Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

[jtmaze]

I am not sure how this is going to work out. Are there any judicial precedence that says that gun registration is constitutional or not. If there is a precedence that gun registration is constitutional then they are screwed. Otherwise there will be a lot of AR style weapons destroyed in the next few years. JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union......

[JayC]

You have otherwise law abiding citizens of CT sitting at home minding their own business...  and some statist gets a wild hair to violate the constitution and turn them into a felon...  And those citizens are supposed to wait around until the government shows up on their front door and tries to take their freedom or their life...  all the time minding their own business?

 

Frankly I think the citizens of CT have shown great restraint...  I'm half surprised in the days and weeks following the vote on this unconstitutional law a dozen of those legislators didn't end up face down in a ditch, or hanging from a light pole.  I suspect if word gets out that their going around to peoples homes looking for banned firearms, that restraint may well falter...  And some days I wonder if that shouldn't be the reaction a lot more often...  

 

To paraphrase Norquist...  It might not be a bad idea for the government to worry the people might get unhappy with them one day, and drown the government in the nearest bathtub. 

 

You can call it that but it still isn't "self defense"; justified or otherwise.

 

You said. paraphrasing, that you think the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to kill them. Well, unless those legislators and/or media types show up on your doorstep with guns blazing I don't see how you can call "killing them" as being "self defense".

 

You don't "kill" people because they have a different political philosophy than you do...you don't kill people because they violate the Constitution...you vote them out of office...maybe you put them in jail for crimes if they've committed any; but you don't "kill them".

 

[Worriedman]

I don't like Lamar for a lot of reasons, but can't say it's because of any gun grabbing on his part, what's that about?

 

- OS

May 12, 2009, 05:45 PM. Alexander voted NAY on Coburn's  Amdt. No. 1067 (Statement of purpose: To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges.)  He was the only Republican Senator to do so.  When Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe vote for an issue and you vote against it, how Lautenberg do you have to be to be anti-gun?

[Oh Shoot]

May 12, 2009, 05:45 PM. Alexander voted NAY on Coburn's  Amdt. No. 1067 (Statement of purpose: To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges.)  He was the only Republican Senator to do so.  When Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe vote for an issue and you vote against it, how Lautenberg do you have to be to be anti-gun?

 

Wow, you're right. Good catch, that slipped by me at the time, never noticed.

 

Found his comment from a published email at the time: "I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but this legislation goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law.”

 

Riggghhhhttt.

 

I also see he voted against the whole Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act, to which it was attached, too. He said this about that:

 

"This legislation is over-regulation that will lead to higher interest rates and less available credit. Also, it is unnecessary, because the Federal Reserve Board will implement many of the regulations in this bill next July."

 

- OS

Edited February 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

 

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: 

 

ABSOLUTELY F-in RIGHT!!!

What I want to see (and it will never happen) is for 18 USC 241 & 242 to be amended to stipulate that any public official or anyone acting under the direction of any public official who violates 241 or 242 or otherwise acts in violation of constitutional protections immediately, at the time of said violation, loses all protection and authority under the law and may be resisted with the amount of force necessary to prevent the act in question, however it shall be incumbent upon the person resisting such act to show that the applied level of force was necessary.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think that's called murder and I think that's illegal in most jurisdictions.

 

I see no "good" outcome for violent resistance; just a lot of dead people.

I guess the King of England thought the same thing when we were colonies. I also guess you would bow down to the King, back then.

[Moped]

I guess the King of England thought the same thing when we were colonies. I also guess you would bow down to the King, back then.

 

Of course, the big difference between then and now, is the King of England wasn't able to call out the 21st Century United States Army to quell open rebellion in the Colonies.  That's sort of the "Big Ape on the Block" in all this talk.

 

The Redcoats were facing a rebel army that was well equipped for its day. And possibly the biggest disadvantage the Redcoats had, was the fact that the British Empire had a hard time reinforcing and supplying their army in the colonies, since they were at war with the French and had to cross an ocean to get there.

 

None of those things is a disadvantage for our Government. I think as bad as I hate to admit it, the Military will side with the Government, if nothing else than to keep order. Can't see a bunch over overweight mostly middle aged men taking up arms and pushing a rebellion to a successful conclusion facing the U.S. Military.  And if they did, what will the present Government be replaced with?  Who will run it, until new elections can be held, assuming it's decided to install another republic or democracy?  What will happen to the leaders of the rebellion, afterwards, if they aren't elected to Government office in these elections?  Will they take up arms against the new Government, like we are seeing in South Sudan?

 

A rebellion requires organization.  Where is that organization going to come from?  Do you think the U.S. Government would really allow such organization to take place without attempting to arrest the leaders, before they could hatch anything serious?  A rebellion requires secrecy, yet the news for the last year, as been full of just how secret private communications are in the good old USA. Name a national leader that would be willing to be the face and lead such a rebellion. Do you think such a person would be able to garner enough support to push a rebellion to success? 

 

Lots of things to think about, when you talk rebellion.  It's just not about picking up your AR and hitting the door to take on the Government, and then coming home to supper afterwards.

 

We can talk about hanging elected officials from the nearest lamp post, or tar and feathering them and riding them out of town on a rail or marching on Washington in armed rebellion, all we want, but the fact of the matter is the odds of it being successful are pretty much nill.  The only way things will change is through the ballot and civil disobedience like we appear to be seeing in Connecticut.  If we fail there, then we lose.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Moped

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't bring up hanging elected officials, although I think there are several who should be. The idea of who the military would side

with is up in the air. I don't know. I do know that the citizenry had better get on the ball and start thinking more about who they put

in office. You may be thinking I am one for leading a charge against the current government, but you would be wrong. I want people

to vote the bums out, but if it ever gets to the point of a "us vs them", I have chosen sides. I make no bones about it, even if what you

say is true. This country won't be worth living in if it continues to let people get away with affronting the Constitution on a daily basis,

if it is allowed to continue.

 

You are right that it won't be a fight by old farts like me, and then going home to supper. Do you really think I didn't know that? Fighting

is always going to be a last resort. Fighting as a defense against tyranny is for all who have the sense to realize their life is worth living.

 

Also, those things you mention about organization are being quelled by NSA snooping and other governmental harrassment, and I don't

know how one can fight against that except voting the bums out. If it ever got to the point of gunfire, our country would have already

fallen. don't kid yourself into thinking the government can sustain itself without money. At every turn, it exists at our pleasure and we, if

we wake up, can stop it in its tracks at the ballot box. Most people think it has to be done at the end of the barrel. The government is

beginning to think it has to point them at us. When they end up in their forced slavery, they will find just how much they lost.

 

I'm the last person who would start something, but I would always defend myself because I know there will be few who would come to my

aid, even around here, because of the such diverse set of opinions.

 

I'm not interested in a fight, but I do see one coming. What it will look like, I don't know. But I do know we have a constitutional duty to

protect what's left of our country.

 

And there is a reason the military is being treated like crap, compared to Homeland Security. The military isn't supposed to be used

within our borders, except to defend the border. If the military wishes to turn on the people who pay their checks, we won't have a country

left.

 

When you have so many unjust laws, like the one in Connecticut, and if those people decided to turn on their government, which side

would you end up on? I'm not a revolutionary, but I don't think letting the government take away a right is going to end well. Those who

side with tyranny are the enemy. They deserve what Clancy called the "Ryan Doctrine", that is to make those who caused the problem

take the blame and pay the price. Of course, that was used in wars against foreign enemies, but there are domestic ones it can apply

to.

 

Are we to blame, except for the fact that we pay too little attention to who we vote for?

[RobertNashville]

I guess the King of England thought the same thing when we were colonies. I also guess you would bow down to the King, back then.

The colonists didn't have the power of the vote nor the power of the internet for that matter.  There will be no good outcome to armed resistance and there certainly is NO justification for just going and "killing them" as was being suggested. I doubt any of the founders would have be supportive of assassinating King George.

 

As I've said many times, I think it's tool late to stop what's going to happen and there may be an armed resistance but I've no illusions about how I think that will turn out nor will I participate in murder or assignation of political leaders.

Edited February 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

I dunno, how many troops have we committed to a country the size of Texas and we still can't control it?  The only parts of Afghanistan that are under control of the government and ISAF troops are the parts that are physically occupied by some kind of security forces.  Step foot outside the city and you're in Taliban country.  Even if the US had committed 1/2 million troops to Afghanistan we could never hope to secure it to a level where the enemy is no longer capable of making war.  You can kill enemy all day but you can't kill an idea unless you engage it total war; that means destroying every house, killing or imprisoning every fighting aged male, starving women and children and driving them from their lands as refugees.

 

The US government would have to engage in total war against the American people in order to stop a rebellion.  As long as that government is freely elected they would never stay in power long enough to fight.  They would be replaced by leaders who would be forced to come to the bargaining table or forced out of office.  That's how insurgencies work.  Even if martial law was declared it wouldn't change much other than throwing more volunteers for the insurgents and more people protesting against their government.

 

I'm not condoning armed rebellion, just pointing out that it isn't correct to think that our military could handle one.  Technology, superior equipment, superior weapons and superior training are only good when fighting against conventional armies.  It means dick when fighting an insurgency.

Edited February 17, 2014 by TMF

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And you think that is what is being proposed? Robert?

Edited February 17, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

And you think that is what is being proposed? Robert?

Yeah...when people say they want to go and kill them (legislators and media supporters) that's what I think they mean.

[Guest carter]

Yeah...when people say they want to go and kill them (legislators and media supporters) that's what I think they mean.

i think you took that in the wrong context...i haven't read one thing on here that implied anyone was going to just go murder someone... i have read though that people will defend there lives if met with armed intruders... weather it be from your average thug to someone from another walk of life

[tnguy]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that CTS was implying that he would defend himself against those who would initiate the force of violence against him, not those tasked with carrying out that violence. Why would one pick a battle one is guaranteed to lose?

[RobertNashville]

i think you took that in the wrong context...i haven't read one thing on here that implied anyone was going to just go murder someone... i have read though that people will defend there lives if met with armed intruders... weather it be from your average thug to someone from another walk of life

I don't think I misunderstood.

 

Again, he said (paraphrasing here) that he thinks the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to kill them.

 

How many "legislators" are going to come face to face with a person (be an armed intruder) and attack them (which would be the only way to justify use of deadly force)? Anything else is murder.  :shrug:

[JayC]

Moped,

 

I'd suggest you study history a little more closely...  The US Military for all of the great things it's capable of doing...  winning a COIN operation isn't one of them.  Just look at the lack of success we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan in winning against those insurgents.

 

Who do you think we're fighting over there, big 10,000 person organizations...  or 5-20 member cells operating largely independently of each other with little or no direct command and control?

 

Our military is nearly paralyzed by blue on green attacks in Afghanistan...  They haven't had to fight a war on American soil for over 150 years...  Our country for all of the good things about it, isn't setup to defend itself from a internal insurgency.  Military supplies aren't well protected, and there ability to resupply and maintain high tech equipment, along with basic needs such as feeding itself are provided largely by the civilian population.  While our military is well prepared for 'force protection' in a combat zone, their not prepared for force protection of installations and their families here on the home front.

 

The fact remains insurgencies happen because most of the time they are successful.

 

We don't want to see a civil war kick off in this country...  it will resemble nothing of the war our forefathers fought 150 years ago...  it will look a lot more like the Balkans in the 1990's.  For this reason the government should tread very carefully when violating civil rights...  all it takes is one step too far and enough of the population says the hell with it.

 

Of course, the big difference between then and now, is the King of England wasn't able to call out the 21st Century United States Army to quell open rebellion in the Colonies.  That's sort of the "Big Ape on the Block" in all this talk.

 

The Redcoats were facing a rebel army that was well equipped for its day. And possibly the biggest disadvantage the Redcoats had, was the fact that the British Empire had a hard time reinforcing and supplying their army in the colonies, since they were at war with the French and had to cross an ocean to get there.

 

None of those things is a disadvantage for our Government. I think as bad as I hate to admit it, the Military will side with the Government, if nothing else than to keep order. Can't see a bunch over overweight mostly middle aged men taking up arms and pushing a rebellion to a successful conclusion facing the U.S. Military.  And if they did, what will the present Government be replaced with?  Who will run it, until new elections can be held, assuming it's decided to install another republic or democracy?  What will happen to the leaders of the rebellion, afterwards, if they aren't elected to Government office in these elections?  Will they take up arms against the new Government, like we are seeing in South Sudan?

 

A rebellion requires organization.  Where is that organization going to come from?  Do you think the U.S. Government would really allow such organization to take place without attempting to arrest the leaders, before they could hatch anything serious?  A rebellion requires secrecy, yet the news for the last year, as been full of just how secret private communications are in the good old USA. Name a national leader that would be willing to be the face and lead such a rebellion. Do you think such a person would be able to garner enough support to push a rebellion to success? 

 

Lots of things to think about, when you talk rebellion.  It's just not about picking up your AR and hitting the door to take on the Government, and then coming home to supper afterwards.

 

We can talk about hanging elected officials from the nearest lamp post, or tar and feathering them and riding them out of town on a rail or marching on Washington in armed rebellion, all we want, but the fact of the matter is the odds of it being successful are pretty much nill.  The only way things will change is through the ballot and civil disobedience like we appear to be seeing in Connecticut.  If we fail there, then we lose.

 

[RobertNashville]

...The fact remains insurgencies happen because most of the time they are successful.

 

If by successful you mean they often are successful overthrowing the sitting government you are probably correct. However, if we measure success in terms of the new government being better than the one that was overthrown that's another matter and I'm not so sure insurgencies have been all that successful.

 

For our purposes here in the United States, "better" would probably be defined as a return to the confines of the constitution where personal liberty, freedom and limited government are embraced. However, if this mess we are in devolves into armed rebellion I don't think we can just assume that whatever government rises from the ashes will actually be the type of government we might want...we might wind up with a dictatorship or something just as hostile to freedom as a dictatorship!

[sigmtnman]

democracy, socialism, communism, dictatorship...

 

"Oh, potato, tomato, potato, tomato."

[JayC]

Murder and justified homicide are one and the same, just depends on your perspective... doesn't it?

 

Did Nat Turner murder his master, or was it justified homicide?  

 

For those who don't know who Nat Turner was, he led a very bloody slave rebellion in 1831 in Southampton, VA.

 

The answer to that question really comes down to this question...  Was Nate Turner a freeman immorally and unlawfully enslaved?  Or were his children, and children's children only granted freedom by the Government in 1865?  If they were granted freedom by the Government, does that mean the Government can take that freedom away?

 

There are a number of valid arguments...  one when Nat decided to take his freedom back, he was no longer bound by a social contract he wasn't a party to, and therefore reverted to a natural man with no obligation to follow any laws in restoring that freedom...

 

Or that Nat was immorally and unlawfully enslaved and therefore was justified in using whatever force was needed to escape slavery and wage war on those who would enslave him and his kin.

 

Finally, some might believe because slavery was constitutional in 1831, Nat was a murderer because he violated the law of VA in the process of trying to escape, and wage war on those who would enslave him.

 

I'll be honest I fear people who believe the latter to be true...  

 

If a party to a contract willfully violates that contract, then the contract is null and void...  therefore all the laws and agreements formed under that contract would also be null and void...

 

I'd not advocating that anybody take legislators out and hang them from lamp posts...  only saying I'm half surprised it hasn't happened... and I'm not sure the parties involved might not be morally justified in doing so...  as freemen who have had their rights violated and their freedom threatened.

 

Nat Turner was no hero...  but I wouldn't call him a murderer either.

 

I don't think I misunderstood.

 

Again, he said (paraphrasing here) that he thinks the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to kill them.

 

How many "legislators" are going to come face to face with a person (be an armed intruder) and attack them (which would be the only way to justify use of deadly force)? Anything else is murder.  :shrug:

Edited February 17, 2014 by JayC

[Moped]

This is a concern of mine. If a rebellion were to be successful, then what ...

For our purposes here in the United States, "better" would probably be defined as a return to the confines of the constitution where personal liberty, freedom and limited government are embraced. However, if this mess we are in devolves into armed rebellion I don't think we can just assume that whatever government rises from the ashes will actually be the type of government we might want...we might wind up with a dictatorship or something just as hostile to freedom as a dictatorship!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that CTS was implying that he would defend himself against those who would initiate the force of violence against him, not those tasked with carrying out that violence. Why would one pick a battle one is guaranteed to lose?

That's exactly what I was saying. Robert didn't misunderstand it, he just rejects the premise because he apparently believes that as long as some body, somewhere that calls itself a government took a vote on the matter then it's violence against the individual is legitimate and should not be resisted.
 

I don't think I misunderstood.
 
Again, he said (paraphrasing here) that he thinks the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to kill them.
 
How many "legislators" are going to come face to face with a person (be an armed intruder) and attack them (which would be the only way to justify use of deadly force)? Anything else is murder.  :shrug:

Robert, if you are going to paraphrase and butcher my words by leaving out the key portion in an attempt to twist them against me, do yourself a favor and at least attempt to form a grammatically coherent sentence. You managed to quote it correctly the first time but I'll go ahead and quote myself for you again for clarity's sake. Compare the bolded texts if you will.
 

 

I don't think I have ever been very coy about what I think the correct and appropriate consequences are for the legislators who seek to usurp the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda work.

You kill them.

Those few words really have a profound effect on the thrust of the argument as they provide the moral justification for the act of self defense. I am not advocating that anyone take any specific action, especially actions of such profound consequences. I am only explaining what I believe to be is the moral basis for those actions which I view as an inevitability. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[JayC]

I meant they are successful in overthrowing the current government in the vast majority of cases.  And I completely agree in the vast majority of cases the outcome is just as bad if not worse than what they had before.

 

Which is why I don't advocate for an insurgency...  which is why I tend to make sure people don't have a false sense of bravado...

 

Our Government and by extension the military won't win an insurgence here at home...  and neither will we the people.  So we should do everything in our power to avoid it...  but the fact remains many politicians don't see it that way... and they're playing with fire...  we're maybe 2 steps away from a civil war, and many in both parties are happy to keep marching along in the same direction hoping we don't step into a pothole and kick off the worse war any of us have ever seen.

 

Eventually they'll poke the wrong bear... and all of us and for 4 or 5 generations to come will be paying the price.

 

If by successful you mean they often are successful overthrowing the sitting government you are probably correct. However, if we measure success in terms of the new government being better than the one that was overthrown that's another matter and I'm not so sure insurgencies have been all that successful.

 

For our purposes here in the United States, "better" would probably be defined as a return to the confines of the constitution where personal liberty, freedom and limited government are embraced. However, if this mess we are in devolves into armed rebellion I don't think we can just assume that whatever government rises from the ashes will actually be the type of government we might want...we might wind up with a dictatorship or something just as hostile to freedom as a dictatorship!

Edited February 17, 2014 by JayC

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="JayC" post="1112650" timestamp="1392678907"]I meant they are successful in overthrowing the current government in the vast majority of cases. [size=4]And I completely agree in the vast majority of cases the outcome is just as bad if not worse than what they had before.[/size] Which is why I don't advocate for an insurgency... which is why I tend to make sure people don't have a false sense of bravado... Our Government and by extension the military won't win an insurgence here at home... and neither will we the people. So we should do everything in our power to avoid it... but the fact remains many politicians don't see it that way... and they're playing with fire... we're maybe 2 steps away from a civil war, and many in both parties are happy to keep marching along in the same direction hoping we don't step into a pothole and kick off the worse war any of us have ever seen. Eventually they'll poke the wrong bear... and all of us and for 4 or 5 generations to come will be paying the price.[/quote] Well stated. I know some folks view me as some bloodthirsty internet blowhard clamoring for an excuse to start shooting folks. That isn't the case at all. I would love it if the fed.gov would return to its original semi-minarchist form. I just don't see that happening and I have determined that a point does exist where I won't take anymore. As far as my position on the targeting of politicians and media partisans, look at it this way. If there is someone who is hiring hit men to kill you and they will never be prosecuted for it no matter how many they send, do you just attempt to defend yourself against the hit men until one of them gets you? Maybe the real solution is to go after the person paying the hit men. The agents tasked with enforcing the intolerable acts like this gun registration in CT aren't the real enemy (though if they catch lead trying to kidnap a citizen for not complying with it, so be it) the politicians who passed the laws and the media whores who sell their lies for them are. If one is going to possibly die resisting these intolerable acts, might as well take out some of the real villains first. Edited February 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

Well stated. I know some folks view me as some bloodthirsty internet blowhard clamoring for an excuse to start shooting folks. That isn't the case at all. I would love it if the fed.gov would return to its original semi-minarchist form. I just don't see that happening and I have determined that a point does exist where I won't take anymore. As far as my position on the targeting of politicians and media partisans, look at it this way. If there is someone who is hiring hit men to kill you and they will never be prosecuted for it no matter how many they send, do you just attempt to defend yourself against the hit men until one of them gets you? Maybe the real solution is to go after the person paying the hit men. The agents tasked with enforcing the intolerable acts like this gun registration in CT aren't the real enemy (though if they catch lead trying to kidnap a citizen for not complying with it, so be it) the politicians who passed the laws and the media whores who sell their lies for them are. If one is going to possibly die resisting these intolerable acts, might as well take out some of the real villains first.

You would have to be an idiot to start murdering people that are no immediate threat to you. From reading your posts I don’t think you are an idiot. It’s just easy to pump yourself up and start talking non-sense about what you would do in a given situation when you know the chances of that situation happening are about the same as winning the lottery.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Our federal government is just as fearful of this happening as we are. If it wasn't, it would have probably already happened. They

can put all of the drones in the sky and kill as many as they want, but when it comes to paying the bill, they won't have much to

work with, will they?

 

Maybe some of you will wake up and think a bit deeper on the subject when the internet cuts off.

 

We've seen the riddance of good leadership in the military by this administration. It won't matter. When those critters start to eat

MRE's in their bunkers, how long will it take for them to figure out they lost, and killed a country in the process? All we have to do is

a John Galt and they will die without a shot. They are cowards and they will prove it.

 

We're already in the third part of Atlas Shrugged, whether or not you want to believe it, and some sources are saying we are going

downhill at a dizzying pace. They used to not say things like that. I guess they woke up, too. The trouble with politicians who do these

things, and history is full of them, is that they reach a point of complete denial. Then they die off for a while, while good people try to

put things back together again. It's bound to happen.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/371248/print

 

I don't normally read National Review, but that article gives a good representation of what is going on. You have a dictator and a Congress

willing to go anywhere he goes. How much more do we wish to deny? I grew up without such obvious political difficulty and now I see this,

not from Alex Jones, either. Back then the bad guy was Soviet Russia and Cuba. Now, it is our own paranoid leadership from within.

 

Chuck didn't go asking for this. It wasn't his desire to go out and do as you think, Robert. We have people going over the fall and this

is the end result of tyranny from cowards.

 

No checks or balances when you have a dictator. It was obvious in New York. Now in Colorado and Connecticut. How much of this will it take?