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

reply to post by pheonix358


I can sympathize with that position somewhat, but there's always the question: who gets to be the arbiter of truth?

I think that the failing is, to some extent, ours. As 2nd Amendment advocates, we've tried, but clearly, we have not done a good enough job of educating the public in the face of a media misinformation campaign. How many times, even here, do we have to correct multiple people in the same thread that these topics aren't about fully automatic weapons? Or that .223, far from being a 'high power round' is one of the weakest of the many centerfire rifle cartridges in common use? Basic, simple stuff. Honestly, if they don't even know this...sigh...

We've just got to do a better job.

reply to post by beezzer


Thanks Beezzer. BTW, nice avatar change although at first glance out of the corner of my blind eye I thought it was Darth Vader lol.

The only reason for all this continued crap about the second is because they will never change it! So they try and use all of these silly specious reasons.

As an Aussie we are limited in weapons and thus, if push comes to shove, we can be controlled by force of arms.

The US is, in the grand scheme of freedom on this planet, the final bastion! It is the one country where the citizens can say enough is enough and blow the sycophants in the Government away and those baby killing, war mongering sycophants know it!

SO DON"T BLOW IT FOR THE REST OF US........PLEASE!

I like my freedom

P

reply to post by pheonix358


We got your six, cousin.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Registration of law abiding gun owners is not a way to protect the commonwealth. Never has, never will be.

Remember the map that little news organization in New York put out? The one that pinpointed the residences of everyone who registered their firearms?

I was really disturbed by that. And where did they get the information? Public disclosure? Freedom of the press?

ketsuko

vor78
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Well, there's one thing we can all agree on. Each side thinks the other is full of extremists. One side wants nuclear weapons, the other side is afraid of spitballs and toothpicks.

Honestly, the fact that both sides are pi$$ed off about the laws as they stand is probably the best evidence we have that the proper balance has actually been achieved.

Actually no. The last time the two sides were this angry and unable to talk to one another and reach an agreement, this nation wound up going to war with itself.

Lets not forget that it was the Gov trying to take away states individual rights to decide for themselves that sparked that war.....

Like they are doing again.....

Snarl
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Registration of law abiding gun owners is not a way to protect the commonwealth. Never has, never will be.

Remember the map that little news organization in New York put out? The one that pinpointed the residences of everyone who registered their firearms?

I was really disturbed by that. And where did they get the information? Public disclosure? Freedom of the press?

Yeah, I remember what they felt they had to do right afterwards as well, hire a bunch of armed (thugs?) guards to watch over their building. As nothing happened I think this goes to show the remarkable restraint and respect citizens who are armed have for the weapons they do own and their fellow citizens.

bigfatfurrytexan

Grimmley

DJW001

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.

This is not just my interpretation of the Amendment, this was taught through out or history classes too, until as of late with the socialistic "feel good" history that they are trying to indoctrinate the youth with today.

The 2A is what allows all other protects all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Grim

a few minutes ago on the news i heard the local morning anchor say, "Texas is considering passing a law to ban texting while driving to ensure residents are not putting others at risk"

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.

And there already laws on the books about distracted driving. I completely agree, I find it baffling that that my friends in LE can and use cell phones (calling and texting), laptops and radios and it is ok, but if anyone not in LE will get a ticket and jail time... something is wrong with this picture.

Grim

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)

If they leave it standing, this gives someone who (in your opinion not the current CT government) the ability to do it in retrospect, meaning that a government who does want to do it, go in and attempt to take them.

Grim

DJW001

vor78
reply to post by DJW001

 

I have to hand it to you. You'd make a fine politician with that much side-stepping.

So you're okay with the government reading your emails, snooping on your religious practices, not allowing you to broadcast over the air without their permission and requiring you to have a photo ID to vote, but registering a gun makes your blood boil?

No those are violations of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, as such are being discussed and debated in Congress and the Senate. If you are not a LEGAL citizen you should not vote, why should you be allowed to influence the outcome by having your vote bought (i.e. amnesty, free medical, etc). Try and vote any any other countries elections and see what happens to you. Nice attempt to derail.

Grim

Snarl
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Registration of law abiding gun owners is not a way to protect the commonwealth. Never has, never will be.

Remember the map that little news organization in New York put out? The one that pinpointed the residences of everyone who registered their firearms?

I was really disturbed by that. And where did they get the information? Public disclosure? Freedom of the press?

Ironic isn't it? That they use one civil liberty to try to deny another civil liberty to their fellow citizens.

reply to post by DJW001


Oh, so you know what my day to day activities related to gun rights is? Or any other illegal actions of the Govt???

I would ask you what I had for dinner last night, but you already know that.

Gryphon66


Beyond your rhetoric, beyond the cute little graphics that skew the facts, beyond your misguided and (I must say) petulant beliefs is the will of the American people ... and the majority of us do not agree with your insane positions.

More than 80 percent of us believe that gun control laws should be either more strict than they are now, or kept as they are. (Gallup) (Pew).

Gallup doesn't offer their sampling rate or method of analysis. PEW, well here you go

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted May 1-5, 2013 among a national sample of 1,504 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S.

SO, 1500 people are an accurate representation of the entire US.

Yeah, I see your BS provided stats, and raise you Firearms sales numbers, Ammo sales, Background check numbers and Concealed Carry Permit applications/permits.

So no, the MAJORITY don't support your Progressive banter.

pheonix358
reply to post by beezzer

 

Thanks Beezzer. BTW, nice avatar change although at first glance out of the corner of my blind eye I thought it was Darth Vader lol.

The only reason for all this continued crap about the second is because they will never change it! So they try and use all of these silly specious reasons.

As an Aussie we are limited in weapons and thus, if push comes to shove, we can be controlled by force of arms.

The US is, in the grand scheme of freedom on this planet, the final bastion! It is the one country where the citizens can say enough is enough and blow the sycophants in the Government away and those baby killing, war mongering sycophants know it!

SO DON"T BLOW IT FOR THE REST OF US........PLEASE!

I like my freedom

P

I keep telling you....come to Texas. You would fit right in (except people will keep calling you Crocodile Dundee, then laughing like dorks), and already know Texas history quite well.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I Love Texas.

Here is another selling point. There isn't half the things in Texas that want to kill you, animal/insect wise, as there are in Australia.

pheonix358
reply to post by vor78

 

I don't doubt that its true. Take another look at it. He's including those that want the law to stay as-is in that 80%. Of course, one could just as easily say that 50% of the country wants the laws to be less strict or remain the same.

Thanks, yes I did notice. This demonstrates one of the major problems, that is, that it seems to be the belief that it is OK to lie to the voters.

IT IS NOT!

Lying to the citizens in a democracy disallows an informed vote and IMHO should be dealt with by a substantial prison term. This is why the whole system is stuffed up! Everyone is lying and it starts right at the top!

P

By law, citizens are not allowed to lie when conducting official business with the government. The same can not be said in reverse. Police can lie to you during questioning, but when you lie to them its a crime. All manner of promises are made to get elected, but lie on just 1 form.

I would love to see a way to hold people accountable for campaign promises.

I would also like to see us go back tot he notion that when we write laws, they are being written to limit/clarify government, not people. Its all upside down.

macman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I Love Texas.

Here is another selling point. There isn't half the things in Texas that want to kill you, animal/insect wise, as there are in Australia.

True. We have quite a bit of deadly wildlife, but we don't have a spider that can bite through your boot and kill you. And the jellyfish in our waters....you can see them. They are not pinkie fingernail size, and they don't kill you either.

Not sure how accurate this update from Connecticut really is. Hope we see more on this upcoming news very soon.

Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A major news story on these developments is due to be published soon, but Hardy received an advanced notice via email from Tyler Jackson, the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers Association, the organization that sent the open letter.
Breaki ng: Conn. Police Officers Refuse to Confiscate: Will Not “Be Party to the Oppression of the People”

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

By law, citizens are not allowed to lie when conducting official business with the government. The same can not be said in reverse. Police can lie to you during questioning, but when you lie to them its a crime. All manner of promises are made to get elected, but lie on just 1 form.

This is the biggie. I would like to see a law, no, a law does not cut it, I want an amendment to the constitution no less, titled, "The Goose and Gander Amendment." It would say, What is good for the goose, is good for the Gander and 'We The People' are the Gander." If a law applies to one side, then it applies to the other. If the Government can do something to the people, then the people can do it right back at the Government. Right back at ya!

I would love to see a way to hold people accountable for campaign promises.

Lying to the people in a Democracy is an assault on the very fabric of Democracy! It should have the penalty as selling out your country as indeed it is!

I would also like to see us go back tot he notion that when we write laws, they are being written to limit/clarify government, not people. Its all upside down.

Why do they keep writing more and more laws. Surely if you get them right the first time you should not need to! I would want the Government to spend the next decade reviewing current laws and striking out those that limit freedoms!

But I also want to see a society where the people have unalienable rights but also have responsibilities. Not texting while you drive is a responsibility that people should recognize. Sadly in the upside down world people many people have lost their sense of responsibility. I also wonder if this has been engineered into society as a deliberate program and I think the answer is, "Yes it has"

Finally, I have never been bested by any of our flora or fauna. If you grow up around drop bears you know how to deal with them. It is not that hard.

P

DJW001

I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.






You may care to read the Federalist Papers in ref to the Bill of Rights. With that knowledge in hand you could of avoided
your wrong headed attempt to appear well informed. Of course it's just a suggestion. : )

reply to post by pheonix358


Its the drop bears that scare me the worst.