Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Another country heard from (again). The Government Monopoly of Violence advocates of CSGV (Collectivists Supporting Government Violence) call us traitors and urge their followers to "smoke out the insurrectionists."

We are indebted to Robert Farago for the pointing out this tweet from the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."
"Smoke out the insurrectionists who dominate the pro-gun movement. And call them what they are: Traitors who r preparing 4 war w/ our gov't."
Of course, I figure prominently in the CSGV list of "insurrectionists" and "traitors."
They really do believe, and have enunciated their beliefs many times, that the federal government should retain a monopoly of violence , thus contradicting the Founders' original intent of the Second Amendment.
Souvenir photo of a German Einsatzgruppen advocate of a government monopoly of violence. The hand-written note on the back of the photo says, "Ukraine 1942, Jewish Aktion, Ivangorod".
As Kurt Hofmann has written, "Forget 'gun control'; CSGV represents 'genocide enablement lobby'." And Kurt has their own words to back it up:
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) most starkly exemplifies this way of thinking, with their insistence on a "government monopoly on force," which executive director Josh Horwitz claims is "the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States." In support of that assertion, Horwitz cites Max Weber, whose Article 48 was absolutely indispensable in Hitler's rise to power. Interesting choice of influences, CSGV.
Blogger Miguel, of Gun Free Zone, recently caught CSGV taking their twisted philosophy to its logical extreme, and tracked this Twitter exchange, in which gun rights advocate LC Scotty asked CSGV if rounding up a minority group for the concentration camps would not justify armed resistance:
So govt rounding up citizens based on relig/ethnic id would not warrant armd resistance if courts bless as constitutional
CSGV's astounding response:
Correct. As long as the Const. is functioning as our system of gov't, there are peaceful methods for redress.
Keep in mind, by the way, that CSGV would have us take the government's word on whether or not it was complying with the Constitution. In other words, according to CSGV, there can never be any justification for armed resistance, as long as the government makes a token effort to toss a flimsy veneer of Constitutional legitimacy over its excesses.
So these are the people who call US "traitors" to the Constitution. They're from another country, all right -- I just can't figure out if it's Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
More advocates of a government monopoly of violence. Warsaw Ghetto, 1943.


Judegment Comes said...

The photographs are a perfect stark reminder...Gut wrenching.

LC Scotty said...

Funny thing-after that exchange they blocked me from their twitter feed. Life's been pretty boring for me since...

Anonymous said...

I wish you guys would get a tweet button. This stuff is important and can be widely shared with via twitter. Please look into it. thx.

Anonymous said...

Our government was founded by people who actually anticipated the need for the citizen to go to war against those who violate their oath to the Constitution.

Federalist No. 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."

Part 2 to follow

Anonymous said...

Part 2

Federalist No. 46:

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter."

Again, Federalist No. 46:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

theaton said...

I'll make this as easy to understand as possible. If the government attempts to take my rights and all avenues of grievance resolution fail, It is my duty to kill them. That does not make me a traitor. That makes me a free citizen.


Anonymous said...

The country that they're from is the country that they envision; a combination of all of the worst.

Anonymous said... 'Nuff said

Anonymous said...

Read their enemies list, they have the FRC Chick fila sandwhich shooter as part of "insurrectionist violence"