It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order: ‘We Are Armed… Familiar With Marksmanship

page: 15
84
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The only 'cult' relevant to this topic is the gun-fearing, responsibility-denying cult of modern Progressivism.

Ironically, there is some truth in the condescending diatribe of your last post. The first ten amendments are explicitly protected from negation by further amendments. It, in fact, is the duty of every man to disobey unjust (unconstitutional) laws, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Many Americans are defensive of their 2nd amendment rights. Unlike you, they recognize that a free society affords its citizens the right to self-defense, and that the only long-term deterrent to tyranny (domestic OR foreign) is an armed populace.
edit on 3-3-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

DJW001
It is obvious that there is a Cult of The Second Amendment. Its Holy Text is eleven words long: "The right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed." These eleven words may not be contextualized, nor may they be interpreted in any but the most rigid and orthodox way. If any part of the Constitution disagrees with the Orthodoxy, that part of the Constitution is to be ignored. This Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Amendment gives individuals the right, even duty, to overthrow a duly elected government by force of arms. It ignores the apparatus established in the Constitution for determining the constitutionality of a law, and awards it directly to individuals, who may act freely upon their conclusions without recourse to consequences.

As in any cult, there is a promise of impending global change. In the UFO Forum, the adherents of that cult announce the impending Disclosure, in which the Government will reveal the Truth about Extra-terrestrials. This Disclosure has been trumpeted as imminent for decades, and has never arrived, nor shall it. In the Cult of the Second Amendment, the day will come when All The Guns Will Be Seized. All 350 million of them. Presumably over-night, like some sort of dark Rapture.

Not everyone who has made arguments here are fully initiated members of this cult. Some of you, particularly navydoc, are grounded in history and make rational arguments. All too many of you, though, seem to be hypnotized, repeating the same eleven words over and over again. All too many of you can scarcely conceal the fact that you harbor dreams of insurrection. That is why you cannot understand how ill conceived the letter in the OP was.


Yes, everyone else is wrong, and you are correct.

The only people who need to "interpret" the Constitution are those who are incapable of understanding it's text. Those people are the same who wish to change its meaning. You seem to be a member of that particular cult.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

vkey08


To the other poster that thinks the 2nd Amendment says you can have a rocket launcher, it certainly does not cover that.. in any way shape manner or form..


Of course you dont think something you support is a violation lol.

Actually the 2nd Amendment does include rocket launchers. In our form of government, all power is derived from we, the people. Since the government has the "authority" to own rocket launchers, that power was given to them from....you guessed it, we the people. The same way you cannot give away a car that isn't yours, We The People, cannot delegate a power we ourselves do not already have.

WHat compelling reason is there for the government to maintain a registry of who owns what guns?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Gryphon66

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Excepting laws that are unjust.

Yes, i know i am not in CT.


So then, your argument is that each individual can decide for themselves at any moment which laws are just and unjust and act accordingly?

Where is that in the Constitution (either of the US or of Connecticut?)



It comes in when a jury can do just that. This is one of the arrows in the quiver that you have to safeguard against tyranny.

P



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




7. Nearly every law that has been challenged on the basis of the Second Amendment has been struck down.


And yet the unconstitutional "laws" just keep coming don't they. Admit it, the "Hope and Changers" want the US to become just like the socialist EU with the gun laws of the UK.



Given the above, why the threats against lawmakers?


Think of it as a proactive warning.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

DJW001
1. The United States Constitution does not allow laws that stand in contradiction to it to stand.


CT may have the right to institute these sorts of things. That is a 10th amendment issue.



2. The Constitution provides a means by which the constitutionality of a law can be settled.


It actually provides a few. The 2nd Amendment is one of them.



3. This process involves filing a lawsuit that brings the law before the Supreme Court of the United States.


Not very accessible as a process for the average US citizen, now is it.



4. Until such law is overturned, it stands.
5. It is not for an individual citizen to pick and choose which laws or parts of the Constitution they wish to obey.


As mentioned to Gryphon above, you cannot separate constitutionalism from civil disobedience. It is a lynchpin of the US constitutional system.



6. If you feel that a specific law potentially violates one of your rights, you have the ability to file a lawsuit.


See above, re: accessibility.



7. Nearly every law that has been challenged on the basis of the Second Amendment has been struck down.

Given the above, why the threats against lawmakers?


Some call it a threat, others call it a warning. I personally wish no ill will towards anyone who feels the same about me.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Given the above, why the threats against lawmakers?


1) The Civil War. For what the war cost every slave could have been compensated for a lifetime and every slave owner could have been repaid any lost investments, with no deaths. Slavery would have ended in an economic death about then anyway.

2) World War One. "the blow that hurled the modern world on its course of self-destruction" --Jacques Barzun
Lawmakers wanted it.

3) the Great Depression. Claiming to know how to prevent depressions, the Federal Reserve System jiggered the currency until no investor or entrepreneur knew where to put his money. The Federal Reserve was made by lawmakers.

4) the Great Depression. Claiming Hoover's profligate spending to be fascist, FDR campaigned on sound fiscal policy. After elected, FDR expanded every program Hoover tried, and prolonged the Great Depression across an entire generation.

5) The NAZIs assumed power legally

6) the lawmakers gave China to the Communists

7) the lawmakers paid gambling loser banks enough money to buy everything in the world 10 times over.

8) lawmakers say "We have to pass it to see what's in it"



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


So many victims of the grand illusion and master plan , most don't even know it, think about it, once you become a potential felon, for not turning in certain weapons and magazines they deem illegal you do become a criminal that they will need to apprehend and detain, they can take any means to confiscate the weapons, so it's not a matter of numbers or anything like that will put fear in the people that are behind it or the shadow government no one has seen or their armies, once threats start being made towards the government, you do become a terrorist and please believe they will come for you, not just your guns but your person using all available means.

The bait was cast and they know who will take it, hook, line and sinker, no one will be a match for armored personnel carriers and tanks, dragon skin, body armored troops and federal para military trained to remove the hooks from the fish who take the bait, 3 million who have weapons but more than likely most of them are soft bodies that talk a good game and will only go so far and most of them probably do not even own the illegal assault weapons or magazines anyhow, what is to be feared are hardcore gun owners whose idea of manhood is owning an arsenal when they can honestly at the most fire one (if that) , maybe 2 weapons at a time what will 5 or even 500 guns do for you honestly except buy you a little time on your little island , bunker or basement, the government is betting that they will fold and quickly gather their guns when these various federal officers, paramilitary show up at their residence in full gear and force to remove any illegal firearms, I imagine that these operations will resemble drug raids so of course there will be casualties.


It is really sad to think this is going to happen, but it looks more reality than myth at this point.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


They cannot do 3 million raids at one time with a force of 1500 officers. The first wave of raids happens, and its all over. Anyone with a weapon will hide it. Maybe half would give them up...but that is still 1.5mil weapons.

And anyone looking for a fight will then move to CT. They will attract every militiaman just itching for a confrontation. It would have been such a nice state before those kinds of folks showed up.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
If Push comes to shove, then I don't see this amounting to nothing more than a Waco style siege
edit on 3/3/2014 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I do not reckon that it will be police officers who will be knocking, after Oklahoma City, I do believe for all purposes, militias were neutered, they are a non force to be reckoned with, and if so they have been infiltrated already and targeted especially any of these groups that remained intact after 911, they probably showed up on the radar for the feds along with any Islamic extremists so of course they have files on them and eyeballs as well, they are in check.


edit on 3-3-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

bluesman1955
reply to post by oblvion
 


Me too I was trained on the M1 ABRAMS,M16A1,M1911,HAND GRENADES ETC.
LMAO


I know right, this guy is a bag of cats. His mentality is at best a sh1t storm of ill repute.

Like they would ever let us own everything we are "properly trained" on.

M1A2 main battle tank huh? Ya that beast makes my 100 lbs bullets look worthless. She is a true beast of burden when warfare calls for heavy lifting.

Ya tankers are all the same, your always jealous of the artillery, because artillery men do it with a bigger bang, and the gun line gets "laid" every morning in the field.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Great. Now the Second Amendment Cult and the UFO Cult are cross pollinating. That was probably the plan all along.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


And anyone looking for a fight will then move to CT. They will attract every militiaman just itching for a confrontation. It would have been such a nice state before those kinds of folks showed up.


Nice imaginative realistic extrapolation.

Don't bring your cell phone. Or a car made since 2000 or so.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   


We are the militia the second amendment warned them about.



These are the tools used to keep the republic free.



Yellow or Orange it depends on who you ask and where they live. CT is Yellow and it could be Red in short order.



We have the 2A for a reason.



Right to carry in 1986.



Right to carry in 2011.

We were moving in the right direction and crime as a whole is down from its peak in the 1990's (except for those crimes that are committed by the Government of course0.

We do not want to see this:



Or this.



Or this.



The truth is:



You have the right to own any firearm the US military has. Miller V. US



They some how forgot...



This group of people have pushed ideas that show their lack of common sense.



They cannot understand more guns in the hands of more citizens equals less crime.





Owning firearms also deters other crimes as well.



"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson

Form your teams:



Stock up and invest in:



And make them TAKE IT!







Stand at the ready patriots. Duty may come calling.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

DJW001

TiedDestructor
reply to post by DJW001
 


Of course they wouldn't report banned firearms as stolen. We are referring to legal possession and theft....


Then why is reporting that they are legally owned and not yet stolen a problem?


Simply put: i do not want to. Why is THAT a problem?


I dont think he understands that Texans dont do tyranny very well. I guess freedom is not a concept some folks can understand.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Excepting laws that are unjust.

Yes, i know i am not in CT.


Nope your in Texas, we dont have to worry about this crap!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Just a beautiful post in all aspects!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Civil disobedience is the underpinning of our constitution, the declaration of independance, and the magna carta. Our nation was founded on an act of civil disobedience. The 2nd amendment has been directly linked to protecting our right to civil disobedience by ensuring that we can fight a tyrannical government.

The better question would be to ask where in our constitution acts of civil disobedience are not supported. Civil disobedience and constitutionalism go hand in hand.
edit on 3/3/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


I'm aware of some of your position on Civil Disobedience from our previous conversations.

However, last time I checked, the Magna Carta was mostly concessions from King John to the nobility. I'll reread.

The basis of our Constitution is a set of political compromises that enabled a small number of colony-states to work together and form a larger Union AND take a place on the world-stage. If it were not for the United part of States, the world would be a far different place.

Besides that, you deflected the question. We're not talking about standing up to "tyranny" here ... the question is about the State of Connecticut passing a law in line with its Constitution and the will of its People. Not all the People, perhaps, but thats a compromise we all make to live in a society.

The law limits the sale of a certain range of weapons, not ALL weapons. Have you read the law? I just did. It's a lot of hullabaloo.

The law requires owners to register their weapons, which probably should have happened in the first place.

No guns will be taken away, not even these high-powered, high-velocity, huge magazined killing machines that no one, including the armies they were made for, really need. They are certainly not needed for personal defense or militia duty.

The question I put to you again is ... does each member of society get to decide which laws, rules, regulations, etc. they will honor? What about the social contract? What about the duties of citizenship? What about self-responsibility? What about the public trust and general welfare? What about morality and ethics for that matter?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


I couldn't pull enough stars out of the sky to give them to your post.


It gave me chills.

Proud to be an American!!!



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join