Gun Confiscation in New Orleans, do you support the troops and government, torog?

http://infowars.com/video/clips/news...nfiscation.htm

you're an anti-american twit if you don't think this is good, torog...maybe you need the military to disarm you so you can feel free...

did you know that there were GUN BATTLES INVOLVING PEOPLE REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS, AND THE GUN CONFISCATIONS CONTINUED AFTER A FEDERAL COURT RULED THEM ILLEGAL...PEOPLE DIED REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS...THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED...

THERE ARE POLICE AND MILITARY WHO REFUSED THEIR ORDERS AND DID NOT TAKE PART IN THIS.

nooo, you want to spread 'freedom' to countries halfway around the world where it's none of our business, but you sit on your ass while you cheer it away at home. you should be ashamed.

did bill o'reilly tell you about this?

or are you just a superficial idiot and you don't know what freedom is?

I do not have enough information to contribute much of an opinion about the current gun issues, but I do not think that the American Revolution was started because "...PEOPLE DIED REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS...THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED..."

I never heard that one.

The main causes for the American Revolution were:
The Stamp Act
The Townshend Acts
The Intolerable Acts

The British wouldn't have tried to disarm the people of the "Colonies", because they needed guns for hunting and protection.

i've heard that one, but i never heard it in a school history book...

On April 18, 1775, British General Thomas Gage sent 700 soldiers to destroy guns and ammunition the colonists had stored in the town of Concord, just outside of Boston. They also planned to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock, two of the key leaders of the patriot movement.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=864

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/patriot..._redcoats.html

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

[QUOTE=pisshead]i've heard that one, but i never heard it in a school history book...On April 18, 1775, British General Thomas Gage sent 700 soldiers to destroy guns and ammunition the colonists had stored in the town of Concord, just outside of Boston. They also planned to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock, two of the key leaders of the patriot movement.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=864

Home > Document Library > Founding Era > American Revolution > Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment â??Foot


Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment â??Foot

General Thomas Gage
April 18, 1775
Boston, Massachusetts
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment â??Foot,
Sir,

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.


There is a major difference between confiscating the guns of armed insurgents, to protect the forces of the Crown from the people that had already decided to overthow them, and the average colonists who used them for survival.

As I said, it was the Stamp, Townshend, and Intolerable Acts that started/incited the Revolution - NOT these unsubstansiated allegations of the confiscation and/or banning of the colonists' guns by the British.

guns had just as much to do with it as taxes and land rights...that's why it was included in the constitution...it was imperative that a disarmed citizenry isn't protected against a tyrannical government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

guns had just as much to do with it as taxes and land rights...that's why it was included in the constitution...it was imperative that a disarmed citizenry isn't protected against a tyrannical government.

---

I'm just interested in the truth, and there is no basis whatsoever to the claim that confiscation and/or control of the colonists' guns was a reason for the Revolution - because it didn't happen that way.

The Constitution's clause about the right to bear arms was written AFTER the fact, because the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that liberty, and the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, would not be prevented by regulation against the right to bear arms. Yes, it's in the Constitution, but the right to bear arms had nothing to do with the causes of the Revolution. and I keep seeing this inaccuracy repeated here over and over. Let's first get the facts straight!

sorry, i'm not buying it...i've read enough history to realize that gun rights had a lot to do with the revolution...they were one of many factors...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

sorry, i'm not buying it...i've read enough history to realize that gun rights had a lot to do with the revolution...they were one of many factors...

---

You have now changed your story by conceding that the rights of gun owners was not the primary cause for the Revolution, and you now consider guns as having "a lot to do with the revolution" - which quite different than the claims that you've been posting here for some time - specifically that the whole Revolution was instigated by an attempt by the British to take away the colonists' guns. You wrote, "PEOPLE DIED REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS...THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED..."

Yes, the Revolution would not have been possible without guns - and the Patriots had plenty of them, despite the British attempts to confiscate them from rebels such as the Sons of Liberty, and other rabble-rousers.

Conflict and Revolution
1775 to 1776

April 14, 1775 - Massachusetts Governor Gage is secretly ordered by the British to enforce the Coercive Acts and suppress "open rebellion" among colonists by using all necessary force.

April 18, 1775 - General Gage orders 700 British soldiers to Concord to destroy the colonists' weapons depot.

That night, Paul Revere and William Dawes are sent from Boston to warn colonists. Revere reaches Lexington about midnight and warns Sam Adams and John Hancock who are hiding out there.

At dawn on April 19 about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stand face to face on Lexington Green with the British advance guard. An unordered 'shot heard around the world' begins the American Revolution. A volley of British rifle fire followed by a charge with bayonets leaves eight Americans dead and ten wounded. The British regroup and head for the depot in Concord, destroying the colonists' weapons and supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, a British platoon is attacked by militiamen, with 14 casualties.

British forces then begin a long retreat from Lexington back to Boston and are harassed and shot at all along the way by farmers and rebels and suffer over 250 casualties. News of the events at Lexington and Concord spreads like wildfire throughout the Colonies.

April 23, 1775 - The Provincial Congress in Massachusetts orders 13,600 American soldiers to be mobilized. Colonial volunteers from all over New England assemble and head for Boston, then establish camps around the city and begin a year long siege of British-held Boston.

May 10, 1775 - American forces led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold capture Fort Ticonderoga in New York. The fort contains a much needed supply of military equipment including cannons which are then hauled to Boston by ox teams.

May 10, 1775 - The Second Continental Congress convenes in Philadelphia, with John Hancock elected as its president. On May 15, the Congress places the colonies in a state of defense. On June 15, the Congress unanimously votes to appoint George Washington general and commander-in-chief of the new Continental Army.

June 17, 1775 - The first major fight between British and American troops occurs at Boston in the Battle of Bunker Hill. American troops are dug in along the high ground of Breed's Hill (the actual location) and are attacked by a frontal assault of over 2000 British soldiers who storm up the hill. The Americans are ordered not to fire until they can see "the whites of their eyes." As the British get within 15 paces, the Americans let loose a deadly volley of rifle fire and halt the British advance. The British then regroup and attack 30 minutes later with the same result. A third attack, however, succeeds as the Americans run out of ammunition and are left only with bayonets and stones to defend themselves. The British succeed in taking the hill, but at a loss of half their force, over a thousand casualties, with the Americans losing about 400, including important colonial leader, General Joseph Warren.
Private home/school non-commercial, non-Internet re-usage only is allowed of any text, graphics, photos
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst.../revwar-75.htm

I dont know just putting it out there.......

GUN CONFISCATION STARTED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
or History for Dummies

The War Begins British troops, sent to confiscate American arms and supplies, were resisted by Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. This broadside printed at Salem, Massachusetts, a few days later dramatically displays the coffins of the forty Americans killed. The British were reported to have suffered 65 dead, 180 wounded, and 27 missing.
http://www.rjohara.net/gen/wars/revolution.html

Massachusetts Colony was a hotbed of sedition in the spring of 1775. Preparations for conflict with the Royal authority had been underway throughout the winter with the production of arms and munitions, the training of militia (including the minutemen), and the organization of defenses. In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the village of Lexington. ... http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm

The War Begins -- British troops, sent to confiscate American arms and supplies, were resisted by Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. ... http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/brit-2.html

"The 2A never has meant 'Jack-spit' about bird hunting or target shooting. Such leftist babble was disingenuous, duplicitous and an outrage to defend the indefensible. The fact is the 2A was specifically intended to provide American citizens with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive government. It was written by men who had just done that very thing.

The first 3 battles of the American Revolution were not about taxation, or representation, or even the list of grievances delineated in the Declaration of Independence ... the first 3 battles of the War for Independence were over gun control. [read: Lexington 1775] When Captain Parker faced off the British on the Green in Lexington it was to prevent the British from confiscating "power and ball".

It was again Thomas Jefferson who said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themsleves against tyranny in government."

AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT by Geoff Metcalf, 12/24/04

OH BY THE WAY:

DOJ Concludes 2nd Amend. Secures Individual Right:
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure.

The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Here is their conclusion and you can read the complete memo at: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

The wire service press release:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40899
http://deadbangguns.com/History.html

Believing that there is a difference between guns (and cannons, etc.) owned by armed revolutionaries for a violent struggle, and the common citizen/colonists's weapons (primarily) used for hunting, before and during the AmRev, is not a valid criteria for calling somebody a "dummy". YOUR agenda is to own as many of the most powerful assault weapons in existence, and an unlimited supply of devistating ammunition for said weapons, and you are attempting to re-write history to suit your purposes. Again, the REAL causes of the Revolution were the Stamp, Townshend, and Intolerable acts - NOT "gun control" as we know it. The Indians, with their tomahawks and bows, were damn near as dangerous, and maybe more so in some circumstances, than the single shot long-rifles of the 18th Century.

I cut and paste its not my own words-"the history for dummys" if that what u r talking about-but go- ahead and flame-on :thumbsup:

Oh ya thanks for this thread now im doing some real research on the american revolution...

Well from doing a lil research it does seem that the gun confiscation was ONE of the main reason for the American Revolution..They needed the gun powder for there guns without that they couldnt fight...GUN POWDER FOR GUNS....

Dont get me wrong about the war- just think it should be brought to peoples attention that the gun confiscation was part of it, just cant say it wasnt, you know, if its stating that it happened. I heard about this when I was like in my teen years or something, looooong ago ..Just the fact you saying it wasnt the cause of it--well it kinda of reminds me of 911 and all the questionable events that happened and people say it didnt...

Well prove me wrong or if Im taking this the wrong way just tell me, I like facts, you know....


THE REAL REASON FOR GUN OWNERSHIP
by The Company of Freemen

THE STATE CREATES ITS OWN ENEMIES
Goulishly capitalizing on the tragedy of a mass murder, the anti-gun forces are surging forward with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That's an obvious lie--criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars, or champagne bottles as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. The not-so-secret agenda of the State and its apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law-abiding Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender his or her weapons would become an Enemy Of The State, much the same as any armed citizen is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Socialist Nicaragua, or Fascist El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non-partisan--it is always and forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.


GUN SEIZURE SPARKED 1776 REVOLUTION
The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the "legitimate" government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacremento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us, stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns--legally or illegally--for the very same reason the colonists did.


THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP
The anti-gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior, shout that citizens have no reason to be "allowed" to own assault rifles, which have "no legitimate sporting use." The Constitution, though, says nothing about "a well-regulated sporting club" being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not even own guns because the Constitution "allows" us to. The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It recognizes rights already and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn't have to defend that right against "our" federal government. We've seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven't we?

The real reason for gun ownership is to protect the individual from the State, whether it be an invading State from accross the seas or a domestic State grown tyrannical and oppressive. The goal of total, repressive confiscation is clear in the subtle, shifting arguments of the anti-gun forces. When handguns were the target, they clamored prohibition because handguns were not militia-type weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Now they cry for assault rifle bans because "mere citizens" have no business possessing "military-style" weapons!

These eager confiscators rightly point out that assault rifles, handguns, and indeed all "weapons" have only one purpose: to kill. Again they speak a truth, but only partially. The unasked question is, "To kill whom? And under what circumstances?" The answer is, "To kill any who attempt to rob, maim, rape, or kill us." Even that answer, though, does not fully express the most important reason for gun ownership. Only a small number of people are actually touched by criminal violence. The State, though, touches each and every one of us every hour of every day. People in government seek to tax our earnings to pay for their whims, to draft our children to fight in wars they start, to regulate and interfere with our lives out of pure love of power and their desire to wield it. They have become as tyrannical as any Tory redcoat, Soviet Commissar, or Nazi Gestapo. And they are coming to steal your last line of defense against them. Will you meekly obey?


GUN CONTROL ENFORCED AT GUNPOINT
When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens, yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly "government by the people" why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer--stripped of equivocation--is that "mere citizens" are like half-witted children, incapable of safely handling "dangerous" commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be "allowed" to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn't it? That's how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time.

And they dare ask us to obey their decrees?


GOVERNMENT CREATES CRIME
What many gun owners refuse to face, usually by saying "it can't happen in America," is that the government can and does create new classes of criminals with the mere stroke of a pen. In 1919, Prohibition turns millions of people overnight from sociable drinkers to Enemies Of The State. The victimless crime of ingesting alcohol turned neighborly, peaceful people into fair game for imprisonment, fines, and seizure of property. Some fought back, often with simple shotguns against "revenooers" armed with assault rifles (the Thompson sub-machine gun) in a modern version of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Prohibition amendment created crime by definition. If, tommorow, smoking or drinking coffee or owning a book were declared illegal, the State would suddenly point to a new "criminal underworld" of massive proportions. In the eyes of the State they would become "a new breed of criminal" to be weeded out of society and thrown into prisons. So it is with any prohibition of popular activities, including gun ownership.


GUN PROHIBITION DISARMS THE POOR
Let's face it--police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts. And the rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so-called Saturday Night Specials are banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No. The only people harmed by a "cheap handgun" ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough money to feed their children, let alone defend them from inner-city marauders. Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. And what good is a 15 day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When one perceives a threat, one should be able to aquire protection immediately.


GUN PROHIBITION IS RACIST
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was rammed down the throats of the American public, blatantly exploiting then-current fears of gun-toting black rioters by implying that the law would help to disarm American Blacks, other minorities, and all dissenters at a time of civil upheaval. to paraphrase a popular slogan, "If the government does not trust minorities with guns, minorities cannot trust government." Ask any Native American.

In a mirror image case 20 years later, assault rifle bans are being ramrodded through legislatures by appealing to fears that gun-toting white racists are on the loose.

The real and only purpose of gun control is to disarm the innocent and the peaceful, of whatever race, creed, or social status.


GUN PROHIBITION IS SEXIST
The same goes for women. Police and purported feminists urge women to resist rape with fists, fingernails, keyrings, and screams. But why should any woman allow an assailant to get within arms length of her? Why don't Women's Rights activists in or out of government reveal the most effective way for a woman to defend herself: to buy a gun and learn to use it? The truth is, they want women to feel weak and perpetually threatened so that they will beg the State for protection. A woman standing proud, armed, and fearless is the last thing most self-proclaimed "feminists" want (since that would undercut their perverse longing for a huge paternalistic government!)


GOVERNMENTS KILL MORE THAN ANY MASS-MURDERER
How can people who work for or worship the State--statists--point to the murder of five children in a schoolyard or twenty people in a restaurant and claim that as sufficient reason to disarm tens of millions of Americans? Are they so presumptuous as to suggest that we are capable of such violent madness? Perhaps there is a degree of psychological projection going on here: statists feel within themselves the urge to kill and project it onto the people they fear the most--us, the victims of the State. For while tens of millions of people own guns, only a minuscule fraction ever use those guns to aggress against others. Every State, however has guns and even more powerful and terrifying weapons in its clutches and every State has used them, will use them, and are using them to murder hundreds, thousands, and millions of innocent, unarmed people.

How can the insane mind of a Patrick Purdy ever dream of matching the death toll of the most minor skirmish in the smallest of wars or "police actions?" The murder of five innocent children is heart-rendingly tragic, but how many thousands of innocent children were roasted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many unarmed, peaceful, young people were slaughtered in Tienanamen Square? How many women, children, and old people have been shot by the bullets of "their own" government in Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India, Israel, Afghanistan, Tibet, Argentina, Libya, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Chile, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and on and on and on for every State you can name, even "our" United States. For statists to use the "mass murder" of a few people as an excuse to disarm Americans when the State is the largest, bloodiest, longest-lived institution of mass-murder in all of history is appallingly hypocritical. Do we owe allegiance to the apologists for such atrocities? NEVER!

Private ownership of weaponry is the last defense against all tyranny, foreign and domestic. The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun owners (even members of the patriotic NRA) must take arms against an American Li Peng commanding the local police and the US military is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced. A lot of American colonists were horrified at the thought of defending themselves against "their" king's army, too.


CIVILIAN-BASED DEFENSE PREFERED TO STANDING ARMY
Some say that the Constitution "granted" the right to keep and bear arms to provide for a "well-regulated militia." Since we have a standing army, the argument goes, civilians no longer need to own guns. Yet that amendment was written precisely because the British used that exact argument in their attempts (from 1768 to 1777) to disarm the colonists. Americans detested the standing armies of the British government and knew that civilian-based defense was the ultimate, perhaps the only protection against any threat to liberty, whether from London, Moscow, or Washington, D.C.


DEFYING UNJUST LAWS IS RIGHT AND PROPER!
When the day comes (and it will, if we don't raise our voices in protest now) that the Imperial State commands its subjects (that's how they view you and me, regardless of what they say) to turn in our weapons, what will we do? Make no mistake--if people refuse to surrender or destroy their weapons, they will be dealt with by heavily armed police; they will be imprisoned, fined, perhaps even shot if they try to defend their Constitutional--nay, their human--rights.

Of whom should we be more wary--invading troops whose rule we would never sanction, or "our own" government, to which most of us grant some legitimacy and which is right here, right now, all around us? Perhaps paraphrasing a parent's question will help provide an answer: If the State passed a law telling you to jump off a cliff, would you? No fair answering that "good, pure, sober, honest politicians wouldn't let that happen." With guns, it is happening right now.

And when that friendly cop on the beat (whom most gun owners exalt as a good man just doing his job and who may even be a fellow NRA member!) comes around to your house, he will come armed with "good government" handguns and assault rifles. "Sorry pal," he'll say, "but the law is the law."

That possibility is something many gun owners--staunch defenders of law and order and supporters of local police--refuse to face. They blank out the fact that even--perhaps especially--in America, they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implication of the Declaration of Independence,

"...that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

Some would rather surrender meekly to the State, giving up their last shred of defense against tyranny, rather than face that choice. But if they do surrender their firepower, the choice will have been made. And it won't matter whether our new masters speak Russian, Chinese, Japanese, English, or American Bureaucratese. They will be our masters nonetheless.


WHAT TO DO
First of all, keep your guns! Do not turn them in just because some law is passed ordering you to do so. That's just what they want--sheeplike compliance. you are not a criminal. Don't let the State treat you like one. The colonists who turned in their weapons to their Tory town governments soon learned the folly of their actions. Any government that outlaws gun ownership is an outlaw government! It is no more necessary to obey an oppressive, tyrannical State than it is to obey any thief who demands that you turn over your property under threat of death. We know the free person's answer to such a demand. So does the State. That is why statists seek to browbeat us into disarming without a fight. They need the sanction of the victim. They cannot hope to disarm us by force. That would tip their hand and guarantee a revolution. But by stealth, instilled guilt, and appeals to our peaceful, law-abiding natures will they attempt to expropriate our only defense against their continued and increasing predations.

Resist the urge to obey the edicts of self-proclaimed rulers. Don't walk timidly into a concentration camp filled with once-free men and women. Decry with every fiber of your being this trampling of our fundamental human rights!




THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS A CIVIL RIGHT, WITHOUT WHICH ALL OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND.



THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO OWN--AND PROTECT--YOUR BODY AND YOUR PROPERTY.



THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANNY.



ANY WHO SEIZE GUNS ARE THIEVES OR TYRANTS.


Every law restricting free, immediate access to firearms is a direct attack on individual freedom. The course of action is up to you. Demand the repeal of all such laws or ignore them with impunity. But never accept them as legitimate restraints upon your liberty. Nothing legitimate can issue from the pen of tyrants.


(Permission is explicitly granted to reproduce this article by Xerox®, computer bulletin board, or any other method.)

The Company of Freemen
Distributed by

THE FORCE
P.O. Box 94
Long Beach, CA 90801
http://www.eoffshore.com/gunownership.htm
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794d.asp
http://www.saveourguns.com/secondamendment.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Oh ya thanks for this thread now im doing some real research on the american revolution...

---

Congratulations!

You've got to be one of the greatest "researchers" on the planet! You started your "real research", re the American Revolution, at about 11:02 EST, and came back with a long-winded posting of bullshit, copied from a crackpot gun-nut site, in one hour and seven minutes.

Don't shoot the messenger, lol!
:thumbsup:

well I did state in my last post that it was a lil research...But still you state no real facts to disprove me wrong....... :thumbsup:

Oh by the way try clicking on the links they are from well named people & websites,even wikipedia website that pisshead posted talks about it..But i guess fact are to harsh for some to handle, you know being lied too all your life has too be hard on ones spirit....and like i said if im wrong about it or something back it up dont just flame me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

well I did state in my last post that it was a lil research...But still you state no real facts to disprove me wrong....... :thumbsup:

---

Listen, I am not a "flamer". I belong to an organization for the descendants of Revolutionary War patriots and soldiers, and take this subject seriously.

The burdon of proof is on the believer, which is you. There are TONS of resources in the library, on the net, on video, etc., which explain the causes of the AmRev. If you have ancestry in the U.S. that goes back to colonial times, you may be eligable to join the SAR (Sons of the American Revolution), SR (Sons of the Revolution), and other organizations. There are also "reenactment" groups which I'm sure that you've heard of, that do not require their members to be descendants of Patriots.

I've learned more about the Revolution, American colonial and pioneer times, and other history, since tracing my "roots" back to those early times - right back to the Mayflower. I found that one of my 6th Great Uncles was an "Indian" participant in the Boston Tea Party, as well as being a comrade of Adams, Revere, etc., in the Sons of Liberty's Boston chapter. There's too much family history to even scratch the surface - and these gun-people expect me to believe that the beginning of this country was based on "gun control"?

I do not mind the interest in firearms - it bothers me to see history butchered, and gullible people being suckered into believeing nonsense about the American Revolution. Too many people sacrificed too much for future generations (and STILL are) for people like myself to sit still and let their stories be manged by special-interest groups like these.

I'd rather see you join a legitimate organization dedicated to preserving the history of this great country of ours - if we don't do it, then who will?

Have a good one!

Okay-LOL :upsidedow I was saying is that there was an idea to confiscate the peoples weapons and gun powder for the Brits new they couldnt fight without it and people got wind of that--Thats all Im sayin... :clap: :glugglug:
And it does seem to me your turning this into 1 big flame off----

Damn I was thinking the thread was about the american revolution....

Damn I was thinking the thread was about the american revolution.... :stoned: and its really about gun confiscation-man im baked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Okay-LOL :upsidedow I was saying is that there was an idea to confiscate the peoples weapons and gun powder for the Brits new they couldnt fight without it and people got wind of that--Thats all Im sayin... :clap: :glugglug:
And it does seem to me your turning this into 1 big flame off----

---

Of course, the Brits wanted to get their hands on the arms and ammunition of the enemy in a time of war. But that is NOT what the war was about, regardless of what the gun lobbyists say. Does the NRA make outrageous claims like those that I've seen here? I doubt it.

Even though the Revolution was justified, the problems between England and the Colonies were practically non-existent until a few years before the AmRev. Many of the officers and soldiers in the Revolution, including some of the Founding Fathers (Washingtin, and others), had been in the French and Indian War, as members, and officers, of the Colonial Army - which was British. Washington, had he been captured by the British (and almost was), was subject to being HUNG as a traitor - which is NOT what the average American Patriot military person would have had to face.

Taking a walk along Boston's streets, visiting the Revolutionary War buildings (some of which have infomative talks), are great ways to get a feel for those times. New York has similar AmRev historical places, as do many other cities. It really humbles us when we consider the sacrifices and efforts that these people gave to us. It just isn't right to let their legacies, and contributions to liberty, be hijacked by special-interest groups. These newbie gun groups have no right to make false claims about the founders, and foot-soldiers, of the American Revolution.

If I didn't care about this, I wouldn't bother to join, research, and induct others into the "good" fight.

Oh no doubt the American Revolution was about the Stamp Act the Townshend Act & so on, I was saying that there was that deal about the brits and the guns- just joining in on the thread..keep up the good fight.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

http://infowars.com/video/clips/news...nfiscation.htm

you're an anti-american twit if you don't think this is good, torog...maybe you need the military to disarm you so you can feel free...

did you know that there were GUN BATTLES INVOLVING PEOPLE REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS, AND THE GUN CONFISCATIONS CONTINUED AFTER A FEDERAL COURT RULED THEM ILLEGAL...PEOPLE DIED REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS...THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED...

THERE ARE POLICE AND MILITARY WHO REFUSED THEIR ORDERS AND DID NOT TAKE PART IN THIS.

nooo, you want to spread 'freedom' to countries halfway around the world where it's none of our business, but you sit on your ass while you cheer it away at home. you should be ashamed.

did bill o'reilly tell you about this?

or are you just a superficial idiot and you don't know what freedom is?

---

Leave it to you and good ol' Alex Jones to fly the flag when it pertains to gang-bangers rights! Another great post for pissy! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Leave it to you and good ol' Alex Jones to fly the flag when it pertains to gang-bangers rights! Another great post for pissy! :thumbsup:

---

Damn! psycho I hate how frank zappa looks at me.....

Ol' Frank is just lookin' for the TRUTH! LOL :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Oh no doubt the American Revolution was about the Stamp Act the Townshend Act & so on, I was saying that there was that deal about the brits and the guns- just joining in on the thread..keep up the good fight.....

---

why bother anymore? anyone remotely familiar with history will realize that guns were a part of it...the world is flat and the sky is purple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Oh by the way try clicking on the links they are from well named people & websites,even wikipedia website that pisshead posted talks about it..But i guess fact are to harsh for some to handle, you know being lied too all your life has too be hard on ones spirit....and like i said if im wrong about it or something back it up dont just flame me...

---

and did you notice how easy it was to get the neo-cons to go along with anti 2nd amendment gun confiscations for EVERYONE, not just gangs...as psychobabble likes to insinuate...they're going to love it when the whole country is forcibly disarmed for our safety...while calling themselves conservative...

but it's like in iraq, everyone fighting back must be working directly with bin laden or al-whoever the fuck and is an insurgent, they can't imagine the possibility of not 100% of everyone over there loving the war and occupation or loving their car getting smashed...similarly, everyone with a gun in new orleans was obviously part of some gang...so they deserved their guns to be taken, meanwhile guns were confiscated and continued to be confiscated after a court said it was illegal from law abiding citizens indiscriminately in new orleans...

and the neo-cons love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

http://infowars.com/video/clips/news...nfiscation.htm

you're an anti-american twit if you don't think this is good, torog...maybe you need the military to disarm you so you can feel free...

did you know that there were GUN BATTLES INVOLVING PEOPLE REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS, AND THE GUN CONFISCATIONS CONTINUED AFTER A FEDERAL COURT RULED THEM ILLEGAL...PEOPLE DIED REFUSING TO GIVE UP THEIR GUNS...THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED...

THERE ARE POLICE AND MILITARY WHO REFUSED THEIR ORDERS AND DID NOT TAKE PART IN THIS.

nooo, you want to spread 'freedom' to countries halfway around the world where it's none of our business, but you sit on your ass while you cheer it away at home. you should be ashamed.

did bill o'reilly tell you about this?

or are you just a superficial idiot and you don't know what freedom is?

---

Howdy pisshead,

I don't support the confiscation of guns in anyway,I think it would have been better,if they handed out guns-not take away the only means of defense. I don't recall,ever 'cheering' because they took folk's guns away in New Orleans..it pisses me off and I support and praise, those whom resisted the gun confiscation.

I've tried to tell you before,that there those of us,that will rise up against those who would sieze power..they can have my gun-when they pry it out of my cold,dead fingers.

Have a good one ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

and did you notice how easy it was to get the neo-cons to go along with anti 2nd amendment gun confiscations for EVERYONE, not just gangs...as psychobabble likes to insinuate...they're going to love it when the whole country is forcibly disarmed for our safety...while calling themselves conservative...

but it's like in iraq, everyone fighting back must be working directly with bin laden or al-whoever the fuck and is an insurgent, they can't imagine the possibility of not 100% of everyone over there loving the war and occupation or loving their car getting smashed...similarly, everyone with a gun in new orleans was obviously part of some gang...so they deserved their guns to be taken, meanwhile guns were confiscated and continued to be confiscated after a court said it was illegal from law abiding citizens indiscriminately in new orleans...

and the neo-cons love it.

---

Rescue crews are trying to do a job and you think it's a good thing for people to carry guns on the fuckin' streets? That would be until one of your own relatives, or heaven forbid Alex Jones, took a bullet to the head. Then we could all hear on how our government let ya down! Whatever bitch fits into your day you'll carry the flag!

And them poor, poor people in Iraq being put down just because they blew off a bomb in front of a school full of kids or a hospital....what gives us the right to pick on them...right. Pissy, find a jaws of life....you still have time to pull your head out of your ass..or maybe Alex Jones ass would be more appropriate! :thumbsup: