Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Mea

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Academia, Media and Govt., probably at the bidding of the elite want a controlled market place from which they enjoy cheap labor and can sell nearly unlimited goods. To keep that in order they need a cradle to the grave element of control. They already do it with 23 to 25%of the so called capitalist society. Once the conversion to socialized medicine is complete its at 40%. A nation with our legal gun owners dependent on the police will require even more govt.

Somerville said:

What "socialist agenda" do you see the government pushing? I see a federal government that is just like most others over the history of the nation and particularly so since the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century - basically controlled by the "powers that be"

Click to expand...

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

Your emotionalism and insults are unwelcome. You retaliation with insult is symptomatic of the whole problem. Your initial response to attack rather than use reason.

Click to expand...

Oh c'mon Guy, I was just joking with ya. You know I like you. I'm sure you were very awake during civics. :lol:

Guy Incognito said:

And you're also wrong. We're talking about civil rights. You are the one who needs a civics lesson.

Click to expand...

Me? Wrong? Sounds to me like you guys were talking about both. Bet I can quote both subjects in your posts.

I quite clearly quoted you talking about reactions from perceived gun rights violations did I not, to keep and bear arms is an individual right not a civil right. Perhaps you should have read my post rather than getting all bent out of shape because I joked that you fell asleep in civics.

Calm down Guy, you've already demonstrated you have nothing to teach me on civics by stating something that is false regarding civil rights.

Guy Incognito said:

But I have neither time nor inclination to give it to you.

Click to expand...

Why Guy does this mean we can't be friends anymore? Well Guy if I thought we weren't friends I don't think I could bare it. (In my best Doc Holliday)

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

RLN said:

Oh, yeah, that Executive Order thing. If he does do anything concerning that, I'm willing to believe that it will be elements that will address the following things that the courts will uphold:

• He should end the "gun show loophole" to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.
• Obama should seek to ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.
• Obama should seek to ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.
• He should seek ways to ensure that people with poor mental health records do not get a gun: CNN/ORC found that 92% Americans did not want Americans with mental health problems to be in possession of a gun; PPP took it one step farther and discovered that 63% of Americans want people to be required to take a health exam before buying a gun. Obama should obviously prevent felons convicted of a violent crime from owning a gun: 94% and 92% approve of that measure, per PPP and CNN/ORC respectively.
• Obama should look to ban outright bullets that explode or are designed to break through a bullet-proof vest: Pew found that 56% favor this position.
• He should try to make sure that guns, even if not recently purchased, would be registered with a government or law enforcement agency: CNN/ORC finds 78% agree with that policy.
• Obama should try to make it more difficult to buy ammunition and/or guns over the internet: 69% of Americans wanted to ban these practices, according to PPP.

I do agree with the Guardian on the assault weapon ban using the EO; if he does do it, it should be done legislatively. But Obama needs to do this while having a narrow window to complete this.

My personal opinion, is that the GOP controlled house is going to go along with the vast majority of those elements I showed you; they are already not standing well with that "fiscal cliff" thing and did not fare well in the Senate in last November's election, so they are sitting in those seats in the House--and sitting nervously.

Click to expand...

Mandating that private citizens conduct background checks before transferring a firearm in a casual sale is, first off, totally unenforceable and secondly, well beyond the powers of the federal government which is only allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

If he tries to ban "high capacity" magazines he is putting the private citizens at risk because he KNOWS that criminals will not adhere to such a rule and it will be evidenced by police and military having those magazines for the purpose of engaging just such a threat.

If he wants to address mental health issues that's great but he'd better be careful how those assessments are done to make damned sure that they are only done when reasonable cause exists to do one.

The very idea that you would put something in your list regarding exploding bullets and armor piercing bullets is a sure indication that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Federal registration is a clear red line and is totally intolerable. It is also totally unenforceable and will lead to an underground firearms economy just like banning booze and banning drugs did.

Making it more difficult to purchase ammo also puts the lawful population at risk and, like registration, will simply create an underground economy.




All that being said....I don't see one God blessed thing in your list that does anything to address violence. It's all about controlling gun owners and doesn't step so much as a pinky toe into the waters of making schools and shopping malls and movie theaters any safer. Why don't you just admit it, you really couldn't care less about safety as long as you get to mess with some completely innocent lawful citizen. You're a bully and worse than that you're a bully who wants to use the power of the state to sanction that bullying.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

I figure if conservatives want to have a reasonable discussion about guns they'll stop bringing up Hitler.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Lutherf said:

Mandating that private citizens conduct background checks before transferring a firearm in a casual sale is, first off, totally unenforceable and secondly, well beyond the powers of the federal government which is only allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

If he tries to ban "high capacity" magazines he is putting the private citizens at risk because he KNOWS that criminals will not adhere to such a rule and it will be evidenced by police and military having those magazines for the purpose of engaging just such a threat.

If he wants to address mental health issues that's great but he'd better be careful how those assessments are done to make damned sure that they are only done when reasonable cause exists to do one.

The very idea that you would put something in your list regarding exploding bullets and armor piercing bullets is a sure indication that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Federal registration is a clear red line and is totally intolerable. It is also totally unenforceable and will lead to an underground firearms economy just like banning booze and banning drugs did.

Making it more difficult to purchase ammo also puts the lawful population at risk and, like registration, will simply create an underground economy.




All that being said....I don't see one God blessed thing in your list that does anything to address violence. It's all about controlling gun owners and doesn't step so much as a pinky toe into the waters of making schools and shopping malls and movie theaters any safer. Why don't you just admit it, you really couldn't care less about safety as long as you get to mess with some completely innocent lawful citizen. You're a bully and worse than that you're a bully who wants to use the power of the state to sanction that bullying.

Click to expand...

Why is federal registration intolerable?

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

Now you're just drawing an artificial distinction. All rights are civil rights, because they are rights of an individual as against the state. The state doesn't grant any civil rights, it merely recognizes them. Equal protection under the law is a civil right the same as the right to gun ownership is a civil right.

You're just trying to justify the use of violence where it simply cannot be done. You should be ashamed of yourself. Moreover, you are being foolish. Violent resistance doesn't work. Passive resistance is how to win these sorts of battles, as MLK and Gandhi have shown in the past.

To repeat, if you have true courage, you will not resist violently, you will resist peacefully, and go to jail if necessary to support your rights.

Click to expand...

Sometimes passive resistance is the correct/effective manner to resist tyrannical infringement of civil rights. Sometimes armed resistance is the correct/effective manner to do so. It depends on the situation, and each situation is unique.

It is my opinion that passive resistance will be ineffective regarding the preservation of the 2nd amendment at this time.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Lachean said:

There is a Class III gun store 2 blocks from me. I happen to know of each one in my state.

Click to expand...

Have fun sitting around and looking at it. But that sure is an expensive hobby as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Deuce said:

Why is federal registration intolerable?

Click to expand...

Because it doesn't comply with the Tiarht Amendments that get attached to all manner of bills

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Dezaad said:

Sometimes passive resistance is the correct/effective manner to resist tyrannical infringement of civil rights. Sometimes armed resistance is the correct/effective manner to do so. It depends on the situation, and each situation is unique.

It is my opinion that passive resistance will be ineffective regarding the preservation of the 2nd amendment at this time.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. You have two choices, either to passively resist, and go to jail to show the importance of the right to gun ownership, or you can, what, fight a civil war? That latter option is clearly crazy. Armed resistance is for fighting Nazis, fighting only the most tyrannical and oppressive governments that is actually out to do physical harm to innocents on an egregious and widespread basis. Violent resistance is not for fighting excessive regulation. It takes something like the holocaust to make violent resistance morally justifiable. Gun confiscation does not make violent resistance morally justifiable. Violent resistance is not worth considering, and although I appreciate your politeness, I do not want to give the dignity of serious discussion to such a suggestion.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

RLN said:

Have fun sitting around and looking at it. But that sure is an expensive hobby as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

A $200 tax stamp isn't so bad. I don't even like full auto though, not all that fun. I mostly shoot 22's, its cheap.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Deuce said:

Why is federal registration intolerable?

Click to expand...

Every firearm produced in the US or imported to the US for sale is already registered and must be accounted for right up until the point of sale to the end user. At that point the licensed seller records the final disposition on a properly filled out and verified 4473 and files that form away.

Any additional registration starts to cause problems. Did you miss the whole uproar about the newspaper that published the names and addresses of registrants on Rockland County? Additional registration serves no purpose other than to give the state a list should the time come that they choose to take action against gun owners. It doesn't prevent a crime form occurring and can, in fact, cause more problems when investigating a crime. What happens if, for example, I leave for work and someone breaks into my house, grabs one of my guns and shoots my neighbor. How did registration prevent that? Am I now in the position of having to prove that I didn't commit the crime? Have you never seen a government database spit out bad information?

It's an all risk, no reward scenario and, like so many of the other proposals, will do absolutely nothing to address the issue of violence which is the whole reason for having this damned debate in the first place.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

I don't agree. You have two choices, either to passively resist, and go to jail to show the importance of the right to gun ownership, or you can, what, fight a civil war? That latter option is clearly crazy. Armed resistance is for fighting Nazis, fighting only the most tyrannical and oppressive governments that is actually out to do physical harm to innocents on an egregious and widespread basis. Violent resistance is not for fighting excessive regulation. It takes something like the holocaust to make violent resistance morally justifiable. Gun confiscation does not make violent resistance morally justifiable. Violent resistance is not worth considering, and although I appreciate your politeness, I do not want to give the dignity of serious discussion to such a suggestion.

Click to expand...

So what would make you take up arms, whats your line in the sand?

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

tererun said:

Ahhh, so that is your opinion, and not the opinion of the people in law enforcement. You could think you have the right to kill someone, and as long as you never do it you will never know any better. However, rights are an ideal until there is some divine force that can come down and enforce it. According to the government you don't have that right. Which really boils things down to might. Do you have the might to enforce your right? No, you don't. So your opinion is worth a hill of beans if they decide it is wrong.

people talk of rights as if they are some sacred divine protected thing. It is all an idea, and you don't have any right to it. If they stop making guns no gun is going to pop out of the sky to fullfill your right to one. At least with speech or religion you can pull it out of this air, but not a gun.

I am not telling you this to make you angree. I am telling you this because you are the people who have to make the argument for your ability to legally own firearms. You are the ones who are going to have to make an argument vs a lot of people who don't think you have some right to any weapon you want. So you have to convince them that this is something that should be around. All this rights talk doesn't mean a damned thing when you have dead toddlers on the TV for most people. So you had better come up with a better argument because it would seem certain people are hell bent on limiting your ability to own a gun legally. They don't seem to care one bit about what you feel should be the way.

Click to expand...

Actually you are right about rights, there is no such thing as natural or god given rights. The only rights you have are the ones you take. I really could give a rats ass about OTHER peoples rights. I live by the golden rule because most of the time it is convient. The times its not well, lets just say I am not the nicest of people. That said there IS a contract in place, called the Constitution. If people expect me to abide by the terms of the contract then they should expect to abide the contract themselves. If they dont or wont, why would they expect me to? As I see it, my government for some time has NOT abided the Constitution of this union, if my government wont abide it, neither shall I. The law currently is a just a tool used by the government to suppress those they dont favor. I prefer to manipulate the people who run the government to see things my way and leave me alone. Its much easier that way. Of course there are the adle brained fools who actually believe the nonsence they spout, they can be gotten around if a little bit less conviently. I suppose it is a bit cynical. I have become that more of late. To tell the truth though the idealist in me has not quite died, but is definately on its last legs. Whether or not the government bans firearms is for me immaterial as I have more than sufficent means to defend myself and those I care for from most anybody. Of course the government tells me not to do many things. I dont listen to them very often. The only real concern I have is the fact that potential unrest disturbs my interests.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

I don't agree. You have two choices, either to passively resist, and go to jail to show the importance of the right to gun ownership, or you can, what, fight a civil war? That latter option is clearly crazy. Armed resistance is for fighting Nazis, fighting only the most tyrannical and oppressive governments that is actually out to do physical harm to innocents on an egregious and widespread basis. Violent resistance is not for fighting excessive regulation. It takes something like the holocaust to make violent resistance morally justifiable. Gun confiscation does not make violent resistance morally justifiable. Violent resistance is not worth considering, and although I appreciate your politeness, I do not want to give the dignity of serious discussion to such a suggestion.

Click to expand...

Theres a third option. Become a criminal. I like option number three myself.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Lachean said:

So what would make you take up arms, whats your line in the sand?

Click to expand...

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2243:
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution."

Gun confiscation is not "grave," and therefore violent resistance to mere gun confiscation is never morally justifiable.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

PirateMk1 said:

Theres a third option. Become a criminal. I like option number three myself.

Click to expand...

That's part of passive resistance, actually. Martin Luther King was arrested and spent time in jail. Violation of unjust laws through passive resistance necessarily makes one a criminal.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

I don't agree. You have two choices, either to passively resist, and go to jail to show the importance of the right to gun ownership, or you can, what, fight a civil war? That latter option is clearly crazy. Armed resistance is for fighting Nazis, fighting only the most tyrannical and oppressive governments that is actually out to do physical harm to innocents on an egregious and widespread basis. Violent resistance is not for fighting excessive regulation. It takes something like the holocaust to make violent resistance morally justifiable. Gun confiscation does not make violent resistance morally justifiable. Violent resistance is not worth considering, and although I appreciate your politeness, I do not want to give the dignity of serious discussion to such a suggestion.

Click to expand...

By declaring any privately purchased property "illegal" and subject to gov't confiscation is a "line in the sand" for many. Can you imagine being ordered, as a LEO, to "take" any gun/magazine that has the capacity to hold over 10 rounds? Some folks want to pretend that is actually possible, "reasonable" and would not be met with any real resistance at all.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

ttwtt78640 said:

By declaring any privately purchased property "illegal" and subject to gov't confiscation is a "line in the sand" for many. Can you imagine being ordered, as a LEO, to "take" any gun/magazine that has the capacity to hold over 10 rounds? Some folks want to pretend that is actually possible, "reasonable" and would not be met with any real resistance at all.

Click to expand...

I am sure that would be a logistical nightmare for law enforcement.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

That's part of passive resistance, actually. Martin Luther King was arrested and spent time in jail. Violation of unjust laws through passive resistance necessarily makes one a criminal.

Click to expand...

Theres deliberatly going to jail, and then just ignoring the law. Ignoring the law and avoiding jail is my preferance. The police around here arent excatly upstanding so with the right incentives jail is quite avoidable.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

PirateMk1 said:

Theres deliberatly going to jail, and then just ignoring the law. Ignoring the law and avoiding jail is my preferance. The police around here arent excatly upstanding so with the right incentives jail is quite avoidable.

Click to expand...

That's kind of sneaky, isn't it? You want to live that way?

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

I don't agree. You have two choices, either to passively resist, and go to jail to show the importance of the right to gun ownership, or you can, what, fight a civil war? That latter option is clearly crazy. Armed resistance is for fighting Nazis, fighting only the most tyrannical and oppressive governments that is actually out to do physical harm to innocents on an egregious and widespread basis. Violent resistance is not for fighting excessive regulation. It takes something like the holocaust to make violent resistance morally justifiable. Gun confiscation does not make violent resistance morally justifiable. Violent resistance is not worth considering, and although I appreciate your politeness, I do not want to give the dignity of serious discussion to such a suggestion.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and you are welcome to call me crazy. The fault of the violence would be on those who seek to make the 2nd ineffectual. It is morally indefensible that they would seek to use the force of government to do so. As such, they would be the initiators of armed conflict, not those who resist.

Thus, in my book, it is them who are the crazy ones.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2243:
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution."

Click to expand...

My only issue with any of that is #3. That is very hard to know, and I can think of quite a few battles worth fighting where going along to get along would not have been worse.

Guy Incognito said:

Gun confiscation is not "grave," and therefore violent resistance to mere gun confiscation is never morally justifiable.

Click to expand...

Did you feel that the founding fathers of America were justified in their revolution? Would you have allowed the British to achieve their goals of firearm confiscation?

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

I am sure that would be a logistical nightmare for law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Logistical is not the only nightmare it would be.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Lachean said:

Did you feel that the founding fathers of America were justified in their revolution?

Click to expand...

No, their actions were high treason and in violation of their sworn oaths to the crown.

Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

Guy Incognito said:

That's kind of sneaky, isn't it? You want to live that way?

Click to expand...

We already do whether you realize it or not. I stopped playing nice or fair or by the rules a long long time ago. Nice guys dont finish first, they get ate up and their bones spit out.