Another prime candidate for the war crimes trials of 2017.
Michael Lawlor, Dannel Malloy's policy Eichmann when it comes to firearms.
John Mitchell: [on phone] You tell your publisher, tell Katie Graham she's gonna get her tit caught in a big wringer if that's published.
Ben Bradlee: [later] He really said that about Mrs. Graham?
Carl Bernstein: [nods]
Ben Bradlee: Well, I'd cut the words "her tit" and print it.
Carl Bernstein: Why?
Ben Bradlee: This is a family newspaper.
-- All the President's Men.
Late last night I had my Scotch-Irish temper genes aroused by a quote in this story: Connecticut Gun Control Law Sparks Lawsuit By Firearms Group
The quote? --
“You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested,” Lawlor added.
My instant reaction was this:
And you, you tyrannical asshole, are likely going to be shot in righteous self defense one day when you and your kind run up against someone who refuses to be victimized by your threat of state violence and you start a civil war in this country, discovering in the process -- to your terminal surprise -- that the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to you too.
Now that's pretty harsh and even though it is based on an if-then hypothetical there is no doubt that our petty tyrant Herr Lawlor would take it as a personal threat from me. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Given the fact that I am already under investigation by the state of Connecticut as a result of my actions and words last April as well as the Toys for Totalitarians campaign, I decided to sleep on it and see how I felt about it in the morning. And, I'm glad I did, because I decided to change it. Here's my new reaction:
And you, you tyrannical (DELETED), are likely going to be shot in righteous self defense one day when you and your kind run up against someone who refuses to be victimized by your threat of state violence and you start a civil war in this country, discovering in the process -- to your terminal surprise -- that the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to you too.
This is, after all, a family-friendly blog.
;-)
11 comments:
From the article: “There are going to be a lot of people on January 1st that will wake up and unknowingly be felons by the definition of the law. We want to make sure that people get this message loud and clear because we’re law abiding gun owners and we don’t want to give the other side any ammunition to use against us.” Sounds to me like "gun owners" need to get over the much ballyhooed label of "law abiding". on Another prime candidate for the war crimes trials of 2017.
I see a nice shiny target.
It's an oxymoron of contradictions in terms where how can you be a law abiding citizen when "the law" has nothing to do with the idea of rule of law and everything to do with rule of men.
It is a natural evolution from this intended trap of catch 22 of the convenience of turning everyone into a criminal or into a subject, or the prime directive of establishing all who defy such diktat, all who refuse to supplicate to such blatant tyranny, as the prime potential enemy of the state.
If those chief in the complex orchestration and application of this system of gotcha tag your a resistor are capable of understanding human nature to the extent they do to implement dictatorial measures, why do these actors have such a blind spot, or do they have a blind spot about the consequences of their targets having nothing left to loose but to resist with violent means?
Is because they are psychopaths?
Their ideology blinds them to the inevitability of defiance to themselves by those whom they desire to subjugate?
Can they really be so simply blind stupid and ignorant?
Or is it they hold a strategy where the ends justify any means to achieve the desired ends?
Or does the glaringly apparent hubris of these "elites" blind them to the unintended consequences of their tyranny?
I mean when the damn of civility and tolerance holding those who refuse to be subjects breaks, those who rise up against these acts of tyranny have had enough of this tyrant crap, there is no force capable of stopping them. You can't stop men who have everything to gain and nothing more valuable to fight back for than their ultimate principles and dignity of being Freemen.
No matter what the tyrants impose in order to deny people their vote, really their consent and grant of legitimacy to those doing the governing, each man still gets to vote, even if it is by casting lead at terminal velocity.
To me it is a most dangerous gambit the mandarin's are playing. These are some truly sick in the head individuals. They have a tiger by the tail and using it to rub a tempest in a teapot.
Just as there is obviously no shortage of those who will prostrate themselves to tyrannical edict and engineered social memes, there exists no small plurality of men who are very capable of, and obviously as tyranny descends upon them are increasingly desirous exacting comeuppance upon the objects and actors of trespasses on their Liberty.
Do these incredible fools who push us further into a corner grasp the inevitable consequences they are creating?
Once the damn breaks I believe their is no stopping events. What some say will be a second war independence is looking more like a war of extermination. Neither side is going to make nice this time and go home with their ball. The truth of it is neither can tolerate the others existence any longer.
Mike,
Your comment is harsh?
I'll tell you whats harsh.
Harsh is a few pompous assholes who decide your property and liberty now makes you a criminal.
They like harsh?
I think they are going to find out how harsh of their making can truly be.
FYI.
Michael P. Lawlor, 55-59 years old (he's actually 57). Note: No wife and kids - he's "openly gay."
203-469-9725
560 Silver Sands RdUnit 412East Haven, CT 06512-4658
http://www.switchboard.com/name/Michael-P-Lawlor/East-Haven-CT/4q96nv7
"Peaceable citizens" or perhaps better, "Peaceable men and women of good will". Except if said citizens, or men and women of good will respond with appropriate force in righteous self-defense, someone may accuse them of not being "peaceable"?
Many Fed agencies, state and local police Departments understand the "if-then hypothetical", but I've personally seem them try to ignore it, while building a case against a targeted person. (More than once.) Never bet your freedom on a hope that they will do the right thing. They won't. My recommendation is to get a Remington model 870,or an auto loading 1100, or 1187 shot gun. Buy a 10 shot extender magazine and Winchester Military Grade 00 buck ammo. (I prefer an auto loader as an 870 pump requires too much energy at my age.) Fully loaded, with one in the chamber, that's 99, .30 caliber projectiles, that can be launched at an adversary, in less than 10 seconds. This recommendation is to be used to back up your first amendment rights with the second amendment, in case those targeting you, do the wrong thing. Based on past experience, I expect they will.
from Sebastian Haffner's Germany: Jekyll and Hyde (1941) *
Section 5. The Disloyals.
However, there were some who perceived what was afoot. The Gestapo. As far back as 1937, Himmler declared in a confidential talk with high Reichswehr officers that, in the event of a war, he would have to occupy the "internal front" which would be just as dangerous as the external land, air and sea front, and that the SS Black Guards
would have to man this internal front, so they would not be available as
reinforcements on the external fronts, The number of trained soldiers that Himmler considered necessary for the home front at that time was 250,000. (To dot the i of this remarkable story, the stenographic report of these confessions that were uttered in the strictest confidence before a small group was three days later in the hands of an emigrant German committee in Prague.)
reprinted in 2005 in The German Library series #80, with Carl Zuckmayer's The
Devil's General . It may be catalogued in the 832s and not, as most WWII books arein the 940s or 943 for Germany. There's another reprint out also, but I don't have the details.
This reprint says it is "excerpted" from
the 1941 edition, but the only difference I can find is the omission of
a truncated paragraph at the end of Section 7 "Emigres"
I highly recommend both this and SH's
Defying Hitler, posthumously published about 1999.
Somewhat diagonally on topic here:
Our thinking is ususally constrained H two of the more obvious things, and these are certainly not the final horrific culmination)* Even today there are Nazis who are shocked and alarmed if this is pointed out to them,
Sebastian Haffner, Defying Hitler (c. 1999).
*SH is writing this c. 1939.
I highly recommend this and SH's
Germany: Jekyll and Hyde. His Ailing
Empire adds to his discussion of
the rise of the Nazis also
My last quote was truncated, probably by my efforts to format it. As I said,
diagonally on topic:
Our thinking is ususally constrained by a certain civilization in our outlook, in which the basics are unquestioned -- and so implicit that they are almost forgotten. Wehn we argued about certain opposites freedom and slavery, for example, or nationalism and humanism, or individualism and socialism -- the discussion always
respected certain Christian, humanistic, civilized principles as axiomatic. Even some of those who became Nazis atg this time did nor fully realize what they were
doing. They might think they stood for nationalism and socialism, were against the Jews, and for the pre-1914-1918 status quo, and many of thenm secretly looked forward
to a new public adventure, the repeat of 1923. Still they expected all that to take the humane forms usual in a civilized nation. Most of them would have been deeply shocked if one had suggested that what they really stood for were torture chambers and officially decreed pogroms (to name but two of the more obvious things, and these are certainly not the final horrific culmination)* Even today there are Nazis who are shocked and alarmed if this is pointed out to them.
Sebastian Haffner, Defying Hitler (c. 1999). *SH is writing this c. 1939.
surely not DELETED but REDACTED!
:-)
III
Post a Comment