• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

They’re coming for your guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
PrimusTactical said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can't take this broken record so this is my last post in this thread. Where the hell do you get off implying nobody here is doing anything about all this bullshit coming at us?? I know I have and probably most of the people here have attended many rallies called, wrote and emailed their reps about this shit. Problem is they JUST DON'T CARE. This has all been planned for and been waiting for a moment the scumbag controllers of a free people could use against them. It has happened thru out history. Do yourself a favor and learn it because you are doomed to repeat it.[troll]
 
I don't know about you, but I'm having a f***ing blast over here watching the wheels come off.

Not sure what's worse, this thread or code red. Love where it's going though. Now, let's see more outing of thine-selves.
 
abytazyz.jpg


Gotta love book stores just saying ;)
 
ochmude said:
Right, but if you're making contact with an individual, and the term with which you repeatedly address that individual agitates them and causes them to bristle, would you continue using that term? I'm referring specifically to your overuse of "Sir".
Click to expand...
Yup.. agree here. Raised in a strict southern family with multiple peace officers and vets. They have laying that shit down to an artwork, and I can spot it a mile away. I say sir quite often out of respect, but also know when it gets condescending.

PrimusTactical said:
Like I've said many times, I believe in the Con, ALL the time. Not just when it suits my needs. I'll try this again, please don't bash till it's over:

The Con. says that the state has a right to pas laws. The body that passes these laws must be made up of US, people. If the state passes a bogus law, then the poeple US fight it in court. We go to court, appeal (laid out in Con.) and it goes alllll the way up to SJC in MA. Of Supreme Court. There they decide if its Constitutional or "lawful". I didn't decide this process.

So to me, if SOMEHOW something was passed and went through ALL of the processes legitimately, then I'd follow it UNLESS it was something obvious such as "murder all people wearing purple". That is why the guys who just sit home buy ammo and dig trenches aren't helping anyone. I swore to uphold the WHOLE Con. not jsut certain pieces.

NOW: We have the Natural Rights portion. I belive in defense of one's life. I believe you have the right to protect yourself. But you can protect yourself with sticks, stones, knives, etc. The Natural Rights were around waaayyyy before there were AR-15s. And will be there after them. So to hang anyones whole argument on them doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

And once again you have shown that you know very little about everything leading up to the Constitution and the reasons it came about how it did. That is not the only document this country was built on, and the path that led up to it is just as (if not more) important than the document itself.

And of course the right to defend one's self has existed before the AR-15. That was EXACTLY why the founding fathers said that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, AND did not like standing armies domestically.. it was so citizens would have they same training and resources as the the state does to enforce the laws. Were you issued a rocket launcher for patrol? Of course not. That's why citizens don't have them (of all the stupid ****ing arguements I hear moonbats come up with, the "do you think you should have a rocket launcher?!?" or "founders did not envision an AR-15!!" is one of the most ignorant.).

Ok, so you would stop at murdering people wearing stars or purple or whatever. Good to know you finally have a limit. What atrocities would you commit up to that limit? I will remind you that you have said you would follow orders up to that point and your job does not allow you to bring your moral grounds into play. I will ask you again, If I can't trust you to have moral grounds and hold yourself to them, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR JOB, how can I trust you to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Look, I'll (stupidly, once again) pretend you are not trying to troll. You get the Constitutional process, how laws are made and amendments get passed, we get that. What is irking the **** out of the folks in this thread is your ignorance or disregard to the history, context, and other documents besides the Constitution that got us where we are today (Hint: read the Declaration of Independence. A FEW times). Until you are willing to do that, stop throwing rocks at the hornet's nest.

When 20-30 people including fellow Vets and Officers are spending over 500 posts telling you that you are being a dense jackass MAYBE you should stop and think more and post less.
 
LR308_GNR said:
60 pages and you guys are still feeding the troll!

PrimusTactical is a donkey and he's baiting everyone here perfectly... agreeing just enough to keep you involved, but disagreeing enough to keep you enraged.
Click to expand...

It's not baiting. It's called trying to have a real discussion. When I agree, it's honestly agreeing. Your missing one point, you think I disagree just enough to enrage people like thats the intent. It's not. And as always.... People love quoting stuff and standing on ideas when it suits them. Most on here are pissed I even bother replying and want me to just shut up and leave. Thats an awesome way to interpret those ideas. And don't think for a second I'm the only guy on this forum that feels the way I do. You guys vocal enough don't own this place or the views. This is no different the gun owners in our state, you stand up and speak your mind and get shouted down or rocks thrown at you. Every word you say gets torn to pieces and reposted when suited. Good solid points get ignored. Names get called. It's perfectly fine with me though. Send it.

Just remember guys, this thread was about a particular instance that happened in CA. It was never about me or my views ( especially since they are the same as yours). I didn't drag myself into it, the "murder-boners' guys did. Period.
 
Gadsden said:
Yup.. agree here. Raised in a strict southern family with multiple peace officers and vets. They have laying that shit down to an artwork, and I can spot it a mile away. I say sir quite often out of respect, but also know when it gets condescending.



And once again you have shown that you know very little about everything leading up to the Constitution and the reasons it came about how it did. That is not the only document this country was built on, and the path that led up to it is just as (if not more) important than the document itself.

And of course the right to defend one's self has existed before the AR-15. That was EXACTLY why the founding fathers said that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, AND did not like standing armies domestically.. it was so citizens would have they same training and resources as the the state does to enforce the laws. Were you issued a rocket launcher for patrol? Of course not. That's why citizens don't have them (of all the stupid ****ing arguements I hear moonbats come up with, the "do you think you should have a rocket launcher?!?" or "founders did not envision an AR-15!!" is one of the most ignorant.).

Ok, so you would stop at murdering people wearing stars or purple or whatever. Good to know you finally have a limit. What atrocities would you commit up to that limit? I will remind you that you have said you would follow orders up to that point and your job does not allow you to bring your moral grounds into play. I will ask you again, If I can't trust you to have moral grounds and hold yourself to them, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR JOB, how can I trust you to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Look, I'll (stupidly, once again) pretend you are not trying to troll. You get the Constitutional process, how laws are made and amendments get passed, we get that. What is irking the **** out of the folks in this thread is your ignorance or disregard to the history, context, and other documents besides the Constitution that got us where we are today (Hint: read the Declaration of Independence. A FEW times). Until you are willing to do that, stop throwing rocks at the hornet's nest.

When 20-30 people including fellow Vets and Officers are spending over 500 posts telling you that you are being a dense jackass MAYBE you should stop and think more and post less.
Click to expand...

Let the twist ride some more.... I never said i believe in Ar-15 ban yada yada yada. Pin what you want on me, I'm easy scape goat and make for good tv to watch the fight. There can be 300 people on here telling me it's ok to shoot guys BEFORE you go to court and I still won't accept it.

The real point to everything I've said has been lost 100 times over. Thats the risk of talking with a bunch of guys at once that are against you. I don;t agree with many of the gun laws. I agree with following that Con.

NO ONE on here has been able to refute what I've said. They jsut say "you don't understand it". Of course I do, it's pretty clear when it outlines the process to appeal laws, etc. No where does it say shoot people. The good old 2a argument, its says as a LAST RESORT fight a tyrannical Gov't. Most of what been discussed or debated has been opinion.

And the me having moral grounds on my job is called discretion, look it up. It's something that should be used to help people, but not to enforce or NOT ENFORCE based on MY political views. Thats what I meant. I trust the system. I trust the NRA to fight bogus battles. I don't just decide my city's laws on a whim. Or my political mood of the night.
 
Billsail said:
You continually advocate changing laws we don't agree with. Do you think we have not been trying? Do you think we have not been running into brick walls at every turn we make? One step forward, two steps back. You DO realize this is Massachusetts? We are constantly being bombarded with heinous legislation. Have you seen the latest bills, up for consideration? It's not that easy, and being in the minority (especially in this state), and having limited resources, and backing, it is an exercise in frustration, at best.

Tell me what you REALLY think. Is it, you would like to see the populace disarmed, so that only the "Authorities" have guns? I know what you've said in this thread, but I would appreciate some candor.

I know how you will answer this question, so don't bother. I just needed to say that!
Click to expand...

I'm confused with the post, so maybe I should answer it. Not a fan of having other people assume my answers and answering things for me, especially when they have no idea who I am or anything about me.

I would NOT like to see the populace disarmed. I don't believe in a assault weapons ban. I've said that more times then I can count in this thread. Of course I'm advocating change the laws if you don't like it.... I hear that all the time too... "the system is all corrupt! Our state sucks! They oppress us! Gov. is taking control!" etc. etc..... Well then why is Texas such a free state? Or many of the other free southern states? Why are their gun laws so lax compared to ours? Do they follow a different legal system? No. They just have different citizens of those states.
 
Texas is such a free state because the people in power (who the 51+% voted for) believe in the constitution and people's rights. Unfortunately in MA, the 51% here don't understand or care about people's rights... So us 49% should suffer? Dont say "just move" either because we shouldnt have to.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Let the twist ride some more.... I never said i believe in Ar-15 ban yada yada yada. Pin what you want on me, I'm easy scape goat and make for good tv to watch the fight. There can be 300 people on here telling me it's ok to shoot guys BEFORE you go to court and I still won't accept it.

The real point to everything I've said has been lost 100 times over. Thats the risk of talking with a bunch of guys at once that are against you. I don;t agree with many of the gun laws. I agree with following that Con.

NO ONE on here has been able to refute what I've said. They jsut say "you don't understand it". Of course I do, it's pretty clear when it outlines the process to appeal laws, etc. No where does it say shoot people. The good old 2a argument, its says as a LAST RESORT fight a tyrannical Gov't. Most of what been discussed or debated has been opinion.

And the me having moral grounds on my job is called discretion, look it up. It's something that should be used to help people, but not to enforce or NOT ENFORCE based on MY political views. Thats what I meant. I trust the system. I trust the NRA to fight bogus battles. I don't just decide my city's laws on a whim. Or my political mood of the night.
Click to expand...

I give up, you are throwing yourself back up on your cross with the "all I said was this, now they are ganging up on poor me" shit again. I get your original point (we need to legally and peacefully change things, shooting is bad and should not happen), and I agree with it. You said lots of other stuff besides that, then you jump back to the "all I said was this thing most of us agree with" schtick again when you get called out.

You are either one of the most successful trolls in NES history, one of the LEOs that got hired after they started setting upper IQ limits, or trolling to see how many folks you can lure into saying something stupid and build a legal case to take them literally. (And yes, I have seen that done before..). Or maybe all three, or maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I've had more productive conversations with the guy outside of south station that talks to the pidgins and argues with the graffiti stickers.
 
Last edited:
PrimusTactical said:
Why are their gun laws so lax compared to ours? Do they follow a different legal system? No. They just have different citizens of those states.
Click to expand...


Bingo! You acknowledge what we are up against. Do you really believe we can make much progress against the Liberal machine, that is Massachusetts? I don't see anything confusing about my post except maybe the last two sentences, but I think you know what I mean. I will take you at your word that you don't want to disarm us, but what happens if your "orders" say you must?
 
Gadsden said:
I give up, you are throwing yourself back up on your cross with the "all I said was this, now they are ganging up on poor me" shit again. I get your original point (we need to legally and peacefully change things, shooting is bad and should not happen), and I agree with it. You said lots of other stuff besides that, then you jump back to the "all I said was this thing most of us agree with" schtick again when you get called out.

You are either one of the most successful trolls in NES history, one of the LEOs that got hired after they started setting upper IQ limits, or trolling to see how many folks you can lure into saying something stupid and build a legal case to take them literally. (And yes, I have seen that done before..). Or maybe all three, or maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I've had more productive conversations with the guy outside of south station that talks to the pidgins and argues with the graffiti stickers.
Click to expand...

Then feel free stop responding.
 
Billsail said:
Bingo! You acknowledge what we are up against. Do you really believe we can make much progress against the Liberal machine, that is Massachusetts? I don't see anything confusing about my post except maybe the last two sentences, but I think you know what I mean. I will take you at your word that you don't want to disarm us, but what happens if your "orders" say you must?
Click to expand...

I do acknowledge this state sucks, my point was that we use the same legal system. the people here are just different. Some were advocating the system is broken, thats all.
 
PrimusTactical said:
I do acknowledge this state sucks, my point was that we use the same legal system. the people here are just different. Some were advocating the system is broken, thats all.
Click to expand...

It is broken. It's broke when majority rules. We can't think better for you though.
 
5-0 said:
It is broken. It's broke when majority rules. We can't think better for you though.
Click to expand...

That part confuses me, I thought it was meant to be a majority rules type of thing? I don't feel like starting a shit storm on here only I never get the info I'm looking for without 45 bs posts in between. Am I mistaken when I say it's supposed to be Majority Rule? Majority vote for the Reps. Majority reps vote the bill, etc. etc.? That's a serious question, only because I heard like 5 guys on here say "Majority doesn't rule"
 
I think Murph is still in there. I know he is. He's just struggling with the 4th directive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8W6vDo_L3w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now you're opening your mind Neo. The reason that we have a problem is because an ignorant majority can put people in positions of power that use the government as a tool to control peoples behavior through tax suffocation and big gov dollars for being good subjects (read grants for seatbelt laws and speed limits). These people use law and taxation to impose their will on things that have pose no harm to citizens by mere possession by lawful citizens (ie magazine limit bans)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PrimusTactical said:
That part confuses me, I thought it was meant to be a majority rules type of thing? I don't feel like starting a shit storm on here only I never get the info I'm looking for without 45 bs posts in between. Am I mistaken when I say it's supposed to be Majority Rule? Majority vote for the Reps. Majority reps vote the bill, etc. etc.? That's a serious question, only because I heard like 5 guys on here say "Majority doesn't rule"
Click to expand...
It is called a "Republic". I am glad you asked, I hope you read this and understand, it is the most important thing missing from our society right now. We have collapsed into a mob-rule Democracy (2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner).

To quote Barack Obama of all people:
Obama (2013 inaugural address) said:
The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic....
Click to expand...

By that he means to say that an individual's fundamental rights are not up for a vote. Majority or otherwise. The government is limited in its scope and authority, rather strictly, so that it may not offer laws for vote that violate these fundamental and civil rights.

That's what we mean by we will not subject ourselves to the Mob-Rule Democracy of past failed civilizations who collapsed precisely because they failed to recognize this, or at least recognize it in time to save themselves.

Our Republic recognized it on day -1...

Progressives have been trying to wash it from our brains every since as it is a profound threat to their desired expansion of power.
 
Last edited:
PrimusTactical said:
That part confuses me, I thought it was meant to be a majority rules type of thing? I don't feel like starting a shit storm on here only I never get the info I'm looking for without 45 bs posts in between. Am I mistaken when I say it's supposed to be Majority Rule? Majority vote for the Reps. Majority reps vote the bill, etc. etc.? That's a serious question, only because I heard like 5 guys on here say "Majority doesn't rule"
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up why you don't understand what we're talking about. The constitution was not written so majority rules. It was specifically structured to PREVENT majority rule and protect your right to revolt when the inevitable overreach of power started to occur (2A).

The US was not setup as a democracy. It was created as a constitutional republic.
 
cekim said:
It is called a "Republic". I am glad you asked, I hope you read this and understand, it is the most important thing missing from our society right now. We have collapsed into a mob-rule Democracy (2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner).

To quote Barack Obama of all people:


By that he means to say that an individuals fundamental rights are not up for a vote. Majority or otherwise. The government is limited in its scope and authority, rather strictly, so that it may not offer laws for vote that violate these fundamental and civil rights.

That's what we mean by we will not subject ourselves to the Mob-Rule Democracy of past failed civilizations who collapsed precisely because they failed to recognize this, or at least recognize it in time to save themselves.

Our Republic recognized it on day -1...

Progressives have been trying to wash it from our brains every since as it is a profound threat to their desired expansion of power.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification and that makes sense. Well said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
Where your guns are made...
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
ridleyman
R
Know your target
Replies
3
Views
300
FalArAk
FalArAk
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
621
Nhusa
N
For your viewing pleasure
Replies
7
Views
628
Toast
Toast
Back
Top Bottom