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

[RobertNashville]

You cannot have "A" without having "B" which is why a democratic republic guided by a constitution is ALWAYS the better option unless, as Oh Shoot so correctly pointed out that if yo are going to advocate anarchism, best be well prepared for the resultant anarchy.

[RobertNashville]

a: absence of government . b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

 

That's all the definition I need to see. Chuck ain't looking for that.

I think you are wrong and his post following yours proves it; he wants an absence of government. What he refuses to understand that in with an absence of government you WILL have violence and the strong preying on the week and acting out their baser instincts.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have no problem with what he said. I've known that position for quite a while. He made his desires pretty clear. If I had the choice

of the style of government he wishes, I would choose the same, but we don't. He admits that the choice is not there, so we need to

fix what we have, back to the minimalist type of constitutional republic we once had. It would be counter-productive to trash one

and start all over again, even though that might end up what happens.

 

Rough times ahead. I'd be happy the way it was when I was a kid. A lot has changed since then.

 

Maybe I should have added "necessarily" to my comment in that post? It doesn't matter, though.

[TMF]

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.

Okay, you're a little right and a little wrong here. The point I was making about you finding the idea of revolt so ridiculous when we have a system to vote out our crappy leaders is that it is ironic you would have the same dismissive attitude towards someone using that vote toward a candidate they support, regardless of their chances. Isn't that the right way, after all? How can you, in one breath, say that armed resistance against opposition is silly so long as we have the power to vote yet in the same breath say it's silly to use that vote for anyone other than a member of the very ruling class we might oppose? Do you see why I would point that out?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

You cannot have "A" without having "B" which is why a democratic republic guided by a constitution is ALWAYS the better option unless, as Oh Shoot so correctly pointed out that if yo are going to advocate anarchism, best be well prepared for the resultant anarchy.

 

 

Let me ask you this, Robert.  If there were no laws, would you become a bad person and do bad things?

Edited February 21, 2014 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

Okay, you're a little right and a little wrong here. The point I was making about you finding the idea of revolt so ridiculous when we have a system to vote out our crappy leaders is that it is ironic you would have the same dismissive attitude towards someone using that vote toward a candidate they support, regardless of their chances. Isn't that the right way, after all? How can you, in one breath, say that armed resistance against opposition is silly so long as we have the power to vote yet in the same breath say it's silly to use that vote for anyone other than a member of the very ruling class we might oppose? Do you see why I would point that out?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe armed revolution and/or armed resistance is "silly" because I believe it will likely fail and because even if it succeeds I'm not hopeful that the government that rises from the ashes would be even as good as the one that was just overthrown (the American revolution is quite unique in that regard in that a successful revolution resulted in a government of based on freedom and liberty).  I believe it is inappropriate to use force to obtain change so long as we still have free elections...a mechanism for change that does not involve violent revolution (an option our founders did not have) even if I'm not hopeful that the elections will be successful. Ultimately, if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.

 

If I was dismissive of others in the 2012 election cycle it was because I believed and still believe that 2012 was a pivotal year for the country (frankly, I believe we haven't even yet seen the real harm that will eventually come to us by Obama's reelection). However, with regards to voting and supporting candidates with little chance to succeed I have changed my position somewhat because 2012 was also my last election voting for the "least bad choice".

 

I'm through with the whole sticking mess called the "Republican Party" and the only way I'll vote for anyone going forward is if I'm convinced he/she is truly worth of the office they seek and if they hold correct positions on the few issues that are deal-breakers for me...I will vote for such candidates regardless of "party" affiliation and regardless of whether I think they will win or not.  Where I will still likely differ with many "Libertarians" and other third-party folks is that I have no illusions about such candidates actually winning their office. If people want to support them, fine; I'm not going to tell them not to do so...I may well be supporting the same candidate but I don't really expect third-party candidates to win; at least not at the national level which leads me back to the last line of my first paragraph...if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.

[RobertNashville]

Let me as you this, Robert.  If there were no laws, would you become a bad person and do bad things?

I don't believe so...I've lived long enough to know what kind of person I am when no one is watching. Besides, I'm an exceptional human being of significant intelligence, many years of formal education and guided by a strong abiding faith in God and the Bible.

 

I'm also extremely humble. :hat:

 

That said, all of us, including me, are imperfect and flawed and has within us the capacity of doing evil which is why most people, absence the rule of law, will embrace their baser instincts as has sadly been proven time and time again throughout thousands of years of history.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

I believe armed revolution and/or armed resistance is "silly" because I believe it will likely fail and because even if it succeeds I'm not hopeful that the government that rises from the ashes would be even as good as the one that was just overthrown (the American revolution is quite unique in that regard in that a successful revolution resulted in a government of based on freedom and liberty). I believe it is inappropriate to use force to obtain change so long as we still have free elections...a mechanism for change that does not involve violent revolution (an option our founders did not have) even if I'm not hopeful that the elections will be successful. Ultimately, if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.

If I was dismissive of others in the 2012 election cycle it was because I believed and still believe that 2012 was a pivotal year for the country (frankly, I believe we haven't even yet seen the real harm that will eventually come to us by Obama's reelection). However, with regards to voting and supporting candidates with little chance to succeed I have changed my position somewhat because 2012 was also my last election voting for the "least bad choice".

I'm through with the whole sticking mess called the "Republican Party" and the only way I'll vote for anyone going forward is if I'm convinced he/she is truly worth of the office they seek and if they hold correct positions on the few issues that are deal-breakers for me...I will vote for such candidates regardless of "party" affiliation and regardless of whether I think they will win or not. Where I will still likely differ with many "Libertarians" and other third-party folks is that I have no illusions about such candidates actually winning their office. If people want to support them, fine; I'm not going to tell them not to do so...I may well be supporting the same candidate but I don't really expect third-party candidates to win; at least not at the national level which leads me back to the last line of my first paragraph...if the country continues its death spiral armed revolution may come but I neither desire it nor think it will ultimately have a desirable outcome.

Ha, man you had me until about 2/3rds the way through your post. It sounds like you're coming around slowly, but still sticking to this "3rd party can't win" stuff. Well, you're right. It can't win because people like you say so. It's like saying, "I can't bang that hot chick over there because I'm too scared she'll say 'no'. Guess what, sometimes ya just gotta try, because the worst you can do is fail. Having a defeatist attitude leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a Ronulan thing. I'm just pointing out that you can't say it is silly not to vote for one of the two ruling class candidates, then turn around and say it's silly to fight against that same ruling class. Really, it's one or the other. The folks who aren't buying into the Republicrat racket ARE using their peaceful right to vote otherwise, as opposed to picking up muskets and stuff. Respect that; don't dismiss it. As for the picking up muskets stuff, we'll know when that's here. When it is I don't think there will be any question of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

I don't believe so...I've lived long enough to know what kind of person I am when no one is watching. Besides, I'm an exceptional human being of significant intelligence, many years of formal education and guided by a strong abiding faith in God and the Bible.

 

I'm also extremely humble. :hat:

 

That said, all of us, including me, are imperfect and flawed and has within us the capacity of doing evil which is why most people, absence the rule of law, will embrace their baser instincts as has sadly been proven time and time again throughout thousands of years of history.

 

We are imperfect and flawed, but God will still rule supreme long after any form of government. 

 

I'm confident that I can follow him in absence of man's law.

[Chucktshoes]

You cannot have "A" without having "B" which is why a democratic republic guided by a constitution is ALWAYS the better option unless, as Oh Shoot so correctly pointed out that if yo are going to advocate anarchism, best be well prepared for the resultant anarchy.

Nice job slightly altering your language there but it doesn't fool me. I still don't think you actually understand the words you are using. Your civics teacher gets an F.
 

I don't believe so...I've lived long enough to know what kind of person I am when no one is watching. Besides, I'm an exceptional human being of significant intelligence, many years of formal education and guided by a strong abiding faith in God and the Bible.
 
I'm also extremely humble. :hat:
 
That said, all of us, including me, are imperfect and flawed and has within us the capacity of doing evil which is why most people, absence the rule of law, will embrace their baser instincts as has sadly been proven time and time again throughout thousands of years of history.

What has been proven time and time again is that men of baser instinct are attracted to government because of the power it wields and then use that power to control, steal from and murder their fellow man by the millions. Once again, I ask of you the question Frederic Bastiat asked nearly 200 years ago.
 

“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?” 
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

[RobertNashville]

Ha, man you had me until about 2/3rds the way through your post. It sounds like you're coming around slowly, but still sticking to this "3rd party can't win" stuff. Well, you're right. It can't win because people like you say so. It's like saying, "I can't bang that hot chick over there because I'm too scared she'll say 'no'. Guess what, sometimes ya just gotta try, because the worst you can do is fail. Having a defeatist attitude leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a Ronulan thing. I'm just pointing out that you can't say it is silly not to vote for one of the two ruling class candidates, then turn around and say it's silly to fight against that same ruling class. Really, it's one or the other. The folks who aren't buying into the Republicrat racket ARE using their peaceful right to vote otherwise, as opposed to picking up muskets and stuff. Respect that; don't dismiss it. As for the picking up muskets stuff, we'll know when that's here. When it is I don't think there will be any question of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't believe it's a defeatist attitude; rather, just a reasonable observation based on the math...maybe the math will turn around but I haven't seen it yet.

[RobertNashville]

We are imperfect and flawed, but God will still rule supreme long after any form of government. 

 

I'm confident that I can follow him in absence of man's law.

I'm not saying that no one will follow God (or even just a decent moral compass) even in the absence of man's law but as a whole?  No way.

 

We can see in graphic detail how a significant percentage of mankind acts and what he does to his fellow man even with the rule of law and punishments in place...remove those last impediments and literally, all Hell will break loose.

[sigmtnman]

I'm not saying that no one will follow God (or even just a decent moral compass) even in the absence of man's law but as a whole?  No way.

 

We can see in graphic detail how a significant percentage of mankind acts and what he does to his fellow man even with the rule of law and punishments in place...remove those last impediments and literally, all Hell will break loose.

 

All I see in graphic detail is that bad people do bad things regardless of laws.  Otherwise we should be in favor of doing away with weapons, since the law keeps bad things from happening.

 

Can we as citizens without a government not form coalitions to help each other out in times of need?  Would we loose our property rights and not be able to join with others to defend and self regulate ourselves?  It sounds like you are worried about the enforcement of property rights more than anything else.

[RobertNashville]

All I see in graphic detail is that bad people do bad things regardless of laws.  Otherwise we should be in favor of doing away with weapons, since the law keeps bad things from happening.

 

Can we as citizens without a government not form coalitions to help each other out in times of need?  Would we loose our property rights and not be able to join with others to defend and self regulate ourselves?  It sounds like you are worried about the enforcement of property rights more than anything else.

I'm worried about the existence of our country more than anything else. Local "coalitions" are just another form of government but local coalitions aren't going to stop the invasion of our country by illegal alines...a local coalition is not going to stop a North Korea from lobbing a few nukes our way and killing a few million people or stop Red China from simply taking over the continent.

 

People NEED government. We can bemoan that fact 'till Hell freezes over but it will not change that basic truth and if it is true than we need to have the best government possible. We had that once and we have let it slip away slowly...whether we can reestablish it or not I don't know.

 

What I think some here want, even if they don't use the words, is the Garden of Eden where everyone gets along and lives in harmony with God and each other. Well, that's gone and until God reestablishes it we have to do the best we can. In fact, I would suggest that even God recognized the need for government and endorses the same.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

I'm worried about the existence of our country more than anything else. Local "coalitions" are just another form of government but local coalitions going to stop the invasion of our country by illegal alines...a local coalition is not going to stop a North Korea from lobbing a few nukes our way and killing a few million people or stop Red China from simply taking over the continent.

 

People NEED government. We can bemoan that fact 'till Hell freezes over but it will not change that basic truth and if it is true than we need to have the best government possible. We had that once and we have let it slip away slowly...whether we can reestablish it or not I don't know.

 

What I think some here want, even if they don't use the words, is the Garden of Eden where everyone gets along and lives in harmony with God and each other. Well, that's gone and until God reestablishes it we have to do the best we can. In fact, I would suggest that even God recognized the need for government and endorses the same.

 

I get what you are saying and who wouldn't want the Garden of Eden?  :)   But, I don't feel people NEED a government that tells us what we can and can't do.  U.S.A 1.0 is what I desire.  A government to settle property rights disputes and to provide a common defense.  Beyond that, I don't need permits and permissions, wealth redistribution, nation building, and all the other crap.

Edited February 21, 2014 by sigmtnman

[Chucktshoes]

I'm worried about the existence of our country more than anything else. Local "coalitions" are just another form of government but local coalitions aren't going to stop the invasion of our country by illegal alines...a local coalition is not going to stop a North Korea from lobbing a few nukes our way and killing a few million people or stop Red China from simply taking over the continent.

People NEED government. We can bemoan that fact 'till Hell freezes over but it will not change that basic truth and if it is true than we need to have the best government possible. We had that once and we have let it slip away slowly...whether we can reestablish it or not I don't know.

What I think some here want, even if they don't use the words, is the Garden of Eden where everyone gets along and lives in harmony with God and each other. Well, that's gone and until God reestablishes it we have to do the best we can. In fact, I would suggest that even God recognized the need for government and endorses the same.

I would suggest that you should read some more Old Testament. Specifically everything prior to Kings. It was the people of Israel that beseeched God for a king and he gave them one, only after telling them of the sorrow it would bring them. A very strong argument exists that He desires for us to live directly under His rule.
 
 
 

[b]1 Samuel:8[/b]

8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”

Prior to God giving Israel a king, he sent them Prophets and Judges at the specific times that they needed them. They chose instead to reject Him for a king and political solutions.
 
 
Edited to add: I am not attempting to actually make the argument that God endorses my political views. My real point is that the scriptures are large and varied and one should be very careful before claiming He endorses ANY man made solution as God likely has His own ideas.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

I get what you are saying and who wouldn't want the Garden of Eden?  :)   But, I don't feel people NEED a government that tells us what we can and can't do.  U.S.A 1.0 is what I desire.  A government to settle property rights disputes and to provide a common defense.  Beyond that, I don't need permits and permissions, wealth redistribution, nation building, and all the other crap.

 

:up:

[TMF]

Hey, we all agreed on something!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

Ah shit.  It's time to rethink my position.  :D

[JayC]

Robert,

 

I think you're over simplifying things again....

 

Why is it we have to worry about North Korea?  I never hear anybody say they're worried about the Norks firing missiles at say Germany, or South Africa, or Australia?  Why is it they'd be crazy enough to fire nukes at us, and not anybody else in the world?  Because our government keeps meddling in their internal affairs?  They felt that acting like the crazy uncle in the attic with nukes would keep them from being invaded, or their government toppled?

 

You keep saying people need a government...  and maybe on some level people need some form of government, maybe not...  who knows...  but I know we don't need the government we have, because largely I live my life without any interaction with it.  And the places where I do have to interact with the government, is always a negative experience in my book.

 

Now I'm guessing most people would think I live a pretty boring life...  so I'm not getting pulled over (not since I was a teenager), we live in a pretty good neighborhood but I can't tell you the last time I saw a metro officer drive through it...  So the vast majority of my interactions with government are me writing them checks, and waiting in inefficient lines at government offices...  dealing with rude people who couldn't get and keep a job in the real world...  and having to deal with crazy government regulations that prohibit me from growing my business....

 

Most of those issues I've solved at this point... I hire other people to wait in those lines for me, because otherwise my blood pressure would skyrocket.

 

I'm willing to bet we could cut away 50% of the state budget and you and I would hardly notice it was gone.  The federal government 'shutdown' last year for nearly a month...  well at least 17% of it did...  did anybody here notice?  

 

So how can you say we can't live without a big government controlling everything we do?  Call me an optimist but I think we'd just fine with a government much smaller and much less powerful than the one we have today.

 

I'm worried about the existence of our country more than anything else. Local "coalitions" are just another form of government but local coalitions aren't going to stop the invasion of our country by illegal alines...a local coalition is not going to stop a North Korea from lobbing a few nukes our way and killing a few million people or stop Red China from simply taking over the continent.

 

People NEED government. We can bemoan that fact 'till Hell freezes over but it will not change that basic truth and if it is true than we need to have the best government possible. We had that once and we have let it slip away slowly...whether we can reestablish it or not I don't know.

 

What I think some here want, even if they don't use the words, is the Garden of Eden where everyone gets along and lives in harmony with God and each other. Well, that's gone and until God reestablishes it we have to do the best we can. In fact, I would suggest that even God recognized the need for government and endorses the same.

 

[RobertNashville]

... So how can you say we can't live without a big government controlling everything we do?

I didn't say that we need a "big government" nor anything remotely like it which tells me that you either didn't actually read, didn't comprehend, or are purposely ignoring what I actually said so that you can embellish it to make your point and make my position sound weak.

Edited February 24, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest semiautots]

There is no such thing as a small government.  By nature, it must grow to self-sustain. 

[RobertNashville]

There is no such thing as a small government.  By nature, it must grow to self-sustain. 

How big or small and keeping it that way is up to the people. It doesn't change the simply truth that society must have government to function. Absence of government (which of necessity means the rule of law) is violence and anarchy.

[Guest semiautots]

How big or small and keeping it that way is up to the people. It doesn't change the simply truth that society must have government to function. Absence of government (which of necessity means the rule of law) is violence and anarchy.

 

Unless you are moral.  There are many instances of tribal organizations where society fits together without governance. 

[RobertNashville]

Unless you are moral.  There are many instances of tribal organizations where society fits together without governance. 

Tribal organizations are still "government"...just because they don't have big buildings doesn't mean they don't have a government...government is nothing more than a mechanism for people to decide how they will live/what rules they will live by. More the point today; a tribal organization isn't going to work in a country that spans a continent and has 300+ million people in it.

Edited February 25, 2014 by RobertNashville