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

reply to post by Gryphon66


I fully understand and am aware of your position. I do not think we will ever find agreement on this issue...we haven't yet.

I am a "personal responsibility" libertarian. You are not. Remember, I have an uncle with similar views as you, for similar reasons. And I understand that.

But every single time I think about the fact that the human is the only animal that is forced into this social contract, and that must pay tolls to the authority just for the honor of being allowed to live.....it get a sinking feeling in my stomach. I am afraid of leaving that as a legacy to my grandchildren.

I don't want my progeny to be like stock animals for our dear overlords.

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?

Why not? Our own president gets to pick and choose. Our DoJ and Attorney General picks and chooses and tells all the States' Attorneys General that they can pick and choose. It doesn't seem to matter to them what the implications are for any of those questions you listed.

Not only that but states can only pass laws where they do not conflict with the COTUS. This law conflicts with the COTUS, and it will eventually likely be ruled that way given the recent history of firearms case rulings at SCOTUS. However, if everyone happily complies in the meantime, those who lose their own property over it will not be made whole afterward, and the gun confiscation lobby scores a win albeit only a partial one.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'm really not trying merely to bait you, BFT. My question is the real question that has always been at the very root-basis of our governmental system. If you haven't, go read the Federalist Papers. Read Madison. These are not new questions. The compromise that is the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) WAS a compromise, is a compromise and will be a compromise. It's not going to suit everyone.

But if anyone really cares about it, they should read the many different drafts sent back and forth between the House and Senate. The idea of a "contientious objector" was a big part of the 2nd until the very last edit ... I find that incredibly ironic in light of current events.

The funniest thing to me in all this is that the Framers were far, far more worried about a standing army than they were the loss of individual guns. If they saw what has happened in the last 200 years, what our military has become, they would be appalled and horrified to a man. The militia, guaranteed in the 2nd, was a CIVIL DUTY. We were all to keep and bear arms so that we could fight off invaders, and put down rebellions.

The whole Constitution is a compromise between central and diffuse political power for that matter. What I see around me is that we've forgotten how to compromise. My way, or the highway. Greed is good.

What lies on the other side of anarchy? You believe in a wonderland of personal responsibility. I take a dimmer view.

Keep your head down when the bullets start flyin' BFT.

reply to post by Gryphon66


if it helps, i am a staunch opponent of the armed forces. I can't say I support any service member, other than I want them all home alive, in one piece, and hopefully in good mental order. Its atrocious what we do to our own youth.

When i was a kid I was pretty gung ho about the military. Funny what a few years, and children of your own, will do to your views on that.

I think when the bullets start flying, it won't happen in Texas. Well, except maybe Austin. LOL

reply to post by Gryphon66

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?

Which society? The ideal society?

Each free will must decide what he will do.

reply to post by vkey08

As long as you can still legally own the weapon, having to register it is NOT infringement.

Yes it is. You place restrictions on a privilege, not a right. That is the fundamental difference between the two. A privilege can have restrictions, a right cannot.

Having restrictions on being able to shoot 500 rounds a minute is NOT infringement.

Yes it is. For the same reason as above.

Also, this ties into the ridiculous word-games that lawyers like to play. We have the right to bear arms. A fully-automatic AR15 is an arm as defined by the 2nd amendment. Some lawyer wanted to make a distinction, so the term "firearm" was coined as a way to create loopholes. Look up the 18th century definition of the word arm in relation to weapons.

It's painfully obvious nobody has actually read the law in question. The law as written only states that you MUST REGISTER your weapons of a particular class with the State of CT, and if you FAIL to REGISTER then they can if they so choose, confiscate that weapon for the FAILURE TO REGISTER.

There should be no "class distinction" for weapons, and there should be no registration, and people are right for fighting it.

reply to post by Gryphon66

The militia, guaranteed in the 2nd, was a CIVIL DUTY. We were all to keep and bear arms so that we could fight off invaders, and put down rebellions.

Exactly.

People used to receive protection from lords and monarchs, but, what do you do with people with no King? If you are going to be self-governing, then you have to also accept some of the responsibility that only lords and Kings were privy to.

You cannot have the benefit of self-governance without the burden of responsibility that comes with it.

So when it comes to defending your life, your family, your rights, your community, and your nation--why should someone else fight in your place?

There should have never been a distinction in the United states between a "civilian" and "soldier."

reply to post by Gryphon66

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

You're absolutely right.

Rosa Parks should have just obeyed the law and moved to the back of the bus.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

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

You're absolutely right.

Rosa Parks should have just obeyed the law and moved to the back of the bus.

That's not the issue. Why not let thieves steal what they want? After all, the Dredd Scott case was decided wrong. No-one has any legal right to property, so you have no legal basis to stop a thief from taking your property. Or do I misunderstand your logic?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


" If soldiers ever begin to think for themselves,
there will be none left in the ranks."

Ferdinand The Great

reply to post by randyvs


"poor dumb animals" - henry kissinger

reply to post by Danbones


Ptah! Put that in you're coffee.

"poor dumb animals" - henry kissinger

Damn! That's just hard brother.

DJW001
It is obvious that there is a Cult of The Second Amendment.

There's a cult for the whole Bill of Rights. I find more reason, common sense and intelligence based in our founding documents than any other writings ever penned by the hand of man.

You may call it a cult but it does have religious roots because it enumerates the rights given to us at birth by our creator. Agnostics have problems with this part because to them it seems irrational to believe in a creator and instead believe the highest moral authority is man himself. What man creates, men can change.

Ascribing our rights to our creator places that final authority outside ourselves and makes it eternal. This is why socialism and communism are agnostic and fiercely anti-religious because they want to be the highest authority among men.

Call it a cult because there are those who feel freedom and liberty should be eternal, inflexible and unchanging. Those are the same characteristics given to God, are they not? The Constitution was written by some very wise men who understood that anything left to man to choose will change with the political winds. They wanted America to be founded on principles that could never change, thereby ensuring that same freedom for every generation to follow.

It's not just our freedom to own firearms at stake here, it is the freedoms of everyone to think, write, say whatever they feel is right. The freedom to own a means of protecting not only our persons but our liberties. To be secure in our persons and belongings to be free from random searches, the right to a trial by jury. The right to due process, the system of representative government and lastly the limitation of power given by the states to the Federal government.

Without the 2nd Amendment it has no real protection, it gives the citizen the power to protect all their rights and those of their fellow man. It took guns to free us from the grasp of England and will require them again to restore all our rights endowed to us by our creator.

If that makes me a cult member, fine.

vor78

Semicollegiate
If the second amendment was about the militia it would have been included in the section dealing with the commander-in-chief.

I'm still trying to figure out why Congress would need to protect its right to raise a militia when it already had the right to raise and support armies granted in Article 1 Section 8.

Oh well, such are the great mysteries of life and liberal thought processes, I suppose.

Because the Founding Fathers were opposed to standing armies. Congress was supposed to raise, train, fund a standing army only in the time of war. The states with their "militias" were supposed to answer the call first and the federal army was to answer it second. This was the intent of having military grade weapons allowed to the citizens and being prepared. Though with the expansion of the U.S. and the several wars since its founding, the federal government seen it fit to form a standing army. This created the Dick Act which allowed state militias to be federalized and deployed. No longer were there any soldiers for Title 32 use (use by the governors)when they were activated by federal authority Title 10. Which again left the states without its own "organized militias" and defenseless from invasion of enemy forces. This in turn where the State Defense Forces which cannot be federalized and are always under Title 32 orders. If you look at any states Constitution (usually)under DMVA you should see where each state (all are allowed them) that enacts a SDF they will be listed as the "organized militia" along with Army and Air National Guards. This will list all other (men typically) not serving in active duty, the NG or SDF's as the unorganized militia.

Sorry not to derail but this does in part go to the main topic on this thread.

Grim

Danbones
reply to post by randyvs

 

"poor dumb animals" - henry kissinger

Shows what Kissinger knew about animals.
Nothing apparently.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Now, since you seem to be capable of thinking, do you feel that the letter in the OP was an appropriate response, or, do you feel as I do, that it is actually counter-productive?

So because he doesn't live here in the US he can't understand the Constitution?

*blink*

I understand it all too well and I do not consider this a violation, an infringement OR a "gun grab" it's registration pure simple and to the point. The day they come and take it, then we can talk infringement, until then, it's a bunch of angry rhetoric that is going to get someone killed.

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..

And you would be wrong.

The 2A is and always will be the (and as it was INTENDED) the balance of power of the governed (We the People) to balance the power base to the states and the federal government. 2A was written with the intent for the people to have a balance of power and to get the government from a monopoly of force. So yes if they had those weapon systems in place then yes it would have included those. When any government has a monopoly of force it ends badly for the citizens. And yes registration is an infringement to anyones right. Look at what happened in the UK and Australia, and Nazi Germany, heck look anywhere in history where there was registration, there was ALWAYS confiscation. So yes you would be wrong on all accounts of that.

Grim

reply to post by Asktheanimals


However, when someone advocates taking that right out of context and starts telling people to use legislators and their families as target practice, doesn't that nullify their right in this situation? You don't have the right to kill someone based simply upon your dislike of their actions.. much less stalk and threaten their families, which is what's happening here in CT now..

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Agnostics have problems with this part because to them it seems irrational to believe in a creator and instead believe the highest moral authority is man himself.

I agree that collectivists tend to deny free will and personal, responsible independence.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Diests though. They may have thought that Man was the highest moral authority. Maybe they had to think that, or else there could be no break from the Divine King. (as a matter of fact, many historians say that the colonists wanted to remain English citizens, with their due rights respected, for years into the war.)

A mixture of philosophy and economics, such as the Austrian School of Economics, supports a world view of liberty and morality, with or without god.

What man creates, men can change.

I agree with that.

Human nature, over a short series of generations, cannot be changed. Good philosophy and economics takes that as a given.

Bad philosophy and economics always use morality to make people fit into the system.

Grimmley

So because he doesn't live here in the US he can't understand the Constitution?

*blink*

I understand it all too well and I do not consider this a violation, an infringement OR a "gun grab" it's registration pure simple and to the point. The day they come and take it, then we can talk infringement, until then, it's a bunch of angry rhetoric that is going to get someone killed.

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..

And you would be wrong.

The 2A is and always will be the (and as it was INTENDED) the balance of power of the governed (We the People) to balance the power base to the states and the federal government. 2A was written with the intent for the people to have a balance of power and to get the government from a monopoly of force. So yes if they had those weapon systems in place then yes it would have included those. When any government has a monopoly of force it ends badly for the citizens. And yes registration is an infringement to anyones right. Look at what happened in the UK and Australia, and Nazi Germany, heck look anywhere in history where there was registration, there was ALWAYS confiscation. So yes you would be wrong on all accounts of that.

Grim

edit on 4/3/2014 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)

This is your interpretation of the amendment. After the rebellion, radicals like Thomas Paine were shunned.