Protecting the Second Amendment - Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
 

As I read this thread over the past couple of days...I am simultaneously reminded of the striking and important title of this thread, the content of the influential, heartfelt and well written letter in the OP and the content of the recent OP-ED piece in the Hartford Courant which stands in stark contrast to both.

Thus, I do not read this thread as one calling for insurrection...unless, of course, you perhaps take the editorial board of the Hartford Courant at their word...

The editorial board of the Hartford Courant is calling for registration and prosecution...not of gang bangers or felons...but of otherwise law abiding folks - overwhelmingly good citizens - who became criminals overnight.

The passion illustrated in some posts in this thread strongly suggests just what is at stake...knowing full well that registration leads to confiscation...

We are undeniably in a clash of cultures - we are currently in the protest phase - protests may or may not succeed.

But, if the advocates for the 2A fail - make no mistake - those who advocate for the "fundamental transformation" of our great country...will succeed.

Molon Labe!

Its not the people who are in insurrection when they are standing up for their God-given rights. I believe it is oppressive government that is in insurrection.

Absolutely.

Oppressive government and many in the lap dog media are standing in opposition to the people and their unalienable right to self defense.

The insurrection, the escalation in rhetoric in CT is being fomented by folks who buy ink by the barrel against otherwise law abiding folks - who overwhelmingly just wanted to be left alone.

I'm sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I have read in awhile. I am sure people said the EXACT same thing to our founders.

And what was it, 100,000 said no to registering their "assault" rifles......

I think that's a "special kind of NO". I want to see the public officials that passed that "law" go and take away those evil rifles from those folks.

I think you mistake Thomas Jefferson for some sort of pacifist.

Thomas Jefferson, January 30, 1797: "....I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government....."

Jefferson, November 13, 1787:....God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. — You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers...."

Personally, I think your positions are too easily taken, as you have no skin in this game, so to speak.

TR

And I don't. Our electoral system is as corrupt as a Chicago politician. Why do they fight so hard to keep people from showing ID to vote? Elections are decided by 1-2% of the vote.

And why were they fighting? Because they felt that government didn't represent them. They were fighting to remove that government and to form one that would represent them.

Perhaps you should ask Bloomberg for your nuts back.

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. " - Thomas Jefferson

Why do you think he said that?

You can't have an "absolute tyranny" until the people are disarmed and can't fight back.

Pat

Ever hear of the 3% ?

To quote Josh Waitzkin in Searching for Bobby Fischer, "You've lost; you just don't know it yet." ;)

Pat

Goggle it - simple to find info but basically refers to the fact that the American Revolution was fought (by about 3% of the population) against the King with a number of patriots - far less than a number sufficient to "vote" him out of office...the phrase has taken on a modern life of its own - alluding to the perhaps small number of firearms owners not willing to ever surrender to oppressive governmental regulation of what many consider a God-given right.

The state of CT and the Hartford Courant are forcing a confrontation with a percent, perhaps even a small percent, of otherwise law abiding people willing to fight in defense of the Constitution.

I do hope that the State of CT does the right thing and repeals the registration requirement and that the Hartford Courant retracts their call for registration and prosecution of ordinary, law abiding citizens.

Anyway, don't drill too deep or you may miss the forest for the trees.

This thread is basically about protecting a right - long revered - and enshrined in the Constitution.

The most recent flurry of posting activity has been in relation to CT's hastily passed and ill-advised legislation requiring the registration of arms currently in everyday use.

The people of CT (or most of the people, who own such weapons - reportedly not an insubstantial number) in an act of defiance have spoken - peacefully - in a widespread act of civil disobedience.

In response, the "big" newspaper in town has essentially called for prosecution of otherwise law abiding folks who basically just wanted to be left alone.

The lines of conflict have been drawn. The sides are clear - and history has shown that registration leads to confiscation.

The state of CT and the Hartford Courant are forcing a confrontation with respect to supporters of the Second Amendment...otherwise law abiding citizens who became "criminals" overnight...can't you see the relationship between this situation, the current political environment and the quotes provided to you?

The state, the media and other enablers are poking the people in the eye...not to mention running afoul of the Consitution.

Tempers gonna run hot.

It comes down to whether you believe the Constitution is the supreme document that established and continues to be a guide for our country or if it is an old, outdated document written by and for old white men and is not relevent in the modern world. I know at least one of the SC justices thinks the later.

Read The Tempting of America by Judge Robert Bork and you will understand why the SC Justices believes the later.

As this thread's initial subject was the "Protecting the Second Amendment" letter, that letter and this discussion raise a question that I've been pondering here.

1,100 "current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers " signed that letter, and more certainly would have. Are the principles stated in the letter representative of the majority of currently serving SF personnel?

I think that SF soldiers would be more likely to make a career-ending stand on principle than the average troop, particularly in the officer and senior NCO ranks. But I don't know y'all intimately, and I do know human nature makes it much harder to make a decision like that.

3%'s "Mike Vanderboegh The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters"

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...-women-of.html

Supposedly this email was sent out to all the Connecticut State Police

This guy is very articulate.

Loser. ;)

You do realize that only 1% of Americans actually protect our nation.

I would never expect anything more from the 99%, why do you think we call them sheeple?

and approximately 0.04% with the highest ratio of effect (pun intended).


Dusty: LOL!

A couple of interesting articles on the topic.

"Dear Mr. Security Agent,

Federal, state, or local. You, the man or woman with the badge, the sworn LEO or FLEA and those who inhabit the many law enforcement niches in between and on all sides. This essay is directed to you, because in the end, how this turmoil about gun control turns out will depend largely upon your decisions and actions over the coming months and years.

I sincerely wish that members of Congress—who may soon be voting on new gun control measures—would read this essay, but I realize that’s a pipe dream, considering the impenetrable bubbles around those exalted entities. So I’ll settle for you, Mr. (or Ms.) Security Agent, since you already gobble up everything on the internet, and I don’t have to seek you out.

A decade ago I wrote the novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic, a tale about how tragic events involving the misuse of firearms can be used by an evil administration to misinform and mold public opinion to support its malign anti-freedom policies...."(cont. at link)

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpres...ecurity-agent/




"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...."(cont. at link)

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...-women-of.html

Very interesting reads.

TR

Paper Wins Gun-Permit Information Suit Against Putnam; Suit Filed Against Rockland
 

.

http://http://pearlriver.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/speak-out-putnam-county-clerks-call-to-action-pearlriver

Perfect example of the media intentionally making a tense dangerous situation worse. Its insane

scratching head, "and why do I keep renewing my permit in a state that doesn't require one?"

Those kind of acts garner trust and loyalty

It'll sell more papers (Advertising).
Of course they're going to stir the pot.

:munchin

Because, without one, you can't carry in other states.

Pat

Timing is everything and budget deficits mean something...
 

An interesting 2010 article describing one possible path for legislative pushback that might now get some legs in response to the registration, publication and eventual confiscation dynamic currently taking place in NY and CT.

"Enormous police effort that could be going directly toward reducing crime is instead being diverted into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent."

Constitutional Carry

The right to discreetly bear arms should not require government-issued permission slips.

It's time for "Freedom To Carry" to replace "Right To Carry"

http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarry.htm

You're right...

Looking forward to the day that the courts use a dictionary on the word "Bear" (the verb). Would sure hate to have to carry a bear around :D