72 Arrested resisting gun confiscation in Maryland!

[skews13]

didn't we kick this around the other day and as usual, no post like this ever changes a mind, just makes people who already hate each other have something to bitch at each other about that given day.

What gets me about the mentally ill gun extremists, is they are the very candidates of the mentally ill restriction, that the laws in states like Maryland prohibit from owning a gun.

The laughing hyenas that just barely escape the mentally ill classification, also put themselves in a restricted classification, because they refuse to abide by the very process that makes the laws of our society they claim the 2nd amendment protects.

It has been posted here, and elsewhere multiple times, that there are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Each amendment has restrictions and limits, and that includes all of them.

The current law of the land regarding individual gun ownership is the Heller v DC decision. That decision was challenged, and the plaintiffs lost on that challenge to have the case heard.

Which means there is no 2nd amendment right to own an AR 15 rifle.

There is no 2nd amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

There is no 2nd amendment right to open carry a gun.

While you do have the individual right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense, and permitted weapons by the state in which you reside for hunting.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the sale and possession of any firearm they deem unusually dangerous through the legislative process.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the concealed, or open carrying of firearms through the legislative process.

This is not up for debate, or further argument on any level.

It is the law of the land.

Protected by the 2nd amendment.

A violation of those laws can lead to a criminal conviction that can cause your 2nd amendment rights to be taken away completely.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.

 

[Auld Phart]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

 

[skews13]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yep. And we won. Now it's the bluecoats law.

You plan on getting another color?

 

[Auld Phart]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yep. And we won. Now it's the bluecoats law.

You plan on getting another color?

Mind coming back to earth?

 

[Camp]

Even if this thread were in the political satire forum it would be garbage. Early battles of the revolutionary war were not efforts by the British to confiscate weapons from the citizenry. British Army was not a National Guard. This satire is an attempt to portray the Revolutionary War as being an issue primarily of gun rights but it relies on overzealous distortions and misdirections.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

didn't we kick this around the other day and as usual, no post like this ever changes a mind, just makes people who already hate each other have something to bitch at each other about that given day.

What gets me about the mentally ill gun extremists, is they are the very candidates of the mentally ill restriction, that the laws in states like Maryland prohibit from owning a gun.

The laughing hyenas that just barely escape the mentally ill classification, also put themselves in a restricted classification, because they refuse to abide by the very process that makes the laws of our society they claim the 2nd amendment protects.

It has been posted here, and elsewhere multiple times, that there are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Each amendment has restrictions and limits, and that includes all of them.

The current law of the land regarding individual gun ownership is the Heller v DC decision. That decision was challenged, and the plaintiffs lost on that challenge to have the case heard.

Which means there is no 2nd amendment right to own an AR 15 rifle.

There is no 2nd amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

There is no 2nd amendment right to open carry a gun.

While you do have the individual right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense, and permitted weapons by the state in which you reside for hunting.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the sale and possession of any firearm they deem unusually dangerous through the legislative process.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the concealed, or open carrying of firearms through the legislative process.

This is not up for debate, or further argument on any level.

It is the law of the land.

Protected by the 2nd amendment.

A violation of those laws can lead to a criminal conviction that can cause your 2nd amendment rights to be taken away completely.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.

What gets me about the mentally ill gun extremists, is they are the very candidates of the mentally ill restriction, that the laws in states like Maryland prohibit from owning a gun.

Exactly. Irrational fear, paranoia and continuing fantasies of killing others.

The exact people that should not have guns at all.

 

[Rustic]

Thread should be in the garbage fake news retarded forum.

Wow. Just fucking wow.

You realize it is satire, right? It is a recounting of the American Revolution using modern language.

Then why didn't you put it in satire? I did check and it wasn't, so I figured it was fake news or you were drunk.

Just another push to get rid of the second amendment

 

[mudwhistle]

Francis Wright
March 1 at 3:12pm ·


BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

History. Study it, or repeat it.


*****************************

I imagine that it wouldn't go this way today. America has lost most of its backbone in the past 250 years or so.

Regardless, it is a lesson for gun grabbers to take to heart. Regardless of your deciet, even if you manage to get control of government, you'll never get the guns.

Ever.

Samuel Adams defended the British troops in court that killed the settlers if I remember correctly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yes, it's exactly the same, dope.

There is no constitutional right to armed insurrection. If you don't like laws, you challenge them in court not in the street with weapons.

 

[gipper]

Francis Wright
March 1 at 3:12pm ·


BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

History. Study it, or repeat it.


*****************************

I imagine that it wouldn't go this way today. America has lost most of its backbone in the past 250 years or so.

Regardless, it is a lesson for gun grabbers to take to heart. Regardless of your deciet, even if you manage to get control of government, you'll never get the guns.

Ever.

Samuel Adams defended the British troops in court that killed the settlers if I remember correctly.

You mean John Adams.

 

[Auld Phart]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yes, it's exactly the same, dope.

There is no constitutional right to armed insurrection. If you don't like laws, you challenge them in court not in the street with weapons.

Doesn't seem to answer the question, does it?

were the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "

 

[there4eyeM]

"Assault rifle" is a term from the second world war, although the Thompson of WWI probably was a first.
But, why get into actual definition of words; it never achieves anything on these threads.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yes, it's exactly the same, dope.

There is no constitutional right to armed insurrection. If you don't like laws, you challenge them in court not in the street with weapons.

Doesn't seem to answer the question, does it?

were the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "

It's not the same thing, dope.

We aren't colonists living under foreign rule.

This little fantasy takes place today. It would be the insurrectionists that are the enemy of the republic just as they were in 1861.

 

[Rustic]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

didn't we kick this around the other day and as usual, no post like this ever changes a mind, just makes people who already hate each other have something to bitch at each other about that given day.

What gets me about the mentally ill gun extremists, is they are the very candidates of the mentally ill restriction, that the laws in states like Maryland prohibit from owning a gun.

The laughing hyenas that just barely escape the mentally ill classification, also put themselves in a restricted classification, because they refuse to abide by the very process that makes the laws of our society they claim the 2nd amendment protects.

It has been posted here, and elsewhere multiple times, that there are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Each amendment has restrictions and limits, and that includes all of them.

The current law of the land regarding individual gun ownership is the Heller v DC decision. That decision was challenged, and the plaintiffs lost on that challenge to have the case heard.

Which means there is no 2nd amendment right to own an AR 15 rifle.

There is no 2nd amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

There is no 2nd amendment right to open carry a gun.

While you do have the individual right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense, and permitted weapons by the state in which you reside for hunting.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the sale and possession of any firearm they deem unusually dangerous through the legislative process.

The states have the Constitutionally sanctioned power to prohibit the concealed, or open carrying of firearms through the legislative process.

This is not up for debate, or further argument on any level.

It is the law of the land.

Protected by the 2nd amendment.

A violation of those laws can lead to a criminal conviction that can cause your 2nd amendment rights to be taken away completely.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.

Innocent till proven guilty

 

[Rustic]

"Assault rifle" is a term from the second world war, although the Thompson of WWI probably was a first.
But, why get into actual definition of words; it never achieves anything on these threads.

An ar15 is just an sporting rifle...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thread should be in the garbage fake news retarded forum.

Wow. Just fucking wow.

You realize it is satire, right? It is a recounting of the American Revolution using modern language.

Then why didn't you put it in satire? I did check and it wasn't, so I figured it was fake news or you were drunk.

You really didnt see from the beginning what the post was about?

 

[depotoo]

You are so wrong.

Actually, if you really knew American history, you would know.

How is that My problem?

Because no one has a clue what you're posting, dope.

It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with fantasy.

Sure, dope. It's just like the revolution. The founders would all be up in arms over the tyranny of a decision that they empowered the judiciary to make in a system they designed.


It's fantasy.

Bull crap. You want the truth, then read this from academia. It gets to the heart of the matter in the later page 200’s, including historical references and statements. You can start there, for reference
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

 

[skews13]

For those still confused, a 1995 WP article, recalling the event from 1775,-
WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS
Part of the article-

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them. A patriot poet described Gen. Gage's order as saying:

Except the governor and the national guard aren't red coats and would be acting within the limits of the law and the constitution.

Just curious, but, weren't the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "?

Yes, it's exactly the same, dope.

There is no constitutional right to armed insurrection. If you don't like laws, you challenge them in court not in the street with weapons.

Doesn't seem to answer the question, does it?

were the redcoats "acting within the limits of the law "

It's not the same thing, dope.

We aren't colonists living under foreign rule.

This little fantasy takes place today. It would be the insurrectionists that are the enemy of the republic just as they were in 1861.

Yep, and the Constitution gives Congress the power to squash any insurrection or rebellion by any means necessary.

That means the use of helicopter gunships and jet fighter aircrfat to drop ordinance on compounds or individuals and groups associated with that insurrection.

 

[iceberg]

"Assault rifle" is a term from the second world war, although the Thompson of WWI probably was a first.
But, why get into actual definition of words; it never achieves anything on these threads.

actually it's a german reference.

we get into the definition of words because, "words matter". holding the sarcasm, they do. the AR 15 by original definition is NOT an assault rifle so the left changed the definition to fit their emotional need to call it one and ban it.

when you ask what about it makes it "assault" they can't list a single trait that other guns they didn't care about previously also share. this shows serious ignorance from the left on this topic and out of frustration to not be able to define their hate, they now hate it all and want semi automatic guns banned.

but they're not coming for our guns.

for reference again:
LOL! Shannon Watts sounds alarm about this SCARY looking gun, self-beclowning ensues

bolt action .22 and the left goes crazy cause it looks mean.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You are so wrong.

Actually, if you really knew American history, you would know.

Because no one has a clue what you're posting, dope.

It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with fantasy.

Sure, dope. It's just like the revolution. The founders would all be up in arms over the tyranny of a decision that they empowered the judiciary to make in a system they designed.


It's fantasy.

Bull crap. You want the truth, then read this from academia. It gets to the heart of the matter in the later page 200’s. You can start there, for reference
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

I never disputed that, dope.

I'm disputing the idea that the OP's example is in any way a relevant analogy to the revolution.