TMF

  No it doesn't.  Trying to draw a link between anecdotal scenarios and this would be conspiracy theories, however.  It would fit the very definition.  If one has a theory that a conspiracy has taken place to illegally confiscated firearms, I would call that a conspiracy theory.  Wouldn't you?   I don't think there is an argument that one of the agenda items of the Democrats is the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.  It's what they do.  Pretty overt about it too, if you ask anyone with perceptive abilities.  They succeeded in CT with silly laws.  I agree we must be vigilant.  But I don't agree that we should jump to Hitleresque scenarios.  It devalues our arguments and move moderate people away from us.  Hell, I'm the guy that will be teaching people how to take out armored vehicles and conduct L shaped ambushes, and I'm turned off by all this talk.  Let's argue valid, tangible arguments.  The laws that CT passed are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.  I don't think it's nuts to let the liberals know where those laws lead, and I think those laws should be challenged in the courts and at the ballot box.   Once again, wake me up when we're at #3 option.  When that happens I'll go out with my boots on.  Until then let's not get balls deep in the rhetoric.

  Okay, at one time slavery was legal under the US government, so perhaps every black American needs to keep papers on them to prove they've been legally freed and the west coast of Africa should be prepared for an armada of ships.  After all, a precedent has been set.   I would argue the threat of black Americans being relegated to second class citizens and slaves under law is far more likely since it was more far reaching than a dozen national guard troops taking guns away.  After all, it happened before so it will happen again.  Is that not the point you're making?

I don't know that. When I was in the Army I can think of several times I had to consult the JAG to determine whether or not my course of action was legal. I simply come up with a plan, but I am no expert on law. I can see why there was a compelling argument why it wasn't a violation of the 4th, but I simply disagree. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You didn't say that, you were implying it by using it as evidence that CT law enforcement would do the same thing. Ne has nothing to do with the other. It isn't evidence unless the two are connected. They aren't, so you either believe there is a conspiracy between the two or you don't know the definition of the word "evidence". The relevance of bringing that up is about as relevant as bringing up the anecdotal confiscation of firearms by the government 170 years ago. They have as much to do with one another as Katrina and CT lawmakers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because the NSA aren't experts on constitutional law. That's why there's a judge in the process. Kinda like police officers aren't experts in constitutional law. Sometimes they step over the bounds, unbeknownst to themselves, and have to be corrected. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, and that qualifies as government. We know that the nature of government is to consume and expand, in both size and power. I wouldn't classify that as a conspiracy, I would classify that as government. It is up to us to make them care by firing them. Of course, the apathy of the American people won't see that through. So really, if you work out the logic, it's not about the government not caring, it's about the people. We are the boss that hires the government. If we don't care, why would they? As I always say, if you want to blame someone, blame your neighbors. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just because something is classified and kept from the public doesn't qualify it as a conspiracy. Most of here with them high level clearances know of all kinds of things that we can't talk about, and most of it you can find on Wikipedia (which, fun fact, if people with clearances go to those Wikipedia pages they have committed the offense of access classified data on an unclassified system which is very bad). But that doesn't mean those are automatically "conspiracies". Now, if the intent of the act is to do something other than what the purpose was presented as, then yes, a conspiracy it would be. So if they went to a judge to get permission to do what they did for the purpose of targeting terrorists, yet their original intent was to gather information on the TEA party, then yes, you got yourself a conspiracy. By all means it looks like the NSA did exactly what they said they would do. Blame the judge. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, they weren't conspiracies. They went right to the judge and asked for what they got. They continue to ask for things that push the boundaries of the Constitution. When did that become a new thing? I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'm saying they never attempted to hide anything that wouldn't otherwise be classified whether it was potentially unconstitutional or not. Once again, the NSA isn't the problem here, it is the judge and these secret courts that don't have enough oversight. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And let me add, calm down a bit. I don't see where I accused you specifically of being a conspiracy theorist, but I did make mention that only irrational conspiracy theorists would connect two unrelated incidents (CT laws and gun confiscation by a squad of national guardsmen) and pass that off as evidence of anything. If that shoe fits then I don't think you should be ashamed to wear it, but know that it is an irrational conspiracy theory, unless you can find a causal link between those few enlisted Soldiers and the entire CT legislature and governor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You can't be serious in using the a few National Guardsmen as a concerted effort by the government to confiscate all firearms. Yes, they screwed up. Yes, it was unconstitutional. State, local and federal government does unconstitutional stuff every day, and often aren't called on it. In this case they were and there was an overwhelming response to it. I don't see what that has to do with Connecticut law enforcement. That would be like saying that a local police officer back in the '60s violating the civil rights of a black man at some point has bearing on what the TN AG is going to authorize PDs to do to black people. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But we could apply that logic to anything, not just gun confiscation. We could use the same argument (the possibility of the government to ignore laws) to anything you can think of. Why simply ridicule people for not freaking out about other things? I'm pretty sure it is illegal for the government to drop a nuke on my house, but the could if they wanted to. They could stop by, take myself, wife and kids on the front lawn and execute us at any time. There is no limit to what "they" can do. I'm just not worried about what they "could" do in reference to anecdotal evidence which is unrelated to the lawmakers and law enforcers in CT. I'm more concerned about what they "will" do, and as of right now they have nothing they can legally do. Citing a bunch of unrelated stuff as proof that CT "will" execute a certain course of action because they "could" is a lame argument. Perhaps not to conspiracy theorists who believe there is a master conspiracy which millions of people are complicit with, yet have not revealed the plans or had a single leak. But to rational people who understand the situation, the only thing relevant is what laws have been passed in CT, what the STATE gov can legally do and what intentions they have made to be known. At this point they've outlawed certain firearms and created a state full of felons. They did so in the legal manner of passing laws, whether those laws be unconstitutional or not. I don't suspect they will execute any further plans without going through the legal channels to do so. Not that I agree that makes it right, I'm just saying that there won't be door to door searches and confiscations. The "time for revolution" stuff has lost all meaning since every time a gun grabber farts we have social media lighting up with "revolutionaries" beating their chests. By all estimations from the same crowd we should have been in FEMA camps for years now and Obama was supposed to appoint himself Dictator for Life a couple years ago. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When you get married and have kids the bedroom becomes the only acceptable place. Fooling around like high schoolers on the couch gets abruptly stopped with "gross, not here! Our kids sit here." Don't even get me started on the back seat of a Volkswagen... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In defense if the shooter, I'm pretty sure I heard the moose refer to him as a creepy cracker before attacking. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ha, that's a good one! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in the state just north of us I believe anyone can carry so long as it isn't concealed, so anyone who is 18 years or older that is not prohibited by law from owning a firearm can legally carry with no permit. Where is the blood in the streets? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right about them trying their luck with a few, but I imagine those will be extenuating circumstances rather than just a guy who bought an AR15 once. I predict it will be folks who have broken some other law or have been reported to have an "illegal assault rifle", which, sadly at this point, is on equal footing with having narcotics with intent to distribute in that state. I don't predict them simply getting a 4473 and then getting a warrant. It certainly wouldn't rise to the level of PC. In fact, I suppose a precedent being set by obtaining a 4473 and executing a search warrant based in that would result in that whole 3% thing we keep hearing about. No, this is bad but this isn't "it". I admire the vigilance but do not believe the "call to arms" as it were, at least for any reason other than to make liberals scared. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Somebody give me a reasonable education on how this is LEGALLY possible.  The following things would need to happen in order for this to turn into a "door to door confiscation".   1. State law enforcement would need access to the 4473s.  They don't.  I suppose they could do some kinda wacky agreement with the feds to get that stuff, but it would still involve a whole lot of man hours to go through millions of 4473s to locate each sale of an "assault rifle".   2. Even if they have al 4473s in hand, how would that translate to probable cause for a search or a warrant for a search?  I suppose on an individual basis they could get warrants, but I'm a little skeptical of a judge issuing 150,000 search warrants and still keeping his job.  Considering that person to person sales of "assault rifles" were legal up until now without any paperwork, a house visit by law enforcement would be nothing more than a knock on the door, telling the cops you sold it to someone whose name you don't remember and that is the end of that.   3. All out nazi, warrantless searches, FEMA death camps, MRAPs on every street corner, cats and dogs living together, people spelling America with a "K", Wolverines!..... AAAAAAHHHHHHH!   So no, I don't think this is "it".  Wake me up when they execute the #3 option.  Until then we could speculate on what the government "could" do.  But they have nukes too, so I guess the government "could" nuke Ohio just as easily as they could kick down your door and take your rifle. 

Who?

I think I'll also be teaching my daughter not to get involved with douchey losers and volitile relationships that will later require a restraining order.

  Thanks for sharing.  I have a couple of IP cams I use at monitors in the kids' rooms, but when we leave on vacation I use them as a remote monitoring system.  This, in conjuction with our home alarm service makes me feel pretty secure when we're away.  We're planning a move soon to a potentially higher crime area and I think I'll end up getting a complete system like this.

Hmm, if my vagina was as hairy as my face as to necessitate products I'd be wearing parachute pants and listening to Flock of Seaguls. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  Well I ain't scared, but I don't like leaving the house without a handgun for the same reasons I don't like leaving the house without my cell phone or a wad of cash.  I might not need any of those things, but I like to be prepared.  Doesn't mean I'm "scared" of anything.  Of course, being prepared can go too far.  I guess it is subjective to qualify what "too far" is, but I'm gonna say body armor is too far, unless you're planning on getting into a shootout.  All things within reason.  Wearing a handgun isn't that big a deal. 

Not that I care for this POS, but I look at him as being part of this tidal wave of a rabid leftist media blitz that has been going on the past few years (I know, it's been going on longer, but recently it has been over the top).  If anything, I get the feeling that him and people like him are doing more harm than good to their agenda, as middle of the road people are coming around and being pushed away by overt propaganda.  It's the subtle, sneaky propaganda we need to worry about.  I like my rabid socialists out in the open, where everyone can see them.  Not hiding behind careful use of "facts" or omission of facts.  The more shows like his, the better for us I think.  But yeah, I do enjoy seeing him get canned.

Didnt realize. Functioning in a different hemisphere. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What is the holy hell does that have to do with this. A bill has been submitted. Support it or don't. You act like supporting this legislation and going out to support a candidate are mutually exclusive. This is a website for GUN OWNERS. Sorry that everyone doesn't support your republican candidates that are all part of the ruling class, two party system that exists to do nothing other than expand their role and line their pockets whilst throwing a bone now and then to us plebeians. This actually works towards expanding gun rights. I don't see why coming here just to poo poo and say it isn't worth it is helpful in any way. In fact, I would accuse you if actively trying to sabotage the expansion of guns rights with your subversive behavior. I don't care how much you give to the TFA or NRA, or how much you support one of our wretched politicians; the proof is right there in your post where you stand. Just blows my mind that, when there is soooooo much evidence that a tidal wave of right to carry laws have been passed in the past few decades there are still people like you who are like "f*** it, it's too hard." Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk