Connecticut Gun Impasse: Signs of a New Civil War?

Print page

POST_2014_03_25

The state of Connecticut had become the front lines for the gun debate. Gun owners and state legislators are squaring off against one another, with neither side being willing to budge.

While legislators have passed new laws restricting firearm sales and requiring registration, the people of Connecticut are not complying.

This impasse came about in response to the December 2012 mass shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School. Some say that the Connecticut State Legislature overreacted in passing some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The new laws made a number of changes, many of which are blatant violations of our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Among these violations is a ban on what are being defined as “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.”

As with much of what the gun control crowd is doing, these terms are not being used correctly. They are defining assault weapons as any firearms that are military in appearance and high capacity magazines as those which hold more than 10 rounds.

In order to accommodate current gun owners, a grandfather clause was written in the law, requiring registration of those guns and magazines so that the owners could keep them. While the whole of the new law has not yet been put into effect, the registration requirement had a January 1st, 2014 deadline. By that date, the state had received only about 50,000 registration applications, with anywhere from 20,000 to 300,000 gun owners defying this law and refusing to register.

Several different gun owners groups have publicly declared to the Connecticut state government “If you want them, come and take them.” While no orders have been given to state police agencies to do just that, people are holding their breath and waiting. Should the state police receive and carry out those orders, we could see the first shots fired in a new civil war; one in which conservative citizens of the United States are taking a stand against what is becoming a tyrannical government.

One problem which the Connecticut state government faces is that the about two-thirds of the police in the state are amongst those who have refused to register their firearms and magazines. This discovery, which was made by a legislative intern whose father is a police chief, has lawmakers and bureaucrats stopped in their tracks. They can’t depend on the people they need to enforce this law and they can’t even fire the offending police officers, as that would leave the state and municipalities without enough police on duty to keep the peace.

It’s one thing for lawmakers to pass laws, but it’s another thing to enforce them. Ultimately, the people either choose to obey the law or not. If they don’t, they must be forced to obey or forced to pay some consequence. But what happens when the state is unable to force its will upon the people?

This is the trap that the Connecticut legislature has placed themselves in. If they can’t enforce the law, then it’s as if the law doesn’t exist. But to enforce the law, they’ll have to find the gun owners and send police to their homes. Without registration of those firearms, finding those gun owners will be a difficult and dangerous job.

A Big Armed Camp Named America

Many gun owners, conservatives and preppers across the country have been waiting for this point to be reached. Ever since President Obama declared war on our 2nd Amendment rights, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed in preparation for laws just as we see here in Connecticut.

America has become an armed camp, with over 270 million guns in the hands of her citizens. Should the government decide to go after those guns, many would stand their ground, fighting and dying, rather than giving up their guns.

This problem may be starting in Connecticut, but you can be sure that it won’t stop there. Many other blue states as well as the federal government are working to bring about the same sorts of restrictions.

New Jersey may be the next state where we see a standoff between gun owners and the government, as the legislature is seeking to pass laws as restrictive as those in Connecticut. Gun owners groups in New Jersey have made the same statements as their brothers in Connecticut.

There are only two ways for this to end. Either the government is going to have to back off on their illegal trampling of our 2nd Amendment rights, or we’re going to see bloodshed.

If there is any one trigger that could start the 2nd American Revolution, this is it. When police start going door to door, breaking into home with SWAT tactics, so that they can steal our guns, American citizens will either have to rise up and take our country back or become slaves of a new communist regime.

BPH1.2

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

Video first seen on The Blaze.

30,161 total views, 1 views today

Bill White

About Bill White

Bill White is the author of Conquering the Coming Collapse, and a former Army officer, manufacturing engineer and business manager. More recently, he left the business world to work as a cross-cultural missionary on the Mexico border. Bill has been a survivalist since the 1970s, when the nation was in the latter days of the Cold War. He had determined to head into the Colorado Rockies, should Washington ever decide to push the button. While those days have passed, the knowledge Bill gained during that time hasn’t. He now works to educate others on the risks that exist in our society and how to prepare to meet them. You can send Bill a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.
Rate this article!
[Total: 1    Average: 1/5]

Comments

  1. robert smith says:

    When will people learn how to count!!!??? 1st revolution = 1776 ; 2nd revolution = 1861 ; 3rd revolution = ????

    (17)
    (3)
  2. I don't get why you think the second amendment gives the right to own assault weapons. It gives the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't specify what type. This type of weapon did not even exist at the time the Constitution was written. I also don't get why you classify the Connecticut state government as tyrannical. Is it simply because they are making laws you don't agree with? How about the many, many Connecticut citizens that do agree with them. Don't they count? When they worry for their safety in the face of so many guns and a refusal to obey related laws, don't their opinions count for something?

    (9)
    (119)
    • It is to late to try to educate people like you, unfortunately. You do not WANT to hear the logic or reasoning, and will refute it with some canned Liberal argument, insult someone and declare the debate over. That has become obvious.

      (78)
      (6)
      • No, I am not refuting you with some "canned" liberal argument. I am asking for the logic and reasoning, and you replied with an attack. In fact, I asked three separate questions, all valid, for which I would like a response, not an attack.
        Do you refute my statement that the Constitution does not describe the weapons one is permitted to carry? Do you refute my statement that assault weapons and magazines did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution?
        The article referred to "the government" as being tyrannical, so, since this is a state government making a state law, I assume that the author is saying that the government of Connecticut is being tyrannical. If not, then was the author referring to the federal government? And if so, how does the state instituting its own laws make the federal government tyrannical. And finally, Don, did I insult anyone by asking questions? Did I declare the debate over by asking questions? You said it was obvious, yet.....

        (9)
        (64)
        • The constitution permitted weapons that were top of the line for that day and age. Just because history and technology marched forward does not mean that we are relegated to weaponry of the 1770.

          (64)
          (5)
          • That is a canned answer if I ever heard one. But no one is a criminal until he or she has broken the law. Thus, I would like some safety from the person who has not yet, but is about to break the law. The person who is not a criminal, but is about to become one when he or she starts shooting up a movie theater, or an elementary school, or a post office, etc.....

            (5)
            (54)
          • There is nothing in the Constitution that says that it allowed the top of the line for that day. This whole argument and the assumptions made are one-sided and silly. And that is all I will say - Bye.

            (16)
            (17)
        • Rick Stiles says:

          Sharon,
          I accept that I can be punished for taking actions that infringe on the life or liberty of another. I strongly resist punishment for actions I might take. Your argument is to punish those you fear might do something. Under that logic, you are as guilty as any gun owner, because you might harm another. If you say, "I would never harm anyone except in self-defense", then you must support the right of peaceful people to own firearms. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocrite.

          (43)
          (8)
          • Since when is that my argument? In fact, I have not made arguments so much as to ask questions. Questions, I note, that are not answered. I am simply attacked. There is no punishment involved in asking for background checks, nor is there any punishment involved in banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines as they are not necessary. Pistols, rifles and shot guns are pretty effective for self defense, as are compound bows, knives and variously styled clubs. And Rick, since I am a gun owner and believe in the second amendment, then clearly I support the right of peaceful people to own firearms. But the guys who shot up the movie theater, and the elementary school, and the post offices, might not have done so much damage if these rules had been in place.

            So, at this point, by availing myself of my first amendment right to free expression, I have been vilified, called names, my patriotism and character attacked...

            (8)
            (33)
          • Sharon:
            Do you think the current gun laws would have stopped the shootings mentioned?

            (14)
            (1)
          • Rick Stiles says:

            I don't think any law will stop a person bent on harming someone else. They will use force to achieve their goals. They will pick where, when, how and why they attack others, to best accomplish their goals. They will choose what they use in this attack, irregardless of laws. They will continue their attack until they exhaust their capacity, fulfill their goals, or meet a greater opposing force.

            If law enforcement is available to stop them before they harm me or my family, I would prefer that. But LE must be immediately available, not available in 1 minute, 5 minutes, or longer. People die in those minutes. While waiting on law enforcement, I want the unhindered capability to counter that aggression against me or my family. I vehemently oppose any effort that curtails my opportunity to defend my life because others reduced my options. I am a free person who simply wants to live in peace along side my fellow citizens, but sometimes self-defense is required to maintain that peace.

            (11)
            (1)
        • pullyourheadout says:

          A read of the Federalists papers should reveal your answer. The founding fathers wrote it down for you, defining what they meant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means for the people to throw off an oppressive government, if need be. Hard to do that with a musket.

          (49)
          (4)
          • Just as hard to do it with an assault weapon if the government is coming after you with sophisticated military weaponry. And no one is talking about muskets.

            (7)
            (35)
        • Random Erik says:

          First of all, the Constitution does not "permit" the people to arm themselves. It states that it is their born right to do so - and the government is not permitted to interfere with that. Firearms did indeed exist at the time the Constitution was written and adopted. As you have pointed out, it does not specify any particular type of arms, so to argue that "these types of weapons didn't exist then" is only partially correct, but also entirely pointless.

          The Constitution is not a document which grants the people anything. It is a document written with the sole intent of placing restrictions on our government, so that we could remain a free people governed of and by ourselves. It states the rights that we, as Americans, are born with, and which no agent or representative of government can take away. When a legislative body chooses to enact laws which violate the Constition, then yes, it may be rightfully viewed as tyrannical.

          (45)
          (3)
          • I think you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution.

            (0)
            (39)
          • Random Erik says:

            No, I think it is you who is confused. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution - the first ten amendments to be exact. It is this collection of amendments which guarantees you - yes, you - along with every other citizen, our basic rights and freedoms. It is "the supreme law of the land," by both declaration and definition... whether your emotions happen to agree or not.

            You have asked to have your questions answered, and declared that you weren't seeking to argue. People are attempting to do just that. You now seem to be answering those replies with argument - some of which belies a lack of certain fundamental knowledge and understanding of the topic at hand. Despite the fact that there are those who have poured millions of dollars into trying to turn this into an emotional issue, it is not an emotional issue. It is a matter of preserving the freedom and welfare of Americans and those of America itself. Why do you think the police don't support the legislation? I can tell you, the majority of law enforcement here in New York don't support the SAFE Act either. In fact, some sheriffs are pushing concealed carry permits now, while the State Police are only enforcing parts of the new law under the threat of termination.

            You stated some statistics in another post. I find those numbers questionable at best, considering more Americans have been motivated to purchase firearms since these types of legislations began to appear than ever before.

            You can find a poll to back any argument, but gun sales figures don't lie, neither do record numbers of first time gun purchases which require the FBI to hire additional staff just to do background checks.

            We've all heard those same numbers here in New York. We all know they aren't true.

            (41)
            (2)
        • The 2nd amendment also doesn't restrict any arms that "We the People" are entitled to "keep and bear" ... this is to ensure that American citizens man sustain our constitutional rights of freedom and liberty to not only oppose, but to also defeat, an oppressive and tyrannical government ... this is our right, our purpose and our intent ... "We the People" will not surrender these rights, our freedom, our liberty or will to sustain them.

          (12)
          (2)
        • # 1 when the constitution was written we the people had the same weapons as the government or close to it.# 2 the conn. gov. has written a law that is against the constitution,which makes them not only tyrants but also traitor # 3 the only people that would back a law like this is a mind washed lib terd that would love to see this great country on its knees

          (10)
          (2)
        • Good Evening, Sharon,
          I think you misunderstand the nature of the Constitution. When we're arguing about what's legal or not, we must remember that this primary Law of the Land sets forth how the Federal government may act in particular. Any authority that has not been explicitly given to the Federal government is assumed to have been given instead to the States.

          If something is not EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Constitution, it is inherently already allowed. Thus, for general purposes, the Second Amendment already inherently allows for ALL types of firearms. Any law that hinders that right had best make plain the reason for why that law has a need to exist. Sadly, too many people--and government agencies--don't seem to comprehend this principle.

          As to the character of the State government of Connecticut, let's remember that laws have been passed in the State of Connecticut that both over-rule the will of the majority of people AND contradict the Second Amendment directly. By virtue of these two factors, minority will working to violate the Constitution, the government in Connecticut has become motivated by tyranny and fear, not majority will--freedom--and respect for human dignity.

          Many, many people in Connecticut likely do agree with the law, but it appears that they aren't necessarily the majority, nor do they present a view of the Constitution that we should honor. Being a citizen requires that we abide by ALL the rules set forth by said Constitution, not just the ones we like.

          I would suggest that the States of this Nation have been on a collision course with this problem since the first law attempted to ban machine guns. ...If not earlier.

          (10)
          (1)
    • Criminals don't follow laws, so your worry about your safety is invalid if you think laws will protect you from a criminal.

      (46)
      (6)
      • That is a canned answer if I ever heard one. But no one is a criminal until he or she has broken the law. Thus, I would like some safety from the person who has not yet, but is about to break the law. The person who is not a criminal, but is about to become one when he or she starts shooting up a movie theater, or an elementary school, or a post office, etc.....

        (7)
        (33)
        • Random Erik says:

          Well Sharon, according to FBI data, more people are murdered in this country annually with blunt objects such as hammers and baseball bats, than are killed with firearms.

          (29)
          (6)
        • So Sharon now you want the "thought police" to arrest people for what they might do at some time in the future. Just how do we find these people? At what age do we begin to arrest the? Two years old? Nine? Ten? What you are proposing is just what was written about in the book 1984 and A Brave New World. It also fits well with Karl Marx's vision for the world. This idea has been tried to varying degrees over a large part of the world with no success yet, USSR, Cuba, Germany 1939, China, Venezuela, Cambodia and others. It has always failed to produce the Utopia you so desire. Be careful for what you pray, you just may get it.

          (20)
          (3)
          • She lives in the world, or wants to, like that movie "Minority Report" where precrime was projected by those druggie-born babies and have "premonitions" about crime that has not occurred yet..... no sense arguing with her. Obviously limiting anyones right to bear and keep arms is an infringement on their freedoms. Anyone that argues different is just looney. Anyone that argues, but people are not violent until their violent are clueless.

            (5)
            (5)
      • Anthony McCann says:

        Someone isn't watching the news.

        (4)
        (0)
    • 2 things - The Second Amendment does not give the right to own firearms. It states that the government cannot make laws making it illegal for citizens to own firearms (e.g. "shall not be infringed"). That is a huge difference. If it did grant a right, then it could be taken away. The Bill of Rights are foremost a restriction on the government. And secondly, the argument that "assault weapons" (SIC) were not around when the Bill of Rights were written is a disingenuous argument at best. Computers weren't around either, but you still expect the government to not restrict your speech even if you are using a computer to communicate your ideas.

      (35)
      (8)
      • You too are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution.

        (0)
        (33)
        • You need to get a copy of the U. S. Constitution and read it. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Come back when you are better prepared. Your ignorance is showing. LOL

          (17)
          (0)
          • LOL, true..... here, I did the Democrat's homework assignment for her.

            Ms. Democrat, see the first line from wikipedia.... thank you!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

            The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been extended to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, a process known as incorporation.

            (12)
            (3)
    • Listen.... nowhere... NOWHERE.. is it written that you, or anyone else, has the right to "feel comfortable". But it IS clearly written that Americans have the right to keep and bear any firearm that they want and that it is unlawful to impose any restrictions on that. Gun owners have bent over to make non gun owners comfortable since the very beginning and we are DONE with it. You say that it is not written that we have the right to have "assault weapons". It does not specify in any way that we do not have the right to. That is like trying to compare a Ford Model T and a brand new F150 Raptor. It is the same damn thing, simply improved technology. Shut your liberal anti-American mouth and go stand in a welfare line for your government hand outs you turd. Don't worry - if you get into some trouble Big Brother will be there to bail you out lol

      (41)
      (8)
      • The lowest form of debate is name calling, and making assumptions based on your own perceptions is rather lame.

        (9)
        (28)
      • Well, James, your assumptions are totally faulty. I own guns and believe that I have a second amendment right to own them. I own and shoot a cross-bow as well. I also believe that background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines are a good idea. So do a lot of other gun owners that I know, and to call some of them "liberal" would be a out and out joke. I am certainly not anti-american, I have never stood in a welfare line, nor have I received "hand-outs" from the government. Big brother doesn't have to bail me out because I am doing fine, own my own business, pay my taxes, vote, and have deep faith. Does knowing this spoil your fun in calling me a turd?
        Gun owners may have bent over backwards to make non gun owners comfortable, but you have not cited any evidence of that, nor have I seen it. Besides, like I said, I am a gun owner, and I am not comfortable.

        (13)
        (30)
        • Sharon: What is an "assault weapon"? There ain't no such animal. Any weapon--pea shooter, slingshot (think David and Goliath) can be used in an assault and therefore qualifies as an "assault weapon." I own a 12-gauge Mossberg that was shipped with a pistol grip. Some draft laws make my shotgun qualify as an "assault weapon." BTW, I am sorry some people can't stop flying off the handle and start flinging pejoratives. We are all more than a little defensive right now, and we need to back off so that we can be reasonable with people acting in good faith.

          (26)
          (0)
          • You will need to ask the author that, as it was he who was referring to assault weapons. But thanks for being sorry about people who slinging pejoratives.

            (7)
            (15)
          • Well, now, all you Tea Party folks (I can make assumptions too), I see that no one responded in reference to the actual text of the Second Amendment. Figures. You also obviously have not read the Connecticut law, or you would know precisely what constitutes an "assault weapon" under that law. It is correct that the Bill of Rights is contained in the Constitution, but I was responding to the allegation that the Constitution preserves rights that we were "born" with (inalienable rights). Nothing in the Constitution refers to inalienable rights, or rights that we are born with - that is in the Declaration of Independence.
            You are all Chicken Littles, scared that the sky will fall down if you can't have your wittle assault weapons. We had a ban on such weapons for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004, and last time I looked, the sky was still there. No government came to take away our guns, and in fact, the laws specifically do not apply to assault weapons already owned and registered.
            As far as I am concerned, now that you have disgusted me thoroughly, you are all narrow-minded pea brains that have been sold a bill of goods, not a bill of rights, and don't have the capacity for analysis that would allow you to see how you are being duped and manipulated. And dumbo saying that most deaths occur by bludgeoning, etc., that does not even apply to a discussions about gun laws. A finger in the right place can kill, or a fork...But bludgeoning or fork stabbing involves a one-on-one situation. It takes a different kind of weapon to randomly and rapidly spray people to death. If you think that is OK, then I won't cry for you or your loved ones if you or they happen to be in a place where a crazed person decides to spray them with bullets.
            Scott says I am like the guy in Minority Report, LOL. That was a very stupid movie, and an even more stupid concept. But you should all wonder if you are doing the same thing, projecting your fears of SHTF on those around you. But pea brains can't help themselves - are incapable of doing so.
            Obviously, I came to the wrong site, reading news. Certainly I will not make that mistake again, because you all are totally beyond hope and lost in the inability to debate. I will simply keep my registered firearms and other weapons and never return to any tea potty site, content to continue in the opinions that I share with the vast majority of the polled American citizens on this topic.

            (4)
            (17)
          • Rick Stiles says:

            Sharon,
            If you are female, science shows that your brain is 9% smaller than a male of the same size. Unless you are 6'4" and 275 lbs, and male, I could legitimately call you a pea-brain and back it up. I don't believe size or sex has anything to do with mental acuity, so I won't make that disparagement against you.
            If you believe you possess superior intelligence, I can counter you there with a repeatedly measured quotient of around 150 (+ or - 1). But again I don't believe any one measure of intelligence gives a true picture of a person's ability to use their large or small brain.
            What this argument is about is whether law abiding people should be able to keep weapons equal to or greater than those possessed by the criminal or tyrannical people that pervade our society. I believe this choice should be left to each individual, who should be held accountable for any actions they take with those weapons.

            If you disagree, you are one of those tyrannical people that believe you are superior to me and endowed with the right to make choices for me. Think about that for a while before you answer.

            (11)
            (5)
          • Random Erik says:

            Actually, Sharon, you are only partially - albeit slightly - correct... but only in a minute and acutely technical sense... While the Constitution does not, ver batim, state that "these are the natural born rights of the people," Article 14 does indeed affirm that the rights outlined within the Constitution as:

            SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Therefore... yes, this is our natural born right, as declared within the Constitution.

            It should be noted that it was deemed necessary to adopt this amendment, to ensure that an argument such as yours could not prevail over the existing laws' actual intent.

            I see that you are now bashing Tea Party activists... Funny but, I'm not sure what the Tea Party movement has to do with this subject, nor why, someone such as yourself, who first decried a perceived lack of logical debate and then failed to present one; then decried name calling and has now gone on to resort to just that, would drag that movement into this discussion.

            You know, you have not offered one rational, logical argument in favor of the Connecticut legislation - not one. All you have done is to solicit yourself as another ill-informed and somewhat irrational opponent to the second amendment on a site where the majority clearly do not share your view. If you don't agree with the majority opinion here, I have to ask, why are you even visiting this site?

            Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are genuine. You strike as one of these "cyber warriors for Obama" that keep popping up on conservative sites.

            (11)
            (2)
        • You are a scary dangerous person. If anything you say is true you are a complete walking contradiction. Go register your guns, I'll laugh when they come and take them from you as you cower in fear and wonder how ever it happened.

          Truly disheartening to hear that you are a gun owner that supports more restrictions. Tar and feathers to you along with the rest of the enemies. End of story.

          Btw, simply google "gun control" and look at how many laws there are on it. That is how gun owners have made people try to feel comfortable. It is not up to me to school you - you seriously seem very half witted on the topic. To say you have not seen gun laws is nothing short of blind.

          (20)
          (6)
          • Well, James, thanks for adding to the attacks - walking contradiction, half-witted, blind. I have never said I have not seen gun laws. In fact, I have. And I continue to support those two restrictions that I mentioned: background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
            Maybe you should google keywords on how the american public feels. Approximately 92% of the American people favor background checks, approximately 56% of the American people support a ban on assault weapons, and approximately 52% of the American people support banning magazines that can carry more than 10 bullets. So, if I am half-witted on the topic, I have good company. And better to be half-witted than dim-witted.
            Going to work now. Bye.

            (6)
            (27)
        • " And I continue to support those two restrictions that I mentioned: background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines."

          The Second Amendment to the Constitution inherently sets forth the idea that government may not hinder citizens from keeping or bearing arms in any way without a VERY good reason for doing so. I have never seen any justification for these laws you declare, unless the justification ultimately came from fear of guns or a hatred of someone's ability to defend themselves as they might see fit.
          If you, other gun owners you know, or the populace of America have a passionate intolerance for particular forms of firearms or currently believe that firearms of any variety should be banned, this is not the view that Americans held even 50 years ago. Mostly this has changed because too many people and organizations have engaged in a vicious campaign to demonize guns and make believe that gun "control" will solve problems.

          Such efforts haven't worked before and will not work now.

          (4)
          (1)
        • Back round checks must be expanded to include mental health,
          physical health & criminal back round or lack thereof. Mental
          stability to put law enforcement & liberals at ease. CT is full of them. Full automatic weapons have no place in civilian hands.
          When we purchase a weapon it should come with 2 fired slugs.
          1 for local sheriff the other for the FBI. Gun ownership is a big responsibility. Keeping children from harming themselves or others is a priority. Reporting weapon sale, theft or loss must be mandatory.

          (0)
          (9)
          • Mt Man: Uh oh..... I think we have a FUDD here...... or possibly an all-out anti-gun, anti-American, treasonous, pussy! You just don't get it, do you? Registration = confiscation. All gun laws are un-Constitutional. What the hell is so hard to understand about "shall not be infringed"? Move to Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, or any other "gun-free utopia" where you'll be perfectly safe, because all of the ass hole ideas you ascribe to have been implemented. A lot of brave individuals died for our freedom and the rights that idiots like you want to squander, so leave the U.S.A., and leave it alone!

            (6)
            (0)
          • "Full automatic weapons have no place in civilian hands."

            Says who?
            Most times that I've heard law enforcement or military leaders say anything about guns, they seem intent on trying to cause everyone to be unarmed, except for their own officers. Trouble is, arming the citizenry was precisely the idea the Founders had, precisely so that government would have cause to be even a little nervous about how much trouble they might spark with foolish laws.

            As for background checks, I'd say the events of the last few decades prove why background checks need to be abolished. No background check of any variety will ever keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who will commit a crime. Our only real alternative would be to provoke most people to carry concealed, thus causing any would-be thieves, tyrants, or others to need to be concerned about how much injury they'll suffer for their trouble.

            (2)
            (0)
          • Random Erik says:

            You watch too much tv. The fact is, a bullet or a slug cannot be conclusively matched to a firearm. If I were to go outside and shoot a round from a rifle rifle right now, then clean the bore using a typical bore brush, they could not match it. The rifling is more or less the same from one example of a particular model to another. It is the little mi ute marks inside the bore that they attempt to match in a forensics lab. Those marks are changed every time the weapon is cleaned.

            (1)
            (0)
        • Sharon, I understand why you're upset about these comments. Everyone can site all of the details of all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they want to, to convince you, but it all "comes down to a very simple point" and that is, as you already know, I'm sure,
          "bad people do not care about any of these laws and will do whatever it takes to further their evil intent, and "it is evil,"
          so that's why most people who have guns want them, which is to " deter those evil people if they have to," be they crazy government officials, crazy individuals, criminals and finally hunting for fun or food. Basically, they just want to be prepared in case the unthinkable haoppens

          The biggest fear that I see in people, is the fear of the
          "gang people who are hardened killers and always have high capacity weapons," the most popular being ones that are capable of holding and discharging the most rounds in which they can deter or kill anyone in their way or chasing them, with very little accuracy needed, which is why police departments now have to have automatic weapons available to officers, they were basically outgunned for years.

          So, I believe as do most gun owners that I know, the stay at home wife that does not live in such a good area and does not have any real training with firearms could protect herself and her children better with an automatic weapon than with a single shot weapon.
          The same goes for anyone in fear of their safety or life, going up against unknown assailants with automatic weapons.

          "When scared or in fear of their life, anyone could miss with several shots taken," so "automatic weapons even the playing feild for the average person and the safety of their family."

          Mostly, I hear about average people who have detered a carjacking or a breakin just by showing the gun, but not using it.
          So all of this arguing is really unimportant. I believe that everyone needs to step back and take a breather here.
          Name calling does not help convince anyone of anything, just the opposite.

          (1)
          (0)
          • Mowlon Labay says:

            Linda, with all due respect, it's best to use the term SEMI-automatic weapon. When you use "automatic" to refer to semiauto guns, it fuels the gun grabbers fire even more. They'll envision a machine gun. The same way they use the term "assault weapon" they're so lazy and uninformed ( or hopelessly ignorant or even more so; controlled by principalities and powers ) that they'll continues to use these buzz words to agitate other ignoramus' into the fray. It's very very important we're clear with our terminology if we're going attempt to educate the ignorant libs.

            (2)
            (0)
          • You're absolutely right. They're always on the lookout for a week spot in our collective armour.
            I just wanted to point out what I believe is partly driving the
            "semi automatic frenzy," which is the 24 hour news cycle, and the real fear that people have about the spreading of the mexican gangs throughout our country, and the gangs preferred method of protecting their drug turf with semi or fully automatic weapons, and innocent people being caught in the crossfire.
            News people stir the pot and then dare to question what happens, because of their narrow minded reporting.
            But, now the discussion might change, because in Arizona, one very lethal mexican gang has started cutting off their rivals or enemies heads, not bothering to shoot at all, of course they probably used at least a hand gun to get that person in the position to cut off their head.
            Just one more thing to add to our rising anxiety.

            (2)
            (0)
      • I think this discussion and all the attacks can end for anyone who will actually read what the Constitution actually says:

        U.S. Constitution › Second Amendment
        SECOND AMENDMENT

        AMENDMENT II
        A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

        Doesn't say a thing about any particular weapon, or restrict it to guns, or refer to the top of the line of weapons for the time, or make reference to criminals not following the law anyway. Furthermore, the reference to the militia, and the right of "the people" (and not each citizen), indicates that the right is generic, not individual, and refers to the right of the people to band together to form a militia that can keep and bear arms against an oppressive government.

        Not that anyone reading these posts will agree, as the fact that I don't follow your exact line of thinking has made me the object of vilification. Good going, folks.

        (9)
        (20)
        • Militia: the U.S. Code states that the militia is every male over the age of. 16
          Also there is nothing in the Constitution which gives the gov. the right to confiscate anything.

          Also to clarify, The "Bill Of Rights" is an intrinsic part of the Constitution, the first amendments thereof.
          .

          (15)
          (1)
        • Your interpretation is not the same as the current supreme Cuurt thank GOD.

          (3)
          (1)
        • This article started an excellent debate, some were angry and some stayed calm some gave in and some did not. I believe less government more proper parenting and respect will be the correct answer in the future. If someone wants and AR15 or a SCAR great let them have one, but if they choose to use it in a crime, then hopefully someone else with a weapon will do the right thing and protect his or her fellow citizens, that is what makes our country great. We have to protect each other and our selves the states with minimal gun control ie: Texas, Nevada, Oregon, etc... have the least amount of crime. criminals respect and fear those who are willing to defend themselves. Please do not take offense but I want to always have more fire power then the criminals. If they disarm us the criminals will still be armed. The government can easily become tyrannical and I want to be able to protect my rights and my family if that happens. I know it sounds cliche, but look back in history the first thing Germany did was socialize Healthcare then they disarmed the citizens. then they did what they wanted. Never again....that is why our constitution reads the way it does we have the power we can band together and protect each other. Think people every child should be trained to use and respect weapons of all sizes and caliber. "RESPECT". I can not put this in more simple terms, We the people not we the Government.

          (4)
          (5)
        • Sharon,

          Criminals don't obey laws including the laws you would like passed. So if in fact they were passed there would be no guarantees for you because criminals don't obey laws. Get it!!!

          (10)
          (4)
        • Sharon, What do you think a militia is? It is a fighting force made up of "the people". It is not a fighting force supplied and controlled by government. That term is "military". Furthermore, it is clear that the intent of the second amendment is protect the right of the people to form armed militias to prevent tyranny. Those people, in order to be successful at deterring such enemies, foreign or domestic, must be armed with weapons that are equivalent to said enemy. So you don't think that "the people" is indicative of you and me? Who then? If not each citizen? A corporation perhaps? Where would your ideal militia acquire the weaponry to stave off an oppressive government? In reality (modern and historical) ordinary citizens band together with their privately owned firearms to form militias. Now, I do not approve of the name calling, belittling, etc. It does not add to an intelligent conversation and only divides us farther. Those of you that choose to do so please stop. Your not helping our argument.

          (8)
          (4)
        • Sharon, you, our state government, or federal government is not given permission by myself, or millions of others to restrict our rights in any way, shape or form. Or give them away. We will remove the tyranny by vote, or by force as we Americans have always done. I have seen a list of the people like you fear, and it was clear to me, most of them turned out to be liberals, democrats, progressives and communists, not conservatives like myself. The same people you fear have, infiltrated all of our institutions, in order to brainwash us into submissive dreamers. Wake up, and know this, I will defend to the death, you, and your right to your opinion. Please consider this, I feel just as passionate about my ability to defend my god given rights, and protect my family from what comes this way!

          (9)
          (5)
        • Sharon,
          U must B one those Obamaites that has been hired by the govt. to troll the internet. U have no argument, U just want to argue! Look at the history of gun control. Note the nations that have had millions murdered by THEIR govts. The govt. first wants registration, then permits, then confiscation. So, many of us will fight before being murdered by our govt!!!

          (7)
          (0)
          • Mowlone lAhbay says:

            RUSS IS 100% RIGHT. Sharon is a troller and is LOVING pushing buttons trying to get a rise out of us. Just like K Sweet ( the trolling EMP commenter)... no one can be that blind. The effort everyone's giving to enlighten her will NEVER work because She already knows she's wrong. It's like every lib who has the "stupor of argument". They argue just for sake of arguing. THEY CANT HELP IT. I really think its "principalities and powers" at work. Its supernatural... Its Biblical.
            AT EASE FELLOW SPARTANS !! And Sharon...
            ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ !!!!
            ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ !!!!
            MOLON LABE !!!!!
            COME AND GET IT!!
            ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ...

            (0)
            (0)
    • Sharon,

      Your argument/question is weak and not supported by history. By your logic, the 1st amendment only apply to 18th century writing instruments You are arguing that only quill pens and manual printing presses are protected by freedom of the press.
      The 2nd amendment is about having an armed militia (by the 18th century definition, all able bodied men) and the Constitution allows the federal government to call up the militia to, among other things, repel invasion. That would require weapons consistent with invaders. Military weapons. In the 18th century that would be flint lock muzzle loading rifles. In the 21st it would be semi-automatic modern sporting arms.

      (14)
      (5)
    • Sharon: does the First Amendment cover what you say on your telephone, on the radio, on tv, or on the internet? Judging by your argument, no. Or are you going to pick and choose?

      (10)
      (4)
    • The constitution does not "give" any rights to the people. It protects the rights that are God given from the government. It exists to restrict the power of government and for no other reason. The second amendment is there solely for the same reason. The second amendment is to ensure that the other rights are also protected. The people are to be as well armed as the government, no I take that back. They are to be armed and the government is not to be armed at all originally. There were to be no standing armies at that time. There were to be militias formed and the whole of the people were to be the militia. Military practice was to be on Sunday after church services and each man brought his own weapons as required by law. Before you venture into what for you is unknown territory you would be well advised to read the Federalist Papers and do a little study of American History as was taught back in the 1950's. You will be shocked and surprised by what you may learn.

      (7)
      (4)
    • For Sharon: I will try to help you GET what you DON"T GET. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people of our nation from a Government gone wild, like the Obama Administration. When the constitution was written, both the Government and the people had Muskets which made us equal. Now the Government has Tanks, Armored Vehicles, Drones, Fully Automatic weapons of all sizes, Stealth Bombers and fighter jets, plus Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons just to name a few. All most citizens have is a semi- auto rifles or handguns of some kind. These are not Assault Weapons and do not provide much protection from what the Government has today. The Connecticut state government is tyrannical because they are passing laws that are unconstitutional and against the 2nd Amendment which is in place to protect us from this exact situation. Any citizens that agree with what the government is doing now are Uniformed or Brainwashed by the liberal media. They have no clue about what is really going on. They are known as Sheeple and, they do not count, except as useful fools for the Government. If they are worried about their personal safety, they should buy a Gun and get professional training on how to use it, while they still can. GUNS are not the problem. Stupid People are the problem.
      Do the research and learn the TRUTH about what the Government has planned for all of us. We must reach mass awareness to survive! If you still don’t get it watch this Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=slanahLcIHY#t=3498

      (9)
      (5)
    • Sharon, I'll let the gentlemen who wrote the Constitution, and a New Jersey Superior Court judge answer some of your questions.

      "The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to
      keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It
      protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot
      at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

      "A Government that does not trust it’s law abiding
      citizens to keep and bear arms, is itself, unworthy of trust." - James
      Madison, chief wordsmith of the Constitution".

      "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." - Thomas Jefferson

      Sharon, the anti-2nd Amendment pro-gun control people will never stop with 10 round magazine limits. It will go to 7, then 5, then 3, then single shot arms only. Then confiscation will follow, facilitated by the de facto registration created by background checks. The goal of this legislation is an outright ban on all citizen owned weapons. They will never stop with just banning what they deceptively refer to as "assault weapons" (which are actually modern sport rifles). It will just make it easier for them to seize all weapons when the most effective ones have already been taken from “We the People“. I recommend you watch the videos on www.josietheoutlaw.com, particularly “Why Good People Should Own Guns”

      (11)
      (5)
    • Sharon, to understand the intent of the 2nd amendment you must study the historical period in which it was drafted, the intent of the 2nd amendment was to insure defense against a tyrannical government, or as stated in other documents of the same period, all enemies, foreign or domestic, much focus is given to the phrase "shall not be infringed" although the primary operative words are "the right of the PEOPLE", that being said I return to your question, the authors of the greatest documents ever written, our constitution and the bill of rights, could not foresee the advancement in weaponry that the future would bring, but they knew the hearts of men, and they were in process of freeing themselves from tyrannical rule, their intent in drafting the 2nd amendment was to see "the PEOPLE" equally armed against any and all who would oppress them or seek to circumvent the freedom guaranteed to all citizens by the constitution, our right to organize defensively is also guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Obviously the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment were violated by a fearful government long ago, and a campaign to instill fear of our fellow citizens was perpetrated against us. Hand in hand with that programs to install a sense of trust and dependence in our government were enacted. Mind you that all of this propaganda was sponsored by an illegal government corporation formed shortly after a meeting in 1913 on Jekyll Island by the heads of all the cabal banker families, signed into "law" by Woodrow Wilson, after which he remorsefully proclaimed, "today I have betrayed my country", I apologize for the digression but history is of great importance in understanding. All that being said, we are not allowed to own true assault weapons without extremely invasive background checks, and we will never be allowed to be equally armed against any enemies of the constitution, no, a civilian AR15 is not an assault rifle, no more than any other semi automatic rifle chambered for the .223 cartridge. Once again this is propaganda perpetrated on a fearful and ignorant society, ignorance is not stupidity, but willful ignorance is. I will close with some quotes that I hope will bring further understanding.

      “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

      -Thomas Jefferson

      “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

      Benjamin Franklin

      A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.

      Ariel Durant

      (1)
      (0)
    • In Australia they banned firearms being kept in the home. According to the crime statistics In Australia crimes of violence ROSE. Criminals will use rocks or knives when they do not have firearms.

      The FACTUAL history of firearms being banned is available. One example:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcQemQ2bGg

      I know individuals who grew up in Hitler's Germany. Each of these totally oppose the general population being UNarmed.

      (0)
      (0)
  3. Anthony McCann says:

    I just want to say some of your assumptions are flawed. They do not have to either act and face a revolution or back off. There is a third option and it is the one I believe they will take. Basically everyone becomes a potential felon. If you get pulled over for a traffic stop and you either have purchased a firearm within recent past or attempted to register one and then decide not to comply, boom they have what they consider justifiable cause, They then have you helpless and defenseless and can take you into custody until you surrender your guns. Remember, Wal-Mart a company which has told me and has publicly stated that they maintain firearm purchase records (their words) forever, and they will voluntary give those records to government agencies. Gun registration, by a private company. They know who owns guns and who does not, don't fool yourselves. We are talking about the most deviant entity on the planet, the federal government. They have every phone call and every e-mail you ever made, do you not think they have maintained firearms sales records. Only an idiot would believe they don't.

    (25)
    (8)
    • Actually, most states there is no record of what guns sold where. I know this - I sell guns every day. The only thing that gets reported for a firearm sale is basically what is on your drivers license and if you are buying a long gun or hand gun. That is it. The serial number and type of firearm is held by the FFL for a certain period and then can be destroyed. It takes a court order to pull the information on a 4473 (background check form). No court is going to issue a blanket order to take an entire shops worth of paperwork. True enough that the government might not comply to court orders (Ares Armory, CA), but that is another sign of an impending revolt of some sort. I know if agents came in here against a court order to take my customers information I would physically fight off anyone trying to come in as I lit the papers on fire. End of story. I fought for my country already in uniform, I will continue to fight for our rights as a civilian as well.

      (30)
      (5)
    • I agree, I don't trust that there is not a federal list of firearms purchases. But I am confident that it is very incomplete and also that there is no way they have the man power to go door to door to find them. Word travels fast these days and even the feds can't get them all. I would bet on a much more devious and underhanded way of disarming the populace.

      (5)
      (4)
  4. Soveriegn American says:

    "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.

    I find it amazing that the public is so easily confused. But I realized what was going on/happening back in the mid 60's. Therefore, I post the above.

    (4)
    (5)
  5. Sharon,
    You have been vilified by your own arguments because they are flawed, naive and extremely dangerous. Our founding fathers were just a little smarter than the average turnip. Of course they could not foresee specifically what kind of weaponry would be available. But the people are what hold the government in check when all else fails. When Paul Revere made that ride alarming the people that the British were coming, it was because they were coming to confiscate the colonists weapons not to have tea and chat.
    Every oppressive regime, from Hitler, to Mao, to Stalin, to Pol Pot to our government's treatment of the Native Americans that lead to forced relocation many years ago, would have found the task extremely difficult had the oppressed been equally armed. Being an old infantryman let me tell you what an assault rifle is with the first being the WWII Nazi MP44 Sturmgewehr Assault Rifle. It is simply a rifle that can lay down suppressive fire, also known as automatic fire, to allow the assault element to advance. this type of fire is not easily achieved in semi-automatic fire. The term Assault rifle has been perverted by the media Hollywood, politicians and the uninformed.
    Below is an excerpt from the inaugural address of one of our greatest presidents Abraham Lincoln on the eve of the civil war or as someone here suggested the 2nd revolution:
    This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
    Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Adolf Hitler's rise to power at first but then became disillusioned. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies.
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me
    Have you ever been to Dachau? I have and if you haven't been to one of the concentration camps then you should add it to your bucket list. Because it will open your eyes to how efficient man's inhumanity to man truly can be.
    Can't happen here?!? But it already has in the WWII internment camps of the Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and the Italian-Americans. Ancient history?! How about Hurricane Katrina with gun confiscation and unlawful detention by our government. OR even more recent was the Gestapo-like tactics employed by the law enforcement personnel in Boston after the marathon bombing.
    The very freedom that you are exercising right now is defended by the 2nd amendment and not your perverted interpretation of it. Without the 2nd the others would easily be discarded. Additionally, in some of the countries I have been to I would not be able to voice a dissenting opinion for fear of horrific reprisals. And you would not be able to speak your thoughts not because they are controversial but because you are a female and considered a second class citizen. Not my opinion, but a fact and if you don't believe it go to one of those countries and start voicing your opinion. If you do you had better have a flawless exit strategy.
    As far as you getting statistics from Google, PLEASE. In the words of a famous commercial where the blonde female meets her new French boyfriend on the internet BONJOUR!
    You stated that- "The person who is not a criminal, but is about to become one when he or she starts shooting up a movie theater, or an elementary school, or a post office, etc....." Actually they were criminals before they committed the act because the attempt is a crime. So let's say that a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit who is carrying a Hi capacity glock 17, engages and neutralizes the threat that the back ground check failed to do. And because this deranged criminal is wearing body armor extra rounds are needed. Why do you think that virtually all law enforcement and the military now carry hi capacity handguns instead of the good old six shooter.
    As far as Connecticut, the people of that state are making a stand much as the people of Colorado did not too long ago. Law enforcement (California and Ohio as examples) and the military (specifically the army) take an oath as seen below:
    I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
    "I, ,do hereby swear and/or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and that I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Trooper in the Ohio State Highway Patrol to the best of my ability during my continuance in said office."
    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
    the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
    domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
    that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
    the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
    and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
    Based upon your previous rhetoric I feel I must point out that where it states that "I will obey the orders of the president and officers" You need to understand that the orders must be "LAWFUL" as was pointed out time and time again at the Nuremburg trials when so many Nazi's tried to use the defense of "I was following orders". The latter oath I have taken several times as have countless others and essentially what that means that in volunteering we have wrote a blank check to defend these ideals with our lives. So when you lay your interpretation of something so important as this in such a callous and uninformed manner it is beyond distasteful it is an insult to all the brave men and women who have dedicated their lives both literally and figuratively to defend this nation of ideals from tyranny both foreign and domestic.
    I am a part of the "ONE PERCENT". I earned these rights and gave them to the 99%. What personal selfless sacrifice have you made for your country?

    (12)
    (6)
    • I wonder who is posting all those thumbs down. Is it just Sharon or are there others reading all this that have not yet voiced their opinion? I ask because as a local senator said on a radio interview, (paraphrased) I don't know where this 90% came from 'cause I'm only hearing from the 10%. If the majority of citizens support gun control then why aren't we hearing from those people? Oh, what? Those polls are fake?

      (4)
      (1)
  6. Governor, Sir, your "subjects" refuse to obey your law to disarm. What do we do? Sir? Do we send our armored tanks into residencial neighborhoods and break down doors even though none of these citizens have done anything wrong? Sir? By the way, many of our fellow officers and their families are also in violation of your law and are in defiance. How do we raid the homes of our fellow officers and their families? Sir? Governor Malloy, sir, are tehse citizens really the problem? Sir? Why are we doing this to our fellow citizens? Sir? Do you have a brain? Or are you a power hungry tyrant who has contempt for the civil liberties of your fellow Americans? Sir? We need an answer...

    (7)
    (5)
  7. Robert Ross says:

    To All, Why didn't Japan attack our WEST COAST ???? I wonder ? Was it because, We the people were armed...... could it be? Without an armed citizen do you think the muslims would have harder time taking over MY beloved country who I fought for in NAM ? Or are you still spitting on me and burning MY flag? I am a DAV thank you ........... And I will fight for HER again even if I have crawl with my AR15 to do it . So PRAISE THE LORD YOU STILL HAVE SOME FREEDOMS and GOOD BYE

    (7)
    (3)
    • Best be a LITTLE more careful about these assertions, Robert. Let's keep in mind that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor involved steaming quite a long distance from their homeland, and thus their supply channels. If they didn't attack the West Coast--California, Oregon, and Washington--likely they did not because of the distance involved. However, they DID attack Alaska in June, 1942 (Wikipedia) in an effort to further their nation's goals.
      American and Canadian forces

      (0)
      (1)
      • Sorry, meant to say that American and Canadian forces had a distinct fight on their hands to forcibly remove the Japanese troops from the Western Aleutians. ...For the same reasons: Both forces were well removed from routine methods of resupply, so both struggled to have the ability to push the other force out.

        (0)
        (0)
      • John, I watched an interview with the Japanese General that was the commander of the Pearl Harbor raid and during the interview he was asked why he did not attack the mainland.
        I do not remember the exact words, but they were memorable, because he talked about something that I as a history buff had never heard before, which was that "he believed that there were guns in every household and that our standing militia, because of this, was much larger than their militay capabilities could handle. I did not hear him talk about supply lines.
        The impression he gave was that, "If he thought that they could have gotten away with it easily, then he would have incorporated it into his plan, but to him, it was not even an option."
        You might want to look up this interview. I saw the interview either on the History channel or the Military channel several years ago.

        (2)
        (0)
  8. peewee h says:

    america, the armed camp. i love it and will fight to defend and protect it. tyrannical legislators some how believe they are untouchable. we all know who are neighbors are and what they do. when the LEO's next door begin to attempt to disarm legally armed citizens, who is left unprotected? the LEO, of course. now its decision time for the LEO. does he live up to his oath or sacrifice his family at the command of a tyrant?

    (2)
    (0)
  9. Gun control has never been about crime, it has always been about control. The government wants total control of everything you do. They always will. The Constitution gives us legal backing to take that control back but no government will just give it back. This country was forged with the blood of men who wanted freedom. If the time comes, I only hope there are enough of those men left to do what is necessary to ensure true freedom for another 2+ centuries. 3%'er here, over and out.

    (3)
    (0)
  10. Cyber Geezer says:

    This Open Letter sent (via email) to every officer, secretary, tech and janitor of the Connecticut State Police by someone a thousand miles to the south. It speaks volumes ... please take the time to read it:
    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html

    (2)
    (0)
    • Kukriking says:

      I appreciate your link to the letter; one of the clearest expressions of how we ALL (should) feel. I'm not sure I would have ever been aware of it, so thank you very much. I wish it could be read by everyone. I feel like I'm a III% er.....ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

      (0)
      (0)
      • Random Erik says:

        This letter won't accomplish anything other than pissing them off. You can bet a lot of the "freedom lovers" have already been purged from, or marginalized within the force at the highest levels. Most commissioner positions are filled based on the candidate's political mindset and nothing more. In New York, I am told much of the enforcement of the new laws is being extorted from troopers faced with the treat of termination or relocation if caught, or suspected of, not enforcing the laws.

        The letter basically says, "We intend to declare war on you if we decide your actions merit it, but we won't fire the first shot..." What kind of moronic statement is that? In what way could claiming that we will resort to terrorism (because that is exactly how they are going to take it - as a threat of terrorism) do anything except hurt any movement supporting the Second Amendment?

        I read through this letter several times. What I came from with was not the impression that I was reading the words of a patriot or a soldier. No, these are the words of a coward with political ambition. The guy speaks as though he's the elected representative of all of us who oppose the anti- gun movement. He isn't - and I damned sure hope he never is.

        I for one, am not willing to fire on a police officer for the sake of replacing one imbecile supported by fools, with another imbecile also supported by fools. That isn't going "save America." That's just going to get a lot of Americans killed for nothing.

        The police didnt write the law or enact the law, and I suspect most of them don't support the law - that seems to be true in New York, anyway. You want to declare war on someone? Go after the responsible parties and replace them. You're not going to beat them in an armed uprising - that's a damned foolish notion right there.

        Voting isn't enough. Shoot - there may not even be any more voting before too long. Until good people - good Americans - get out from in front of their damned televisions and computers and start BEING the government again, the government probably isn't going to be very good or very American. It's that simple. Taking a half hour out of your day to vote in the polls every 2-4 years is not the same thing as doing your patriotic duty. All that does is pave the way for liberal progressives to do exactly what they have done.

        They took this country without a fight. We can take it back the same way. Start threatening the police, and all you do is empower the socialists even more.

        (0)
        (1)
        • Kukriking says:

          It's not a threat at all it's a warning to the enforcers of an illegal act. So when they come for YOUR guns, I guess you're just going to hand them right over? It's too late for Conn. gunowners to vote against these politicians so they've got only two choices, submit or defend. Calling self defense an act of war is so out of line. And then you called it terrorism. Youre a paradox you make good pionts in some areas but on this...You disappoint me you puppy.
          ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ. COME AND GET IT!!

          (0)
          (0)
  11. Bobdalf01 says:

    I'm 61 years old. I had the opportunity to serve in the Vietnam war. In 1973, at age 18, I was going to college and working as a life guard at a local pool. When the summer ended, I was without a job. I put in applications all over town and could not find a job.

    I decided to go to the air force recruiting office one day to join (I am an "air force bratt". My daddy served for 21 years in the U.S. Airforce plus a number of years as a US Marine. He joined the Marines at age 17, six days before WWII ended. [I am so proud of him! I wish I could have been more like him!])

    I had the opportunity to serve during the Vietnam war. I tried to choose it but the Lord Jesus Christ had other plans for me. I was told that the guy who gave the tests wasn't there that day and told to come back the next day. When I got back to my parents house I found a note on the refrigerator door, "Call Mr. C... about a job. I did... and my life went down a completely different (totally unexpected) path. Now, I find that I am 60 years old and I may STILL... Get TO SERVE MY COUNTRY YET!

    Because of the liberal "fools" in this country who call themselves "democrats" (not to mention those "fools" who DARE... call themselves "republicans"... who are also in on the conspiracy) we are going down a very disturbing and distressing path AS A NATION. This NATION is PRESENTLY "circling the drain". It PRESENTLY... looks like it could go down at just any moment! But... I believe that we have a FEW... more years before this "EVENT" happens... BUT... HAPPEN IT WILL! The time (unfortunately) IS... COMING... and MOST Americans won't be ready! And what will happen to those of us who ARE preparing... We ALL... have to do what we feel is best for us and our families! I CHOOSE TO PREPARE! MOST AMERICANS CHOOSE TO STICK THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND AND BE IGNORANT OF WHAT IS COMING! This nation is "circling the drain" because of the "policies" of the LIBERAL FOOLS who are in power (whether they call themelves "democrats" or "republicans") and it is ONLY... A MATTER OF TIME before it goes DOWN! (It won't be long!)

    GET READY! BE READY! SEEK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! HE'LL GET YOU READY!

    (1)
    (0)

Trackbacks

  1. […] This article first appeared at Survivopedia: Connecticut Gun Impasse: Signs of a New Civil War? […]

    (3)
    (0)

Speak Your Mind

All comments, messages, ideas, remarks, or other information that you send to us (other than information protected according to the law) become and remain our property. You are fully responsible for your comment, as depicted in Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the website.

*