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

reply to post by vor78


Michael Badnarik calls it the "Dog named Cat"

The Federalists (federal means no head in charge) wanted a strong central authority. The dog named cat. The Federalists wrote the Constitution. The lead Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, was the youngest founding father and the only one without a home colony. He was born in the Carribean Islands. He was also the only Central Bank Protagonist.

The Anti-Federalists (name implying against the idea of no central head) wanted no central authority, only some kind of association. The cat named dog. The Bill of Rights was promised to get enough of the Anti-Federalist vote to pass. The Bill of Rights was added during the implementation of the Constitution.

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

bigfatfurrytexan

randyvs
reply to post by DJW001

 

whether they have broke any laws or not.

Damn it! Ok you got me there.

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

No he doesn't. Your opinion has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty". You are not involved in a legal capacity, and are not on a jury.

Besides, "innocent until proven guilty" only works when the system proving guilt is just. Todd Willingham was proven guilty, and was executed. When, in fact, he was innocent. I am sure there are others executed unjustly...but we can list out plenty of folks who were locked away for decades over wrongful convictions.

For some reason that cliche of "Well, its not a perfect system, but its the best in the world" just doesn't cut it for me anymore. We are talking about peoples lives. And, unlike a video game....you only get 1 of those lives.

Until we have a just system, or at least do more than give lip service, my own personal opinion is the best I have got.

Our current system isnt the original, and its intent isnt the same.

Under the original " it is far better to let 100 guilty men go free than to send one innocent man to jail"

Now we have, arrest and jail at first sign of guilt, then he is guilty and incarcerated until proven innocent.

There is a drastic and stark difference between the former and the latter.

vor78

Semicollegiate
If the second amendment was about the militia it would have been included in the section dealing with the commander-in-chief.

I'm still trying to figure out why Congress would need to protect its right to raise a militia when it already had the right to raise and support armies granted in Article 1 Section 8.

Oh well, such are the great mysteries of life and liberal thought processes, I suppose.

Or lack there of....?

randyvs
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Thank you very much and that brings us
full circle to my original point. Any lawmaker
using his position to usurp the constitution,
is guilty of treason. No pencils, no words, no
jails, no warnings, just bullets. That way they
stay completely away from any thoughts of it
just being, " A piece of paper ".

And to hell with anyone who doesn't cherish freedom
enough to feel the same way.

Thomas Jefferson shot and killed a man on the White House lawn for treason..........I think the founders would agree in some aspects with your line of reason.

reply to post by DJW001

No, but you can mitigate the potential damage. That's why the government FORCES us to use seat belts. Surely that must violate some unwritten constitutional right.

Its important that the government does as much as it possibly can. Like a good curfew law to make sure citizens get enough sleep.

That would cut back on accidents too.

bigfatfurrytexan

tkwasny

NavyDoc

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

The Constitution does not state that gun ownership is only part of militia service and the SCOTUS confirmed that.

"well regulated" in 18th century speak means "well trained". It is the constitutional responsibility of the federal govt to provide training and range time for all its citizens, as all able-bodied citizens are of the militia.

Um, no. Its not. You are so wrong in that statement that to anyone else reading this discussion, nothing further needs to be pointed out.

BUt you are incorrect. Please go and read the case law regarding various SCOTUS 2A rulings.

The only job the federal government has is what is expressly stated in the constitution. Everything else is tyrannical power grabs achieved by making a populace dumb enough to allow it.

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

Their powers were enumerated for a reason right?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

While not in favor of the guillotine, I have no objection to a rope being used in cases of treason.

I don't even own a firearm. I guess because they haven't banned them yet.
Anyways carry on.

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

I know, I have already trapped him into logic fallacies several times, and he always falters. It is fun to play with the weaker minded when their position is untenable and they know it.

He still persists though, so I hope at some point "sense" will soak in through shear repetition, like training a dog that doesnt even speak english.

When I tell him no enough times he finally understands the meaning of the word.

Thanks for your concern though, this is taking up time I could actually be doing something useful with.

On second thought, your right.

I wash my hands of this madness, I do have better things to do with my time.

Good day Sir.

randyvs
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

While not in favor of the guillotine, I have no objection to a rope being used in cases of treason.

I don't even own a firearm. I guess because they haven't banned them yet.
Anyways carry on.

I was gonna leave, but first I just had to comment on this. I only have one word.

GLORIOUS!!!!!!!

oblvion

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

I know, I have already trapped him into logic fallacies several times, and he always falters. It is fun to play with the weaker minded when their position is untenable and they know it.

He still persists though, so I hope at some point "sense" will soak in through shear repetition, like training a dog that doesnt even speak english.

When I tell him no enough times he finally understands the meaning of the word.

Thanks for your concern though, this is taking up time I could actually be doing something useful with.

On second thought, your right.

I wash my hands of this madness, I do have better things to do with my time.

Good day Sir.

If i recall, you are out near my neck o the woods.

I just came in from outside. Its cold as hell out there...stay warm.

reply to post by DJW001

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

I like the Credit Union idea applied to weapon systems. A community jet or tank or boat. You would just know.

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

I know, I have already trapped him into logic fallacies several times, and he always falters. It is fun to play with the weaker minded when their position is untenable and they know it.

He still persists though, so I hope at some point "sense" will soak in through shear repetition, like training a dog that doesnt even speak english.

When I tell him no enough times he finally understands the meaning of the word.

Thanks for your concern though, this is taking up time I could actually be doing something useful with.

On second thought, your right.

I wash my hands of this madness, I do have better things to do with my time.

Good day Sir.

If i recall, you are out near my neck o the woods.

I just came in from outside. Its cold as hell out there...stay warm.

It is brutally so, I had my truck almost overheat because my coolant wasnt at the right mix it seems for the frigid 10 degrees this morning. It got slushy on me and wouldnt run through the radiator very well.

I gotta go out and drain some and add more antifreeze, been putting it off because well it sucks out there.

I tested it and it was only good to 13 degrees, I am from Indiana, when my family hears about this they are gonna give me crap for the next few years, this is one of the first things one learns in that climate in the winter up there.

I didnt even think to test it at the start of winter like normal, this is Texas for God's sake, I thought I had escaped the frozen tundra.

bigfatfurrytexan
If i recall, you are out near my neck o the woods.

I just came in from outside. Its cold as hell out there...stay warm.

You mean that in a relative way,,,, right?

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

Yes, just keep patting each other on the back. Don't listen to that crazy liberal who keeps trying to get you to think. Just keep repeating to yourself: THEY'RE GOING TO COME FOR MY GUNS.

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to any of you that gun registration might help law enforcement officers solve crimes, and that this would be a legitimate way of serving and protecting the commonwealth?

DJW001

bigfatfurrytexan

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

Don't bother arguing with him. There have been several posts in a row that are lacking logic to such a severe degree that it is obvious the only result will be derailing and tangents.

Yes, just keep patting each other on the back. Don't listen to that crazy liberal who keeps trying to get you to think. Just keep repeating to yourself: THEY'RE GOING TO COME FOR MY GUNS.

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to any of you that gun registration might help law enforcement officers solve crimes, and that this would be a legitimate way of serving and protecting the commonwealth?

I have no interest in helping redcoats do the business of the state.

My youngest son....will be entering college to get a degree in manufacturing engineering. He is a welder. He will make his own guns.

There is no gun registration that will be able to take all weapons from me. But it is a metaphor for the real issue: eroding freedoms.

reply to post by DJW001


Criminals don't register firearms!!! What don't you understand? The atf can't keep track of their own weapon caches. You think they can handle 300 million firearms? No.

I feel this way...

Asktheanimals
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.

edit on 3-3-2014 by Asktheanimals because: spelling errors corrected

EXCELLENTLY WORDED

AMEN

DJW001


I don't suppose it has ever occurred to any of you that gun registration might help law enforcement officers solve crimes, and that this would be a legitimate way of serving and protecting the commonwealth?

Gun owners know their serial numbers and are quite capable of calling the local pd and giving them that information if their gun is ever stolen.

There is no compelling need for the government to know who owns what guns.

Though I support the entirety of the Bill of Rights, I think the letter was ill-written and will only serve to fuel the vitriol against "gun nuts." The language contained in the letter screams "hillbilly-hick-redneck-trailer trash gun kook," and they make violent threats. Disgusting.

Again, I'm all for upholding the Bill of Rights, but this isn't the way, and will only hurt the cause. Gun registration is historically a bad thing, confiscations always lead to tyranny, and this Bill is obviously a load of manure, but I don't agree with the methods of these people.