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.
Deflection is not really a valid debate method.
YOUR dramatic statements are what I addressed.
DJW001
reply to post by macman
Deflection is not really a valid debate method.
Then why did you do it? This thread is about the OP's rhetoric, not mine.
YOUR dramatic statements are what I addressed.
Which was a deflection. I returned it to the OP's dramatic statements. You know, the actual topic of the thread.
DJW001
As for Thomas Jefferson's statement, it really does hinge on the definition of "tyrant," doesn't it? Is someone a tyrant for writing you a parking ticket?
macman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
I know many people that own guns, champion them, yet fall right in line about how "assault weapons" need to be banned.
That is a Progressive ideal. Now, with that said, the flat out use of labeling as a Progressive may not suite this, and for that, VKEY08, I apologize.
If the case is that VKEY08 is a gun rights advocate, I would ask to outline exactly what her stance is on the 2nd then.
Again, if I am incorrect, them I'm incorrect.
There is a reason why I don't support the NRA. They back things like CCWs, which are a clear violation of the 2nd.
DJW001
reply to post by macman
So you think that the open letter in the OP is lucid and rational?
JackSparrow17
"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." -Jesus
I am neither saying that I do or do not have guns, but if I did, I'd rather give them up peacefully and live to help another human being, than die and be able to help no one. As I have said before: I support the entirety of the Bill of Rights. I just happen to think that dying senselessly defending a piece of metal is foolish. I'd rather not be a target and bring unnecessary violence upon my family.
DJW001
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?
What does passing a law ensure? The only thing I have ever seen it ensure is that people will be criminal.
Not that texting and driving is a good thing. But the mindset of "action-reaction" that says creating laws will ensure compliance.....it just baffles me.
vkey08
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..
Asktheanimals
vkey08
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..
That's all subjective in how you interpret their words.
Nobody is being stalked or killed right now so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
This new law amounts to a legal precedent to stalk and steal from lawful gun owners.
Given the heavy-handed approach and loose trigger fingers of SWAT teams I don't blame gun owners for being afraid.
I find it refreshing that people are standing up and giving the middle finger.
We did it in the 60's to put a stop to sending our kids off to die in Vietnam.
What's going on now is every bit as bad (not just this particular law but government in general) if not worse due to our economic woes.
What makes lawmakers or their families any more precious than those of citizens?
If you go around painting targets on people don't be surprised when they do it right back.
I'm not the guy to get "reasonable" responses from, I'm a cranky old grandfather who's sick of seeing this great Nation being pissed away by bureaucratic fiat and financial Ponzi schemes. We need change, not empty rhetoric and more government intrusion.
JackSparrow17
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
No. I don't. I owe my current level of freedom to God. Only by His grace do we live in this free country. To a lesser degree I owe my freedom to the men who died in the wars prior to WWI to safeguard this country and the Rights we take for granted. If someone breaks down my door with the intent to kill or rape my wife, then will I act to defend her. If the government comes knocking and demands a firearm, then "to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The tyrant can have any weapon I may or may not have, and money I may or may not have. What he can't have is my soul and my heart. Those belong to God.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Antonin Scalia, District of Columbia v. Heller
vkey08
Yes they are going overboard with the rhetoric and the threats, but the State of CT has already admitted they couldn't possibly enforce this law if people didn't register these weapons, but they also reminded everyone, they aren't taking them away if you register them, you can still have and use them.
vkey08
Asktheanimals
vkey08
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..
That's all subjective in how you interpret their words.
Nobody is being stalked or killed right now so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
This new law amounts to a legal precedent to stalk and steal from lawful gun owners.
Given the heavy-handed approach and loose trigger fingers of SWAT teams I don't blame gun owners for being afraid.
I find it refreshing that people are standing up and giving the middle finger.
We did it in the 60's to put a stop to sending our kids off to die in Vietnam.
What's going on now is every bit as bad (not just this particular law but government in general) if not worse due to our economic woes.
What makes lawmakers or their families any more precious than those of citizens?
If you go around painting targets on people don't be surprised when they do it right back.
I'm not the guy to get "reasonable" responses from, I'm a cranky old grandfather who's sick of seeing this great Nation being pissed away by bureaucratic fiat and financial Ponzi schemes. We need change, not empty rhetoric and more government intrusion.
This is why I don't think anyone has really read the law. It only has confiscation as an option as a last resort if and only if you don't register (a very small list as I read it in the grand scheme of how many different types of guns there are) certain types of weapons. Yes they are going overboard with the rhetoric and the threats, but the State of CT has already admitted they couldn't possibly enforce this law if people didn't register these weapons, but they also reminded everyone, they aren't taking them away if you register them, you can still have and use them. I don't see the major problem with certain types of weapons being illegal, unless of course they aim to take ALL guns away, which this law does not do even in the slightest..
This is why I see people spouting off and saying registration = confiscation and scratch my head, it doesn't. There are penalties, just like anything else, if you fail to comply with said law. But if you do comply, you can go on your life as usual with all your precious little street sweeping guns in your cabinet.
I can tell you if society collapsed tomorrow, the last thing this state would be worried about is going door to door to disarm people, they would be more worried about keeping order and tending to the needs of the residents in the bigger cities like Hartford and Bridgeport and New Haven, the rural areas would be largely untouched and unnoticed. That's the enigma about this state, what happens in the sticks, stays in the sticks, and while they tend to get speech happy, the State of CT doesn't necessarily always even believe what they say... (nor do they follow it, they pass laws to look good, not to actually obey)
In the wake of New York’s latest gun control law, the New York Police Department is now sending out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations.
The letter being sent out to New York City's gun owners who now possess "illegal" firearms.
The letter being sent out to New York City’s gun owners who now possess “illegal” firearms. Click to enlarge.
The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable.
The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.
As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22 calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been deemed illegal and must be surrendered .
“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre.
NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag. There are also some sixty additional models of "assault rifle", outlawed since 1992, which appear on the list currently designated for confiscation!
During his run for Governor in 1997, Former Attorney General Dan Lungren reversed his own earlier decision about the SKS Sporter. Bowing to political pressure, he declared them illegal, thus demonstrating that the trust of SKS owners was misplaced.
In Connecticut, Governor John Rowland has signed a new law that allows police to seize firearms from the home of any person whom authorities believe may be CONSIDERING a criminal act. A warrant must be issued based on probable cause, and the judge issuing the warrant may consider numerous factors including threats or acts of violence, cruelty to animals, and (of course) drug or alcohol abuse. This is probably the first law in the nation that allows confiscation prior to any overt violent act.
Of course, several people have raised Constitutional questions regarding both of these developments, but here is a chilling comment from Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California: "When people turn in these guns and they get their vouchers, you know their name is going into a hat. It’s going to go into a database as a previous owner of an illegal assault gun and that concerns us."
The California DOJ has admitted they have records, they know who own these firearms through the registration process, and have ordered seizure and/or prosecution by law enforcement agencies throughout the State.