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

reply to post by DJW001


I'm complied all of my life. That's where I draw the d@mned line...in the sand...with my rifle.

Cross it.

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.

Yes, please READ the Constitution!

The particular RIGHT we are speaking of here is not the tight to participate in a militia. it is the right to keep and bear arms that we speak of. And THAT IS being INFRINGED. You should also note that the second amendment says nothing about what constitutes "arms".

Did you know that a "founding father" once nearly advocated the keeping of a Howitzer in the front yard?

jimmyx
after looking at the original document, this is a not a "confiscation order of all guns"....it is specifically about assault weapons, and hi-capacity ammo magazines. you have the options of selling them to a licensed dealer, or taking them out of the state. other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property. my impression of what you want, are weapons that will take less time to kill more people.

Yes because those attempting to encroach on our rights have limitations.

Lets see here, they have ballistic armor, APC's drones, fully automatic weapons...etc.

Yes we should be forced to defend ourselves from them with butter knives while they have no limits on modern weapons.

And you think this makes sense somehow?

You lack any form of logic in your response.

You would fit in well with the criminal governments of Mao Stalin Kim Jung etc....

The people of America have the right to defend force with force on equal terms.

Not modern weapons VS flint lock pistols.

What next, we should only be able to defend ourselves with rocks?

Britain did this to every people they enslaved, so they couldnt fight back.

Do you not see the insanity of your position here?

vor78

jimmyx
other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property.

Sure. Right up until the point that some legislator applies your thinking to those 'other rifles, shotguns and handguns.' How long afterward will that be? 5 years? 10? We all know where the end game is here.

The fact is, handguns are used in about 80% of all homicides. If those so called 'assault rifles' are such a threat to society, and can be banned on that basis, what does it say for the continued legality handguns, in particular, but also shotguns, both of which are used more frequently to commit violent crime? If you can justify banning and confiscating a class of weapons in common use, but that represent perhaps 1-2% of firearms used in all homicides, the rest will soon follow.

STFU!!!!!

You are not following party approved talking points to infringe on quaranteed rights, you must be silenced!!!!

-leaves to go puke, as oblvion cant eve pretend to support this without getting sick.

By hook or by crook you ALL will be disarmed or destroyed soon enough.......its not very bright to stand on the tracks when a train is coming....and the facts show that the disarming of Americans, is top priority for their government.....no matter who is running things....
The only defense is to blow the tracks.....before the train arrives....

tanka418

DJW001
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?

You really did say that! Absolutely amazing!!!

How about giving us a "law" that ISN'T illegal itself. What part of "violation of the Constitution" is NOT understood here?

The "supreme" law of the United States; states very clearly; "shall not be infringed". Yet we should follow these traitors when they attempt to infringe on our rights....Tell ya what...when they have a "real law", you know one that is actually supported by the primary guidelines of this great nation; the Constitution; I'll be one of the first to publicly support it.

Until then; IF they want my guns they can either do it right, or not at all.

By the way; I'm a Texan with a Winchester and an itchy right index finger.

I am a Hoosier recently moved to the great state of Texas, and I approve this message!!!!

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.

Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."

How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?

It was in compliance with "the law" to put the Jews in camps and kill them.

"the law" is not legal if it goes against the constitution for this very reason. "the law" made by tyrants doesnt mean it i just.

"the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"......is this law an infringement? Than it is not a just law, thus, not a law at all, but a try at tyranny.

Are you an American? If so, I would have thought you would understand this. If not, than I pity you for not being born free, and protected by such a system of laws that allow you to make up your own mind as to what is right and just and what is complete and total tyrannical attempt to take your rights away from you, in contravention of the law that they swore to uphold and protect.

I took an oath, it didnt have an expiration date, I intend to fulfill my oath as long as I draw breath.

Molan Labe

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.

Are you insane?

The second doesnt give me the right to be part of a militia, all males of age are already part of the militia. It guarantees my rights to keep and bare arms, and guarantees that right can not under any circumstance be infringed upon.

Thought that was obvious.

Nice try though.

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.

Actually, I'd say quite the opposite is true. The primary justification for banning these firearms is that they supposedly have 'military features.' But if that's the case, doesn't that make them more applicable to usage in your well regulated militia? You can't have it both ways.

Of course, I must also point out two Supreme Court decisions that have bearing here:

1) Miller v United States upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns because they viewed it had no military/militia application.
2) DC v Heller found that the individual right to arms in 2A existed unconnected to militia membership.

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.

Exactly what was your purpose of posting here? Absolutely no one in this thread shares your position so why did you bother?

recall any gubberment that does not support the 2nd amendment - a ready militia in every municipality.

stirling
By hook or by crook you ALL will be disarmed or destroyed soon enough.......its not very bright to stand on the tracks when a train is coming....and the facts show that the disarming of Americans, is top priority for their government.....no matter who is running things....
The only defense is to blow the tracks.....before the train arrives....

The military taught me how to make and how "shaped charges" work( bet that tripped about 36 NSA flags.)

Here is how they work and how to make them.

It is known as the Munroe effect, when an explosive has a cone cut into it and the cone is lined with say "copper" the explosive force will RUSH towards the empty space focusing it. The copper "jacket" will become liquified and supersonic, it will penetrate around 7 times the thickness of "armor" as the diameter of the charge propelling it.

That is knowledge that cant be taken back once it is learned, it is pandora's box.

I do not advocate the use of these devices, nor will I help anyone make these devices, nor do I hope somebody uses these devices to defeat any of the 1300 APC's our civie LEO's just got from the military, though they can be made in less than a day, at less than $100 US.


Please dont star this post, it will only flag you in the NSA databases.

I am dying anyway so couldnt care much what they like or think at this point. Let us who have few years left make the first moves.

Save the fruitful for the times that actually matter, after the infirm, and thus weakest amongst us have cost them much.

vor78

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.

Actually, I'd say quite the opposite is true. The primary justification for banning these firearms is that they supposedly have 'military features.' But if that's the case, doesn't that make them more applicable to usage in your well regulated militia? You can't have it both ways.

Of course, I must also point out two Supreme Court decisions that have bearing here:

1) Miller v United States upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns because they viewed it had no military/militia application.
2) DC v Heller found that the individual right to arms in 2A existed unconnected to militia membership.

There was also some after decision commentary from the justices that reveal how they view the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they view the AR15 and similar as a legitimate weapon for private ownership because they feel civilians should have access to weaponry that gives them a chance against the standard military issue of the day, and the AR15 and others like it, they feel, is roughly comparable. In other words, they view the real purpose of the 2nd as a safeguard against tyrannical government for the people.

That might explain what they meant about short-barreled shotguns having no military application.

When the questioner in the commentary I read mentioned that the rationale might include fully automatics, the justice only shrugged and said no one had yet brought that challenge up.

Now, I wouldn't say that all the justices on the court agree with this rationale.

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.

Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."

How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?

Because it is an unjust law, and anyone who is a patriot has a duty to himself, his country, and his family to disobey that law.

F# the law. I am a free man. I don't need a stuffed suit telling me how to live as a free man.

ketsuko

vor78

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.

Actually, I'd say quite the opposite is true. The primary justification for banning these firearms is that they supposedly have 'military features.' But if that's the case, doesn't that make them more applicable to usage in your well regulated militia? You can't have it both ways.

Of course, I must also point out two Supreme Court decisions that have bearing here:

1) Miller v United States upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns because they viewed it had no military/militia application.
2) DC v Heller found that the individual right to arms in 2A existed unconnected to militia membership.

There was also some after decision commentary from the justices that reveal how they view the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they view the AR15 and similar as a legitimate weapon for private ownership because they feel civilians should have access to weaponry that gives them a chance against the standard military issue of the day, and the AR15 and others like it, they feel, is roughly comparable. In other words, they view the real purpose of the 2nd as a safeguard against tyrannical government for the people.

That might explain what they meant about short-barreled shotguns having no military application.

When the questioner in the commentary I read mentioned that the rationale might include fully automatics, the justice only shrugged and said no one had yet brought that challenge up.

Now, I wouldn't say that all the justices on the court agree with this rationale.

It works both ways.

If the SCOTUS hasnt ruled it in favor of the second, it hasnt ruled it against it either. Meaning it is still in compliance.

As any law made until decided upon by the SCOTUS is in compliance, as any activity not ruled out by the SCOTUS is still in compliance.

I never thought the SCOTUS of all 3 branches would be our last line of defense, but they have done right by the "folks" most of the time at least.

They are the only branch of government I have any faith left in at this point.

I dont always agree, but most of the time I do.

reply to post by oblvion


The "Obamacare Tax" decision ruined my faith in them. I think Roberts has dirt, and Obama or someone is holding the dust pan.

reply to post by ketsuko


Honestly, I think this Connecticut ruling is going to end up in the US Supreme Court, and that's where we'll find out once and for all whether this type of ban is constitutional or not. A lower court recently upheld the Connecticut law, but upon further review, they also admitted that the weapons affected were in common use (a long-held USSC standard for legal weapons) and that the law did, in fact, represent an infringement upon the 2nd amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

Will the USSC overturn it? On the basis of the handgun ban in Heller v DC and the standards set out there, I think they might. But who really knows?

bigfatfurrytexan

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.

Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."

How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?

Because it is an unjust law, and anyone who is a patriot has a duty to himself, his country, and his family to disobey that law.

F# the law. I am a free man. I don't need a stuffed suit telling me how to live as a free man.

BFFT, we dont agree sometimes, about socioeconomic issues.But on this issue we are in total agreement.

I couldnt be happier I moved to the freest state in the union, and couldnt be happier to live amongst Texans such as yourself.

I love this culture, it feels like the home I never had but always wanted. " I wasnt born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could"

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by oblvion

 

The "Obamacare Tax" decision ruined my faith in them. I think Roberts has dirt, and Obama or someone is holding the dust pan.

It is the NSA.

Dig deep enough, and everyone has "something" to hide.

reply to post by oblvion


Whoever got to Petraus, and had it done....thats the culprit.

I suspect the NSA. I also suspect that the dirt on Roberts was the only thing that got him confirmed. It was WAY to easy for him to be confirmed under Bush. Especially with some of the total turds that Bush had put up for SCOTUS

Ok first of all these peopel are idiots and so damn stupid in fact I would suspect they have to part of a pro gun control group trying to make gun owner look like nut bags. Nobody is going to raise the flag of revolt because they have to register their assault weapons. For those who did not the "tyrants" sent them a letter with a variety of options. And that is about as much effort as the state is going to put into to it. Of course if you are caught with an unregistered one they will take it. This "patriots" aka nut bags are going to talk loud and stupid and make the rest of look like nutters. The real people who think this law may violate the constotition have appealed to the one organization who gets to decide what is and is not constitutional (not you or me or some nutter) the courts. Of course considering a national assualt weapons ban was in force for decades it would unlikely the courts would find it different now. What is even more sad is how many of you have this wet dream that goverment is going to come for your guns and like in some action movie your going to stop them. They do not want you guns and if they did you would not be able to stop them.