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.

 

Home Owner Stockpiles Ammo: ATF Raids. NWO - Project Disarm

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
To all those who think a restraining order is difficult to get or that you have to show evidence for the order:

A guy I know well (in his 60s) had a restraining order against him taken out by an older lady who was at the same place he worked. We don't know if she was delusional or just plain mean, but the reasons listed on the order were obviously not rational. Even the cop who served him the order told him that the police who knew him knew it was bunk.

All she had to do was write something on the paper and the judge signed it. Nobody came to look into the accusations. No proof. Just fill out a paper.

This guy with the restraining order against him goes to work only to have the lady call the cops with some made up story about him breaking the order. The cops didn't take action because there were witnesses to say nothing had happened. But the guy's attorney said he'd have to stay away from work until the court date so the lady didn't keep doing this and get him thrown in jail.

So the guy was off work for over a month (due to the judge being gone). When the court date finally arrived, the judge looked over the case and immediately dismissed the restraining order (the charges were soooo ridiculous).

Now keep in mind, the guy is an older gentleman with very little income. He loses that income for over a month AND has hundreds of dollars in attorney fees. All because some crazy lady made up a story. And now he can't sue for the money back because she took off.

Just wanted to show how restraining orders actually work and how they can affect people.

Carry on.




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Two threads Ive been watching today have merged in my mind and made me even more "paranoid."

If mental illness qualifies as a revokation of our God-given right to defend our lives and our 2nd Amendment which reminds government to watch it's step before it tramples us into facism than what happens in ten or so years when all of these kids grow to firearms ownership age?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will a hasty diagnosis from doctors, governemt, social workers, or even pharamceutical companies with too much politial clout all while the patient is a minor come back to say the Bill of Rights does not apply to them?

After all, theyve been decided to have a mental disorder? Wasnt the big excuse pushed for the VA Tech killer his bipolar disorder? His social anxiety?

We're looking at a whole generation that could potentially be denied rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights. It wont be long before people are too mentaly disabled to speak or assemble. As it is many who practive these rights are written off as crazy or paranoid.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

If you don't believe the USG is out to grab your guns, then statements by popular senators such as Dianne Feinstein saying "If i had enough votes, I would vote to ban them all" mean what to you?

well then i guess its good our govt isnt run by her alone then eh? as i see it if our 2nd amendment is taken from us its probably our own fault for putting the same people in office year after year. she says something like this then gets reelected (or anyone else like her) who's fault is it really?





Really? A good friend of mine was arrested and charged with domestic violence because he and his brother got into a little fight and his brother ended up with a bloody nose. It cost a considerable amount of money in lawyer fees to get the domestic violence charge dropped, which meant he could continue being employed in the firearm industry.

Is he really deranged for giving his brother a bloody nose?

an extreme case. but is the law bad for being misused by an overzealous prosecutor?

heres another extreme case while we're on it. my ex-gf used to live above a guy who lived with his gf and their kids. cops were over all the time for domestic issues. one night he's roaming the halls of the apartment buildign screaming "IM GOING TO EFFING KILL YOU B****" cops come he goes away. next day he comes back and half hour later his gf, their 2 kids and him are all dead. now...wouldnt it have probably been a good idea to take his gun away one of the first times they got called over? or at the very least the night he's screaming how he's going to kill her?

so yeah, im very much in favor of those convicted of domestic violence not being able to own guns. though i do think the laws need more clearly defined parameters.

just saying...




Since when does the ATF enforce temporary restraining orders? The government cannot just randomly "check out" a few guns a private individual owns

ya know on this one i pretty much agree with you honestly...




Rational laws....registration, licenses, and psych evals? Are you effing kidding?

Rational in the minds of those who wish to control others. Rational in the minds of a free people? Absolutely not.

Would you be willing to get a license and undergo a mental evaluation before being "allowed" to attend the church of your choice, or before you are "allowed" to purchase a certain book?


ok i have to ask...yer kidding right? you equate needing to pass a proficience test, a psych eval, getting a license to own a gun or registration equal to that of going to church or buying a book?

jesus, whats your views on having to pass a test to drive then getting a license and having to register your car? not so afraid they're going to take yer car? man, you could kill lots of people with a car if you timed it right...



see, i think the disconnect here is that you didnt really read my first post...first line I LIKE MY GUNS and yet you seem to think that becuase i dont fear the govt taking them away by force that im WILLING to give them up on their say so...not so. and based on your other posts, i agree with MUCH of what youre saying. really. i see guns as tools, and vital to survival in case the defecation hits the occillation. if for NO other reason than because while you can hunt you can eat. simple.

so heres a few things i know. (or at least im sure enough of to sleep well at night)

the US military wont come and go door to door. i was in the army 12 years i think i have a pretty good feel for that one. even IF the 2nd amendment was abolished i can honestly say i dont believe it will happen. (remember many many many members of the military like THEIR guns also)

if not the army/marines then who? the cops? yeah....right...they may have caught people off guard after katrina...anyone think they could get away with it in every city in the US and NOT have a stack of dead bodies? or get even a large fraction of the guns?

even if the "called for the citizens" to turn them in with amnesty periods etc...anyone really think they'd get even 15% of the guns out there?

i really dont. and in light of that i stand by what i said i was ok with in my last post.

but, above all i stand by my right to have and bear arms. period.

moving on...

i would like to just throw some thoughts out to some of my fellow ats members.

for those that think our gun laws are unreasonable...have you considered some of our planets other fine countries for citizenship? i hear the gun laws of say, canada, the UK, Austrailia, well..most of europe actually, asia are all quite enlightened and may be to your liking...well, maybe not in retrospect huh?

oh, hey i hear that in Iraq every family is allowed under law (even under the occupation) to own a full auto AK...what fun...though your neighbors may all show up with THEIR AK's to "share the light of islam" with you...or help you shake loose hte mortal coil if you decline their wisdom.

so, in retrospect...do we REALLY have it that bad here as gun owners? sure, could be worse, but isnt that why we still hold on to at least the pretense of elections? how about instead of organizing our militias to take back DC we try to just start electing people who represent OUR values for a change? ill be honest. i lived in South Dakota during the 2004 elections and our little state was home to the senate minority leader. we voted him out for losing touch with where he was from. the ONE reason i voted for the other guy was that daschle was in favor of renewing the assault weapons ban. THAT is how i expressed my displeasure with his politics.

and lets face it, the NRA may be considered extreme even when measured with the yardstick of ATS...but it takes an extreme lobbying position to counter the extreme position of the "all guns are evil" crowd. dont want to vote? then support the NRA, they speak loud enough to at least maintain the balance.

/rant

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by future flow
 



Yes. Martial Law is coming very soon, I can't wait to see why. I will be one of the people who doesn't sit there in disbelief after the catastrophe (real or staged) happens that makes us have to hide in our houses under it while the police "protect" us. I will grip my weapons and duck into a militant group ASAP. I'm 22 years old and it's sad I have to think this way, but it's reality. I am enrolled in college, do not drink, and am not psychotic, by the way.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

the US military wont come and go door to door. i was in the army 12 years i think i have a pretty good feel for that one. even IF the 2nd amendment was abolished i can honestly say i dont believe it will happen. (remember many many many members of the military like THEIR guns also)

if not the army/marines then who? the cops? yeah....right...they may have caught people off guard after katrina...anyone think they could get away with it in every city in the US and NOT have a stack of dead bodies? or get even a large fraction of the guns?


Those in the military who believe that theyre orders are in the best interest of the nation would do it. Plus, as long as they stay in the military or law enforcement they get to keep THEIR guns.

The most likely scenerio, though IMO, would be a private organization like Blackwater or even a foreign military like UN peacekeepers who would have no particular connection to America, it's citizens or their rights.

The gun owners during Katrina werent caught off guard. They just had no support. It's hard as hell to say no to a bunch of guys in camo carrying assault rifles. Even harder when youre standing there in your kitchen alone just you and your revolver. That classic video of a woman shouting "no" showed it didnt matter that she resisted. They just tackeld her and forced it out of her hand. Should she have shot to defend herself and her property? Maybe. I'm sure more than one of those gun owners was willing to martyr themselves if only they had some assurance it would have made a difference and no more guns would have been confiscated but It's been my experience that, at least in the Northeast, way more people would hand over their firearms than you'd expect. In some towns here I'd expect upwards of 80% will comply. In more rural areas the numbers would be much lower but the cities are filled with hypercompliant people who believe the government can do no wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It said he wanted to save everybody. did he try to get other to join him or what..but it sounds more like he was hunkerin down..I don't like over reach by anyone but if he had taken out his ex and half the block with him via that gas and fertilizer then ..the same pieces of evidence of delusional and behaviour would be used to ask why was not something done to preven a massacre. A lot of delusionals think they are saving their family and take them with them to the promised land by suicide.

I think it was reasonable given what was stated in the several news pieces that they picked him up..


Sys



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Those in the military who believe that theyre orders are in the best interest of the nation would do it. Plus, as long as they stay in the military or law enforcement they get to keep THEIR guns.

well of the literally 100's of people ive worked with in the millitary, and this was a topic of discussion many many many many nights off duty around many beers, ive met a total of 2 people who believed that private citizens dont need guns. thats it.

oh and if private gun ownership were banned, they wouldnt get to keep their private guns anymore than you or i would, only their issue weapons.



The most likely scenerio, though IMO, would be a private organization like Blackwater or even a foreign military like UN peacekeepers who would have no particular connection to America, it's citizens or their rights.

just how many people does blackwater employ? and how many people that wouldnt shoot a cop would then also hesitate to "defend themselves" against some joe showing up at their door to collect their guns?

and ok, the UN. there are what...100 million private gun owners in this country? what if only 10% resisted? still enough to make it VERY messy operation no? and what happens when the other 90% hears even rumors of the "peacekeepers" slaughtering 10 million of their countrymen?

to avoid a long quote or having to do many more smaller snips ill just summarize. ok mayabe those after katrina werent caught off guard, but, now WE have seen it happen...spose many of us would be in a hurry to let it happen again? would you? hell, would i? guess ill have to wait and see until i really know. i could go all hooah and be like "blah blah cold dead fingers" but none of us really know until the time comes.

but what i CAN say is that IF i ever gave up my guns, it WOULD be at gunpoint and if they DO outlaw private ownership, then i guess im a criminal. a criminal with enough bore oil to keep my equipment servicable for many years until more reasonalbe heads prevail. and enough ammo to survive if they dont.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I really hope youre right and wouldnt mind having people like you as neighbors.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


an extreme case. but is the law bad for being misused by an overzealous prosecutor?


IMO, the domestic violence charge is used a little too often.


next day he comes back and half hour later his gf, their 2 kids and him are all dead. now...wouldnt it have probably been a good idea to take his gun away one of the first times they got called over? or at the very least the night he's screaming how he's going to kill her?


If he wanted to kill them, the method by which he did so wouldn't have mattered. Take away his gun and he will use a knife/bat/bare hands.



ok i have to ask...yer kidding right? you equate needing to pass a proficience test, a psych eval, getting a license to own a gun or registration equal to that of going to church or buying a book?


More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason. Why wouldn't a psych eval be needed to be sure worshippers are sane enough not to go declaring jihad on everyone, or from starting their own personal crusade?

Why require a psych eval (given by government doctors I presume?) for one protected right and not others?


jesus, whats your views on having to pass a test to drive then getting a license and having to register your car? not so afraid they're going to take yer car? man, you could kill lots of people with a car if you timed it right...


Which Constitutional Amendment protects the right to drive a car?


the US military wont come and go door to door. i was in the army 12 years i think i have a pretty good feel for that one. even IF the 2nd amendment was abolished i can honestly say i dont believe it will happen. (remember many many many members of the military like THEIR guns also)

I agree, but private contractors are an entirely different story.




even if the "called for the citizens" to turn them in with amnesty periods etc...anyone really think they'd get even 15% of the guns out there?

i really dont. and in light of that i stand by what i said i was ok with in my last post.


I would venture to guess more than 15% would easily turn their guns in. Most americans have turned into sheep and will take a big bite out of whatever dog crap sandwich government decides to feed them.




so, in retrospect...do we REALLY have it that bad here as gun owners? sure, could be worse, but isnt that why we still hold on to at least the pretense of elections? how about instead of organizing our militias to take back DC we try to just start electing people who represent OUR values for a change?


No disrespect intended, but that is a very naive point of view. The election system today is so screwed up, only the candidates "chosen" by big business and big media have the opportunity to get elected.


and lets face it, the NRA may be considered extreme even when measured with the yardstick of ATS...but it takes an extreme lobbying position to counter the extreme position of the "all guns are evil" crowd. dont want to vote? then support the NRA, they speak loud enough to at least maintain the balance.


Please do some research into the history of the NRA, you will find they have been one of the biggest gun CONTROL groups in the nation.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

IMO, the domestic violence charge is used a little too often.

and i cant say i disagree with you on that even a little.




If he wanted to kill them, the method by which he did so wouldn't have mattered. Take away his gun and he will use a knife/bat/bare hands.

and ill agree with you on that in theory, but you and i both know it is harder to kill someone with a bat, golf club or your bare hands. but thats not the point, we do agree that if he was going to do it he was going to find a way. but can you not also agree that MAYBE its a bad idea for people with a predisposition to violence to own a gun?

lets look at it this way. YOU inadvertantly cut someone off. he's got a short fuse and a gun, he follows you to a parking lot and when you get out caps one in your head, whats your chances of defending yourself if your backs to him? pretty low. same guy was denied a gun permit, you cut him off he follows you and jumps you from behind. what are your chances? probably a lot better given that most people who choose to carry guns responsibly (such as youve indicated you do) have also spent some time learing to defend themselves without a gun. or in the event he's MUCH bigger than you and you feel in danger you have the option of using your gun to defend yourself. so, given his predisposition to violence, how are YOUR chances if he's not able to buy a gun? (we'll assume legally cuz not EVERYONE can buy guns on the street, some just dont know how)

see, thats all im advocating. people with a HISTORY of violent behavior probably shouldnt be allowed to own a gun just as people with a HISTORY of drunk driving probably shouldnt be allowed to drive. (and i know that driving isnt in the constitution but ill get to that later)





More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason. Why wouldn't a psych eval be needed to be sure worshippers are sane enough not to go declaring jihad on everyone, or from starting their own personal crusade?

Why require a psych eval (given by government doctors I presume?) for one protected right and not others?


lol wow, that was actually quite brilliant and im sure im not the only one reading this saying to themselves "never quite thought of it that way..." but its an excellent point. though were i to actually argue the point id say that shooting someone in a rage is probably a little easier and a lot more common than starting a crusade these days. i could of course be wrong.




Which Constitutional Amendment protects the right to drive a car?
not one, but how many cry about their "right to drive"? but i just personally dont see much difference between getting a drivers license and passing a firearms safety and proficiency test. i see little difference between registering my car and my pistol. i mean hell, i could use my car to escape to mexico when the NWO takes over cant i? if 12 million mexicans can come north im sure one whiteboy could go south no? or i hear parts of canada are real nice...

and i could use my car to smuggle supplies to the militia so if its bad to register my guns shouldnt i try to have a car or two off the books?

where does it end?



I agree, but private contractors are an entirely different story.

like i said in another post. that works both ways...private contractors are also a psychologically more acceptable target to many people as well. i would have issues firing on a soldier or a cop but some joe shows up to take my guns may have a problem.




I would venture to guess more than 15% would easily turn their guns in. Most americans have turned into sheep and will take a big bite out of whatever dog crap sandwich government decides to feed them.

but if even 90% turn theirs in thats still around 10 million gun owners out there who are probably pretty unhappy by this time...10 million is enough to give any army in the world pause unless they are going to just start indiscriminatly bombing our cities to get us 10 million gun owners (and yes, if its private contractors or UN peace keepers ill likely be right there with you...walking stick and all. guess ill have to practice shooting left handed again)





No disrespect intended, but that is a very naive point of view. The election system today is so screwed up, only the candidates "chosen" by big business and big media have the opportunity to get elected.

ABSOLUTLY no disrespect taken. at the very heart of things you and i see thigns very similarly. we just disagree about a few of the details. in the end we're both ready to die for our rights. hell i spent 12 years geting paid slave wages for our rights. (im not one of those pretentious former soldiers who does the YOUR rights bs. they are my rights too)

but i agree the election system IS screwed up. but, is that business's fault or ours? i think its your fault. i think its my fault i think its my dads fault. WE allowed it to happen and WE arent doing enough to change it. i know im not, like many others ill sit and bitch about it and rant about it on here and not out trying to do anything about it. i can own up to that. but in a system where ted f'n kennedy has been in the senate my whole life (and im in my 30's) are we erally suprised that we're in the state we're in? do people realize that if clinton is elected that there will have been a clinton or bush in the white house for over 20 years? we're already at 19, do we really want our own "nobility" in this country? i say we clean house and dont elect anyone who's in for more than 2 terms (and thats being generous.)

but i digress...





Please do some research into the history of the NRA, you will find they have been one of the biggest gun CONTROL groups in the nation.


oh im aware of that, im also aware that they are the biggest and loudest pro gun lobby in the US right now. i DISAGREE with a lot of the NRA propaganda, but i support them because i do believe that their voice is needed to keep the 'all guns are evil' crowd at bay.

if i thoguht for one second i could start a more successful pro gun organization and lobby in washington i would. though i doubt id have many supporters cuz it would appear that even other 2nd amendment supporters disagree wtih me on certain points



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
AllSeeingI you really are getting too paranoid about everything that happens I mean like I always say this is the kind of stuff that makes us look like whack jobs. Of course the ATF is gonna raid his house. Let me ask who needs that many guns and if you come back saying that they were for show then why did he buy so much ammo.

Really dude start thinking about this stuff this is everyday stuff the ATF does this EVERYDAY. Don't you watch cops.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
thing is if we go back to the original "stockpiling" thing...where is the statute that states how many guns i can own or how much ammunition i can have for said guns?

there is not, to my knowledge, ONE clearly defined law that says "you can have X handguns and X long guns per person per domicile".

the 2nd says right to bear armS. plural. more than one. if he's not growing weed or cooking meth and has not violent crimes or domestic crimes i feel he shoulld have as many as he wants.

the real issue here is whether the ATF was justified in raiding him in the first place.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

but can you not also agree that MAYBE its a bad idea for people with a predisposition to violence to own a gun?


Of course I agree with that, my problem is who makes that determination? People say I am violence prone because I view violence as a means to an end. I don't go around smacking people or brandishing my guns, but I also am quick to go from nice, calm, normal me to raging violent maniac should the need ever arise. Diplomacy may be better in certain situations, but violence is usually a quicker resolution to a problem. Again, this is not to say I am one to brandish a weapon in a bar fight, only when it is absolutely necessary do they make an appearance, which luckily for me has only happened twice in my civilian life.




see, thats all im advocating. people with a HISTORY of violent behavior probably shouldnt be allowed to own a gun


I think that people with a history of violent behavior won't be the ones walking into their local gun shop to fill out a 4473 to legally purchase a gun.


lol wow, that was actually quite brilliant and im sure im not the only one reading this saying to themselves "never quite thought of it that way..." but its an excellent point. though were i to actually argue the point id say that shooting someone in a rage is probably a little easier and a lot more common than starting a crusade these days. i could of course be wrong.


Shooting someone in a rage is alot easier, however those nutjobs who decide to kill in the name of religion don't usually go for a single target. Why should someone be restricted from purchasing a firearm when they can go to any street corner and buy as many gallons as they possibly can of a highly combustible and flammable material without any restrictions whatsoever? Someone with just an ounce of knowledge could kill exponentially more people with gasoline than they ever could with a gun.


not one, but how many cry about their "right to drive"?

That is just plain stupidity on the part of Americans. They tend to be the same ones who think the 1st Amendment protections extend to private property and private businesses.


and i could use my car to smuggle supplies to the militia so if its bad to register my guns shouldnt i try to have a car or two off the books?
For privacy reasons, I register my vehicles in the names of LLC's, they have no link to me whatsoever. Technically, those are off the books







like i said in another post. that works both ways...private contractors are also a psychologically more acceptable target to many people as well. i would have issues firing on a soldier or a cop but some joe shows up to take my guns may have a problem.


I too spent my time in the Army, but I wouldn't hesitate for even a brief second if the doodie hit the fan and the military showed up to confiscate my guns. At that point they are no longer brothers in arms, but agents of a corrupt and tyrannical government.





but if even 90% turn theirs in thats still around 10 million gun owners out there who are probably pretty unhappy by this time...10 million is enough to give any army in the world pause unless they are going to just start indiscriminatly bombing our cities to get us 10 million gun owners (and yes, if its private contractors or UN peace keepers ill likely be right there with you...walking stick and all. guess ill have to practice shooting left handed again)


No disagreement there.



but i agree the election system IS screwed up. but, is that business's fault or ours? i think its your fault. i think its my fault i think its my dads fault. WE allowed it to happen and WE arent doing enough to change it. i know im not, like many others ill sit and bitch about it and rant about it on here and not out trying to do anything about it. i can own up to that.
but i digress...


I don't think fixing the system is possible, as it is well beyond FUBAR. I think nothing short of a full scale revolution will solve anything in DC. I too haven't done anything to fix it because of my beliefs. I focus my time on removing myself from the "system" through various privacy measures than I do on unscrewing the mess this nation has become.




if i thoguht for one second i could start a more successful pro gun organization and lobby in washington i would. though i doubt id have many supporters cuz it would appear that even other 2nd amendment supporters disagree wtih me on certain points



GOA (Gun Owners of America) is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, much more deserving of any support than the NRA is.

I'm only 29, and I truly fear what this country will be like when I am 50.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
wow maybe i should get some guns, i honestly don't see the harm in this...the guy was probably just like us knowing something is going to happen and right now it looks like an economic collapse, and frankly i would love to have a gun...lol

by the way if there is a economic collapse what will happen to the internet will it also fall.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rhombus24
 


I routinely have well over 10,000 rounds of ammo in my house, should I be raided by the ATF too?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
My view is this. If they found 18,000 rounds of ammo and no guns, there is a good chance he stashed the guns, and the guns were probably not legal. Theres only one reason you would stash your guns away, so nobody finds them. Why dont you want them to find them, because they aren't legal.

Now as for guns in general, if you want to take them away, fine, but you will have to shoot me first. (irony? lol) I have a friend who can throw a knife 15-20 feet and kill something. Unless your self defense classes taught you how to defend yourself when some guy 15 feet behind you throws a knife at you, then you are screwed.

Come on, lets be realistic, anyone who is saying "guns make killing easy" probably dont realize how easy you could stab somebody or kill some one so many other ways. hell some one could come at night at loosen your tires on your way to work. may not kill you, but it may. maybe the guy just comes at sets your house on fire when you are sleeping at night. Or maybe he just waits till you are walking down the side walk one day and runs you over. there are countless ways I have heard of people being killed, and a good deal of them have nothing to do with a gun.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The Ban all guns argument is a valid one: In an ideal world where corruption does not exist, where all humans behave justly and non violently, where there are no dangers of animals attacking you or your livestock, where there was no chance of any one developing guns in the future, and in a world where GUNS NEVER EXISTED in the first place. Therefore in the REAL world, the banning all guns argument is ridiculous and naive. I respect the opinion and its right to be here. But I disagree.

But because none of the above BENCHMARKS for a gun-free society have been met, and because ALL of those benchmarks must be met in order to allow a gun-free society, we can never honestly believe that we will achieve such an enlightened existence. We must learn to live in a world WITH guns using them responsibly.

In this case the ATF UNJUSTLY AND CORRUPTLY used a mere restraining order (which has been proved in this thread to be extremely easy to obtain) to enter this true patriot's home and deny him the RIGHT to own the means for survival and self defense.
The circumstances of this restraining order are suspicious to say the least. He has an angry ex-girlfriend who is doing what angry ex-girlfriends do: trying to mess up his life as much as possible. So she lies that he came near her, or she put herself in a place where she knows he routinely goes and waits for him to show therefore violating the bogus restraining order. I wouldn’t doubt that she knew his survivalist ideals, perhaps that is why they broke up. Because he unplugged himself from the matrix of lies of our world, and she could not. I struggle with this daily, the ignorance of people so embedded in the lies that they can do nothing but attack me for the truths I know. Just like Kevin Reider is being attacked.

In response to MIRTHFUL ME's quick attempt to discredit my watchfulness,
I would expect a moderator of ATS and all true ATS readers to not believe the BS that the media allows us to read. The NWO (powers that be) are monitoring this discussion and controlling the media surrounding this arrest. They are trying so hard to discredit this man as a 'wacko', a 'delusional crazy' who believes in a coming economic failure and conflict with our own government. This is what the enlightened ATS community knows to be true. Therefore we all fall into this category of delusional folks who, by the ATF's opinion, have no right to own ammo or gun.

So dont you see? This man, is us! His friends and neighbors say that he was a good man that wouldnt harm someone. He was arrested and his goods stolen from him because of his beliefs which go strongly against what the NWO wants us to think.

My last point is this: This is just the one case we hear of ATF seizing a citizen’s guns. It happens daily! The media usually is sharp enough to bury the stories. The truth is that PROJECT DISARM is in full effect and we are LOSING! Our ability to resist is being dwindled daily. We must draw the line. They claim that because they are the authority, they should be the only ones with guns. These dogs of the NWO are the corrupt and should be resisted with force.

Remember: WACO, Ruby Ridge, The Brown’s tax-resistance, and recent addition to this list is the current thread discussion: Kevin Rieder.

Mr. Reider, I am with you.


[edit on (9/4/07) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


No Im sure that you go shooting or something but the man had so many guns in his house that you have to wonder. Also the ATF didn't find out by tele kinesis or whatever but somebody tipped them off.

Somebody tipped them off for good reason he maybe bought just the right combination of chemicals from a warehouse to get them to tip off the ATF and FBI. Think outside of the box he was probably gonna use them for something bad. Lots of guns fine, Ammo for all those guns very bad.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhombus24


No Im sure that you go shooting or something but the man had so many guns in his house that you have to wonder. Also the ATF didn't find out by tele kinesis or whatever but somebody tipped them off.


Actually he didn't have any guns according to the report.


Somebody tipped them off for good reason he maybe bought just the right combination of chemicals from a warehouse to get them to tip off the ATF and FBI.


There is such an irrational fear of guns these days, people will report anyone with a gun.


Think outside of the box he was probably gonna use them for something bad.


Prove it.

I own lots of guns and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo. Am I going to do something bad with them?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Does anyone know what exactly the charges are in this case? The police arrested him but the only thing that I heard was that he may have violated a restraining order by having ammunition.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join