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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

page: 35
58
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



That is in the Declaration of Independence.

It is the Constitution which defines our laws.




posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

That would seem to fit the definition of a non sequitur.


Typical Borg answer.... basically he said "resistance is futile".


edit on 28-1-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: imitator



Typical Borg answer.... basically he said "resistance is futile".

No.
What I said was, you make no sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate



That is in the Declaration of Independence.

It is the Constitution which defines our laws.



The Constitution has not ruled the land since 1861.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thanks for chiming in!

So ... there is nothing "Constitutional" that allows citizens to ignore laws as they wish then?

Thanks.

As far as the Declaration citation ... I see nothing that allows anyone to arbitrary become an outlaw.

We have all given our "consent" to support the laws of the land by accepting our citizenship after the age of accountability. I understand that if one don't wish to be a citizen, i.e. consent to the Constitution and subsequent laws of the United States (and the State, county and/or city resided in, of course) you may repudiate that privilege.

When did you repudiate your citizenship?

EDIT: No, the Constitution is still in full effect unless you have repudiated your citizenship. (And I'm not going to argue the Civil War again - off topic.)

Again, have you repudiated your rights?
edit on 28-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thanks for chiming in!

So ... there is nothing "Constitutional" that allows citizens to ignore laws as they wish then?

Thanks.

As far as the Declaration citation ... I see nothing that allows anyone to arbitrary become an outlaw.

We have all given our "consent" to support the laws of the land by accepting our citizenship after the age of accountability. I understand that if one don't wish to be a citizen, i.e. consent to the Constitution and subsequent laws of the United States (and the State, county and/or city resided in, of course) you may repudiate that privilege.

When did you repudiate your citizenship?



What laws were broken, as decided by a jury?

The jury decides whether the law breaker is to be punished, guilty or not.


edit on 28-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Be more specific.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Are you going to suggest that law enforcement had no reason to believe that the Bundites were armed?



Frankly, I believe the law enforcement didn't care if they were armed or not. It's my opinion at this point until more information comes out, that someone high up in our government wanted this to end and wanted someone dead, a martyr to set an example to We The People to never join the militia or any group that stands up against The Powers That Be, that We The Government will take you out, because we can.

That is the demonstration or president that was set. Media Black outs on mainstream propaganda and only a small Press Release that told us nothing.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thanks for chiming in!

So ... there is nothing "Constitutional" that allows citizens to ignore laws as they wish then?

Thanks.

As far as the Declaration citation ... I see nothing that allows anyone to arbitrary become an outlaw.

We have all given our "consent" to support the laws of the land by accepting our citizenship after the age of accountability. I understand that if one don't wish to be a citizen, i.e. consent to the Constitution and subsequent laws of the United States (and the State, county and/or city resided in, of course) you may repudiate that privilege.

When did you repudiate your citizenship?



Honestly, when did you consent?

Did you consider all of the sides of the issue, or did you just not think about it?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I answered your question which you can discover if you read more carefully; now kindly answer mine and stop the snide innuendo.

Here, I'll make it easy: have you chosen to live in the United States after reaching adulthood? Have you taken advantage of the protections, benefits and privileges of being an American citizen?

If so, and following your tacit argument, have you repudiated your citizenship? If not, you are consenting to the US and State Constitutions, and all laws that descend from those documents.

As did the Bundites.

/shrug
edit on 28-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Informer1958

Oh. A youtube.
I stand corrected.


It worked for Benghazi .....



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Frankly, I believe the law enforcement didn't care if they were armed or not.
Well, you weren't there, were you? You ignore the fact that for three weeks these "men" have been strutting around on youtube, sticking out their chests, packing iron, saying "I'd rather be dead than imprisoned." "All you patriots have to bring your guns and fight!" Do you think they were bluffing? Do you think the authorities thought they were bluffing?

Confirmation bias.



That is the demonstration or president that was set. Media Black outs on mainstream propaganda and only a small Press Release that told us nothing.
Why on Earth do you think that law enforcement would immediately start telling the press about everything they know? Why on Earth would they give a hint to other conspirators (and yes, that is exactly the right word) about what they know.

Confirmation bias.
edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Informer1958




Are you going to suggest this eyewitness is a lair?

I will certainly not discount the possibility, in light of the fact that there is another eyewitness who provides an entirely different version.

Are you going to suggest that law enforcement had no reason to believe that the Bundites were armed?


The other eyewitness also claimed he wasn't actually there. In fact, he even stated he was about a mile away.

Maybe he had super secret clairvoyant powers? I heard the Feds sometimes use them, but I have always doubted their credibility. that probably has to do with me being sane though.

But .. the eyewitness that was actually there, as inside the truck when Finicum was being shot, said he attempted to surrender and had his hands up.

bet on the one with super secret clairvoyant powers though ... I haven't been one to gamble.
edit on 28-1-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
that probably has to do with me being sane though.


Source?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
that probably has to do with me being sane though.


Source?




that was funny.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer



The other eyewitness also claimed he wasn't actually there. In fact, he even stated he was about a mile away.

So, you choose one. While I choose neither.
Until more is known, which do you think makes more sense?
edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Be more specific.


The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.

The 6th Amendment is more than an attempt to insure hearing of the truth. It is also a chance for the jury to set a guilty but morally sympathetic prisoner free.

The founding fathers had control of the courts to the extent that no one guilty of crimes against the royal decrees was sentenced to any punishment.

So the COTUS does allow breaking of the laws subject to the judgment of a jury.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



The Feds, Oregon State Police, and probably the Country Sheriff's office cooperated to end illegal activity which could have resulted in dozens of casualties with only one death and one injury.

These are facts. Most anything else is rhetoric.


A murder was committed on an unarmed man, this so call rhetoric is not over to say the lease. I can guarantee many law firms are scrambling right now to file a wrongful death suite.

I am sure Constitutional lawyers are looking at the State Police and the FBI for over reach of power and perhaps murder.

This event in Oregon has just started. Many people want answers to this event, it is not going away.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



The founding fathers had control of the courts to the extent that no one guilty of crimes against the royal decrees was sentenced to any punishment.

The founding fathers would have been appalled by such a statement.
The document they wrote states that no branch of government has control of the Court.

edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No, no one was murdered. Repeating your belief doesn't make it true.

In fact, your post is almost entirely based on nothing more than your belief. You ignore every fact that doesn't fit into your preconceived scenarios.

Many people understand exactly what happened in Oregon, and we do not share your overly-romanticized views on "rebellion."

Question, if you feel so strongly about this ... why hadn't you joined the occupation previously?

Surely a brave man like yourself is willing to do more than talk, right?



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join