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.

 

This ain't rocket science

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Im 23 now. Before I was born my rights were taken away. In the present my rights that I have left are slowly going away (or being violated by the CIC).

Ill be dead by the time I'm 100 (or so thats what science tells me). What good is patience in politics when I'll be dead waiting for it to happen? I'm supposed to be enjoying these rights NOW, not just for the future.


So you expect your forbearers to do the politics, and when you come around and don't like what you see, you cant wait. So you resort to violence.

Nice.



If we had the support to uphold the Constitution it would of happened already. Yesterday to be exact.


If you don't feel like the old constitution has support, who are you to impose it on others, again, using violence.

Create the support you find lacking, and the problem will be solved. At worst you will have created more brothers in arms for yourself if it comes to that.



So really I think you have to recognize that the only way we have in restoring the Constitution is by violence. I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying thats reality. At least if you want to enjoy the freedoms in your lifetime. But that's if you think they are worth fighting for.


I don't have to recognize any of your opinions mate.

I am fighting. But with a pen, not a gun.

You are 23. This is exactly the time for you to get involved. Get organized, take action, fight! But for gods sake, put this violence crap on the shelf until YOU have exhausted every other option.

/rant

Remember, any implement of war can be used for giving life as well as death.


Peace.

g




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gekko

So you expect your forbearers to do the politics, and when you come around and don't like what you see, you cant wait. So you resort to violence.

Nice.


Actually my forbearers fought for their freedom. They didnt win their freedoms in politics. They were victors in battle and they drafted their freedom for themselves to enjoy. They were soldiers who had earned their right to write the Constituion.





If you don't feel like the old constitution has support, who are you to impose it on others, again, using violence.


Who are you to impose your government on me? That was a hypocritical statement.




I don't have to recognize any of your opinions mate.

I am fighting. But with a pen, not a gun.

You are 23. This is exactly the time for you to get involved. Get organized, take action, fight! But for gods sake, put this violence crap on the shelf until YOU have exhausted every other option.

/rant

Remember, any implement of war can be used for giving life as well as death.


Peace.

g


You dont recognize my opinion that politics are useless. I dont recognize your opinion that politics are more effective then violence. Fair enough.

If people need me to enlighten them on how great the US Constitution is then they were'nt worth the time to begin with. I'd rather see them in battle.



[edit on 28-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Actually my forbearers fought for their freedom. They didnt win their freedoms in politics. They were victors in battle and they drafted their freedom for themselves to enjoy. They were soldiers who had earned their right to write the Constituion.


You are skipping a couple of centuries of history here. I thought your point was to redeem the changes that has been made. Or are your parents hundreds of years old?

I presume you have more recent forbearers who were a part of changing your country into this thing you hate so much.



Who are you to impose your government on me? That was a hypocritical statement.


Dude, I´m not even american. I impose nothing on you. Just stating my opinions. Please enlighten me as to where I was hypocritical.

Some things however, are imposed on you by a majority of the people. That's called democracy. If it is democracy you hate, we have nothing more to discuss.



You dont recognize my opinion that politics are useless. I dont recognize your opinion that politics are more effective then violence. Fair enough.



No. That is not fair enough. You advocate violence, pain, suffering to promote your views. That will never be fair enough.

Also, I'm am not saying violence isn't more effective. It probably is in the short run. Don't put words in my mouth mate. All I´m saying is that killing needs to be a last resort. You it seems, haven't even thought about other solutions.



If people need me to enlighten them on how great the US Constitution is then they were'nt worth the time to begin with. I'd rather see them in battle.


Ah, so they aren't worth your time. Thanks. I think I start to see what kind of person you are now. Please prove me wrong.

g



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Im 23 now. Before I was born my rights were taken away.
In the present my rights that I have left are slowly going away (or being violated by the CIC).

Don't spare us any details man.


Ill be dead by the time I'm 100 (or so thats what science tells me). What good is patience in politics when I'll be dead waiting for it to happen? I'm supposed to be enjoying these rights NOW, not just for the future.

So, what do you wish to do now that you can't do.
And have you trying doing this thing yet? Or are you just reading from conspiricy sites that you can't do it so you don't even try?


If we had the support to uphold the Constitution it would of happened already. Yesterday to be exact.




So really I think you have to recognize that the only way we have in restoring the Constitution is by violence.

bs
There's always another way.
As has been said before...get involved! I can't stand people who just sit at their computer complaining how much they hate the government and that it needs to be changed, yet do nothing except sit at their computer complaining how much they hate the government and that it needs to be changed. Then they advocate violence?
lmao
If they can't even get away from your computer, what makes them think they have they balls to violently overthrow the government which would require killing people. If they're not involved with anything now and have no idea how things really work, what makes them think they can do better once the government is overthrown and the country is in ruins?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Understand what's in your best interest and be creative !

You know that the 'OMG do something' crowd isn't going to accomplish anything as long as your message is melodramatic and essentially unpractical. You are probably right that we are about to go for a walk through hell, but i personally believe that appealing to yesterday's mindset is doomed to fail and rightly so, because OUR world requires that you spend your life on something tangible (pardon the word i don't mean that in a materialistic sense).

The idea of rebelling for a second-hand illusion doesn't impress me much - the metaphors you're helpessly shouting into the www are part of a time long gone, find something suitable for this time, with its fundamentally changed (and obviously unstable) society. Most importanly, understand what you need[(i] not what you want.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
Violence will only breed more violence.

Yeah, but so does non-violence. The world isn't escaping violence any time soon. It's a practical, efficient way to get certain things done under certain, specific circumstances.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

So, what do you wish to do now that you can't do.
And have you trying doing this thing yet? Or are you just reading from conspiricy sites that you can't do it so you don't even try?


Immigration laws are not enforced. Laws are supposed to be enforced. The federal government is supposed to provide money to enforce the laws. Provide money to the State Militias.

We have arms control. My right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

We have laws that make it illegal to "uphold the constitution" by violence, or to advocate that practice. That is against what this country was supposed to be. It spits on the declaration of independance. We have a right to revolt and uphold the laws. As long as we are enforcing laws or upholding the Constitution, that is how it is supposed to be.

We have unlawful surveilance conducted by the government. Their idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable are obviously two different things. We are supposed to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause AND a court order. Police will search you without court orders but rather just on probabale cause. The Constitution requires both a court order AND probable cause.

The government is supposed to control the money.

We were never supposed to only have a two party system. Democrats and REpublicans have monopolized politics.

The President never had any powers other then to address the union and to command the military. And to appoint officers.

The federal government does not have the powers to make laws. The only law making power they have is to determine our taxes, laws that affect interstate commerce, and international law. Instead the federal government is our chief law maker in almost all aspects. DOmestic violence, arms control, terrorism, the military laws, environment, etc, etc, etc. These are all State rights.

We are not supposed to have a standing army. We are supposed to have State Militias. Each State being responsible for it's own security. Security against the federal government, security against foreign enemies, and security to defeat rebellion.

We give foreign aid with money we don't have. If you are in debt that means you have no money to spend. We will give more foreign aid each year then it requires to run an entire State for a year. We have budget problems for our educational system, but Israel has no problem fielding a modern army with US Aid. That is wrong.

We have free trade agreements. Taxes and Tariffs are supposed to be our revenue.

The FBI, ATF, CIA are all supposed to be State agencies. The FBI, ATF, and CIA are only supposed to be enforcing international laws. Our States are supposed to have their own mini countries, not centralized powers in a federal government.

Too much centralized power in the federal government.


THere are more reasons, I hope you get the idea. Most of those problems are major and could constitute a reason to fight and die for. Especially the 2nd Amendment and decentralizing power in the federal government. And the militia is also important.

Like I said why to to educate people through politics? Why should I have patience? Do I honestly think that Americans want absolute 2nd amendment rights? Do I think that the States will get their power back? Do I think the federal government will get smacked down? No, I dont.

Violence would be the only thing to rectify the problems I highlighted.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Lets talk about gist of the founding fathers...

they realized early on, that the government needs to be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government...

now, the government pisses me off regularly, but I am not afraid of it yet...

the sad thing is, when I am afraid, it will be too late for me to do anything about it...

SO instead, i remain vigilant, and have garnered connections to petty politicians, and local officials, so that if "the crap hits the fan" and the government actually tries to enforce or prosecute many of the laws that they recently passed to silence opposition (as well as the various interpretations of "give aid and comfort") then well...
we might just have the second official revolution... but this one comes in a different flavor...
one done thru the polls, and the very same media that the originator hopes to "slay"...

the media is like whores... they play with whoever pays them (in this case, pay = attention of public)
if a noticable charismatic new independant candidate comes on board, they will see if there is some way to hype it into sales...
they really want to sell papers before pushing agendas...

And as has been commented upon... I suggest you soften your retouric, as it is considered inflamatory,as well as illegal in many countries...
You cant threaten to kill world leaders, and you shouldn't threaten to kill media people... (they are often just doing their job, of hype salesmen)

So before you want us all to become terrorists, come over to the peaceful change side, and see if that works first... okie dokey?
if it doesn't, then even the pacifists will be kickin corrupt patootie...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shot messenger

a house divided against itself cannot stand.




i think you've been watching to much sienfeld. georgia costanza said as much



A George, divided against itself, Cannot Stand!

source



[edit on 28-3-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shot messenger
The founders of the great country america were in reality traitors to the tyrant kingdom, and terrorist methods needed to be used by the founders of america to secure the blessings of liberty.

BE NOT AFRAID TO BECOME A TERRORIST, BECAUSE THE FOUNDING FATHERS LED A TERRORIST REVOLUTION TO CREATE THE GREAT AMERICA.


ter·ror·ist [ térrərist ] (plural ter·ror·ists)


noun

Definitions:

somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes

free·dom fight·er (plural free·dom fight·ers)


noun

Definitions:

fighter in armed revolution: a participant in an armed revolution against a government or political system regarded as unjust

reb·el [ rébb'l ]


noun (plural re·bels)

Definitions:

1. somebody unconventional: somebody who rejects the codes and conventions of society


2. soldier who opposes government: a soldier who belongs to a force seeking to overthrow a government or ruling power

The founding fathers weren't terrorists. I hope these definitions will help you with your confusion. A terrorist purposely targets the innocent population to instill fear and a political outcome. A rebel or freedom fighter targets the govt. itself, mostly in open battle but not always using violence. For example Ghandi would be a rebel, he was instrumental in ending English imperialism in India/ Pakistan without firing a shot. The American forefathers would be freedom fighters. They led an armed resistance against the English monarchy.

Now if you want to become a terrorist, go ahead. I just hope somebody pops a cap in your a$$.

Now if you wanted to take a more honorable route you could lead an armed revolt against the govt. but it will be short lived since not everyone else is a traitor or a freaking nut job.

Now instead of staying up another 24 straight hours staring at propaganda designed to brainwash you, go to bed and see a therapist first thing in the morning.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well, I will start a freedom fighting militia when Bush assumes dictatorship after 2008, and i'm actually fearing it.

don't forget the quote by benjamin franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

That's exactly what's going on, we are giving up our freedom for security...so we don't deserve neither...

I don't fear the Bird Flu, global warming or terrorism.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Immigration laws are not enforced. Laws are supposed to be enforced. The federal government is supposed to provide money to enforce the laws.

The immigration situation is way more complicated than you're making it out to be but let me ask you.
Which immigration law isn't being enforced?


Provide money to the State Militias.

What do you think the National Guard is?


We have arms control. My right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

lol
Arms control laws are for protection. How could you possibly have a problem with that? You would let criminals or young kids be able to buy any kind of gun they want?


We have laws that make it illegal to "uphold the constitution" by violence, or to advocate that practice.

That's because we lived in a civilized society. I would leave this country if they make murder legal.


That is against what this country was supposed to be. It spits on the declaration of independance.

You obviously haven't read either then.

DOI:

....whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying the foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safty and happiness....

Where does it say we should overthrow the government by violence?
By trying to overthrow the gov. by violence you would only cause chaos during and after such an event. How is that establishing safty and happiness?
And again, if you don't know what's going on now, or know how countries work, what do you think is going to happen if by chance you were actually successful.

There's nothing in the constitution advocating violence or gives Americans the right to violently overthrow the government.



We have a right to revolt and uphold the laws.

According to who?


We have unlawful surveilance conducted by the government. Their idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable are obviously two different things. We are supposed to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause AND a court order. Police will search you without court orders but rather just on probabale cause. The Constitution requires both a court order AND probable cause.

So far no one has been able to prove this has happened to them.
If it is proven then whoever did it should be dealt with properly.


The government is supposed to control the money.

?
...and it does....


We were never supposed to only have a two party system. Democrats and REpublicans have monopolized politics.

That's just the way things are now. There's absolutely nothing illegal with two dominate parties. We don't have just a two party system, but even if we did, there's nothing illegal about that.


The President never had any powers other then to address the union and to command the military. And to appoint officers.

www.presidentsusa.net...


The federal government does not have the powers to make laws. The only law making power they have is to determine our taxes, laws that affect interstate commerce, and international law. Instead the federal government is our chief law maker in almost all aspects. DOmestic violence, arms control, terrorism, the military laws, environment, etc, etc, etc. These are all State rights.

No, these are all national issues.
Some of the decisions that were made by John Marshall and the Supreme Court were so that the congress would be the chief lawmaker. Federal laws have always carried more weight than state laws under the constitution.


We are not supposed to have a standing army. We are supposed to have State Militias. Each State being responsible for it's own security.

lol, where are you getting all this from?

Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States......

It clearly states he's the commander over both the Army and the Militia. How can that be if we're not supposed to have an army?

I honestly want to know where you got that from. Who ever heard of a country without an army


You think we're still under the Articles of Confederation or something? This is the year 2006. We have 50 states not 13. Things are I would say a bit different.


We give foreign aid with money we don't have. If you are in debt that means you have no money to spend.

We've been in debt since the founding of this country and it was partly done on purpose. Do a bit of research when Washington/Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were in power.


We will give more foreign aid each year then it requires to run an entire State for a year. We have budget problems for our educational system, but Israel has no problem fielding a modern army with US Aid. That is wrong.

Wait...so...the education system is a federal thing and not a state thing now?
We give aid to certain countries for different reasons. Stratigic and specific reasons.


We have free trade agreements. Taxes and Tariffs are supposed to be our revenue.

1. Again, this is the 21st century. Things tend to change over time.
2. FTAs are more beneficial to the parties involved. With NAFTA the US has made more money with the agreement in place than it would have without an agreement. So we're making more revenue.
3. It's not like FTAs are on everything or with every country....


The FBI, ATF, CIA are all supposed to be State agencies. The FBI, ATF, and CIA are only supposed to be enforcing international laws.

lol
State agencies enforcing international laws?
Are you joking?
Neither were ever meant to be a State agencies anyway. All were meant to enforce federal laws and/or to protect from international and domestic crimes against the US.


Our States are supposed to have their own mini countries, not centralized powers in a federal government.


Best quote of the night!

Why do you think we have the Constitution? Why do you think the Articles of Confederation failed?
It failed because each state being their own "mini countries" was not working and was never going to work! There's no way that could have worked. That's why our founding fathers framed the constitution. So we would have a more centralized government!


Too much centralized power in the federal government.

Take that up with the founding fathers.


THere are more reasons, I hope you get the idea. Most of those problems are major and could constitute a reason to fight and die for. Especially the 2nd Amendment and decentralizing power in the federal government. And the militia is also important.

You're willing to fight and die over something you obviously don't fully understand or have done research on?


Like I said why to to educate people through politics? Why should I have patience?

Why not?

You think things will change overnight?

Do you think there won't be a government after your phantom revolution? They're going to have to deal with politics then won't they?


Violence would be the only thing to rectify the problems I highlighted.

How do you know that?
Have you tried the other way?
Violence would only cause things to get worse. If you think otherwise, then you're sorely undereducated.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The immigration situation is way more complicated than you're making it out to be but let me ask you.
Which immigration law isn't being enforced?


The Attorney General can deport any illegal alien. Almost all of them fall under the category of deportable. 11 million + illegal immigrants = 11 State of Rhode Island's full of people who arent US citizens. That is a problem. I have no problem with immigration but most of them are anti american, have no national pride, and think we stole their land and they are entitled to settle here wether we like it or not.



What do you think the National Guard is?


The National Guard might be called the organized militia but it is not structured the same as the original organized militias were. The organized militia has been completely disbanded, instead we have a federalized national guard. The National guard is not completely under State control anymore.



lol
Arms control laws are for protection. How could you possibly have a problem with that? You would let criminals or young kids be able to buy any kind of gun they want?


My right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I never said kids should be able to buy weapons. And I never said felons should be able to buy weapons.



That's because we lived in a civilized society. I would leave this country if they make murder legal.


Murder is legal. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We execute criminals. Why did we kill them? Because they were enemies to our country. There are lots of domestic enemies here. There are anti americans, politicians who overstep pwoers, fascist police, etc. All can be considered domestic enemies.

We offer no safeguard for Americans to defend their freedoms.



You obviously haven't read either then.

DOI:

....whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying the foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safty and happiness....

Where does it say we should overthrow the government by violence?
By trying to overthrow the gov. by violence you would only cause chaos during and after such an event. How is that establishing safty and happiness?
And again, if you don't know what's going on now, or know how countries work, what do you think is going to happen if by chance you were actually successful.

There's nothing in the constitution advocating violence or gives Americans the right to violently overthrow the government.


Where does it say we shouldnt overthrow the government by violence? Where does it not advocate violence? They did end up fighting Britain. They tried politics and it failed.



?
...and it does....

The federal reserve is owned by the Bank of England.

Goto federalreserves.gov. Read the FAQ:

"Why did Congress want the Federal Reserve to be relatively independent?
The intent of Congress in shaping the Federal Reserve Act was to keep politics out of monetary policy. The System is independent of other branches and agencies of government. It is self-financed and therefore is not subject to the congressional budgetary process."

yet the Constitution says that the federal government should regulate money in all aspects. Yet the Federal Reserves says the opposite.

"Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."

Which is a lie because the Federal Reserve is owned by private individuals. They make money on the their own interest. It is not really owned by the government. And the oversight the government supposedly has over the FED is supposedly a fraud.



That's just the way things are now. There's absolutely nothing illegal with two dominate parties. We don't have just a two party system, but even if we did, there's nothing illegal about that.
It's not illegal, but that doesnt mean I agree with it. The politicians are all pawns for other people who may not have America in their best interest. Or as long as they can control the money and politics. When all you have is one democrat and one republican running for President or Senate, it makes voting kind of mute. I mean do we have even one representative who isnt a democrat or republican? I dont think we do.



www.presidentsusa.net...


The Constitution limits the power of the Federal government including the President. I don't care what that website says. I have read the Constitution, and the only powers that are granted to the President by the Constitution is to be the commander of the Military, to appoint officers and other misc. positions, and to address the nation. That is all. I dont care what Congress has or wants to give the President as far as power, they have no power to do so.




No, these are all national issues.
Some of the decisions that were made by John Marshall and the Supreme Court were so that the congress would be the chief lawmaker. Federal laws have always carried more weight than state laws under the constitution.


Read the Constitution. It limits the power of the federal government. This was why the Constitution was written. It highlighted the powers of the State and federal governments.

Those are not national issues. Those are all State issues. The federal government and US Senators think they are some of the most powerful people in this country, in reality all they are supposed to be doing is making tax legislation and determing how trade can be carried out among the State's. The only other power they have is to dictate the law concerning the US and foreign countries. What they do everyday is much more. They tackle almost every issue immaginable and enact laws they have no power to create.




We've been in debt since the founding of this country and it was partly done on purpose. Do a bit of research when Washington/Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were in power.

They also lived in one of the harshest times. A huge war. A country that was just starting. Aid from foreign countries. Etc. No excuse for it now.



Wait...so...the education system is a federal thing and not a state thing now?
We give aid to certain countries for different reasons. Stratigic and specific reasons.

I'm not saying it's right (the fed's giving the state's money for education), im just saying that if you see problems in your own country, you do what is right and tell Africa or Israel or wherever else that sorry but we need our money for ourselves.

For example the billions of dollars we send overseas can be used to build schools or fund something within our country. Especailly when there is a need for it.







lol
State agencies enforcing international laws?
Are you joking?
Neither were ever meant to be a State agencies anyway. All were meant to enforce federal laws and/or to protect from international and domestic crimes against the US.


No since the FBI, CIA, ATF are federal agencies, they should only be enforcing federal laws. They do only enforce federal laws, but the fedral laws they enforce were made unconstitutionally. If they were State agencies then I could see how they would be enforcing the laws they enforce.



Why do you think we have the Constitution? Why do you think the Articles of Confederation failed?
It failed because each state being their own "mini countries" was not working and was never going to work! There's no way that could have worked. That's why our founding fathers framed the constitution. So we would have a more centralized government!


No. When I say mini country I mean that whatever powers the federal government doesnt have, are reserved to the States. So all laws affecting environment, criminal law, commerce within the State, etc, etc, are all State rights.

The federal government is limited in power but they still make laws covering almost every aspect of this country.



Take that up with the founding fathers.


They limited the power of the federal government with the Constitution. I wouldnt really have much to dicuss with them.



You're willing to fight and die over something you obviously don't fully understand or have done research on?


Where did I ever say I was willing to fight and die for anything?



You think things will change overnight?

Do you think there won't be a government after your phantom revolution? They're going to have to deal with politics then won't they?


There is no indication that things will get any better.

Assault weapon bans, anti terrorism laws, surveilance programs we probably dont know about, closed door meetings in congress and government, no oversight, politicians who seem to lack dignity to their duty, business instead of morality dictating policy and laws.




Violence would only cause things to get worse. If you think otherwise, then you're sorely undereducated.


Lets make a bet in the next year that my 2nd Amendment rights are not restored.

Lets make a bet that the federal government will not cease making laws that they are not prescribed to make by the Constitution.

We'll see where these politics get us. I'll even write my Senators and Representatives.






[edit on 29-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Wow.
You really are clueless....

umm...
Wow. I'm actually in shock.

...nothing you just said was even remotely correct.
Instead of going step by step over everything you just got wrong, it'll be easier just to tell you to read. Read everything. The DoI, the Constitution, the Supreme Court decisions that further clearified the Constitution, read the Articles of Confederation, read why that failed and why we created the Constitution, etc.




I will talk about a couple things though...

Lets make a bet in the next year that my 2nd Amendment rights are not restored.

First tell us what in the 2nd amendment has been taken away?


The National Guard might be called the organized militia but it is not structured the same as the original organized militias were. The organized militia has been completely disbanded, instead we have a federalized national guard. The National guard is not completely under State control anymore.

I just want to say that this part actually made me laugh out loud.
I'd like to see where you keep coming up with this stuff.

It's so flat out wrong, that it has to be done on purpose.


Where did I ever say I was willing to fight and die for anything?

You're sitting up here complaining about the government and talking about how it needs to be changed. You're sitting up here telling everyone that the only way it's going to change is through force.
Yet you're sitting up here telling me that you're just going to sit back and watch the show? You're not even willing to fight?

Then what in the world are you complaining for!??!!??!?
Ugh, that's one of my pet peeves....



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shot messenger
Clearly, it is no secret that it is too late for America. We were attacked from within by our own on 9/11 and it was clearly a silent coup.

Thats one of those coups that are so silent that there is no evidence for them, right?

If you can lay off the caps button, perhaps you can explain why people are supposed to be revolting agianst the government now?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

I will talk about a couple things though...

Lets make a bet in the next year that my 2nd Amendment rights are not restored.

First tell us what in the 2nd amendment has been taken away?


You cannot manufacture automatic weapons. Only machine guns that were made before 1986 can be sold. Which has made them rare and skyrocketed the price to be unaffordable to the adverage American.

You need destructive device permits for things like automatic weapons, grenades, rockets, missiles. Costing hundreds of dollars per destructive device.

Rockets and Missiles cannot be manufactured without approval from the Attorney General (and in that case needs to be for government use).


Domestic Violence misdemeanor offenders lose their 2nd Amendment rights despite only commiting misdemeanor crimes.

Some States do not issue concealed handgun permits. Which means people cannot carry firearms on their person, leaving them vulnerable to crime and death. Most of the other States do not issue handgun permits to most people. Some States will issue you a permit and even allow you to carry your gun in open. Why some State's discriminate against the 2nd Amendment and some dont shows why politics fail. People interpret things for their own ideals despite what the Constitution says.




The National Guard might be called the organized militia but it is not structured the same as the original organized militias were. The organized militia has been completely disbanded, instead we have a federalized national guard. The National guard is not completely under State control anymore.

I just want to say that this part actually made me laugh out loud.
I'd like to see where you keep coming up with this stuff.

It's so flat out wrong, that it has to be done on purpose.


Why dont you tell me what is wrong with it instead of just saying "It was so wrong it made me laugh".

Read your history.




Where did I ever say I was willing to fight and die for anything?

You're sitting up here complaining about the government and talking about how it needs to be changed. You're sitting up here telling everyone that the only way it's going to change is through force.
Yet you're sitting up here telling me that you're just going to sit back and watch the show? You're not even willing to fight?

Then what in the world are you complaining for!??!!??!?
Ugh, that's one of my pet peeves....


I'm was onlysaying that for any change to happen in my lifetime to bring the country back to the way it was before 1900 would only come around with violence. I just see that as reality. I could be wrong. I highlighted some of the major problems I personally seen with the country and how I felt the government was overstepping it's power.



I beleive in absolute 2nd Amendment rights.

I beleive in having State Militia's that enforce laws and provide security.

I beleive in having a regular army in addition to each State's Militia.

I beleive in limiting power in the federal government.

I beleive in the majority of the power to be in the hands of each State.

I beleive in closing the borders.

I dont beleive in free trade.

I dont beleive in allowing foreign persons to buy companies in the US.

I dont beleive in allowing foreign persons to sell goods directly in the US (instead only foreign trade is allowed).

I dont beleive in the patent system. I think it needs an overhaul.

I beleive in absolute freedom of the press, information, and of speech.

I beleive in being safe from having myself searched wherever I go.

I dont beleive in my countrys foreign policy when it has no integrity. We condemn the support of terrorism and attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but will turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, Africa, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the former Soviet Union territories. We will blast Saddam for human rights violations but we will ignore China executing political dissidents, and attacking protesters. Our foreign policy has no integrity. There are many examples.


Do I think those things are worth fighting for? Yes, some of them. Would I fight for them? No not right now. Ask me in 10 years when I start to realize i'm not going to live forever and might decide to go down with some dignity. Maybe ill think different when I have a family too (if it ever happens)

Until then lets see where politics get us. I doubt anything will change for the better.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
You cannot manufacture automatic weapons. Only machine guns that were made before 1986 can be sold. Which has made them rare and skyrocketed the price to be unaffordable to the adverage American.

You need destructive device permits for things like automatic weapons, grenades, rockets, missiles. Costing hundreds of dollars per destructive device.

Rockets and Missiles cannot be manufactured without approval from the Attorney General (and in that case needs to be for government use).

Domestic Violence misdemeanor offenders lose their 2nd Amendment rights despite only commiting misdemeanor crimes.

Are you complaining about this????

What in the world would be the purpose or what in the world could you possibly benefit from being able to buy missiles or create nukes???


Some States do not issue concealed handgun permits. Which means people cannot carry firearms on their person, leaving them vulnerable to crime and death.


1. You're "vulernable" to crime and death period. Guns don't stop that

2. Do you honestly think because people can conceal weapons that would stop criminals??
You need a serious reality check


Most of the other States do not issue handgun permits to most people. Some States will issue you a permit and even allow you to carry your gun in open. Why some State's discriminate against the 2nd Amendment and some dont shows why politics fail. People interpret things for their own ideals despite what the Constitution says.

Here you go again.
You keep saying States should be able to do what they want.
But then you say States shouldn't be able to do what they want.
Make up your mind.
And how is that showing how politics fails? The consitution just says you can own a gun.


Why dont you tell me what is wrong with it instead of just saying "It was so wrong it made me laugh".

Read your history.

No YOU read your history. Every State still has a militia ALONG with the National Guard. The National Guard isn't structured like the original because this is the 21st century!!
It's 10000x more organized. And the Guard IS completely controlled by the States unless called upon by the President as stated in the Constitution.



I'm was onlysaying that for any change to happen in my lifetime to bring the country back to the way it was before 1900 would only come around with violence. I just see that as reality. I could be wrong. I highlighted some of the major problems I personally seen with the country and how I felt the government was overstepping it's power.

You must be rich and white.
Those are the only people would could possibly want this country to be as backwards as it was in 1900.



Man, you have a lot to learn. You're still young so there's hope for you.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I'll defend for my rights if i have to...but im only 15...so screw that until i really have to...im just a lazy teenager who is proud to admit it. lol...



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I think this poster broke numerous federal laws by trying to incite the overthrow of the government and promoting terrorism. That's if he is a US citizen.



We are eating FRANKENFOOD !
The Fright-house has been taken over by DRUG-DEALERS!

Isn't it our DUTY to *censor circumvention removed*

I AM Living in AMERICA !

We HAVE to STOP killing Ourselves! Because we are ALL responsible for allowing it to happen!

And it's not as if any of you are NAIVE enough to believe that the American borders can contain this IGNORANCE DISEASE.

I'm SICK of looking at all this SMOKE and WONDERING how to STOP it!
I'm ready to see some FIRE !

The LAW is RESPONSIBLE for KILLING US!
Should ANY of US be AFRAID to express how they FEEL about IT ?

If it's too late for U.S., then it's too late for EVERYBODY. period!

[edit on 6-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
You cannot manufacture automatic weapons. Only machine guns that were made before 1986 can be sold. Which has made them rare and skyrocketed the price to be unaffordable to the adverage American.

You need destructive device permits for things like automatic weapons, grenades, rockets, missiles. Costing hundreds of dollars per destructive device.

Rockets and Missiles cannot be manufactured without approval from the Attorney General (and in that case needs to be for government use).

Domestic Violence misdemeanor offenders lose their 2nd Amendment rights despite only commiting misdemeanor crimes.

Are you complaining about this????

What in the world would be the purpose or what in the world could you possibly benefit from being able to buy missiles or create nukes???


Some States do not issue concealed handgun permits. Which means people cannot carry firearms on their person, leaving them vulnerable to crime and death.


1. You're "vulernable" to crime and death period. Guns don't stop that

2. Do you honestly think because people can conceal weapons that would stop criminals??
You need a serious reality check


No but your chances of being jumped or robbed without a weapon are alot higher. I have actually had criminals pull guns on me. If I wasn't 17 and allowed to have a concealed weapon, I would of been able to shoot them. Luckily I did'nt get shot, robbed, or beaten.




Most of the other States do not issue handgun permits to most people. Some States will issue you a permit and even allow you to carry your gun in open. Why some State's discriminate against the 2nd Amendment and some dont shows why politics fail. People interpret things for their own ideals despite what the Constitution says.

Here you go again.
You keep saying States should be able to do what they want.
But then you say States shouldn't be able to do what they want.
Make up your mind.
And how is that showing how politics fails? The consitution just says you can own a gun.


The Constitution limits and highlights the power of the federal government. The rest of the powers are reserved to the State's. The federal government in the present has encroached on the State's rights by becoming the cheif law maker. Federal Law pretty much encompass's everything imaginable from crime to the environment. Those are State rights.




Why dont you tell me what is wrong with it instead of just saying "It was so wrong it made me laugh".

Read your history.

No YOU read your history. Every State still has a militia ALONG with the National Guard. The National Guard isn't structured like the original because this is the 21st century!!
It's 10000x more organized. And the Guard IS completely controlled by the States unless called upon by the President as stated in the Constitution.


My State of Rhode Island doesnt have a militia. We have a few unorganized militia that are just citizens who call themselves a militia. We have no State Defense Forces or State Militia or anything of the sort. We have the Rhode Island National Guard (which the Federal government controls).





I'm was onlysaying that for any change to happen in my lifetime to bring the country back to the way it was before 1900 would only come around with violence. I just see that as reality. I could be wrong. I highlighted some of the major problems I personally seen with the country and how I felt the government was overstepping it's power.

You must be rich and white.
Those are the only people would could possibly want this country to be as backwards as it was in 1900.



Man, you have a lot to learn. You're still young so there's hope for you.


What does being white and being rich have anything to do with the points I made?

I think my points are universal to all races and wouldn't just benefit rich white people. In fact it would probably hurt the rich white people who own the private banks (since I dont beleive in private companies owning the banks).

You're racist and a troll.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join