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: 18
84
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
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.

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?




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

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.


I was addressing your retorts.



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?

What the state is doing is tyranny. The state has a letter that clearly outlines that people will have their firearms removed if they don't adhere to the new law.

Parking tickets have nothing to do with this.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


So you think that the open letter in the OP is lucid and rational?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes. I see no problem with it.

Maybe this kind of thing should happen more often, as it seems to have stirred some in politics to actually listen to the people.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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.



I agree about the CCW being a 2a violation.

And the fear mongering I get in those NRA letters, about armies of people waiting to come take my weapons and endanger my family....nauseating.

But the current battle ground is against the status quo, which the NRA is in favor of. If there is a way to gain ground, and reduce 2a violations....sign me up. Until then, the NRA is about the best we got. As repugnant as that is.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


And some people to listen to the politicians.

There has been far too much apathy for far too long.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by macman
 


So you think that the open letter in the OP is lucid and rational?


What is irrational about him warning that the legislature has pissed off people that he knows?

I don't recall him levelling threats. If you can point those out to me, i'd be interested in reading them.

What I see is him saying, "Look guys...you are kicking that hornets nest over there and its going to get ugly. Please stop". I see a man who seems to be fearful that people he knows and loves are going to get hurt over this political ploy.

I would even say that, on the whole, you and him are in agreement: that the current environment in CT is likely to cause unnecessary bloodshed.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
"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.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

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.


Look at the bigger picture, now.


That piece of metal may be what keeps you alive one day. Dying in defense of it is hardly senseless. You owe your current level of freedom to it.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

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?


Great question really. But I don't live in CT and am not subject to the whims of their legislature. I cannot agree with passing laws that create felons with the stroke of pen as it amounts to an ex-post facto law, specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. Registration is infringement so I don't think this is Constitutional.

That said, I think our government is so far removed from the people as to be irrelevant and illegal. How long do they think they can go on doing the bidding of banks and multinational corporations without responding to the will of the people? Our institutions and system of checks and balances have been hijacked by financial interests. We won't get the power back by voting.

Someone is taking a stand, at great personal risk mind you by writing what they did. It will take that and the resolve of tens of millions more to enact any real change in our system. On it's given trajectory the future of the US is bleak indeed. Those entrenched and enriched by the system won't go away without severe prodding, they know no other way to live than to be parasites living off the labor of others.

Tyrants only leave office at the point of a sword.
It looks like many agree if we're not under tyranny already we will be soon.
Counter-productive? Depends on whose agenda is at stake and how the media spins any actual fallout.
I'm all for freedom and the risks and responsibilities it entails.
If I did live in CT I would looking at felony charges for failure to register a legally-owned firearm because I won't comply with any gun registrations either.
Maybe this should have happened 20 years ago.
No, I don't believe in summary executions.
I believe in trial by jury.
edit on 4-3-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



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.


OMG I love you for this. That is exactly what passing a law accomplishes...NOTHING!

Except, you know, for turning people into criminals--but, I love the "if we make it illegal people will stop doing it" mentality.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

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)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

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.


That only works if you are talking to someone who has similar religious beliefs as you.

One of those rights you take for granted is the 2nd amendment. It was put there so that when it was YOUR turn to defend our nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, you would be able to stand up and do your part.

God isn't in the business of keeping you alive. Quite the opposite. You have been placed on a very dangerous planet with irrational people.

And for what its worth, the tyrant doesn't want your soul or your heart. He wants only your money. And he is happy you acquiesce so easily.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
And I'm a very near Grandfather who is sick unto death of treason being politely labelled as patriotism.

This is the current legal interpretation (for all intents and purposes) of the Second Amendment:



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



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

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.


So as an owner why bother registering?

And as the state why bother with a law you wont enforce?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


So let me get this straight. You are a firearms advocate, but are only for a small infringement of the right to bear arms?

You do see the fallacy in this, don't you?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Funny, as I don't need a long winded dissertation to explain to me what right the 2nd guarantees me. You might need that, but the right was written so there is no need for such crap to label it as this or that.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is very very very clear.

Only lawyers, politicians and Progressives could screw this and come up with something other then what is stated.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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)


People say that registration leads to confiscation because it has. Even though at the time politicians promised (you ever believe a politician's promise?) that they would never use registration for confiscation they lied and it was used for confiscation eventually.

New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.




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.





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join