Oath Keepers Heat-Up Looming Confiscation Confrontation

Molon labe. That’s the sentiment spreading throughout what TTAG used to call “slave states” (i.e. the states where citizens’ Constitutional rights are under direct and emphatic attack). This video cuts close to the bone, asserting that citizens have a right to shoot armed police officers coming to confiscate their firearms. We don’t have any information about the who, what, where and when of this but it’s not out of line with what fellow Oath Keepers are saying, or at least suggesting. (Click here for a Stand Strong portrait from an Oath Keeper in our Facebook album.) Speaking of Facebook, the CT cop who told a fellow flamer that he’d give his left nut to come and take his gun (suspended by his force in an excellent example of wrist-slapping) hasn’t helped matters. This situation in Connecticut – and New York, Maryland and California – remains but a trigger press away from something really ugly. Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar John Boch says:

    Aim small, miss small.

    John

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      That’s below my name in my emails.
      Great line from “The Patriot”

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Long before The Patriot was out a Drill SGT was hammering that into my head. I’m certain that saying has been around at least as long as the subject of that movie.

    2. avatar dirk diggler says:

      classic

  2. avatar peirsonb says:

    Only one problem with the video: they’re no better than any other citizen with or without an oath.

    1. But that’s not what their .org is all about. Don’t mess with their thing their on our side.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I was talking about the speaker’s message, not the group themselves. He says something along the lines of a badge without an oath makes “them” no better than ordinary citizens. My point is the “them” he’s talking about ARE ordinary citizens. An oath and a badge doesn’t make them better. Admittedly a subtle point in his speech.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          I didn’t hear it that way. I thought his point was that they took an oath and if they do not adhere to that oath then they are committing a felony when they kick down your door. Not saying that they are above us for taking the oath but saying that if they believe the oath, then they won’t be breaking into your house to begin with.

        2. avatar peirsonb says:

          No, you heard it correctly. And that’s the way I heard I it too. I don’t take issue with the message. I am almost 100% certain he didn’t mean it this way, but his exact wording is what I was taking issue with. I can’t bring up the vid in the office but his exact words, near the middle, were that without an oath they’re no better than ordinary citizens. I just take issue with that one little, tiny bit of the speech. And he probably didn’t even realize he said it, he doesn’t strike me as the “law enforcement is better than us” type.

          Like I said, it’s really a minor gripe.

    2. avatar richard bauman says:

      I was at the meeting and heard his talk. 1000 people attended including the local chemung county sheriff who he was talking with and who never disagreed. what he was saying was enforcement with out merit or an illegal order and the right to defend. maybe could have been better stated, but this person is a long time firearms instructor at several levels of government, federal and state if I remember correctly. Hope this helps clear it up.

      ***Paul Marsters, founding member of Oathkeepers, says that police who may come to your door to confiscate guns under the UNSAFE Act are armed felons, and you can shoot back.–Horseheads, New York. March 8, 2014.

  3. avatar Bill says:

    I thought 2013 was going to be an interesting year, and indeed it was, 2014 is not disappointing my expectations of weirdness.

  4. avatar Sammy says:

    He’s a FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) instructor? Powerful statements. I wonder how long he will remain an instructor once his boss gets a whiff.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    How does this brewing situation in Connecticut mesh with the claims that “We the People” of the United States of America are subject only to Common Law and not statutes? Under Common Law, an injured victim must come forth to press charges for a crime. Well, having a certain rifle in your home does not injure anyone so there is no injured victim to come forth to press charges. How does the state then justify coming after the good people of Connecticut?

  6. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Problem is, that armed intruder with a “badge” is part of the second largest gang, criminal gang visa ve the constitution, and it’s damn hard to fight that gang alone. You will almost always die. BTW the largest gang is the military. “They have their colors, we have ours”

    1. avatar PavePusher says:

      Really? The military is the “largest gang, criminal gang visa ve the constitution”? Do expound, please….

      (By the way, it’s “vis-a-vis”.)

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        Actually, it’s vis-à-vis, as the “a” takes a grave accent.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Visa ve?

      1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

        This is why I stopped trying to speak Latin in public.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          You mean there’s a reason for spelling in private?

      2. avatar MMinSC says:

        I use my Visa Ve for most online purchases. I get 1% serstirsci cash back

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Frank. Will all due respect, you don’t know diddly squat about the US Army/USMC.

      1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        For what it’s worth, one of my drill sergeants, addressing the platoon, welcomed us to the biggest gang in the world. Ft Benning, some time in the winter of 2004.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Hold up… are those the people that invade other sovereign nations and shoot at their defense forces? Funny I never see them shooting at invading foreign forces on our soil, only shooting defensive forces abroad. If that is so… wouldn’t they be aggressive invaders? I mean, what would you do if Chinese soldiers invaded the US, pried into the government machine, and instituted laws that american’s don’t actually want? Maybe you might make some IEDs? Maybe you would hide your firearms? Are you a patriot or a terrorist – and what is really the difference?

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, I feel exactly the same way. But jingoism seems to make people incapable of putting themselves in the shoes (where they are affordable) of others.

          “They hate our freedoms!” Well, I’m pretty sure I know who hates OURS….

    4. avatar jollyroger says:

      Police are evil! The military is evil! I’m safe with aluminum foil helmet

    5. avatar ErinTarn says:

      When was the last time any person from the military kicked in a door during a no-knock raid in the United States?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        This is an example of Normalcy Bias: never happened, therefore, never will. No one can quote examples from the future. So the point is sorta moot, don’t you agree?

        Oh, WAIT! Silly me. It’s late, and I’m on pain pills for a back that feels a wreck… but it just came to me!

        FIFTH WARD. NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA.

        WACO, Texas.

        Oh, wait… they didn’t kick the doors in in Waco. They just hurled in tear gas (incendiary device) canisters, shot the place in a zillion holes, and torched the place.

        Any more questions?

      2. avatar Jeff says:

        Last year. National Guard. Watertown, Mass.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Yes.

      3. avatar JW says:

        Anyone here Native American?

        1. avatar John says:

          Or below the Mason Dixon line?

      4. avatar Second Amendment says:

        Don’t forget the internment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII.

        Oh, and the Bonus Army protests.

        Yeah, the U.S. military most certainly has turned on U.S. citizens… time and time again. Just following orders, ya know. :-/

        1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

          Wasn’t there some kind of deal at a college in Ohio back in the late 60’s? I think someone wrote a song about it, something about 4 dead in Ohio…would that count?

      5. avatar Walter Royal says:

        The last time I can think of was in New Orleans after Katrina.

    6. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      Go home Frank, you’re drunk.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Is it just me, or has anyone noticed a bunch of strangers in town, challenging everyone and everything?

  7. avatar Michael in GA says:

    You know. homosexuals like to equate their “struggles” with what blacks had to endure during the civil rights movement. A ridiculous claim that would disgust me more only if I was alive and fought for civil rights in the 50s and 60s. Eisenhower Federalized the Arkansas National Guard to keep the peace during integration of public schools that were against allowing black students.
    A better comparison to the civil rights struggles of black people in America than the plight of gays, is what gun owners face today. At least the right to keep and bear arms is actually a civil right. We are told over and over to show Barack Obama the respect that the office of the President deserves. When he uses the power of the Federal government to stop the blatant infringements on the 2nd amendment the way the Republican President did for racial equality, I’ll salute this Democrat.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      I agree completely. Thanks for saying it.

    2. avatar TheRequimen says:

      Yea, we can see just how well desegregation and affirmative action has improved the lives of black Americans today…

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Actually, it has. Do you really think that black people would be better off if they had no rights? Wake up and be real.

        Unfortunately, the welfare state, drugs and the death of the nuclear black family took away most of the benefits that the civil rights movement won.

        1. avatar MothaLova says:

          Yes, that’s it, Ralph – except I’d say that, without the family intact, black Americans are now worse off than under segregation when the family was still intact. Thomas Sowell, among other knowledgeable commentators, has said as much.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          There’s no disputing that. It’s “almost” as if “someone” set out to destroy the nucleus of the black family, doesn’t it? Result: a loss of balance and stability in the black household, a sense of alienation and discord, and, ultimately, frustration and violence.

          Rockefeller. Rothschild. Kissinger, the Errand Boy.

        3. avatar peirsonb says:

          And what they started black rights activists like the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are more than happy to maintain.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      When you’re not actually a victim, it appears to be useful to claim you still are one. To me, this seems closer to torts culture than any “civil rights” culture.

      I’m in favor of anyone enjoying their rights, but the “gay rights” thing appears to be mostly a re-structuring of what Americans see the meaning of “family” is. Feminism and ‘gay rights’ seem to be mostly about destroying the American family. And replacing it with the State as family. Gee, why would they want to do THAT? Because “it takes a village”? (Village = the State).

  8. avatar Andy says:

    Most of these oath keepers are not LEOs and never were. Once in a while you’ll find one of them that was an MP, but that not a LEO. The more vocal they are the less chance they have an oath to keep.

    1. avatar 1911A1 says:

      Every man and woman who wore the uniform of The United States military took that oath. Not all uniforms are blue.

    2. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      First off, 1911A1’s point is valid – members of the military swore an oath too.

      Second … how exactly do you know that “Most of these oath keepers are not LEOs and never were” … do you have evidence to support your claim?

    3. avatar ChuckN says:

      To quote our last Sec of State ‘What difference does it make’.

      Shouldn’t it bother everyone, not just those who’ve sworn an
      oath, that others are so freely brushing their vows aside?

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      Your post is intended to foster deception. One sees “most of… are not” and one is supposed to think, “hardly any”. This is far from the case. And even if you were correct, your message bears deception, not truth.

    5. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      Actually there other that swore an oath: as part of their citizenship ceremony. I know, I’m one of them. And I felt every word I said. God bless the USA!

  9. avatar Andy says:

    He is right , and if they ever come down to god’s country here in Mississippi and try to take our firearms they will leave here but not alive. Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

  10. avatar Calvin says:

    Does the average American realize how touchy the CT situation is? Every morning I wake up wondering if they’ve started shooting yet. All it would take is a no-knock on just the right door.

    (Unrelated but is the edit feature wonky for anyone else? It barely works for one computer and I don’t even see the links on another one. It used to work fine.)

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      I know what you mean. I listen to wtnh via interwebz while at work.

    2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      I haven’t had any problems with the edit feature, and I’ve used it a number of times in the past few days on both my laptop and my phone. And I completely agree with you. It’s an incredibly fragile situation that could very easily and very quickly devolve into a declaration of martial law, escalating it even further and possibly (though this is incredibly unlikely) turning into another revolution. It could start with the guns, but just look at how many people are furious with the state of the government (the sheer size of the Occupy protests being a good example). I don’t think the state would have an easy time putting down a national insurrection. Even if it started with guns, it would quickly become something where anybody with a large ax to grind (I say large because risking death is not something one does lightly) would join.

      Fragile situation indeed. And you’re right that all it would take was a no-knock raid on the wrong house. I’m all the way out in Colorado, but I can see how high tensions are (I’m so grateful that I’ve grown up with the easy access to information that the internet provides….).

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        To quote my own song, “Occupy won’t start no revolution…” We should not count upon wet-behind-the-ears, trendy malcontents for any help whatsoever. In fact, many of those erstatz malcontents. Most of them would drop a dime on you for owning a gun.

        Never trust anybody under thirty! ;D Abbie Hoffman’s been turned inside-out!

        1. avatar Azman says:

          “Seriously” asks the under 25 year old.

      2. avatar John C says:

        To CT I would add NY, CA and Co. At some point if they push hard enough they will get a response. People in general are angry at the direction the county is headed, both sides of the equation. There are people who will pull the trigger. If you want my guns you will have to come and take them. It’s a hill I will die on.

        If an insurrection were to happen I don’t think they would be able to put it down. Civilized society is a very thin line. I remember what it took to restore order in Detroit in 67 and 68. If that spread across the county I just think they couldn’t rein it in. The left wants a revolution, I just don’t think they can control the outcome.

    3. avatar Model 31 says:

      I suspect they’ll wait until about 2 weeks before the mid term elections and kick in the door and shoot it out with a “from my cold dead hands” type that they already know runs a drug and kiddie p0rn operation.
      You won’t have to look long. It will be plastered across all the media.

    4. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Trust me, the cops don’t want to go start taking guns, especially rifles. It’s one thing wrestling drunks and stuff, but it’s quite another to start facing rational people with high powered weapons who are passionate about it.
      The dangerous guys are the older guys who quite caring long ago. Their wives may be gone, they have seen and done it and they are just waiting for some snotty kid with a badge to come up and tell him what he’s going or not going to do.
      All it’s going to take is blood to be spelt and it doesn’t matter whose it is then all the back peddling will start.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The dangerous guys are the older guys who quite caring long ago.

        Aye, but it goes deeper than that. Many of these older guys may have spoken out in defense of Liberty for years while keeping their children and future grandchildren in mind. Now, the children are grown, perhaps even some of their grandchildren, and can do their own fighting. These guys are determined to see the restoration of Liberty in their own respective lifetimes. Now they fight for themselves. For some older men, the realization hits them… they must still be alive to enjoy freedom in this lifetime. Lofty goals of the restoration of constitutional restraints upon government down the road aren’t going to directly benefit them in the grave. They’re fed up and determined to be free in their own time on this Earth. I’ve talked with quite a few of them over the past five or so years and it’s uncanny how they tend to express the same goals and intentions. They’re appalled at the extensive government encroachment and cultural erosion that they’ve personally witnessed in just the past two decades. If the doors of one of these mens’ homes are kicked in…

  11. avatar Tom says:

    I hope it never comes down to armed conflict and Ruby Ridge type scenarios. We will have no choice if governments initiates acts of violence. If guns are successfully taken away, the rest of our constitutional rights will in short order be ended or severely restricted.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Thank you. Since this started, I’ve been saying that in not as many words. I’ve been surprised by how much resistance I’ve gotten (mostly of the, “you would only be slaughtered and you wouldn’t even be able to stop them” type), even here on TTaG.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I don’t think that even the Malloy Mafia has the balls to start kicking in doors at gunpoint to enforce CT’s hideous new gun laws.

        Not yet. Not quite yet.

        The cops will grab the guns if they have another reason to be inside the owner’s home.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        As far as I know, gun owners still outnumber the jackbooted Nazi thugs; all it would take is one good defensive shot per no-knock, and eventually the jackboots will lose by attrition.

        1. avatar John C says:

          1,200 CT State Police – 100,000 now felons. Do the math.

          300 million firearms, 100 million firearm owners.

          If they start this war what makes them think the rest of us would just wait to have our door kicked in?

          Molon labe

        2. avatar peirsonb says:

          The VAST majority will wait to have their doors kicked in. Americans are, for the most part, fat and happy. As long as they have a 7-11 on the corner and cable TV there isn’t much that would cause them to resist the government. Luckily history has shown that a very small percentage of a group of people, say 3%, can make an effective stand against tyranny. And 3 million is a hell of a fighting force.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I don’t care about 7-11. But you try to take away my WaWa and we’re gonna fight.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          This somehow brings to mind the French Resistance.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Not “in short order”. You will know that they just vanished, as well. The only thing that protects the other nine amendments in the BOR is the Second. This was the intention of the Framers.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      People in Ruby Ridge and Waco said the very same thing. “They’d never do THAT…. WOULD they?”

  12. avatar Matthew says:

    I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Any member of law enforcement trying to enforce these new laws is an enemy of that Constitution. My job description was “close with and destroy the enemy”.

    I imagine I’m not the only one.

    1. avatar John C says:

      I also took the same oath. I will not comply, it’s a hill I will die on.

    2. avatar OutlawSix says:

      Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

  13. avatar Will says:

    Black guy here. Just received my ccw Monday.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      Congrats and welcome to the club.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Congratulations. Be careful out there.

    3. avatar Dennis says:

      Welcome to the club.

    4. avatar Matt in TX says:

      Cool! Welcome to the community.

    5. avatar peirsonb says:

      I’m so sorry for your loss. Of money. Because you will always NEED just one more holster/carry gun/accessory 🙂

    6. avatar Michael in GA says:

      Will, race is one of my favorite topics of discussion. I suppose because it is taboo. I am white. I grew up on the South side of Atlanta and attended High School that was 90% black. I work for a large company that proudly advertises “Diversity”. In my position, 65% of the workforce is black. I played college football and half the team was black. I feel like I have a particular insight into the black culture that may not be that far less than yours.
      You started with the statement “Back guy here”. I believe I know why you did that, but it would be enlightening to hear your explanation. I as well welcome you to the community. I have only been a CCW holder for a year.
      This is my generalization of the black community based on my experiences. More blacks attend church than whites. Blacks are far more critical of homosexuality. Blacks are enthusiastic about firearms. Black males in particular like big guns, big cars, big dogs. Basically this tells me that black people have very little in common with Liberals or Progressives.
      Your thoughts?

  14. avatar H.R. says:

    You know, though I wonder if you guys didn’t beat the Connecticut horse until it was thoroughly dead, I have to say that you have a point.

    It wouldn’t take much for this to get nasty, and if it did, would those enforcing confiscation orders necessarily be on the right side? It’s something that everyone who has a stake in the gun rights discussion should think long and hard about. A serious confrontation, especially one that could spread, could put our entire nation in a very bad situation. At its worst, It could even make us weak enough from infighting that we’d be open to conquest from a foreign power.

    What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?

    We’d all better think really long and hard before anything gets too far out of hand.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      If things “get out of hand”, it won’t be because of the citizenry; it will be because of the dumbass errand boys in blue. Can we get this straight, once and for all?

      Or should we start the conversation again, so you can catch up?

      1. avatar H.R. says:

        I didn’t place any blame on the citizenry. If the situation in CT does escalate, I know exactly who will deserve the blame, and it won’t be the 100,000 citizens who were turned into felons with the stroke of a pen.

        I also wonder if those who are in a confrontational mood (meaning you) don’t just surf TTAG looking for things to be confrontational about.
        Think a little before you fly off the handle next time.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Sorry, I didn’t intend to imply you’d blame the citizenry. Maybe I should have phrased it a little differently, but it’s too late now.

        2. avatar H.R. says:

          No worries amigo.
          That not being able to edit after a few minutes has also caught me a time or two.

    2. avatar John C says:

      I have already thought it out.

      “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” Captain John Parker – Lexington Green

      Molon labe

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “Don’t fire unless fired upon”

        I hope we can all hold this as our second-highest ideal (right after Molon Labe) – we need to keep the high moral ground here.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Don’t fire unless fired upon?
          A squad with rifles just smashed in your door!
          They likely won’t fire if you lie down on the floor and grasp your fingers behind your head.
          So what’s your plan to resist?
          Stand there in your BVDs pointing a Mossberg Persuader at them waiting for the flash bang?
          Molon Labe
          Your hands won’t even have a chance to get cold.

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    Was it here on TTAG that a post was made about an “ultimatum” issues by CT Carry? They put out a press release you can find here: http://ctcarry.com/News/Releases .

    “If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts…” …or what? Nothing. Elements of both sides are saber rattling while the saner forces in the middle luckily realize how stupid it is to push this issue except in the courts.

  16. avatar H.R. says:

    The most likely way that this plays out is that the authorities in CT wage a war of attrition.
    Over the next twenty years, police responding to emergencies will gather up firearms here and there, making examples of people one or two at a time after house fires or family emergencies.
    Family members will fear legal consequences and turn in grandpa’s AR-15 and 500 round ammo stash when he dies, and the state will show them amnesty to encourage more of that. The guys who’ve buried or hid their rifles will leave them buried and hidden. None of them are going to want to pick a fight. Some of them will move to Texas or Tennessee and sneak their rifles out with them. Hopefully when they get there, they’ll remember what made them felons in their home state and vote accordingly.

    And our country will continue being more and more polarized until something happens to unite us.

    But I don’t anticipate any doors being kicked in.
    I’ve been wrong before, but I really hope I’m right about CT authorities having the common sense to NOT start kicking in doors.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      You may well be right, but their rhetoric points to confrontational actions. Time will tell, but they say eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Assume the worst, be prepared for that, and the rest is just grilled cheese sandwiches.

      1. avatar fuque says:

        Can’t have grilled cheese sandwiches without tomato soup..

    2. avatar Taylor Tx says:

      “And our country will continue being more and more polarized until something happens to unite us.”

      Man I surely hope so, at this point it looks like its going to take nothing short of Zefram Cochrane.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        That sounds about right, though Star Trek made it sound like all sweetness and light, that all of mankind “came together” in a suddenly-discovered feeling of oneness. In reality, I think it would work more like the husband and wife who are having a domestic and then suddenly band together to fight the cops that come to break it up. In other words, a Zefram Cochrane might create allies of necessity or even convenience, but I wouldn’t expect much more than that.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          well in the Trek universe, Humans discovering interplanetary warp travel and a visit from the Vulcans brought us together only because we had already nuked the shit out of each other, and there weren’t really that many of us left to fight over any thing.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I’m a metaphysicist and a crazy person, and I believe I’ve been sent here by God’s extended family, the Mother and Father of Manifestation, to tell the people of the world that the secret to interstellar travel won’t be revealed until humans figure out how to stop making war.

        3. avatar JR says:

          I get your point, but the wording is very confusing.

          “figure out how to stop making war.”

          How do you figure out how to stop making something? Once you know ho to do something, you can’t really unknow it…unless lobotomy, perhaps?

          That may be a solution some wish for, as think of it. A drugged population – whether the drug is chemical or ‘entertainment’ in nature is immaterial – is pretty much unlearning.

          Never mind, carry on.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “I get your point, but the wording is very confusing.”

          Good! Run with that! Confusion is the first stage of wisdom.
          Stage 2 is the realization that everything you know is wrong. 🙂

        5. avatar Jus Bill says:

          But true enlightenment is realizing that you don’t know anything certainly, and that it really doesn’t make any difference in the long run.

      2. avatar H.R. says:

        I also don’t know what it’s going to take.

        I spent a lot of time traveling last year and came to the realization, as I sat in airports watching so many people go about their lives, that this really is a diverse country.

        No kidding, right?

        Really though… modern hippies, retired hippies, business men and women, soldiers, farmers, cowboys, factory workers, doctors, blacks, whites, hispanics, Asians, men, women, some that I wasn’t sure about, some who may not sure about themselves… and most of these people are good people. They just want to live in peace and do their thing. It’s ridiculous that we’re at each other’s throats over so much in this country. I really don’t want it to be that way, but I don’t know what to do to change it.

        Off topic, but that’s what I think.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Did it also strike you that almost all of them are going through the motions of their lives, as if they were sleepwalking? Because I get that a LOT.

        2. avatar Jeff says:

          we aren’t at each other’s throats, really. the government and economic elite are at the populations’ throats, intentionally trying to pit us against one another over every hot-button issue, so that we do not notice their continual abject failures, or their occasional successes at manipulation.

          I’ve had the same realization while people-watching, as I’m also a business traveler – all over the US and Puerto RIco.

        3. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

          Get rid of politicians(pretty much all of them) who try and divide us for personal gains. And then don’t replace them. You still Have plenty of people who just can’t stand to let others live and let live. I think they are in the minority though, and for the most part people from all ways of life, are as you describe.

        4. avatar JR says:

          Get rid of the politicians and there will still be people that seek to control other people’s business, true, but most of them are powerless.

          We could add one simple check and balance to our system of government that would greatly reduce the concentrations of power we are seeing: no salary for public office. It’s a duty to serve, like jury duty.

          No one should have those jobs (of political power) that wants them, and certainly no one should have them that seek them specifically to consolidate power and control others.

    3. avatar John C says:

      I disagree because the anti-gun crowd will keep pushing. The Marxist seeks to control and they will never have the control they seek with an armed citizenry.

  17. avatar Dennis says:

    When it comes down to it remember what the cops did in Watts when confronted by a few hundred people with Molotov cocktails, sticks, rocks, and a couple of Saturday-night specials: They vanished into the night, not to be heard from for hours on end.

    What are they going to do if only 1% of those who are non-compliant resist further?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      One of the little demon voices in my head is thinking of some hypothetical fringe survivalist who has his house booby-trapped; the intruder alarm triggers the computer-controlled guns aimed at the point just inside the door….

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        You don’t need computer control.

        Hi Nancy from the NSA. How’re the kids?

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      That was very different. The cops didn’t have armored vehicles available to them back then.

      Besides, you are assuming they’re smart, and won’t make the same mistake again. THEY WILL.

  18. avatar ZM 1306 says:

    Would if be bad, if say, a bomb “just goes off” at some police station in Connecticut with a little metal chunk that has “FC” on it?

    Would it “just so happen” to set off the Revolution?

    1. avatar fuque says:

      Yeah, that would be bad…No it wouldn’t set off a revolution.. Some crazy bastard In Oklahoma City tried that by blowing up the federal building.

    2. avatar Matt in TX says:

      I believe the match will be a raid where a perceived innocent “civilian” is killed. The names, addresses, phone numbers etc. of the CT politicians are out there. If 1/2 of 1% decide to react, to cut at the hydras head, it will escalate. That’s how I see it.

      1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        There will be no “innocent civilians” on any of these no-knock raids. The police will bring sufficient quantities of illegal drugs with them to describe the raid as a drug raid. The “drug dealer” will resist and they will have to kill him.

        That is how it will be played in the media. After all, Randy Weaver was an evil white supremicist, and David Koresh had sex with 8 year old girls. Which, of course, completely explains why the initial raids were made by the ATF.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Watch DHS Police. Closely.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I catch your drift. And I realize you probably know that Randy Weaver wasn’t a “white supremacist”, but rather a white separatist. BIG difference. I never saw Randy say anything that indicated he thought he was better than anyone else. He merely thought races should be separated, that’s all – on message with the Nation of Islam and J. Edgar Hoover, if truth be told.

  19. avatar Parnell says:

    I worry that the same situation will arise soon in NJ with the passage of A2006, the 10 round limit bill. It has no grace period or grandfather clause. I find it hard to believe that the average NJ gun owner will comply.

    1. avatar John C says:

      No American citizen should comply.

    2. avatar JR says:

      I find it interesting that NJ is pushing that bill right now…that they are not watching to see how CT plays out.

      There’s talk of open non-compliance with SAFE in NY, CT is engaged in overt civil disobedience, MDA and similar groups are a self-parody these days, 9th Circuit in CA is doing some interesting things with potential far-reaching consequences …

      So, I find it intriguing that NJ is picking right now to stir the pot even more. Their ‘war’ is a culture war of attrition…winning hearts and minds over the long sale; while pro-Gun groups in general and pro-gun protests are enjoying at least a little bit of popular traction, it makes little sense strategy wise.

      Unless…no, no, that’s too far fetched. It’s too out there. Unless…the ship is taking water and they sense that, they WANT all these measures to go tango uniform, wait patiently for the next random tragedy (and repair the leaks in the background) and THEN they can spring their “SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!” and push all that much harder…push harder with new, fresh PR faces, a different set of judges (SCOTUS and other places) and even a new POTUS.

      The Statist movement in this country is nothing but patient. It’s a game of erosion…chip away at the each resistance where it is identified.

  20. avatar joe l says:

    how come everytime i try to go on a website that shows how some of the government people act, that website freezes? no other websites i have problems with…..its frustrating and making me think someones trying to keep me in the dark

    1. avatar fuque says:

      No, it’s just slowing you down long enough to jot down your IP address, DOB, home phone, place of employment, wifes name, kids, dog ( so they can shoot his ass ).. OR… there is too much web traffic going to the site.

  21. avatar Fug says:

    I am about as skeptical of the Oath Keepers as I am of Adam Kokesh. Who does this cop killing bluster really benefit? This is at least the second video I have seen on TTAG recently that implies the killing of police is acceptable in response to attempts to enforce disarmament laws that violate the second amendment. The last one was more subtle.

    This is exactly where the antis want the debate to be. They want gun owners to come out and say that they will not back down, even in the face of law enforcement. They can paint gun owners as irresponsible scofflaws without ever kicking down a single door.

    People don’t need to say shit like this. People don’t need to make youtube videos about where and how to hide your firearms from the government so you can “engage” them later. This stuff is called common sense, which is apparently in short supply anymore.

    People under pressure from these laws should be pragmatic and wary of sharing too much information. The only way any mass movement against the injustice will ever really gain momentum is if people get their property seized or are put in jail for passive resistance first, which requires the state to actually act in the first place.

    Mind you I am not a pacifist, but if you open fire on the police to keep them from taking your property you will be branded an enemy of the people. If they come to confiscate your guns, reason with them and film the whole damn process even if you have to do it clandestinely. Let any abuses go viral. Do not, I repeat, do not shoot at the police to keep them from taking your things because you will just lose everything and then some.

  22. avatar fuque says:

    Cops are not immune from playing the victim card when it benefits them… fighting back will only trigger more unsolicited phone calls from the FOP begging for donations for the wounded policeman fund…

  23. avatar James P. Barnett Jr. says:

    This fellow is border line crazy. If you start firing up the police they will rain s**t down on you like there is no tomorrow. And quite literally there will not be one for him if he initiates a firefight. Whatever else we don’t take the law into our own hands. If we do the greater weight of authority will prevail. If armed insurrection is what this fellow wants, he and those of his ilk will be bitterly disappointed at the outcome, because an overwhelming majority of Americans will not support it.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Then the hour is later than many of us might believe and full tyranny is upon us. When we fear our own government so much that we counsel our brethren to just roll over and take whatever abuses our masters dish out; what does that say about the state of true Liberty in our nation today? Are we a free people or not?

      1. avatar James P Barnett Jr says:

        Freedom is not limitless. Another’s freedom stops where my rights start. The Rule of Law is not mob rule nor is it Everyman for himself. Talk of governmental tyranny is paranoid. To obey the law is not rolling over and armed insurrection is not the answer to perceived wrongs. The ballot box is the way. Our society is governed as a republic. Elected representatives govern. Just because my representative does not reflect my views does not give the the right to revolt.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “To obey the law is not rolling over”

          An unconstitutional law isn’t a law.

        2. avatar James P Barnett Jr says:

          Ah who decides, a blog such as this or our court system?

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Ah who decides, a blog such as this or our court system?”

          That decision has been made. The Founding Fathers made it in 1789, and wrote it down for future reference by fools like you and me. The Constitution is the Foundation of the Republic itself; the Supreme Law of the Land.

          And, of course, it is YOU who makes the decision whether you want to: A, be a Good Citizen and support, uphold, and defend the Constitution, or B, be a treasonous snake-in-the-grass who obeys and calls for submission to unconstitutional statutes.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          An unconstitutional law is NOT a law; the framers of the Constitution, upon which our system is purportedly based, SAID SO. Not once: REPEATEDLY.

        5. avatar William Burke says:

          Not a law at all, but rather Tyranny.

        6. avatar Azman says:

          A phrase someone once posted here comes to mind:

          “The thing to be aware of, is that as long as you remain within the system, you retain the option of choosing the other option in the future. But it doesn’t work the other way.

          The moment you step outside the system, you cannot choose to return to the process. You are no longer a citizen of the United States. You do not any longer have legal protection. Your right to take this step is affirmed in the Constitution, but this is where the Constitution ends. There is no more Constitution for you. This is the “Nuclear Option.” You are a traitor now. There is no such thing as “unreasonable search and censure. You do not have any property rights. If you succeed in you endeavor you may set up whatever new system you choose. Until then, you are not within any system.”

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @James P Barnett Jr: The Supreme Court’s usurpation of the power of Judicial Review is specious at best and traitorous at worst. Laws that clearly violate the Constitution (shall not be infringed) are invalid laws.

          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

          @azman: Rights do not come from governments. Rights are unalienable to the individual. Possession of rights most certainly does NOT require citizenship. Your comment betrays an underlying belief that rights come from government and are not unalienable to the individual.

        8. avatar Azman says:

          My comment was a quotation of an old comment from last year that I keep and consider. And no, it does not imply that I think rights are not absolute. Rights exist no matter what. The “system” as I take the quote to mean indicates the current organized system of government. This is exactly as the Founders ended up–they revolted and forcibly removed themselves from the system of British rule. By those terms they had no recourse to continue to abide by British rules as they would be hanged anyway. Until they formed a new government there was no system for them.
          In essence I take it to mean “be wary, work with words as long as you can before you have to use something else.”

          Also, I made no mention of losing “citizenship” nor did the quote. That’s a whole other philosophical ball game.

        9. avatar William Burke says:

          But history is chock full of tragic incidences where people kept negotiating past the point of no return, and failed because they did not act with proper force until it was too late to do so.

        10. avatar John in Ohio says:

          In essence I take it to mean “be wary, work with words as long as you can before you have to use something else.”

          In that, we can agree. I think there exists a balance that must be evaluated. Drastic measures, implemented too soon, can destroy an otherwise good system that has potential. On the other hand, if a people wait too long, the odds become so stacked against them that they can only be successful after great pain and loss, if at all. I firmly believe that some of the founders of this nation would have taken extreme steps to restore the republic long before now. IMHO, the People have allowed the beast to become incredibly strong and much of the People to become drunk on prosperity and delusion.

        11. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @William Burke: Precisely! Once a thug’s intentions are clear, the only prudent thing to do is fight. Our government has become a thug and its intentions are clear, IMHO. Trying to negotiate is only buying time and time is on government’s side. The only reason that the People ought to be buying time is to further a plan. So far, the only plan of the People that I can perceive is to keep bread and circuses going for as long as possible.

          Some argue that something very bad may arise from the People’s efforts. To that, I point out that tyranny is a known outcome of our government’s current course whereas the other is an unknown. It makes no sense to not fight the certainty of tyrannical government out of pure fear of the unknown.

          There are two dark alleys. One has a thug half-way down and we can’t see what’s down the other. Is it prudent to keep walking the alley towards the known thug because we want to avoid the alley we don’t yet know?

  24. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Azman says something about “the system”:

    WTF does “within the system” mean? Individual Liberty is the highest ideal, regardless of whatever “system” you choose to place in authority over yourself.

    You can’t escape Free Will. Whatever ruler you install over yourself and pay obeisance to, it is YOU who makes the decision to obey the tyrant of YOUR choice.

    But no matter whom you choose to make the boss of you, neither you nor your boss is the boss of me. I’m boss of me, and that’s all there is to it.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      And what was that tripe about “stepping outside the system” (whatever that’s supposed to mean!) invalidating one’s citizenship? What kind of crap is THAT?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I took it as stemming from the belief that citizenship somehow bestows an individual with the mantle of Liberty. In other words, rights come from government. 😉 Old European monarchs would be proud. lol

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, I see what you mean.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        ” What kind of crap is THAT?”

        The grasping at straws that people do when their illusions are blown away and they find themselves hanging there with no foundation.

  25. avatar Azman says:

    The full quote might clear things up if I could paste it from where I have it, dagnabbit.

  26. avatar Azman says:

    When you are confronted with an officer of the government you have only two options. One: You can work within the guidelines of the system. You can obey, and petition for the redress of grievances, you can pursue all the legal and non-violent options open to you. Two: You can reject the system, remove yourself from it’s confines, and through violent means attempt to replace it with one you approve of.

    The thing to be aware of, is that as long as you remain within the system, you retain the option of choosing the other option in the future. But it doesn’t work the other way.

    The moment you step outside the system, you cannot choose to return to the process. You are no longer a citizen of the United States. You do not any longer have legal protection. Your right to take this step is affirmed in the Constitution, but this is where the Constitution ends. There is no more Constitution for you. This is the “Nuclear Option.” You are a traitor now. There is no such thing as “unreasonable search and censure. You do not have any property rights. If you succeed in you endeavor you may set up whatever new system you choose. Until then, you are not within any system.

    This is why, as the Founders said, it is the nature of humanity to endure the system as long as possible. Because as long as you do, the choice of escalation is in your hands, and you can achieve an end short of the destruction of the current system, and the establishment of a new one.”

    There. Better? Or shall we do the mutual growling about who “really” believes in liberty again? Sheesh.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      But, the Constitution is more about restraining government. Individuals still posses unalienable rights regardless of citizenship. As was being pointed out before, rights are inherent to the individual and do not come from government. Government only possesses privilege so that’s all that government can bestow; privilege.

    2. avatar James P Barnett Jr says:

      Amen

    3. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “The moment you step outside the system,”

      You’re still preaching appeasement of the criminals.

      The uniformed officers of the regime HAVE ALREADY STEPPED OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION!! IT IS YOUR SACRED DUTY AS A CITIZEN TO RESIST THAT TYRANNY, NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!!!!!!!!!!

      NOW do you get it?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Shhh… don’t scare the sheep, Rich. 😀

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, they don’t like being barked at. 🙂

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Yeah, I keep hoping to wake them up before it’s too late, but I should learn from history and watch out for my own ass. I’m kinda conflicted because of that “responsibility to help the needy” stuff – how much 3rd party defense does a person who won’t even defend himself deserve?

          Maybe I’m motivated by the fear that when they’re all marching to the cattle cars, that I’ll somehow get caught up in (or run over by) the stampede, and I don’t want that.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Sorry about the shouting, but my lizard brain still thinks it’s possible to get through their brick wall of willful ignorance by yelling at them, and I’m only human, after all. The word “exasperating” springs to mind…

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          No, no…. please don’t stop. It’s tempting, I know, but we owe it to America to not let up.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Owe it to America, hell… we owe it to ourselves. Shout it from the roof tops!

          Government is of our making and we owe it nothing. IMHO, everything we do is for ourselves as a free nation is ultimately beneficial to the individual.

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          If each and every individual maximized her own personal benefit (without lying, cheating, or stealing), how could the aggregate benefit possibly NOT be to the greatest benefit of all?

          I guess it’s that lying, cheating, and stealing stuff that’s the bugaboo. But even that is best handled at an individual level!

          And the grandest irony of all is that you can get more greater personal benefits by honest Free Interaction with peers than you can get by lying, cheating, or stealing!

        7. avatar William Burke says:

          Rev. Grise: I laugh my ass off every time some self-righteous goody two shoes says, “crime does not pay.”

          It must; why else would there be so many criminals?

        8. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Wiliam: Are you saying that Freedom isn’t better?

        9. avatar William Burke says:

          In no way am I saying that.

  27. avatar Azman says:

    Rich, dying in defense of liberty sucks just as much as dying for anything else. The Founders would have been shooting by now. What does that say about all of us? Are we more cautious, or have we all gotten a little sheep-like?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Are we more cautious, or have we all gotten a little sheep-like?”

      I haven’t personally found armed rebellion necessary as of yet, but the People’s Democratic Republic of Mexifornia hasn’t started sending out confiscation letters yet.

      And I don’t go to stupid places where stupid people are doing stupid things, so have very little need of personal defense. Well, that and just not pissing people off generally.

      Except trolls. Occasionally I like to piss one of them off, just to stay in practice. .

      1. avatar Azman says:

        Statistically I am about the least likely person to have to defend myself, in an unlikely location…but I was referring more to the mass of Americans who believe in the right to bear arms. We have suffered far more than the founders would have, thus we are either more cautious, or something less admirable. Then again trying to lump all the Americans who like guns into one mass is an error in the first place. A seriously divided house at times.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          IMHO, a large portion of America is something less than admirable in regards to reigning in tyrannical government. Many people today are too cowardly and too lazy to be free. They seem to want to milk the system along just a little more rather than taking the risks and expending the great effort necessary to be free.

          The People have sold their birthright for decaying infrastructure, pathetic diversions, and unhealthy living. If we’re going to ever cross the Rubicon, we have to realize that our feet are going to get wet.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email