The Bloody Crayon

Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars has posted a follow-up to his earlier accounts of the slow-motion civil war over the Second Amendment that is now unfolding in Connecticut.

For readers who are unfamiliar with what is happening in the Nutmeg State: The gun-grabbing governor Dannel Patrick “Dan” Malloy has just won re-election. Now that his continued tenure is assured for another four years, Gov. Malloy has announced his intention to enforce a law passed in the wake of the Newtown shootings last year that bans additional “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Gun owners who currently possess any of the now-banned weapons are required to register them, and the governor has promised to bring down the full force of the law upon them if they do not. Lovers of the Second Amendment tend to be an ornery bunch, and those in Connecticut are no exception. Thousands of them have declined to register their guns with the state government, saying, in effect: “Molon labe!”

That’s the background to Mike Vanderboegh’s latest essay on the crisis in Connecticut:

Yes to tell you the truth, if I thought you could possibly be innocent and stand unconvicted in the eye of Heaven, if you dropped your weapons and submitted to the late Bill for the alteration of the (English) Constitution, I would immediately change my voice and preach to you the long exploded doctrine of Non-resistance. But as an honest man and as a minister of Jesus Christ, as a servant of Heaven, I dare not do it. As a friend to righteousness, as a priest of the Lord who is under the Gospel Dispensation, I must say — The Priests blow the trumpets in Zion — stand fast — take the Helmet, Shield and Buckler and put on the Brigandine!

Arise! my injured countrymen! and plead even with the sword, the firelock and the bayonet, plead with your arms the birthrights of Englishmen, the dearly purchased legacy left you by your never — to — be — forgotten Ancestors. And, if God does not help, it will be because your Sins testify against you: otherwise you may be assured. But… let every single step taken in this most intricate affair be upon the defensive. God forbid that we should give our enemies the opportunity of saying justly that we have brought a civil war upon ourselves by the smallest offensive action. — Rev. William Emerson, 1775, speaking as pastor of the First Parish in Concord. He was also chaplain to the Provincial Congress when it met at Concord in October 1774, and is quoted in The Minutemen and Their World by Robert A. Gross.

Regular readers may recall that it has been my intention to write this part three of “Where to draw the line” since September. Each time I started, Churchill’s black dog came to rest on my keyboard once again and words failed me. Now, thanks to the threatened actions of state authorities in Connecticut and the trenchant observation of a good friend, that black dog has been chased howling from the room.

“Snick, snick.”

“If you haven’t declared it or registered it and you get caught … you’ll be a felon,” Mike Lawlor, Malloy’s so-called “gun czar,” said last year. “People who disregard the law are, among other things, jeopardizing their right to own firearms. If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen.”Three midterm votes point to potential shift in gun-rights battle

The CSM correspondent also writes in the same article:

The affirmation of the Malloy administration in Connecticut, especially, says Mr. Vanderboegh, raises new questions about what the returning governor is planning to do about gun owners who fail to register their semiautomatic rifles and large magazines under a new law signed by Governor Malloy last year. With Malloy back in office, “the noise that you’re hearing that’s drowning out GOP triumphalism is the ‘snick-snick’ of cleaning rods going through rifles,” Vanderboegh says.

After sharing that article with an old friend yesterday, he smiled this slow, bitter, rueful smile and said, “Well, Mike, you always are quoting Franklin about the prospect of being hung in morning. I guess this is it.”

That observation came back to me in the wee, insomniac hours of this morning. It struck me almost like a physical blow, this realization. Malloy and his anti-American toady Lawlor have just made things utterly simple for us. They have announced that they will be answering the question for us, this “Where to draw the line,” with their own tyrannical actions. Like heedless children playing a game they scarcely understand, they have declared their solution in bloody crayon upon the wall. They will draw the line for us. All we have to do is get ready and be prepared to respond to their offensive tyrannical violence with our own defensive measures. As I have written before, “Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves!”

The line has already been drawn. Malloy, Lawlor and Ron Pinciaro and all their sycophants in the collectivist media in CT who have demanded OUR liberty, OUR property and OUR blood on their editorial pages have drawn it and they are ready for their willing bully boys of the Connecticut State Police to cross over. THEY will be the ones to fire the first shots of the next civil war. THEY have demanded it. It didn’t, still doesn’t, have to be this way. As I all but begged Malloy previously, all he has to do is suspend enforcement of the Intolerable Act until the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality. And as I have pointed out many times, an unconstitutional law is void. Yet their appetites for our liberty, our property even at the cost of our lives, drives them on insatiably. Indeed, as I watched Malloy last night in his interview by Chris Matthews on MSNBC, visions of presidential sugarplums are dancing in his head. He should ask himself, what are the chances of being elected president AFTER he starts the next civil war with his policies. However, as Reverend Emerson (“a very bad subject of his majesty,” according to one British spy at the time) told his congregants: “But… let every single step taken in this most intricate affair be upon the defensive. God forbid that we should give our enemies the opportunity of saying justly that we have brought a civil war upon ourselves by the smallest offensive action.”

The British are marching out of Boston once again, although this time the road wends it way, by the choice of our would-be masters, through Connecticut. Get ready. A new Lexington and a new Concord Bridge beckon. By THEIR choice, not ours. The line has been drawn. By them. And they are preparing to cross it. Be ready. The choice, and the beginning, is theirs. The finishing, well, that will be up to us.

You know, the Reverend Emerson died in the service of his young country at the age of 33 on 20 October 1776. He gave everything for liberty. Some of us, if Malloy, Lawlor and Pinciaro get their way, will have to do so as well, never knowing the outcome. It is a trade that some of us had better be prepared to make. For they are coming. The line is drawn, by them. And they are fixing to cross it. What will you do when they do?

Note: Parts One and Two of “Where to draw the line?” can be found here and here.

18 thoughts on “The Bloody Crayon

  1. If more Brits had spoken like this Rotherham and the Moslem invasion of England would have never happened.

    SCOTUS will come down on the 2nd side of these patriots and the Malloys of this nation will have to try something else (and be smacked down again).

  2. Although there is no evidence that Ben Franklin said it, as is commonly believed, this adage is nevertheless uncommonly perceptive:

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

    It’s inconceivable to me how the citizenry of countries like the UK and Australia let itself be disarmed so docilely, or Holland, Flanders etc.– countries that had a very long long tradition of middle class yeomanry, not just knights-on-horseback as was common in the Catholic countries.

    Our inability to learn from history provides evidence over a long lifetime that humanity is condemned to Sisyphus’s fate: always rolling the boulder up the mountain slope until it reaches the peak, then to slip from grasp and roll back to the bottom, the whole process to be repeated again and again, ad infinitum.

    • Australians are not disarmed. What occurred after the Port Arthur massacre (35 dead) in 1996 became a national movement in shaming gun owners across the country by the hysterical Collective and its sycophantic media along with politicians too cowardly to put common sense above the hysterics and far too willing to make criminals out of ordinary law abiding firearms owners.

      What has occurred since that time is that all semi-automatic long and short arms are now banned except upon special permit – but of course that has not stopped the real criminals from possessing them without said and supposedly sensible, safeguards. Citizens have been limited to legally owning bolt action long arms and revolvers, but must register their firearms within their state registries – which by the way, are now compromised in that information of who has what and where it is kept, is now given out or sold to criminal gangs or those Muslims looking to the future, by firearm registry employees. (Muslims?)

      All firearms must be stored in a safe and ammunition stored in a separate area, which is open for inspection at any time by police. It’s draconian and stupid and puts the onus on the firearm holder to have all weaponry stored as required by law and infractions are subject to confiscation and heavy fines or jail time.

      An amnesty was declared after Port Arthur whereby citizens could hand in their weaponry. As a cop back then I can tell you that the firearms handed over to me were ancient rusted relics in most cases and at no time during that amnesty, or later into my service, did I ever enter into the Miscellaneous Property Book any semi-autos, long or short firearms, except from deceased estates! That is not saying of course that many were not handed in at other police stations all around the country, but I know as fact that there are still many thousands of semi-autos out there hidden by their legitimate owners who were prepared to be made criminals overnight rather than surrender what was lawfully theirs to purchase and to legitimately use, by a bunch of spooked, controlling and fickle state and federal politicians.

      Around 650,000 firearms were handed in during the gun buy back scheme or amnesty, the majority of which were not semi -auto firearms. It has been estimated that prior to Port Arthur there were over two million semi-automatic long and short firearms then legally owned by Australians. Do the math. Australians have not been disarmed.

      • Thank you for this clarification. Indeed, based on the Australians I’ve known personally, I have found it hard to believe that Oz men would just give in, but I hadn’t read anything to the contrary.

        BTW, I understand that a law has just been proposed (and accepted?) in the UK giving police the power to enter the home of any registered gun owner, at any time and unannounced, to check whether the gun is stored as prescribed by the relevant laws — which means disabled and unavailable for quick response when needed. That is one of the penultimate nails in the coffin of British liberty….

        • Indeed! Weaponry is not much use in defensive terms when locked up while an armed burglar is climbing through your window at 2:00 am and the police are minutes away when every second counts!

          Maybe a few of the law makers should experience what it is like to be unarmed and confronted by an intruder at any time of the day and who has not been invited for tea and bikkies!

          I think the test of that law you mention would be the shooting of an intruder by a gun owner who has been spooked enough to start leaving a loaded weapon on his bedside table for such an eventuality.

          Commonwealth countries not having a second amendment are subject to the whims and fancies of the law makers and the lobbyists/activists when it comes to gun laws and who may possess and use them, and as a result of that interference into personal liberty, the lawyer gains a prominence rarely seen outside of those countries whenever firearms are employed for self-defence purposes.

          Because the politicians could not allow the citizenry to openly use firearms as a self-defence measure in appropriate situations, such as home invasions, which thankfully, are still few in number on an annual basis, at least in this country, the courtroom lawyer now gets to dissect in minute detail and to the nth degree those incidents of self-defence where police have decided to charge the last man standing with manslaughter or murder.

          ‘Reasonable force’ has become the mantra in court cases where those who have stood their ground while threatened with their own death do some killing of their own. What unfolds in a matter of minutes or even seconds from an incident where some one has been deliberately killed gets to be expanded into months, or in some cases, years for the lawyer to explore every possible aspect of human behaviour by individuals who were unlucky enough to be put into a position where they were forced to fight for their very survival or that of their loved ones.

          And while criminal codes clearly state that everyone has a right to defend themselves, their family and their property, it is the law makers and the lawyers who get to determine who they persecute because they cannot abide the fact that self-defence also entails having the means to self-defence being at hand and not locked away in a safe somewhere for when the time arrives to use them.

  3. Don’t write us Brits off so easily. Cameron and his cronies are doing a fine job in
    winding up the Anglo-Saxons. Have you read their latest anti-free speech proposals?
    The Metroponces may feel that the population are quelled but they only see the city.
    From where I am anger is brewing as it is across Europe. War is coming and it won’t be with Russia……

    These arrogant, smarmy PC ‘liberals’ have a particular talent in getting people riled.

  4. I have been watching this unfold. Obviously many thousands reject the gun grabbers illegal gun grabbing legislation. The ball is now in the court of the gun grabbers and it will be by their hand that adverse reactions will ensue if and when they decide to enforce their illegal law. Interesting times!

    • Please don’t use those last two words…they undo the gravitas of your comment. We have been cursed by the Chinese with that phrase…if they *really* did ever say it, or if they dangled it in front of us so we could repeat it ad infinitum…

      Have mercy, por favor.

      • Hello Dymphna. Those two words were not intended to ‘lighten up’ the situation that is becoming ever so apparent in Connecticut because some people in power believe in their own stupidity. If the powers that be decide to enforce their ill thought out legislation no one at that instant will be able to predict the outcome – now that I do find interesting, because when the ball is kicked no one can predict where it will land nor what the opposing players will follow through with.

        Inevitable tough times are ahead, tough, but interesting. Maybe this Malloy fella will be the one to kick it off?

  5. In the hands of the right people, guns are life savers, but how do we guarantee that the right people own them? Either we promote universal gun ownership and try to filter out the wicked and insane, or we ban guns altogether. Since we, especially our government, are so imperfect in our ability to make such distinctions, perhaps it would be better if all guns were banned. Let’s ban all private ownership of guns, because our public guardians cannot be trusted to do the impossible.
    The rash of random gun slayings in America demands a repeal of the second amendment, a law enacted in the days of muskets and squirrel hunters and ill adapted to today’s weapons of personal mass destruction.

    • You want guarantees?!!!

      Well, lets ban cars and trucks. And kitchen knives. And football. And hockey. And burgers. And soda drinks. And swimming in the sea. And skiing. And skydiving. And sexually transmitted diseases. And, of course, wicked and insane people.

      There you have it!!! Your perfect world!

        • And none of the folks I know who possess firearms have any inclination to become “wicked and insane” to the point where they will rush out and kill people.
          Do I have to once again put into words the fact that inanimate obects have no will to do harm. Add this to the fact indicated above and it will be only the “wicked and insane” who will maintain their will to do harm and they will most certainly retain possession of the means to do this.
          As for automobile “accidents,” in my opinion this word is fundamentally misused in many cases. Various psychoses are at work on our roads and thus many “accidents” are caused by both deliberate negligence and/or a will to cause harm. You may question this; to my knowledge this situation has not been researched.
          Oh – and you forgot to mention kitchen knives. A few months ago, a young “chap” in Alberta, ran amok at a party and killed 5 youngsters – with a kitchen knife. A very effective weapon if you have the intent to do something “wicked and insane”.

          • I’m sure that the people you know are fine, as far as you know. As for me, I go by what that great Italian-American entrepreneur, Big Al Capone, once said: “Never trust nobody”. To that I would add: especially when they’ve got a gun.

    • If the first part of your handle is eponymous, you’ll find this counterpoint of interest: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/kristal.htm

      Furthermore, note that if firearms are made illegal, the only ones left with firearms are the criminals — or the Muslims. I’ve noticed that in some recent Muz guns attacks on Jewish targets in Europe, automatic AK-47s were used. There is no way one can source such a weapon in Western Europe, legally or illegally. So there must be some underground smuggling channel from one of the Muslim countries….

    • Well lets not be really really really stupid and ban all guns just when Islam’s tic-toc minions are getting up to speed across America and Europe. The rash of random Muslim slayings is increasing across the water board. This is not a “muskets and squirrels” scenario. Its a real war. Whether we like it or not the Muslims are out to do what Muslims do. Nice guys definitely go first. In WW2 it was all over for the nice guys before it began.
      Reply ↓

    • The 2nd Amendment is the final guarantor of the rest of the Bill of Rights. It is the final bulwark against a tyrannical government. And it is a right, a G-d given right, for every man or woman to defend himself. A gun is a valuable tool that, like any other tool, can be misused by someone who is careless or is of evil intent. Why should the overwhelming majority of us law-abiding people lose our right to bear arms because of the misdeeds of some? Which other tools would you also like to ban? And please explain why those cities with the most draconian gun-control laws also have the highest gun violence?

    • It may interest you to learn that guns come second or third in line for unwanted death and injury. Motor vehicles, drugs and knives are the predominant medium in unwanted deaths and some really serious injuries.

      Hysterical, therefore irrational reaction to unwanted deaths clouds the real issue as to why those deaths occurred. The many shootings within mainly ‘gun controlled’ areas of the United States, such as schools and cinemas, when looked at methodically and logically and without the hysterics so often used to ‘muddy the waters’ by gun control political activists will reveal many other issues, both political and personal that are raised but then sidelined by the more political and hysterical with an agenda to fulfil – that of gun control and the destruction of the second amendment which has been constantly attacked for many decades.

      Number one issue should be the person who becomes the shooter, but who is generally written off by the agenda driven as a ‘nutter’ or a ‘lone wolf’, and not what type of weapon he did the shooting with. There is generally no thorough and determined investigation for why the shooter would do such a thing, because there is no real probing into the shooters background, for instance; what kind of upbringing he had or what type of medication he was on and what was his mental condition at the time of the shooting and why was in such a state – and generally speaking, when one delves into the often vaguely reported or deliberately confused backgrounds of the individual shooters, one comes to a conclusion that mind altering drugs playa a significant role in the life of nearly all the shooters.

      Guns are inanimate objects that become lethal in the hands of those who intend to use them for offensive or defensive means and like a motor vehicle or knife, cannot kill as an inanimate object because they are only the medium to bring about the killing. Banning any thing must be obvious to most by now that the banning of whatever has absolutely no affect on the banned item’s availability.

Comments are closed.