It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun confiscation laws pass

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Slightly off-topic, but is anyone else wondering why the gun grab in Connecticut after the very trumped up and suspicious Sandy Hook incident is all about the guns, and nothing about decreasing the number of kids on psychoactive medications (courtesy of the pharmaceutical-medical-Madison Avenue complex), complete with ridiculous photoshopped buggy-eyed pictures and purported lives spent in blacked-out rooms playing violent video games, and mothers too goddam stupid to not have an arsenal in an easily broken-into gun safe?

How come no one is apparently worried about where all the autistic kids are coming from (get your massive doses of neurological and immune system attacking vaccines, y'all!!!) or railing against the sales of incredibly violent games and movies (well, boys will be boys, huh?)

Of course, most of that stuff is just capitalism and advertising at work, therefore it's supposed to be harmless. It's not like spending hours every day pretending to kill things will actually make you go out and kill stuff. That's ridiculous.

Maybe the problem isn't the guns which by and large aren't being used for violence all that much, but the small part of the population that can't tell reality from fantasy or have become so inured to fantasy that they need to make it reality.

Add in a government that has finally claimed the right, as if it was common knowledge, to execute anyone they want to, wherever they want to, whenever they want to, without benefit of evidence, indictment, trial or anything of the sort. Just need one moderately trained joystick operator and an operating drone.

Makes me wonder whatever happened to 'to provide for the common defense' and such quaint sayings.

And as an aside: next time your local Congresscritter is in town asking for your vote, stand up and in your bravest voice, ask them to recite a few words from the Constitution that they have to swear allegiance to. Bet they can't do it. Bet they've never even read it.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If %5 of people in the united states fight back against any aggressor, that's still 15 million people. Those are pretty good odds I would think. What army has that many? Big technology doesn't always win. Look at Vietnam, or Afghanistan, they are ideological wars that cant be won because the indigenous people will never stop fighting. Eradicate everyone, or lose, and people just aren't that into eradication. It is the American people that are unstoppable, not our military.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

w8tn4it
I don't know why this thought is buggin the hell out of me, Anyone here old enough to remember Kent State? When the National Guard open fired on protesting students, killing four of them! Also this quote from Ben Franklin, (i may be wrong)), "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."


I've seen the videos, there are many on Youtube. The guards think they are being shot at (one of them got hid on the helmet with a pebble). so they turn around, return fire, and shoot above the heads of the protestors. But there is a hill, and bullets still accelerate to earth at a rate of 10 meters/second per second. So the guards actually shoot and kill four students without ever seeing them. Some of those videos show one of female students lying on the ground after being shot in the neck. That event polarized a whole generation of students against the national leadership.

Ironically, it was that event which forced the government to look at non-lethal means of controlling protestors; tazers, water cannon, bean-bags, sticky foam. Now students get killed every week due to gang-bangers and drugs, and no-one raises a placard. Then the police go around tazing everyone from deaf people to someone who is having a stroke, an epileptic fit or has just come off a long-haul flight.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Vary good point it would fit what they have done in the past, especially as of late.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   


If 16 year old kids can hack their way into network systems like Target, Iranians can overtake a drone and Snowden can extract millions of classified documents, I am pretty sure people resisting can counter most of those items.
reply to post by macman
 


Of course not, the examples not even being comparable.

There'd need to be an American version of Free Syrian Forces...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   



Seems to be that the Military Force of England thought the same thing.
reply to post by macman
 


This makes no sense, yet again. It'd be the UK, not this non entity "Military Force of England".

Who were they fighting against, again? And what with? People with the same "hardware", if you could even call it that. Not to mention rebel/patriot former soldiers and army officers.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   


What was the budget and man power behind the English Army as compared to the American Colonies??? Just wondering.
reply to post by macman
 


The manpower behind the British Army against the British colonies? Similar?

More budget will have got them more shot and muskets...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Don't get me wrong, I think your Constitution is great. But I also think it needs an update. Should mafia cells still be armed? Should Nazis still have the right to spread their propaganda?

What I am saying is, to some, parts of your Constitution is used as justification for planning the killing of innocent lives. To me, these people are no better than the government they judge. Many of these "patriotic" people just can't wait to shoot a government official or even a police officer, and they are using the second amendment to justify their criminal intent. These people saw movies such as Revolution and Avatar and all that stuff, and are unable to express their violence in a safe manner, so they turn on the TV, see Snowden and Assange, and there you go, the people becomes a fifth column to eliminate America. I ask myself how long would the Constitution hold in a country where mafia rules, attacks from everywhere is crippling defences, and judiciary systems are even more corrupted.

Does Revolution in the name of your Constitution will assure the survival of your said Constitution?

The two next superpowers are communist in nature:



There is already a communist movement inside the USA. It's called the CPUSA and it was funded by Russia. It doesn't care about the Constitution, but would temporarily lick it if it meant more power, just like when Russia temporarily accepted capitalism when it advantaged it. Will a weakened USA, in war with itself and with malfunctioning jets, survive two growing superpowers - one of which already infiltrated the USA?

I seriously don't think so.


edit on 5-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 



Don't get me wrong, I think your Constitution is great. But I also think it needs an update. Should mafia cells still be armed? Should Nazis still have the right to spread their propaganda?


If you've been to Chicago or Detroit, the answer to #1 is self evident and very much apparent. They are armed, and run as much of the nation as they exploit. It's been that way back to pre-WWII days so not much has changed except the visibility and names. Should criminals have guns? Nope..and we have laws to work in preventing that. Short of a police state, as communist nations do prefer, there is no 'absolutes' in law enforcement. We can't 'get them all'. Freedom demands that concession and it's one I'm happy to make in trade.

Should Nazis still has the right to spread propaganda? Absolutely 100% and without question *YES*!!! They should have the same right as everyone else under the 1st amendment and for the same basis this was established, very specifically related to the Neo-Nazis, as it happens, to set the 'law of the land' for this very question.

National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie

It's Wiki, but it fits in this instance. Now....If America ever reaches a stage where we are THREATENED by goofballs like the goose steppers wearing bed sheets? Then perhaps we deserve to lose everything we have and we no long deserve the protections our Constitution provides.

If we've so totally lost our own sense of values and identity that Nazi rhetoric brings confusion? We've really lost all basis for much of anything...and a very dark day is what we've arrived in.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 


Sorry, but your responses don't make much sense.

We currently have teenagers that can/have hacked their way into Govt networks.

The budget and size of the British forces during the American Revolution were larger. en.wikipedia.org...

The British forces were using and had access to newer style arms, including rifled firearms. The colonialists, were using muskets as well, but many of the Militia Regulars were still using round ball muskets.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by buster2010
 


And when did I say such a thing?????

What was the budget and man power behind the English Army as compared to the American Colonies??? Just wondering.



At the height it was 20% of our nations wealth going into fighting the war
given it was fighting the colonists, the french and spanish along with nearly every other colonial power wanting to get the brits out of the way and see if they could get a slice of the new world pie, but with homefield advantage and you didn't have to wait upto 2 months for new orders from London or spend an absolute fortune hiring ships to transport troops/equipment that could be lost a day out to sea it's hardly surprising you won



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


from your link:


The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.[5]


Well... to me, see, that's just unacceptable. But in Canada we don't really have Nazis marching anyway. All we have is mafia. That one is a though problem already as it is... And we had the FLQ, but thank god now it's gone.

I think you're right about the general idea of your post. It's just that up here... we have more than 2 parties, see... and at one point all we see is a war of politicians... they don't seek to destroy its people, they just seek to eliminate the other politician opponent.

When I see all this anti-american-government stuff on your side... sometimes I just can't help but wonder if it's not just another tactic from some other political organization. "Vote CPUSA instead of Democrats or GOP! Unlike the latter two, we actually care for Truth and Constitution..." you, know, that kind of stuff. It's as old as mankind.



edit on 5-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 



Swords were the equivalent of guns in Jesus time -


The Command of Christ

And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." -Luke 22:35-38


Buddha didn't say anything specifically about self defense - but...


The Dalai Lama, head of Vajrayana Buddhism is quoted as saying, " If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. " (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)


Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword:


I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,


So, you might want to take a cue from the pacifists you call to your defense - grow a spine. Jesus, Ghandi and Buddha would have been in the tavern having a beer with the founding fathers when the revolution was done (except Buddha, he didn't drink)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 

So, with the idea of the US Military battling against US Militia, I think there are many things to consider.

Some are in fact home field advantage, US Military red tape to execute certain actions, the desertion rate and internal issues as well.

You have a large and powerful force that is large. Large is nice, but often means not fast and not scalable.

Then you have a light and fast force. This is nice, but the strike and run style of fighting would need to be used.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 



Well... to me, see, that's just unacceptable.


I'll be totally straight and plain on this one. The Nazis marching in Skokie were and are totally unacceptable to me, too. If that repeated today (and nearly did in Memphis recently), it's not that long a drive to attend personally and make a nice visible spot along the sidelines to protest the goose steppers.

I think the real basis for letting Nazis speak..or anyone, but using them as what most agree is a singularly objectionable example? It's simply that we can define hate and we can define ugly speech, and today? Most of us will agree. However...what about years from now? Filtering speech isn't the norm or allowed now...good reasons or not. If that changes, then who defines 'good reasons'?

I'm conservative...might that be hate speech for some of the points? In some places, it literally is.

Dr. Michael Savage wrote a book titled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". He believes it, I'd guess and I respect his intellect, if not so much his bombastic approach. Should he have say in what is hateful as national law or policy? Absolutely NOT...despite largely agreeing with him on a personal level.

Complex and messy isn't it? I can see why some people prefer more authoritarian states. Life is simpler with far less strife. Freedom does bring that with everything else, eh?

To Topic......The protection of one amendment is the protection of all, for when we lose one? All are at risk. Now, sure..they've been picking away at them like a sculptor with a block of granite. We still have them. However bruised they may be at the moment.

The 2nd, by it's very definition of context, tends to support and allow for the collective defense of the rest.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

stutteringp0et
reply to post by swanne
 



Swords were the equivalent of guns in Jesus time


It was as dissuasive, if not more, than offensive. This didn't mean that the apostle had to use it - carrying it was the equivalent of what we call in biology "dissuasion" - the best defence against potential attacks.


The Dalai Lama, head of Vajrayana Buddhism is quoted as saying, " If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. " (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)


So says the man who has full CIA backing.

en.wikipedia.org...


I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,


You are twisting Gandhi's word to make it sound as if he said that "being peaceful is being coward". Maybe I should refresh your memory, for he also stated that

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."

www.brainyquote.com...

And that

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

www.goodreads.com...





edit on 5-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Maybe they aren't out marching but you got em too,we all do :en.wikipedia.org...
Of course WE don't send them overseas to act as a tool and kill all non whites,that little gem is Jihadisim at it's best.
Of course the bankers are the real Nazis.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


There they are. Hm, thanks for the link!


Of course the bankers are the real Nazis.


Hehe, right you are mate



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


And isn't it time liberals,conservatives,gun owners and men who wear pastels ,figure it out so we can ALL face the real enemy?



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Sure, but people have to make sure to face the real enemy - not the one MSNBC and friends wants us to believe.

There are many levels to the System, and even some parts of the system are sick of the system. These parts of the system will often be exposed as "bad" by the rest of the system, and the truth is hard to perceive from a public point of view. A blind revolution would destroy both the enemy but also the ally. Or even destroy the ally and only parts of the enemy.

Investigation is needed. Does someone have something to gain from an american revolutions? This someone, is it really an ally, or a traitor which plans to take over America once the revolution is done?

A true war seeks not physical command over its people. It seeks psychological command over all people.




edit on 5-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join