NEW LETTERS FROM STATE OF CT. TO GUN OWNERS.

[Ted S.]

 

"Assault Weapon"? "Large Capacity"?

 

[RobertNashville]

"Threatening to shoot cops is about the dumbest freaking thing I can think of for them to do."

 

Yeah...maybe it is...actually I'd say carrying through with the threats may be dumber yet.  However, is giving up your "illegal assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" (that may represent tens of thousands of $$$ of investment to the person to bought and paid for them) not pretty dumb too???

 

Waiting to get the legislature changed with people who actually believe in the constitution is a great long term strategy (assuming there are enough voters in CT as well as enough such candidates to get the job done) but that won't do a thing to stop the confiscation of millions and millions of dollars worth of privately owned weapons nor stop people from being tried and convicted of a felony; lose their rights vote and to own any weapons in the future and may result in jail time and even if not jail time would likely ruin their lives and the lives of their families as well.

 

I would leave the state permanently before I'd hand over my weapons but that would be my way of

 

The problem is, when the heavy hand of the state comes to get you firearms THERE IS NO "GOOD" RESPONSE...they are all bad...anything you do is likely to ruin your life or at least change it forever. By the time the state is on your doorstep to take your "illegal" weapons it's likely too late for a good outcome no matter what you do or don't do.

Edited March 4, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest TankerHC]

In that last letter he doesnt threaten to shoot any cops. He says enforce the laws and get on with it so they can fight it out in the Courts. 

[RobertNashville]

In that last letter he doesnt threaten to shoot any cops. He says enforce the laws and get on with it so they can fight it out in the Courts. 

I noticed that too...I didn't read where anybody had said to start shooting it out.

[Sonny]

The article in the Examiner yesterday confirmed it had been mailed.  You may want to read it.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/crisis-connecticut-confrontation-looming

 

Ok Rich Burgess is saying that this isn't a confiscation letter, but he is a fool to think that the police will not come for them, that they are playing nice and giving people a chance to get rid of them on their own before they become felons,  this is just a prelude to whats coming a full blown confiscation,

 

PEOPLE THIS IS SIMPLE STRATEGY.

 

Let say i was in charge in CT what would i do do get rid of the guns.  lets assume they are 100000 Rifle owners that are in question now.

 

Step 1. make a law to have them register all the guns -  already passed - about 50000 registered.

 

Step 2. - Here is where the letter we all are talking about comes in place.  Point out to the rest of them that if they didn't comply  they will become felons and could face jail time - lets say this calculated move makes additional 20000 people register.

An additional 15000 gets scared of confrontation with the police and complies with the letter and gets rid of the their guns completely. 

 

that eliminates about 85% or 85000 people that they have to deal with and here comes step 3.

 

Step 3. Send out armed units to the remaining 15% and take away the weapons by any means necessary, these are all calculated moves to reduce the percentage of people who would fight back where now you only have 15000 hardliners  from 100000 that will fight back and that is manageable,  after these hardliners are gone they will come back and take the weapons away from the other 85% due to the fact that they showed them a weakness in following the orders already and that they want put up a fight - History showed us that once the leaders are taken out the regular soldiers will likely lay down their weapons and surrender.

 

I hope it doesn't come to this scenario but it sure looks to me that it will.

[sigmtnman]

Ok Rich Burgess is saying that this isn't a confiscation letter, but he is a fool to think that the police will not come for them, that they are playing nice and giving people a chance to get rid of them on their own before they become felons,  this is just a prelude to whats coming a full blown confiscation,

 

...

 

Not sure if he is a fool or not.  Sounds like he is trying to get the legislatures to reconsider their position while giving them an out. 
Read his release that Chuck posted:  http://ctcarry.com/News/Releases

Edited March 5, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

We gun owners must stand with Connecticut gun owners.  If things do not go the right way we must pour into the state and protest this.  We lost California and New York.  If we loose more states the momentum will pick up.

 

If we wait for it to come to our state, it will be too late.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you can get enough of this bunch in Tennessee to stand together on something I'll ride shotgun all the way.

[jphillips63]

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="1120341" timestamp="1393989535"]If you can get enough of this bunch in Tennessee to stand together on something I'll ride shotgun all the way.[/quote] Honestly you couldn't get enough from all over the country stand together and fight for our constitutional rights now days. Too many wannabes and armchair talkers today. its sad seeing our rights erode little by little and nothing is being done to stop it. sent from RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk Pro

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's sad, but so true.

[sigmtnman]

we lose our rights because of debt no one wants to risk their job to fight for the rights it takes time nobody's got time because they have to pay bills.

this is why debt equals slavery Edited March 5, 2014 by sigmtnman

[Sonny]

that is why they want so many people on welfare so they are to broke to complain.

[Chucktshoes]

we lose our rights because of debt no one wants to risk their job to fight for the rights it takes time nobody's got time because they have to pay bills.

this is why debt equals slavery

The amount of mortgage debt and student loan debt that folks are encouraged to take on isn't accidental. Nobody has time to rock the boat when they are worried about making the next payment.

[RobertNashville]

we lose our rights because of debt no one wants to risk their job to fight for the rights it takes time nobody's got time because they have to pay bills.

this is why debt equals slavery

I don't disagree that debt is a huge problem and is, slavery...at the same time; I don't think you can specifically blame debt for people not wanting to risk their jobs.  Few people are wiling to risk their jobs whether they have debt or not because even with zero debt you still need an income (people still have expenses and need to save for retirement, emergencies, etc.).

I would suggest that it has more to do with the fact that those who actually care about these issues DO have a job and aren't free to just hop on a bus go "go protest" like so many on the left do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And we can't print our own money, like someone else can. But that should be more reason to pick at the scab.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like all those guys back way when didn't have jobs and were free to just go out and start a revolution.

 

BOGUS!

[sigmtnman]

I don't disagree that debt is a huge problem and is, slavery...at the same time; I don't think you can specifically blame debt for people not wanting to risk their jobs.  Few people are wiling to risk their jobs whether they have debt or not because even with zero debt you still need an income (people still have expenses and need to save for retirement, emergencies, etc.).

I would suggest that it has more to do with the fact that those who actually care about these issues DO have a job and aren't free to just hop on a bus go "go protest" like so many on the left do.

 

You are correct to an extent.  I was making a generalization and should have phrased it better, but was in a rush when I posted it.

Edited March 5, 2014 by sigmtnman

[tnguy]

But without debt, you can usually coast along for a while and keep a roof over your head. For many, if not most people, their debt is a house of cards that comes tumbling down at the slightest gust of wind.

Edited March 5, 2014 by tnguy

[RobertNashville]

But without debt, you can usually coast along for a while and keep a roof over your head. For many, if not most people, their debt is a house of cards that comes tumbling down at the slightest gust of wind.

Certainly, being without debt does offer some freedom (assuming one has a 3-6 month emergency fund to live on). But, I'd still (and I think most people would) be hesitant to risk a good job unless I was doing so to go to a better one (I'm actually facing that decision as I write this) because the new job would require me to rent a home in Savannah (still maintaining my residence here).

 

I think in my entire life since I was 14 I've been employed somewhere other than a total of about 12 weeks (not all at one time) and 75% of that was because I was in the middle of moving/relocating.  Being without a job is a scary prospect whether one has debt or not. ;)

[tnguy]

For sure. Debt just makes unemployment an acute situation. You can cut off cable, you can eat Ramen, in extremis, you can even do without the electricity but if there are people demanding 2-3k (or more) from you every month, that income is essential. If you owe on your car, loss of that will reduce your options for finding new employment drastically.

 

If you have no debt, that 3-6 month emergency fund is a whole different ballgame.

Edited March 6, 2014 by tnguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So one should base his desire for constitutional authority and action on his economic standing? Oh, okay.

 

Sorry, but that is about as lame as can be. I hope that isn't what some of you are meaning.

[Chucktshoes]

So one should base his desire for constitutional authority and action on his economic standing? Oh, okay.

 

Sorry, but that is about as lame as can be. I hope that isn't what some of you are meaning.

No, one shouldn't, but the reality is that one's economic standing can and does have a great effect on the decision making process. My decisions as a married father of modest means are going to be different than if I were a single & childless. My lines in the sand of what I find acceptable are different. To be honest, I am willing to take more crap from the government because I have certain responsibilities to my wife and child. And because my means are modest, my options are more limited. It isn't something to aspire to, but it is a reality to be taken into account. 

[DaveTN]

So one should base his desire for constitutional authority and action on his economic standing? Oh, okay.
 
Sorry, but that is about as lame as can be. I hope that isn't what some of you are meaning.

You have a responsibility to your family that far exceeds any responsibility you have to commit crimes based on your interpretation of laws you feel violate the Constitution. Also, you don’t get to pick and choose; we have a procedure we follow for alleged violations.

[tnguy]

You have a responsibility to your family that far exceeds any responsibility you have to commit crimes based on your interpretation of laws you feel violate the Constitution. Also, you don’t get to pick and choose; we have a procedure we follow for alleged violations.

 

You always get to pick and choose.

 

Always.

[Chucktshoes]

You have a responsibility to your family that far exceeds any responsibility you have to commit crimes based on your interpretation of laws you feel violate the Constitution. Also, you don’t get to pick and choose; we have a procedure we follow for alleged violations.

Just because submission is your choice, doesn't make it any less of a choice or any less yours.