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

reply to post by vkey08


When the state take a position like they have in CT typical defense of self morality is out the window.

CT has entered the murky waters of pre-conflict occupation.

The legislature has moved to felonize hundreds of thousands of people who havent caused any harm to anyone.

I would expect the same response if the CT legislature made women register fetuses or men register penises or created homosexual living areas and regulate and oversee reporters or start blocking websites, television channels, radio stations or newspapers.

The only real shocking and surprising thing is that gun owners, having been marginalized for generations now with travel restrictions, registration/licensing and function limitations, is how long it has taken and how far it has had to go before the lot of them got off their Fudd asses and took notice.

Some kid gets told she cant wear her "I heart Boobies" shirt to school and the nation rises up. A state legislature sews stars on lapels and decides what rights people have and if you get upset you're an extremist and a loon. Those damn civil rights extremists just wanting to be left alone causing no harm to anyone or anything. How dare they.

DJW001

Grimmley

So because he doesn't live here in the US he can't understand the Constitution?

*blink*

I understand it all too well and I do not consider this a violation, an infringement OR a "gun grab" it's registration pure simple and to the point. The day they come and take it, then we can talk infringement, until then, it's a bunch of angry rhetoric that is going to get someone killed.

To the other poster that thinks the 2nd Amendment says you can have a rocket launcher, it certainly does not cover that.. in any way shape manner or form..

And you would be wrong.

The 2A is and always will be the (and as it was INTENDED) the balance of power of the governed (We the People) to balance the power base to the states and the federal government. 2A was written with the intent for the people to have a balance of power and to get the government from a monopoly of force. So yes if they had those weapon systems in place then yes it would have included those. When any government has a monopoly of force it ends badly for the citizens. And yes registration is an infringement to anyones right. Look at what happened in the UK and Australia, and Nazi Germany, heck look anywhere in history where there was registration, there was ALWAYS confiscation. So yes you would be wrong on all accounts of that.

Grim

edit on 4/3/2014 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)

This is your interpretation of the amendment. After the rebellion, radicals like Thomas Paine were shunned.

This is not just my interpretation of the Amendment, this was taught through out or history classes too, until as of late with the socialistic "feel good" history that they are trying to indoctrinate the youth with today.

The 2A is what allows all other protects all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Grim

I wanted to repost this, just in case those that are for registration missed it. . . . . .



As a matter of fact, why not support government registration of all computers and laptops!

Child porn is an ugly horrible thing. This way, government can find the bad guys right away!

When you buy a computer, (there is a 3 week waiting period, background checks) you are given a government-issued IP address. It'll be tracked, and monitored and flagged if anything naughty comes to it or is done by it.

But if you're not doing anything bad, there will be nothing to worry about. (or aboot if you're Canadian)

Now different politicians come and go. Different ideologies come and go. A new administration may not like it if you are downloading Muslim sites or Christian sites, or Tea Party sites, or Fluffy Bunny sites.

But by then, it'll be too late.


But hey, it was to stop child pornography.

reply to post by vkey08


So now we are into changing the definition of infringement.

Registration is infringement. Banning is infringement. Restrictions are infringements. Waiting times are infringements.

This is very simple to understand. Blink all you want, as I stand by my statement.

The 2nd was created so that anyone could read it, and see that very simply, we as a citizen are guaranteed the right to bear arms. Not just certain types of rifles for hunting deer. Not just a 22 pistol with only 5 rounds. Not single shot what ever.

Very clear.....Very simple......



Oh, and the letter in question, should you actually go and review it, states very clearly that the state is gearing up for confiscation, by using the "registration" you state is okay.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

CT has entered the murky waters of pre-conflict occupation.

I thought Connecticut was already occupying Connecticut?

reply to post by vkey08


Stalk and kill who????

I love the extreme dramatics posed by you and Progressives.

reply to post by macman

I love the extreme dramatics posed by you and Progressives.

You mean dramatics like this?

We are at a crossroads. You, in the arrogance of your power and your ignorance of the people you seek to dominate are extrapolating from your own cowardice -- you believe that just because the government orders these folks to knuckle under that they will do so BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO. You mistake them, and your mistake is, in the fullness of time, going to get people killed. And who do you think these people who you victimize -- these people who you will have state agents seek to round up and kill -- who do you think they are going to blame for that? It doesn't take Madame Lawlor and his crystal ball to predict that such people -- victimized by their own state authorities in an unconstitutional law that likely will be found to be null and void anyway -- will blame the people who sent the killers. Which is to say, you.

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com...

Why is it that so many of you here are unable to see that the author of this letter is mentally unbalanced? His violent ranting actually justifies having weapons-- up to and including sharp scissors-- taken away and hidden from him.

macman
reply to post by vkey08

 

Stalk and kill who????

I love the extreme dramatics posed by you and Progressives.

I am far from a progressive, but thank you for making an assumption. I am a licensed gun owner and I have a carry permit, I do not want that right stripped form me, but when I go on TV or in print and put the names and addresses of legislators and then tell people "We are good marksmen" that is a nice subtle way of saying "target practice" I would assume that I would be very quickly stripped of my weapons..

Or are these legislators that are now fearful for their lives after this group's posting just scared of the wind?

(BTW: I live in CT... )

reply to post by DJW001


the author of that letter was warning against the anger he saw coming from folks he knew. It didn't come across to me as him being threatening. It came across as him giving a warning of what he had seen from others.

I don't think he controls the actions of the 3 mil that have not registered.

Grimmley

DJW001

Grimmley

So because he doesn't live here in the US he can't understand the Constitution?

*blink*

I understand it all too well and I do not consider this a violation, an infringement OR a "gun grab" it's registration pure simple and to the point. The day they come and take it, then we can talk infringement, until then, it's a bunch of angry rhetoric that is going to get someone killed.

To the other poster that thinks the 2nd Amendment says you can have a rocket launcher, it certainly does not cover that.. in any way shape manner or form..

And you would be wrong.

The 2A is and always will be the (and as it was INTENDED) the balance of power of the governed (We the People) to balance the power base to the states and the federal government. 2A was written with the intent for the people to have a balance of power and to get the government from a monopoly of force. So yes if they had those weapon systems in place then yes it would have included those. When any government has a monopoly of force it ends badly for the citizens. And yes registration is an infringement to anyones right. Look at what happened in the UK and Australia, and Nazi Germany, heck look anywhere in history where there was registration, there was ALWAYS confiscation. So yes you would be wrong on all accounts of that.

Grim

edit on 4/3/2014 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)

This is your interpretation of the amendment. After the rebellion, radicals like Thomas Paine were shunned.

This is not just my interpretation of the Amendment, this was taught through out or history classes too, until as of late with the socialistic "feel good" history that they are trying to indoctrinate the youth with today.

The 2A is what allows all other protects all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Grim

a few minutes ago on the news i heard the local morning anchor say, "Texas is considering passing a law to ban texting while driving to ensure residents are not putting others at risk"

What does passing a law ensure? The only thing I have ever seen it ensure is that people will be criminal.

Not that texting and driving is a good thing. But the mindset of "action-reaction" that says creating laws will ensure compliance.....it just baffles me.

vkey08

Or are these legislators that are now fearful for their lives after this group's posting just scared of the wind?

(BTW: I live in CT... )

What's to be afraid of? They voted on record, right? Their residences and offices are listed in the white pages, right?

They should be proud to stand with their record.

I can see this being used to sequester all legislators. No more public voting records. Everything will be under cover of darkness. No reporters, no more CSPAN. The public will have to right or ability to know how any elected person votes or what bills they support or do not support.

A politicians wet dream.

thisguyrighthere

vkey08

Or are these legislators that are now fearful for their lives after this group's posting just scared of the wind?

(BTW: I live in CT... )

What's to be afraid of? They voted on record, right? Their residences and offices are listed in the white pages, right?

They should be proud to stand with their record.

I can see this being used to sequester all legislators. No more public voting records. Everything will be under cover of darkness. No reporters, no more CSPAN. The public will have to right or ability to know how any elected person votes or what bills they support or do not support.

A politicians wet dream.

They could stand behind their record, it doesn't mean they should be stalked and shot for it sheesh.. We have elections for a reason, don't like how someone votes, vote them out of office don't threaten to shoot them.

vkey08

thisguyrighthere

vkey08

Or are these legislators that are now fearful for their lives after this group's posting just scared of the wind?

(BTW: I live in CT... )

What's to be afraid of? They voted on record, right? Their residences and offices are listed in the white pages, right?

They should be proud to stand with their record.

I can see this being used to sequester all legislators. No more public voting records. Everything will be under cover of darkness. No reporters, no more CSPAN. The public will have to right or ability to know how any elected person votes or what bills they support or do not support.

A politicians wet dream.

They could stand behind their record, it doesn't mean they should be stalked and shot for it sheesh.. We have elections for a reason, don't like how someone votes, vote them out of office don't threaten to shoot them.

Thank you! That's just what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution!

vkey08
They could stand behind their record, it doesn't mean they should be stalked and shot for it sheesh.. We have elections for a reason, don't like how someone votes, vote them out of office don't threaten to shoot them.

Who's being threatened?

The letter has a plea to not put police in harms way enforcing the law. That's the closest thing I saw to a threat on anyone.

DJW001

Thank you! That's just what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution!

And after voting to boot King George out everything was honky dory, right?

Sometimes a hunger strike isn't enough.

reply to post by DJW001


Deflection is not really a valid debate method.

YOUR dramatic statements are what I addressed.

I guess that the statement of

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

would seem like ramblings to you as well.

The politicians are not above the law, nor are they above the citizen.

vkey08

I am far from a progressive, but thank you for making an assumption.

If it quacks like a duck................

vkey08
I am a licensed gun owner and I have a carry permit,

Like every person that prefaces their statement, as they launch into restricting "assault weapons" and such.

vkey08
I do not want that right stripped form me, but when I go on TV or in print and put the names and addresses of legislators and then tell people "We are good marksmen" that is a nice subtle way of saying "target practice" I would assume that I would be very quickly stripped of my weapons..

Why would that be stripped from you??
I see no problem with what was done.
You didn't do it, so why are you worried. I guess you worry more for politicians that are already stripping away rights, then that of your fellow state citizen.

vkey08
Or are these legislators that are now fearful for their lives after this group's posting just scared of the wind?

Maybe they should be.
They have lost all regards and fear of the people that elected them. They do what they want, stamp on our rights and you worry for them and their feelings.

vkey08
(BTW: I live in CT... )

Big surprise.

reply to post by macman


FWIW, vkey is a guns rights advocate. She has spoken of her love of marksmanship for years here on ATS. She is no progressive. Just a woman with a differing opinion from yours and mine.

Being a CT resident, her voice speaks louder than ay non CT resident in this particular case. From a 10th amendment perspective, its not our fight.

bigfatfurrytexan

Being a CT resident, her voice speaks louder than ay non CT resident in this particular case.

From a 10th amendment perspective, its not our fight.

I was a CT resident for 30 years. I left because of their gun laws. Quit my job, took a 50% pay cut, burned most bridges and left.

For the past year I've been underground railroading guns of friends and family out of state for them. Storage space is becoming an issue.

Maybe my opinion doesnt matter any more because I left but I'm still directly dealing with the consequences of this asinine law thanks to idiot relatives and friends who were too naive or "rooted" to jump ship when they saw the iceberg coming.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I know many people that own guns, champion them, yet fall right in line about how "assault weapons" need to be banned.
That is a Progressive ideal. Now, with that said, the flat out use of labeling as a Progressive may not suite this, and for that, VKEY08, I apologize.

If the case is that VKEY08 is a gun rights advocate, I would ask to outline exactly what her stance is on the 2nd then.

Again, if I am incorrect, them I'm incorrect.

There is a reason why I don't support the NRA. They back things like CCWs, which are a clear violation of the 2nd.