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.

 

Police Admit That Armored Vehicles Are for Fighting “Constitutionalists” With Guns

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Logarock
Well don't let us interrupt your boot licking.


Oh, I don't like relying on the police to keep the constitutionalists in check.

I'd much rather have some sensible gun regulations.


Well now if you really knew the constitution, the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, those words wouldn't or couldn't roll off the tongue so easily.

The 2nd amendment is sensible gun regulation.
edit on 19-12-2014 by Logarock because: n




posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

How? It just says we are allowed to have them.
Anything after that it is open to interpretation, mainly what the "well regulated" can be seen as.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Logarock
Well don't let us interrupt your boot licking.


Oh, I don't like relying on the police to keep the constitutionalists in check.

I'd much rather have some sensible gun regulations.


Well now if you really knew the constitution, the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, those words wouldn't or couldn't roll off the tongue so easily.

The 2nd amendment is sensible gun regulation.


Because people do not understand the last word..
Infringed..


And what did Washington say about the 2nd amendment and government??




That about covers that..

2nd amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for a reason.. Not just to hunt.


originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Logarock

How? It just says we are allowed to have them.
Anything after that it is open to interpretation, mainly what the "well regulated" can be seen as.



What? ensure a free state.. Do you consider what we live under a free state? And INFRINGED REALLY???

Definition of Infringed:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

What does that say to you?

edit on 12/19/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

That we are allowed to have them... I already said that.
Allowing everyone to have them is not sensible regulation tho which is what my post is addressing.

Hence why I quoted the well regulated part not the infringed.
Since that is the only thing about regulation in there and it is as open and vague as can be.

edit on thFri, 19 Dec 2014 20:54:11 -0600America/Chicago1220141180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I believe it is set up so we can keep toe with the government..

But as the one image says when a government has evil plans they want to curb such things.. Then turn a natural right that we should all have to defend ourselves the best way we can are becoming a problem for some..

I do not understand that.. All you have to do is look at places where gun laws have made it illegal for others to get a firearm.. It speaks volumes...

And this coming from someone who particularly does not like guns... But as most people who are getting them these days... Are forced to..



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
So. This dude was nominated by all police in all of the states to speak for them about what these are for?

One man's example. Nother mountain-molehill moment on ATS.
edit on 12/19/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

I don't mind guns either until people shoot other people with them for reasons other than standing up to a tyrannical gov.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Logarock
Well don't let us interrupt your boot licking.


Oh, I don't like relying on the police to keep the constitutionalists in check.

I'd much rather have some sensible gun regulations.


Well now if you really knew the constitution, the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, those words wouldn't or couldn't roll off the tongue so easily.

The 2nd amendment is sensible gun regulation.


You ask 100 people to interpret the 2nd Amendment and you will get 100 different replies.

That's not a well written law.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
WTF did you think they were for?
Busting crack houses full of severely malnourished weaklings?
They were always for the fight that's looming over the constitution......if you cant see it coming you need spectacles.......
The Constitution is considered an obsolete document by your governmental oligarchs.....the police merely reflect that opinion....


As usual your post is concise and to the point. And who can argue that one? I do try to stay out of these threads that do not really effect me, but this armored mentality has just recently crossed into Canada and now I take more notice.

I smell a public clean up like we have never seen before and I fear there will be no tales to tell when its all said and done.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So. This dude was nominated by all police in all of the states to speak for them about what these are for?

One man's example. Nother mountain-molehill moment on ATS.


No his word isn't nominated as the sole spokesmen for all of police..

Thier actions speak volumes.. We have been watching the making of something interesting.. This guy kinda slipped I supposed.. Kinda like..

"When the rocket hit the Pentagon... err Plane..."
"I saw when the 1st plane hit the tower.."
And on and on and on..
He is just saying already what most people with the comprehensions of a 5 yr old can understand..

Freedom in this country is lacking the definition.. Want to prove me wrong?
edit on 12/19/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ThichHeaded

That we are allowed to have them... I already said that.
Allowing everyone to have them is not sensible regulation tho which is what my post is addressing.

Hence why I quoted the well regulated part not the infringed.
Since that is the only thing about regulation in there and it is as open and vague as can be.


The well regulated part has only to do with the militia and it simply addresses that a group of folks that take up arms cant act like a mob. It has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So. This dude was nominated by all police in all of the states to speak for them about what these are for?

One man's example. Nother mountain-molehill moment on ATS.



To many on this matter, law enforcement is a bellwether. We know that the time is short if they go south on us. In these regards they have a leadership position and should be outspoken and as jealous for the peoples rights as anyone, warning against tyranny. Oh wow let me smack myself.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Well thats a crock of snip.

Since gang bangers, and other criminals are all better armed than us 'constitutionalist's'.


I hope that's sarcasm. Right???

Second



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ThichHeaded

I don't mind guns either until people shoot other people with them for reasons other than standing up to a tyrannical gov.


Sounds like you dont mind the intentions of individuals unless they cause unprovoked harm to others. We get that.

The act of isolating guns as prevalent to the intentions of others shows the misconception devised to demonize an object not a movement.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
MRAP's are not so much the issue here as they are more of a handicap used in non-military domestic situations. Sure they have an intimidation factor to individuals and small groups. In action against the officers stated group though they become a liability as they never were intended to operate alone in hostile enviroments.

I do wish LE who have beliefs such as presented would honestly question themselves why a scenario as feared would happen in the first place.

The answer if honest would have the fear never answered.

Until such time if ever, use of MRAP's needs sever restriction on use such as ongoing hostage situations and such where use can be demonstrated as needed and required .



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Sounds like your interpretation of it it.
Cause taking up arms and acting like a mob is exactly how you would over throw a gov.

Still doesn't explain what you meant when you said the 2nd is sensible regulation



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oudoceus
It's time to honor Mr. Molatav and his wonderful invention; The Molatav Cocktail, the poor mans answer to the armored vehicle! a reply to: ThichHeaded

I think it was invented in England, the guy just named it after the Soviet foreign minister. (or what ever his job was)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Is something sinister on the horizon? This stinks of Civil War protocol.


The Fed knows full economic collapse is unavoidable. And they know what will happen next when that day comes. They aren't stupid.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

The statement clearly puts the G-D popo against the
constitution. Nothing else can be said. No debate!



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
There was a rally about the MRAP(More about the demonstration) at the Spokane Valley Police Department, one of two locally the other "We will not comply" in reply to the I-594 passing, held about this at 2pm today.


Couldn't make it up there today to report, but found some info online:

FB-MRAP - Some demonstrators were armed.


The sheriff also remarked on it-see here. InfoWars showed up, said the Sheriff went on vacation before the rally, etc. More on that


edit on 20-12-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join