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

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

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

All I can think of is the moment one of these guys fires a shot, that the CT National Guard is called up and that's that... And unfortunately our Guard is made up of a lot of guys that while they love this country and state, will not hesitate to fire back and Iron Fist the Governor's order if it came to it. They got beat on so badly after the Tri-Storm just for trying to help people and clear roads and the like that they lost the will to really care about the civilian population.

I fear (well don't fear, I KNOW) this is going to end badly once the first shot is fired.. Governor Malloy isn't afraid to call the hard calls, and if that means locking down the state so be it. He's had practice in limited Martial Law after Alfred.... That was not pretty, imagine it in full swing.

Thanks guys, we JUST started to get this state put back together, and now you all have to start cheering off a bunch of people that only care about their high powered guns... nice.... makes me sickened to be a member here to think that a High Powered Gun Capable of firing 100 rounds a minute is more important than human life and suffering.

My State Rep did not vote for this bill and she represents one of the oldest sections of the state (hint: it's not Hartford) but still would rally against ANYONE making threats against other legislators like this... it's IRRESPONSIBLE.. We have elections for a REASON...

reply to post by MrSpad


The Supreme Court is capable of changing it's mind, simply because, the Supreme Court is ran by human beings. It is not the end-all be-all that you are painting it out to be.

Anyone who wants to "interpret" the Constitution can easily do so simply by reading the same documents that Supreme Court Justices have to read.

They have to read works like The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the documents leftover from the debates at the Constitutional Convention.

That's where their opinions come from. If you can read, you can get there, too.

And when you educate yourself with these materials it is not hard to see when the Supreme Court is deviating from a proper interpretation. They have to create loopholes to criminalize items like fully-automatic assault rifles and high-capacity magazines--or, to uphold ridiculous laws like prohibition on the sale of goods and services. None of those laws are remotely constitutional, but because the Supreme Court is filled with human beings, it is not hard to buy them.

If the government outlaws high-capacity magazines or fully-automatic assault rifles, it is our job to ignore them.

I wish there was as much passion, and well-financed lobbying, for the 4th amendment, as there is for the 2nd.

vor78
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?

I'd say we better hope there aren't a lot of deaths and retirements on the SCOTUS ...

jimmyx

I wish there was as much passion, and well-financed lobbying, for the 4th amendment, as there is for the 2nd.

Why not all the original amendments? 1 through 10.

I would gladly rally behind you.

reply to post by MrSpad


I don't really disagree with you, but as for the first AWB, it was only in place for 10 years, and more importantly, I don't think any significant attempt was ever made to bring it to the Supreme Court. Apparently, there were concerns over the composition of the Court at the time, and combined with the fact that the law had an expiration, it seems that gun rights groups were mostly content to let it go and try again in 2004, which turned out to be a successful strategy.

vkey08
My State Rep...would rally against ANYONE making threats against other legislators like this...

Threats and promises...there is a big difference.
In this context the former is a method of coersion; the latter is a righteous warning.

reply to post by vkey08

Governor Malloy isn't afraid to call the hard calls, and if that means locking down the state so be it. He's had practice in limited Martial Law after Alfred.... That was not pretty, imagine it in full swing.

He can be as tough as he wants. If this comes to a shooting war I'm sure they'll add him to the list.

makes me sickened to be a member here to think that a High Powered Gun Capable of firing 100 rounds a minute is more important than human life and suffering.

It not about love of guns, it's about freedom and the 2nd amendment. Also that "It's for the children" argument is wearing pretty thin and is frankly pretty lame.

My State Rep did not vote for this bill and she represents one of the oldest sections of the state (hint: it's not Hartford) but still would rally against ANYONE making threats against other legislators like this... it's IRRESPONSIBLE.. We have elections for a REASON...

We have a constitution for a reason and it is supreme law of the land. Regardless of what that pathetic bunch in the legislature there thinks. She can rally against anyone she wants if she takes sides with traitors she'll probably end up on the list as well.

reply to post by DJW001

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

This is exactly the kind of illegal law and threats that make people want to shoot back.

LewsTherinThelamon

jimmyx

I wish there was as much passion, and well-financed lobbying, for the 4th amendment, as there is for the 2nd.

Why not all the original amendments? 1 through 10.

I would gladly rally behind you.

My understanding of the prevailing mood in the country has been for a long time that an attempted gun confiscation would be the "signal" that our government really has become the monster everyone is afraid it might be. The other things ... well, they're scary, but taking the guns sort of seems to be the unwritten signal that they're serious about everything all those other moves could be interpreted to mean.

bigfatfurrytexan
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

Petraus did get thrown down very easily, and Roberts did have a very....interesting take on the ACA verdict.

I believe the only way almost all of these people get their jobs is under the condition they have dirt on them that can be easily used to destroy them if they dont comply.

MrSpad
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.

Yes because no tyrant governement has ever tried to disarm it people, and no people have ever stood against a tyrant and won right?

Every point you tried to make is counter to actual recorded history, or do not ever read anything in the nonfiction section?

Chickensalad

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?

Is that a whiff of censorship I smell?

vkey08

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

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

All I can think of is the moment one of these guys fires a shot, that the CT National Guard is called up and that's that... And unfortunately our Guard is made up of a lot of guys that while they love this country and state, will not hesitate to fire back and Iron Fist the Governor's order if it came to it. They got beat on so badly after the Tri-Storm just for trying to help people and clear roads and the like that they lost the will to really care about the civilian population.

I fear (well don't fear, I KNOW) this is going to end badly once the first shot is fired.. Governor Malloy isn't afraid to call the hard calls, and if that means locking down the state so be it. He's had practice in limited Martial Law after Alfred.... That was not pretty, imagine it in full swing.

Thanks guys, we JUST started to get this state put back together, and now you all have to start cheering off a bunch of people that only care about their high powered guns... nice.... makes me sickened to be a member here to think that a High Powered Gun Capable of firing 100 rounds a minute is more important than human life and suffering.

My State Rep did not vote for this bill and she represents one of the oldest sections of the state (hint: it's not Hartford) but still would rally against ANYONE making threats against other legislators like this... it's IRRESPONSIBLE.. We have elections for a REASON...

edit on 232014 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)

You have obviously never served in the military, thus dont know what "they" would do. I have, they will not turn on Americans, Period, and I dont mean period like Obama does.

It is not about "high powered guns", it is about freedom and rights. If you were a patriot you would understand that your rights arent given to you, and once you let them go they are gone forever.

You cant fight back without the proper tools.

Look what happened to people the world over once they let their tyrant leaders take their weapons. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung, Castro, PulPot.......

I mean honestly, do you even understand what your talking about here?

After reading this entire thread I would say that we should just let Bassago and BFFT decide these things, since they both speak sense, and have actual "common sense".......too bad it isnt so common anymore.

Myself and Bassago and BFFT have had a few disagreements in my time here, but I would trust their judgement, even when I dont agree, to be what they honestly thought is to the best service of all others.

DJW001

Chickensalad

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?

Is that a whiff of censorship I smell?

I starred you because even though we share different views, everyone is welcome to state their opinion, this is an open forum after all, in America where the 1st exists.

reply to post by Bassago


While I personally don't see an issue with making people register their guns and it's debatable whether or not it infringes upon our 2nd amendment, I cannot help but feel like this stand-off is necessary in order to protect the rest of our rights that I actually do care about.

They have been slowly eroding our rights, just pushing buttons here and there to see if Americans react with force. Seeing that not even bailing out the very same institutions that ruined our economy rallied anything but unarmed students, they feel like they can push more buttons. So they do. They are like the smart monkey, poking around market stalls, stealing just enough fruit to get people mad but not enough to get people to capture him with nets. Now that monkey wants all the fruit and he now has to get rid of the nets.

Without the nets, that monkey will be able to take whatever he wants with impunity. I do not like to see nets being used on animals but I also don't want the last of my fruit stolen.

So, parables aside, I say I reluctantly withdraw my ire towards pro-2nd amendment folks. For now.

oblvion

DJW001

Chickensalad

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?

Is that a whiff of censorship I smell?

I starred you because even though we share different views, everyone is welcome to state their opinion, this is an open forum after all, in America where the 1st exists.
,

Back at you!

reply to post by DJW001


No, it was a challenge. You'll notice that other people here have disagree, and no one has told them not to bother. They, however, put up reasonable positions for why they disagreed. You just sort of volunteered snark.

Now, I understand from other things you've posted in the past that you disagree, and that's fine. Post your disagreement, but at least take the time to form a reasonable disagreement rather than one line of snark. Otherwise, I have to wonder what is the point?

reply to post by Cuervo


The suspicion behind the registration move is that in countries like Great Britain and Australia, registration was the "reasonable" first move that no one objected to and it was shortly followed up by confiscation once they knew where the guns were and everyone was used to that degree of control.

It's a pattern that has been followed in other places by other governments who now enjoy a much greater degree of control over their populaces. Hence the intense dislike.