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.

 

Militarization of US Police

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The recent Infowars commentary has Alex suggesting the reason behind it all is for a mass gun confiscation in the future.

I sure hope this doesn't get to happen. Take it from a typically unarmed brit, being at the mercy of scumbags entering your home to rape or steal (as in my case) while police take half an hour to arrive is no fun. It's the last real freedom I see Americans having (well, some of them). And I used to enjoy shooting fullbore pistol for sport before they were all banned here, marvelling at the beautiful engineering in the hardware and re-loading equipment (mostly US-made). How I envy you guys.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Well the North American Union constitution states that no weapons will be autorize, that means no second amendment, so eventually, they will take them, by force if necessary.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well the North American Union constitution states that no weapons will be autorize, that means no second amendment, so eventually, they will take them, by force if necessary.


Oh, when that happens, if they take them,it will certainly be by force...there will be hell on earth when they attempt to do this. I don't think that most American citizens will gleefully hand over their firearms. This is in one instance that I think the "cattle" will finally rebel. At least I hope they do.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
the thing i believe most people don't know or remember is the 1776 revelution in the colonies was not started over taxes , tea , putting government troops in peoples houses iall these got the pot boiling but the shoot out at concord was sparked because the government set out to confiscate the weapon cache there. laws and taxes can be repealed but after your guns are gone your only fall back is to beg.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The rebellion of the colonies was spurred by personal grudges between Ottis and Hutchison - not to mention the miscalculations of George Grenville. Shooting had little to do with it.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
As a Canadian and a person who lived on a shooting range for many years and have had contact with gun lovers of all sorts, one thing I commonly heard was that they can try and take our guns but they will not get em all.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well the North American Union constitution states that no weapons will be autorize, that means no second amendment, so eventually, they will take them, by force if necessary.


This action would require an extraordinary amount of time and manpower. How do they know that they have gotten all of your firearms? Do they tear your home apart to find hidden caches?

Does this threat tempt normal law abiding citizens to purchase illegal firearms to hide in caches for this event? Would you turn your neighbor in to law enforcement to protect your own family?

Visit the survival forum. There are many threads that are considering these conditions and some even offer solutions as to your own survival in these situations.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Are the United States and Canada the only countries now that allows gun ownership?


FOF

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
hmm...A government taking guns? When have I seen this before... and then what happened afterwards...



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Hmmm.... This is the SAME government that is clearly unable to get even the illegal guns off the streets? And the SAME government that can't get the Iraqi guns off their streets? Seems unlikely.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
first they will have to convince American citizens to give away their nation's sovereignety in orther to change the constitution, something that I can already see the riots and protest againts a stupidity like that.

No, you ain't seen nothing yet if American are told to give away their contitution.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
They have passed numerous anti-second ammendment laws already, and the Constitution doesn't mean sh*t to the likes of the Bush's, Clinton's, or several of the other names in our government. All it would require is for the government to convince the masses of this once great nation that guns need to be banned for public safty and then it would be all over. After all, the second ammendment does not guarantee the rights of an individual, but rather the rights of the National Guard.

I predict that several "Survivalists" or "Extremists" as they are often labeled will keep caches of weapons after the ban. Believe me when I tell you that the FBI, BATFE, and possibly CIA will be pulling overtime trying to sniff out these "Domestic Terrorists". Expect for a "Waco" or "Ruby Ridge" to happen about every month or two for a few years.

The militarization of US law enforcment, both local and state, is VERY REAL. Look up the WTO Riot in Seattle, or Operation Last Dance, or better yet, go look inside the first local cop car you can find in your area, I'll bet you you'll see a Kevlar vest, a Kevlar helmut, and an M16 all sitting in there waiting to be used.

I still remember when Police used to wear blue uniforms.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Nicotine1982]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicotine1982
All it would require is for the government to convince the masses of this once great nation that guns need to be banned for public safty and then it would be all over.

Won't happen, because we, the true recipients of the 2nd Amendment, won't let it.


Originally posted by Nicotine1982
After all, the second ammendment does not guarantee the rights of an individual, but rather the rights of the National Guard.

I beg your pardon!?


Not another one.


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.
source



Militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


The 2nd Amendment states: A well "brought under the control of constituted authority"(regulated) "body of citizens organized for military service"(Militia) being necassary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be "encroached upon in a way that violates the rights of another"(infringed).


Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints.
source




Originally spoken by Thomas Jefferson
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.



Originally spoken by James Madison
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.



Originally spoken by Noah Webster
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.



Originally spoken by Tenche Coxe
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.



Originally spoken by Richard Henry Lee
Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.




So, Nicotine1982. Can you explain to me as to where the Constitution of the United States of America even remotely depicts that it shall only be the "National Guard" that benefits from the 2nd Amendment?

If that were so, then how is it over a 200 year span, the general populous has enough "arms" across the nation as to prevent a totally oppressive government?




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Yeah, I guess I wasn't very clear was I.

I was reffering to the argument made by Schumer that the 2nd only applies to the National guard.
These are not my veiws, I was only reffering to them to give an example of the mind set already in place among "certain" people in our nation.

Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Do not be too concerned about this. One must not assume the local police or the rank-and-file military would cooperate in such an attempt.

The military and the law enforcement communities are among the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not exactly something new in the US. ATS Thread.


And of course, the police force is being militarized here, and doing exercises with the military. It's so blatently obvious here. Our police chief had already said last year that if another storm was to come to the city, he would go ahead with taking away our guns again.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This is a democracy, we are supposed to make the rules. Whats stopping us from rioting right now? We could turn the tables and say we are revolting against the idea that our guns MIGHT be taken away. Theres no difference from starting a war for weapons a country MIGHT have to MAYBE attack us.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
first they will have to convince American citizens to give away their nation's sovereignety in orther to change the constitution, something that I can already see the riots and protest againts a stupidity like that.


I'm sorry to say, I believe all they would have to convince is Congress. The President is already on board.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   


Do not be too concerned about this. One must not assume the local police or the rank-and-file military would cooperate in such an attempt.

The military and the law enforcement communities are among the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment.


Unfortunately, I have seen NOTHING so far to convince me that I can count on the LE and Military to protect me or my rights. I HAVE seen, however, evidence to the contrary.
*Waco
*WTO Seatle
*New Orleans
*Operation Last Dance
*PLUS MANY MORE GREAT HITS!!!

It is sad, but the fact is that even good, honest people, are likely to just "follow orders" in regards to things like this. Not to offend anyone who has family or friends in the military of LE community, and is CONVINCED that they would not participate in this, but you simply don't know what these people will or will not do untill they are asked. Remember, all those JBTs in Waco, Seatle, New Orleans, or anywhere else, were not faceless monsters of the elite, they were people just like you or your family, and most of them probably had family or freinds who would say "Oh, he would never do that to good, law abiding people."



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Where do people buy guns now? I know around here the stores don't even sell guns.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join