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

reply to post by vkey08


you are not going to win the argument. there are people that are so in fear of our nation becoming a tyranny, that they do not want any government agency to know that they own a gun, especially one that can kill quickly and in large numbers.

Asktheanimals
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.

In fact we have, just look at at all the polls.

People believe our government is the biggest threat we face, less than 1/3 think the government serves us, even fewer have any faith in any of the branch's.

It was always inevitable that the people would draw a line in the sand. It is also inevitable that the government will blink first, because they dont have the resources to force the people to do squat. We only comply because we choose to thinking somtimes things are better for the majority even if we dont agree.

That time has passed now though, we see very clearly what they want.

Billions of rounds of "practice" hollowpoint ammo, militarized police that are brutalizing everyone who catchs their eyes. APC's designed for an actual warzone rolling through the streets of cities and towns the country over.

The NSA spying on all Americans private lives.

Enough is enough.

CSPAN had some shows about 2004 - 2007 that told of US Armed Forces restructuring. The army is no longer designed to destroy other armies.

The new Army will be structured as an occupation force. No more Panzer divisions. Every unit will be about the same with the task of watch and react.

The Navy was looking to buy more riverine and littoral boats.

The Air Force is into surveillance and surgical strikes.

Since the whole reason for the Army is to defend against other armies, this bodes slaughter, starvation and oppression if the government continues on its present course.

jimmyx
reply to post by vkey08

 

you are not going to win the argument. there are people that are so in fear of our nation becoming a tyranny, that they do not want any government agency to know that they own a gun, especially one that can kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't care if I win the argument or not, facts are facts, it is NOT infringement to have to register a gun.. If they can't handle that simple fact, and the fact that the 2nd talks about REGULATED then I can't help them, but god help anyone in this state that walks into my office and starts complaining about a Constitutional Violation on this. I am also armed, and they better not try the ole, I'm gonna pull out my assault rifle and threaten you to me, I will shoot back and I AM an expert shot.

When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

jimmyx
reply to post by vkey08

 

you are not going to win the argument. there are people that are so in fear of our nation becoming a tyranny, that they do not want any government agency to know that they own a gun, especially one that can kill quickly and in large numbers.

That's another thing I find puzzling. Have you ever heard of eminent domain? Although this can be a legitimate process, it is often abused. Because it is usually a corrupt local government that does this, it does not often make national headlines. The abuse of power and seizure of private property by the government is the very definition of tyranny. Where are all the Second Amendment advocates hiding when a tyrannical local government makes a land grab? Shouldn't they be forming themselves into a well regulated militia to defend the home owners?

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

DJW001
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.

And yet they always persist in trying to find another way to take them away.

You can quit with the NRA talking point crap, I am not in the NRA, nor would I ever be.

You can also atop with this tired "nobody is trying to take your guns" nonsense, because yes they are. Feinstein Bloomberg etc....

How many names you want me to name, of those in power that are trying to take our guns?

Give me any number, I bet 1,000 would not be enough for you, even though I guarantee I could find that many quite easily.

THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!!!

Once you can be honest enough to admit the truth of your position, we can have a civilized debate based on the facts and the merits.

As it is, the only side being honest and truthful is the side telling, your not getting them, and we will fight, as hard as we have to to stop you.

The ball is in your court, come and get them.

We arent going out of our way to try and strip your rights, we arent going out of our way to attack you.

Your position is actively trying to take our rights, and has already jailed and attacked and killed people while trying to restrict their rights.

Once again the ball is in your court, come and take em.

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

reply to post by oblvion


I DON'T WANT YOUR GUNS!!!! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ME!!! Get it?

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

reply to post by DJW001


I Don't Enjoy Dealing with Tyrants.
Therefore i try to stay away from Politicians.
Doesn't mean i don't VOTE.
for what freaking good it does.
The Government is supposed to be ours.
It is not
It's past time that We should be in Control.
So do you think by giving up our only means of
defense to do so is the perfect answer ?
Maybe we should have given Britan all of our Muskets
way back then.

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

You said "any". Not fair. What if I wanted to own an automatic rifle? I can't. I can only have the types of weapons that "they" approve of, if I pass their criteria.

Currently, we don't have true Rights to own fire arms anymore. You should be happy. The controlling central authority has made it virtually impossible for anyone to simply go out and purchase one.

bluesman1955
reply to post by DJW001

 

I Don't Enjoy Dealing with Tyrants.
Therefore i try to stay away from Politicians.
Doesn't mean i don't VOTE.
for what freaking good it does.
The Government is supposed to be ours.
It is not
It's past time that We should be in Control.
So do you think by giving up our only means of
defense to do so is the perfect answer ?
Maybe we should have given Britan all of our Muskets
way back then.

If you don't like the government you have, be the government you want. Otherwise, stop complaining.

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 sometimes the law is wrong. Would you agree that Rosa Parks did the right thing by not complying with the law? Otto Schindler?

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

I DON'T WANT YOUR GUNS!!!! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ME!!! Get it?

Have I ever tried to force them on you?

Has any member of this board your arguing with?

Has the NRA tried to pass a law forcing you to have guns?

Ok then, once again, one side of this debate is actively seeking to take away from others, and force their desires on them through force of law.

The other simply wants to be left alone.

That wont happen though, because those trying to force their beliefs on others cant live without others being under their thumb.

Some people just have to oppress others to be happy in life.

Others just want to be free.

NavyDoc

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 sometimes the law is wrong. Would you agree that Rosa Parks did the right thing by not complying with the law? Otto Schindler?

Ouch!!!! That one is gonna sting for awhile.

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

reply to post by beezzer

You said "any". Not fair. What if I wanted to own an automatic rifle? I can't. I can only have the types of weapons that "they" approve of, if I pass their criteria.

I honestly cannot understand why anyone not planning mass murder would "want" an automatic rifle.

Currently, we don't have true Rights to own fire arms anymore. You should be happy. The controlling central authority has made it virtually impossible for anyone to simply go out and purchase one.

What do you mean by "true Rights?" A total lack of adult supervision? And yes, I am happy that some thug can't simply go out and purchase one. If he has to go out of his way to get one illegally, maybe he will give up and try to rob people using a knife. I can defend myself against an attacker with a knife bare-handed.

NavyDoc

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 sometimes the law is wrong. Would you agree that Rosa Parks did the right thing by not complying with the law? Otto Schindler?

Richard Speck? Charles Manson?