Even during the Civil War, the regular Army was not a significant factor, they being sent West to deal with the Indian uprisings.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 15, 2013 11:49 PM  

@Jack Amok, you beat me to it.

Log, you're missing the point. How do you follow a paycheck that stops comming? Levithan has already run out of other people's money and is now attempting to get by on unicorn farts.

THAT is the critically important factor that has been surprisingly omitted in much of the discussion. Economic collapse--which I believe to be imminent--will change everything. It will be a force multiplier of monumental power. The entire Welfare/Warfare governing apparatus (of which the community organizer is a very minor part)--is one Black Swan event away from complete implosion. The "popularity" of Congress and public cynicism (and decreasing participation in the electoral process) suggests the degree of public antipathy. When the redistribution system halts, the shit will hit the fan.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 11:51 PM  

The debt ceiling will be eternally raised, and paychecks for federal employees, including the military, will always be issued.

Denominated in unicorn farts. Of course there will be those dead-enders who pretend the farts will be worth something some day, but then we're back to arguing between "minority" and "small minority."

Blogger Norman House January 16, 2013 12:01 AM  

RedJack is right. Beetle Bailey will do whatever Sarge tells him to, just as he did after Katrina. He'll feel guilty about it, of course, but his guilt isn't going to make your dead ass jump out of a grave, will it?

(And if you think your local cops are going to miss a chance to put on the stormtrooper gear and execute a tactical maneuver because it's unconstitutional, you must be living in some sort of alternate universe. Cops love to kill people. If they didn't, they wouldn't be cops.)

Fact: The military will kill American citizens if ordered to do so. If you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

That being said, it's okay. I didn't expect to live this long, and I have achieved all my childhood dreams. Let them pass whatever laws, issue whatever Executive Orders they want. I will simply ignore them. And when the Black Van comes for me, I die a free man, with a gun in my hand. Straight to Valhalla.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 12:11 AM  

RedJack is right. Beetle Bailey will do whatever Sarge tells him to, just as he did after Katrina. He'll feel guilty about it, of course, but his guilt isn't going to make your dead ass jump out of a grave, will it?

With respect, I don't think so. I know very well some of the troops who were dispatched to New Orleans post Katrina and they took a very dim view of certain New Orleans police activities--and did more about it in defense of the citizenry than disapprove.

I also have reason to be confident that a significant percentage of combat arms officers would refuse to obey unlawful orders and would do so with considerable vigor.

We shall see.

Anonymous Noah B. January 16, 2013 12:13 AM  

Military and police will follow orders. Believing anything else is foolishly optimistic.

But, many of them will also be stealing everything they can get their hands on and selling it to whoever has got cash, gold, silver, whiskey, or women. Do be prepared to exploit these opportunities.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 16, 2013 12:30 AM  

The two things that scare the Hell out of modern Goverments.

1 stop voting and complying
2) Just be quiet and don't let them know shit.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 16, 2013 12:55 AM  

Rush thinks the left wants to finish off the South

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 12:59 AM  

Noah, I should probably know this but I don't. What is the basis of that belief? Active duty experience?

Anonymous outlaw x January 16, 2013 1:23 AM  

I had a dream last night. Obama was up on a platform telling people how they were going to institute gun control. No one in the the crowd booed or clapped and every one was talking without voice among them. It was just telepathic thought. Everyone walked away and Obama resigned because no one would fight him and no one would play his game, Then I saw people watching TV and planting gardens and visiting on the front porch.

There was another President but he exercised no power and was fun loving yet serious about the Constitution. He played baseball with congress and shared power once again.

It was a lucid dream, what comes of it who knows?

I don't believe if fairy tale's or lucid dreams, but I believe in the American spirit.

Anonymous rho January 16, 2013 2:04 AM  

Either this administration thinks this is a hill worth dying on, or this is a distraction.

Support for private gun ownership is, at the very least, 50% of the polity. I don't think it's a principled stand. I could be wrong, but you'd have to be daft to try unilateral gun regulations.

It has to be a distraction. From what I don't know.

Anonymous Noah B. January 16, 2013 2:05 AM  

@FrankBrady

My basis for believing the military and police will follow orders is familiarity with similar circumstances in history. Armies tend to follow orders. Counterexamples to this are rare and isolated events.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 16, 2013 2:54 AM  

It occurs to me. I have a 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms. My fellow citizens have a 15th Ammendment right to vote free of poll taxes, IQ tests, etc. Over the years, I've shown remarkably little tendency to take my guns out and threaten my fellow citizens. But over that same time, my fellow citizens have routinely dragged out their ballots to cause me all sorts of grievous harm by continuing to elect corruptocrats who significantly damage my quality of life.

Perhaps it's time to use the crisis of Obama et al being re-elected to campaign against voting rights.

Blogger Morrison January 16, 2013 4:16 AM  

rho...you have hit it.

I suggest the distraction is from something that is building up in the middle east.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 6:50 AM  

rho: "I don't think it's a principled stand."
Morrison: "I suggest the distraction is from something that is building up in the middle east."

I don't know, my guess is that you're overthinking this. They just want what they want, and what they want is Everything. The Left isn't so much over-devious as it is omnivorous. You have to go back to first principles to understand them, and for the Left, their first principle is hatred. You have to understand that they're motivated by hatred and contempt more than anything else, and their hatred and contempt is directed at you. Always remember: they HATE you. You aren't human in their eyes, you're not a fellow-citizen, you're the Enemy, the Other, the evil white male Christian bogeyman who must be eradicated and erased.

They want you disarmed, one step at a time, so you'll be fatally weak when the next step comes. And the next step. And the next. It's not like they haven't tried this before, it's just that they've redacted the historical record so that people don't know it, and then the blame gets put on you instead. Where it belongs, of course.

There's always a next step with the Left, you ever notice? They never stop. They're never done. It's because nothing they want or do ever actually works (because it's stupid, and founded on hate), but somehow it'll work next time, if they can just get more power and get you to stop objecting, because they're smarter than you, because you're an evil dumb white male Christian poopyhead.

Now go crawl in a hole and die, white Xtan male jerkface. We're busy making a vibrant, diverse dinner party for Abidjakwuhaji, and Nkulu, and Malik and Yolanda and Xoxu. Seth and Ari are doing the place settings, it's gonna be great, and you're not invited.

Anonymous RedJack January 16, 2013 7:03 AM  

Zeno,
Yes I have. Remember, I grew up with these guys.

They said it would be different, as it wasn't the Nazi's giving them the orders. And repeated that they would do just about anything they were told to (unless it was attacking their own spouses, that was the line).

Again, when you are a cop (or military), you see the world a bit differently. Anyone not in your branch is the Other. I capitialized that for a reason. That means, in the typical uniformed soldier/cops mind, you are not fully human, and killing you means less than killing one of their own.

The US Military has shown that it is willing to attack US citizens if ordered to do so. Right now most of the attacks are overseas and with drones, but that will change.

If you are counting on the men and women in uniform to save you if the balloon goes up, you are a fool. The majority of them will be looking to kill you.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 8:45 AM  

@Scoobious

You have to go back to first principles to understand them, and for the Left, their first principle is hatred...and their hatred and contempt is directed at you...the evil white male Christian bogeyman who must be eradicated and erased....They've redacted the historical record so that people don't know it....If they can just get more power and get you to stop objecting, because they're smarter than you, because you're an evil dumb white male Christian....Now go crawl in a hole and die, white Xtan male"

You don't see this a paranoia, do you? I mean, you don't see the extreme victimhood you are claiming here. Maybe you do. This is delusional. But I think it betrays something more, something not so far under the surface. Funny, the fact that all this is unjustified by the facts really doesn't matter to you and others. They myth overtakes all other concerns. Hmmmm.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 8:48 AM  

Most liberals I've known have slipped and admitted that a total ban on private gun ownership is the goal. When I was an ignorant liberal many years ago, this was my position.

This isn't a "slip". Many honest liberals will tell you the long-term goal is the repeal of the 2nd amendment, replacing it with wording that allows Congress to regulate weapons without limitations.

Blogger A January 16, 2013 8:48 AM  

The libertarians and anarchos who talk about using their firearms to defend themselves against tyrannical gov't has always mystified me. Don't they know that they will most likely be alone and isolated? The only way I could figure that anyone would actually risk their life for their firearm is if there was an insurrection of colossal scale all other the U.S.

Now, I suppose citizens who live in areas that are sparsely populated with a very small police force in attendance could somehow pull their defiance off. Otherwise, if you shot down an officer you just flushed your entire life down the toilet because they will never stop hunting you, and instead of losing just your guns you end up losing all of your possessions. This is why I think a gov't enforced gun grab would succeed. People have too many things are too comfortable with their lifestyle to risk life and limb, especially when the majority will be cowed into compliance. If the mob was large enough for people to feel very anonymous in their defiance, and likely to get away scot free because there are too many "criminals" then I think it the defiance would have a greater probability of success. But I can only ever imagine this occurring in pockets around the nation, nothing that is uniform or organized. The differences between Afghanis and Vietnamese and Americans is huge: for the former, they had/have pretty much nothing to lose, and they also had/have an organized center for coordinating resistance, and/or experience in working with cells, but they have the same base affiliation (Taliban). I think American resistance would only truly work if the people were able to fight for their State of residence as their unity. I understand the rejection of all gov't, but the State is and always has been the American first and best line of defense against a tyrannical Federal gov't. Hopefully, they'll take advantage of the preexisting framework, which can also be intellectually utilized to fight against accusations of treason, terrorism, propaganda, etc.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 8:50 AM  

@outlaw

ou are making terrorists out of people who wish to defend their family and a damn asshole for doing so.

No, Outlaw. I'm merely suggesting that there are limits on the broad protections of the 2nd Amendment, just like their are limits on Freedom of Speech, on the religious clauses, on the Freedom of the press clause and the Assmebly clause. That's all. To say other otherwise simply betrays any semblance of common sense. Of course there are limits n these enumerated rights.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 8:53 AM  

You don't see this a paranoia, do you?

Tad, expect to see more of this type of erratic behaviour. When whatever Pres. Obama publishes today comes out, and there is no great 3% rising to start a 4th wave generational guerilla war against the government, the following will happen:

1. The GOP will whine.

2. A bunch of people here will claim that this is (again) the end of America.

3. A few people will post naughty videos on YouTube, and then get visits from some government agent, who will warn them or arrest them.

The end.

Meanwhile all the silly, online uber patriot/rebels will continue to pretend they are "THIS CLOSE" to open revolt, they will buy some more ammunition and guns, and continue to tell everyone they are "THIS CLOSE" to the final straw.

Anonymous Van January 16, 2013 8:56 AM  

Dh:

I say "slipped" because these same people typically claim otherwise and mock those of us who know their game ("no one wants to take your guns away" eye roll).

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 8:56 AM  

To say other otherwise simply betrays any semblance of common sense. Of course there are limits n these enumerated rights.

Tad, you could go get quotes from Justice Scalia, who frames the limitations of the 2nd amendment in Heller vs. District of Columbia pretty starkly.

But then people here will just tell you:

1. Scalia is part of the New World Order/UN or in fact is a crazy liberal.

2. The Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpt the Constitution.

3. Individuals decide what the Constitution means, and if someone else says otherwise, I am allowed to shoot them. Because freedom.

So it's really not worth the effort.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 8:57 AM  

I say "slipped" because these same people typically claim otherwise and mock those of us who know their game ("no one wants to take your guns away" eye roll).

True enough - there are a lot of liberals who support changing the gun laws, repealing the 2nd amendment, but very few or none who support door to door confiscation.


Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 9:00 AM  

Hopefully, they'll take advantage of the preexisting framework, which can also be intellectually utilized to fight against accusations of treason, terrorism, propaganda, etc.

Of course this is probably what will happen. But that's no fun for the armchair rebels who:

1. Can't be bothered to actually live in the US

2. Are "THIS CLOSE" to starting shooting

3. Can't be bothered to involve themselves in lowly politics, because FREEDOM, but if you try to do thing X, you will be shot, because FREEDOM.

Anonymous ObamaBorg January 16, 2013 9:28 AM  

Why do you resist?

Why do you cling to your Bibles and guns?

We only wish to raise quality of life, for all species.

Prepared to be assimilated...

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 9:29 AM  

"just like their are limits on Freedom of Speech, on the religious clauses, on the Freedom of the press clause and the Assmebly clause"

But NO limits on gayness. Gayness like blackness is worthy of ABSOLUTE protection. Doncha know?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 16, 2013 9:30 AM  

Lincoln fought to free gays and guns or something

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 9:35 AM  

But NO limits on gayness. Gayness like blackness is worthy of ABSOLUTE protection. Doncha know?

Yes, those damn leftists, always going around turning white male Christians into gay black marxists...

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 9:54 AM  

"just like their are limits on Freedom of Speech, on the religious clauses, on the Freedom of the press clause and the Assmebly clause"

Unless it was George Bush doing the limiting. That was like Nazism, man.

But now that we've got the black liberal guy, it's all good. Have a puff of choome, dudes.

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 9:55 AM  

"December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.” "

Anonymous Einherjar January 16, 2013 9:59 AM  

I die a free man, with a gun in my hand. Straight to Valhalla.

Rumor has it that the size of your honor guard is determined by the number of the bastards you take with you.

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 10:00 AM  

"...but let’s at least remind Americans whenever possible that the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public."

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts