PDA

View Full Version : Officials in Connecticut Stunned by State-Wide Civil Disobedience



Ares
13th February 2014, 06:09 AM
Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.

Police had received 47,916 applications for “assault weapons certificates” and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.

At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/600x3873.jpg

Due to the new gun control bill passed in April, likely at least 20,000 individual people — possibly as many as 100,000 — are now in direct violation of the law for refusing to register their guns. As we noted above, that act is now a Class D Felony.

Mike Lawlor, “the state’s top official in criminal justice,” suggested maybe the firearms unit in Connecticut could “sent them a letter.” However, he said an aggressive push to prosecute gun owners in the state is not going to happen at this point.

Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy in the state Office of Policy and Management, also suggested that the legislature should reopen the registration period to encourage more gun owners to register their firearms.

You may recall the viral photo of Connecticut gun owners waiting in line to register their guns in December, which one person said reminded them of the “Weimar Germany.”

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gun-lines-firearm-gun-registration_1388417797521_4955477_ver1.0_640_480-620x463.jpg

Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo told The Courant he recently spoke to a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who informed him that some of his friends with semi-automatic rifles are intentionally taking a stand.

“He made the analogy to prohibition,” the lawmaker recalled. “I said, ‘You’re talking about civil disobedience, and he said ‘Yes.’”

Guglielmo said he really thought the “vast majority would register.”

Other officials think the low registration numbers are due to ignorance on behalf of gun owners who aren’t aware of the new law. It’s impossible to know the main reason why gun owners aren’t showing up to register their guns without hearing from them directly, though Guglielmo’s constituent indicates at least some are practicing “civil disobedience.”

“Sorting out the number of potential new felons is a guessing game. State police have not added up the total number of people who registered the 50,000 firearms, Vance said. So even if we knew the number of illegal guns in the state, we’d have a hard time knowing how many owners they had,” the report concludes.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/

If I lived in Connecticut, I would of printed out this picture and posted it up everywhere that I could before registration was mandated.

http://theydontfoolme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gun-control-troops-obeying-orders-citizens-obeying-gun-control-laws.jpg

palani
13th February 2014, 06:56 AM
The revolutionary war started in the New England region. During the war of 1812 the British invaded Maine and the natives quite cheerfully accepted allegiance to the crown. The Hartford Convention met in 1814 in Connecticut to discuss means to dissolve the u.s. constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

And now you say there is still the remnants of civil disobedience in that area? Quite a surprise!

mick silver
13th February 2014, 08:20 AM
Washington's regulatory agencies have bought billions of rounds of bullets and continue to arm themselves with the latest military gear. What do they know?

palani
13th February 2014, 08:44 AM
What do they know?

They know they would rather own these rounds than have you own them.

In Scheels the other day. They have absolutely any type of ammo you might want for a price. All are out in the open, on shelves and the only ones that are under lock and key are the rimfire 22lrs and 17hmrs. But there are no 22lrs and I remarked to a clerk how odd it was that the only thing they saw fit to place under lock and key were the rounds that were not available.

Twisted Titan
13th February 2014, 09:06 AM
Note in that picture

You would think that Conneticut was a all white male State.

Not a single minority or woman to be found.


Somebody please call The NAACP, NOW, LA RAZA, ADL right now.

We desperately need some diversification on that line.

Spectrism
13th February 2014, 10:21 AM
Those honkies are doing more damage in making CT a communist state than any diversified group would have intelligence to do.

The people shall receive what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rain falls on the good and the evil just the same.

ShortJohnSilver
13th February 2014, 12:26 PM
1 to 100 people taking a stand , "nutcases" "domestic terrorists" "wingnut conspiracy theorizers" - call out the SWAT and make an example of them, shoot them, gas them, have a sniper kill the guy's wife, whatever.

100K people taking a stand, uhh.... "However, he said an aggressive push to prosecute gun owners in the state is not going to happen at this point."

ximmy
13th February 2014, 01:47 PM
http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6032&d=1392328045
6032

Shami-Amourae
13th February 2014, 01:54 PM
Hopefully this passes here in Idaho

Lawmaker says bill would protect Idahoans from gun confiscation (http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/lawmaker-bill-idahoans-gun-confiscation-hagedorn-244828611.html)


"The supervisors would be penalized if they gave an order to confiscate firearms or ammunition," said Sen. Marv Hagedorn of Meridian.

Twisted Titan
13th February 2014, 02:16 PM
The gesture is appreciated but I dont need a bill to protect me from confiscation

The gun itself protects me far better.

As it should.

Libertytree
13th February 2014, 02:38 PM
They might be a little surprised, but "stunned"? Stunned is what they would have been if they ALL showed up with their guns....loaded and pointed at them.

willie pete
13th February 2014, 02:57 PM
so if all those people not registering their ARs are committing a felony, that makes them all felons and felons can't own firearms

palani
13th February 2014, 03:05 PM
so if all those people not registering their ARs are committing a felony, that makes them all felons and felons can't own firearms
No. Have to be found guilty of a felony before you might become one.

SWRichmond
13th February 2014, 04:51 PM
Some might be tempted to say "the best defense is a good offense".

According to the FBI there are typically about 3 cops per thousand civilians. CT population is 3.6 million, so figure around 10,800 cops. So what happens when 10,800 cops try to round up 350,000 "assault weapon" owners? That's about 32/1. And, undeniably, reasonably well armed.

MOLON LABE?

I keep hoping that the politicians, drunk with power and hubris, are stupid enough to start something. Let the roundups begin! They won't last long.

JohnQPublic
13th February 2014, 06:31 PM
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65846-new-shooting-Newtown-Conn-details-breaking&p=616905&viewfull=1#post616905

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65846-new-shooting-Newtown-Conn-details-breaking&p=616920&viewfull=1#post616920

willie pete
13th February 2014, 07:21 PM
No. Have to be found guilty of a felony before you might become one.


Not so, IF you commit a felony, that makes you a felon regardless if you're convicted or not, IF you murder someone, you're a murderer, you steal something you're a thief

Celtic Rogue
13th February 2014, 07:46 PM
Not so, IF you commit a felony, that makes you a felon regardless if you're convicted or not, IF you murder someone, you're a murderer, you steal something you're a thief

Not legally... while you are correct from a linguistic standpoint ... However we are supposed to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty from a legal standpoint. What if the Felony law you break is an unconstitutional law. Are you still a felon? I dont believe so.

ximmy
13th February 2014, 07:47 PM
Not legally... while you are correct from a linguistic standpoint ... However we are supposed to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty from a legal standpoint. What if the Felony law you break is an unconstitutional law. Are you still a felon? I dont believe so.

suspect or perpetrator

palani
14th February 2014, 05:07 AM
Not so, IF you commit a felony, that makes you a felon regardless if you're convicted or not, IF you murder someone, you're a murderer, you steal something you're a thief

Society has come up with word 'person' to apply to an activity that it frowns upon. If you actually do commit a murder or theft you have created a person. It won't be you that is convicted but rather the person you created. The end result is the same though as you will be held to be the surety for the person you created and will be incarcerated and it is you who will be labeled a felon ... after due process is completed but not before.

willie pete
14th February 2014, 07:46 AM
Society has come up with word 'person' to apply to an activity that it frowns upon. If you actually do commit a murder or theft you have created a person. It won't be you that is convicted but rather the person you created. The end result is the same though as you will be held to be the surety for the person you created and will be incarcerated and it is you who will be labeled a felon ... after due process is completed but not before.

"created a person?" " It won't be you that is convicted but rather the person you created", WTF are you babbling about? split all the hairs you want, I'm coming from a moralistic POV, sure I know under our "system" one is supposed to be presumed innocent until their day in court, if someone is out there robbing, raping or stealing, just because they maybe haven't been apprehended doesn't take away from their actions. How many times have news channels announced a "rapist" on the loose in a particular area? well by your thinking the individual out there raping shouldn't be labeled a "rapist" until convicted, thats Flawed thinking IMO ::) ...over and out Perry Mason :D

palani
14th February 2014, 08:12 AM
"created a person?" " It won't be you that is convicted but rather the person you created", WTF are you babbling about?

You are deluded if you believe a person is flesh or blood. You are not a person until you express a right or encounter a duty. A word is a person (slander). An action is a person (assert a claim, rob a bank). Representation is a person (vote for 'bama?).

If interested in this topic find a pdf version of Hobbes Leviathan and check out Chap XVI or don't and remain ignorant.

mick silver
14th February 2014, 01:13 PM
Perry Mason ........... thats a good one thanks pete

Hatha Sunahara
17th February 2014, 11:40 AM
Here is a clear statement of the issues:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html


Saturday, February 15, 2014 An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)


The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.
15 February 2014


To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.
Some of you are already working a major case on me, trying to figure out how I may be arrested for violating Conn. P.A. 13-3, which bears the wildly dishonest title of "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety." (What part of "protecting children" is accomplished by sparking a civil war?) Not only have I personally violated this unconstitutional and tyrannical act by smuggling and by the encouragement of smuggling, defiance and non-compliance on the part of your state's citizens, but I have further irritated your wannabe tyrant bosses by sending them standard capacity magazines in my "Toys for Totalitarians" program. (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/12/story-first-interview-after-ct-reporter.html) I further have annoyed them by pointing out (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-michael-lawlor-ct.html) -- and seeking more evidence of -- the existence of Mike Lawlor's KGB file (as well as his FBI and CIA counter-intelligence files). In short, I have made myself a nuisance to your bosses in just about every way I could think of. However, their discomfiture reminds me of the wisdom of that great American philosopher of the late 20th Century, Frank Zappa, who said, "Do you love it? Do you hate it? There it is, the way you made it." Whether you will be able to make a case on me that sticks is, of course, problematic for a number of reasons which I will detail to you in the letter below. I have already done so to your bosses and include the links in this email so that you may easily access them.
But even if you are not working on my case you will want to pay attention to this letter, because tyrannical politicians in your state have been writing checks with their mouths that they expect you to cash with your blood. We have moved, thanks to them, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. Connecticut is now in a state of cold civil war, one that can flash to bloody conflict in an instant if someone, anyone, does something stupid. So please pay attention, for Malloy and Co. have put all your asses on the line and are counting on your supine obedience to the enforcement of their unconstitutional diktat.
I apparently first came to your attention with this speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkjLlZu9uno) on the steps of your state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I'd like to quote some of the more salient points (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-name-is-mike-vanderboegh-and-im.html) of it that involve you.

"An unconstitutional law is void." It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence, the standard legal text. And that's been upheld by centuries of American law. An unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth that we know down in Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the attendant of every evil. . .

Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned -- but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding -- but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will -- when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people -- innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.
You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the "armed men" that Malloy and Company will send "to work their will" upon the previously law-abiding. In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully boy political police of you. So you all have a very real stake in what happens next. But let me continue:

The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. . . The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.

Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them. No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitutional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Let me repeat that, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives -- WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.

Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say -- Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart. As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting -- "Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law" (http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79243214/) -- and national commentators are at last noticing, (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371155/civil-disobedience-suburbs-kevin-d-williamson) my advice to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling, as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let's just look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day, extrapolating. (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-fourth-open-letter-to-mike-lawlor-of.html) It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize let alone understand. I told Lawlor:

You, you silly sod, are extrapolating from your own cowardice. Just because you wouldn't risk death for your principles, doesn't mean there aren't folks who most certainly will. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but folks who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of them as well. You may be ignorant of such people and their ways. You may think that they are insane. But surely even you cannot be so clueless that, insane or not from your point-of-view, such people DO exist and in numbers unknown. This is the undiscovered country that you and your tyrannical ilk have blundered into, like clueless kindergarteners gaily (no pun intended) tap-dancing in a well-marked mine field. The Founders marked the mine field. Is it our fault or yours that you have blithely ignored the warnings? If I were a Connecticut state policeman I would be wondering if the orders of a possible KGB mole throwback were worth the terminal inability to collect my pension. Of course, you may be thinking that you can hide behind that "thin blue line." Bill Clinton's rules of engagement say otherwise.

The odds are, and it gives me no particular satisfaction to say it, is that someone is going to get killed over your unconstitutional misadventures in Connecticut. And if not Connecticut, then New York, or Maryland, or California or Colorado. And once the civil war you all apparently seek is kicked off, it would not be -- it could not be -- confined to one state.

This is not a threat, of course. Not the personal, actionable threat that you may claim. It ranks right along with -- no, that's wrong, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE -- an ex-con meeting me in the street and pointing to my neighbor's house saying, "Tonight I am going to break in there, kill that man, rape his wife and daughters and steal everything that he is, has, or may become." I warn him, "If you try to do that, he will kill you first. He may not look like much, but I know him to be vigilant and perfectly capable of blowing your head off." That is not a threat from me. It is simply good manners. Consider this letter in the same vein. I am trying to save you from yourself.

For, like that common criminal, you have announced by your unconstitutional law and your public statements in favor of its rigorous enforcement that you have a tyrannical appetite for your neighbors' liberty, property and lives. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that this policy, if carried to your announced conclusion, will not end well for anybody, but especially for you.
Now let's examine those numbers in the Courant story. You know the size of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Wikipedia tells us that "CSP currently has approximately 1,248 troopers, and is headquartered in Middletown, Connecticut. It is responsible for protecting the Governor of Connecticut, Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, and their families." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_State_Police) There are but 1,212 email addresses listed on the state website to which this email is going, which presumably includes everyone including secretaries, receptionists, file clerks, technicians, etc. Now, how many shooters for raid parties you may find among that one thousand, two hundred and forty eight that Wikipedia cites, or whatever number will be on the payroll when something stupid happens, only you know for sure. I'll let you do the counting. They are daunting odds in any case, and as you will see, they get more daunting as we go down this road that Malloy and Company have arranged for you. (By the way, don't forget to subtract those on the Green Zone protective details, for your political masters will certainly see their survival as your mission number one.) So, how many folks would your superiors be interested in seeing you work their will upon? And of these, how many will fight regardless of cost?
Let's assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in your state. I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number -- not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners, but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable act upon them. Of course you will have to come prepared to shoot them. That's a given. They know this. So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe is righteous self defense.) Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/04/tyrants-beware-4th-generation-warfare.html) after the first shots are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call. These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war makers who sent you. This gets back to that "when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote." One ballot, or bullet, at a time.
This is all hypothetical, of course, based upon the tyrants' appetites for these hitherto law-abiding citizens' liberty, property and lives as well as upon your own willingness to enforce their unconstitutional diktat. And here's where you can do something about it. The first thing you have to realize is that the people you will be targeting do not view you as the enemy. Indeed, you are NOT their enemy, unless you choose to be one.
Again, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Of course you may if you like cling to the slim fact that a single black-robed bandit has ruled the Intolerable Act as constitutional in Shew vs. Malloy, but that will not matter to those three percent of the resistors -- your fellow citizens -- whom you target. They no longer expect a fair trial in your state in any case, which leaves them, if they wish to defend their liberty, property and lives, only the recourse of an unfair firefight. So to cite Shew vs. Malloy at the point of a state-issued firearm to such people is, well, betting your life on a very slender reed.
Thus, my kindly advice to you, just as it was to Lawlor, is to not go down that road. You are not the enemy of the people of Connecticut, not yet. The politicians who jammed this law down the peoples' throats are plainly flummoxed by the resistance it has engendered. In the absence of a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision do you really want to risk not being able to draw your pension over some politician's insatiable appetite for power?
There are many ways you can refuse to get caught up in this. Passive resistance, looking the other way, up to and including outright refusal to execute what is a tyrannical law that a higher court may yet find unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Do you really want to have to kill someone enforcing THAT? Just because you were ordered to do so? After Nuremberg, that defense no longer obtains. (You may say, "Well, I'm just a secretary, a clerk, you can't blame me for anything." Kindly recall from Nuremberg one other lesson: raid parties cannot break down doors unless someone like you prepares the list in advance. In fact, you have at your keyboard and in your databases more raw, naked power than any kick-in-the-door trooper. And with that power comes moral responsibility. Adolf Eichmann didn't personally kill anyone. But he darn sure made up the lists and saw to it that trains ran on time. When the first Connecticut citizen (or, God forbid, his family) is killed as a result of your list-making, do you think that because you didn't pull the trigger that gives you a moral pass?)
So I call on you all, in your own best interest and that of your state, to refuse to enforce this unconstitutional law. There are a number of Three Percenters within the Connecticut state government, especially its law enforcement arms. I know that there have been many discussions around water-coolers and off state premises about the dangers that this puts CT law enforcement officers in and what officers should do if ordered to execute raids on the previously law-abiding.
You have it within your power to refuse to initiate hostilities in an American civil war that would, by its very nature, be ghastly beyond belief and would unleash hatreds and passions that would take generations to get over, if then.
Please, I beg you to understand, you are not the enemy, you are not an occupying force -- unless you choose to violate the oath that each of you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. For their part, the men and women who will be targeted by your raids took an identical oath. Can you think of anything more tragic than brother killing brother over some politician's tyrannical appetite?
I can't. The future -- yours, mine, our children's, that of the citizens of Connecticut and indeed of the entire country -- is in YOUR hands.
At the very least, by your refusal you can give the courts time to work before proceeding into an unnecessary civil war against your own friends and neighbors on the orders of a self-anointed elite who frankly don't give a shit about you, your life, your future or that of your family. They wouldn't pass these laws if they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny. You are not the enemy. Don't act like one.
Sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126

midnight rambler
17th February 2014, 12:27 PM
Here is a clear statement of the issues:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html

Double plus good!

Jewboo
27th February 2014, 08:35 PM
Here is a clear statement of the issues:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html

Thanks Hatha. Reading that letter and then all the comments below it was very enjoyable and thought-provoking.


http://blizzforums.com/images/smilies/yippee.gif

Hatha Sunahara
1st March 2014, 08:58 AM
Here is a followup on the incipient rebellion in Connecticut:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/patriot-activist-makes-his-own-list-the-home-addresses-of-ct-legislators-who-just-voted-in-favor-of-gun-control_022014

The guy that wrote the open letter to the Connecticut State Police that I posted above made a list of the names and addresses of the legislators who voted for the gun control law.




Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. And that is exactly what Mike Vanderboegh has chosen to do. The state of Connecticut wants to make a list – a list of gun owners. So, Vanderboegh has created his own list – a list of those state legislators who are insisting that certain firearms be banned or registered.
If you recall, most of the gun owners who own these weapons have refused to register them, with tens of thousands of residents engaging in acts of quiet civil disobedience (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/civil-disobedience-tens-of-thousands-from-connecticut-just-say-no-to-gun-registration_022014).
The state responded by sending out letters, demanding that gun owners across the state turn in (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/surrender-your-firearms-connecticut-tells-unregistered-gun-owners_022014) all of their newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony prosecution.
Vanderboegh, who is himself a member of at least one list (the SPLC has profiled him on their “Hatewatch” blog (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/michael-brian-vanderboegh), which is really kind of a badge of honor in certain circles), has responded to this by compiling a list of his own (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html): it is a list of all of the legislators in the state of Connecticut who voted in favor of the recently passed gun registrations laws in the state. Vanderboegh is the leader of the Sipsey Street Irregulars (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/), a group of patriot activists who identify with the 3% of American Colonists who fought back against tyranny during the Revolutionary War.
Here is the post, A Sipsey Street Public Service Announcement (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html): The Connecticut Tyrants List:
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/patriot-activist-makes-his-own-list-the-home-addresses-of-ct-legislators-who-just-voted-in-favor-of-gun-control_022014#sthash.wnXNqHvp.dpuf


Go to the link above if you want the names on the list.

Also, here is a link to the Sipsey Street Irregulars website where this list appears:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html

Some very interesting comments here.




Hatha

SWRichmond
1st March 2014, 09:27 AM
"The State Police Special Licensing & Firearms Unit"

Interesting