Gun confiscation is on the table in Conn.

[TMF]

Dave,

So you admit the Constitution and current laws did not protect the citizens and keep the local Government from confiscating guns during the Katrina disaster, but you still think passing more laws (that have only passed in a few states) will actually protect us from gun confiscation in the future? :lol:

But we could apply that logic to anything, not just gun confiscation. We could use the same argument (the possibility of the government to ignore laws) to anything you can think of. Why simply ridicule people for not freaking out about other things? I'm pretty sure it is illegal for the government to drop a nuke on my house, but the could if they wanted to. They could stop by, take myself, wife and kids on the front lawn and execute us at any time. There is no limit to what "they" can do. I'm just not worried about what they "could" do in reference to anecdotal evidence which is unrelated to the lawmakers and law enforcers in CT. I'm more concerned about what they "will" do, and as of right now they have nothing they can legally do.

Citing a bunch of unrelated stuff as proof that CT "will" execute a certain course of action because they "could" is a lame argument. Perhaps not to conspiracy theorists who believe there is a master conspiracy which millions of people are complicit with, yet have not revealed the plans or had a single leak. But to rational people who understand the situation, the only thing relevant is what laws have been passed in CT, what the STATE gov can legally do and what intentions they have made to be known.

At this point they've outlawed certain firearms and created a state full of felons. They did so in the legal manner of passing laws, whether those laws be unconstitutional or not. I don't suspect they will execute any further plans without going through the legal channels to do so. Not that I agree that makes it right, I'm just saying that there won't be door to door searches and confiscations. The "time for revolution" stuff has lost all meaning since every time a gun grabber farts we have social media lighting up with "revolutionaries" beating their chests. By all estimations from the same crowd we should have been in FEMA camps for years now and Obama was supposed to appoint himself Dictator for Life a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest semiautots]

 
Yes, and can we have more please. When you are an enemy combatant in a foreign land the fact that your were born here gains you nothing.
 

 

How about a 16 year old American citizen?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

Edited February 26, 2014 by semiautots

[JohnC]

But we could apply that logic to anything, not just gun confiscation. We could use the same argument (the possibility of the government to ignore laws) to anything you can think of. Why simply ridicule people for not freaking out about other things? I'm pretty sure it is illegal for the government to drop a nuke on my house, but the could if they wanted to. They could stop by, take myself, wife and kids on the front lawn and execute us at any time. There is no limit to what "they" can do. I'm just not worried about what they "could" do in reference to anecdotal evidence which is unrelated to the lawmakers and law enforcers in CT. I'm more concerned about what they "will" do, and as of right now they have nothing they can legally do.

Citing a bunch of unrelated stuff as proof that CT "will" execute a certain course of action because they "could" is a lame argument. Perhaps not to conspiracy theorists who believe there is a master conspiracy which millions of people are complicit with, yet have not revealed the plans or had a single leak. But to rational people who understand the situation, the only thing relevant is what laws have been passed in CT, what the STATE gov can legally do and what intentions they have made to be known.

At this point they've outlawed certain firearms and created a state full of felons. They did so in the legal manner of passing laws, whether those laws be unconstitutional or not. I don't suspect they will execute any further plans without going through the legal channels to do so. Not that I agree that makes it right, I'm just saying that there won't be door to door searches and confiscations. The "time for revolution" stuff has lost all meaning since every time a gun grabber farts we have social media lighting up with "revolutionaries" beating their chests. By all estimations from the same crowd we should have been in FEMA camps for years now and Obama was supposed to appoint himself Dictator for Life a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:rolleyes:

All I said was: 1. Gun confiscation has already happened in the USA. and 2. Anything is possible as history shows us.

I'm just pointing out that "just because we live in America" doesn't mean we're immune to everything else that happens in the world, such as gun confiscation.   :shake:

And I think we can all agree here the ridicule is coming from the other side; just read your post and Dave's and compare them to my posts. Tin Foil Hat get's thrown around so much on this forum by a select few that it's like listening to MSNBC claim racism all day.

I don't get where the rest of your ad nauseam is coming from or why you quoted me and then talk about conspiracy theories. But please quote me, specifically, where I have put conspiracy theory in this thread and said any of the bull#### you posted and related to my posts. :rolleyes:
 

1.  the government to drop a nuke on my house
2.  take myself, wife and kids on the front lawn and execute us at any time
3. there is a master conspiracy which millions of people are complicit with
4.  FEMA camps
5. Obama was supposed to appoint himself Dictator for Life

Edited February 26, 2014 by JohnC

[DaveTN]

How about a 16 year old American citizen?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

Absolutely.

How many innocent kids have we killed in war? War is brutal; kids and innocent people get killed. A terrorist was killed and his terrorist son was killed. I just could not care any less.

Our kids are being sent home in boxes and I’m supposed to be concerned about a murdering terrorist? I’m not.

Can we produce more of these drones and arm them better so we don’t have to put as many troops in danger?

Drones don’t check birth certificates or to see if your papers are in order. Don’t be the target of a drone.

[sigmtnman]

But we could apply that logic to anything, not just gun confiscation. We could use the same argument (the possibility of the government to ignore laws) to anything you can think of. Why simply ridicule people for not freaking out about other things? I'm pretty sure it is illegal for the government to drop a nuke on my house, but the could if they wanted to. They could stop by, take myself, wife and kids on the front lawn and execute us at any time. There is no limit to what "they" can do. I'm just not worried about what they "could" do in reference to anecdotal evidence which is unrelated to the lawmakers and law enforcers in CT. I'm more concerned about what they "will" do, and as of right now they have nothing they can legally do.

Citing a bunch of unrelated stuff as proof that CT "will" execute a certain course of action because they "could" is a lame argument. Perhaps not to conspiracy theorists who believe there is a master conspiracy which millions of people are complicit with, yet have not revealed the plans or had a single leak. But to rational people who understand the situation, the only thing relevant is what laws have been passed in CT, what the STATE gov can legally do and what intentions they have made to be known.

At this point they've outlawed certain firearms and created a state full of felons. They did so in the legal manner of passing laws, whether those laws be unconstitutional or not. I don't suspect they will execute any further plans without going through the legal channels to do so. Not that I agree that makes it right, I'm just saying that there won't be door to door searches and confiscations. The "time for revolution" stuff has lost all meaning since every time a gun grabber farts we have social media lighting up with "revolutionaries" beating their chests. By all estimations from the same crowd we should have been in FEMA camps for years now and Obama was supposed to appoint himself Dictator for Life a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Hold on a second there.  Is the NSA spying a conspiracy? Is the DHS wanting a database of everyone's movement conspiracy?  Did you imagine it would come to this?  That's not to mention the plethora of scandals.   Not to speak for anyone else but I for one am not saying there is some master conspiracy going on.  What I see is a slow decent down the spiral to total surveillance and no one seems to care about, because heck; it's crazy talk.

 

The folks most likely to bring up FEMA camps and Obama the dictator on here are folks maligning others with the words conspiracy and tinfoil.

 

Let's pray that nothing more comes of it and that the .gov will have a come to Jesus and change it's ways.  My perception is that aint going to happen cause folks don't care.

Edited February 26, 2014 by sigmtnman

[TMF]

:rolleyes:

All I said was: 1. Gun confiscation has already happened in the USA. and 2. Anything is possible as history shows us.

I'm just pointing out that "just because we live in America" doesn't mean we're immune to everything else that happens in the world, such as gun confiscation. :shake:

And I think we can all agree here the ridicule is coming from the other side; just read your post and Dave's and compare them to my posts. Tin Foil Hat get's thrown around so much on this forum by a select few that it's like listening to MSNBC claim racism all day.

I don't get where the rest of your ad nauseam is coming from or why you quoted me and then talk about conspiracy theories. But please quote me, specifically, where I have put conspiracy theory in this thread and said any of the bull#### you posted and related to my posts. :rolleyes:

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

:

I don't get where the rest of your ad nauseam is coming from or why you quoted me and then talk about conspiracy theories. But please quote me, specifically, where I have put conspiracy theory in this thread and said any of the bull#### you posted and related to my posts. :rolleyes:

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

Hold on a second there. Is the NSA spying a conspiracy? Is the DHS wanting a database of everyone's movement conspiracy? Did you imagine it would come to this? That's not to mention the plethora of scandals. Not to speak for anyone else but I for one am not saying there is some master conspiracy going on. What I see is a slow decent down the spiral to total surveillance and no one seems to care about, because heck; it's crazy talk.

The folks most likely to bring up FEMA camps and Obama the dictator on here are folks maligning others with the words conspiracy and tinfoil.

Let's pray that nothing more comes of it and that the .gov will have a come to Jesus and change it's ways. My perception is that aint going to happen cause folks don't care.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree they were not "conspiracy theroies" although people who thought it could happen before it got out, were labelled.

 

With secret judges making secret decisions about spying on US citizens without due cause,  I 'd say it is in fact a conspiracy (multiple participants).  The public was not aware of it.  The DHS request for bid on the tracking database was pulled and declared a "mistake" when word got around.

Edited February 26, 2014 by sigmtnman

[JohnC]

The folks most likely to bring up FEMA camps and Obama the dictator on here are folks maligning others with the words conspiracy and tinfoil.

This^

[sigmtnman]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Not speaking for anyone else.  Sure, there is no causal evidence of connection and I'm not saying they are related.  I'm saying the fed.gov and some states.gov have gotten to where they just don't care any more and have the potential to further surprise and schock me.

[TMF]

With secret judges making secret decisions about spying on US citizens without due cause, I 'd say it is in fact a conspiracy with multiple participants. The public was not aware of it. The DHS request for bid on the tracking database was pulled and declared a "mistake" when word got around.

Just because something is classified and kept from the public doesn't qualify it as a conspiracy. Most of here with them high level clearances know of all kinds of things that we can't talk about, and most of it you can find on Wikipedia (which, fun fact, if people with clearances go to those Wikipedia pages they have committed the offense of access classified data on an unclassified system which is very bad). But that doesn't mean those are automatically "conspiracies".

Now, if the intent of the act is to do something other than what the purpose was presented as, then yes, a conspiracy it would be. So if they went to a judge to get permission to do what they did for the purpose of targeting terrorists, yet their original intent was to gather information on the TEA party, then yes, you got yourself a conspiracy. By all means it looks like the NSA did exactly what they said they would do. Blame the judge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

Not speaking for anyone else. Sure, there is no causal evidence of connection and I'm not saying they are related. I'm saying the fed.gov and some states.gov have gotten to where they just don't care any more and have the potential to further surprise and schock me.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

Just because something is classified and kept from the public doesn't qualify it as a conspiracy. Most of here with them high level clearances know of all kinds of things that we can't talk about, and most of it you can find on Wikipedia (which, fun fact, if people with clearances go to those Wikipedia pages they have committed the offense of access classified data on an unclassified system which is very bad). But that doesn't mean those are automatically "conspiracies".

Now, if the intent of the act is to do something other than what the purpose was presented as, then yes, a conspiracy it would be. So if they went to a judge to get permission to do what they did for the purpose of targeting terrorists, yet their original intent was to gather information on the TEA party, then yes, you got yourself a conspiracy. By all means it looks like the NSA did exactly what they said they would do. Blame the judge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, I reckon since everyone is a potential terrorist, it's ok to spy on everyone?

 

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works

 

How on earth is this not a conspiracy when multiple people worked in concert to violate the Fourth Amendment?  The conspirators are the judge(s), the NSA, Bush, Obama and anyone else who was involved whether directly or indirectly.

Edited February 26, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Believe me, I blame my neighbors and I blame anyone else who is not madder than hell about it.  I especially blame those who make excuses for it saying it is "legal"

[JohnC]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again, you are taking me out of context because you seem to only see everything in your own extremes.

Where did I specifically say:
 

a few National Guardsmen as a concerted effort by the government to confiscate all firearms

Again, all my point was is gun confiscation happened, and quite recently for that matter. I never said this is what Connecticut would even do as a solution to the problem they created.

[TMF]

How on earth is this not a conspiracy when multiple people worked in concert to violate the Fourth Amendment? The conspirators are the judge(s), the NSA, Bush, Obama and anyone else who was involved whether directly or indirectly.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

Again, you are taking me out of context because you seem to only see everything in your own extremes.

Where did I specifically say:


Again, all my point was is gun confiscation happened, and quite recently for that matter. I never said this is what Connecticut would even do as a solution to the problem they created.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Come on.  They knew damn well what they were doing and the judge is nothing more than a rubber stamp / dog and pony show.

[TMF]

Come on. They knew damn well what they were doing and the judge is nothing more than a rubber stamp / dog and pony show.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

A quick google search lead me here ... I didn't search the forums but I'm sure it's been discussed. There are some other, slightly more unreliable reports of other uses of drones to take out American citizens ... http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/politics/targeting-us-citizens/

I don't give a rat's ass about the U.S. killing tratiors with drones or any other way when they are on foreign soil working against the country. If they start killing them here without due process (arrest, trial, etc.) that's another matter.

[JohnC]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK, I get it now. You're confused. Where was Katrina gun confiscation connected with CT gun laws and a squad of national guardsmen and used as evidence? Please quote me because I don't remember any such thing and the only speculating and insinuating being done in this thread is by you my friend.   :rolleyes:
 

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Correct, I did not say that.
 
Again, I just pointed out it has happened in the recent past during Katrina and mentioned anything is possible. But I never speculated or insinuated how they were going to solve this problem in CT as you're trying to suggest. I can't say what they will or won't do because I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine. :lol:
 

[RobertNashville]

How about a 16 year old American citizen?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

This kid's dad was as terrorist and a traitor and deserved what he got and how he got it.  It's too bad about the son getting hit if he was totally innocent of his father's actions but I don't know that and I haven't heard anyone else with definitive evidence of that either...in fact, do we even know if they were going after this kid or was he just in a place that had someone they were going after? And if they were specifically going after the son do we know why?

 

Until those questions are answered no one can say whether the drone hit that killed the son was justified or not.

[Guest semiautots]

Absolutely.

How many innocent kids have we killed in war? War is brutal; kids and innocent people get killed. A terrorist was killed and his terrorist son was killed. I just could not care any less.

Our kids are being sent home in boxes and I’m supposed to be concerned about a murdering terrorist? I’m not.

Can we produce more of these drones and arm them better so we don’t have to put as many troops in danger?

Drones don’t check birth certificates or to see if your papers are in order. Don’t be the target of a drone.

 

If you read the article, it stated the boy was killed 2 weeks after his father, while he and a friend were eating dinner.  There was no terrorist activity nor terrorists nearby.  The White House brushed the murder aside and the media did not report it.

[RobertNashville]

If you read the article, it stated the boy was killed 2 weeks after his father, while he and a friend were eating dinner.  There was no terrorist activity nor terrorists nearby.  The White House brushed the murder aside and the media did not report it.

I think you are submitting facts not in evidence and drawing conclusions base on them.  I haven't heard anyone offer evidence that they were even going after the son specifically or, if they were, whether they had reason to do so.

 

Just because he was "kid" doesn't mean he was innocent and shouldn't have been taken out. At the very least, I want real evidence before I start throwing around this incident as proof of anything.

Edited February 26, 2014 by RobertNashville