They’re coming for your guns

[PrimusTactical]

Well, thanks for the agreement with my earlier post, but I think you have much naivety with regard to the present ability for the average citizen to get any reasonable redress of greivances from government, particulalry when said government is the primary defendant/offender.

When a man is stripped of his ability to defend himself against attack of any kind, his only option left is to go on the offensive and go for broke.

When any group of people push for another group to conform to their wishes and hand over the fruits of their labor, using the force of government to achieve it, they should rightly expect resistance to the bitter end and are also rightly deserving of any and all consequences that befall them. The same goes for anyone who supports, defends or participates by any proxy.

Someone explain this to me..... Is the concept you guys adovcate for hang back.... wait till all the liberal yuppies (that outnumber us) win in every state and pass some crazy weapons bans... then wait some more until someone comes knocking.... then kill them? That's the "offensive"?

No one is confiscating guns yet, except very very few particular instances. So why aren't any of you trying to STOP it before it starts? Instead of beating up on a guy whos agreeing with you, try going on some liberal website and plead your case there, change some peoples minds. Get the legislation to see your way. Just do me a favor a treat them better then you've treated me.

- - - Updated - - -

Spot on.

So you want your guns because it's a Natural Right? Ok, then leave the Con. out of it.

 

[RealQuick]

No one is confiscating guns yet, except very very few particular instances. So why aren't any of you trying to STOP it before it starts? Instead of beating up on a guy whos agreeing with you, try going on some liberal website and plead your case there, change some peoples minds. Get the legislation to see your way. Just do me a favor a treat them better then you've treated me.

hard to stop it when they meet @ 12:30am with closed door sessions and pass new laws that make no sense.

 

[xtry51]

I'm not supportive of Germany or anything they did. But if I recall, WE crushed them, not their citizens. It took the rest of the world to step in and say what they were doing was wrong. What they did was atrocious and I would hope that that if a gas chamber was ever built we we bomb it before it ever got the gas.

But sir, THATS THE PROCESS OUR CON. CALLS FOR. I didn't write it. I get the civil disobedience. If I recall correctly, 2a states AT LAST RESORT against a tyrranical.......
People are talking about rising and shooting without ever going to court or letting it get fought out. That sounds like a first resort...

You didn't answer my question. Your position is that laws passed and upheld by courts should be enforced by police. Hence you are an ENFORCER, not a messenger. You don't deliver mail. You physically kidnap people and steal their property. Of course you call this "arresting" and "property seizure". What you call them does not change what the physical acts are.

If your position is that all laws passed and confirmed by the court are legitimate, and it's your job to carry out those laws, it follows that you would do exactly what Nazi troops, police and the SS did. They followed laws that were passed in a completely legitimate way.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Nazis were wrong to do what they did and law enforcement there shouldn't have carried out the law, or you think it's completely acceptable to round up groups of people whether they be Jews, drug users or "terrorists".

So please thoroughly explain for us which on it is.

 

[PrimusTactical]

The things you cite as controversial only seem that way to you because you don't understand natural rights and liberty. My possession of a normal capacity mag or particular weapon does not violate a single right of another. Therefore, it is NOT a crime to have such personal property, regardless of how many laws are passed stating the converse.

Makes sense. But you forget laws aren't passed to keep the lawful guys in check. It's to stop bad guys and have teeth to fix them when they do something wrong. Let me put it this way, please breath and read before blowing up:

Maybe you and I could own TOW2 missiles or AT4s and shoot them off safely. Maybe we feel we should have them to defend ourselves. But owning them would be illegal. Why? Becuase god forbid some dumb ass got a hold of one and figured it out and used it against everyone else it would be anarchy. So your right, owning that AT4 wouldn't violate anyones rights, until the wrong guy broke into your house and stole it and used at the local middle school.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't answer my question. Your position is that laws passed and upheld by courts should be enforced by police. Hence you are an ENFORCER, not a messenger. You don't deliver mail. You physically kidnap people and steal their property. Of course you call this "arresting" and "property seizure". What you call them does not change what the physical acts are.

If your position is that all laws passed and confirmed by the court are legitimate, and it's your job to carry out those laws, it follows that you would do exactly what Nazi troops, police and the SS did. They followed laws that were passed in a completely legitimate way.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Nazis were wrong to do what they did and law enforcement there shouldn't have carried out the law, or you think it's completely acceptable to round up groups of people whether they be Jews, drug users or "terrorists".

So please thoroughly explain for us which on it is.

I've already beaten that dead horse. I said that obvious unjust laws, those common sense unjust laws, like "shoot everyone wearing purple" I wouldn't uphold. You keep asking I keep telling. but a 30 mag cap is not THE SAME as shooting people wearing purple.

 

[GM-GUY]

No law can change the United States Constitution, nor the Constitution of a State for that matter. If you wish to make changes, there is a procedure for that.

I have the right and responsibility to defend myself and my loved ones. Not only from death or harm - but our Freedom. As soon as you allow another to be responsible for your safety, you are immediately subservient to there situation.

If the roads are impassable due to a storm and you have a fire - isn't it better to have a fire extinguisher handy than waiting for the Fire Department?
If a criminal is busting in your front door - wouldn't you rather be able to stop them (and how ever many are with them) then wait for the police and be able to do nothing?
If the government decides we no longer have the freedom to keep and bear arms, can't then they decide that we do not have the right to speech or worship?

Many people have a 'line' in their head - if the gov't crosses that line all bets are off. I expect that if the States or the Federal Government do restrict or ban - that will be the line for many. For even more the line will be reached when the local SWAT Team with their new Bearcat or MRAP show up at a friend of neighbors house and arrest the occupants, kill the dog, and knock it down. Eventually the protests of this activity will be banned and the reporting of the events will not be allowed.

DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT - NO GOVERNMENT HAS THE BEST WISHES FOR THE PEOPLE FIRST - It's the maintaining and re-election of that government that comes first. The Second Amendment attempts to ensure that they do not (at least openly) destroy the citizenry.

 

[ochmude]

I apologize sir, there was a mix up when first read. The question was meant for you then, not him.

Yes, I am an LEO. No, I have never seized a firearm as a result of a 209a. I have never seized a firearm at all from anyone other than in conjunction with an 8 USC 1325 or 1324 charge.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Someone explain this to me..... Is the concept you guys adovcate for hang back.... wait till all the liberal yuppies (that outnumber us) win in every state and pass some crazy weapons bans... then wait some more until someone comes knocking.... then kill them? That's the "offensive"?

No one is confiscating guns yet, except very very few particular instances. So why aren't any of you trying to STOP it before it starts? Instead of beating up on a guy whos agreeing with you, try going on some liberal website and plead your case there, change some peoples minds. Get the legislation to see your way. Just do me a favor a treat them better then you've treated me.

- - - Updated - - -



So you want your guns because it's a Natural Right? Ok, then leave the Con. out of it.

I say what I said because ultimately that is what will happen, on an individual basis or on a national basis. Why do you think government is preparing so intensely? they know people won't comply when they're stripped of their protections by a complicit oppressive government.

I didn't write the rules of life, I just live it to the best of my abilities, despite all of the hazards.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Anyone seen the UK lately? Ireland? Are there gas chambers there? THAT STATEMENT IS NOT ME ADVOCATING GUN BANS. That statement is trying to offset some of what was just said. Thats all.

Sir, if the Con. was ammended to take away the 2a, what would you do?

- - - Updated - - -

Laws don't stop bad guys; they are bad guys BECAUSE they have no regard for the rule of law. This is why people still murder, rape, steal, and destroy.

We already have laws in place that punish the true criminals. If someone steals my weapons and hurts or kills others, why do you think that one more law restricting my rights will stop him?

I get it sir, scrap all laws, give everyone guns and ammo, and let everyone me moral on their own..... Been to the Congo lately?

 

[MrScrewzloose]

Anyone seen the UK lately? Ireland? Are there gas chambers there? THAT STATEMENT IS NOT ME ADVOCATING GUN BANS. That statement is trying to offset some of what was just said. Thats all.

Sir, if the Con. was ammended to take away the 2a, what would you do?

Ok, I had you pegged for one of Marsha's folks, I was wrong. You're diffidently Piers Morgan.

 

[PrimusTactical]

I say what I said because ultimately that is what will happen, on an individual basis or on a national basis. Why do you think government is preparing so intensely? they know people won't comply when they're stripped of their protections by a complicit oppressive government.

I didn't write the rules of life, I just live it to the best of my abilities, despite all of the hazards.

Doesnt answer my question. I know that question will get buried under 24 more posts and no one will answer it or acknowledge it.

 

[RealQuick]

Makes sense. But you forget laws aren't passed to keep the lawful guys in check. It's to stop bad guys and have teeth to fix them when they do something wrong.

really... seems like the recent gun control laws are only for legal gun owners BECAUSE WE HAVE LAWS CURRENTLY THAT PROHIBIT CRIMINALS FROM OWNING WEAPONS. They also turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Ok, I had you pegged for one of Marsha's folks, I was wrong. You're diffidently Piers Morgan.

What gave it away? The fact I say I like guns? Or the fact I say everyone should have guns?

 

[frenchman]

Makes sense. But you forget laws aren't passed to keep the lawful guys in check. It's to stop bad guys and have teeth to fix them when they do something wrong. .

You gotta be shitting me. Really? You so make no sense it's almost scarry.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Stop calling people sir. It doesn't make you look like a respectful dude. It's condescending and unnecessary. Your ignorance is ****ing mind blowing. Uhoh I cussed! *butthurt*

 

[PrimusTactical]

really... seems like the recent gun control laws are only for legal gun owners BECAUSE WE HAVE LAWS CURRENTLY THAT PROHIBIT CRIMINALS FROM OWNING WEAPONS. They also turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

Not going down that baited road Sir. If you would like to have a discussion on "laws" and their effectiveness start a different thread and I'll gladly post. This thread was about confiscation for CERTAIN THINGS.

 

[todd c]

Anyone seen the UK lately? Ireland? Are there gas chambers there? THAT STATEMENT IS NOT ME ADVOCATING GUN BANS. That statement is trying to offset some of what was just said. Thats all.

Sir, if the Con. was ammended to take away the 2a, what would you do?

- - - Updated - - -



I get it sir, scrap all laws, give everyone guns and ammo, and let everyone me moral on their own..... Been to the Congo lately?

I don't think your an LEO, i know many. your saying sir to much like a college kid who's intimitated. also the LEO's i know would never compare the USA to UK or europe for that matter on a pro 2A, constitution loving forum.

 

[atilla]

Not going down that baited road Sir. If you would like to have a discussion on "laws" and their effectiveness start a different thread and I'll gladly post. This thread was about confiscation for CERTAIN THINGS.

i want to have a conversation about luls.

 

[RealQuick]

Not going down that baited road Sir. If you would like to have a discussion on "laws" and their effectiveness start a different thread and I'll gladly post. This thread was about confiscation for CERTAIN THINGS.

So NY banning anything over 7rds, and residents need to turn in their mags? Let me ask you... how does that law impact the criminal? Are they gonna be first in line to turn in mags for guns they shouldnt have? You open the can or worms about why laws exist, and I am pointing out to you that your reasoning for their existence is not always the case.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Stop calling people sir. It doesn't make you look like a respectful dude. It's condescending and unnecessary. Your ignorance is ****ing mind blowing. Uhoh I cussed! *butthurt*

When I use the term Sir, I actually mean it. You can think anything you like about it, your choice. I do it for two reason. First and foremost, I believe in respecting EVERYONE and that's my sign of respect in a conversation. Second, if I can sit on here call guys like you "Sir" and mean it, then its practice for at work when I have that belligerent A*** who doesn't get why I'm locking him up after he slapped his girl around.

- - - Updated - - -

So NY banning anything over 7rds, and residents need to turn in their mags? Let me ask you... how does that law impact the criminal? Are they gonna be first in line to turn in mags for guns they shouldnt have? You open the can or worms about why laws exist, and I am pointing out to you that your reasoning for their existence is not always the case.

Start that thread and we can talk about it.

 

[Jason Flare]

Doesnt answer my question. I know that question will get buried under 24 more posts and no one will answer it or acknowledge it.

I looked back through the posts. What, exactly, is your question?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Doesnt answer my question. I know that question will get buried under 24 more posts and no one will answer it or acknowledge it.

Do you want me to tell you right up front that I'd kill you if you entered my home to deny me of my rights? I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

EDIT: I'd rather have a beer and a discussion with you and educate you.

I've participated in every election I was able to since I was 18, guess what? Nothing has changed and it has gotten exponentially worse since then.

 

[PrimusTactical]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If this woman was not in jail, why did the government want to take her gun. And why the hell did they take her husband's 2 guns?

In case you missed my post waaaay back in the thread, if I were in that situation, I would have yelled through the door to come back with a warrant. If they did, I would have read the warrant, seen that it was bullshit, then slammed the door in their face. At that point, if they kicked in my door, they would have been treated like any other armed home invader.

Thank you for clarifying that, so why yell to get a warrant anyways? Why read it if your mind was made up? You have that right to do EXACTLY what you just said, but that's not what the Con. says to do. What would that fix? Not a thing. You'd be another blurb on the news. Would that CHANGE the laws? Would it stop the next team from executing a warrant? Sure you could go down in a ball of flames of glory and some guys on here would be drinking an extra drink at the local pub in your honor. I say save the change the laws or fight it civilized. But we will never see eye to eye on that which is the great part about this country. We both like guns. We both want guns. We both think others should have them and defend themselves. I just don't think it's worth dying for before I ever tried anything else.

 

[RealQuick]

Start that thread and we can talk about it.

If you wont discuss counter points to your points (in this thread), then don't make statements you can't/won't defend.

 

[atilla]

Thank you for clarifying that, so why yell to get a warrant anyways? Why read it if your mind was made up? You have that right to do EXACTLY what you just said, but that's not what the Con. says to do. What would that fix? Not a thing. You'd be another blurb on the news. Would that CHANGE the laws? Would it stop the next team from executing a warrant? Sure you could go down in a ball of flames of glory and some guys on here would be drinking an extra drink at the local pub in your honor. I say save the change the laws or fight it civilized. But we will never see eye to eye on that which is the great part about this country. We both like guns. We both want guns. We both think others should have them and defend themselves. I just don't think it's worth dying for before I ever tried anything else.

your rights guaranteed to you under the united states constitution as an american citizen are not worth dying for?

i see.

 

[PrimusTactical]

I looked back through the posts. What, exactly, is your question?

I'll try to sum it up, but it's buried like I knew it would be. A few guys on here keep saying they will shoot anyone who comes to take their guns. Someone even stated that it was their form of Offensive after they get beat down, etc. etc. So I asked if I had it clear:

Wait at home and buy ammo and guns (so everyone else can't shoot).... LET the crazy liberals pass dumb laws... then when someone comes to your door Shoot first, withoutout ever giving the legal system a try (or follow the Con.)? I asked that's the offensive? To sit and wait? To "vote". I gotta say going to the ballots once a year, or ever few years isn't really doing much. not when the other side is out there campaigning and getting OUR rights taken away.

 

[atilla]

ballot box, soap box, jury box, cartridge box.

we're at stage 3.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

ballot box, soap box, jury box, cartridge box.

we're at stage 3.

you forgot dirty hot box, im at brazzers.

 

[frenchman]

Civilized will get you just so far. At some point, it's time to shoot. How do you think wars get started?
I have become a peacefull man. I don't wish to hurt anyone (anymore). But that doesn't mean I can't or couldn't if I was pushed hard enough. And governments have a habit of pushing things. Then, it'll be time for you to pick a side. You do realise that LEO wouldn't really stand a chance, don't you?

Sure you could go down in a ball of flames of glory and some guys on here would be drinking an extra drink at the local pub in your honor

It may come as a surprise to you, but for some people it is more apealing to burn out then to fade away. Here's a quote for you:
"Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever."
Try arguing that.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I'll try to sum it up, but it's buried like I knew it would be. A few guys on here keep saying they will shoot anyone who comes to take their guns. Someone even stated that it was their form of Offensive after they get beat down, etc. etc. So I asked if I had it clear:

Wait at home and buy ammo and guns (so everyone else can't shoot).... LET the crazy liberals pass dumb laws... then when someone comes to your door Shoot first, withoutout ever giving the legal system a try (or follow the Con.)? I asked that's the offensive? To sit and wait? To "vote". I gotta say going to the ballots once a year, or ever few years isn't really doing much. not when the other side is out there campaigning and getting OUR rights taken away.

I replied and answered your question. Now you have another point to fixate on.

Be smart in your career and get down off your high horse early on, because when you fall off the horse later on in old age it hurts alot more.

 

[atilla]

you forgot dirty hot box, im at brazzers.

since he's ignoring both of us and what we say serious or otherwise, i'm just gonna cuddle up with you and brazzers.