Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[LordBrownTrout]

Your blind faith in the law will be your undoing.

Warrants don't mean jack if they have no other legal basis than to take a law abiding citizen's firearms.

Your views on this issue are unConstitutional.

If the cop has a warrant, his search & seizure is legal. Plus you have due process and legal means to redress the issue.

Unless you want to throw out the Constitution.

Holder is throwing out the constitution allowing governors to disregard the law that their state implemented. How do you reconcile that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He wants to hold it up, for protection, but in this case it's a target, something he can't understand.

Sad how some gun owners want to ignore civil disobedience, non-violent protest, and Due Process, and just go straight to bloodthirsty violence. Such an attitude makes all gun owners look very bad.

Limited Rational Thought. That's why they love their guns, and why we hand them to people to use for the only thing they were invented for, to kill. You don't want to think too much when that is your job and when a gun is near, that looks like the solution to many things, which is why having one around means soon enough, someone is getting dead.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your blind faith in the law will be your undoing.

Warrants don't mean jack if they have no other legal basis than to take a law abiding citizen's firearms.

Your views on this issue are unConstitutional.

If the cop has a warrant, his search & seizure is legal. Plus you have due process and legal means to redress the issue.

Unless you want to throw out the Constitution.

Holder is throwing out the constitution allowing governors to disregard the law that their state implemented. How do you reconcile that?

Holder doesn't have anything to do with this. It's way below his pay grade.

 

[Victory67]

Holder is throwing out the constitution allowing governors to disregard the law that their state implemented. How do you reconcile that?

So NOW you like Holder and his ideas?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I have the right to bear arms, period. If a cop comes and tries to take that away from me when I have done nothing illegal other owning a weapon which the state tyrants have decided I don't get to own any longer then yes I have right to shoot him

which law says so? which law says you have the legal right to shoot him dead?

If you live in CT and don't shoot a government official when he comes to your door to deny you your second amendment rights you aren't doing it right. Shoot that mother ******. It's why the founding fathers give you that ability. The only sad part of this is the guy coming to get your guns isn't necessarily the root of the problem. The person that needs to be shot is the Governor, he's the asshole that made this happen. And he's the one that needs to pay the price for the infringment.

Its statements like this that make gun owners appear unhinged.

I hope the people of CT act more rationally if a cop comes to their door to enact a legal warrant.

Also, you should avoid calling for Governors to be shot. Its probably illegal.

[MENTION=40891]AzMike[/MENTION]

The second amendment says so. Could you possibly come up with a more direct assault on a persons constitutional rights than coming after their second amendment rights with state confiscation of their weapons? I can't think of any action by a state government that runs afoul of the constitution than that.

If a cop comes to your door to confiscate your firearms there is nothing less constitutional than that the cop could possibly do.

We have a right to bear arms, period. It doesn't matter what stupid law you think overrides it, it doesn't. Coming after gun owners who have done nothing wrong is an assault. The kind of assault the second amendment was designed to prevent.

And yes the target for every gun owner in CT should be the governor for attempting to take those rights away from them. He and everyone else that voted for it are fair game.

You know what they say...

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

It's time the government fears the people again.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Holder is throwing out the constitution allowing governors to disregard the law that their state implemented. How do you reconcile that?

So NOW you like Holder and his ideas?

I'm with the states on both current issues.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Your views on this issue are unConstitutional.

If the cop has a warrant, his search & seizure is legal. Plus you have due process and legal means to redress the issue.

Unless you want to throw out the Constitution.

Holder is throwing out the constitution allowing governors to disregard the law that their state implemented. How do you reconcile that?

Holder doesn't have anything to do with this. It's way below his pay grade.

Yes it does. You can't pick and choose what's to be enforced.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He wants to hold it up, for protection, but in this case it's a target, something he can't understand.

Sad how some gun owners want to ignore civil disobedience, non-violent protest, and Due Process, and just go straight to bloodthirsty violence. Such an attitude makes all gun owners look very bad.

Limited Rational Thought. That's why they love their guns, and why we hand them to people to use for the only thing they were invented for, to kill. You don't want to think too much when that is your job and when a gun is near, that looks like the solution to many things, which is why having one around means soon enough, someone is getting dead.

No it doesn't. Where do you come up with this irrational thought?

 

[Victory67]

The second amendment says so. Could you possibly come up with a more direct assault on a persons constitutional rights than coming after their second amendment rights with state confiscation of their weapons? I can't think of any action by a state government that runs afoul of the constitution than that.

If a cop comes to your door to confiscate your firearms there is nothing less constitutional than that the cop could possibly do.

We have a right to bear arms, period. It doesn't matter what stupid law you think overrides it, it doesn't. Coming after gun owners who have done nothing wrong is an assault. The kind of assault the second amendment was designed to prevent.

And yes the target for every gun owner in CT should be the governor for attempting to take those rights away from them. He and everyone else that voted for it are fair game.

You know what they say...

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

It's time the government fears the people again.

The Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms in order to suppress insurrection, invasion, and protect the security of the USA.

Says nothing about using guns against police officers to stop them from enforcing the law.

Your disregarding of Due Process is frightening but most likely feigned silliness.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If a cop comes to your door to confiscate your firearms there is nothing less constitutional than that the cop could possibly do.

Actually there are many things including searching the place, raping the wife and kids, quartering soldiers, and executing you without trail, to name just a few. He could tell you not to criticize the government, force you to praise God, and deny you bail as well but it would be a bit late for that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sad how some gun owners want to ignore civil disobedience, non-violent protest, and Due Process, and just go straight to bloodthirsty violence. Such an attitude makes all gun owners look very bad.

Limited Rational Thought. That's why they love their guns, and why we hand them to people to use for the only thing they were invented for, to kill. You don't want to think too much when that is your job and when a gun is near, that looks like the solution to many things, which is why having one around means soon enough, someone is getting dead.

No it doesn't. Where do you come up with this irrational thought?

It's not irrational. It's statistics.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The second amendment says so. Could you possibly come up with a more direct assault on a persons constitutional rights than coming after their second amendment rights with state confiscation of their weapons? I can't think of any action by a state government that runs afoul of the constitution than that.

If a cop comes to your door to confiscate your firearms there is nothing less constitutional than that the cop could possibly do.

We have a right to bear arms, period. It doesn't matter what stupid law you think overrides it, it doesn't. Coming after gun owners who have done nothing wrong is an assault. The kind of assault the second amendment was designed to prevent.

And yes the target for every gun owner in CT should be the governor for attempting to take those rights away from them. He and everyone else that voted for it are fair game.

You know what they say...

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

It's time the government fears the people again.

The Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms in order to suppress insurrection, invasion, and protect the security of the USA.

Says nothing about using guns against police officers to stop them from enforcing the law.

Your disregarding of Due Process is frightening but most likely feigned silliness.

Isn't defending your constitutional rights against a government out of control suppressing insurrection and invasion and the citizens of the USA?

The second amendment wasn't only designed for foreign invaders, it was written specifically for the internal ones.

CT has an invasion happening and they currently have the fire power to stop it. I would hope the government would back off but if they don't then that's reason enough to exorcise the second with force.

Due process is nothing more than government submission. The government taking your rights away is the same government you look to for justice? Are you stupid?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your blind faith in the law will be your undoing.

Warrants don't mean jack if they have no other legal basis than to take a law abiding citizen's firearms.

Your views on this issue are unConstitutional.

If the cop has a warrant, his search & seizure is legal. Plus you have due process and legal means to redress the issue.

Unless you want to throw out the Constitution.

You're serious, right? What part of "illegal gun confiscation" don't you understand? If the law backing that warrant is unconstitutional, so therefore is the warrant! Idiot.

 

[Victory67]

You're serious, right? What part of "illegal gun confiscation" don't you understand? If the law backing that warrant is unconstitutional, so therefore is the warrant! Idiot.

No law is officially illegal until a court deems it so.

This is the system set up for us by our Founding Fathers. It can be slow, cumbersome, boring, and full of red tape. But its our system.

Don't like it? Leave.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're serious, right? What part of "illegal gun confiscation" don't you understand? If the law backing that warrant is unconstitutional, so therefore is the warrant! Idiot.

No law is officially illegal until a court deems it so.

This is the system set up for us by our Founding Fathers. It can be slow, cumbersome, boring, and full of red tape. But its our system.

Don't like it? Leave.

LOL. You're nuts!

No law is officially legal unless it stays within Constitutional bounds. Sometimes our courts intentionally blur those lines. You do realize our courts are rife with corruption, don't you? Even our own very Supreme Court blurred the Constitutional lines by upholding the ACA! Your faith is misplaced!

If I don't like the system, I'll do what I can to change it. You will not dare tell me to leave the country that I love. Ever. This place is supposed to support my right to disagree with the law, and question their constitutionality. If you don't like that, perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Or maybe people could just stop trying to infringe on their rights in the first place and then you wouldn't hear them talking about violence, you think?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Or maybe people could just stop trying to infringe on their rights in the first place and then you wouldn't hear them talking about violence, you think?

Precisely.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Leftist thugs are driving this nation toward civil war.

Violence is the only answer to this issue?

Historically, it seems to be the only one that usually works. This country exists because of a violent uprising, not civil disobedience and passive resistance.

Look at Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Cuba, etc. Only fools think they can change anything at the ballot box.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Leftist thugs are driving this nation toward civil war.

Violence is the only answer to this issue?

Historically, it seems to be the only one that usually works. This country exists because of a violent uprising, not civil disobedience and passive resistance.

Look at Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Cuba, etc. Only fools think they can change anything at the ballot box.

You can, once you have the box. We do it all the time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Limited Rational Thought. That's why they love their guns, and why we hand them to people to use for the only thing they were invented for, to kill. You don't want to think too much when that is your job and when a gun is near, that looks like the solution to many things, which is why having one around means soon enough, someone is getting dead.

No it doesn't. Where do you come up with this irrational thought?

It's not irrational. It's statistics.

Care linking us to these "statistics"? Or do I need to start whooping some liberal backsides on the 2nd Amendment tonight?