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.

 

Gun Laws - Precursor to Takeover?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I think Thomas Crown noted that the founding fathers allowed for citizens (& well regulated militias) to own and keep arms to keep our government from goin tyrannical on us.

A beautiful right.

However, in this day and age one only need look back to RUBY RIDGE and WACO to understand the power and reach of the US government (aided greatly by a compliant print/tv media). It would have to be one massive and concerted effort on the part of the people to even begin to rival our government's military power. If a revolt on that level did occur, the only thing that might save the people would be true patriots from within our military ranks (still on our soil) breaking ranks in support of the people. I can envision something like this happening. You know all those crazy whispers about blue helmets (UN) being quietly shipped in, as our soldiers are more and more gone? If a Revolution broke out, those blue helmets would be more effective (brutal) in squashing the battles. It would be harder for our troops to shoot their own. Those blue helmets, though, would enrage Americans even more - foreigners killing American citizens on our soil....

This is a deep subject...




posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I have heard roumors about concentration camps being constructed on US soil (Alaska and Texas were both mentioned).

There was a story about the Chicago train station having signs posted (Red, orange, Green) to properly route people - although since then the signs were taken down.

There was also a story about an airport in the Denver area, that they built some huge buildings - like 40 stories - then buried them.

Don't know if any of it is anything but babbelings by some nuts - but I don't like the feel of it.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
I have heard roumors about concentration camps being constructed on US soil (Alaska and Texas were both mentioned).


You left out ...in Washington and Arizona, too.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I just wanted to mention Eastcoastkid, Ruby Ridge and Waco, was not taken care of by the U.S. military but by the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. And in each of those situations they could have been fine but they brought it on themselves. At Ruby Ridge the suspects killed a U.S. Marshal which constitutes for the FBI to come in and take over. At Waco, ATF agents went legally to see if they indeed were modifying semi-auto weapons to be fully auto. The Branch Davidians killed, I believe a couple of ATF agents. Once again the death of federal officers constitutes for the FBI to come in and take over. Also there was holding of children against their will. The U.S. allows for the right to bear arms within the legal limit of the law. We did not burn down the Davidian compound and shoot them in the heads causing suicide. Everything that happened they brought upon themselves.

9890



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Dancer,


Originally posted by dancer
I Never said that the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were godly documents. The implication is that our founding Fathers were astute enough to mention it, along with other rights. These are the rights of every human on the planet. Not the sole property of the USA. They are Thusly God given rights.


So you feel that they are not godly documents but that the Founding Fathers were channelling God to allow them to codify man's god given rights?


Sure, they were writen over 200 yrs ago, That does not make them any less valid today than upon the day they were writen.


If you feel that a written set of the rules of god are relevant no matter when they were written then I take it you fully adhere to the rules set down in the bible?


If you wish to lay down your guns and rights to them, then by all means do so - and allow yourself to be enslaved.


Let me tell you this, if you for one minute think you are free then you are suffering from delusional psychosis.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who belive they are free"

(Since I am - in Fact Clergy, I do abide by the laws in the Bible)

- Other than that - Perhaps you need professional help..



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Dancer,


Originally posted by dancer
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who belive they are free"

(Since I am - in Fact Clergy, I do abide by the laws in the Bible)

- Other than that - Perhaps you need professional help..


Do you abide by ALL the laws of the bible?

All the help I get is professional.


Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 9890
I just wanted to mention Eastcoastkid, Ruby Ridge and Waco, was not taken care of by the U.S. military but by the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. And in each of those situations they could have been fine but they brought it on themselves. At Ruby Ridge the suspects killed a U.S. Marshal which constitutes for the FBI to come in and take over. At Waco, ATF agents went legally to see if they indeed were modifying semi-auto weapons to be fully auto. The Branch Davidians killed, I believe a couple of ATF agents. Once again the death of federal officers constitutes for the FBI to come in and take over. Also there was holding of children against their will. The U.S. allows for the right to bear arms within the legal limit of the law. We did not burn down the Davidian compound and shoot them in the heads causing suicide. Everything that happened they brought upon themselves.

9890


Both cases are quite debatable on many points. The main point I was making is, if the government has you marked, good luck.

The military was employed at WACO, btw. Guess who was in charge of that? Mr. Presidential candidate General Wesley Clark.

[edit on 6/6/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
ECK,

I would be interested on your take on the legal aspects of the 2nd amendment and its use by TC as justification for civilian insurrection.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
ECK,

I would be interested on your take on the legal aspects of the 2nd amendment and its use by TC as justification for civilian insurrection.

Cheers

BHR


I"m sorry, its early yet.. I'm just now having my morning coffee..


What do you mean exactly? Is it legal for folks to bear arms against the government?

All apologies..



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
ECK,

ThomasCrowne earlier in this thread stated,

"The Founding Fathers made it clear that the 2nd amendment was to protect the nation from tyrannical government. That is to say, they expected each one of us to be armed with weapons that are sufficient to take back our government from tyrannical or arbitrary rule. The problem isn't weapons ownership, but a citizenry that is unknowledgeable of the constitution, the words of the Founding Fathers, their God-given rights or their responsibilities as citizens."

I responded several posts later (too long to paste here)

I would be interested in your opinion on this matter.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Ok Eastcoastkid, I was under the impressin that it was the FBI HRT that took care of it, but I always get misinformation.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
ECK,

ThomasCrowne earlier in this thread stated,

"The Founding Fathers made it clear that the 2nd amendment was to protect the nation from tyrannical government.


On this point I agree. They felt that the federal government needed to be put in check by the people. They gave us the ability to pull the plug on our current government - to form another - should it become intolerably corrupt, or in their words "tyrannical."


That is to say, they expected each one of us to be armed with weapons that are sufficient to take back our government from tyrannical or arbitrary rule.


Nowhere (I've ever read) does it stipulate EVERY citizen is to have a weapon. It talks about a well regulated militia, which people like to argue over. I think what they meant was either something akin to the national guard or a militia group (like so many demonised during Clinton's tenure). The bottom line is the government would think twice before behaving badly if they understood the people could, and would rise up in force to demand change/accountability.


The problem isn't weapons ownership, but a citizenry that is unknowledgeable of the constitution, the words of the Founding Fathers, their God-given rights or their responsibilities as citizens."


I can agree with that.

The problem with gun ownership is that so many people do not act within the laws. Then the whole is punished. I am for responsible gun ownership, myself.






BHR



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 9890
Ok Eastcoastkid, I was under the impressin that it was the FBI HRT that took care of it, but I always get misinformation.


There were several groups involved at WACO. BATF (bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco & Firearms) was one of the main players in both, if I remember correctly.


[edit on 6/6/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Since the 2nd Ammendment states "A Militia"

Could that imply that the (or a) milita is to be under the control of the populus rather than the Govt?

Concept being Strong State governments - (that which would be easier to over throw by their citizens) - instead of a Strong Federal Government?

Thus a government for and by the people.

If Each state were required to pledge their citizens for a Draft (for lack of a better word) and "Loan" them to the Fed we would have a more controlable situation with the Govt than what we have today.

Potential problems would be such things as Sorry our state voted not to go to this country and fight with them so were not going - furthermore send all the troops that we pledged in the past back to us. On the upshot is that would keep us from sticking our noses in places where they don't belong.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It's interpreted differently. The way I read it, it says "well regulated militia." Possibly meaning via control of a state; but it could well mean controlled by the citizens - separate from ANY government control. I personally believe they meant MILITIA, as in the kind Clinton's government went out of the way to DEMONIZE. Remember how hard they went at that? Then BOOM there was the OKC bombing. Blamed it all on the wacky militia nuts (Tim McVeigh). MANY, MANY people bought into it all.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Ya, I remember that...

One of the old local Army-Navy stores had a lot of the local milita comming in - TM was with them a few times - something about the guy just wasn't right. He was trying to get in with them. Reports had it that they would barely let the guy come to the meetings, and he was trying really hard to become part of the inner circle. But they'd just smile and nod a lot - Dunno if he ever got the hint.

Man, what bad PR for the Milita crews - no wonder so many went completely underground or disbanded.

- Then again that was the Clinton Admin Goal -

If people had brains and independant thought they could be dangerous.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Based on my information, I believe McVeigh was an agent of the US government. So, I'm sure he did his best to infiltrate the movement. There was that whole Elohim City aspect to the case. Very bizarre.

You have to admit, the goal to demonize them worked wonders.

To the people's detriment.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
ECK,

What is Elohim City? Can you link to any information on this?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
Since the 2nd Ammendment states "A Militia"

Could that imply that the (or a) milita is to be under the control of the populus rather than the Govt?


If the founding fathers included this provision, it was meant to be under the control of the citizens of each individual state. It makes no sense to put the government in charge of a force designed to keep the government in check.


If Each state were required to pledge their citizens for a Draft (for lack of a better word) and "Loan" them to the Fed we would have a more controlable situation with the Govt than what we have today.


That won't fly. See today's debate over a possible national draft b/c of the Iraqi quagmire.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join