Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There’s a great deal of extremism, ignorance, and stupidity here – both in the cited OP link and from most conservatives subscribing to this thread.

U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Connecticut ‘assault weapon’ ban is currently being appealed, likely on its way to the Supreme Court.

The wise and appropriate thing for Connecticut gun owners to do is allow the legal process to resolve the issue, and obey the current law until it’s invalidated.

 

[Victory67]

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.

Very sad. A good prosecutor will convince the jury to listen to their conscience, and convict the asshole of murder for killing an innocent man just doing his job.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

I hate to inform you, but you said the same lie three times in a row, not only is it a lie, but it's the complete reverse.

The People, via Trial by Jury, are the HIGHEST body RECOGNIZED by the Constitution to decide which laws are just and which laws are unjust.

If you disagree, please inform us the last time a President or Governor or Judge overturned an acquittal? Tell us the last time a legislative body (in the United States) passed a Bill of Attainder to imprison an acquitted person?

 

[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.

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

Their hands were forced by violence from the British.

If you dont see the parallels here you're blind.

 

[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".

You've been shown that individual citizens do have the right to declare a law unConstitutional via the Jury.

You've been shown that both the Supreme Court of Indiana and the SCOTUS have affirmed the right to use lethal force against unlawful seizure of person or property.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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?

Why don't Progressives use Article V of the Constitution to amend (and repeal) the Second Amendment?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Very sad. A good prosecutor will convince the jury to listen to their conscience, and convict the asshole of murder for killing an innocent man just doing his job.

Were the World War II veterans in the Mckinn County War (Battle of Athens) convicted of murder or insurrection?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

And what forced their hand?

1) The suspension of Jury trials

2) The attempt to SEIZE AND CONFISCATE FIREARMS AT LEXINGTON AND CONCORD

[MENTION=47266]Victory67[/MENTION] are you trying to pose as a leftie to make them look bad? It's like you insinuate the counter to your own arguments with the phraseology of your statements.

 

[Victory67]

This shows the dark side of Jury Nullification.

Yes, some assholes might refuse to convict a man for killing a cop who came to confiscate his illegally possessed assault weapon, just as many assholes refused to convict white men for brutally murdering black boys in The South, cause' "it just didn't feel right convicting a White man for killing a Negro".

I hope it doesn't come to this in CT. I hope they just follow the law and don't resort to violence.

 

[Victory67]

And what forced their hand?

1) The suspension of Jury trials

2) The attempt to SEIZE AND CONFISCATE FIREARMS AT LEXINGTON AND CONCORD

[MENTION=47266]Victory67[/MENTION] are you trying to pose as a leftie to make them look bad? It's like you insinuate the counter to your own arguments with the phraseology of your statements.

Let me know when the people of Connecticut suffer under taxation without Representation and are declared Traitors by The White House.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This shows the dark side of Jury Nullification.

Yes, some assholes might refuse to convict a man for killing a cop who came to confiscate his illegally possessed assault weapon, just as many assholes refused to convict white men for brutally murdering black boys in The South, cause' "it just didn't feel right convicting a White man for killing a Negro".

I hope it doesn't come to this in CT. I hope they just follow the law and don't resort to violence.

And how many blacks and whites were also spared by Juries nullifying Fugitive Slave Laws?

Oh right, for every [rare] case where a white person was unjustly acquitted, more than a hundred blacks and whites were justly acquitted for violating the Fugitive Slave Laws.

I was wondering how long it would take you to pull the race card. You must really be desperate now.

 

[Victory67]

And how many blacks and whites were also spared by Juries nullifying Fugitive Slave Laws?

Oh right, for every [rare] case where a white person was unjustly acquitted, more than a hundred blacks and whites were justly acquitted for violating the Fugitive Slave Laws.

I was wondering how long it would take you to pull the race card. You must really be desperate now.

It simply proves that Jury Nullification is not some Utopian principle that is never misused for evil purposes.

Good and just laws have been nullified by evil men.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Look, you can empty a 30 shot clip in under 10 seconds. That is effectively a machine gun. Not good for accuracy, but cleans out a grade school classroom or shopping mall rather effectively. Now as for the power of the .223, with the type of bullet that Lanza used, they do horrible damage.

Now I have a solution for the present owners of the assualt weapons. If you want to take the guns out of the house, you have to have the same license as required for a Thompson Machine Gun. But if you keep the gun in the house, then there is no problem. If you are caught with the gun outside the home or your property without the license, you are jailed, and have a felony on your record, with no right to a firearm for the rest of your life. The second law is that if you store your weapons where someone can easily get them, someone takes them and uses them in a crime, you own that crime. It is called accountability.

Oh yes, and I have been a gun owner since I was 12 years old. And am able with both rifles and handguns.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And how many blacks and whites were also spared by Juries nullifying Fugitive Slave Laws?

Oh right, for every [rare] case where a white person was unjustly acquitted, more than a hundred blacks and whites were justly acquitted for violating the Fugitive Slave Laws.

I was wondering how long it would take you to pull the race card. You must really be desperate now.

It simply proves that Jury Nullification is not some Utopian principle that is never misused for evil purposes.

Good and just laws have been nullified by evil men.

Only Progressives like yourself believe in Utopian principles. Please find where I stated that Jury Nullification is a Utopian solution.

Here's a fact: You were caught deliberating lying, by claiming that individual citizens have no authority to decide which laws are constitutional. You told that lie several times in several posts. It is your DESIRE to discourage and depress those who read your words, to make them feel powerless and insignificant against the the Raw Power of Big Government.

Goebbels would be proud of you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[MENTION=31723]9thIDdoc[/MENTION]

It appears that [MENTION=47266]Victory67[/MENTION] ninja logged once I exposed him for the Redcoat that he is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I guess we can infer from that statement that everyone who owns multiple guns and has several thousand rounds of ammo should be droned.

If they make trouble, so don't.

Thats the same analogy used a few years ago about emails: If you haven't been looking at anything bad then you have nothing to worry about.

You have a lot to worry about, so don't be stupid and try to fight armed men from the government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Or....you can just have an AJ who tells governors that they don't need to enforce state laws.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If they make trouble, so don't.

Thats the same analogy used a few years ago about emails: If you haven't been looking at anything bad then you have nothing to worry about.

You have a lot to worry about, so don't be stupid and try to fight armed men from the government.

On the contrary, why would armed men from the govt want to fight a law abiding citizen?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Thats the same analogy used a few years ago about emails: If you haven't been looking at anything bad then you have nothing to worry about.

You have a lot to worry about, so don't be stupid and try to fight armed men from the government.

On the contrary, why would armed men from the govt want to fight a law abiding citizen?

Learn history.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

When you attempt to advance on the 2nd Amendment rights (ANOTHER LAW ON THE BOOKS) of law abiding citizens, I could say likewise for you.

Let the bodies fall. The more that do the more I win. See it now?

You are certifiably insane. Do you think this a ******* game?