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

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1112675" timestamp="1392681782"]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.[/quote] Dave, those politicians and media whores are the most immediate threat to not just me, but everyone you or I know. It is their actions that are going to bring this whole American experiment to an end.

[DaveTN]

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

If they cut the internet off I could go get a second job.

 

How much of this will it take?

Good question. It appears Tennessee isn’t much different. We have a bill submitted right now that as far as I can tell is constitutional carry or very close to it. It legalizes what everyone thinks they have a right to do but don’t; carry a gun.
But we are being told by those in the know that it can’t happen. So what will happen when the bill comes along that says we can’t have assault rifles; I guess we will bend over again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We have a long way to go down here in Tennessee, and that's a good point, Dave.

 

If the internet did shut down, maybe I would get back to working in my garage. Lots to do there.

[DaveTN]

Dave, those politicians and media whores are the most immediate threat to not just me, but everyone you or I know. It is their actions that are going to bring this whole American experiment to an end.

It may come to what you think is going to happen. What will it take to stop it? Everyone needs to be clear that if the cops in Connecticut or NY or CA or anywhere start going door to door to seize firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens; people are going to die. It needs to clear that those deaths are going to be caused by the legislature’s that approved that legislation. How many will need to die? I don’t know if they are picked off one at a time it could be hundreds. It could stop when some cops refuse to participate.

[DaveTN]

The 7th and the 9th Federal District Courts have fallen right in line with the SCOTUS and Heller. The Illinois State Supreme Court has ruled that infringing on carry off your property is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Who here that has been in this battle for the last 40 years ever thought they would see this much action in a couple of years. The 7th and the 9th making pro-gun rulings?????

I got really frustrated when some of the folks here new to this said we need to take baby steps. We have been doing that all our lives. Some of these crazy laws being passed in other states will not stand. But don’t let what’s going on in those states get you so upset you forget what’s going on here. The final baby step here has been proposed.

[Guest carter]

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?

of course... who wouldn't defend themselves against someone holding a gun or knife to them...that's not murdering anyone, it's self defense 

[tnguy]

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

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

 

The history of statists' actions in such situations suggests that that is just the beginning. Don't pause, don't celebrate and don't lay down your arms until liberty is assured.

[tnguy]

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.

 

I would propose that there are a lot of people who may feel that way but have decided that in the current climate, it is prudent to self-censor. With its current over-arching paranoia, the government has succeeded in shutting down open opposition and has forced it into the darkness. As such... well, it ain't gonna be pretty.

[A.J. Holst]

You can bemoan the evil unchecked power of local state and federal guv'mint, but apathy keeps these clowns in office on the public teat. Please vote and when in Illinois, vote early and often. Edited February 18, 2014 by Gotthegoods

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I personally think all this talk of individual citizens going toe to toe against the "government" is premature, and frankly, short sighted. There is no question that, while we may have numbers, we are woefully out gunned. FWIW I think the "right" (and fairly easy answer) is to attempt to modify USC 10, section 12406 which allows federalization of the national guard without state approval.

 

What I propose is that the federal government must get the approval of the governor and the state legislature prior to federalizing the guard. Why? Well, the Guard is, by definition, the organized militia. It has the equipment and training to provide a credible check against federal overreach which is what we seem to be talking about. By modifying the cited law, the guard still remains available for collective defense of the country while allowing the states to maintain a viable defense organization.

 

So what happens if the Guard becomes abusive? Well, first of all, these are our friends and neighbors who live among us so it would seem there would be a greater degree of loyalty to the citizenry. Second, if you wish, maybe set it up so the sheriff has to give his approval for access? (keeps the keys, safe codes, etc)...problem is how far down in the weeds do you want to go? Third, we saw this happen in Little Rock in 1957. The appropriate response was correct, Eisenhower sent in the 101st. State checks feds and vice versa.

 

There are 2000 M1 tanks sitting idle in storage. I say distribute those to the Guard, as well as transfer the bulk of the land combat power to it from the active component. This increases the Guard capability, decreases federal capability, while retaining the ability for collective defense. Let's see how genuine our legislators really are.

 

Thoughts?

[DaveTN]

Thoughts?

This is ridiculous.

The only ones talking about a war with American citizens are the nut cases that want to start it. They will die where they make their stand. We don’t need tanks, military weapons, or martial law to protect what we have. Anyone that thinks our military is going to attack American citizen’s needs to loosen that tin foil hat a bunch; it’s cutting off blood flow to your brain. No one is going to overthrow my elected government; We the people have spoken.

[Guest semiautots]

This is ridiculous.

The only ones talking about a war with American citizens are the nut cases that want to start it. They will die where they make their stand. We don’t need tanks, military weapons, or martial law to protect what we have. Anyone that thinks our military is going to attack American citizen’s needs to loosen that tin foil hat a bunch; it’s cutting off blood flow to your brain. No one is going to overthrow my elected government; We the people have spoken.

 

Is William Franklin alive and well?

[TMF]

I personally think all this talk of individual citizens going toe to toe against the "government" is premature, and frankly, short sighted. There is no question that, while we may have numbers, we are woefully out gunned. FWIW I think the "right" (and fairly easy answer) is to attempt to modify USC 10, section 12406 which allows federalization of the national guard without state approval.

 

What I propose is that the federal government must get the approval of the governor and the state legislature prior to federalizing the guard. Why? Well, the Guard is, by definition, the organized militia. It has the equipment and training to provide a credible check against federal overreach which is what we seem to be talking about. By modifying the cited law, the guard still remains available for collective defense of the country while allowing the states to maintain a viable defense organization.

 

So what happens if the Guard becomes abusive? Well, first of all, these are our friends and neighbors who live among us so it would seem there would be a greater degree of loyalty to the citizenry. Second, if you wish, maybe set it up so the sheriff has to give his approval for access? (keeps the keys, safe codes, etc)...problem is how far down in the weeds do you want to go? Third, we saw this happen in Little Rock in 1957. The appropriate response was correct, Eisenhower sent in the 101st. State checks feds and vice versa.

 

There are 2000 M1 tanks sitting idle in storage. I say distribute those to the Guard, as well as transfer the bulk of the land combat power to it from the active component. This increases the Guard capability, decreases federal capability, while retaining the ability for collective defense. Let's see how genuine our legislators really are.

 

Thoughts?

 

This would be awesome.  It would probably be as awesome as Cesaer and Pompei marching Roman legions at one another and them killing the sh** outa each other over stuff that could have been resolved in the Senate.

 

The existence of a well armed society is all we need.  When things start simmering the libs back down for a bit.  They'll never go full retard.  They'll just keep changing the perception of what "freedom" is until not enough people care any more.  That sucks.  I do my part by making sure I'm armed and making sure to raise my kids to know what liberty is.  And I drink.

[tnguy]

I personally think all this talk of individual citizens going toe to toe against the "government" is premature, and frankly, short sighted. There is no question that, while we may have numbers, we are woefully out gunned. FWIW I think the "right" (and fairly easy answer) is to attempt to modify USC 10, section 12406 which allows federalization of the national guard without state approval.
 
What I propose is that the federal government must get the approval of the governor and the state legislature prior to federalizing the guard. Why? Well, the Guard is, by definition, the organized militia. It has the equipment and training to provide a credible check against federal overreach which is what we seem to be talking about. By modifying the cited law, the guard still remains available for collective defense of the country while allowing the states to maintain a viable defense organization.
 
So what happens if the Guard becomes abusive? Well, first of all, these are our friends and neighbors who live among us so it would seem there would be a greater degree of loyalty to the citizenry. Second, if you wish, maybe set it up so the sheriff has to give his approval for access? (keeps the keys, safe codes, etc)...problem is how far down in the weeds do you want to go? Third, we saw this happen in Little Rock in 1957. The appropriate response was correct, Eisenhower sent in the 101st. State checks feds and vice versa.
 
There are 2000 M1 tanks sitting idle in storage. I say distribute those to the Guard, as well as transfer the bulk of the land combat power to it from the active component. This increases the Guard capability, decreases federal capability, while retaining the ability for collective defense. Let's see how genuine our legislators really are.
 
Thoughts?

Completely unworkable. How does one expect to get a government is purportedly out of control to modify the laws to bring it under control when it is purportedly out of control?

The main thing to remember is who the military are. Us. Any insurrection which didn't swiftly bring a large part of the military on-board would probably be fairly baseless and rightfully doomed anyway.

[tnguy]

This would be awesome.  It would probably be as awesome as Cesaer and Pompei marching Roman legions at one another and them killing the sh** outa each other over stuff that could have been resolved in the Senate.
 
The existence of a well armed society is all we need.  When things start simmering the libs back down for a bit.  They'll never go full retard.  They'll just keep changing the perception of what "freedom" is until not enough people care any more.  That sucks.  I do my part by making sure I'm armed and making sure to raise my kids to know what liberty is.  And I drink.

Things don't simmer anymore. The current situation with the NSA spying on everything we say and do that goes anywhere electronically has had an awful effect on expressions of dissatisfaction. I would suggest something as a metaphor but since a certain marathon, that might be unwise.

[TMF]

Things don't simmer anymore. The current situation with the NSA spying on everything we say and do that goes anywhere electronically has had an awful effect on expressions of dissatisfaction. I would suggest something as a metaphor but since a certain marathon, that might be unwise.

I've seen more news about the Kardashians since the NSA scandal broke than I've seen about the NSA scandal. Most Americans don't care. They just don't. When they start talking about taking guns away the folks who are pissed have a real threat of using those arms when backed into a corner. It's different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wonder what will happen in Connecticut if the governor would try that house to house seizure? It would also be interesting to see

the federal government's response, since so many think the feds have all the firepower. How many empty jail beds are available?

These liberals like Cuomo are only wrecking their states. New York and Illinois are essentially bankrupt. Connecticut occasionally

runs surplus budgets, but they are a small state with enough people who will walk away from this madness. I will place my bet on

the people of Connecticut over the mad governor. He'll cower, eventually.

 

If the Feds come to his aid, someone will get hurt. I think it will be a fed, also. But I also think the president will back off from pressure

with the bad press that will come from his bought and paid for media. They will turn on him.

 

Just the money situation alone will kill this madness.

 

When people think they have the answer, and that answer is communism, they never learned how to think the long game right.

[RobertNashville]

 

...

Okay....so if they usurp your liberty THEN you have the right to murder them...got it.

Edited February 18, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

The 7th and the 9th Federal District Courts have fallen right in line with the SCOTUS and Heller. The Illinois State Supreme Court has ruled that infringing on carry off your property is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Who here that has been in this battle for the last 40 years ever thought they would see this much action in a couple of years. The 7th and the 9th making pro-gun rulings?????

I got really frustrated when some of the folks here new to this said we need to take baby steps. We have been doing that all our lives. Some of these crazy laws being passed in other states will not stand. But don’t let what’s going on in those states get you so upset you forget what’s going on here. The final baby step here has been proposed.

You can get as frustrated as you want but based on the legislators I've personally talked with as well as what others have told me (who are much more involved in this than I have time to be) there simply aren't enough legislators in Tennessee right now who are willing to vote for constitutional carry...yet.

 

If you've got other information...if you've sat down and discussed this with enough legislators that lead you to believe otherwise then please share that information.

[sigmtnman]

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Edited February 18, 2014 by sigmtnman

[tnguy]

I hate to Godwin this but Robert, what are your feelings on Claus von Stauffenberg? Edited February 18, 2014 by tnguy

[RobertNashville]

I hate to Godwin this but Robert, what are your feelings on Claus von Stauffenberg?

I don't have any "feelings" about him one way or the other. What does he have to do with anything here?

[JayC]

Were his actions murder, or justified homicide I think is what tnguy meant to ask - correct me if I'm wrong tnguy.

 

Everything the Germans did during WWII was 'legal' and approved by the duly elected government...  so by your line of thinking Jews who fought back in the Warsaw Ghettos were just criminals that needed to be put down?  

 

Anne Frank and her family we're just common criminals who broke the law and had no right to fight back to keep from being deported?

 

Can we not agree that at some point a government crosses a line, starts violating rights of it's citizens and at that point using force to save yourself, even if that force is offensive in nature is justified, and not murder?

 

If we can agree on that point, then who gets to decided where that line is?

 

I don't have any "feelings" about him one way or the other. What does he have to do with anything here?

Edited February 18, 2014 by JayC

[tnguy]

Were his actions murder, or justified homicide I think is what tnguy meant to ask - correct me if I'm wrong tnguy.

 

Everything the Germans did during WWII was 'legal' and approved by the duly elected government...  so by your line of thinking Jews who fought back in the Warsaw Ghettos were just criminals that needed to be put down?  

 

Anne Frank and her family we're just common criminals who broke the law and had no right to fight back to keep from being deported?

 

Can we not agree that at some point a government crosses a line, starts violating rights of it's citizens and at that point using force to save yourself, even if that force is offensive in nature is justified, and not murder?

 

If we can agree on that point, then who gets to decided where that line is?

 

Mostly correct except I would leave out the bit about the Jews in the ghetto as they were typically opposing those directly implementing the violence. (As an aside, it should be remembered that CvS did not succeed in his aim).

 

 

I guess the point is that it may be OK for the generals to sit in tents drinking cognac a couple of miles behind the lines while the footsoldiers line up and fire muskets at each other if you possess a certain point of view. Those of a more individualistic viewpoint might count those generals as valid targets and break out the sniper rifles.

Edited February 18, 2014 by tnguy

[JayC]

I would argue that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is exactly on point...  they started killing Germans first ;)  (By first I mean the Germans on site were just deporting Jews, instead of actively marching them into gas chambers/shooting them).  Also keep in mind they executed Jews police officers, collaborators, etc.

 

Again, everything the German's did in Warsaw was 'legal' under German law, and carried out by a 'duly elected' government.

 

Mostly correct except I would leave out the bit about the Jews in the ghetto as they were typically opposing those directly implementing the violence. (As an aside, it should be remembered that CvS did not succeed in his aim).

 

 

I guess the point is that it may be OK for the generals to sit in tents drinking cognac a couple of miles behind the lines while the footsoldiers line up and fire muskets at each other if you possess a certain point of view. Those of a more individualistic viewpoint might count those generals as valid targets and break out the sniper rifles.