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.

 

Have we waited too long?

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am aware of the statements of John Adams. However, I do not characterise them as totalitarian. Anyone could aspire to and, with hard work, achieve the same status and participate at will. That would not be the case in a true totalitarian regime.

Participation, voting, has always had some restrictions. Only men, only property owners, etc. We still have age restrictions, and rightfully so. But these things change with the times. Women were once not allowed to vote. Now they are running for the highest office in the land and will one day take it. Having requisite qualifications for participation can seem totalitarian but I feel it is more a protection of the process than a domination of it.




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel




Lets say the worst nightmare of many Americans happens and some socialist, fascist pig-dog gets elected POTUS. The first thing they do is write an EO demanding the immediate confiscation of all firearms...


Never gonna' happen! Just never...gonna'...happen.

I know, I know...never say "never", but that is never gonna' happen. No other country on Earth was founded the way this one was. No other country on Earth has firearms so deeply entrenched in the very fabric of their existence. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution they assumed the right to bear arms was a given, but quickly thought better of that and codified it into the Constitution, in writing, with the Second Amendment.

Plus, the firearms industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and it's not just the firearms; it's everything that goes along with it. By outlawing firearms you would be effectively exterminating that whole industry and tens of thousands of jobs with it.

As much as it pains me (and pisses me off) to say this, I could envision a time when there are severe restrictions on purchasing firearms, but the notion of going door to door and 'confiscating' existing firearms violates so many elements of the Constitution you might as well render the whole thing null and void. Such an action flies in the face of the very underpinnings of the Constitution and the rights of freedom and liberty for all.

ETA - "I'll give up my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"


edit on 11/27/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   


but the notion of going door to door and 'confiscating' existing firearms violates so many elements of the Constitution you might as well render the whole thing null and void
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That is pretty much the point I am making - it is null and void for all intents and purposes.

We do not have the rights the Constitution says we should have. Not even close. Consider the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th was supposed to apply to all the rights the people have that are not listed among the numbered amendments. The rights we are meant to have are far too numerous to ever try to list. The right to farm your land. The right to hunt and fish for food. As simple as these things are they have all been legislated, had restrictions applied, and require taxation and licences to perform. In some places its even illegal to collect rain water. So, what are those rights too numerous to list?

There are candidates for POTUS right now running on a platform of confiscation of firearms. There are entire states full of people being disenfranchised on a daily basis who continually vote for the people taking their rights away because of partisan brain damage.

Yes. It can happen.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Authoritarian. Not the same as totalitarian.

Ah, my mistake, I see you're arguing in favor of restricted rights.

ETA:. Are the Dems all on board with gun confiscation? I hadn't heard that.
edit on 27-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel


So the question is this: has it gone too far to ever get it back? Is there still a way for the common man, the general population, to fight against tyrants, domestic or foreign? Will the government ever be of, by, and for the people as it was intended?


Yep. We have a growing population that wants authoritarian rule. They want the nanny-state to take care of them, they want the police-state to keep them safe.

It's only a matter of time.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

It will be a cold day in Hades before I will ever give up my guns.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

I really need to learn to read the entire post before
replying.
edit on 27-11-2019 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: The2Billies

You lost me on your first sentence,I hope you enjoy drinking
your Kool-Aid. I just read your signature,sad.


You see that tree you're barking up?

It's the wrong one. 2Billies is on your side.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The population that wants authoritarian rule (or is willing to submit to it) is fairly constant (85% or so).

The population that wants to be the authoritarian rulers remains constant at about 5% of the population. These are the various psychopaths at different levels called politicians.

The 10% of us in between these two groups understand that there was a better way but we apparently blew it. So now we will find ourselves in one group or the other, except with hellish awareness that its not the way it could have been.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
If Q has taught me anything it's the fact that revolutions are fought from the comfort of one's own home behind a computer or phone screen. It's never too late to wait for other people to fix things for you, just keep chasing that rabbit and things will eventually get better.

Tick tock tick tock...



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Alas, Babylon".



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well,seeing that I'm nearly 65, I do believe my only way to
fight is behind my computer screen.Remember,everything we
post on the internet is there forever!
I have been very outspoken against the democrats,the NWO...
Each time I press that reply button I am helping to support my
fellow patriots and placing a target on my back!



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Guilty as charged! Here is my public apology to 2Billies!



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Them damn Nazi-Communist, Fascist-Socialist, righty-lefties!

The paranoia is now fusing opposites into some sort of imaginary all consuming (even themselves) monster. And we all know what is left after something eats itself, don't we?


... haggis!




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: operation mindcrime
MSM may make it seem we are divided and fighting each other but the reality is that is not happening across the nation. The pot is being stirred and seditionists are organised in the larger cities but the suburban and rural areas are just fine.

I live in a rural setting with African Americans on every side of me and we don't have problems. In the country, we say live and let live. We all have that fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is under attack but it still survives in rural USA.

edit on 27-11-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Vroomfondel




Lets say the worst nightmare of many Americans happens and some socialist, fascist pig-dog gets elected POTUS. The first thing they do is write an EO demanding the immediate confiscation of all firearms...


Never gonna' happen! Just never...gonna'...happen.

I know, I know...never say "never", but that is never gonna' happen. No other country on Earth was founded the way this one was. No other country on Earth has firearms so deeply entrenched in the very fabric of their existence. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution they assumed the right to bear arms was a given, but quickly thought better of that and codified it into the Constitution, in writing, with the Second Amendment.

Plus, the firearms industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and it's not just the firearms; it's everything that goes along with it. By outlawing firearms you would be effectively exterminating that whole industry and tens of thousands of jobs with it.

As much as it pains me (and pisses me off) to say this, I could envision a time when there are severe restrictions on purchasing firearms, but the notion of going door to door and 'confiscating' existing firearms violates so many elements of the Constitution you might as well render the whole thing null and void. Such an action flies in the face of the very underpinnings of the Constitution and the rights of freedom and liberty for all.

ETA - "I'll give up my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"


The 2nd Amendment is just that, an amendment to the Constitution. It was added 4 years after the original Constitution was framed. It was not part of the original plan, it's a bolt-on.

The 2nd amendment was about civic militia and allowed the purchase of guns for defense, that the new government could not afford. It isn't about everyone owning guns, it is about raising a civil defense force that is armed and that can defend the country alongside the government.

The 2nd amendment is also an example of such an atrocious misuse of the language such that it has been misapplied to other than defense of the nation and the Constitution. I mean, just read the thing and ask yourself how you could have made it clearer in plain American-English as a guiding principle for a nation.

It has been implied that it means a weapons free-for-all (because it doesn't use the word 'guns', it uses the word 'arms'). Clearly, it can also mean that everyone is allowed to carry bombs and chemical/biological weapons, too. Yet the gun lobby, which is behind the whole 'everyone gets one' push, can't make money off stuff they don't sell.

And the the American republic was modeled on the French republic, established after the French Revolution of 1789. The US republic isn't really that unique in the world.

To those that come from better regulated and more systematic political backgrounds, and who haven't had civil wars & etc, yet have the same freedoms and similar legal representation, the American experience has been a comedy of errors.

edit on 27/11/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Is Q only for seniors such as yourself? Or is it meant to appeal to all age groups? Because I see people from all age groups backing Q and its narrative.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



it is about raising a civil defense force that is armed and that can defend the country alongside the government


You speak of how anyone could possibly misunderstand the second amendment then you demonstrate that you don't understand it.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Where does it say the militia is supposed to fight along side of the government?

The second amendment is meant to ensure that the people have a means of opposing tyranny, either foreign or domestic.



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
emphasis added

If today, We The People, decide that this government is too dysfunctional to serve any purpose and decide to abolish it, do you think they will just say "Okay." and go home? Do you think they will just give up their gravy train of corrupt abuses and self indulgence without a fight?

The Constitution isn't some list of wishes to have a hissy fit over when you aren't happy. But then, it was written when men had a pair and were willing to fight for what they believed in.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Authoritarian. Not the same as totalitarian.

Ah, my mistake, I see you're arguing in favor of restricted rights.

ETA:. Are the Dems all on board with gun confiscation? I hadn't heard that.


No, not arguing in favor of restricted rights. I believe voting in US elections should be limited to US citizens for example. And I do believe there should be an age limit for voting. Reaching that age does guarantee the desired level of maturity has been achieved, but its a step in the right direction.

I made no statement as extreme as to say "all dems are on board with gun confiscation". However, their are people currently running on that platform. The voter base continues to re-elect people who have failed for purely partisan reasons. Look at Chicago. For decades Chicago politicians have been promising a safer city by way of stricter gun control. The city is not safer. The repeated attempts at gun control are an utter failure. Yet when presented with alternatives the voter base continues to elect the same anti-gun lobby candidates because democrats. As democrats flee their home bases like they are in California, they take their failed policies with them to red states. (Funny how they always end up moving where the grass is greener...) The problem is once they get there they begin to institute the same failed policies that led them to flee their homes in the first place - because democrats.
edit on 27-11-2019 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut



it is about raising a civil defense force that is armed and that can defend the country alongside the government


You speak of how anyone could possibly misunderstand the second amendment then you demonstrate that you don't understand it.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Where does it say the militia is supposed to fight along side of the government?


The government is the same as the state (in legal terms). The 2nd clearly mentions it.


The second amendment is meant to ensure that the people have a means of opposing tyranny, either foreign or domestic.


"A well-regulated militia" clearly means a militia practiced in, and drilled in, the use of arms and military tactics. This is the subject of the amendment. The reason why is explained that it is "necessary" for the protection (or "security") of a "free state" (i.e: the particular implementation of Constitutional government in the US).

Part of arming the Militia requires that they are ready to stand and defend at a moments notice. To do so, their members require rapid access to armaments. That is why it says that the people should be allowed to "keep and bear arms" but makes no mention of 'owning' those arms. The implication in the clause is that the arms are part of the well regulated militia. To achieve this, there should not be law which confiscates those arms, which would "infringe" upon them keeping and bearing arms.

James Madison, the proposer of the 2nd amendment, wanted the government to never legislate against the existing state militia in a way that would hobble them.

James Madison - From the Federalist, No. 46: "That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm…Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

The issue of general citizenship ownership of guns for protection, regardless of service to militia, was not established in law until 2008 (The Supreme Court - District Of Columbia Vs. Heller)



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


emphasis added

If today, We The People, decide that this government is too dysfunctional to serve any purpose and decide to abolish it, do you think they will just say "Okay." and go home? Do you think they will just give up their gravy train of corrupt abuses and self indulgence without a fight?


The process of impeachment, clearly laid out in the Constitution's second article, and the separation of powers (or checks and balances) are ways that the citizenry usurps tyrannical government without armed revolt.


The Constitution isn't some list of wishes to have a hissy fit over when you aren't happy. But then, it was written when men had a pair and were willing to fight for what they believed in.


And how many have died unnecessarily due to that defense of a 'liberty' which is little different than any of 100 countries today (and most of which haven't gone through violent revolution to get there)?

The American Revolutionary War: 47,500 deaths?
The American Civil War: 1,030,000 deaths.
Gun deaths from suicide or homicide last 6 yrs: 107,073 deaths.
Gun deaths between 1867 and 2013: Who knows?

edit on 27/11/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join