It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:25 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sunwolf

.... Or the slave issue couldn't have been there in the first place.
Yes that is the way it turned out but it does not mean we could not have got to where we are now without slaves.

I am not going to agree that we are better off since we had slaves back then, no way.

No one is saying that,but the Southern States agricultural economy was such that doing without slaves was difficult at best.Pre-industrial revolution it was slaves,peons,serfs,indians that provided the labor for the most menial of farm tasks.That is the way it was..

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: Sunwolf

Ya it was 'the way it was' cause the people then thought they had every right to treat the people the way they did.

Who knows what could have been done without slaves, we will never know cause that wasn't the case.

Rich powerful men like having slaves, it still rings true today.

So I guess you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now with out them.

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 05:47 PM
Well, obviously American police forces have slowly metastasised into para-military forces. You see, the situation you have in America is the fault of the Founding Fathers not asking a particular question as they debated and framed the Constitution. They did not ponder on the question that if they succeeded in freeing themselves of the British yolk, what kind of country did they want to be?

This question was asked by certain individuals over a 100 years ago, and they set about to socially-engineer the type of country they wanted America to be, and they are well-on-track to fully completing their vision. It's probably not a vision that you yourself might well agree to in a moral sense? Nor, might you agree to this vision of America due to some other belief system? America is a land peopled by groups all competing against each other seeking to impose their own vision of America on everyone else.

The ones leading the race have become the elite, hiding behind puppets and muppets acting out their roles in a stage set of illusion. They don't believe in the same form of freedom that you do. Their status as leaders and captains of industry is their freedom, and you hand it to them, maintain it for them, by remaining stuck in the belief that they want the same things as you for everyone else. Take a look around, there's not a whole lot of equality being shared in America. You are simply doing as they say, and not as they do because you consider yourselves as peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and in that way, in that moral context, you police yourselves and each other.

All the while, your police forces are metamorphosing into domestic street armies with considerable para-military muscle. It begs the mind when a policeman turns up to an incident dressed and tooled up like the SAS, and nobody seems to question the appropriateness of it all. Of course, it's all rational and acceptable,isn't it? They do a tough job and have to deal with some real bad people. Yet, my question is, just how many bad people are there in America that requires America to have para-militarised police forces? Who the hell are they going to fight? Don't you think you have more law-enforcement in America than you need?

No. The police forces haven't militarised for terrorists or for criminals in general, they have done so in support to a particular vision of America, and it's not the vision you see or believe in. You're not on your own. Other western countries are following suit, because the vision of a particular America is a globalised concept of corporate hegemony, and for it to succeed in its vision, it needs a para-military outfit to protect it and it's material resources at home.

You are either 'with them' or 'against them'. Accept it as a serf or reject it as a rebel and be labelled a terroist.

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 06:24 PM

originally posted by: dreamingawake
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

Update on the above info:

Sheriff Knezovich's responses to what the deputy says in the OP(deputy not a sheriff who was on that video) Rep Matt Shea and Infowars, plus their reply to that starting at at 2:38:46

He states later in the clips(from 25 min video) of him on the video he'll talk to Jones and debate Matt Shea, in case anyone is wondering where this is going in this local area.
edit on 21-12-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:01 PM
a reply to: NOTurTypical

>well regulated doesn't mean well regulated.

yes it does, a well regulated militia is one that is properly trained, properly drilled, and has a proper chain of command and procedures. Militia's were (in early american history) typically called upon by state governors to put down tax-rebellions, or riots. Militias were a part of the government of, by, and for the people. poorly-regulated militias were useless, and probably would do more harm than good.

Consider the attitudes of the founders towards a standing army, they did not want a standing army, as a large standing army/military often leads to coups by military leaders.
See Switzerland for what a well-regulated militia looks like.
edit on 23-12-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:45 PM
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

I said "well regulated" doesn't mean "lots of laws and regulations". I also said that in 1700s English, and even to this day in England, "regulated" means "equipped/supplied".

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in