Gun confiscation is on the table in Conn.

[TMF]

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:
 

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:
 

 

Okay, at one time slavery was legal under the US government, so perhaps every black American needs to keep papers on them to prove they've been legally freed and the west coast of Africa should be prepared for an armada of ships.  After all, a precedent has been set.

 

I would argue the threat of black Americans being relegated to second class citizens and slaves under law is far more likely since it was more far reaching than a dozen national guard troops taking guns away.  After all, it happened before so it will happen again.  Is that not the point you're making?

[RobertNashville]

I don't for a moment believe that we are going to see widespread gun confiscation in Connecticut - I don't think these cowardly law makers who passed these ridiculous laws have either the resources to do nor the resources to handle tens of thousands of "felons" all at once nor, frankly, do they have the balls to do it. These lawmakers are nothing but bullies and bullies tend to be afraid of anyone who actually stands against (and I think these idiots in CT are pretty scared right now).

 

At the same time; I think it worth noting that such has happened before in the U.S. and that it would be short-sighted to think that it cannot happen again.  Certainly; there is substantial evidence that many, especially many in our own government, would love nothing more than to make private ownership of arms illegal.  Acknowledging that does not many one a "tinfoil hat" wearer nor a conspiracy theorists wacko.

[TMF]

I don't for a moment believe that we are going to see widespread gun confiscation in Connecticut - I don't think these cowardly law makers who passed these ridiculous laws have either the resources to do nor the resources to handle tens of thousands of "felons" all at once nor, frankly, do they have the balls to do it. These lawmakers are nothing but bullies and bullies tend to be afraid of anyone who actually stands against (and I think these idiots in CT are pretty scared right now).

 

At the same time; I think it worth noting that such has happened before in the U.S. and that it would be short-sighted to think that it cannot happen again.  Certainly; there is substantial evidence that many, especially many in our own government, would love nothing more than to make private ownership of arms illegal.  Acknowledging that does not many one a "tinfoil hat" wearer nor a conspiracy theorists wacko.

 

No it doesn't.  Trying to draw a link between anecdotal scenarios and this would be conspiracy theories, however.  It would fit the very definition.  If one has a theory that a conspiracy has taken place to illegally confiscated firearms, I would call that a conspiracy theory.  Wouldn't you?

 

I don't think there is an argument that one of the agenda items of the Democrats is the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.  It's what they do.  Pretty overt about it too, if you ask anyone with perceptive abilities.  They succeeded in CT with silly laws.  I agree we must be vigilant.  But I don't agree that we should jump to Hitleresque scenarios.  It devalues our arguments and move moderate people away from us.  Hell, I'm the guy that will be teaching people how to take out armored vehicles and conduct L shaped ambushes, and I'm turned off by all this talk.  Let's argue valid, tangible arguments.  The laws that CT passed are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.  I don't think it's nuts to let the liberals know where those laws lead, and I think those laws should be challenged in the courts and at the ballot box.

 

Once again, wake me up when we're at #3 option.  When that happens I'll go out with my boots on.  Until then let's not get balls deep in the rhetoric.

[JohnC]

Trying to draw a link between anecdotal scenarios

 
This is where you're totally wrong and I keep pointing it out to you over and over again and you still can't see anything else but your own extremes and assumptions.

I'll just ignore the rest of your ad nauseam like you ignore everyone else trying to tell you something you refuse to acknowledge because you're hung up on tin-foil-hat conspiracies and trying to prove everyone fits your definition of it. :shake: Edited February 26, 2014 by JohnC

[TMF]

 
This is where you're totally wrong and I keep pointing it out to you over and over again and you still can't see anything else buy your own extremes and assumptions.

I'll just ignore the rest of your ad nauseam like you ignore everyone else trying to tell you something you refuse to acknowledge because you're hung up on tin-foil-hat conspiracies and trying to prove everyone fits your definition of it. :shake:

 

 

No, I'm not wrong.  Why would you argue that door to door confiscation would take place in CT, then use the Katrina thing as an example if you weren't arguing that they were linked?  I don't know why you would bring it up at all unless that was your argument.

 

I've acknowledged everything in your posts, genuinely and thoughtfully.  I don't think I've used the term "tin foil" in any of my posts, so I'm confused why you keep repeating that, over and over and over again.  My only assumption, at this point, is that you realize that you're making no sense and can only argue that "I just don't get it" and that there is something wrong with "me" rather than my argument.  My argument still stands.  It is valid.  You have failed to point out the flaw in my logic.

[Guest semiautots]

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.

 

How will you get evidence?  All reports are second hand.  The White House does not deny it.  If you believe news reports, you have evidence.  If you don't believe news reports, you will never have evidence unless you saw it yourself.

 

Here is yet another article on this murder.  If you'd like to defend it, please be specific.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/#

Edited February 26, 2014 by semiautots

[RobertNashville]

How will you get evidence?  All reports are second hand.  The White House does not deny it.  If you believe news reports, you have evidence.  If you don't believe news reports, you will never have evidence unless you saw it yourself.

There may never be any evidence (but I suspect there will be eventually). Whether there is or isn't I'm not going to jump to conclusions without evidence just because the conclusion happens to fit a desired point; at least I try not to do that.

Edited February 26, 2014 by RobertNashville

[JohnC]

No, I'm not wrong.  Why would you argue that door to door confiscation would take place in CT, then use the Katrina thing as an example if you weren't arguing that they were linked?  I don't know why you would bring it up at all unless that was your argument.
 
I've acknowledged everything in your posts, genuinely and thoughtfully.  I don't think I've used the term "tin foil" in any of my posts, so I'm confused why you keep repeating that, over and over and over again.  My only assumption, at this point, is that you realize that you're making no sense and can only argue that "I just don't get it" and that there is something wrong with "me" rather than my argument.  My argument still stands.  It is valid.  You have failed to point out the flaw in my logic.

Once and for all, I never said the lawmakers in CT were going to use door to door gun confiscation. You keep repeating yourself over and over and over and I keep pointing out I never said it nor did I insinuate CT was going to do it.

This back and forth is insanity, TMF.
 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Give it up man. :shake:

[TMF]

Once and for all, I never said the lawmakers in CT were going to use door to door gun confiscation. You keep repeating yourself over and over and over and I keep pointing out I never said it nor did I insinuate CT was going to do it.

This back and forth is insanity, TMF.
 

Give it up man. :shake:

 

 

Okay, I'm curious why you don't take your own advice.  Does it only apply to me?

 

And why would I bring it up "over and over" again?  Because you brought it up in your posts, "over and over again".  You did.  Repeatedly.  If it is irrelevant to the point you're making I'm very confused why you would continue to bring up the Katrina issue.  Did the words just sound poetic enough or rhyme?  I don't get it.  If it doesn't support the argument you're making against why we won't see door to door confiscations in CT, then why keep posting about it?  Seriously.  That is a direct question that you have not given a direct answer to.  You've only sidestepped it and talked about how I marginalize you by using the words "conspiracy" and "theory" in the same sentence or the use of "tin foil" (although I have yet to use it).  So, direct question.  Is there a direct answer, or am I the one being obtuse here?

Edited February 26, 2014 by TMF

[JohnC]

Okay, I'm curious why you don't take your own advice.  Does it only apply to me?
 
And why would I bring it up "over and over" again?  Because you brought it up in your posts, "over and over again".  You did.  Repeatedly.  If it is irrelevant to the point you're making I'm very confused why you would continue to bring up the Katrina issue.  Did the words just sound poetic enough or rhyme?  I don't get it.  If it doesn't support the argument you're making against why we won't see door to door confiscations in CT, then why keep posting about it?  Seriously.  That is a direct question that you have not given a direct answer to.  You've only sidestepped it and talked about how I marginalize you by using the words "conspiracy" and "theory" in the same sentence or the use of "tin foil" (although I have yet to use it).  So, direct question.  Is there a direct answer, or am I the one being obtuse here?

Check again. My posts were in response to you mostly for the last few pages. And you keep on and on and on.... More-insane-ad-nauseam.... Give it up.... :shake:

[TMF]

Check again. My posts were in response to you mostly for the last few pages. And you keep on and on and on.... More-insane-ad-nauseam.... Give it up.... :shake:

No, I'm referring to your original posts which started all this. Once again, do your rules only apply to me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

Guys, I'm getting wet over here.  :rofl:

[JohnC]

Guys, I'm getting wet over here.  :rofl:

I've enjoyed the ride. :up:

[mikegideon]

Guys, I'm getting wet over here.  :rofl:

 

Yep. I'm seeing some sparks too :)

[JohnC]

No, I'm referring to your original posts which started all this. Once again, do your rules only apply to me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rules? What rules? Did you have rules? Where were they posted? Quote my rules if I posted any rules!

:rofl:

[TMF]

Yep. I'm seeing some sparks too :)

Ha, okay. I give up. Apparently what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law. I get it now. I'll go get my kit and start training guerrilla forces to attack government targets. I have a white board with a CARVER matrix ready to go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnC]

Ha, okay. I give up. Apparently what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law. I get it now. I'll go get my kit and start training guerrilla forces to attack government targets. I have a white board with a CARVER matrix ready to go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm just going to try to help you out here once more.

Let me point it out again, NO ONE said "what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law." :)

[TMF]

I'm just going to try to help you out here once more.

Let me point it out again, NO ONE said "what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law." :)

Then let me say once again, why would you bring it up as an argument to prove that CT law enforcement would conduct door to door confiscations? I get that this is circular, and mildly entertaining, but you are the one who attempted to use Katrina as an argument yet you are the one getting pissed i keep pointing it out as an unrelated incident. You are the one who brought it up.

I'll make it easy for you. Katrina has nothing to do with any of this. It is an anecdotal incident carried out by a dozen grunts who had no grasp of the Constitution. They were not elected to office. They do not have any bearing on the past, present or future of law enforcement. It is as relevant as a story about people being unconstitutionally disarmed in the 1830s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

Let me point it out again, NO ONE said "what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law." :)

You implied it in Post #68 you even made it RED.
When anyone suggests that there won’t be gun confiscation it will be a race to see if Katrina, Hitler, or Nazi’s will be used first.

[JohnC]

Then let me say once again, why would you bring it up as an argument to prove that CT law enforcement would conduct door to door confiscations? I get that this is circular, and mildly entertaining, but you are the one who attempted to use Katrina as an argument yet you are the one getting pissed i keep pointing it out as an unrelated incident. You are the one who brought it up.

I'll make it easy for you. Katrina has nothing to do with any of this. It is an anecdotal incident carried out by a dozen grunts who had no grasp of the Constitution. They were not elected to office. They do not have any bearing on the past, present or future of law enforcement. It is as relevant as a story about people being unconstitutionally disarmed in the 1830s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I keep pointing out to you I never said CT would do door to door confiscation. I don't know how they'll handle the AWR law they passed. I can't see in to the future. I merely stated, more or less in response to folks thinking gun confiscation in the USA can't ever happen that it already has.

Then you went ape-####-crazy making all sorts of extreme assumption of what you think I said or meant by that.

Again, I never said CT law enforcement would conduct door to door confiscations. All these extremes keep coming from you and you keep trying to make me defend myself against every extreme scenario you come up with.

It isn't going to happen because I never said any of the #### you insinuated. Get it et? I thought you would have got it a few pages back, but it flew right over your head and you kept on with the insanity. :up:

[JohnC]

You implied it in Post #68 you even made it RED.
When anyone suggests that there won’t be gun confiscation it will be a race to see if Katrina, Hitler, or Nazi’s will be used first.

Wrong. You said this in response to Katrina Gun Confiscation:
 

Yep, an isolated incident, and many states passed legislation so it wouldn’t happen again. But thank God it happened so the tinfoil hats have some credibility.

 
I responded:
 

I guess the constitution and laws already in place at the time protected those citizens while their guns were being confiscated during Katrina, right? :rolleyes:

I was merely pointing out current laws and the constitution did not protect gun owners from Confiscation during Katrina.

I did not once state CT law nor relate it to CT in any way.

But nice try. ;) Edited February 27, 2014 by JohnC

[MacGyver]

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

 

 

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

These two statements are really important, and provide some clarity in this argument that should be carefully considered.

 

As has been said many times here before, "statists are gonna state." It's the nature of the beast.  All three of our branches of government are guilty of power grabbing.  This isn't a new thing.  It's been happening since the very beginning of our country.  It's expanded under republican leadership.  It's expanded under democratic leadership.  It's expanded under non-partisan guises simply because it's the government thing to do.  People don't go to Washington to reign in the government.  Even if they talk "small government," they go to Washington because they think they know better than everyone else how to run it.  They're going to grab power where they can...all of them.

 

There are things that the average American should be concerned about.  Warrantless surveillance, drone strikes, no-knock raids and gun confiscation all qualify as things to be concerned about.  Some of them not simply because they violate our "rights", but also because we're better than that and ought to be asking harder questions instead of taking the easy way out.  BUT, there's still a gulf of separation between where we are now, and a drone killing someone without oversight on American soil or the government going door to door in Connecticut and grabbing peoples' guns. 

 

Perspective matters, and we have to keep that in mind to avoid be marginalized as "tinfoil hatters."  There's a lot of distance between where we are today and needing load up our magazines.  Unfortunately, when our rhetoric focuses on hanging politicians from the yardarm we neglect the most basic action that our founding fathers gave us to take back control. 

 

Vote.  Get out there and get involved.  Blog about it.  Speak about it in the media.  Talk to your neighbors in your community.  Don't let the big guys control the dialogue simple because of their size.  If the internet has given mankind one thing, it has given voice to the common man in ways it's never happened before.  Don't squander that voice.

 

The vast majority of our members on this forum are here because of their love of guns.  But remember, shots fired in anger will change this American experiment in ways that cannot be undone.  Your life will not be the same.  You won't go home to suburbia and get on with your life.  What follows won't resemble what was.

 

There may come a day when armed conflict comes again to our shores - even from within. But, we're a long way from that day.  And, our actions today can prevent that day from coming. 

 

You have more power than any citizen in the world has ever had.  People are giving their lives worldwide right now for just a taste of the power that we take for granted.  Go out there and use it!

[RED333]

"Vote.  Get out there and get involved.  Blog about it.  Speak about it in the media.  Talk to your neighbors in your community.  Don't let the big guys control the dialogue simple because of their size.  If the internet has given mankind one thing, it has given voice to the common man in ways it's never happened before.  Don't squander that voice."

 

 

This is all we need for now, use it or loose it!

[Worriedman]

 

You have more power than any citizen in the world has ever had.  People are giving their lives worldwide right now for just a taste of the power that we take for granted.  Go out there and use it!

Your entire post here is insightful and "spot on".

 

If every Representative district in the State of TN had three very active, pro gun individuals who spent time keeping up with the legislature, were on a first name basis with their Reps., and communicated at least weekly with them, we could evidence a real change in the way things are done in Nashville.

The mantra that we (average citizen) do not understand how legislation is "done" is so much horse supplied fertilizer.  Their standard story that "legislation is like making sausage, everybody likes the result, but nobody wants to see the process" is condescending at best and self serving as their hope is that NO ONE pays any attention as they go about the machinations of serving the moneyed interest that feed them.

Politicians love power, it is the commodity they sell.  It is our job to shine light on that process and to understand the facts as they try their best to obfuscate the meaning of their actions and the vehicles used to pander to their masters, intentionally making it hard for the average individual to keep up.

[mikegideon]

Your entire post here is insightful and "spot on".

 

If every Representative district in the State of TN had three very active, pro gun individuals who spent time keeping up with the legislature, were on a first name basis with their Reps., and communicated at least weekly with them, we could evidence a real change in the way things are done in Nashville.

The mantra that we (average citizen) do not understand how legislation is "done" is so much horse supplied fertilizer.  Their standard story that "legislation is like making sausage, everybody likes the result, but nobody wants to see the process" is condescending at best and self serving as their hope is that NO ONE pays any attention as they go about the machinations of serving the moneyed interest that feed them.

Politicians love power, it is the commodity they sell.  It is our job to shine light on that process and to understand the facts as they try their best to obfuscate the meaning of their actions and the vehicles used to pander to their masters, intentionally making it hard for the average individual to keep up.

 

A real good example of this... read Jan Brewer's statement on her veto of the anti-gay bill in Arizona. One of her justifications was that the PEOPLE weren't asking for the law. It was dreamed up inside the legislative bubble. Politicians, in general, need to get in touch with their constituents, or be thrown out of office.