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

Cuervo
reply to post by Bassago

 

While I personally don't see an issue with making people register their guns and it's debatable whether or not it infringes upon our 2nd amendment, I cannot help but feel like this stand-off is necessary in order to protect the rest of our rights that I actually do care about.

They have been slowly eroding our rights, just pushing buttons here and there to see if Americans react with force. Seeing that not even bailing out the very same institutions that ruined our economy rallied anything but unarmed students, they feel like they can push more buttons. So they do. They are like the smart monkey, poking around market stalls, stealing just enough fruit to get people mad but not enough to get people to capture him with nets. Now that monkey wants all the fruit and he now has to get rid of the nets.

Without the nets, that monkey will be able to take whatever he wants with impunity. I do not like to see nets being used on animals but I also don't want the last of my fruit stolen.

So, parables aside, I say I reluctantly withdraw my ire towards pro-2nd amendment folks. For now.

Aesop himself could not have spoken better for something he disagrees with, though he sees the reason behind it all.

Your words are breathtaking. Thank you sir for using your reason to see the need to stop impunity of tyranny to do what ever it wants when it wants.

reply to post by oblvion


i have no inclination to be gay. But i do support gay rights. Because I want them to do what they want with themselves, so that I can do the same.

I hate hearing the things people like Fred Phelps say. But ill be damned if I would support him being silenced. Because I want to say what I want, too.

ketsuko
reply to post by DJW001

 

No, it was a challenge. You'll notice that other people here have disagree, and no one has told them not to bother. They, however, put up reasonable positions for why they disagreed. You just sort of volunteered snark.

Now, I understand from other things you've posted in the past that you disagree, and that's fine. Post your disagreement, but at least take the time to form a reasonable disagreement rather than one line of snark. Otherwise, I have to wonder what is the point?

It's not snark. Most of the posts on this thread are very angry and take it for granted that at some point they will need to kill another human being, and that a firearm is a necessary tool toward that end. Further, the general tenor is that any and all government is inimical to basic freedoms, including the inalienable right to kill other human beings with firearms. It is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to "protect the commonwealth," yet most of the arguments put forward by those opposed to the law in question are selfish in nature. Screw what's best for society... I want my guns because I want what I want.

I don't have any problem with reasonable people owning firearms. The problem is, the more vocal.Second Amendment advocates don't sound reasonable. Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you? It certainly does not help make the case for unregulated gun ownership!

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by oblvion

 

i have no inclination to be gay. But i do support gay rights. Because I want them to do what they want with themselves, so that I can do the same.

I hate hearing the things people like Fred Phelps say. But ill be damned if I would support him being silenced. Because I want to say what I want, too.

I couldnt agree more!!!

I dont want to kiss other men, but who am I to tell others what makes them happy? Hell I dont even know what it is that makes me happy most of the time.

I am just glad that others can find happiness at all in this crazy mixed up world we all strive to survive in.

reply to post by DJW001

Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you?

Yes. That is the point of the 2nd amendment. We are the militia, and there is no such thing as tyranny against a government official. If they do not tow the line, threaten away.


Our government is supposed to fear us.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DJW001

 

Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you?

Yes. That is the point of the 2nd amendment. We are the militia, and there is no such thing as tyranny against a government official. If they do not tow the line, threaten away.


Our government is supposed to fear us.

edit on 2-3-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

What you are describing is not a Democratic Republic, but mob rule.

DJW001

It's not snark. Most of the posts on this thread are very angry and take it for granted that at some point they will need to kill another human being, and that a firearm is a necessary tool toward that end.

Right now, people are worried that this is where it will end, yes. No one actually wants to. If they wanted to, this would already have happened. Nothing will happen unless the officials of CT are stupid enough to come knocking for something they have no right to take.

Further, the general tenor is that any and all government is inimical to basic freedoms, including the inalienable right to kill other human beings with firearms.

I think you are the only person who thinks we all think there is an inalienable right to murder. What we do have is the basic inalienable right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government (among other threats), and if you don't find the idea of a government official coming to take something from you by force to be tyrannical, then you are a different kind of person than the rest of us.

It is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to "protect the commonwealth," yet most of the arguments put forward by those opposed to the law in question are selfish in nature. Screw what's best for society... I want my guns because I want what I want.

This is in your opinion. People can and do have a very different idea of what is best for society. I think it's best to have a free society where people are allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense and to protect against a predatory government, either foreign or domestic. Our own Founders were just recently out from a conflict in which they had to fight their own predatory commonwealth. Do you really think the only circumstances they could ever imagine the second being needed for is to protect the government they were founding? They knew better than anyone who government can turn on its people.

I don't have any problem with reasonable people owning firearms. The problem is, the more vocal.Second Amendment advocates don't sound reasonable. Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you? It certainly does not help make the case for unregulated gun ownership!

A government shouldn't inspire this level of fear in its citizens. If it is, they're doing something wrong. And levels of public trust in government are down all across the board, for both parties, for all branches.

They don't know what they're doing and what they're about to touch off, but if they push too hard, things will go south. You can only push even the most reasonable people so hard before they shove back.

DJW001

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DJW001

 

Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you?

Yes. That is the point of the 2nd amendment. We are the militia, and there is no such thing as tyranny against a government official. If they do not tow the line, threaten away.


Our government is supposed to fear us.

edit on 2-3-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

What you are describing is not a Democratic Republic, but mob rule.

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.

reply to post by DJW001

What you are describing is not a Democratic Republic, but mob rule.

When our rulers defy the supreme law of the land and are swayed/controlled by special interests and agendas we no longer have a Democratic Republic. What we have now is a corporate oligarchy.

We aren't discussing fully automatic weapons which have been highly regulated for years. Your part of the reason I've nearly given up on debating anti-gun rhetoric on forums. Ignorant people who can't grasp the most simplistic differences in firearm terminology.

You want to help these victims? Educate them!

Teach them firearm safety. Teach them self defense. Arm those who teach our children; politicians can provide their personal security.

Raise a nation of strong children who value life and demand respect. Culture these kids heavily in art, science (political science especially), military tactics and technology.

Address mental health. Pour our resources into determining the causes of mental instability and preventable measures that can be implemented at a nationwide level.

Start thinking about our future and not worry so much about the d@mned past. Hasn't it cost us enough already?

vkey08

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.

All I can think of is the moment one of these guys fires a shot, that the CT National Guard is called up and that's that... And unfortunately our Guard is made up of a lot of guys that while they love this country and state, will not hesitate to fire back and Iron Fist the Governor's order if it came to it. They got beat on so badly after the Tri-Storm just for trying to help people and clear roads and the like that they lost the will to really care about the civilian population.

I fear (well don't fear, I KNOW) this is going to end badly once the first shot is fired.. Governor Malloy isn't afraid to call the hard calls, and if that means locking down the state so be it. He's had practice in limited Martial Law after Alfred.... That was not pretty, imagine it in full swing.

Thanks guys, we JUST started to get this state put back together, and now you all have to start cheering off a bunch of people that only care about their high powered guns... nice.... makes me sickened to be a member here to think that a High Powered Gun Capable of firing 100 rounds a minute is more important than human life and suffering.

My State Rep did not vote for this bill and she represents one of the oldest sections of the state (hint: it's not Hartford) but still would rally against ANYONE making threats against other legislators like this... it's IRRESPONSIBLE.. We have elections for a REASON...

edit on 232014 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)

DJW001

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DJW001

 

Does threatening an elected official sound reasonable to you?

Yes. That is the point of the 2nd amendment. We are the militia, and there is no such thing as tyranny against a government official. If they do not tow the line, threaten away.


Our government is supposed to fear us.

edit on 2-3-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

What you are describing is not a Democratic Republic, but mob rule.

No, he is describing a republic quite well.

Mob rule is what gun control is. The loudest voice has all the say, and the rights of the individual are trampled.

No one on ATS was in Sandy Hook that day. None of us did that crime. I would hazard that no one else in Connecticut is guilty of that crime, either. But mob rule seeks to remove the guns via an appeal to pathos (fear) instead of logos (logic).

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.

Bassago
reply to post by DJW001

 

What you are describing is not a Democratic Republic, but mob rule.

When our rulers defy the supreme law of the land and are swayed/controlled by special interests and agendas we no longer have a Democratic Republic. What we have now is a corporate oligarchy.

And the gun manufacturers are part of that oligarchy.

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.

There isn't a discussion to be had. This is the point of it all. The NRA and it's members are a very small portion of gun owners. However they represent every american; gun lover and hater alike. Trust me they get it WRONG sometimes...bad.

Heck I am a FFL holder and am NOT a member of the NRA. The gun manufacturers don't need the NRA to sell firearms; the Liberals have sold millions for us. Thanks!!!

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.

As of 2009 there were 70 - 80 million adults owning firearms (officially.) The number is probably higher but you can go look it up yourself if interested.

The NRA has a membership between 3 and 4.5 (disputed.) You really believe all the other 10's of millions are listening to the NRA with bated breath?

As far as not fearing the government well you can also go look up the poll figures.

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

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.

There is no rational discussion of the 2nd amendment. It was stated quite clearly what the law was. It has been challenged in every possible way with every possible end run.

The well is poisoned by people who just cannot take "No" for an answer. I pay my NRA dues so that they will be just as obstinate.

Don't blame the NRA. Blame people who keep asking for our guns.

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

Here is a relative vid/audio from Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance responding to a caller who is inquiring about whether she and her family should be afraid of a police force coming to her door to arrest her husband for not registering a certain gun.

A woman claiming to be the wife of one of these 106 rifle owners called Lt. Vance, and got into a very heated discussion with him.

The lady speaks very politely and with genuine concern and the conversation reveals the current attitudes. "Ask your attorney" was the officer's advice, but she tangles him up in reality.

Will the police go to my home if my husband refuses to give up a weapon that was formally legal, and has now been made illegal, by a corrupt legislator [I think she meant legislature]? Will the police go to my home and threaten my family?

Because I’m scared to death.

Now when the officer says this: "“Ma’am, It Sounds Like You’re Anti-American,"my jaw dropped! This is crazy and shows just how things get twisted up from truth. He should be ashamed to condemn her in that fashion. He should be a spokesman for Fox news!
bearingarms.com...

"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall,

For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin',

It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

~$heopleNation

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?