Quote of the day—enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim

Of course it’s going to be a long uphill battle to disarm you dumb fucks. Start with shutting down gun stores, then use a buyback program, then anyone caught with a gun after the buyback expires goes to jail.

enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim
Tweeted on November 22, 2018

No apparent concern for the Constitution. No apparent concern for the development of a black market. No apparent concern for the the ethics of the forced confiscation of property from people who have harmed no one. No apparent concern about the potential for the backlash to affect him directly.

And he thinks we are dumb.—Joe]


26 thoughts on “Quote of the day—enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim

  1. Of course, the use of a gun on a person such as this would strengthen their arguments.

    Have to use a bat.

      • It’s just as disgusting when you speak about beating and lynching them for their opinions as when they advocate summary execution for your gun ownership. When they threaten to execute us for ownership of an object, they give us the reason to resist tyrannical confiscation. When you threaten to execute them for expressing opinions – including heinous opinions – you give them the reason to attempt tyrannical confiscation.

        • I agree. I don’t think that we have an effective strategy to respond to these kinds of statements and responding taunt for taunt does not seem effective.

          Sadly, what these numerous comments suggest to me is that defending our personal liberties are a very serious business with failure leading to dire consequences.

          So what can we do?

          Perhaps we need to promote more sanctuaries. As individuals, we only have one on one influence, but a community, like Republic, WA, may prove to be more effective (even on a national level since it is newsworthy). And especially so if other communities follow.

        • I disagree.
          I am of the mind of the late Mike Vanderboegh who wrote in an email to a disarmer:


          I was once asked by a citizen disarmament advocate such as yourself what I thought of “gun control.” As I began, he interrupted and said, “Give me the short answer.” I thought for a moment and then said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”

          Or course, you’ll note that is a ‘reactive’ not ‘proactive’ response.
          This can be done in a quiet ‘civil’ manner, or as pointedly as necessary.
          In any case, it needs to made clear that everyone in “in it now, up to your neck”. 4th Generation Warfare Rules of Engagement will apply if they want to get sporty about it.
          If that seems blunt, it is. It’s meant to be, so that there will be no misunderstanding.

          When someone uses their ‘rights’ to opine that other people’s individual rights, liberties and freedoms, especially those that are enumerated within our Constitution need to be violated by the same government that the Constitution restricts from doing so, they need to understand that they have the right to say it, but they don’t have the right to be immune to the consequences.
          So, maybe the best thing for their future happiness is to sit down and STFU about the subject.

          Of course sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander, but if someone attempts to throw any ‘consequences’ my way, they’d better violate their disarmament principles and come heavily armed.

          If that appears inflammatory, it isn’t. It’s simply a warning just like a rattlesnake’s.

          • Sorry Drew and Chet, but Miles is right!

            I want to live a peaceful, respectful, lawful, and productive existence. Then along comes some dumbass who ignores the Constitution and threatens me with imprisonment (backed by the full might and violence of the state) if I do not capitulate.

            My response is reactive as noted above and it promises to include more violence than they can stomach, if they proceed. I will not start a war, but I will finish it victoriously.

            “Only my enemy wants me disarmed” is a good slogan that separates real Americans from tyrants.

          • What I object to are taunts. I do not object to warning statements. They can be very effective.

        • I never advocated not having a go-button. Everyone should have a clearly defined one.

          Literally what was being discussed above was the best weapon to harm the anti-gun person without strengthening their argument in opposition of gun ownership. One suggested a bludgeoning weapon (a bat), the other suggested a lynching weapon in colloquial language. Both are brutal, lethal devices. The implication was not “if you attempt to violate my rights you will trigger my predetermined go-switch and I will counter you with righteous violence”. The topic was exactly how best to beat/kill the person for their opinion without supporting their argument. That is disgusting. It’s exactly the same kind of things they say to us and then we all comment about how inappropriately violent and emotionally unstable those people are.

          • If I saw a group of my gun owning friends extrajudicially bludgeoning and lynching a person simply for expressing an opinion (even as disgusting of an opinion as Alison Aires’ “civilized society”) I would be obligated to shoot my friends – the gun owners – until they stopped attempting to extrajudicially torture and murder the anti-gun person. I read the Sipsey Street Irregulars every day while Vanderboegh was alive and I don’t recall him ever advocating violating the several other provisions of the bill of rights by murdering people for expressing disagreeable or distasteful opinions.

          • To be clear: if your Civil War II go-button kill everyone switch is a moron like “@NormaltonJim” posting some stupid shit on the internet then you are a fucking idiot. You’re probably more of a danger to society than most paroled felons, and your family should take immediate steps to disarm you before you harm yourself or others.

        • That’s right. Keep turning the other cheek. Perhaps even bend over if that’s your thing.

          • Okay then go start killing people, pussy. If you think it’s really civil war go time right now because of some stupid shit you read from twitter then go give ‘er.

          • Drew,

            If you make me an enemy of the State, I will treat you as an enemy of the people.

            That is just the way it will be.

          • Gerry – get to killing then, Killer. You’re no defender of freedom; you’re the same as Alison Aires.

  2. Of course it’s going to be a long uphill battle to curb you dumb loud mouthed fucks. Start with shutting down newspapers and magazines, move on to radio and TV, then use a buyback program, then anyone caught with a newsprint or a radio/TV after the buyback expires goes to jail.

    I wonder how they’d feel if the shoe were on the other foot … Just sayin’. Because it isn’t too far from one to the other!

    • But the Dark Side wants all of that; a disarmed public, exclusively state-run media, and all the rest, and so there simply is no “other foot” on which to place the shoe. One can either proclaim the perfect law of liberty, being not a forgetful hearer thereof but a doer of the works, thus leaving any violations of it to the Dark Side only, or join in the fray and inadvertently feed the problem in ways never imagined.

      Individual operatives, sleeper cells of one, pawns, like “enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim” are at some level itching to become martyrs for the Babylonian system. Blatant victimhood is their most sought and cherished state of being, as, in their minds, it vindicates their hatred and judgement and their need for power over others. It’s a kind of self-reinforcing spiral– Anger leads to lust for coercive power, lust for coercive power leads to frustration and more anger, anger seeks justification in victimhood, justified anger is seen as strength and as a vindication of all the former. “Ka-Boom”

      It seems many self-proclaimed libertarians have a similar storm brewing in the brain.

      As for putting such pawns as “enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim” on a list; don’t bother. Once that system takes over it immediately begins purging its own, especially those idealogical believers, and most especially those idealogical believers who helped the system the most because they then pose the greater threat to the real power brokers.

      The worst thing that could happen to someone like “enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim” would be for him to get his way completely. His masters, whom he served so faithfully and so diligently, would put him up against the wall.

      He’d be screaming, “Wait! There’s obviously some mistake! Contact Comrade so-and-so; he’ll tell you I served The Cause faithfully and diligently…!”

      People like “enemy of the state‏ @NormaltonJim” die in confusion and dispare, often never realizing that the singular purpose, of that glorious system which they serve so faithfully and so diligently, is to destroy them.

      • That helps us how exatly? That will happen only after we have lost. I thought the goal was to never get to that point.

        • That future is psychological warfare tactics.

          Using their own febrile imaginations to implant that scenario in their minds can be extrapolated from SunTzu’s Art Of War.
          The goal being to so unnerve them, they decide to never “get to that point” by instructing their ignorance.

  3. Well, I tend to think that we should let them, in the spirit of the first amendment, opine all they wish.

    It’s when they make a move against the enumerated rights of, not JUST the second amendment, but ANY of the articles of the constitution or the constitutional amendments without following the procedures laid out within the constitution, that we should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    Alas, we’ve been lax in doing so and now they believe they are exempt from the law.

  4. And he goes by ‘enemy of the state?’ Sounds like the state is all he worships.

  5. The very scary thing on BOTH sides is the feeling that “The second felony is free”. After one commits a homicide, no greater punishment can be visited on the perpetrator for subsequent homicides.
    Think about this.

Comments are closed.