-----Original Message-----From: georgemason1776@aol.comTo: kheidel@courant.comSent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:17 amSubject: re: A Modest Proposal responding to "State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook."re: "State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook."Your editorial board now wishes to respond to "gun violence" by . . . proposing more gun violence, only this time visited upon heretofore law-abiding citizens who wish only to be left alone with their liberty, property and lives intact under the Constitution and the rule of law. Instead, having prostituted that rule of law, the Courant proposes that someone "pay the price" for defying their benighted prohibition. "If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."Having delivered a speech on the steps of your state capitol last April on this very subject, I couldn't agree more. But the law I refer to is the ironclad, unappealable and unrepealable Law of Unintended Consequences. The Courant and the prohibitionist politicos who passed this law have written a check with their mouths that someone else's son or daughter, presumably the Connecticut State Police, will have to cash in blood -- their own or the designated victims of the Courant, but probably both. My Modest Proposal is that the Courant editorial board have the courage of their.convictions and lead the first raid parties.No doubt that experience will lead to a change in an editorial policy, one way or the other.Mike VanderboeghPO Box 926Pinson AL 35126
Sunday, February 16, 2014
My Letter to the Editor of the Hartford Courant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."
Well that is the whole point, something lickspittles and mandarin's, tyrants and their hired thugs can not fathom.
That there exists those who on the principles of their unalienable Liberty and by their virtue ARE prepared to face the consequences of not submitting nor bending their knee to these son of a bitches.
It is those imposing this intolerable act who aren't prepared to face the consequences.
Mr. Mike: It will never happen. Think about all of the shouting, self-righteous abolitionists during the War For Southern Independence. Did William Lloyd Garrison lead any charges up Little Round Top?
There is a Kurdish proverb that goes something like this: THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE TO FIGHT, ROAR LIKE LIONS.
The powerful Soviet army spent 10 years trying to defeat a cadre of mud hut dwellers in Afghanistan.
For all those who believe we will ultimately be disarmed; good luck with that idea.
The CT quandry: Try to enforce it and start the 2ndA civil war or, shut up and look like the inept idiots that you are.
Choices...
III/0317
Perfect! While we know they have not the courage of their conviction to embark on those raids, it remains to be seen if they even have the courage to print your letter. Hopefully they are literally getting thousands upon thousands of letters with exactly the same message.
With all this going on in Conn, and People Leaving that State, I almost feel like Moving There, with my Weapons, and Mags Just to get the Party Started!!!
330,000 people will fit in CT state prisons?
According to this:
http://ctmirror.org/connecticut-begins-close-wide-racial-and-ethnic-gaps-prison-population/
CT's prison population now is about 18k, 20k peak in 2008.
The Feds have 215k inmates currently.
330,000 armed people in Connecticut willing to defy an unconstitutional law, compared to 2,172,400 registered voters?
Think about that number and what it represents, beyond a living embodiment of the "tyranny of the majority" concept.
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/lib/sots/electionservices/registration_and_enrollment_stats/nov13re.pdf
Countenance, I got the same numbers you did, probably from the same page.
IF there are 330,000 "illegal rifles" in the state, and they all result in arrests and convictions, they'll need to raise their prison capacity by a factor of about twenty.
The average cost to house an inmate in Connecticut was $95 a day in 2011; it's likely higher now. Let's use $100 a day for convenience sake.
That's $330,000,000 a DAY to lock up just the new gun crimminals. I don't think Pam is good with math, or she wouldn't be so quick to want to lock up people who became criminals when an unconstitutional law was passed.
God forbid any of those guys decide to appropriately respond to armed home invasions. If only 1% choose to fight, there are 33,000 rifles going to be used against the agents of the state. Like i said earlier, I don't think math is Pam's strong suit.
I wouldn't bet that the state boys would do well if they started that fight.
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments,
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments,
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
33,000,000
Post a Comment