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

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.

The people already own these firearms so no one is having to ask permission to own these firearms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what kind firearm you are allowed to have and the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment.

And when giving a speech you have laws you have to follow as well. Simply because slander is against the law.

NavyDoc

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.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

reply to post by DJW001


I'm not complaining.
Just Stating the Facts.
The Government is the Government.
Not the Peoples Government.

DJW001
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?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

DJW001

NavyDoc

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.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

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

I agree with what DJW says here. Sending a letter threatening an official
is all wrong. You don't warn your enemy you're about to open fire and lose
the element of surprize.

An
OK now you've done it
letter? What a joke !


Put down the pencil, forget the words.
Pick up the gun and fire some bullets.
They el no comprehendo anything else.
Be ready to kiss your ass goodbye at the
same time. It's called sacrifice.

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

Doc, Doc, Doc...come on now. You have to understand something. There are two types of rights. Rights we care about, and rights we don't. If we don't agree with a right or have any interest in it, its OK to support the government when it wants to restrict it.

That's what it seems many here are saying. I'm sure we won't find *any* of these people in other threads complaining about how their other rights are in jeopardy from government encroachment, either. No sir.

NavyDoc

DJW001
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?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

buster2010

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.

The people already own these firearms so no one is having to ask permission to own these firearms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what kind firearm you are allowed to have and the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment.

And when giving a speech you have laws you have to follow as well. Simply because slander is against the law.

Slander injures another person. Simply owning a firearm injures no one. What is proposed is like limiting your ability to speak just because you MIGHT slander someone.

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

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.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

NavyDoc

buster2010

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.

The people already own these firearms so no one is having to ask permission to own these firearms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what kind firearm you are allowed to have and the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment.

And when giving a speech you have laws you have to follow as well. Simply because slander is against the law.

Slander injures another person. Simply owning a firearm injures no one. What is proposed is like limiting your ability to speak just because you MIGHT slander someone.

edit on 3-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

But automatic weapons are intended to hurt people! It is why they were invented, and why people wish to own them.

I see many posts defending Connecticut's assault weapon (a misnomer I don't have space to address here) registration as "lawful" and "common sense". Registration means the government knows what you own and where to find it. This is of course for the public safety, despite the fact that these so-called "assault weapons" account for a very tiny percentage of the guns actually used in the commission of a crime, a number which in fact is pretty much negated by the number of crimes deterred by these same weapons.

Mind you of the 2 events which made this law possible - Aurora and Sandy Hook - neither has gone to trial, neither has allowed public access to information about them and are solely based on government say-so. Both events happened exactly as presented by the media because the government said so.

This is the same government who assured us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Afghanistan was chock-full of complex cave systems harboring countless numbers of Al Qaeda terrorists ready to hit the US with another 9/11 type event. The same people who said they don't record or listen in on our conversations and emails. The same who said Benghazi was a reaction to a youtube video. The same who said the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. I could fill pages but I think the point is clear - our government lies, compulsively so. Why? Because their job is to steal your money and labor and make you think it's somehow necessary while they and their banker cronies stuff their pockets full only to tell us they have no money to help main street USA.

What compounds the problem of endemic dishonesty by government is the MSM's failure to question or hold them to account when they're caught lying to us. Like the family problem no one wants to talk about it's quietly forgotten and covered over. Look at the history of anti-gun legislation and tell me how it has helped Chicago or Detroit? It may sound like a tired cliché but the truth is when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

When the police are only minutes away it doesn't make much difference what gun a criminal has, you are at their mercy (JUST LIKE THE CHILDREN AT SANDY HOOK). The same horrific crime could have been committed with handguns or a shotgun. The fact an AR15 was used didn't make any difference. That is why this new law is based on false logic. Nearly every account from that day attested to hearing groups of 10 shots or less followed by a pause.

My final point is for the sake of argument let's say the 2nd Amendment only exists so that we can arm a militia. Fine, find me an army anywhere on the planet that doesn't use assault rifles as their main battle weapon. To give our militia anything less is to ensure they can be easily defeated. Who would want the civilian population so disarmed as to not be able to fight against an occupying army? Our own government. Why might that be? Perhaps because they know THEY are the ones breaking the law, THEY are the ones who want to live well on the backs and labor of others and the only people who could ever possibly hold them to account for their crimes are the citizens of the United States.

How much do they have to steal from you before you acknowledge you are living in slavery? You think you have money but you don't, you own debt - debt to a private bank known as the Federal Reserve.
How many rights are left to be taken from you before you have none at all? The Constitution for the United States is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Every single amendment has been whittled down, marginalized and made conditional upon the decision of government. They are no longer rights at that point but privileges granted upon their whim.

We have been lied to and manipulated for decades and promised a New World Order was coming. Our economy is shattered, our Nation placed in perpetual debt bondage to an elite group of bankers and still we look to them for solutions and hope? That is, by definition, insanity - repeating an experiment and expecting different results.

When the people lose their only tool strong enough to resist an oppressive government rest assured open tyranny will follow. Hitler, Stalin and Mao - all came to power and among their first goals was to disarm the populace.

I'll take my chances and trust my friends, neighbors and community rather than a bloated country club system of elites with a track record of Bonnie and Clyde on crack who tell us we can't have the very same weapons their hired minions have to protect their criminal asses. THEY HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS TO PROTECT THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. You common folk don't need such protection because you're simply not as important as they are. That's what it all boils down to in the end. You produce - they consume. Get back to work now and shut up.

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
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?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

Your only focussing on the well regulated militia part, and completely ignoring the rest where it says point blank " the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe we understand the meaning of words differently, but from I am sitting "shall not be infringed" means it sahll not be infringed, which means infringement is not possible.

Notice it didnt say 'shall not be infringed unless X....".

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?

The law isn't wrong you would know this had you read any of the cases that has been brought before the Supreme Court.

Jim Crowe laws violated the 13th and 14th amendments. So she didn't have to follow laws that violated the constitution maybe you should read it sometime.

Schindler? LOL maybe you should actually read the book sometime instead of believing a movie. Read what it says at the bottom of the foreword it says this is a book of fiction and Schindler's widow even backed that statement up.

DJW001
But automatic weapons are intended to hurt people! It is why they were invented, and why people wish to own them.

That is indeed why they were invented.

I have my doubts on the intent issue. Sure, they might use them for self-defense, but the overwhelming majority of firearms owners have no 'intent' to commit harm with them. I'd guess that over 99% of them never do, either.

And BTW, automatic weapons aren't at issue with the Connecticut ban. They're already heavily regulated at the federal level.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


So you're going to go with the insurrectionist rhetoric, too? Fortunately, you do have freedom of speech in this country and can pretty much say anything you want. You can also own firearms and use them any way you want so long as you are prepared to face the consequences of their use. Those are the simple facts of the matter. Everything else is opinion and/or conjecture.

oblvion

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
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?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

Your only focussing on the well regulated militia part, and completely ignoring the rest where it says point blank " the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe we understand the meaning of words differently, but from I am sitting "shall not be infringed" means it sahll not be infringed, which means infringement is not possible.

Notice it didnt say 'shall not be infringed unless X....".

In order for the statement to be self consistent, regulation does not imply infringement.

DJW001

NavyDoc

buster2010

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.

The people already own these firearms so no one is having to ask permission to own these firearms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what kind firearm you are allowed to have and the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment.

And when giving a speech you have laws you have to follow as well. Simply because slander is against the law.

Slander injures another person. Simply owning a firearm injures no one. What is proposed is like limiting your ability to speak just because you MIGHT slander someone.

edit on 3-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

But automatic weapons are intended to hurt people! It is why they were invented, and why people wish to own them.

I wish to own them, but have no intention of hurting anyone with them, in fact I have extensive training with them and their use, and a top secret security clearance with the US government, to prove I am trustworthy.

Have you ever shot one?

I have shot many, M-16A1 M-16A2 SAW M-240B Mk-19 M2 M-60....everything I mentioned is "automatic" except the M-16A2 it is 3 shot burst.

All of these were quite fun to shoot. Especially the Mk-19 grenade launcher, who makes a full auto 40mm grenade launcher? I dont know, but MY GOD!!!!!! That was some fun stuff right there.

Many of us shoot for fun, it is a fun activity you know. There are more reasons to own a gun than killing people.

Hammers also can kill, but you dont only own one to bludgeon someone to death with it.

Your not using reason or logic here.

There are way more than 1 singular reason to own somthing, it isnt singular because you deem it to be so.

oblvion

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
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?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

Your only focussing on the well regulated militia part, and completely ignoring the rest where it says point blank " the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe we understand the meaning of words differently, but from I am sitting "shall not be infringed" means it sahll not be infringed, which means infringement is not possible.

Notice it didnt say 'shall not be infringed unless X....".

Your belief goes against Supreme Court ruling.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

reply to post by oblvion

There are way more than 1 singular reason to own somthing, it isnt singular because you deem it to be so.

Correct. Some people need to purchase certain drugs to control pain. Others, for recreational purposes. Some obtain the drugs from those who need them to sell to those who want to use them for recreation. The law states that those who manufacture these drugs can only provide them to certain people for certain verifiable purposes. That is what regulation is all about. Why should potentially dangerous weapons be regulated any differently than potentially helpful medication?