Saturday, April 6, 2013

Summoning up the shade of King George III

A.B. Stoddard says that if the federal Frankenstein isn't dead, he sure isn't feeling too well: Gun control may have to wait.
Perhaps. But the victories grabbed by the citizen disarmament collectivists in the various states are an immediate disaster -- miniature intolerable acts that must be confronted in each venue. Lawsuits are threatened by the usual suspects (SAF, NRA, NSSF) but will they achieve even injunctions before someone (or a whole lot of someones) gets killed resisting these unconstitutional abominations? I doubt it. As I wrote a Connecticut reporter very early this morning:
What I would be curious to know is how these legislators are going to react when people begin to flout the laws that they have passed. As a long-time advocate of the Founder's concept of the armed citizenry . . . there are a number of people in Connecticut who have approached me about utilizing the tactics of armed civil disobedience -- as exemplified by the Deacons for Defense and Justice in the 60s and the Black Panthers in the 70s -- later in the year. That is, gathering together and, in front of the press, deliberately violating the law on standard capacity magazine sales for example. The events in Connecticut would be part of a national campaign, including Colorado, New York, Maryland, Connecticut and California and, of course, whatever new federal restrictions are passed. There are a number of people in this country who have sworn to defy any new restrictions on our traditional, God-given and inalienable rights to liberty and property.
And when we defy these laws, we will be inviting the authorities of Connecticut and other states to send in the uniformed bully boys to work their will upon us. Only we will not submit meekly. What then will they do? How many of us are they willing to see dead to enforce such unconstitutional laws? How many will be enough? A hundred? A thousand? How many do they wish to imprison? How many lives of heretofore honest citizens are they willing to wreck? These are the questions I would like to see posed to your state legislators and your governor. Just because someone succeeds in passing an intolerable act doesn't mean they will like the unintended consequences of that tyranny under color of law. Just ask King George III, if you can summon up his shade.

12 comments:

WarriorClass III said...

I always thought that David Ikes was crazy, but that picture of King George III makes me reconsider the reptillian race concept.

Mt Top Patriot said...



It is not like they haven't been warned.

Anonymous said...

You all need to see this and I couldn't figure out where else to put it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/mar/31/anti-drone-hoodie-big-brother

Maybe Dutchman6 could work up a "praxis" on defeating/impairing various forms of surveillance.

Duane Doutel said...

I posed exactly these questions to the entire legislature, prior to passage of SB 1160; not one bothered to reply. Big surprise, huh? Look here for my take on the whole thing. http://liarcop.com/sb-1160.aspx

Anonymous said...

"What then will they do? How many of us are they willing to see dead to enforce such unconstitutional laws? How many will be enough? A hundred? A thousand? How many do they wish to imprison? How many lives of heretofore honest citizens are they willing to wreck?"

In plain language, as many as it takes. Remember, they consider anyone who does not agree with them to be non-persons and deserving of elimination. Besides, none of those incidents will be considered "newsworthy" by the national media so the rest of us will most likely near hear of it. Unless a particular incident happens to occur in the city in which we live we will likely never hear about it. Even if a story WERE to appear, it would be spun in such a way as to make the rank-and-file believe that the citizens only got what they deserved.

With the press so in cahoots with the administration there can be on "Boston Massacre", only a series of "Ft Sumter" incidents. When the administration's whores start screeching about how "the constitution is not a suicide pact", you can take it to the bank that the fecal material is mere millimeters from the wind machine. I expect that the general public will be screaming to the administration for a declaration of martial law and e're long they will get what they asked for and Dear Leader will be hailed as the savior of his country even as he sweeps away the last vestiges of the Founders' republic.

ebola131 said...

Mt Top,
They don't believe anyone will flout their "laws" openly....
and they certainly don't believe we will fight them for our rights.
God help them...and us.
III/0317

True Blue said...

If they cannot or will not enforce immigration laws, I see no other law as being enforcable, or worth respect.

Mt Top Patriot said...

Ebola131,

I think it defined as Hubris.

You know, before the fall...

Mt Top Patriot said...

Mike,
That was very well said.

Bravo!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a more apt comparison would be Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (AKA Caligula) who was fond of quoting a line from a play by Accius: "Oderint dum metuant." In English it is often translated as: "Let them hate (me), so long as they fear (me)!"

TimeHasCome said...

The Liberals have shot themselves in the foot . How many Congresscritters will not be re-elected in 2014 ? How many Town Halls will not be done because the elect elite fear their subject ?

Anonymous said...


I had the misfortune of living in MD for around a decade, and I can tell you that the LEOs there will literally be fighting each other to go after anyone who stands up to the law there. You know those sheriffs out West who pledge to not enforce unconstitutional laws? Imagine the opposite.