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

[tnguy]

True. But this is somewhat less about legality and about who is a valid target.

 

Even the cops know it's better to go for the kingpin than the foot soldiers.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

 

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.

Don't read into this, I'm not advocating ANYTHING just applying basic tactical principles...In combat there is a reason WHY you go after the radios, crew served weapons, and leaders first. It is because they are combat multipliers and their loss can cause confusion and lack of/delay in support/react forces. 

[RobertNashville]

Lets see...Hitler was a dictator killing millions of his own people who would never be removed from office except by death who was by most any standard you could name, a "military' target. I see nothing comparable to Hitler's Germany and the United States today.

 

We don't "kill" legislators and members of the press who disagree with us politically; we vote them out of office and stop reading their press.

 

If some of you folks really want to storm Congress and start killing the legislators whom you disagree with I can't stop you but you are never going to get me to say you have the right to do that as long as the power of the vote exists.

Edited February 19, 2014 by RobertNashville

[bersaguy]

Given the current state of humanity in general I wouldn't put much faith in 12 random people having the sense to do the right thing on this. I believe a big part of an attorneys job is to try to get the most desirable(moldable) people seated on the jury during selection and then attempt to mold such weK minded individuals to suit their case.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I agree with most of this but it doesn't take all 12 people for it to fail. if even 1 juror says not guilty that hangs the jury but I don't think they could find 12 people that would find a person guilty of an unconstitutional law the state is trying to enforce...............jmho

[tnguy]

Lets see...Hitler was a dictator killing millions of his own people who would never be removed from office except by death who was by most any standard you could name, a "military' target. I see nothing comparable to Hitler's Germany and the United States today.

 

As the old joke goes: "Ma'am, we already know what you are, we're just haggling on the price".

[TMF]

Lets see...Hitler was a dictator killing millions of his own people who would never be removed from office except by death who was by most any standard you could name, a "military' target. I see nothing comparable to Hitler's Germany and the United States today.

We don't "kill" legislators and members of the press who disagree with us politically; we vote them out of office and stop reading their press.

If some of you folks really want to storm Congress and start killing the legislators whom you disagree with I can't stop you but you are never going to get me to say you have the right to do that as long as the power of the vote exists.

I just want to storm congress by voting out every last f'ing incumbent (to include republicans) and folks like yourself view that as extremist nonsense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

I just want to storm congress by voting out every last f'ing incumbent (to include republicans) and folks like yourself view that as extremist nonsense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you think I am opposed to or believe that I think it "extremist nonsense" to vote out every current sitting politician then you've never really read and understood any of my posts here.  It's never going to happen but I welcome the effort.

 

I'm just opposed to "killing them" because of differing political/philosophical views because there are other options short of murder.

[tnguy]

I think you miss the point. It's not about political or philosophical views. I can't talk for him but I'm sure CTS would be happy to sit down with an alcoholic beverage and debate political points with someone all night. It's when they start sending people into your home to take your property and suchlike that lines start getting crossed I suspect.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)

[TMF]

If you think I am opposed to or believe that I think it "extremist nonsense" to vote out every current sitting politician then you've never really read and understood any of my posts here. It's never going to happen but I welcome the effort.

.

No, I gathered quite well from your opinions on a third candidate, plus your dismissive responses to those that would support one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

I think you miss the point. It's not about political or philosophical views. I can't talk for him but I'm sure CTS would be happy to sit down with an alcoholic beverage and debate political points with someone all night. It's when they start sending people into your home to take your property and suchlike that lines start getting crossed I suspect.

That's pretty well spot on. I have a couple of friends that are communists. I don't mean commie like your average college age liberal idiot or teamster boss, but red dyed in the wool, celebrating Che's birthday card carrying members of the CPUSA commies. These are guys I consider friends and have had plenty of arguments and debates about politics over beers. I don't have any desire to stick a gun in their face or gut them and hang them by their own intestines because they have no ability to be a danger to myself or my family. They don't have the ability to get together with a couple of other folks, take a vote and then grant themselves the power to take my life, liberty or property with the ability to send armed folks to my door. They don't have a national audience and use it to sell the lies of thieves and murderers and increase the power of the state to control the lives of the citizenry. My two friends and I have a difference of political opinions, The bastards that I am talking about that need shooting have the means to enforce their will upon me.

[Chucktshoes]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)

 She's a wise woman, but that awkwardness is almost over.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

The bastards that I am talking about that need shooting have the means to enforce their will upon me.

True. Will your new government not have that?

[Chucktshoes]

True. Will your new government not have that?

Government? While I can very grudgingly accept some limited, minarchist forms of government, I would never seek to create one. I find the very concept of government fundamentally flawed and so I am an anarchist. If governments are built on the consent of the governed, only the individual can grant that consent and it cannot be granted for him no matter how many others vote on the matter.

 

 

 

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Thomas Jefferson

 

I'd say that history has shown us that without fail, the answer to Jefferson's question is a resounding "no". 

Edited February 19, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

No, I gathered quite well from your opinions on a third candidate, plus your dismissive responses to those that would support one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One has zero to do with the other.

 

I can't help it if third-party candidates have little to no chance, especially on the national level, to get elected but that has nothing to do with my being all for all incumbents getting voted out of office. Despite our disagreements I can't believe you can't see the difference between the two issues.

[RobertNashville]

Government? While I can very grudgingly accept some limited, minarchist forms of government, I would never seek to create one. I find the very concept of government fundamentally flawed and so I am an anarchist.

 

The concept of government is not nearly as flawed as the concept of anarchy.
 

[Chucktshoes]

The concept of government is not nearly as flawed as the concept of anarchy.

Yes, because people that can't be trusted to rule themselves should instead be given the power to rule over others. 
 
 

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
Frederic Bastiat

[RobertNashville]

Yes, because people that can't be trusted to rule themselves should instead be given the power to rule over others. 
 
 

Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history.

If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113525" timestamp="1392850933"]Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history. If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.[/quote] Read the quote from Bastiat again, Robert. I will absolutely agree with you that people can't be trusted. So why do we trust them with the power to govern others if they can't be trusted to govern themselves?

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="1112677" timestamp="1392681918"]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. [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/371248/print"]http://www.nationalreview.com/node/371248/print[/url] 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?[/quote] Spoiler Alert Correction: in the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged there was gunplay and violence - the regime had built death machines to control and if needed kill the citizenry. It did come down to violence to free Gault who was imprisoned and tortured

[RobertNashville]

Read the quote from Bastiat again, Robert. I will absolutely agree with you that people can't be trusted. So why do we trust them with the power to govern others if they can't be trusted to govern themselves?

Because government, even with its faults and pitfalls is the ONLY thing that can work and a representative democracy is the best form of government any group has yet devised.

[Chucktshoes]

Because government, even with its faults and pitfalls is the ONLY thing that can work and a representative democracy is the best form of government any group has yet devised.

Still not answering how if people can't be trusted to govern themselves, they can be trusted to govern others. That's okay as there isn't an answer that actually has any logical consistency. On the other hand, I am not surprised by your elevation of democracy (like we have now) over a constitutional republic (like our founders instituted) as time and time again you have stated a belief that majority vote trumps the rights of the individual. To paraphrase a famous sci-fi character "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one".

[RobertNashville]

Still not answering how if people can't be trusted to govern themselves, they can be trusted to govern others. That's okay as there isn't an answer that actually has any logical consistency. On the other hand, I am not surprised by your elevation of democracy (like we have now) over a constitutional republic (like our founders instituted) as time and time again you have stated a belief that majority vote trumps the rights of the individual. To paraphrase a famous sci-fi character "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one".

I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".

representative democracy != constitutional republic. 

 

The 17th amendment would be the modifier that moved us from the later?

Edited February 20, 2014 by sigmtnman

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113841" timestamp="1392910040"]I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".[/quote]Look at the words you used and compare them to the ones I used because the terminology matters. Control the language and you control the mind. The difference between a democracy and a representative democracy is that in the latter you send representatives to engage in mob rule in your place as opposed to doing it directly. The rights of the individual still have no protection from the whims of the masses. A constitutional republic with individual liberty as its core principle protects the rights of the individual to their life, liberty and property from the whims and desires of others. As far as the second point goes, all anyone has to do is look at any debate I or JayC has had with you on the subject of property rights to see that contrary to your present denials, you absolutely view the whims of the masses as superior to the rights of the individual. Edited February 20, 2014 by Chucktshoes