Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fight fire WITH FIRE - A NATIONAL TRAITOR DATABASE

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Boogaloo, Mar 3, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boogaloo

    Boogaloo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    I had this idea about a year ago when the newspaper in new york published the names and address of gun owners through an online map. Remember that one?

    I started talking about the idea with a friend of mine who is much more capable than I am when it comes to databases, and how to grow, manage and host them over seas so they would be virtually untouchable, but also so that the database would copy itself on a regular basis for back up purposes, so that it would always be available somewhere online.

    I mentioned the idea to a few other friends who also thought it was a fantastic way to fight fire with fire, and put these renegade politicians on notice that the NSA is not the only tool in the tool shed. WE THE PEOPLE have tools at our disposal to keep THEM in check as well.

    Well, it seems a guy in Connecticut has beaten me to the punch, at least on a smaller scale than I originally envisioned.

    Check this out:

    http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/2nd-amendment-2/retaliation-home-addresses-ct-legislators-voted-favor-gun-registration-posted-patriot-activist/

    What if people banded together on a massive scale, and started feeding a database with the names, addresses, phone numbers, businesses owned by, frequented by, schools attended by, cars owned by etc. etc. etc. of these politicians that are doing nothing but devouring the second amendment (basically the entire constitution) and spitting it out their back sides?

    It would not take a whole lot of effort really. If a few people in each district of their respective states, started asking around, doing a little research and collecting data. The database would start to grow in fairly short order. No politician would be immune from the database. That goes for senators, congressmen/women, mayors, LEO, school board members, EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL who has a hand in making policy should be accounted for. ALL OF THEM.

    Imagine the possibilities.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  2. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    For such a small state, they sure seem to have a lot of lawmakers on his list and on the public payroll
     
  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    The list at the link is the product of an armchair hawk named Vanderboegh. One would do well not to emulate or follow Vanderboegh.

    The OP included a link to the names and addresses of CT politicians who voted for gun control. What happens if, God forbid, some mental case reads the list and attacks a CT legislator?
     
  4. Boogaloo

    Boogaloo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    As quoted from another site I posted this too:

    "This is actually what the Founding Fathers intended. Elected officials were supposed to be members of the community who everyone knew. So if some government official did something stupid, next time he went to town to buy feed for his horses the townspeople would recognize him and have ample opportunity to personally express their opinions. The isolation, anonymity, personal protection details, and distance from those they rule over only enables arrogance and tyrannical behavior from those individuals in question".

    I wholeheartedly agree with this persons response. I also feel that if these legislators are going to ignore the constitution, while they attempt to create some fantasy Marxist utopia, then they will also be subject to the actions of the people they rule over.

    Fear is a good motivator, and will perhaps keep some of these outlaw legislators in check.

    My position is that the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly of force, power, or fear.
     
  5. utbrowningman

    utbrowningman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Utah
    Looking at the list, it seems strange to me that not one address was longer than 3 numbers. Why is that?

    Okay, looked at it again, one address has 4 numbers. Still odd.
     
  6. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,518
    Location:
    Central PA
    That would be awful, of course, both for them and for us.

    However, that's a risk every public person takes on when they accept the office.

    There is no expectation of privacy when you're an elected official, so publishing their names and contact information is not an untoward move.

    We should be careful about expressing hopes that they "fear," though. They should "fear" the public in the metaphorical sense -- as in, have respect for the feelings and wishes of. Not dread or live IN FEAR OF.

    I'm going to assume that's what was intended in post 4.
     
  7. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,798
    I also agree, in part, to the principle of the project; it's really no more nefarious in construction than a contact list, from the sound of it. Despite the bold, scary talk, that's really all there will ever be to it, since any activity beyond gathering publicly available info will rightly be classified as an invasion of their person (just because they seek to do the same to us, doesn't mean it's right or even productive).

    As far as the 'potential risks of crazies;' perhaps we'd be better served by leaders brave enough to stand before us, than by those who are merely the loudest. Time was our leaders felt some of the same worry uncontrollable forces, that we do about their increasingly arbitrary governance. Perhaps then we could strike a balance with them. So as juvenile as the project seems (and is) it is at least acting through one of the remaining legitimate means we have to impact abusive officials. Anything to stave off rails, tar, and lamp posts for a worse time. And perhaps our leaders wouldn't attract so many crazies if they didn't work so hard to grab the limelight and piss off normal folks (which translates into more 'unhealthy' behavior from unbalanced folks)

    That said...

    Cease and Desist and/or tax audit in 5, 4, 3, ...

    TCB
     
  8. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,568
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    Guess you've never been to CT? It's all twee little suburban roads. None of the elect live on Rural Routes or anything so declasse, don'cha know.
     
  9. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,053
    As opposed to when some media outlet publishes the address of someone with a firearm or carry license? Private citizens put and forced into the public eye for political leverage is a far cry from a public figure, voting against constituents to push gun control is a big difference to me.

    The way I see it, this is the absolute NICEST thing that could have been done in retaliation against them. The rest still may come. Politicians worry about their next election or poll numbers if they aren't up for another term. If you vote for an unpopular or unfounded bill (gun control) you can bet you are setting up for career suicide. Politicians also fear repeal of their laws in the courts which would set precedent for other gun control bills to be thrown out. Publishing their name/address on a blog that won't be picked up by a major outlet means they are unlikely to face physical harm.
     
  10. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,637
    Location:
    Utah
    I like it.
     
  11. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,562
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    I don't think you understand the meaning of traitor.

    Federal lawmakers certainly have the legal ability and obligation to change the Constitution as is needed. That is how we got the Bill of Rights in the first place.
     
  12. Jlr2267

    Jlr2267 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,209
    Location:
    South Carolina
    There is a process for amending the Constitution. These folks are not following it.
     
  13. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,568
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    Congress may propose amendment of the Constitution. Proposed amendments, passed by a two thirds majority of House an Senate require ratification by 38 of the 50 States to be approved. Further, such amendments may be proposed by Constitutional Convention called for by two thirds of the States.

    The passage and enforcement of laws that violate the Constitution or that de facto amend the Constitution without having adhered to the Constitutionally required process outlined above might reasonably be deemed Treason by the Courts or Congress.
     
  14. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    Not loyality oaths again?!:uhoh:
     
  15. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Location:
    Rural Kentucky, surrounded by Amish
    Treason has a specific legal meaning.

     
  16. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,290
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    While I do agree that labeling them traitors is beyond the true scope of the word, they HAVE earned suspicion and disdain. Publishing their names, addresses and such is fine with me. Put a little of the heat back on them that has been forced on gun owners.

    As far as some sort of targeting, that would be unfortunate. No sarcasm intended. But no more unfortunate than conservative politicians, public figures and private citizens being targeted for their beliefs and personal convictions.
     
  17. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,562
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    Then it is a matter for the Supreme Court, isn't it!

    "de facto amend the Constitution" as determined by ????

    This process started with our founding fathers with the militia acts that required gun ownership, so if there is a list of traitors, then you have to put them at the top of it. It is not longer a right to keep and bear arms if it is mandated that you must do so. Gun control goes 2 ways.

    Sorry, but these feel good measures are rather pointless and they don't actually accomplish anything constructive that actually works toward the goal of resolving the problem that is perceived.

    Okay, so you make a list of virtually every politician who passes laws and a few others that are just opinionated or whatever that you think are "traitors" and then what? You think being on a list is scary to them? LOL. They are already on lists. Many are on lots of lists already. You think it is going to make on iota of difference? You think these people are embarrassed and that putting their name on your list will matter? Many are proud of how they voted. It isn't like the information isn't already public record, right? So what have you really accomplished in compiling a list?

    Of course such lists have been started and around on and off for a while. Did they have an impact on you? They didn't take much effort to assemble. What did they change? From last year, for example, another "traitor" list...

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/List-Of-Traitors.htm#.UxXMBk7naM8

    Maybe the folks at this website, "Nation of Traitors to the Constitution" will host the list for you? You can see they are making a huge impact.
    http://nationoftraitors.wordpress.com/

    Making a list is not fighting fire with fire. How politicians vote is public record and they have public profiles and publicly known homes and addresses and you aren't outing them like we perceive CCW holders to be outed when their information is legally made public.

    Bottom line, you won't be accomplishing what you think/want to be accomplishing. You certainly aren't going to get dramatic change from minimal effort. That is certain.

    Imagine a Rainbow. They both feel good, but they don't accomplish anything. The big question is that if you think this is such a great idea, then why do you come to us suggesting we imagine the possibilities instead of coming to us with this purportedly easy to accomplish listing and showing us what good it is doing? Imagineering happens at Disney. You need to be about action.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  18. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,568
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    Double naught,

    You seem a little shaky on this whole Constitution thing regardless of your views on the so-called traitor list. The operative clause reads as follows: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Given that the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 (Miller) that effectively those firearms in common use were those that might be kept and born, the Supreme Court has ruled on Constitutionality (and yes, there were semi auto rifles in common use at that time). Recent rulings relative to DC (Heller) and Chicago (McDonald) have found that banning entire classes of firearms is indeed unconstitutional.

    As to the use or impact of the list, if such lists are so ineffective why are they often used by pressure groups seeking to impose transparency? Is this a bold act that will force repeal of the law? No. Is it action in full accord with our democratic traditions? Yes.

    So, sit back. Read. Learn a little. Back off the aggressive but uninformed verbiage. Enjoy.
     
  19. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,542
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I have often thought about an idea writing a book someday called "Who Took Away Your Rights?" . I don't have time to write a book, a website would be better.

    It would name names. It would list all the anti-gun politicians, anti-gun groups, anti-gun celebrities and personalities responsible for taking away your gun rights. It would list the all the parties responsible for writing, sponsoring and spearheading the bill through the process including who signed it into law. It would be an expose of all the people involved who voted to take away your second amendment rights.

    Someone could just start a website with that theme and we could just add to it. We would get more views than if we sold it as a book and it could be updated at will. But I strongly suggest that if someone decides to run with this.

    Keep the title "Who Took Away Your Rights?"

    I think it is a very strong statement as that title will cut across many sectors besides the pro-gun movement. It might even win some people to our side as well.


    .
     
  20. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,562
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    People do things over an over that they think will be effective when they won't be, LOL. The notion of "pressuring" politicians by putting them on this list is laughable. That would be like a bunch of democrats "pressuring" pro-gun legislators for voting pro-gun and calling them traitors for it. You think that will make the pro-gun legislators change their ways or something...especially when they are proud to be pro-gun? Nope.

    So you admit that won't accomplish a change in the law? So it is a feel good endeavor as I noted, one that is destined to not actually accomplish anything truly useful to our cause, but instead take up time and resources.

    However, go ahead, prove me wrong. Remake this "traitor list" yet again and see how much good it does like the previous endeavors. Why you haven't got it up and running already is beyond me, LOL.

    So you compile the list. What then? Is it going to be on a website? Who is going to go look at the website? Maybe somebody will spend a bunch of money and pay to run the list in newspapers and put on billboards? Not likely to happen.

    So tell me how this list is supposed to actually accomplish anything useful to us. After all, it isn't like the people on the list don't know they are voting against guns, LOL. In fact, many make that part of their platforms!
     
  21. Boogaloo

    Boogaloo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    I looked at every link you provided, and did not see an address, or reference to any business interest the individuals on their "list" had, nor any specific information relating to the individual other than their name.

    That makes for a anemic list at best, and would explain your propensity for rainbows or whatever other "fantasy island" remedy you eluded to in your replies.

    I am talking about a detailed list that exposes their world to the same scrutiny they require we the people adhere to.

    P.S. I changed the title of the original post, because I think the word "traitor" is a bit dramatic, and not necessarily appropriate.
     
  22. Frostbite

    Frostbite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Québec
    Intimidation?

    I am not much into intimidation. I believe one should be careful to respect the privacy of others in order to protect his own. That being said, I fully agree that you should be politically active regarding the defence of your rights. We lost such a battle on the subject of firearms here in Canada and many regret that they did not get more involved when it was still time to speak up. An emotional debate led to more restrictive, costly and controlling firearms related laws that have not saved any life to my personal and usually well informed knowledge. When asked about the usefulness of such laws, police representatives say it is better to know if a home has firearms inside it before they go in when they have to. When I asked police officers in my family if they should not always act as if everybody had a weapon since most criminals did not register their weapons nor bought them legally, they answered it would be the prudent way to go. So, if the prudent way to go is to assume everybody has a firearm, what usefulness is there in creating such a register in the first place? Keep up fighting for your rights, but keep in mind that you can do it while respecting those who think differently. Is that not what the democracy we all want to protect is all about? Vote for the people who think like you and who act accordingly. Express your opinions publicly. Meet your representatives and speak to them. Do not threaten people or even have them feel threatened, convince them: it has more desirable and longer lasting effects!
     
  23. TRX

    TRX Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    967
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Aaron Zelman used to keep lists like that, back when JFPO ran on a dial-in BBS. I guess I thought most of the gun organizations would have such lists prominent on their web sites now.
     
  24. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,562
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    LOL, you are still at the "imagine the possibilities" stage which means you have nothing but a fantasy at this point and you are not even sure what will come of your efforts. Come back when you have your list and let's see what you are doing with it and the influence it is having. After all, it won't take much effort, right?

    So why haven't you done it? You have been thinking about this for a year now and still have nothing to show for it. I would have thought that such a list that wouldn't require much effort that you would be hosting overseas would be long done by now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014
  25. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    The identities of politicians who vote for gun control are not classified. Most anti-gun politicians believe very passionately that their stance is the right one. The vast majority of anti-gun politicians will never change their minds on the issue.

    Most anti-gun politicians are supported by the majority of their constituents. Anti-gunners get elected and re-elected because their constituents either want gun control or gun rights are not on their agendas.

    In states like CA, CT, MA, MD and NJ it's difficult for a pro-gunner to get elected to the state legislature or the US congress.

    Threats and intimidations do not deter sincere politicians.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page