Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Friday, February 7, 2014

If you try to take our guns, we will kill you! - (Inserting snorts of derision here)

Not one more inch!!

~ RAHRAHRAH!!  Wolverines!!

No more free Wacos!!

~ Rah...rah - wolver...

No Fort Sumters!!

~ rah...

If you try to take our guns, we will kill you! (or we'll just buy your carry permit...)


California confiscating firearms with armed raids, teams consist of California LEO and FedGov DOJ LEO.  Story is here. (Found this at AngryMike's place, here)

Fucking hypocrites.

Patriots: Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Don't be that guy.  Don't be the douche who promises Shock & Awe, then pretends he doesn't see the guys dancing all over his line in the sand because he's a fucking coward.

The moment you draw a line in the sand and fail to enforce it, you lose all credibility.  If you continue to stand with such people, you lose respect.  That sort of behavior stains us all.

Firearms are being confiscated by .gov in armed raids, and we've been reporting on that for months.

Not one gun owner has defended himself in California.  Not one OathKeeper has stepped up.  Not one militia in California has done a thing about this topic.  Not one Patriot has gone to California to intercede.  Hell, I haven't even seen one Open Letter on a blog directed at men who actually have the balls to carry out their threats and confiscate guns.  Seen lotsa Open Letters, though...

On the bright side, a Texas Grand Jury nullified .gov attempts to prosecute a guy who defended himself in a no-knock on his home and killed one of the home invaders - I mean LEO.  Good on ya, Texans.  Let's hope this spreads. (Story here)

Man up, or for the love of all that is... - just STFU.



  1. I beg to differ. Those groups that were mentioned in the article all agree that "they better not try that over here".

    1. I'm sorry - can you expand your thought a bit?

  2. First I've heard of it. Do we ride?

    1. Ride? Not me. California has a handful of people I will come to help if they ever get jacked up, but as far as being a Green suitable for throwing a punch it leaves a LOT to be desired. I think our California allies only have a real shot once the rest of the country is engaged and unable to send reinforcements for Pelosi's People.

      Chuck: Pick your time and place. Wasting yourself before the Ground is ready is a loss FreeFor can't afford. The coming Games will be won only by timing and effective use of limited resources. Wait for it. ;)

    2. Seems to me that who and what are more important than where.

      Alan once asked about this sort of "meet," on this very blog. Maybe on the spot, maybe at the courthouse or maybe in the public square, but there shouldn't be a soul who thinks this won't have to be stopped at some point, one way or the other.

      "The Cavalry HAS arrived; go look in the mirror"---a brilliant comment from WRSA.

      There's strategy and tactics too, of course, but I wouldn't pretend to be either strategist or tactician...at least not in this context. But most of all, I wouldn't pretend that I can decide such matters for anyone else.

      That's not merely an ethical principle, though it is one for me. More importantly, it's a plain identification and it applies to every human alive, whether they admit it or not. Nobody CAN decide such matters for anyone else.

  3. Hmmm, this cuts close. I'm ashamed that we haven't responded appropriately.

    1. "I'm ashamed that we haven't responded appropriately."

      Can't happen. A person can only be ashamed of what he himself is responsible for, and for what he does or doesn't do. I doubt you're responsible for anything in this case, all things considered.

      This is fundamental in this battle, for it's what Liberty is all about---placing responsibility where it properly belongs. It's also why Obama is so perfect for the opposing position. He not only acknowledges no personal responsibility, he hasn't the slightest clue of what it is. Never did.

      Unfortunately, that's also why the sheeple love him.

    2. Jim said "placing responsibility where it properly belongs". That's the ultimate key.

      My very serious question is how high does the responsibility for the initiation of violence go? Bloomberg spends millions of dollars supporting individuals and organizations that have the clearly stated goal of disarming us - forcibly if necessary.

      Does the non aggression principle mean that since he isn't personally doing the dirty work that any aggression against him would be wrong? How do you decide what level of action and responsibility crosses that line to a morally justified self defense response?


    3. "How do you decide..."

      All that really matters, VJ, is the recognition that it's just that...a decision and nothing else. A choice. You're really asking, "What SHOULD a person decide..." That's a great question to be sure, but in the end each person is going to decide however they do...about anything.

      There was an interesting discussion on the zerogov forum about whether fraud is a "violation" of the NAP. My point was that it doesn't matter...which is lucky because it's not!

      Hey, abiding or not abiding the NAP is just another choice, and we'll each do it, or not, as we decide. Finally, this goes to why egoism is so critical, because without it there's no solid foundation to abide the NAP. As we see.

  4. California is a lost cause, owned and operated by communists my entire life, the only “green” here is on a golf course or at the “medical” pot stores.There are patriots here who will stand when needed, most are working an exit strategy, all better have a contingeny plan, a list, etc. you know, nuff said. Pick your battles wisely, but be ready to fight always.
    Richard R Deaver

  5. Any LEO that steps into my house uninvited will be shot right back out the door. I will not back down and no quarter will be given.
    No gun confiscations in my area so far but it's a matter of time.

  6. The CA gun confiscations are a 'gray area' to me, they are taking arms from people who have become "prohibited persons" under the law.
    They have expanded the list of people who can't have firearms so maybe people have been burned by that.

    The problem I'm having is that I don't know who exactly they are taking the guns from, and what they did to 'deserve it', as far as I'm concerned, someone who has done the time and paid their debt to society so to speak should have all their rights restored.
    If they are taking guns from nut jobs like Jared Loughtner (sp?), the sandy hook kid or other people like that, I'll have a hard time justifying going to war over it, especially in a lost state like CA.

    I think the real trigger will be when they kill or confiscate from someone who is "above reproach", and my understanding is, that's not who they are taking arms from right now. They are being careful and trying to chip away at it.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.