Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[skookerasbil]

Limpwristedness is gay

 

[skookerasbil]

Lefty school security >>>

 

[skookerasbil]

To be fair, I understand some of our liberal friends are taking home defense a bit more seriously lately and have invested accordingly >>>>






Could potentially be effective I guess if there are enough misses and the intruder is barefoot.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Guess gun nuts hate Democracy now.

Article IV, Section 4, United States Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Democracy, as observed by our Founding Fathers who studied many Forms of Government from Athens Greece, to Rome to feudalism, to the Enlightenment, despised Democracy.

If you disagree, find just one of the Founding Fathers (whom rarely agreed unanimously) that supported and endorsed Democracy.

You obviously didn't read my last post clarifying our "Representative Republic" form of government. Our elections are 1 person 1 vote, the person with the most votes wins. Our Reps are decided by Democracy. Our laws and governance are done by Reps.


Either way.....our US population is leaning towards wanting more restrictions on firearms. You gun nuts are going to lose on this issue, its just a matter of time really. Regardless of my opinion on it or yours........its just a fact that with time, more gun restrictions ARE coming. Fact.

Fact, those who disregard those laws will be acquitted by at least one or two Jurors, always (hung jury), even in the most Progressive states.

 

[Victory67]

[MENTION=20466]Victory[/MENTION]69 has made several posts and has been logged on without interruption, and is still avoiding these two paramount questions.

You are now on Ignore. Do no Mention me again.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[MENTION=20466]Victory[/MENTION]69 has made several posts and has been logged on without interruption, and is still avoiding these two paramount questions.

You are now on Ignore. Do no Mention me again.

Lol, [MENTION=47266]Victory67[/MENTION] fled the battlefield. You shoudl change your name to Defeat67

Here are the two questions that destroyed him:

You don't get to decide on your own that the Constitution has been disregarded.

We have courts for this.

Please tell us when in US history a President/Governor or judge has overturned an acquittal by a Jury, or when a legislative body from one of the Several States or Congress has passed a Bill of Attainder to usurp an acquittal by a jury with a conviction.

If you cannot name any such instances, then it must be true that individual citizens, the People, are able to decide on their own what is Constitutional and what is not.

So long as Trial by Jury remains, the People themselves are the ultimate Legal Authority.

If the Government started to ignore Juries, and imprison people unjustly; would it necessary, in your own opinion, for the People to enforce their superiority via the Second Amendment to Restore the Rule of Law?

 

[Victory67]

Apparently it's an e-mail by a single person named Mike Vanderbaugh. Characterizing it as "a threat by Connecticut gun owners" seems intentionally inflammatory.

some gun owners support his extremist views.

he wants violence and he has a few supporters.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

CANT have an assault rifle
CAN have an abortion
CANT have a gay wedding
CAN smoke weed
CANT smoke crack
CAN produce porn
CANT sell the porn
CAN invade another country
CANT search our cars
CANT drive over 70mph
CAN text and drive

This nation is full of laws where many think it is a good law, many think it is a bad law. Rarely does 100% of people agree on the validity of a law, with the exception of maybe murder, rape, theft, the old English "Common Laws".

So, the true test is this: We've been told by gun nuts that they are "law abiding citizens".

And we see that 99% of laws are met with a population that is split on the validity of that law.

So, the essence of being "law abiding" really means obeying laws that you may not agree with, but, do so because you abide by laws.



SO all you "law abiding" gun owners......stop with the threats of violence or implying it. If you are a LAW ABIDING citizen, then nothing changes when a new law is passed. People will be split over it. And law abiding citizens will abide by it.

The ones threatening and shooting up schools and cinemas are city people not joe hillbilly that you strike out at all of the time.

 

[Victory67]

The ones threatening and shooting up schools and cinemas are city people not joe hillbilly that you strike out at all of the time.

Sandy Hook is in a small CT town.

 

[bucs90]

Democracy=MOB RULE...and YES WE do. WE aren't a Democracy.

Learn it, Live It, KNOW it.

Well, most of the people in the United States want more gun restrictions. And our representatives, which we voted in, are trying to give us what we want. We are a Representative Republic.....see, I already knew that. Democracy via representatives basically.

You gun nuts are just the minority on this. Just like how most people didn't want slavery. And most people don't want to discriminate against gays or minorities.

In the end....progress wins out.

Only problem is you gun nuts threatening to murder people WHEN you end up having to abide by the new laws most people want. You folks are dangerous, and the rest of society will have to find a way to handle that threat unfortunately.

Gun NUTS that arm ourselves for WHAT?

enabling the people to organize a militia system. Already have a massive Army
participating in law enforcement;You aren't a sworn officer, you cant, and we have plenty of cops anyway
deterring tyrannical government;You're AR15 is no match for an M1 Tank or Drone, or even a SWAT team
repelling invasion;We have nukes, and massive Navy and Air Force, we aren't getting invaded, ever
suppressing insurrection, Military and police do that
facilitating a natural right of self-defenseSure, that's your right. Get yourself a nice pistol or revolver, and a nice bolt action hunting rifle. That's all you really need
__________________________

So WE are dangerous...got it.

^^Answered for ya

 

[bucs90]

The ones threatening and shooting up schools and cinemas are city people not joe hillbilly that you strike out at all of the time.

Sandy Hook is in a small CT town.

Yep. So was Littlton, Colorado. And Blacksburg, Virginia. And "hillbilly" folks bombed the Olympics, and bombed Oklahoma City, and became the Una-Bomber, and formed militias with the intent of targeting cops, and murdered the cops in West Memphis. And the thugs in the ghetto are killing each other.

City. Suburb or country. Guns are being used to kill all over.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The ones threatening and shooting up schools and cinemas are city people not joe hillbilly that you strike out at all of the time.

Sandy Hook is in a small CT town.

Yep. So was Littlton, Colorado. And Blacksburg, Virginia. And "hillbilly" folks bombed the Olympics, and bombed Oklahoma City, and became the Una-Bomber, and formed militias with the intent of targeting cops, and murdered the cops in West Memphis. And the thugs in the ghetto are killing each other.

City. Suburb or country. Guns are being used to kill all over.

And your solution is to make harsher gun laws while the criminals keep killing. Lol.

 

[bucs90]

Sandy Hook is in a small CT town.

Yep. So was Littlton, Colorado. And Blacksburg, Virginia. And "hillbilly" folks bombed the Olympics, and bombed Oklahoma City, and became the Una-Bomber, and formed militias with the intent of targeting cops, and murdered the cops in West Memphis. And the thugs in the ghetto are killing each other.

City. Suburb or country. Guns are being used to kill all over.

And your solution is to make harsher gun laws while the criminals keep killing. Lol.

My solutions (plural) are:

Increase mental health funding and bring back more mental hospitals
Increase police budgets and make harsher gun crime sentences to keep criminals in jail
Increase...drastically...the sentences for crimes related to unlawful gun carry, and create laws that punish gun owners who are careless and leave their weapons unsecure that results in the death of another
Require ALL subjects declared mentally ill to have that listed on their background check so they can never buy a gun
Ban all private sales of guns. Must go through licensed gun dealers so a background check must be done

That's my proposal. Notice there is no ban on assault weapons or high cap mags. You right wingers are just too brainwashed to have a discussion on this issue.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Yep. So was Littlton, Colorado. And Blacksburg, Virginia. And "hillbilly" folks bombed the Olympics, and bombed Oklahoma City, and became the Una-Bomber, and formed militias with the intent of targeting cops, and murdered the cops in West Memphis. And the thugs in the ghetto are killing each other.

City. Suburb or country. Guns are being used to kill all over.

And your solution is to make harsher gun laws while the criminals keep killing. Lol.

My solutions (plural) are:

Increase mental health funding and bring back more mental hospitals
Increase police budgets and make harsher gun crime sentences to keep criminals in jail
Increase...drastically...the sentences for crimes related to unlawful gun carry, and create laws that punish gun owners who are careless and leave their weapons unsecure that results in the death of another
Require ALL subjects declared mentally ill to have that listed on their background check so they can never buy a gun
Ban all private sales of guns. Must go through licensed gun dealers so a background check must be done

That's my proposal. Notice there is no ban on assault weapons or high cap mags. You right wingers are just too brainwashed to have a discussion on this issue.

All mental illnesses? How would you define it so as to be reasonable? And private gun sales would be hard to regulate. Would you search a residence frequently to check and make sure they have all the guns they are supposed to have? Unconstitutional searching right there.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Sipsey Street Irregulars: An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)

They threaten to respond with violence if State or Local Police enforce new state gun laws.

What is the right, moral, and just thing to do is State or Local Police come to your door to enforce gun laws that you consider to be illegal?

You fully & peacefully comply with all police orders, OR you engage in civil disobedience by chaining the gun to your body or chaining yourself to youe home, or just lay limp on your livingroom floor and force the cops to carry you.

And then you fight it all in court and hope that the jury agrees with you that you committed no crime or that you violated an illegal law and lets you go.

Upon reading the letter, I have only this to say: if war breaks out in Connecticut, I'm enlisting to fight... with the Constitutionally law abiding rebels.

 

[Victory67]

Upon reading the letter, I have only this to say: if war breaks out in Connecticut, I'm enlisting to fight... with the Constitutionally law abiding rebels.

They are neither Constitutional nor law abiding if they use deadly violence upon law enforcement officers acting on a warrant.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Sipsey Street Irregulars: An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)

They threaten to respond with violence if State or Local Police enforce new state gun laws.

What is the right, moral, and just thing to do is State or Local Police come to your door to enforce gun laws that you consider to be illegal?

You fully & peacefully comply with all police orders, OR you engage in civil disobedience by chaining the gun to your body or chaining yourself to youe home, or just lay limp on your livingroom floor and force the cops to carry you.

And then you fight it all in court and hope that the jury agrees with you that you committed no crime or that you violated an illegal law and lets you go.

Upon reading the letter, I have only this to say: if war breaks out in Connecticut, I'm enlisting to fight... with the Constitutionally law abiding rebels.

You should rephrase that as it actually is:

"With the Constitution Militias that will Restore the Law of Rule from the usurpers revolting against the shackles of the Constitution."

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Upon reading the letter, I have only this to say: if war breaks out in Connecticut, I'm enlisting to fight... with the Constitutionally law abiding rebels.

They are neither Constitutional nor law abiding if they use deadly violence upon law enforcement officers acting on a warrant.

...on a law against the Constitution. A government institution that defies the Constitution has lost the right to rule, simple as that. If a US citizen defends his or her rights with violence if need be, the citizen is right and the "law" is wrong.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Sipsey Street Irregulars: An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)

They threaten to respond with violence if State or Local Police enforce new state gun laws.

What is the right, moral, and just thing to do is State or Local Police come to your door to enforce gun laws that you consider to be illegal?

You fully & peacefully comply with all police orders, OR you engage in civil disobedience by chaining the gun to your body or chaining yourself to youe home, or just lay limp on your livingroom floor and force the cops to carry you.

And then you fight it all in court and hope that the jury agrees with you that you committed no crime or that you violated an illegal law and lets you go.

Upon reading the letter, I have only this to say: if war breaks out in Connecticut, I'm enlisting to fight... with the Constitutionally law abiding rebels.

You should rephrase that as it actually is:

"With the Constitution Militias that will Restore the Law of Rule from the usurpers revolting against the shackles of the Constitution."

Bingo!

 

[Victory67]

...on a law against the Constitution. A government institution that defies the Constitution has lost the right to rule, simple as that. If a US citizen defends his or her rights with violence if need be, the citizen is right and the "law" is wrong.

You have no authority to declare a law unConstitutional.

You have no authority to use violence to resist a warrant.