Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[9thIDdoc]

"You on the other hand, do not have the right to use violence go resist a lawful order."

Get a clue! If it is unconstitutional it is NOT a legal order.

You have no legal standing to unilaterally declare a law "unConstitutional".

You certainly don't have the legal right to use violence to prevent a law being enforced, because you unilaterally declared it "unConstitutional".

Wrong. This Country and the Constitution were made by "We the People".
And-if necessary- it is "We the people" who are charged with enforcing it.

 

[Victory67]

The law says, and a law-abiding American agrees, that the way to deal with an "illegal" law is to fight it in the courts.

And if the courts declare the law to be Constitutional, then you demand you legislators change the law.

And if the legislators refuse to change the law, then you elect new ones.

And if those new ones refuse to change the law, then you get your fellow citizens to deem you innocent of all charges by Jury Nullification of the law.

And if your fellow Americans disagree with you, then you are shit out of luck.

 

[Victory67]

Wrong. This Country and the Constitution were made by "We the People". And-if necessary- it is "We the people" who are charged with enforcing it.

I hate to inform you, but "We The People", is more than just you.

You alone don't get to decide what laws are and are not legal.

Not even you and 100 of your best buddies and your relatives gets to make this decision.

 

[skookerasbil]

Easily the biggest news story in the country today. Cant wait to see this unfold!!! I want to see these meatheads send black vest groups into homes to confiscate guns.......

This shit has been coming.......connect the dots all the way back to Sandy Hook. This is where they've decided to do a test run. Ive lived 53 years and this is the biggest crock of shit Ive ever seen.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wrong. This Country and the Constitution were made by "We the People". And-if necessary- it is "We the people" who are charged with enforcing it.

I hate to inform you, but "We The People", is more than just you.

You alone don't get to decide what laws are and are not legal.

Not even you and 100 of your best buddies and your relatives gets to make this decision.

And if the Constitution were not more than the government would like it to be we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Another example of left hypocrisy.

Immigration laws are on the books. Illegal aliens break them daily. They attack border guards and threaten their lives. Border guards cannot fight back. Illegals win.

If border guards shoot, they go to prison. We've seen that before.

So, liberals only want laws they make to be upheld, like gun control and Obamacare. Any other law they don't like gets ignored and states get sued for obeying them.

Laws have to be constitutional and it's okay to stand up to an oppressive government. Of course, that is the reason behind the 2nd amendment. I don't know that gun owners would actually shoot because most people don't have the ignorant gang mentality, but states will have a fight on their hands if they attempt to trample people's rights.

 

[skookerasbil]

Unfortunately, "assault" weapons bans have been upheld by the US Supreme Court as being constitutional.

I am not sure a requirement for grandfathered weapons to be registered has ever been tested in court, though. That is what is at issue here.

ARs have less power than a deer rifle or several handguns. The left has jumped on the term assault without even understanding that particular rifle. Many even think that a .223 is fully automatic.

Nobody on the left in here understands this. These meatheads dive for cover at the photo of a gun.

My Semi-auto Mossberg can dispense 1 pound of lead within 3 seconds ( 8 rounds of 00 buck )......223 rounds are a joke by comparison within 50 yards. This whole "assault" gun thing is a total ruse. Our country is being taken down by the statist left.....the Constitution doesn't mean dick to these haters.........but this story maybe be the beginning of an about face and tens of million are welcoming what looks to be becoming the inevitable.

 

[racewright]

Easily the biggest news story in the country today. Cant wait to see this unfold!!! I want to see these meatheads send black vest groups into homes to confiscate guns.......

This shit has been coming.......connect the dots all the way back to Sandy Hook. This is where they've decided to do a test run. Ive lived 53 years and this is the biggest crock of shit Ive ever seen.

This is what happens when the do-gooder mentality runs the show--get ready for another ruby ridge--for you young ones, a war decorated Green Beret wife was killed by over reacting FBI assholes while investigating a short barrel shotgun (1/4 inch to short) .
Green beret receive a big settlement from all you tax payers. Will happen again.
Oh did I mention the dead FBI agent, no one went to jail for killing him.

 

[bodecea]

Leftist thugs are driving this nation toward civil war.

Violence is the only answer to this issue?

It took violenece to give us the right to carry arms, it might take violence to keep them. Socialist need to leave this country if they don't like our freedoms and stop trying to change things.

Because we know this is a question of the gun owners of CT not having the say by voting for such laws...or such legislators.




Oops.

 

[racewright]

The left has forgotten what happened to Al Gore because of his anti Gun position, probably cost him the Presidency.

They think they have enough power to take the guns, maybe legally but many will die if they try.
I was told to take this M16 and go kill fellow humans, and now you are going to tell me I can not defend my self with a similar weapon--what's that really about huh????

 

[Victory67]

Why don't gun owners just use the law to change the law?

Why do they just talk about violence as the only solution to their problems?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

People talking about using deadly violence to deal with this issue, makes the law against Assault Weapons seem justified.

If you think the only way to deal with political dissagreements is with deadly violence, you may not be mentally fit to possess a firearm.

I'm sure glad our forefathers didnt think like that.

 

[Victory67]

People talking about using deadly violence to deal with this issue, makes the law against Assault Weapons seem justified.

If you think the only way to deal with political dissagreements is with deadly violence, you may not be mentally fit to possess a firearm.

I'm sure glad our forefathers didnt think like that.

Our Founding Fathers used up all legal means to change things.

Their hands were forced by violence from the British.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you refuse and resist the police from seizing you firearms in defense of your liberties, they will commit violence against you and kill you.

Also, you ignored the other half of my statement. Why don't you use the Article V to repeal the Second Amendment?

Yes, if you refuse the police with violence they are legally allowed to use violence against you to force your compliance.

Its interesting how much you guys talk about the law, the Constitution, and legality and yet ignore the law.

Even if you personally believe a law is illegal you are still obliged to comply with it until the law is revoked. Or be willing to face the legal consequences of failing to abide by a law.

No, the Supreme Court of Indiana and the SCOTUS itself has ruled against your argument:

The Right to Forcefully Resist Unlawful Arrest (using deadly force, if necessary) | Cop Block

This same Common Law right still exists in America today. Until 1942, when the Interstate Commission on Crime published the Uniform Arrest Act, every state recognized and protected the right to resist. The first major case regarding the right to forcefully resist unlawful arrest was decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1893. In Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893) the defendant Plummer was convicted in trial court of manslaughter of a police officer. The Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that, by the judge not giving adequate instructions to the jury regarding self-defense and the alternatives of conviction on a lesser charge or even acquittal, the trial court erred; and Plummer’s manslaughter conviction was reversed.

n 1900 the Supreme Court of the United Stats mirrored and affirmed the earlier 1893 Plummer v. State ruling by the Supreme Court of Indiana. Under the still-controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, John Bad Elk vs. U.S,. 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, (1900) and subsequent court decisions, a man faced with the prospect of unlawful arrest – that is, an armed abduction – has a lawful right to use any appropriate means, including lethal force, to defend himself. Further, other people witnessing an unlawful arrest possess the same Common Law right to prevent such an arrest, using lethal force if necessary – even if the Plummer v. State man being arrested has not contested or resisted his own arrest.

Get an education commie.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And to which you brought an AR-15, to a drone fight. Good luck with that.

You severely overestimate the power of technology. The Afghans are still fighting, and they don't even have 1/100th the quantity of firearms in the United States nor as good a s quality and rather archaic forms of ammunition.

And you are ignoring the fact that we can kill you based on nothing more than your cell phone GPS signal, and do it from Nevada, in the middle of the night, by autopilot, set on a timer. Film at 11.

Only a moron would have GPS tracking devices on them if they were expecting an attack by a First World foe.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When gun owners stop talking about violence and start talking about civil disobedience and passive resistance, they will get a lot more respect.

Going to someone's house, kicking down the door and taking their crap is no less violent than that same person defending what is theirs.
If the government wants to make that choice ... Then that is on them.

.

Don't listen to him, BlackSand. On another thread, I spoke about that very thing--peaceful resistance before the storm, indeed, the last resort to avert the storm--and this Mary incessantly twisted the matter as he has here. He got all high mighty, as if recent municipal codes trumped established natural, constitutional and case law, like he was fit to instruct real men and patriots, all the while accusing those who coolly, peacefully yet firmly, stand on their rights, at checkpoints or police stops, for example, of being unruly, disrespectful, you know, of being trouble makers.

I used to try and reason with Marys like Victory, but I now understand that all liars are cowards, Pollyannaish little pricks that deserve nothing but the back of my hand . . . rhetorically speaking, you understand. I’m a peaceful man.

When I hear the irrational and self-righteous baby talk of bullies and cowards like Victory, I’m reminded of the following exchange from the Sound of Music:

Captain von Trapp: If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.

Herr Zeller: You flatter me, Captain.

Captain von Trapp: Oh, how clumsy of me - I meant to accuse you.​

Some folks are just born collaborators, willing accomplices by nature. The likes of Victory and PaintMyHouse are bootlick conformists, the very same kind of sheep that stood by while the Nazis came for the guns and then came back for the Jews. They prize their cowardly hides and the approval of men more than the rule of law and human dignity.

 

[Victory67]

No, the Supreme Court of Indiana and the SCOTUS itself has ruled against your argument:

The Right to Forcefully Resist Unlawful Arrest (using deadly force, if necessary) | Cop Block

This same Common Law right still exists in America today. Until 1942, when the Interstate Commission on Crime published the Uniform Arrest Act, every state recognized and protected the right to resist. The first major case regarding the right to forcefully resist unlawful arrest was decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1893. In Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893) the defendant Plummer was convicted in trial court of manslaughter of a police officer. The Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that, by the judge not giving adequate instructions to the jury regarding self-defense and the alternatives of conviction on a lesser charge or even acquittal, the trial court erred; and Plummer’s manslaughter conviction was reversed.

n 1900 the Supreme Court of the United Stats mirrored and affirmed the earlier 1893 Plummer v. State ruling by the Supreme Court of Indiana. Under the still-controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, John Bad Elk vs. U.S,. 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, (1900) and subsequent court decisions, a man faced with the prospect of unlawful arrest – that is, an armed abduction – has a lawful right to use any appropriate means, including lethal force, to defend himself. Further, other people witnessing an unlawful arrest possess the same Common Law right to prevent such an arrest, using lethal force if necessary – even if the Plummer v. State man being arrested has not contested or resisted his own arrest.

Get an education commie.

Unlawful arrest means by an average citizen trying to take you into custody or prevent your movement from point A to point B.

This has nothing to do with you're using deadly force to resist arrest by a police officer enforcing laws on the books.

The Supreme Court ruling also talks about how the arresting officer was not conducting a legal arrest. It was without a warrant and without any legal standing.

Unless you know for a sure that a police officer has no legal standing to arrest you, you best let him arrest you cause if yuo assault him you will be charged with assault and of you kill him you are going to the gas chamber.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"You on the other hand, do not have the right to use violence go resist a lawful order."

Get a clue! If it is unconstitutional it is NOT a legal order.

You have no legal standing to unilaterally declare a law "unConstitutional".

You certainly don't have the legal right to use violence to prevent a law being enforced, because you unilaterally declared it "unConstitutional".

Yes, he does have standing. It's called the Jury Box.

Not even the President or SCOTUS can overturn an acquittal by a Jury. The People, like 9thIDdoc, myself and yourself, are the only one explicitly given power to decide what is and what is not Constitutional, and to decide what actions by law enforcement are Lawful or Unlawful.

If a man kills several Government Agents defending his Right to Bear Arms, you will never find a Jury that will unanimously convict him, not even in New York. The Jury would acquit or hang, most likely the Jury would hang since there will always be some Loyalists like yourself.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence;

 

[Victory67]

According to the Supreme Court, a law enforcement officer has the right to arrest you if you have violated a law on the books that brings with it arrest and indictment if the law is violated.

If you violate a felony or misdemeanor law on the books and an officer has been given the duty of arresting you for violating this law, you MUST comply or you are breaking the law.

This goes for the guys in CT with the assault weapons.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The law says, and a law-abiding American agrees, that the way to deal with an "illegal" law is to fight it in the courts.

And if the courts declare the law to be Constitutional, then you demand you legislators change the law.

And if the legislators refuse to change the law, then you elect new ones.

And if those new ones refuse to change the law, then you get your fellow citizens to deem you innocent of all charges by Jury Nullification of the law.

And if your fellow Americans disagree with you, then you are shit out of luck.

The Trial of Peter Zenger and the Trial of William Penn say otherwise. Would you like a 1000 page list of 20th and 21st Century usages of Jury Nullification?