I really wish we were all in the same room having this discussion with a couple of cold beers, man it would be fun and enlightening.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
- Thread starter BPaulk
- Start date
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
So where is your law degree from?
Proving that not even a philosophy degree can stop you from calling names and yet again ignoring the very simple shared rules of this board.
So where is your law degree from?
All I did was comment on your method of argumentation. Then I complemented you.You started the conflict, Graham, with all the stuff about my dick. I don't know what set you off but Im going to drop it and hope you will as well.
And as I stated clearly, I chose not to pursue law as a career.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
When you have nothing of value to say on a thread, try to resist the temptation to change the topic of discussion to personalities you know nothing about.
Really?! The playground defense of 'You started it'?! And from (presumably) a grown man....
When you have nothing of value to say on a thread, try to resist the temptation to change the topic of discussion to personalities you know nothing about.
Last edited:
I have read with great interest this discussion and would like to throw in a couple comments. First-- I think that the entire master evil plot to destroy this country depends a lot on us arguing amongst ourselves so much we lose sight of the main objective. The enemy is counting on us to become so disorganized we can't put up any meaningful resistance. This has already been demonstrated with the ability of the other side to steal elections, commit treason (IMO) in the highest office of the land without resistance other than a few pundits pointing and shouting, etc etc.
But I'll STFU about my conspiracy theories etc and get to the real reason for my post. What should the people of Ct be doing? IMO, the freedom-loving gun owners of Ct need to get together in neighborhood watches etc and monitor not only for lawbreakers' movements but monitor the police (and even national guard) movements as well. Not pulling guard duty with an AR in hand, but radios/cell phones etc to communicate in a network of like-minded individuals. There are no laws (I don't think) against watching out for the police and maybe telling somebody when the SWAT van leaves the station. If they DO decide to go raid gun owners and my house is their first stop, a headsup would be appreciated so I could at least have a chance to get the family out before they hit.
But I'll STFU about my conspiracy theories etc and get to the real reason for my post. What should the people of Ct be doing? IMO, the freedom-loving gun owners of Ct need to get together in neighborhood watches etc and monitor not only for lawbreakers' movements but monitor the police (and even national guard) movements as well. Not pulling guard duty with an AR in hand, but radios/cell phones etc to communicate in a network of like-minded individuals. There are no laws (I don't think) against watching out for the police and maybe telling somebody when the SWAT van leaves the station. If they DO decide to go raid gun owners and my house is their first stop, a headsup would be appreciated so I could at least have a chance to get the family out before they hit.
I think the majority here are quite capable of seeing and discerning the truth despite the smoke and mirrors.
No, Its called apathy. The people just don't care. But things are starting to change, people are slowly waking up.
You dont even need to go there and worry about it. The first raid to confiscate guns will be all over Twitter, Facebook and Youtube by the time the cops wrap the first operation up. They will know about it in Australia before the cops ever return to the station.
All it will take is once then things will be dramatically different the second time.
Probably not, cause from the sounds of it.....there would be a lot of men showing their dicks.
There are some really brilliant guys on here, and even though views differ, that usually goes the way side in person. Every ones bravado and giant balls shrink back to normal without an internet connection inbetween.
I would be more than happy to drink a couple beers with everyone on this site, besides Maser; I'm not sitting around talking about Bronys and wearing diapers.
I would be more than happy to drink a couple beers with everyone on this site, besides Maser; I'm not sitting around talking about Bronys and wearing diapers.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Disruptions aside, there are many who have offered opinions here, but I would like to hear on this thread the experience of one person who was required to to give up his gun, and what he chose to do about it; and/or from one person who made the choice to live rather than keep his personal property.
Disruptions aside, there are many who have offered opinions here, but I would like to hear on this thread the experience of one person who was required to to give up his gun, and what he chose to do about it; and/or from one person who made the choice to live rather than keep his personal property.
Last edited:
Probably not, cause from the sounds of it.....there would be a lot of men showing their dicks.
Mine is bigger than Grahams's. #:<)
No, this discussion wouldn't take a couple of kegs and over a cold beer would be pointless.
We saw all we needed to see during Katrina. There are those who went door to door and took weapons from the law abiding and willingly rendered them defenseless during a time when they arguably would never need guns more. At those doors where they knocked, they were not resisted because their victims were confronted with overwhelming odds of armed men. It would have been suicide. They also didn't give anyone time to prepare to receive them.
The difference is in the last sentence. If CT starts going door to door, they would not be able to do it en masse before those who do not view guns as mere property would have time to prepare and then Graham's questions would need a different version - how willing are you to give you your life in return for taking away the rights of your fellow citizens.
If there were a bunch of armed goons at my door demanding my guns at 2am I'd give 'em up. This is America, I can go into the heart of any Democrat voting inner city shit pit and buy them back in about half an hour...
Well, its a bit disheartening to read some of the defeatist posts here. We as Americans have been through much worse than a bunch of politicians showing themselves to be domestic enemies of our Constitution. Hell we have had a hard Civil War, Indian Wars, wars of all types, depressions, recessions, attacks on our freedoms all through the last century by both parties in the political mafia. All of these challenges while conquering the west, killing Indians, Mexicans British, French, and Spanish on our new soil, and many other varieties of people throughout the world, and you guys are afraid of a few cleptocrats in suits , come on, grow a pair. I aint giving up on the USA, there is no place left to run. Stand your ground Conn. The first act of self defense will be spun by the MSM, the rest of the freedom loving population will perform in the second act. We live in interesting times, don't doubt we will come through this period of our history even more cynical about government and protective of our rights. Those that will watch their neighbors destroyed and enslaved are not to be trusted, ever.
I think you are asking the wrong question. If for some reason a person was arrested, individually, for a charge and his guns were confiscated in the process then to me that is a different situation. CT is different, because it is a government attempt to disarm the populace as a whole, which is an entirely different matter. One person having their rights violated in an isolated, individual incident is not the same threat to liberty as an entire population losing their means to resist at once. The one ought to be fought in court, the second in the streets if necessary.
But I think you know that, and are being pedantic just to stir the pot.
Pedantic is the word I was looking for. More accurate than 'smoke and mirrors'.
On this date 7 March 2014 the word Pedantic was used for the first time in a sentence in the state of Kentucky, mark your calendars ladies and gents.
J/K KYP, my wife from Kentukyana across the river from Louisville, their jokes stick with me.
J/K KYP, my wife from Kentukyana across the river from Louisville, their jokes stick with me.
Don't tell anyone, I could lose a lot if trust among the good ole boy network around here and the way things are going I may need it. I gave up chewing but maybe I could go back to beech nut again to regain some street (dirt road?) cred.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Please don't be like Maggot and reduce everything to a personal issue with people he doesn't know. What he is doing is disruptive to the site and he's been warned about that. I am looking for those with experience from Canada, Australia and the UK. I've been there. I've seen it happen while it was happening. I am looking for the voice of experience rather than to hear from people who are just posturing and calling names on the Internet.
Last edited:
Of course he his. But when someone returns it in kind he gets his nose out of joint.
ArmyJerry nailed it when he said this:
That's exactly the point I made earlier, the situation with the first poor SOB will set everyone else into motion. If you think the government in CT will continue to confiscate when they see the response of the freedom loving population your kidding yourself. They will cease and the law will ultimately be ruled as unconstitutional. If its not, then you will see it in the streets.
Funny how EventHorizon brought up Katrina, I believe that confiscation act was proved in court to be a violation of the people's constitutional rights. In short, that shit wont happen again.
Picture watching a youtube video where the jack boot thugs are going door to door demanding entry looking for unregistered guns and they are met buy a guy prone on the kitchen floor with a Barrett M107.
Boom Bitch....
News Flash---Due to recent events on 5th and Elm Street this afternoon, our confiscation operation has been indefinitely suspended. A memorial service for the 8 officers who were cut in half today will be held Saturday at noon...
Not a valid question, none of those countries had the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I spent 7 years in Australia and I can tell you most people did not give up their guns. Many buried them in the back yard, many hid them in the attic, and some even hid them behind the drywall between the studs in the walls in their homes. Some folks did not hide them at all, they just kept them out of sight in their home. Along with black market chop (tobacco) and home made bourbon, a gun was reasonably easy to buy if you knew the right people and were trusted.
Granted they cant use most of them for fun, but if the shit hits the fan there, you will be amazed at what comes out of the woodwork.
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Still waiting for information based on personal experience....
Still seeing nothing but wild speculation and personal baiting from people who haven't a clue, never been there and never done that.
Australia has the stats on how many people gave up their guns. So does Canada. Most people turned them in.
Rhunter, is your argument now that Americans are different people because we have rights given to us by a Constitution? Either rights are inalienable, or they aren't.
Still waiting for information based on personal experience....
Still seeing nothing but wild speculation and personal baiting from people who haven't a clue, never been there and never done that.
Australia has the stats on how many people gave up their guns. So does Canada. Most people turned them in.
Rhunter, is your argument now that Americans are different people because we have rights given to us by a Constitution? Either rights are inalienable, or they aren't.
Last edited:
If memory serves Graham we were the only country that recognized those rights as inalienable and the only country that gave the populace the right in a constitution. So yes, that does make us "different."
You know where you really show your ass and get people to bark at you is when you make statements like this:
How the hell do you know where I or anyone else has been and what I or anyone else has been through? You seem to act like you know everything about everyone in here. Hate to burst your bubble buddy but you really don't.
Seems I'm late to the party here, but as a Canuckian, specifically what are you asking of me/us, Graham? I'll do my best to answer.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Sean,
At the beginning of this Thread I said that there's an argument to be made in a mature democracy in favor of handing in your guns instead of fighting it out to the death with the authorities. I stopped just short of calling people who today advocate armed resistance in CT 'radicals'.
As a practical matter, I asked, even if you don't fight it out, why lose everything you have and go to jail over a piece of property? Do your responsibilities to an ideal trump those you have to your family and loved ones?
I was called a coward for even asking the question. Then the personal attacks began, and from people with no experience and nothing to add except attempts to disrupt an otherwise civilized discussion for the sake of their own gratification.
So I asked for concrete examples. I wanted to show that in the real world, and in the past, most people gave up their guns.
To answer your question:
When the RCMP mailed out confiscation letters, people handed in their guns. Most people in Canada, like most in Australia and most in Great Britain, gave up their guns instead of getting arrested and going to jail.
Am I wrong? Were there firefights? Did you see any mass arrests? Any arrests at all? Where were those who talked like lions? Because when it went down I didn't see them. I didn't see them in Australia or GB in the earlier or later rounds of confiscation either.
I'm not judging them. I just suggested that the United States can't escape history and that people are the same the world over.
I wanted to hear from people who had actually been in that situation and who had made a decision: What decision they made, and why.
Sean,
At the beginning of this Thread I said that there's an argument to be made in a mature democracy in favor of handing in your guns instead of fighting it out to the death with the authorities. I stopped just short of calling people who today advocate armed resistance in CT 'radicals'.
As a practical matter, I asked, even if you don't fight it out, why lose everything you have and go to jail over a piece of property? Do your responsibilities to an ideal trump those you have to your family and loved ones?
I was called a coward for even asking the question. Then the personal attacks began, and from people with no experience and nothing to add except attempts to disrupt an otherwise civilized discussion for the sake of their own gratification.
So I asked for concrete examples. I wanted to show that in the real world, and in the past, most people gave up their guns.
To answer your question:
When the RCMP mailed out confiscation letters, people handed in their guns. Most people in Canada, like most in Australia and most in Great Britain, gave up their guns instead of getting arrested and going to jail.
Am I wrong? Were there firefights? Did you see any mass arrests? Any arrests at all? Where were those who talked like lions? Because when it went down I didn't see them. I didn't see them in Australia or GB in the earlier or later rounds of confiscation either.
I'm not judging them. I just suggested that the United States can't escape history and that people are the same the world over.
I wanted to hear from people who had actually been in that situation and who had made a decision: What decision they made, and why.
Last edited:
Those who had "newly restricted firearms" had to register them before such-an-such date. (1993) One month after said deadline, quite a number of the "newly restricted firearms" were then deemed "prohibited" by the federally appointed snapperhead. Registered owners had 30 days to export, destroy (with proof) or turn in said firearms to the LEO's with no restitution.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the money at the time, (nor before-hand) to actually acquire said items to allow me to continue to both possess and buy/sell off into the future. That is still a contentious issue with me, but that is another story.
Some of the people I know, had some of those "newly restricted firearms" and as I know it, they all 'under protest' turned the offending items in. The penalties for possession of such an item would be lifetime ban, fines up to $10,000.00 for each infraction, and up to 6 months in jail. Again, for each infraction.
We don't have Rights up here in Canada, we only have Privileges, as bequeathed to us from the Crown. It truly is a different way of doing things.
Barrett Light .50's, Franchi SPAS 12's, and almost anything that had the Benelli name on it were amongst the prohibited firearms. As you can see, they are NOT cheap items. With absolutely NO recourse by law-abiding citizens.
What do ya'll suggest?
Then, on a whole different note, there was the "long gun registry" which is a whole other kettle of fish. THAT was repealed not too long ago.....
We finally have a government that actually does something for the law abiding citizens. And you wouldn't believe just how many people complain about our current government.
(this is NOT a political thread, so don't anyone make it one. We're actually getting somewhere with this, so let it continue)
Unfortunately, I didn't have the money at the time, (nor before-hand) to actually acquire said items to allow me to continue to both possess and buy/sell off into the future. That is still a contentious issue with me, but that is another story.
Some of the people I know, had some of those "newly restricted firearms" and as I know it, they all 'under protest' turned the offending items in. The penalties for possession of such an item would be lifetime ban, fines up to $10,000.00 for each infraction, and up to 6 months in jail. Again, for each infraction.
We don't have Rights up here in Canada, we only have Privileges, as bequeathed to us from the Crown. It truly is a different way of doing things.
Barrett Light .50's, Franchi SPAS 12's, and almost anything that had the Benelli name on it were amongst the prohibited firearms. As you can see, they are NOT cheap items. With absolutely NO recourse by law-abiding citizens.
What do ya'll suggest?
Then, on a whole different note, there was the "long gun registry" which is a whole other kettle of fish. THAT was repealed not too long ago.....
We finally have a government that actually does something for the law abiding citizens. And you wouldn't believe just how many people complain about our current government.
(this is NOT a political thread, so don't anyone make it one. We're actually getting somewhere with this, so let it continue)
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Maggot, as much as you want it to be, this Thread isn't about you.
And it's not about what you think of me.
But if you keep following me around, and disrupting other peoples' conversations for the purpose of calling me names, you will end up getting yourself banned. Again.
Maggot, as much as you want it to be, this Thread isn't about you.
And it's not about what you think of me.
But if you keep following me around, and disrupting other peoples' conversations for the purpose of calling me names, you will end up getting yourself banned. Again.
Last edited:
Ok, guys, I think we all see whats going on here. Im going to drop out of this thread. This little fellow couldn't see the truth if it was as big as my dick, which he seems to know a lot about. If you all want to continue accepting his abuse that's up to you. Good night, all.
There you go again...
Graham,
You just look at this as a black or white issue and it isn't. These countries you mention do not share our culture. Even Canadians are culturally different. I see it every day, I have 2 of them working for me.
All of us that were born here and raised here and taught how important or constitutional rights are and have come to really understand the importance of those rights puts us in a different class all our own.
I lived in Australia for 7 years, I lived in Germany for 4 years, I lived in Italy for a year... I even lived in Sevastopol in Crimea for 8 months. I can tell you, every culture I encountered had a different set of core values and it was their culture that shaped those values. None of those cultures have ever experienced the same freedom that we have and none of those countries have ever granted their population with the same potential for prosperity that ours has.
We have the right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose to keep and protect a free state. Our right to keep and bear arms is not for the purpose of hunting, shooting tin cans, or busting clay birds. Our right is our check and balance to keep tyranny from taking over our society.
If a person has not grown up in a society that understands that, they can not comprehend it. When I was in Crimea, the older Russians there only knew one way of life, Communism. For them capitalism was a foreign idea and many of them did not like it because they were never taught to be self sufficient. Everything was given to them. Suddenly they found themselves having to figure out taking care of themselves on their own. I saw things there I never saw anywhere else. Old women would line the busy streets selling field flowers for a few kopiyk's to buy a potato or two and that was their food for the entire day.
I doubt the concept of keeping and bearing arms was anything remotely important to them. They were not interested in rights, they never had any. For them it was all about survival.
Well then, you cannot cite personal anecdote and plead exemption from personal references. KYP is no maggot or name caller.
More to the point you're being deliberately obtuse. If you were there then you know the answer to your question given the careful parameters you've placed on the answer. No, there was no fighting. But your observation misses a series of crucial and recent points of events.
1. In those countries the gungrab proceeded some domestic event e.g Hereford and Dunblane. In this country the federal attempts following similar circumstances, supported by an aggressively biased media and even with no qualms of deploying cloyingly illogical and shameless sentimentalism at every opportunity (SOTU speech that was a joke) were largely quashed.
2. Never in those countries did anyone from the police or military overtly speak out against the gungrab. They did here.
3. None of those countries had their foundations in a violent revolution and codified the importance of firearms ownership amongst the citizenship. This one did ( ok , this one isn't so recent...).
While you may not believe in American exceptionalism to the extent of firearms ownership there is ample and recent evidence to suggest you may be wrong.
CT will not happen before the election. If a dem wins then perhaps we'll see some interesting times. I believe there are enough Americans who see guns as a metaphor for freedom and there's nothing more dangerous than messing with a mans metaphors.
You really think people are the same the world over? That it is just luck that we aren't like sub-saharan africa, or communist china? Was it just luck that we were the first constitutional republic in the history of mankind? Again I find that hard to believe of you, if I mistook you for trolling before I will assume now you are devil's advocate.
Our lives are shaped by the choices our father's made, by the choices we make, and by our beliefs. Look at the history again. For the first time, ever, our forefathers established a government where authority was delegated from the people to the government. For the first time, ever, our forefathers established government that as guardian of pre-existing natural rights rather than the grantor of privileges.
As to whether a responsibility to an ideal trumps that to our loved ones, what do you think is the point of an oath? When so many gave so much to establish something so different than the typical human condition, why is it hard to imagine that respect for that spirit and ideals might be carried forward? Perhaps you don't believe that the people are capable of what the Second asks of them. For a time I mistook cynicism for realism, is it possible you have done the same?
The CT lawmakers were warned, but I believe that because they personally would never die for a belief or something as abstract as principle they mistakenly assume others wouldn't either. Thus they feel free to do what pleases them or is politically expedient, expecting that people have no choice but to obey. Their moral growth was stunted somewhere, leaving them unequipped to understand the nature of principled men. Their hubris tells them that they, the government, determine justice, rather than government being subject to justice. Their shallow understanding of our origins allows them to maintain the self-serving lie that the rule of law is the child of government, rather than the fact that our government is the child of the Constitution, thus subject to the judgment of the people above all, regardless of the dictates of any court, president, or legislator.
Not all of these officials are ignorant however. Some understand the truth very well, but view these ideas as roadblocks to the kind of power they desire. These are your would-be tyrants large or small, the worst of mankind. They will attempt to discredit principled Americans in an effort to weaken the bedrock principle upon which we were founded, that the citizens are the final arbiter of the rule of law instead of government. They do this by fear mongering the weak among us by claiming that we are insurrectionists, or racists, anarchists. They assuage the weak with the mantra that safety in a "modern democracy" is more important than liberty, the old threats of government tyranny are gone but the new threat is your neighbor. They say that tyranny could never again come to America so give up your arms "for the children". They pull a few more away by flattering the vain among us, those with more pride than discernment, by whispering that a truly modern man will value "reasonableness" over any rigid principle, that compromise by definition is always moral, and offering the sweet reward of being able to look down on your "intolerant" neighbor with smug self-satisfaction. Finally they haul in the apathetics with the entry drug of "something for nothing", leading to the soul-sucking addiction of dependence on government, a form of slavery so complete that chains and whips are no longer even needed and mothers gladly offer their children as sacrifices to their government pimp-masters.
Effective as those methods can be, there is, and will always be patriots that remain. They may not be a majority, but as long as they have the means to resist we have a chance. The more we have the better, but we would be unrealistic to expect a majority.
Similar threads
