They’re coming for your guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
PrimusTactical said:
Don't recall them putting a Amendment about shooting LEOs because u feel you have a right to something.
Click to expand...


I have the right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear.
To comment on something else you said, I don't think the country would fall apart if the Constitution was upheld.
If you honestly believe that you should probably get your head examined. There is no "picking or choosing." It's either constitutional or it's not.
 
KDeez said:
I have the right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear.
To comment on something else you said, I don't think the country would fall apart if the Constitution was upheld.
If you honestly believe that you should probably get your head examined. There is no "picking or choosing." It's either constitutional or it's not.
Click to expand...
Bingo
 
PrimusTactical said:
Again, I refer back to my previous posts. If you don't like that piece of paper, elect someone else to write a different one. Do you shoot the mail man when he brings you a bill? How about the Tax man when they send you a bill? Talk about literally shooting the messenger. And it's always simple to say.. "don't violate" something. If guys went to work every day and picked and choosed what they enforced then this country would fall apart. I AGREE whole heartedly with yourself and many others about it being bogus laws. The difference is I say vote and actually do what the founding fathers wanted. Don't recall them putting a Amendment about shooting LEOs because u feel you have a right to something. But I do recall them giving you a right to vote....
Click to expand...

Seriously, just because a law (piece of paper) is signed and now law do we need to all follow blindly? Imagine if the 'LAW' decides that owning peanuts is bad because a kid with allergies might break into your house and become sick. So you gotta come search for peanuts? It is all arbitrary! Noncompliance as an officer or any other person is your choice. Compliance because you have been trained to obey is your blind and ignorant choice.
 
Unfortunately, In a Democtratic Republic your correct about being outvoted and you lose something. Again, it's the way the founding fathers set it up not me. How many times as it happened? Drinking age, smoking age, driving age, weapons age, EVERYTHING that gets passed in the gov't is done like that. The few that say "OPPOSE" and get out voted are exactly that, out voted. Sure you can "rebel" and smoke at 10, drink at 15, own guns at 13, drive 140mph everywhere. You can do whatever you want, but by "rebeling" your doing nothing more then doing the same stuff gang members, cartel members, etc. do. I commend you for your dedication, just wish it was actually put into good use, Run for an office.

- - - Updated - - -

KDeez said:
I have the right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear.
To comment on something else you said, I don't think the country would fall apart if the Constitution was upheld.
If you honestly believe that you should probably get your head examined. There is no "picking or choosing." It's either constitutional or it's not.
Click to expand...

Where does it say kill a LEO? Just curious...
 
chindogg said:
Seriously, just because a law (piece of paper) is signed and now law do we need to all follow blindly? Imagine if the 'LAW' decides that owning peanuts is bad because a kid with allergies might break into your house and become sick. So you gotta come search for peanuts? It is all arbitrary! Noncompliance as an officer or any other person is your choice. Compliance because you have been trained to obey is your blind and ignorant choice.
Click to expand...

Correct sir you can disregard every law you don't like. While your at it, you can rape and pillage and murder and steal. I mean those are just words on a paper..
 
What really confuses me is what do people think this country was like pre 1934? Before then anyone could buy anything and there was no national database or list of mental health. Yet somehow this country was actually thriving.
 
If the effort being expended to try and debate this (which is awesome and I commend you all, it's a good thing to see) was used to get people to participate in gov't then all kinds of stuff would happen.
 
PrimusTactical said:
And I ahve to toss one last thing about the "orders" thing. Ever served in the service? You have to do alot of stupid things you absoloutely hate and really disagree with. And sure we can disobey orders if they are really really bad ones (I've seen them), but to just decide... ok the bill was passed by a body of peers elected by the populus of the state, but i don't like it so I won't do it. Who wrote those rights down in the first place? UNFORTUNATELY, the gov't. Good old elected officials and aristocrats. God didn't come don and write that document. Politicians did... again I think they should leave alot of things alone.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights, in which the right to bear arms falls under actually WAS considered a "God-given" right (or self-evident truth for non-believers). NOT something that can be taken away by the government (for 2A they even tossed in that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part for good measure) . Enforcing a law that nullifies that God-given (Constitutional) right of a non-criminal is a direct defiance to the oath an officer takes, period. Most of the LEOs on this board will quickly correct you on that.

Not saying I agree with the "shoot first" chest thumping, but you are quite mistaken on the nature and intention of the right to bear arms from a constitutional intention standpoint. Let me pose this question.. if the Bible was deemed a threat and outlawed, would you support confiscation? Would you be just as surprised/angry if folks said they would attack LEOs for enforcing that law? After all.. the .gov said it was ok.... (and more than one government has done very similar things.. ) (My guess is you would not, but just putting it in other perspectives.)
 
Last edited:
PrimusTactical said:
Unfortunately, In a Democtratic Republic your correct about being outvoted and you lose something. Again, it's the way the founding fathers set it up not me. How many times as it happened? Drinking age, smoking age, driving age, weapons age, EVERYTHING that gets passed in the gov't is done like that. The few that say "OPPOSE" and get out voted are exactly that, out voted. Sure you can "rebel" and smoke at 10, drink at 15, own guns at 13, drive 140mph everywhere. You can do whatever you want, but by "rebeling" your doing nothing more then doing the same stuff gang members, cartel members, etc. do. I commend you for your dedication, just wish it was actually put into good use, Run for an office.

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it say kill a LEO? Just curious...
Click to expand...
The founding fathers also said "shall not be infringed", they also put limits on govt that both parties have ignored.
I have way more respect for people who ignore unjust laws than those who uphold them
 
PrimusTactical said:
Unfortunately, In a Democtratic Republic your correct about being outvoted and you lose something. Again, it's the way the founding fathers set it up not me. How many times as it happened? Drinking age, smoking age, driving age, weapons age, EVERYTHING that gets passed in the gov't is done like that. The few that say "OPPOSE" and get out voted are exactly that, out voted. Sure you can "rebel" and smoke at 10, drink at 15, own guns at 13, drive 140mph everywhere. You can do whatever you want, but by "rebeling" your doing nothing more then doing the same stuff gang members, cartel members, etc. do. I commend you for your dedication, just wish it was actually put into good use, Run for an office.

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it say kill a LEO? Just curious...
Click to expand...

That would be 2A and the "free state" part. They didn't mean the state government, they were talking about the situation of being free.

When Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" do you really think he didn't include shooting at police in his thoughts?

Who else is "tyranny in government" possibly referring to? Please explain to me who he was actually talking about if you honestly believe he wasn't referring to agents of the government.
 
Last edited:
PrimusTactical said:
Unfortunately, In a Democtratic Republic your correct about being outvoted and you lose something. Again, it's the way the founding fathers set it up not me. How many times as it happened? Drinking age, smoking age, driving age, weapons age, EVERYTHING that gets passed in the gov't is done like that. The few that say "OPPOSE" and get out voted are exactly that, out voted. Sure you can "rebel" and smoke at 10, drink at 15, own guns at 13, drive 140mph everywhere. You can do whatever you want, but by "rebeling" your doing nothing more then doing the same stuff gang members, cartel members, etc. do. I commend you for your dedication, just wish it was actually put into good use, Run for an office.
Click to expand...
You are quite incorrect, we are a Constutional Democratic Republic. There is a VERY big difference that I would like my LEOs to have a grasp at. See my "inalienable rights/self-evident truths" statement. Being "outvoted" does not nullify wrong committed in the name of law; that is actually what the Constitution is all about.

What I find just as/possibly more disturbing than the "shoot first" rhetoric is that you are former/active .mil and a police officer and you seem VERY willing to follow laws without question to leeway or differentiating mala in se vs. mala prohibta. Do not be surprised when folks get a bit edgy on that attitude, including your fellow LEOs and military as MANY of them that disagree with that stance 100% and remember their oath.
 
Last edited:
Gadsden said:
The Bill of Rights, in which the right to bear arms falls under actually WAS considered a "God-given" right (or self-evident truth for non-believers). NOT something that can be taken away by the government (for 2A they even tossed in that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part for good measure) . Enforcing a law that nullifies that God-given (Constitutional) right of a non-criminal is a direct defiance to the oath an officer takes, period. Most of the LEOs on this board will quickly correct you on that.

Not saying I agree with the "shoot first" chest thumping, but you are quite mistaken on the nature and intention of the right to bear arms from a constitutional intention standpoint. Let me pose this question.. if the Bible was deemed a threat and outlawed, would you support confiscation? Would you be just as surprised/angry if folks said they would attack LEOs for enforcing that law? After all.. the .gov said it was ok.... (and more than one government has done very similar things.. ) (My guess is you would not, but just putting it in other perspectives.)
Click to expand...

Sir, my intent with that was the fact that it was written by politicians. THEY said "god given right". Not God. They can say ANYTHING.... "god given right to kick a dog" "god given right to assault women (middle east)." And if it's a God given right, why is no one protesting Irelands laws? Or UKs? Because they don't have a document written by people that says they have a right to something. I agree with the right, I do. I just get fuzzy on how far it goes.

- - - Updated - - -

xtry51 said:
That would be 2A and the "free state" part. They didn't mean the state government, they were talking about the situation of being free.

When Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" do you really think he didn't include shooting at police in his thoughts?

Who else is "tyranny in government" possibly referring to? Please explain to me who he was actually talking about if you honestly believe he wasn't referring to agents of the government.
Click to expand...

Key word last resort...
 
xtry51 said:
That would be 2A and the "free state" part. They didn't mean the state government, they were talking about the situation of being free.

When Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" do you really think he didn't include shooting at police in his thoughts?

Who else is "tyranny in government" possibly referring to? Please explain to me who he was actually talking about if you honestly believe he wasn't referring to agents of the government.
Click to expand...

Key word last resort...
 
Gadsden said:
You are quite incorrect, we are a Constutional Democratic Republic. There is a VERY big difference that I would like my LEOs to have a grasp at. See my "inalienable rights/self-evident truths" statement. Being "outvoted" does not nullify wrong committed in the name of law; that is actually what the Constitution is all about.

What I find just as/possibly more disturbing than the "shoot first" rhetoric is that you are former/active .mil and a police officer and you seem VERY willing to follow laws without question to leeway or differentiating mala in se vs. mala prohibta. Do not be surprised when folks get a bit edgy on that attitude, including your fellow LEOs and military as MANY of them that disagree with that stance 100% and remember their oath.
Click to expand...

Let me make something clear sir. I come form a background where it's been beaten into me that you follow orders/laws because if not, people DIE. Not
oh well I won't take the trash out even thought I was told to". BUT I've never ever said just follow blindly. I've said if you don't like it, change it not disregard it.... Here's a crazy Con. question. If the states passed an Amendment taking or modifiying the 2nd Amend. what would everyone do? That's perfectly legal to happen. And again... who said those rights are inalienable/self truths..... politicians. Dudes in a bar if i recall...
 
PrimusTactical said:
Sir, my intent with that was the fact that it was written by politicians. THEY said "god given right". Not God. They can say ANYTHING.... "god given right to kick a dog" "god given right to assault women (middle east)." And if it's a God given right, why is no one protesting Irelands laws? Or UKs? Because they don't have a document written by people that says they have a right to something. I agree with the right, I do. I just get fuzzy on how far it goes.
.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that part of the foundation for keeping and bearing arms rests in laws that lend order to nature. These are laws that God ordained and implemented just as certainly as he implemented and ordained the moral law (the 10 Commandments). It’s important to recognize this because it’s fundamental to an understanding of how our inalienable rights flow to us from God rather than from government. And the foundation of those rights transcends government, which is why the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” All the Second Amendment does is merely prevent the government from infringing on that right. Since Divine Law and Natural Law both flow from God, they are in agreement with one another. For example, Divine Law teaches “Thou shall not kill,” Natural Law provides us with the intuitive knowledge that killing in cold blood is wrong. For the same laws of nature that warn our consciences against killing in cold blood or stealing, also incline us toward owning our own things and protecting the things we own. But perhaps most importantly, they also teach that our greatest property is our own life, and that such a property so precious must be defended. In fact, because God has given us life, it is our DUTY to defend it. Do yourself a favor, go read the Federalist Papers. After you do that go give yourself a history lesson on the Law of Nature and Nature's God. And after you do that go F*** yourself.
 
Cute. And intelligent. Remember the minority thing? I've had MOST of the people on here engage in a respectful, intelligent, conversation. Yet there's that guy with the jabs or jokes.... Sir I've never had any other name on here other then this one.
 
I can't read through this thread - it's mind numbing. So perhaps I repeat someone - perhaps not when I say to the: "what guns?" "boating accident" "you already came for them" "bury them" crowd. If you are at that point then you have already sold your soul to the man... You are sheep - no better than those who turn their backs on liberty. You are a larger part of the problem than you realize....
 
I was wrong, there was one more to throw out insults. THATS why we can't get anyone voted in... because one guy I was REALLY paying attention to actually learning stuff ends a decent statement with that. I can imagine you saying that during a Live Debate with some leftist nut (Obama). You lost me out of the gate with the "God implemented and Ordained"... thought it was guys who wrote it. And NO ONE said they had a vision from God when they wrote it. Certainly you can say he ALLOWS us to have them and use them. But curious as to where the from God thing comes from. Again, I reask my question..... If all the states passed a Con. Amendment that took away or modified the 2nd Amendment what would happen? And it's perfectly LEGAL according to these same documents to do that.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Cute. And intelligent. Remember the minority thing? I've had MOST of the people on here engage in a respectful, intelligent, conversation. Yet there's that guy with the jabs or jokes.... Sir I've never had any other name on here other then this one.
Click to expand...

I like that you think we are a minority. Hahaha. We outnumber JBTs about 50:1. Not kidding.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Let me make something clear sir. I come form a background where it's been beaten into me that you follow orders/laws because if not, people DIE. Not
oh well I won't take the trash out even thought I was told to". BUT I've never ever said just follow blindly. I've said if you don't like it, change it not disregard it.... Here's a crazy Con. question. If the states passed an Amendment taking or modifiying the 2nd Amend. what would everyone do? That's perfectly legal to happen. And again... who said those rights are inalienable/self truths..... politicians. Dudes in a bar if i recall...
Click to expand...

It looks like you haven't figured out that no matter what anyone says our rights are we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right. Among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The kids and adult who were killed in Sandy Hook, along with Adam Lanza's mother in her home had a right to life. I and my family have a right to life and I defend that right against tyranny and criminals with my guns. I only wish that the people in Newtown had defended their right to life.

When you can, pick up the book entitled, The Five Thousand Year Leap. It's a great book that deals with the struggle the founding fathers had with creating this republic. I highly recommend it.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok, tracking now. I'm assuming it's some derogatory term for LEO, might be wrong. I hope you do outnumber 50:1 because there are alot of LEOs so that means there should be damn near millions of you... so therefore you guys can stop any gun banning bill there is. Should be easy with that many.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Oh ok, tracking now. I'm assuming it's some derogatory term for LEO, might be wrong. I hope you do outnumber 50:1 because there are alot of LEOs so that means there should be damn near millions of you... so therefore you guys can stop any gun banning bill there is. Should be easy with that many.
Click to expand...

Student of history? Ever heard of the nazis? Jack boot thugs? No?
 
Jason Flare said:
It looks like you haven't figured out that no matter what anyone says out rights are we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right. Among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The kids and adult who were killed in Sandy Hook, along with Adam Lanza's mother in her home had a right to life. I and my family have a right to life and I defend that right against tyranny and criminals with my guns. I only wish that the people in Newtown had defended their right to life.

When you can, pick up the book entitled, The Five Thousand Year Leap. It's a great book that deals with the struggle the founding fathers had with creating this republic. I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the recommendation sir, I will buy and read that book. Again.... your quoting things written by politicians... I AGREE with everything being said, I honestly do. I also believe in those rights. It just gets fuzzy on where and how they work

- - - Updated - - -

MichaelJR said:
Student of history? Ever heard of the nazis? Jack boot thugs? No?
Click to expand...
So you outnumber Nazis 50:1? I honest to God hope so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
Guns mailed into Worcester
Replies
4
Views
506
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Libs sound reasonable about guns.
Replies
13
Views
630
Dench
Dench
What is your oldest firearm?
2 3
Replies
74
Views
1K
Maxrobot
Maxrobot
Where your guns are made...
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
ridleyman
R
Back
Top Bottom