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

jimmyx

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?

I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

hey, I'm just asking....If I was a black person that lived in the south, I would be heavily armed any time I went out in public, and if I was a Mexican-American in Arizona or Texas, I would have a AR locked and loaded every time I went out the front door.

Race baiting is pretty disgusting. Even for you.

jimmyx

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?

I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

hey, I'm just asking....If I was a black person that lived in the south, I would be heavily armed any time I went out in public, and if I was a Mexican-American in Arizona or Texas, I would have a AR locked and loaded every time I went out the front door.

Some of the first gun control laws in the US were part of the Jim Crow era to keep black people from owning guns. The pistol purchase permit signed off by the local sheriff in some states is the remnants of those Jim Crow laws. That way, if the sheriff didn't like the color of your skin, he could just not sign off on the purchase permit.

I just read the OP and if what I think they are saying, they are saying once the bloodshed starts they're going after the lawmakers who passed the bill, or, one bullet one vote. That should at the very least make them want to reconsider their foolishness.

When Waco happened, the government simply went in and burned the house down killing all the children they claimed they wanted to save. And no one was left to bring the fight back to those who did the murders. These 3 percenters sound like they mean business.

One thing to take note of though. In the event of a civil war, Obama will simply declare marshal law and be el-presidente for life.

It's going to be a long year. The world is back to pre world war days and we in the USA are approaching 1860.

vkey08




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.

Your problem, whether through intentional ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, is that you are using modern day definitions to a 2+ century old document.

Stop.

doubletap

vkey08




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.

Your problem, whether through intentional ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, is that you are using modern day definitions to a 2+ century old document.

Stop.

Well regulated in 18th century speak meant well trained. It is in the constitution that the fedgov shall be providing range time and training in the use of firearms and tactics to all its citizens at no cost to those citizens. It is a fedgov provided service and requirement.

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Well good for you.

And your point is what?

look, macman, I like you, and you make a lot of sense in most of your posts. but, you are too intelligent to not know what my point is.

reply to post by jimmyx


You have assumed too much.


My intelligence is not what is at question.

Instead of trying to be sly, why not just come out and say what you mean.

I do it all the time here. It is very liberating.

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.”
~Ronald Reagan


Don't forget your great guns, which are the most respectable arguments of the rights of kings.
- Frederick The Great


Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.
-Thomas Jefferson

I thought some quotes on the topic might be appropriate.

doubletap

vkey08




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.

Your problem, whether through intentional ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, is that you are using modern day definitions to a 2+ century old document.

Stop.

really? care to explain how the word Regulated meant something different in 1770 than it does now? Seems to me the definition hasn't changed in 200 years, furthermore, how dare you accuse me of being "dishonest" I fight for people's rights every day, and this is one time I agree with a law, because it DOES NOT take the weapons away, it just registers them, in order to regulate the fact that they are out there. Regulated, hasn't changed it's meaning..

Well regulated means just that, always has always will, and the 2nd amendment crowd would have you think that this is the same as it was in 1776, we're fighting tyranny again, which is simply not the case. Our government may be many things, moronic, stupid, bloated, teetering on the edge of obscurity, or the like, but at no time has it ever stepped over that line and said "no you cannot have a gun" because whenever they have, the courts have stepped right in and said nonono you can't do that and it goes by the wayside.

The whole argument here and from others on this is that we should all be allowed to have a sherman tank and rocket launcher in our backyard because they are "arms" nothing in the document says either way what arms are, and as such EACH STATE (notice the Federal Government is not restricting it) has the right to determine in each state what constitutes arms, and how to regulate said.

Now what does this law do and not do, that's the interesting part of all of this:

It DOES make people register a very small percentage of a certain type of weapon.

It DOES NOT: Remove your right to have them, remove any existing concealed carry laws in CT, remove your ability to use said weapons, remove your ability to store said weapons, remove your ability to purchase said weapons, remove your ability to sell said weapons.

Much ado over nothing? Connecticut still, with this bill has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, and that is rooted in history, but when you come right down to it, this was nothing but a feel good bill, designed ot keep one side of the political spectrum happy, it doesn't really DO anything...

So what is the damn problem with having to do a little extra paperwork?

bigfatfurrytexan

jimmyx

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?

I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

hey, I'm just asking....If I was a black person that lived in the south, I would be heavily armed any time I went out in public, and if I was a Mexican-American in Arizona or Texas, I would have a AR locked and loaded every time I went out the front door.

Race baiting is pretty disgusting. Even for you.

race baiting?...how?...aren't all black Americans entitled to 2nd amendment protections?....aren't all Mexican Americans entitled to 2nd amendment protections, too?... how about released prisoners? and Americans that have been diagnosed with mental illness?..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" applies to every American citizen, regardless.

vkey08


really? care to explain how the word Regulated meant something different in 1770 than it does now? Seems to me the definition hasn't changed in 200 years, furthermore, how dare you accuse me of being "dishonest" I fight for people's rights every day, and this is one time I agree with a law, because it DOES NOT take the weapons away, it just registers them, in order to regulate the fact that they are out there. Regulated, hasn't changed it's meaning..

Now your just being ignorant.
The same way that the word "Gay" means what it does today, as opposed to what it meant in 1770.

vkey08
Well regulated means just that, always has always will, and the 2nd amendment crowd would have you think that this is the same as it was in 1776, we're fighting tyranny again, which is simply not the case. Our government may be many things, moronic, stupid, bloated, teetering on the edge of obscurity, or the like, but at no time has it ever stepped over that line and said "no you cannot have a gun" because whenever they have, the courts have stepped right in and said nonono you can't do that and it goes by the wayside.

Again, more blatant ignorance.
It states a "well regulated Militia".
Not a "regulated right to bear arms".
You clearly have either some reading issues, or some understanding issues.

vkey08
The whole argument here and from others on this is that we should all be allowed to have a sherman tank and rocket launcher in our backyard because they are "arms" nothing in the document says either way what arms are, and as such EACH STATE (notice the Federal Government is not restricting it) has the right to determine in each state what constitutes arms, and how to regulate said.

The rights are clearly defined. Just because you want restrictions, doesn't mean in any way it falls in line with what is written.

vkey08
Now what does this law do and not do, that's the interesting part of all of this:

It DOES make people register a very small percentage of a certain type of weapon.

It DOES NOT: Remove your right to have them, remove any existing concealed carry laws in CT, remove your ability to use said weapons, remove your ability to store said weapons, remove your ability to purchase said weapons, remove your ability to sell said weapons.

And so we are back with this. It has been stated that you are a Gun Rights Advocate, yet you are for infringing upon those rights.
Yeah, I call Bull$h1t.

vkey08
Much ado over nothing? Connecticut still, with this bill has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, and that is rooted in history, but when you come right down to it, this was nothing but a feel good bill, designed ot keep one side of the political spectrum happy, it doesn't really DO anything...

So, making unconstitutional laws to make people feel good. Fantastic.

vkey08
So what is the damn problem with having to do a little extra paperwork?

Infringement. Nuff said

vkey08

doubletap

vkey08




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.

Your problem, whether through intentional ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, is that you are using modern day definitions to a 2+ century old document.

Stop.

really? care to explain how the word Regulated meant something different in 1770 than it does now? Seems to me the definition hasn't changed in 200 years, furthermore, how dare you accuse me of being "dishonest" I fight for people's rights every day, and this is one time I agree with a law, because it DOES NOT take the weapons away, it just registers them, in order to regulate the fact that they are out there. Regulated, hasn't changed it's meaning..

Well regulated means just that, always has always will, and the 2nd amendment crowd would have you think that this is the same as it was in 1776, we're fighting tyranny again, which is simply not the case. Our government may be many things, moronic, stupid, bloated, teetering on the edge of obscurity, or the like, but at no time has it ever stepped over that line and said "no you cannot have a gun" because whenever they have, the courts have stepped right in and said nonono you can't do that and it goes by the wayside.

The whole argument here and from others on this is that we should all be allowed to have a sherman tank and rocket launcher in our backyard because they are "arms" nothing in the document says either way what arms are, and as such EACH STATE (notice the Federal Government is not restricting it) has the right to determine in each state what constitutes arms, and how to regulate said.

Now what does this law do and not do, that's the interesting part of all of this:

It DOES make people register a very small percentage of a certain type of weapon.

It DOES NOT: Remove your right to have them, remove any existing concealed carry laws in CT, remove your ability to use said weapons, remove your ability to store said weapons, remove your ability to purchase said weapons, remove your ability to sell said weapons.

Much ado over nothing? Connecticut still, with this bill has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, and that is rooted in history, but when you come right down to it, this was nothing but a feel good bill, designed ot keep one side of the political spectrum happy, it doesn't really DO anything...

So what is the damn problem with having to do a little extra paperwork?

Actually, I've pointed out several times that history shows that registration does precede confiscation--in spite of politicians saying otherwise and promising it wouldn't so your point that this is not part of removing your right to own guns is invalid.

If you had to register your typewriter or "do a little paperwork" for the state to own a book and certain books were banned but not all of them, would you or would you not feel that this was an infringement on your first amendment rights?

For your education, let's look the definition of "well regulated" held at the time of the writing of the Bill Of Rights:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

vkey08

... but when you come right down to it, this was nothing but a feel good bill, designed ot keep one side of the political spectrum happy, it doesn't really DO anything...

So what is the damn problem with having to do a little extra paperwork?

Will it still feel good when people start serving time for being caught with unregistered rifles?

You make it sound so benign.

jimmyx

bigfatfurrytexan

jimmyx

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?

I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

hey, I'm just asking....If I was a black person that lived in the south, I would be heavily armed any time I went out in public, and if I was a Mexican-American in Arizona or Texas, I would have a AR locked and loaded every time I went out the front door.

Race baiting is pretty disgusting. Even for you.

race baiting?...how?...aren't all black Americans entitled to 2nd amendment protections?....aren't all Mexican Americans entitled to 2nd amendment protections, too?... how about released prisoners? and Americans that have been diagnosed with mental illness?..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" applies to every American citizen, regardless.

That is true, which is why the gun control laws of the Jim Crow era were onerous. Gun control has a racist past, present, and future.

thisguyrighthere

macman
reply to post by vkey08

 

So again, you are a Gun Rights advocate, but are for just a little infringement of said right.
Sounds like a walking contradiction.

Well-regulated = not for darkies.

Especially when coming out of CT.

.

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

Seeing as I am not white, I find this highly offensive. I don't care who has a gun seriously, if you are mentally aware enough to understand how and when to use it, you should be allowed to have it, however.

I do not think that ANYONE, white, black, yellow, purple or otherwise, myself included, needs for defense, a weapon capable of mowing down an entire street, if you are a decent enough shot, a handgun or rifle will do, you do NOT need a fully automatic weapon firing five hundred rounds a minute to kill someone. Nor do you need that to take shots at a government if they decided to start goose stepping through the streets and declaring Martial Law. A few good shots from a single action rifle will do the same thing in the right hands. (and single action rifles are NOT on this list)

There's the difference, and why the rest of the world looks at us and scratches their heads for the most part.

We are NOT in the middle of a general insurrection, if we were then I'd be out there raiding the cache's with the rest of them, and fighting the Government, I took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and I do it every single day, much to the chagrin of my superiors. But we aren't.. This isn't a war zone, it's a little extra paperwork, period. It's not like they don't know these weapons are out there to begin with, there are only a few they don't know about, and they wouldn't even after this law, as they are in the hands of criminals with the serial numbers filed off, or misrepresented.

Again, I stick by the thought that a little extra paperwork isn't going to kill you, it's not like they are saying you cannot have it, just that they want to keep a handle on how many there are so we don't have any more surprises in the State.

A little aside, up in New Hampshire we lived by a simple credo, and there was very little crime, and very clean cities (well Towns trying to be cities) here in Connecticut we have had a few situations recently that have shown the need for people to be armed, but not overly armed.

Examples: After Alfred when there was no power anywhere for close to two weeks, the fact that the citizens were armed was a deterrent to looting, but it wasn't the high powered street cleaners that were the deterrent, it was the handguns, the shotguns, the single action rifles.. there is no ban on those at all.

thisguyrighthere

vkey08

... but when you come right down to it, this was nothing but a feel good bill, designed ot keep one side of the political spectrum happy, it doesn't really DO anything...

So what is the damn problem with having to do a little extra paperwork?

Will it still feel good when people start serving time for being caught with unregistered rifles?

You make it sound so benign.

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

do you forget you have to have a registration to have them to begin with? they are really ONLY updating the outdated registrations, as a lot of these guns have changed hands.. I mean really no it's not that big a deal.. If you didn't have regulation, you wouldn't need a permit..

reply to post by vkey08


So, just a little bit of infringement is okay.

The next time you make cookies, let me know. I shall come over, urinate in the mixture and you can continue to bake and eat them. Because after all, it is just a little bit of urine. I mean, a little bit won't hurt.

vkey08
do you forget you have to have a registration to have them to begin with? they are really ONLY updating the outdated registrations, as a lot of these guns have changed hands.. I mean really no it's not that big a deal.. If you didn't have regulation, you wouldn't need a permit..

Since when? Pistol have been registered for a long time in CT but not long guns. Up until this madness all you needed for a long gun was to wait two weeks. You could get around that by having a pistol permit or a hunting license but there was no long gun registry.

So, yeah. It is a big deal. And as you stated earlier basically unenforceable.

But in the off chance that some nut relative or neighbor decides to call the cops on you and you happen to have a prohibited rifle that isnt registered is it okay that you should be locked up for doing nothing to nobody?

Perfectly innocent and harmless people are going to suffer for this felony of bureaucracy nonsense. Just because you might not suffer from it does that make it okay that others will? Think about what you're really supporting here.

reply to post by vkey08


Specifically, what is gained from having a national firearms registry? The federal government has no compelling reason to know what every citizen owns.

Would you also support registering books?

The rest of that wall of text shows Constitutional ignorance of epic proportions, hence no need to respond to it since you are incapable of differentiating the definitions of words over the span of 200 years.

Oh, one last question and it should be pretty simple for most people, but since it deals with the Constitution, you might have a problem with it.

In our country, where does government get its power?

vkey08


you do NOT need a fully automatic weapon firing five hundred rounds a minute to kill someone. Nor do you need that to take shots at a government if they decided to start goose stepping through the streets and declaring Martial Law. A few good shots from a single action rifle will do the same thing in the right hands. (and single action rifles are NOT on this list)

The arrogance of you stating you know what people NEED or dont NEED is astounding.

Which full auto firearm are you referring to?