Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

Apparently that's what the Government believes, since they'll be sending their Armed Agents to seize the firearms.

Isn't Article V of the Constitution (the Amendment process) supposed to be the ANSWER to this issue? If the Government Agents don't like the Second Amendment, then use Article V to repeal it.

Police knocking on your door isn't an act of violence.

If you refuse and resist the police from seizing you firearms in defense of your liberties, they will commit violence against you and kill you.

Also, you ignored the other half of my statement. Why don't you use the Article V to repeal the Second Amendment?
 
Last edited:
It took violenece to give us the right to carry arms, it might take violence to keep them. Socialist need to leave this country if they don't like our freedoms and stop trying to change things.
News for you, you already live in a quasi-socialist country, just not a very good one. And there's no reason for us to leave, we're winning.
Because commie pig socialist pukes have a lot of people fooled. Idiot fools.
Yeah, they're all really dumb, unless they vote for you right? News for you again, they are mostly morons. Next!
 
And to which you brought an AR-15, to a drone fight. Good luck with that.

You severely overestimate the power of technology. The Afghans are still fighting, and they don't even have 1/100th the quantity of firearms in the United States nor as good a s quality and rather archaic forms of ammunition.
And you are ignoring the fact that we can kill you based on nothing more than your cell phone GPS signal, and do it from Nevada, in the middle of the night, by autopilot, set on a timer. Film at 11.
 
Last edited:
If you refuse and resist the police from seizing you firearms in defense of your liberties, they will commit violence against you and kill you.

Also, you ignored the other half of my statement. Why don't you use the Article V to repeal the Second Amendment?

Yes, if you refuse the police with violence they are legally allowed to use violence against you to force your compliance.

Its interesting how much you guys talk about the law, the Constitution, and legality and yet ignore the law.

Even if you personally believe a law is illegal you are still obliged to comply with it until the law is revoked. Or be willing to face the legal consequences of failing to abide by a law.
 
Let the bodies fall where they may...

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?
The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

No. Natural law is on the universe and recognized in the highest law of the land, namely, the Constitution, and the only ones unlawfully threatening violence against the law-abiding are punks like you and cowardly sheep like Victory. You're disgusting, limp-wristed whores, enemies of God and country, both of you.
 
Apparently that's what the Government believes, since they'll be sending their Armed Agents to seize the firearms.

Isn't Article V of the Constitution (the Amendment process) supposed to be the ANSWER to this issue? If the Government Agents don't like the Second Amendment, then use Article V to repeal it.

Police knocking on your door isn't an act of violence.

Police knocking down my door without a warrant is.
 
When gun owners stop talking about violence and start talking about civil disobedience and passive resistance, they will get a lot more respect.

Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.
 
When gun owners stop talking about violence and start talking about civil disobedience and passive resistance, they will get a lot more respect.

Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.

If they have a warrant to search your property and confiscate something, you best comply.
 
When gun owners stop talking about violence and start talking about civil disobedience and passive resistance, they will get a lot more respect.

Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.

If they have a warrant to search your property and confiscate something, you best comply.

Or what ... Are they going to get violent?

.
 
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.

Hasn't there been enough killing from Connecticut gun owners in the past year and a half?
 
So you're down with the govt droning its citizens?
Down or not, it's been done, and it very much depends upon the citizen. A nut held up in a farm house with 50 guns and 40,000 rounds? Say hello to Jesus for me.

I guess we can infer from that statement that everyone who owns multiple guns and has several thousand rounds of ammo should be droned.
If they make trouble, so don't.
 
When gun owners stop talking about violence and start talking about civil disobedience and passive resistance, they will get a lot more respect.

Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.

If they have a warrant to search your property and confiscate something, you best comply.

An unconstitutional act is no less unconstitutional with or without a warrant. Signed off on by a corrupt judge.
What part of "come and take them" or "from my cold dead hands" are you having trouble understanding? Thank God there are still some men (and women) of principle in America!
 
Or what ... Are they going to get violent?

.

Police have the legal right to use violence to force compliance with the law.

You on the other hand, do not have the right to use violence to resist a lawful order.
 
Last edited:
Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.

If they have a warrant to search your property and confiscate something, you best comply.

An unconstitutional act is no less unconstitutional with or without a warrant. Signed off on by a corrupt judge.
What part of "come and take them" or "from my cold dead hands" are you having trouble understanding? Thank God there are still some men (and women) of principle in America!

Yeah ... I mean how do you get a warrant for a weapon you don't know is there because it was never registered?
Maybe the laws in Connecticut are different though ... Probable cause is probably not a strong suit there anyways.

.
 
Down or not, it's been done, and it very much depends upon the citizen. A nut held up in a farm house with 50 guns and 40,000 rounds? Say hello to Jesus for me.

I guess we can infer from that statement that everyone who owns multiple guns and has several thousand rounds of ammo should be droned.
If they make trouble, so don't.

Thats the same analogy used a few years ago about emails: If you haven't been looking at anything bad then you have nothing to worry about.
 
"You on the other hand, do not have the right to use violence go resist a lawful order."

Get a clue! If it is unconstitutional it is NOT a legal order.
 
"You on the other hand, do not have the right to use violence go resist a lawful order."

Get a clue! If it is unconstitutional it is NOT a legal order.

You have no legal standing to unilaterally declare a law "unConstitutional".

You certainly don't have the legal right to use violence to prevent a law being enforced, because you unilaterally declared it "unConstitutional".
 

Forum List

Back
Top