Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[9thIDdoc]

Bullshit. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

All Constitutional Literalists know that the Bill of Rights only limits the power of the Federal govt.

Did you miss that whole Civil Rights vs Jim Crowe law thing?

 

[LOki]

Let the bodies fall where they may...

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?

The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

Shouldn't this law also be enforced?

Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.​

 

[9thIDdoc]

What I wonder is what the offending State troopers are gonna do if a couple thousand armed citizens show up at HQ demanding that they surrender their weapons.

 

[bucs90]

What I wonder is what the offending State troopers are gonna do if a couple thousand armed citizens show up at HQ demanding that they surrender their weapons.

Easy. Wait for 10,000 cops and SWAT teams from around the state to show up and handle it. Or, just wait for the FBI SWAT teams and National Guard.

But more likely, they'd bunker down and wait it out. Contrary to you gun whacko's belief....99% of cops don't want to come get your guns. They are gun owners themselves.

But...

States rights are states rights. If Connecticut gun owners don't like the chosen laws of their state, they can move. Just like they tell tax-hating conservatives or handout loving liberals....move to a state that you like.

 

[Erand7899]

Let the bodies fall where they may...

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?

The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

You use the "we", but I seriously doubt that you would be the one enforcing the law. You also seem to forget that when the shooting starts, both sides are in danger of dying.

 

[bucs90]

You zealots are gonna get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.

See, out of every 2,000 of you, MAYBE 1 or 2 might actually fight back if this thing really went down. And the SWAT team would overwhelm that 1 or 2 people, and someone could get hurt.

The rest of you will comply or move.......and ***** about it on USMB.

Just stop it.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

You have no authority to declare a law unConstitutional.

You have no authority to use violence to resist a warrant.

The second amendment is pretty clear. Any law concerning Gun Control is unconstitutional. As such, I have the right to resist a pack of posers who rule through no legitimacy because they defy the Constitution.

I assume you have a Will? Don't bother with the Living Will version, in your case that will be unnecessary.

I assume you are a sheep?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What I wonder is what the offending State troopers are gonna do if a couple thousand armed citizens show up at HQ demanding that they surrender their weapons.

This already happened at Athens, Tennessee; also known as the McMinn County War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

The cops shit their pants and surrendered their weapons when the veterans used dynamite to blow the door to their fortress. The Rule of Law was restored.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and the imaginary armed insurrection goes on, and on, and on...kind of like a video game that repeats itself perpetually...

 

[Drake_Roberts]

You zealots are gonna get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.

See, out of every 2,000 of you, MAYBE 1 or 2 might actually fight back if this thing really went down. And the SWAT team would overwhelm that 1 or 2 people, and someone could get hurt.

The rest of you will comply or move.......and ***** about it on USMB.

Just stop it.

What happens when the cops decide enough is enough? You seem to believe SWAT and military and police are never ending reserves of US diehards. Most police I know would quit and throw their lot in with the people if such a law were tried. Or simply resign. Same with the military. The government's forces are people too, people who can reach the point where they are through with the removal of our rights.

 

[Vandalshandle]

{sigh...}

 

[jon_berzerk]

300 thousand said its the peoples rights asshole

ten percent of Connecticut residents own assault weapons??????????

what a laughable statistic. where did you get that, Breitbart.com?

laugh all you want

that is the numbers the state expected

there are and had been many "assault weapon" manufacturers in the state like colt

and PTR for example

 

[jon_berzerk]

You zealots are gonna get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.

See, out of every 2,000 of you, MAYBE 1 or 2 might actually fight back if this thing really went down. And the SWAT team would overwhelm that 1 or 2 people, and someone could get hurt.

The rest of you will comply or move.......and ***** about it on USMB.

Just stop it.

What happens when the cops decide enough is enough? You seem to believe SWAT and military and police are never ending reserves of US diehards. Most police I know would quit and throw their lot in with the people if such a law were tried. Or simply resign. Same with the military. The government's forces are people too, people who can reach the point where they are through with the removal of our rights.

there are getting to be more and more jackbooted thug police

these days

so the number of militarized police is up

it is best to find out where your sheriff and sheriffs

of other counties that surround you feel about firearm rights

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?

The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

Shouldn't this law also be enforced?

Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.​

I would suspect that it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The second amendment is pretty clear. Any law concerning Gun Control is unconstitutional. As such, I have the right to resist a pack of posers who rule through no legitimacy because they defy the Constitution.

I assume you have a Will? Don't bother with the Living Will version, in your case that will be unnecessary.

I assume you are a sheep?

In your case, avoid assumptions when possible.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?

The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

You use the "we", but I seriously doubt that you would be the one enforcing the law. You also seem to forget that when the shooting starts, both sides are in danger of dying.

Forget it? Budski, I'm counting on it.

As for enforcing the law I got some good advice on that once. It stated with He Who Lives By...

 

[racewright]

What I wonder is what the offending State troopers are gonna do if a couple thousand armed citizens show up at HQ demanding that they surrender their weapons.

Easy. Wait for 10,000 cops and SWAT teams from around the state to show up and handle it. Or, just wait for the FBI SWAT teams and National Guard.

But more likely, they'd bunker down and wait it out. Contrary to you gun whacko's belief....99% of cops don't want to come get your guns. They are gun owners themselves.

But...

States rights are states rights. If Connecticut gun owners don't like the chosen laws of their state, they can move. Just like they tell tax-hating conservatives or handout loving liberals....move to a state that you like.

Owbamas doctrine of following Saul Alinskys guide for social destruction of the USA keeps people from being able to move thru economic distruction.


Obama was influenced by the writings and philosophies Saul Alinsky, author of the book, "Rules for Radicals," and later by Frank Marshall Davis, with similar philosophies.

Barak Obama followed the philosophies of these 'role models' throughout his days as a Community Organizer for ACORN, using tactics that appeared to some as 'shaking down' businesses in exchange for not branding them 'hate groups.'

And apparently Obama is still following those radical rules today.

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Now, think ...

Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States?



Origins: Saul Alinsky was the Chicago-born archaeology major who, in the midst of the Great Depression, dropped out of graduate school and became involved first with the labor movement and then with community organizing. It was in the latter field that he made his mark, working from the late 1930s through the early 1970s as a community organizer — first in poor areas of Chicago, and later in various cities across the U.S. — seeking (often through unconventional means) to "turn scattered, voiceless discontent into a united protest." Along the way he authored the books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals to provide "counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change," the latter of which opened with the following explanation of its purpose:
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
Critics of President Barack Obama (who also worked as a community organizer in Chicago prior to embarking on his political career) have often linked his name with that of Saul Alinsky, sometimes in ways that suggest the two men knew each other and/or worked together. However, they never met: Alinsky died of a heart attack in 1972, when Barack

Obama was but a ten-year-old child living in Hawaii. (Another prominent Democrat, former senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, did write her senior thesis on the topic of "An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" while she was a student at Wellesley College in 1969.)

The above-quoted list of steps for "How to create a social state," circulated in January 2014, is another example of a political linking of the names of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama. It's not something taken from the actual writings of Saul Alinsky, though, and to those familiar with his background it doesn't even sound like something he would have written (e.g., the line about "controlling health care" is anachronistic for his era, and the idea of "increasing the poverty level as high as possible" is the very antithesis of what Alinsky worked to achieve). This piece is simply a modern variant of the decades-old, apocryphal Communist Rules for Revolution piece which was originally passed along without attribution until Alinsky's name became attached to it (presumably because someone out there thought it sounded like something
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp#j8jXXHGD6OFUAhqu.99

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hey Bucs90.
Is your name in reference to the Milwaukee Bucks?
Sorry for the off topic but I've been wondering...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yeah sure. Quite telling this statement would come from a liberal. You would rather shed blood to deprive others of their rights, wouldn't you?

The law is on the books. If we enforce the law and you start shooting, you are as good as dead. It's your call.

Shouldn't this law also be enforced?

Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.​

Many Congressmen can be prosecuted under this law.

 

[The T]

You zealots are gonna get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.

See, out of every 2,000 of you, MAYBE 1 or 2 might actually fight back if this thing really went down. And the SWAT team would overwhelm that 1 or 2 people, and someone could get hurt.

The rest of you will comply or move.......and ***** about it on USMB.

Just stop it.

What happens when the cops decide enough is enough? You seem to believe SWAT and military and police are never ending reserves of US diehards. Most police I know would quit and throw their lot in with the people if such a law were tried. Or simply resign. Same with the military. The government's forces are people too, people who can reach the point where they are through with the removal of our rights.

there are getting to be more and more jackbooted thug police

these days

so the number of militarized police is up

it is best to find out where your sheriff and sheriffs

of other counties that surround you feel about firearm rights

Florida sheriffs resolve to support right to bear arms - HISTORIC CITY NEWS

Florida Sheriffs Association
Proclamation 2013-1
Support of Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

WHEREAS, the Florida Constitution in Article VIII, Section 1(d), created the Office of the Sheriff and invested the Sheriff with certain powers necessary to carry out his or her duties to serve and protect the public; and

WHEREAS, Sheriffs are charged with the public trust and are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms; and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution assures the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and

WHEREAS, Florida Sheriffs have continually supported the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, including the right to bear arms, and Florida Sheriffs affirm they will not assist, support, or condone any unconstitutional infringement of that right;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that on this 29th day of January 2012 at the Winter Conference in Destin, Florida, the Florida Sheriffs Association publicly acknowledges and reiterates its support for the rights provided by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.