Connecticut LEO says will go door to door to confiscate guns,,, interesting

[JayC]

I think it's a very valid option, and the one most likely to keep you alive the longest.  You'd have a 33+% chance of getting away with it...  my guess the chances you'd survive an armed stand off with the police are very low...  sub 10%.

 

I've said it before, I'm half surprised legislators who voted for this law haven't ended up swing for a lamp post already.  I'd say it's unlikely that legislators here in TN would fair as well if they passed a law outlawing firearms and then had public servants go around talking about door to door confiscation on the local airwaves.

 

Fact is we only have a very small police force here in TN, somewhere around 15,000 post certified officers for 6.5 million people.  And after the first attack on a legislator my guess is the vast majority of those officers will be guarding said politicians who support gun control.

 

For me, the fact that someone could chose to do that doesn't mean it a valid option.

 

Let's not forget that the firearm owners in CT who are now facing this issue are facing this issue because they and the other citizens of CT voted for the legislators who passed this law and I would suggest that this process stretches back decades and decades of people choosing, either actively or passively, to allow their rights to be taken away.

 

If that is an accurate assessment then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them at this point and I'm not at all sure that engaging in a violent confrontation (whether on the offensive or defensive) is justified. And...if it isn't justified I don't consider it a valid option...a possible option but not a valid one.

 

If things really come to that I think it will turn out badly, not just for those firearm owners who resist with violence gut perhaps for all of us. I don't remember if I've said it here or not (as I've been discussing this on other sites as well) but once they show up on your doorstep to collect your "illegal" weapons you've pretty much already lost no matter what you do at that point...these CT folks should have been more awake and concerned years or decades ago.

Of course, that's just my $0.02

 

[RobertNashville]

I've made that very point in support of the option you don't recognize as a valid one. I would say that it is actually one of the strongest reasons to exercise that option and to make the originators of the violence face its consequences.

The true originators (the legislators) will likely come out looking like the rational folks.

 

The police trying to enforce the law who may get shot/killed if people resist with violence will likely be looked on as heroes.

 

The gun owners who resisted...well, they will likely be dead and their arms confiscated (and the lives of their families ruined if they are still alive)...those of us of the same mindset as them (like us) may consider them the heroes but most people and the press will paint them as violent radicals in the vein of Timothy McVeigh who got exactly what they deserved - exactly the kind of people who the law was passed to protect "reasonable" people from.

I'm not saying don't resist but I think everyone needs to be realistic about the likely outcome.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1121055" timestamp="1394148685"]The true originators (the legislators) will likely come out looking like the rational folks. The police trying to enforce the law who may get shot/killed if people resist with violence will likely be looked on as heroes. The gun owners who resisted...well, they will likely be dead and their arms confiscated (and the lives of their families ruined if they are still alive)...those of us of the same mindset as them (like us) may consider them the heroes but most people and the press will paint them as violent radicals in the vein of Timothy McVeigh who got exactly what they deserved - exactly the kind of people who the law was passed to protect "reasonable" people from. I'm not saying don't resist but I think everyone needs to be realistic about the likely outcome.[/quote] If it comes to that point it is far beyond too late. That's the beginning of the death spiral due to escalating responses from both sides. Like I said before, the only hope is for the state of CT to pull back now. Once the shooting starts, it will spread and if it spreads ,then the odds of returning to normal are around zero. At that point it is all over for the founders' experiment.

[Chucktshoes]

https://www.swatmag.com/articles/view/when-does-compromise-become-betrayal I believe this article is appropriate to the conversation.

[Guest copperhead_1911]

The true originators (the legislators) will likely come out looking like the rational folks.

 

The police trying to enforce the law who may get shot/killed if people resist with violence will likely be looked on as heroes.

 

The gun owners who resisted...well, they will likely be dead and their arms confiscated (and the lives of their families ruined if they are still alive)...those of us of the same mindset as them (like us) may consider them the heroes but most people and the press will paint them as violent radicals in the vein of Timothy McVeigh who got exactly what they deserved - exactly the kind of people who the law was passed to protect "reasonable" people from.

I'm not saying don't resist but I think everyone needs to be realistic about the likely outcome.

Good points, but what you said about the legislature and cops trying to take our guns will only be considered victims and heroes if that side wins.

 

The continental army and George Washington would have been traitors had they lost the Revolutionary war.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, the people in CT made several bad choices along the way, but does that mean when they decide to wake up and

see what they have done everyone else forget about them? How to win friends and influence people. Uh huh! Turn your

backs on people because don't work things out at the same pace as you and you will be a lonely person in the end.

 

For me, the fact that someone could chose to do that doesn't mean it a valid option.

 

Let's not forget that the firearm owners in CT who are now facing this issue are facing this issue because they and the other citizens of CT voted for the legislators who passed this law and I would suggest that this process stretches back decades and decades of people choosing, either actively or passively, to allow their rights to be taken away.

 

If that is an accurate assessment then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them at this point and I'm not at all sure that engaging in a violent confrontation (whether on the offensive or defensive) is justified. And...if it isn't justified I don't consider it a valid option...a possible option but not a valid one.

 

If things really come to that I think it will turn out badly, not just for those firearm owners who resist with violence gut perhaps for all of us. I don't remember if I've said it here or not (as I've been discussing this on other sites as well) but once they show up on your doorstep to collect your "illegal" weapons you've pretty much already lost no matter what you do at that point...these CT folks should have been more awake and concerned years or decades ago.

Of course, that's just my $0.02

 

[RobertNashville]

Yeh, the people in CT made several bad choices along the way, but does that mean when they decide to wake up and

see what they have done everyone else forget about them? How to win friends and influence people. Uh huh! Turn your

backs on people because don't work things out at the same pace as you and you will be a lonely person in the end.

Well, my friend...when you are ready to lock and load and head to CT to fight with them let me know...maybe I'll drive. ;)

[RobertNashville]

Good points, but what you said about the legislature and cops trying to take our guns will only be considered victims and heroes if that side wins.

 

The continental army and George Washington would have been traitors had they lost the Revolutionary war.

We don't have George Washington nor an army for GW to lead; at least as far as I can tell...for every 1,000 firearm owners who will talk a good game online I'd wager you'd be lucky to get one to "join up".

We also won't be facing Redcoats who only know one way to fight (the Continental Army didn't start to have much success until they stopped trying to fight the way the Brits did)...any such Revolution today would be facing a superior force with superior weapons and likely superior tactics as well...do you really think there would be a good outcome for the "Patriots"?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Self-fulfilling prophesy.

[DaveTN]

The continental army and George Washington would have been traitors had they lost the Revolutionary war.

And had they fought that war in England they would have been quickly put down and the survivors hanged. That is what would happen to traitors here.

 

If you want to start your own country you can try it; but it won’t be here.

 

...do you really think there would be a good outcome for the "Patriots"?

Of course, the Patriots would quickly kill the rebels. So I’m pretty sure it will end badly for anyone deciding to start killing Americans.

I do not agree with what they are doing in CT. But we have a Constitution and a process in place to deal with those situations. Those trying to circumvent that process with force are traitors and will be dealt with quickly.

Of course all this talk of rebellion and taking up arms is ridiculous; it’s not going to happen.

[RobertNashville]

Self-fulfilling prophesy.

Just trying to point out the reality of what people would be facing...I'm not even suggesting that the "option" being discussed shouldn't be done...if it really becomes necessary then it's necessary regardless of outcome (and who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong about how things would work out). ;)

[Guest copperhead_1911]

And had they fought that war in England they would have been quickly put down and the survivors hanged. That is what would happen to traitors here.

 

If you want to start your own country you can try it; but it won’t be here.

 

Of course, the Patriots would quickly kill the rebels. So I’m pretty sure it will end badly for anyone deciding to start killing Americans.

I do not agree with what they are doing in CT. But we have a Constitution and a process in place to deal with those situations. Those trying to circumvent that process with force are traitors and will be dealt with quickly.

Of course all this talk of rebellion and taking up arms is ridiculous; it’s not going to happen.

We are all entitled to our opinion, but I would hardly call them traitors. The traitors are the ones passing those anti-gun laws and voting for people like Obama.

 

I would rather die a free man than live as a slave.

[gregintenn]

What problem? Make a pile, get a big cutter or torch. Those people would be glad to do that, just like every other regime that has

done it.

Imagine how big that pile would be. Do you have any idea how many ARs were sold just last year? I'm surprised there isn't an aluminum shortage.

Edited March 8, 2014 by gregintenn

[RED333]

We don't have George Washington nor an army for GW to lead; at least as far as I can tell...for every 1,000 firearm owners who will talk a good game online I'd wager you'd be lucky to get one to "join up".

We also won't be facing Redcoats who only know one way to fight (the Continental Army didn't start to have much success until they stopped trying to fight the way the Brits did)...any such Revolution today would be facing a superior force with superior weapons and likely superior tactics as well...do you really think there would be a good outcome for the "Patriots"?

The 2nd was written so we can have the same arms as the government, and the 2nd has been stepped on SO MANY DAMN TIMES.

IT WILL be stepped on more in the next few years, unless we stop it, all we have now is "the vote".

Latter, time will tell.

[RobertNashville]

The 2nd was written so we can have the same arms as the government, and the 2nd has been stepped on SO MANY DAMN TIMES.

IT WILL be stepped on more in the next few years, unless we stop it, all we have now is "the vote".

Latter, time will tell.

I think most scholars who actually believe the 2A means what it says would say that the intent was for citizens to have the same/similar arms as would be common for a solder to carry with him into battle and I would argue that, even though they aren't identical we have "reasonably" similar arms in that regard.

 

Where I think the significant difference would come into play would be with things like armed drones, maned air support, armored vehicles, communication/command & control (not to mention training of our standing military).

 

A "rebel army" of today fighting a modern U.S. Army (and Air Force and Navy) would find it pretty tough going although a rebel army could probably inflict a lot of pain.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How is a US Army supposed to be fighting civilians in this country? I thought there were safeguards to protect civilians from the military

being turned against the civilian populace.

[RED333]

I think most scholars who actually believe the 2A means what it says would say that the intent was for citizens to have the same/similar arms as would be common for a solder to carry with him into battle and I would argue that, even though they aren't identical we have "reasonably" similar arms in that regard.

 

Where I think the significant difference would come into play would be with things like armed drones, maned air support, armored vehicles, communication/command & control (not to mention training of our standing military).

 

A "rebel army" of today fighting a modern U.S. Army (and Air Force and Navy) would find it pretty tough going although a rebel army could probably inflict a lot of pain.

In the 2nd there is not a "what kind" for "ARMS".

The Brits came for the cannon, cannon ball and powder.

The ships were on the list as well, small arms were on the list, just not on top.

Robert you are right, the government WILL use all of the might they have to take our "arms".

The Government will come one day to take the arms from us, wont be this week, next week or next month,

but bet your last dollar they will one day. When the government does come I want the very same "Arms"

they have, drones, tanks, jet planes, and what ever else they have!!!

[DaveTN]

How is a US Army supposed to be fighting civilians in this country? I thought there were safeguards to protect civilians from the military
being turned against the civilian populace.

There are no safe guards. The Posse Comitatus Act is probably what you are referring to. It doesn’t apply to National Guard units. It also wouldn’t apply if Martial law was invoked.
If someone tries to take our country; our military will be used. No matter where the attackers were born or where the attack comes from.

[Wingshooter]

I think most scholars who actually believe the 2A means what it says would say that the intent was for citizens to have the same/similar arms as would be common for a solder to carry with him into battle and I would argue that, even though they aren't identical we have "reasonably" similar arms in that regard.

Where I think the significant difference would come into play would be with things like armed drones, maned air support, armored vehicles, communication/command & control (not to mention training of our standing military).

A "rebel army" of today fighting a modern U.S. Army (and Air Force and Navy) would find it pretty tough going although a rebel army could probably inflict a lot of pain.

The variable is that the members of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Gaurd are all U.S. citizens. When asked to bomb their home town, how many F-16's and tanks would become part of a "rebel army"? Edited March 9, 2014 by Batman

[DaveTN]

The variable is that the members of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Gaurd are all U.S. citizens. When asked to bomb their home town, how many F-16's and tanks would become part of a "rebel army"?

You won’t get enough people organized that will turn their backs on their own country to get past a small Police Department; let alone needing the military or an F16.

[Wingshooter]

You won’t get enough people organized that will turn their backs on their own country to get past a small Police Department; let alone needing the military or an F16.

Who said anything about people turning their backs on their own country? The politicians that want to fundamentally change this great county have the monopoly on that.

[Guest semiautots]

You won’t get enough people organized that will turn their backs on their own country to get past a small Police Department; let alone needing the military or an F16.

 

Turning your back on your government is not the same as turning your back on your country.  Some actually love their country and hate their government.

[RobertNashville]

Who said anything about people turning their backs on their own country? The politicians that want to fundamentally change this great county have the monopoly on that.

This is where things get rather complicated. You see, it really isn't just the politicians who want to fundamentally change the country; it's also a majority or at least a near majority of citizens who agree with them here "that" group grows larger every day.

Now before everyone starts reminding me, I realized a rather small percentage of the population actually fought against the Crown. But, almost everyone in the country felt the heavy boot of King George on their necks and even if they didn't fight we're at least sympathetic to the cause of freedom... I am not sure that would be the case today.

[DaveTN]

Who said anything about people turning their backs on their own country? The politicians that want to fundamentally change this great county have the monopoly on that.

 
 

Turning your back on your government is not the same as turning your back on your country.  Some actually love their country and hate their government.

If you are a Patriot you know that we have options in places for these kinds of scenarios. We will probably see if they work before we start shooting Americans. Okay?

[RobertNashville]

How is a US Army supposed to be fighting civilians in this country? I thought there were safeguards to protect civilians from the military being turned against the civilian populace.

Do you really believe that if some of the population rise up against the government that the government would have any compunction about using the military to put down the rebellion and would ignore any law that is supposed to prevent that? The government already in forces and doesn't enforce whatever walls chooses; I don't see why a situation involving domestic terrorists would be any different at all.