-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
- Thread starter BPaulk
- Start date
i may be missing his point entirely but what i think he is saying is closer to this... Its not the belief that fails. Its not believing in freedom or the rights we have. Its the resorting to violence. And that if the only way you can win is by using force then you have already lost. Now, i could be crazy, but thats the way i read it. to each his own.
I think that is the main point from him to begin with, at least before all the dick talk lol. MOST people will not form a resistance. I have heard MOLON LABE screamed a million times, but I dont remember ever seeing someone stand when it was the the other guy. Now on fighting back, Some will. And probably die. Its up to each of us as to which group we will be part of.
I know my decision, but i have a hard time calling someone a coward that values time with thier child over thier gun. Just me.
So your saying all the wars we have had to fight were because we lacked the ability to talk it out? I'm sure the folks who rode the trains into the gas camps would agree with you. Then again the millions of others who have been kill/murdered by their own govs why, because they had no means to defend their self's. This fight is about people control and the weapons have to go before that happens in this country. I have found most Americans who can think for their selfs tend to think 3-4 moves ahead, and we as a nation have always gave of our selfs to save off issues for our children. Yes this nation has changed, for the worst in the last 56+/- years, but the pendulum will swing back again but only thru determination first, or force if need be. The power grabbers know it's now or never, and it's their move. They are fully aware of what will transpire over weapons as well, but the ball is in their court,.....for now.
nope, not saying that at all. which kind of goes to his other point about bumper sticker responses to deeper issues. Honeslty I lean more towards the MOLON LABE side myself. Just saying that if it gets to the point where rounds are going off then we are no longer winning an argument on reason , we are ruling with power. That is always good for the people in power, its good to be the king. And given a choice i prefer to be the one with power. Understanding that as a fact doesnt really imply anything, other than the belief that its better to convince our friends and neighbors to our cause then threaten to shoot them if they dont like it. At least if you lean towards civility.
I really like your phrasing of most american who can think for themselves. thats a really limiting factor in todays world lol.
Oh heres a good way to say it... We fought all around the world for the idea of freedom and **gasp, democratic principles**(supposedly), but yet some people find that violence of action against others with a different view is more reasonable than intelligent discourse. At least they say so. People say all kinds of shit till theres someone pointing a gun at them. I hope and pray that day never comes here, but if it does i think its fairly logical to conclude that they will capitulate, regardless of what they said on some message board. History has shown this to be the case time and time again. Recognizing that as a historical fact doesnt make me a coward. Its just... well, truth. DO you in any way thin that ther will be 70 million gun owners on the streets? Even 1 million? What about if they do start shooting people or taking everything you have publicly? Right or wrong eally doesnt even play into it, its just cold hard fact demonstrated by civilization repeatedly.
Actually, GF, its about control of the dollars and the wealth. The powers that control that, the bankers, and the ones who control the bankers, don't give a goddamn about the people, its all about the control, and protection of the wealth. And they don't care what the cost to the world or its population. They believe that they are hidden and protected, and as you said, at least for now are correct.
I suspect that there is a more subtle level whch is pulling the strings of those who are behind all this...and they don't even know that they are being manipulated, just as they think they are manipulating the masses. But that borders on religion and best left out of here.
My buddy in CT just found out, and confirmed, when the Police run your license plate in CT they have a list of your firearms available to the officer.
So you're not hiding from anything, the Police have access to what you have as long as you didn't buy person to person or prior to any changes in that type of purchase. They have access to historical data on your firearms tied into the Police Database.
it's as easy as running your license plate for them.
So you're not hiding from anything, the Police have access to what you have as long as you didn't buy person to person or prior to any changes in that type of purchase. They have access to historical data on your firearms tied into the Police Database.
it's as easy as running your license plate for them.
Most states, this is the case, in Texas it is.
Correction: When we run you DL, it informs us, not your LP.
Interesting that I get a warning about a law abiding citizen that is licensed to carry, but no warning about the turd with record for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or a history of assaults on a peace officer.
Interesting read here that is on the original topic, read it all the way through.
72 People Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachussetts!
Last edited:
That was in the news today, March 10th, 2014
I'd like to think, and I am sure others would like to think, that modern human beings have "matured" to the point were this kind of stuff is something we would never consider anymore.
I also think that a lot of people in our country feel that this could never happen here and I believe that is why a lot of Americans would simply comply. I am sure the Jews in Germany felt the same way.
As far as I am concerned, the only way we can guarantee what I quoted above does not happen here is to make sure we resist any attempt by the government to confiscate the subject our Constitutional right-- to keep and bear arms. When I read these articles I am reminded how truly important it is and what those men, who founded this country 223 years ago, knew would happen again someday.
Human beings in power simply do not change. They have not changed in the 3000 years of recorded history we have and they are not about to change now. Power is a very compelling addiction that would make the most honest of men reconsider their integrity.
I know it is really hard to fight for something when you have a family but there are a lot of Soldiers that went to war with small kids at home. A lot of them did not come back.
Gunfighter brings up a very valid point, we have had a tendency, as part of or inherited culture, to do what is in the best interest of our kids futures.
We have a choice. We can either allow ourselves to become a country like Venezuela and many others, or, we can nip this in the bud. Civil disobedience is the right thing to do, it is the first thing to do, and God I hope it is the only thing we NEED to do. But if those who feel they are in control want to take advantage of that control then a lot of us really need to do some soul searching. I'd love to see a peaceful resolution to the situation in Connecticut and that is something everybody really needs to work toward, but, with our court system suffering from the same corruption, that does not seem like it will be a viable option much longer. For many of us our state representatives have turned their heads on us, and our executive branch is clearly out of control.....
So what the hell do we do? Honestly? What options do we have? Give up our guns and go back to playing with our play stations? Seriously?
We were given the Constitutional right, in order to maintain the security of a free state, to keep and bear arms. Not only is that right an inalienable one, it is documented by the highest rule of law in our country. Every citizen has the right to maintain the security of a free state.
A gun is a tool, it can do three things really well, it can put food on the table, it can protect you from an attacker, and it can keep you a free man. If you willingly allow a government to take that tool from you then these will be the headlines in the near future:
"Connecticut state police stormed neighborhoods in Waterbury Ct, a city that has become the last cradle of the confiscation opposition, early this morning. Civilians reported shootings and aggressive use of teargas to force the remaining owners of unregistered firearms out of their homes as they slept, and the police placed barricades around the city this morning to prevent anyone from leaving.
The smoke was just the start of the repression. While little video has surfaced from the city--internet providers have mysteriously stopped providing access--some has leaked, including this raw footage taken from a high rise of Connecticut state police shooting at protesters."
There are indeed some difficult choices that need to be considered by many of our friends in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with every single person up there that chose not to register their firearms.
We will agree to disagree, as those on the list will be taken care of first. However when the first ones go, the rest have nothing to lose. Unlike the rest of the world Americans have proven it has men of a different breed than the rest of the 97% who inhale free air given to them by the other 3% . Fortitude to say no and the will to back it up, is the American way. Just because one was in this countrys rags does not prove when push comes to shove all who wore said rags will fight for what they believe in. Do your own history about many of the brass who were all that before it came to their door step, and see how fast they changed their minds just for their retirement. The folks standing up and being counted now know the drill, and are of the same mind set as the names on the bottom of the COTUS. Disinformation comes from everywhere, sometimes ftrom with in your own ranks. Knowing how to spot that crowd is easy to those who know what to look for. Uncle has some very fine schools but sometimes he forgets where the instructors come from. I've been told before one knows anything, one has to suspect something, much to that.
Personally, I think there will be a few dead gun owners initially and after that, you will see a SHITLOAD of gun owners in the streets.
The cure for apathy is emotion, once the emotion takes hold you will see gun owners take a serious stand and the police will surrender. They will have no choice.
One thing in history HAS proven true, the side with the most guns wins (When a politician is not in charge)
My kids will see this come to pass, I only wish I was a bit younger to be around to participate. Luckily my kids are trained by myself the US Army and the Iraq Insurgents to know what to do in these events.
I think most cops will join the gun owners, the politicians will be the ones that have to surrender or face the consequences. The question is, what then? Do the citizens leave them be or are trials for treason in order?
I appreciate the reasoned discourse. Honestly I even agree in principle that we are a different breed. we have never been short of those willing to bleed for our beliefs. I just hope we can win the war of words before that becomes a possibility.
If armed resistance happens i agree that is most likely scenario. But those in power understand that also.
I think Washington will want to gets its nose in the affair but I don't think they will get very far.
I do agree Jerry, I think a lot of them will side with the gun owners but there will be a percentage that doesn't. You can bet on that. There are some cops just as high on power as the politicians are.
One of the greatest moments at the end of the civil war was when Lee surrendered and Grant let him go home. That went a long way towards reconciliation.
They need to be removed from office and sent on their way.
Because Robert E, was a gentleman and a man of his word. On the other hand, consider Napoleon, or Antonio Samosa. Both countries defeated them and 'sent them on their way". They were neither gentlemen nor honorable. They came back. Samosa was executed the second time and never came back from that. Napoleon died of syphilis In prison
I don't think the troubles will be contained to one state, I think the DC suits will end up being judged.
To any of you who plan on handing your arms over to "the man" just send em to me, I promise I will take good care of them. hahaha
I'd reply with my thoughts to that but,... Frank would be all over me like a cheap suit and I do not wish the thread locked. I do thank him for the thread creep he has allowed thus far though.
I due sense shills within, our ranks. These same folks have hinted/skirted at same for many years, but of late it's becoming more apparent.
Being stalwart in ones beliefs, allows unclouded vision others fail to comprehend, let alone have comprehension of.
I don't think anything discussed here is something they don't already know. If they have learned anything in the last year and a half, it's the fact that people really do support their constitutional rights more than I think they thought actually did.
I personally was really encouraged by the chain of events that have transpired over the last year. The push-back has been inspiring. A lot more people have purchased a firearm for self defense which in turn will reduce violet crime. It has been good for firearms innovation, companies will have more money for R&D, and a lot more people have been added to the ranks to GOA and the NRA, organizations that help to challenge some of these unconstitutional laws in court. We also saw a lot of states pass pro gun legislation and now a lot of universities have to allow students to carry on campus. The big win was no Federal restrictions were passed.
The only drawbacks have been the shortage of ammo and reloading components and a very few states gaining some ground on firearms regulation..... I think it is a matter of time before some of those laws are overturned.
It could have certainly been a lot worse.
Though its a large investment I think we should encourage everyone we know to invest in NV equipment. Its a definite edge over those who do not have it. Sometimes when the money gets really tight I think of selling my 14. then I think....Naaahhhhhh. Id almost, and Im saying ALMOST, sell my guns before the NV.
Being as prepared as possible when the SHTF. And if they start that, S could definitely HTF at a number of levels. Just a good thing to have in the Bug Out Bag.
Every time I come to this thread I think of the LAPD shooting up Grandma over one guy. Then I wonder how it will play out when they run up against 2-300K just, from their own state. Now lets just say that happens in all the grabber states, do they really believe or are that stupid to believe, that those of us being left to watch, won't want in the game? I've seen over confidence, in perception, fail many times.
Night vision will help as well as weapons other than lead throwers, but the best weapon is ones mind and ability to think out of the box. One has to think in terms of key stones, or where/how to start the crack and let mans own nature push the task to completion in your direction of choice. Until they close walmart, home depot, lowes, ace hardware, or a host of other supply houses, worrying about a few guys with guns is a fantasy trip in ones own mind. If it ever gets off the ground there are folks in this nation who will only resort to a gun as the very last means to end a fight, as "Many" other things will advance your cause much farther. Uncle had/has some very good schools on the matter. If your not or were not able to attend he has/had printed material available as well, chose you weapon of choice wisely.
I still have visions of the Road runner and Jerry (the mouse) discussing their cartoon opponents ability's over coffee, seems fitting but than again I know I'm weird,...
FYI, IIRC, FWIW, Hired guns, are only loyal to their master up to the point of crossing the gun carriers core beliefs, after that line is crossed it can get very ugly, From The Inside very quickly.
I read through the entire thread and am disappointed to see the willingness to abandon our system without any effort to fix the root problems. Vote, financially support candidates, run for public office at ANY level. Deny yourself that one or two new toys for a little longer and dedicate that money towards supporting a candidate in CT!
I have lived in a socialist, disarmed society and it is offensive to everything that I believe in. What the government does not take, the thieves will! Both with impunity!
I give confiscation ZERO chance. Look at Dorner. One individual brought a large, well funded LEO agency to its knees. There is NO comparison to the American Revolution here. The Crown was a ocean away and virtually untouchable. The entire chain of command is just a short drive away and completely exposed here. IMHO less than 20 determined and even loosely organized people could bring the CT government to its knees. The politicians have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
We need to organize a revolution within the system and work on fixing it or the 2nd Ammendment will be just the start.
Sent from my mind via apathy.
I have lived in a socialist, disarmed society and it is offensive to everything that I believe in. What the government does not take, the thieves will! Both with impunity!
I give confiscation ZERO chance. Look at Dorner. One individual brought a large, well funded LEO agency to its knees. There is NO comparison to the American Revolution here. The Crown was a ocean away and virtually untouchable. The entire chain of command is just a short drive away and completely exposed here. IMHO less than 20 determined and even loosely organized people could bring the CT government to its knees. The politicians have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
We need to organize a revolution within the system and work on fixing it or the 2nd Ammendment will be just the start.
Sent from my mind via apathy.
Getting ugly from the inside could indeed be a possibility, but depends on the hired guns being willing and able to commit fratricide; because not all will be of a like mind, and commitment to personal ideals is not solely confined to Constitutionalists.
Fratricide's a bit beyond where I draw my line. But if push comes to shoot, it's bound to happen.
What I consider more likely is the adage about the enemy of my enemy being my friend. No single entity can oppose a government successfully; splitting hairs on the eve of confrontation is simply another way to divide and conquer oneself, and only advances the most successful tactic of the Grabbers to date. One finds and makes more friends with open eyes and ears, not closed ones.
It's what comes after that's settled that I see becoming truly ugly. Remember how the NVA intentionally committed the Viet Cong to their utter annihilation in the Tet Offensive. Don't be the Viet Cong when the appropriate time rolls around. Anyone who favors my destruction is not my friend.
Gandhi was no pacifist, but he did understand that where will and rights are concerned, some will need to submit themselves to the full extent of oppression in order to allow the oppressor to expose their true nature.
That is the real point behind passive resistance.
Most won't submit and shouldn't, but some must. If you're looking for a way to demonstrate your courage, that's is not an entirely terrible way to do it.
Remember, when Rome is at fault, all roads still lead to Rome. In time of strife, the tank drivers don't read the one way signs.
Blatant, exhibitionist defiance will only give satisfaction to the grabbers when they satisfy your need for notoriety. They will thank you for simplifying their task, and many others will think you got what you deserved, regardless of any truth to their attitudes.
Be not the lightning rod; but rather do as the innocent would, and do it with dignity.
IMHO, the innocent man will ignore these laws because it takes more than a hotheaded vote and the stroke of a pen to create felons of honest and law abiding citizens. It is by such acts that despots define themselves for all to clearly see.
Who plays the role of beast first loses.
They may or may not go door to door in Connecticut, but Connecticut is not the endgame by a long shot, and someday, somewhere, the sweeps will become reality. They always have when despots have moved to secure their fief. After they round up the guns, people will be next. When was this ever not so?
As one guy once said, he may be among the first to meet their oppressors face to face, but if he's not, he's unlikely to be home once the word gets out. He decided that if he is among the first, it's a relief; because the likelihood of him meeting his death in a blazing firefight would be far lower.
I think that crystal balls get cloudy, and that a clear sense of the true reality is elusive on this subject; but that ideas like these should be at least considered before going at this with a full head of steam.
Greg
Fratricide's a bit beyond where I draw my line. But if push comes to shoot, it's bound to happen.
What I consider more likely is the adage about the enemy of my enemy being my friend. No single entity can oppose a government successfully; splitting hairs on the eve of confrontation is simply another way to divide and conquer oneself, and only advances the most successful tactic of the Grabbers to date. One finds and makes more friends with open eyes and ears, not closed ones.
It's what comes after that's settled that I see becoming truly ugly. Remember how the NVA intentionally committed the Viet Cong to their utter annihilation in the Tet Offensive. Don't be the Viet Cong when the appropriate time rolls around. Anyone who favors my destruction is not my friend.
Gandhi was no pacifist, but he did understand that where will and rights are concerned, some will need to submit themselves to the full extent of oppression in order to allow the oppressor to expose their true nature.
That is the real point behind passive resistance.
Most won't submit and shouldn't, but some must. If you're looking for a way to demonstrate your courage, that's is not an entirely terrible way to do it.
Remember, when Rome is at fault, all roads still lead to Rome. In time of strife, the tank drivers don't read the one way signs.
Blatant, exhibitionist defiance will only give satisfaction to the grabbers when they satisfy your need for notoriety. They will thank you for simplifying their task, and many others will think you got what you deserved, regardless of any truth to their attitudes.
Be not the lightning rod; but rather do as the innocent would, and do it with dignity.
IMHO, the innocent man will ignore these laws because it takes more than a hotheaded vote and the stroke of a pen to create felons of honest and law abiding citizens. It is by such acts that despots define themselves for all to clearly see.
Who plays the role of beast first loses.
They may or may not go door to door in Connecticut, but Connecticut is not the endgame by a long shot, and someday, somewhere, the sweeps will become reality. They always have when despots have moved to secure their fief. After they round up the guns, people will be next. When was this ever not so?
As one guy once said, he may be among the first to meet their oppressors face to face, but if he's not, he's unlikely to be home once the word gets out. He decided that if he is among the first, it's a relief; because the likelihood of him meeting his death in a blazing firefight would be far lower.
I think that crystal balls get cloudy, and that a clear sense of the true reality is elusive on this subject; but that ideas like these should be at least considered before going at this with a full head of steam.
Greg
Last edited:
Been there, done that. It did not work.
The biggest problem we face is an apathetic public. We also face a public that is increasingly dependent upon government handouts that will vote only to keep those handouts. We have universities controlled by Idealogs that believe in some "New World Order" and most of them are a by-product of the Alinsky generation. We have deep pocketed people like George Sorros that thrive on the control of others and their wealth is funding candidates that will march to the beat of their drum. We have another Billionaire, Bloomberg, who has taken it upon himself to spend his wealth seeing this country disarmed.
There are some very powerful people behind the curtain that buy/bribe even the most honest of men.
So unfortunately, I am not very optimistic of being able to make significant change in this country through the democratic process. Some, yes, but only on ideas that those behind the curtain are willing to concede to.
If our democratic process has any hope of solving the problems we face, we need a very key amendment to the constitution, term limits. We need to break up these power cells that stand in the way of fresh minds from legislating change. But do you honestly feel that will happen? Would you vote to limit your own power when you have accumulated so much of it? Not likely.
Our only hope in this situation is those trying to organize a Convention of States. I think our power hungry state legislators would be more than happy to take some of that power concentrated in Washington and put it in their own lap.
But even that is a means to an end. Imagine a country of states that are in complete opposition to one another. If it weren't for the traction federal laws still have, states like CT would swing even further to Kleptocracy.
If our leaders do not fear the public then they will get away with anything they want to. The only way to keep them in check is to keep them afraid of the people they work for.
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Frank is allowing a political discussion, on an important issue, and I only see a few people here who are both willing and able to talk about causes and fixes, experiences and alternatives.
Because this issue is not about how many or what kinds of people to kill, who is or isn't a traitor, how adept one is at SHTF or what to put in a bug out bag.
Well said.
Frank is allowing a political discussion, on an important issue, and I only see a few people here who are both willing and able to talk about causes and fixes, experiences and alternatives.
Because this issue is not about how many or what kinds of people to kill, who is or isn't a traitor, how adept one is at SHTF or what to put in a bug out bag.
Good points. Problem with "our" side is that we do stuff. we work. We raise families. We take care of parents. We fix crap around our house and we enjoy our time off practicing our hobbies.
We don't get involved while the other side shows up at town meeting to whine. In many cases they either have a source of income that depends on ours, have extreme wealth and a guilt complex, an unrealistic view of the world (all stereotypes I buy into with the realization they don't all fit that mold), or they are just honestly gentle souls that wring their hands at every unfortunate thing that happens in the world.
These people control the message and the language. We, concerned more with our lives, cower when they use negative stereotypes to portray us - gun nut, paranoid conspiracy theorist, and the ace card - RACIST.
We have the facts - If we are gun nuts what are the banners doing hiring us for security or what is CCW holder Diane Feinstein? What conspiracy do we need when we have the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious etc to use an example of govt run amok? As far as being racist goes how has history has been turned from the other party standing in the doorways of schools to prevent civil rights to now being the guys pushing equality or how the harm of keeping any person on welfare is not an affront to everyones civil rights, or how asking that the laws that are on the books be followed while at the same time new laws against law abiding citizens are proposed - why any of that is not used to fight the Ace card has me believing the opposition leaders to be inept.
Our biggest problem is our lack of voice and willingness to fight in the town hall, on the editorial page, or via letters and communication to representatives. When you hear someone say something wrong politely engage them in discussion and show them the error of their ways. Than take a non shooter shooting.
I have long been a supporter of the political system, but when laws and policies like those we discuss here become its product, that system is breaking down.
When a government turns its gaze away from blatant and outright institutional discrimination against a constitutionally protected right, when it aids and abets in that discrimination, it becomes corrupted and culpable. This is the same condition that existed when the Civil Rights movement grasped and picked up its ultimate momentum. Does not the Second Amendment safeguard a Constitutionally protected Civil Right?
To insist otherwise is very akin to insisting that the Emperor's new clothes are a worthwhile endeavor. They may argue, but when they do, they sound pretty much like the Segregationists did.
Throwing good money, or good faith, or even good blood after bad is the path to ruin.
Misappropriating the force of law to coerce decent people into participating in their own humiliation is wrong. It is not the work of a good government acting on the behalf of a free people. It is the sly act of a deceitful oppressor.
People will look back and note that it was days such as these which formed the cusp leading either toward or against the reaffirmation of the rights of a populace armed to a degree that a free and uncoerced individual deems appropriate.
I think that those who oppose our rights are right when they say the Constitution is irrelevant, or even dead, when that Constitution allows them to enshroud themselves deep within its folds and treat it with such unbearable contempt. Whatever follows beyond this point, our Constitution needs to be shored up against the one thing our founders overlooked. They never considered that unscrupulous and cynically deceitful perpetrators could fashion a nefarious campaign that used those hard won and hard defended rights at the forefront of an attack against those very rights themselves.
Who among the Founders could have envisioned such a subtle and wrong headed form of treason?
Enough is enough, and this stuff goes well beyond enough.
Greg
When a government turns its gaze away from blatant and outright institutional discrimination against a constitutionally protected right, when it aids and abets in that discrimination, it becomes corrupted and culpable. This is the same condition that existed when the Civil Rights movement grasped and picked up its ultimate momentum. Does not the Second Amendment safeguard a Constitutionally protected Civil Right?
To insist otherwise is very akin to insisting that the Emperor's new clothes are a worthwhile endeavor. They may argue, but when they do, they sound pretty much like the Segregationists did.
Throwing good money, or good faith, or even good blood after bad is the path to ruin.
Misappropriating the force of law to coerce decent people into participating in their own humiliation is wrong. It is not the work of a good government acting on the behalf of a free people. It is the sly act of a deceitful oppressor.
People will look back and note that it was days such as these which formed the cusp leading either toward or against the reaffirmation of the rights of a populace armed to a degree that a free and uncoerced individual deems appropriate.
I think that those who oppose our rights are right when they say the Constitution is irrelevant, or even dead, when that Constitution allows them to enshroud themselves deep within its folds and treat it with such unbearable contempt. Whatever follows beyond this point, our Constitution needs to be shored up against the one thing our founders overlooked. They never considered that unscrupulous and cynically deceitful perpetrators could fashion a nefarious campaign that used those hard won and hard defended rights at the forefront of an attack against those very rights themselves.
Who among the Founders could have envisioned such a subtle and wrong headed form of treason?
Enough is enough, and this stuff goes well beyond enough.
Greg
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
I am surprised that those here who have stated a belief in American exceptionalism are not also arguing that our system has the unique capacity to renew itself by other than violent means.
Since the Civil War this country has been in a constant state of revolution with itself. That revolution occurs peacefully (again, except at the margins) through the ballot box. Effective checks and balances - rotating congressional elections, referendums, recalls, and court systems - provide sufficient mechanisms to let off steam as that change takes place.
The sky is not falling. Today the average person in this country has more gun rights that at any point since the founding of our nation: Doing things with guns that are lawful today, like what/where you can buy/carry/use them, would have resulted in an arrest and a trip to jail in 1953 in most states.
Real change happens in both directions at the same time. Don't think that what is happening in CO and CT isn't a part of our system's unique way of working out what our society sees as a right, a problem, and a challenge.
Systems always break down at the margins: Road rage; Sandy Hook...
I am surprised that those here who have stated a belief in American exceptionalism are not also arguing that our system has the unique capacity to renew itself by other than violent means.
Since the Civil War this country has been in a constant state of revolution with itself. That revolution occurs peacefully (again, except at the margins) through the ballot box. Effective checks and balances - rotating congressional elections, referendums, recalls, and court systems - provide sufficient mechanisms to let off steam as that change takes place.
The sky is not falling. Today the average person in this country has more gun rights that at any point since the founding of our nation: Doing things with guns that are lawful today, like what/where you can buy/carry/use them, would have resulted in an arrest and a trip to jail in 1953 in most states.
Real change happens in both directions at the same time. Don't think that what is happening in CO and CT isn't a part of our system's unique way of working out what our society sees as a right, a problem, and a challenge.
A valid point, so to speak, in fact one of the best and most reasonable Ive seen in this thread. Lets hope that through legitimate process this can all be resolved. However.....
I think whats being covered here is worst case scenario.
And I, to, appreciate Frank's leniency here. Lets be careful not to push it too far.
Last edited:
That is not true, not even close to true. There was a time where the vast majority of men in this country carried guns. We did not start to see Federal restrictions placed on us until 1934. Before that, there were only isolated cases where a couple states tried to restrict men from carrying firearms and those attempts mainly failed. (Bliss Vrs. Commonwealth in 1822) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire.
Problem is Graham, the amount of change is limited to the confines of the US Constitution. That is the rule of law placed on this country. If some do not like it, then too bad. Find another place to live. That document allows everyone to experience the same freedom as one another and it guarantees a certain set of rights to everyone. If your opinions differ with that allotment of rights then you are the one that needs to learn to deal with and accept those rights you do not like, not try to change them and deny those rights to others that do find them valuable. You have no choice other than to respect them or see if you can form a majority to amend them. Any other attempt to restrict those rights is unconstitutional and therefore ipso facto, void!
That Constitution defines a set of rules we have to play by. If you do not like those rules then get off the team. If you do not like something about a certain religion, don't believe in it. But don't try to change the people that do. If you do not like what someone is charging for reloading supplies, don't buy them, but don't go and bitch at the seller to try to get him to lower his prices.
When it comes to the Constitution, there are no compromises. That is law. It is a set of boundaries. It is a list of things you can and can not do. If you don't like it, then too damn bad.
So what NY, CO, and CT is doing is unconstitutional and therefore an abuse to our rule of law. And that is not how we "fix" things in this country.
Last edited:
Definitely, I'll amend that post now.
And let me add this:
The people on NY, CO, and CT did not vote to have their rights restricted and those politicians that did pass those laws did not run on a platform of more gun control. They made those laws because Biden got on the phone to all the states run by Democrats and said listen up boys, this is what the President wants you to do.
The people had absolutely no say in it and all those legislative hearings were was an act to make the people think they were listening. They didn't listen. They had their marching orders from Washington. Those laws were not passed because of the will of the people to fix a problem in our society.
Last edited:
As Machiavelli perceived (in Dei Discorsi, if you want to look it up at the source), the relationship between law and civility is symbiotic.
When one side takes advantage of the rules, whatever those rules may be, this creates further incentives for more violations of norms by the other side.
What people are saying is that in CT and NY moneyed interests have captured, and in effect privatized, the public interest, subverting the public good (and the constitution) in the process.
Attacks against what I have written on this thread have mostly taken the form of a lack of validity, when what I expected was criticism for its lack of effectiveness (which is what liked about what RHunter said about my latest post regarding how our system is designed to adjust itself).
But... And here is the negative side that I use to bolster my argument for civility and a lack of 'come and get it bullets first' radicalism: Relying on the claimed invincibility of one's beliefs causes a collective action problem.
Regardless of what you believe personally, holding a hard line and advocating inflexibility in a democracy generates democratic deficits in the conversation and damages social association (non-family kinships).
As Jacques Derrida (in The Politics of Friendship) said, friendship does not keep silence, it is preserved by silence. If this is true, then when we give-in to ego and draw a line in the sand nothing more can be communicated.
Have we learned nothing about ourselves at home by our failures abroad?
People keep reminding us of how many have died for our freedoms, but is it our choice to decide that someone else's sacrifice for nation was really about being able not to register guns in CT?! Or could a soldier's death have a greater meaning, beyond personal use to advocate a political position?
If we haven't learned anything from our mistakes as a nation, but still advocate killing each other and killing others, then isn't the blood of our forefathers, and sons, and colleagues and teammates the real price we have paid for our own bluster?!
When one side takes advantage of the rules, whatever those rules may be, this creates further incentives for more violations of norms by the other side.
What people are saying is that in CT and NY moneyed interests have captured, and in effect privatized, the public interest, subverting the public good (and the constitution) in the process.
Attacks against what I have written on this thread have mostly taken the form of a lack of validity, when what I expected was criticism for its lack of effectiveness (which is what liked about what RHunter said about my latest post regarding how our system is designed to adjust itself).
But... And here is the negative side that I use to bolster my argument for civility and a lack of 'come and get it bullets first' radicalism: Relying on the claimed invincibility of one's beliefs causes a collective action problem.
Regardless of what you believe personally, holding a hard line and advocating inflexibility in a democracy generates democratic deficits in the conversation and damages social association (non-family kinships).
As Jacques Derrida (in The Politics of Friendship) said, friendship does not keep silence, it is preserved by silence. If this is true, then when we give-in to ego and draw a line in the sand nothing more can be communicated.
Have we learned nothing about ourselves at home by our failures abroad?
People keep reminding us of how many have died for our freedoms, but is it our choice to decide that someone else's sacrifice for nation was really about being able not to register guns in CT?! Or could a soldier's death have a greater meaning, beyond personal use to advocate a political position?
If we haven't learned anything from our mistakes as a nation, but still advocate killing each other and killing others, then isn't the blood of our forefathers, and sons, and colleagues and teammates the real price we have paid for our own bluster?!
No. it's the price they paid for your bluster...; and is a clear example of using one right to abet the frustration of the others.
The line in the sand is the declaration that polite discourse was followed to an untenable conclusion, and that discussion beyond that point has become irrelevant; which it has. I don't know where this will go, but talk is no longer high on my list of priorities.
Once the fire has started is no time to linger inside the burning house and argue the finer points of fire prevention.
Who goes door to door to confiscate strikes a very big match.
For the record, Machiavelli is still dead, and the disarmament of a voting populace was not one of his subjects; please refrain from further confusing apples and oranges.
Come and get them, bullets first, was the lesson of Lexington and Concord. I refuse to disavow that shot heard 'round the world. Without it, and the three percent, we'd still be a colony. If we had waited for a clear majority, we'd all be singing God Save the Queen, instead of God Bless America; at least those of us who still hold with such archaic sentiments.
The line in the sand is the declaration that polite discourse was followed to an untenable conclusion, and that discussion beyond that point has become irrelevant; which it has. I don't know where this will go, but talk is no longer high on my list of priorities.
Once the fire has started is no time to linger inside the burning house and argue the finer points of fire prevention.
Who goes door to door to confiscate strikes a very big match.
For the record, Machiavelli is still dead, and the disarmament of a voting populace was not one of his subjects; please refrain from further confusing apples and oranges.
Come and get them, bullets first, was the lesson of Lexington and Concord. I refuse to disavow that shot heard 'round the world. Without it, and the three percent, we'd still be a colony. If we had waited for a clear majority, we'd all be singing God Save the Queen, instead of God Bless America; at least those of us who still hold with such archaic sentiments.
Last edited:
I'm know EXACTLY how you feel.
I have noticed a trend in Grahams post's, do you truly believe that every single person that resists and fights back is going to die?
From what I've gathered from your posts for 5 pages is exactly that, you feel this is a losing battle and we are all doomed so we might as well give in.
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
But you don't hear any indignant, loud, aggressive talk coming from me about 'come and take them'.
And Machiavelli, to be relevant here, doesn't have to have spoken on the issue of guns.
Besides, no one is going door to door confiscating guns. That's not how confiscation works anyway.
Good retort. Seriously.
But you don't hear any indignant, loud, aggressive talk coming from me about 'come and take them'.
And Machiavelli, to be relevant here, doesn't have to have spoken on the issue of guns.
Besides, no one is going door to door confiscating guns. That's not how confiscation works anyway.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
It is, however, about comprehending the problem.
And no one is advocating giving-in, or giving up.
But I am arguing that calls for an armed revolt at this stage are at best misguided, and at worst infantile.
It's not a numbers issue. Nor does it hinge on one's nationality being French or not French. It's not even about dying.
It is, however, about comprehending the problem.
And no one is advocating giving-in, or giving up.
But I am arguing that calls for an armed revolt at this stage are at best misguided, and at worst infantile.
Similar threads
