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: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


What's your idea then??? Simply capitulate and let them do whatever they want???

Jesus, what happened to the people of this country, now they're just a bunch of chicken # pussy whipped assholes

Jaden




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Maybe Americans have had enough.
If so I don't blame the people.
The jackasses in power better take a good look in the mirror wherever they live.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


No maybe about it anymore. As an American speaking for myself all I can say is I'm beyond having enough, that ship has sailed.

My concern is how quickly this could spiral out of control. The first few times innocent husbands, wives or children become collateral damage to this gun grabbing agenda things may go down the tubes. Vanderboegh is quite specific in just how this will go down those tubes.

So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe is righteous self defense.) Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, after the first shots are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call. These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

For those interested. Fourth-generation warfare



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

ketsuko

DJW001
All I can say is that any Fascist coup that lets people keep their guns will probably be popular.


You say you want rational discussion and then resort to hyperbole of this kind?

Which is it, and who's being overly emotional now?


That's not hyperbole. Any authoritarian government makes a point of arming its friends and supporters. Everyone needs to ask themselves: would I use my gun against my neighbor if he disagreed with my political philosophy? What is it called when you are willing to murder to achieve political goals?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   

ketsuko
-- snip --
No, the government is supposed to fear the people and be ever mindful that they only rule by consent of the governed and not the other way around. I think the government of CT forgot this.

In America, the hierarchy goes God -> People -> Government.


Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. - Machiavelli



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to military-grade assault weapons. A militia, in 1790 and now, would have existed as a Governmentally-mandated force to repel foreign invaders or quell (wait for it) rebellions, and was not comprised of any random bunch of guys (or girls) who grab their guns and get together and declare themselves deputized. That's mere anarchy, or in this case, insurrection and treason.

Read a history book for goodness sake. Heck, read the Constitution you claim to love: Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

I truly do hate to see that some of you have been so completely inculcated in this "Guns equal Freedom" insanity. These laws you think you're "standing up against" are not about taking your guns, nor about tyranny, nor about any of the rest of the trigger words you've been programmed with over the last decade, if you'll pardon the pun.

These laws are about the government acting to promote the general welfare which it also has a Constitutional mandate to do.

Think about what you're saying: I know that to a large extent for most of you, this is mere verbal "chest thumping" in a safe, secure environment where you know most of your buddies will respond with "hell yeahs." You're talking about killing people, or blowing them up, for no other reason than that they are doing their Constitutional duty. I would feel more horror and sorrow for you, but, the giddiness in your voices is all too clear: you want an excuse to do this, and you've been looking forward to it for a long time.

You're not patriots if you do anything like what you're discussing here; you're small-time hoodlums and thugs and terrorists acting out a fantasy that will ultimately only get some of you, and a lot of other innocent people, killed for no legitimate reason. You will be spitting in the face of the very minute-men you think you're imitating, and every other American soldier that has ever died for American ideals.

You won't be dying for Freedom; you'll merely be a casualty of a marketing campaign gone terribly awry.

I wish I believed in God so I could ask for mercy on your souls.




posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My point exactly. These threads always go straight to the "shoot the politicians" rhetoric. They are about insurrection, not liberty.

If someone were to say: "I own a family farm. I need my guns to protect my livestock from predators and put down sick animals." I would say: "Your firearms are a vital piece of farm equipment. I wouldn't dream of taking them away from you."

If someone were to say: "I live in a poor rural area. My family depends on what I can hunt for their food." I would say: "Good hunting! May your aim be true!"

If someone were to say: "I am a ninety pound single woman who lives in a large city. I need a handgun to protect myself from muggers and rapists." I would say "Of course you do, and might I suggest aikido lessons as well?"

There are many good reasons why responsible people need to own firearms. Threatening the lives of state senators is not one of them. In fact, as I have pointed out, it is precisely that sort of irresponsible rhetoric that makes the case in favor of gun control.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



These laws are about the government acting to promote the general welfare which it also has a Constitutional mandate to do.


The government promotes the welfare of the government.

And has always done so.

At least since Jefferson was president.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Gryphon66
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to military-grade assault weapons. A militia, in 1790 and now, would have existed as a Governmentally-mandated force to repel foreign invaders or quell (wait for it) rebellions, and was not comprised of any random bunch of guys (or girls) who grab their guns and get together and declare themselves deputized. That's mere anarchy, or in this case, insurrection and treason.

Read a history book for goodness sake. Heck, read the Constitution you claim to love: Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

I truly do hate to see that some of you have been so completely inculcated in this "Guns equal Freedom" insanity. These laws you think you're "standing up against" are not about taking your guns, nor about tyranny, nor about any of the rest of the trigger words you've been programmed with over the last decade, if you'll pardon the pun.

These laws are about the government acting to promote the general welfare which it also has a Constitutional mandate to do.

Think about what you're saying: I know that to a large extent for most of you, this is mere verbal "chest thumping" in a safe, secure environment where you know most of your buddies will respond with "hell yeahs." You're talking about killing people, or blowing them up, for no other reason than that they are doing their Constitutional duty. I would feel more horror and sorrow for you, but, the giddiness in your voices is all too clear: you want an excuse to do this, and you've been looking forward to it for a long time.

You're not patriots if you do anything like what you're discussing here; you're small-time hoodlums and thugs and terrorists acting out a fantasy that will ultimately only get some of you, and a lot of other innocent people, killed for no legitimate reason. You will be spitting in the face of the very minute-men you think you're imitating, and every other American soldier that has ever died for American ideals.

You won't be dying for Freedom; you'll merely be a casualty of a marketing campaign gone terribly awry.

I wish I believed in God so I could ask for mercy on your souls.



The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.

This stops now. Keep telling yourself everything will be OK, nothing changes. Keep telling yourself that...



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My point exactly. These threads always go straight to the "shoot the politicians" rhetoric. They are about insurrection, not liberty.

If someone were to say: "I own a family farm. I need my guns to protect my livestock from predators and put down sick animals." I would say: "Your firearms are a vital piece of farm equipment. I wouldn't dream of taking them away from you."

If someone were to say: "I live in a poor rural area. My family depends on what I can hunt for their food." I would say: "Good hunting! May your aim be true!"

If someone were to say: "I am a ninety pound single woman who lives in a large city. I need a handgun to protect myself from muggers and rapists." I would say "Of course you do, and might I suggest aikido lessons as well?"

There are many good reasons why responsible people need to own firearms. Threatening the lives of state senators is not one of them. In fact, as I have pointed out, it is precisely that sort of irresponsible rhetoric that makes the case in favor of gun control.


How do you suggest people obtain liberty when their voices are ignored over, and over, and over again?

Time to wake up.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 



How do you suggest people obtain liberty when their voices are ignored over, and over, and over again?


By letting go of trying to impose their will on others. Then, do what you will.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My point exactly. These threads always go straight to the "shoot the politicians" rhetoric. They are about insurrection, not liberty.

If someone were to say: "I own a family farm. I need my guns to protect my livestock from predators and put down sick animals." I would say: "Your firearms are a vital piece of farm equipment. I wouldn't dream of taking them away from you."

If someone were to say: "I live in a poor rural area. My family depends on what I can hunt for their food." I would say: "Good hunting! May your aim be true!"

If someone were to say: "I am a ninety pound single woman who lives in a large city. I need a handgun to protect myself from muggers and rapists." I would say "Of course you do, and might I suggest aikido lessons as well?"

There are many good reasons why responsible people need to own firearms. Threatening the lives of state senators is not one of them. In fact, as I have pointed out, it is precisely that sort of irresponsible rhetoric that makes the case in favor of gun control.


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

We do not have to prove our need to bear arms, we bear arms until it is proven on an INDIVIDUAL bases that a person is not able to safely do so.

You think peoples rights should be restricted unless they beg and plead for them.

Others think all rights should be respected, unless you demonstrate a reason to remove those rights.

That is a fundamental difference, those who respect freedom, and those who do not. Sure you're on the right side?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 



The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.


Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

James1982

DJW001
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My point exactly. These threads always go straight to the "shoot the politicians" rhetoric. They are about insurrection, not liberty.

If someone were to say: "I own a family farm. I need my guns to protect my livestock from predators and put down sick animals." I would say: "Your firearms are a vital piece of farm equipment. I wouldn't dream of taking them away from you."

If someone were to say: "I live in a poor rural area. My family depends on what I can hunt for their food." I would say: "Good hunting! May your aim be true!"

If someone were to say: "I am a ninety pound single woman who lives in a large city. I need a handgun to protect myself from muggers and rapists." I would say "Of course you do, and might I suggest aikido lessons as well?"

There are many good reasons why responsible people need to own firearms. Threatening the lives of state senators is not one of them. In fact, as I have pointed out, it is precisely that sort of irresponsible rhetoric that makes the case in favor of gun control.


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

We do not have to prove our need to bear arms, we bear arms until it is proven on an INDIVIDUAL bases that a person is not able to safely do so.

You think peoples rights should be restricted unless they beg and plead for them.

Others think all rights should be respected, unless you demonstrate a reason to remove those rights.

That is a fundamental difference, those who respect freedom, and those who do not. Sure you're on the right side?


Where is the infringement

Seriously? Is that the whole argument here?

As long as you can still legally own the weapon, having to register it is NOT infringement. Having restrictions on being able to shoot 500 rounds a minute is NOT infringement. It's painfully obvious nobody has actually read the law in question. The law as written only states that you MUST REGISTER your weapons of a particular class with the State of CT, and if you FAIL to REGISTER then they can if they so choose, confiscate that weapon for the FAILURE TO REGISTER.

If you register it, you can keep it, so your right to have it is not being infringed upon in the least.

And if you don't believe me, there's plenty written about it by constitutional scholars over the past 200 years, as well as numerous SCOTUS rulings upon the matter. Hell even Dershowitcz didn't think simply registering a handgun (back some years ago) was infringement and he is one of the biggest champions of people's rights there is.

Stop bellyaching, and actually take the time to understand the document you're waving around, not everything is a Constitutional Violation just because you wish it to be. If it were, my office would have a line out the door every single day.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 



What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?


What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand? The Second Amendment actually acknowledges the need for regulation.


We do not have to prove our need to bear arms, we bear arms until it is proven on an INDIVIDUAL bases that a person is not able to safely do so.


I agree, and threatening elected officials is an excellent reason to have you right to own arms-- any arms-- revoked.


You think peoples rights should be restricted unless they beg and plead for them.


You clearly do not know what I believe, despite my best attempts to explain myself.


Others think all rights should be respected, unless you demonstrate a reason to remove those rights.


That is what I believe as well.


That is a fundamental difference, those who respect freedom, and those who do not. Sure you're on the right side?


I am on the side of human rights for all. I also believe that the United States Constitution says exactly what it says, not what the political propagandists at the NRA want you to think it says.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


We The People By The People For The People.

Now just let that Sink in for a Moment.
We The People are supposed to be the Government.
We are NOT.
The Government is an ELITE GROUP.
No matter how many VOTES are cast Votes can be MANIPULATED
for the Governments particular wished Outcome.
and that is done on every ELECTION.
By The People which is US.
We have no say so WHATSOEVER in what kind of LAWS are written
and Passed by the ELITE GOVERNMENT.
FOR THE PEOPLE
I think that means the MAJORITY of US.
Somebody Please tell me if i am WRONG.
If i am The Constuition Means Absolutely NOTHING.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



As long as you can still legally own the weapon


There should be no doubt that a weapon is owned against the government. Like a seat belt.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

bluesman1955
reply to post by DJW001
 


We The People By The People For The People.

Now just let that Sink in for a Moment.
We The People are supposed to be the Government.
We are NOT.
The Government is an ELITE GROUP.
No matter how many VOTES are cast Votes can be MANIPULATED
for the Governments particular wished Outcome.
and that is done on every ELECTION.
By The People which is US.
We have no say so WHATSOEVER in what kind of LAWS are written
and Passed by the ELITE GOVERNMENT.
FOR THE PEOPLE
I think that means the MAJORITY of US.
Somebody Please tell me if i am WRONG.
If i am The Constuition Means Absolutely NOTHING.


I'm sorry you feel so powerless. Perhaps if you got involved in local politics you would begin to sense more control over your life.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by ketsuko
 



A government shouldn't inspire this level of fear in its citizens.


It is not the government that is inspiring this fear, but the NRA. The NRA has so poisoned the well that rational discussion of the Second Amendment has become impossible.


No, it is the gun grabbers that cant be reasoned with. "a criminal committed a criminal act with a legal object, nobody should be able to have this object".

Their reasoning is all bad, and based on an overly emotional knee jerk reaction, not logic, and reason.

Hey I know crazy people kill others with cars all the time, more people die from cars in the hands of criminals every year than guns, but we have to ban guns not cars.

There is no logic to be had with these people, they will not see or use reason.

Take all the guns, criminals will still find a way to do evil, except now the law abiding people dont have the necessary ability to protect themselves. "when every second counts, the police are only minutes away"



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


The "gun grabbers" are a figment of your imagination, placed there by the NRA. Every well intended handgun ban by a local government has been overturned by the Supreme Court.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join