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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhombus24
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.


It is mentality like this that disgusts me, angers me, and really makes me wonder how we will ever turn this country around. You are not even sticking to the facts, theorizing that 'there must have been some reason maybe he had chemicals and planned to bomb something'... GIVE US A BREAK!!!

You have got to be using sarcasm right? You honestly believe that this person had ill intent? There is NOTHING wrong with stockpiling and preparation. If every American was like this man then the government would not be able to declare martial law and send us to the fema camps as easily.

Your post and others like it really have me angered. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! We are on the verge of WW3, martial law, mass culling of population, and you think we don't have a right to defend ourselves??? You think it is OK for the alleged 'authorities' to stockpile with intent to kill, but it is not OK for an individual to stockpile with intent to DEFEND???

edit: Ok I just watched the video claiming he had fuel and fertilizer, so I apologize for jumping down your throat instantly. BUT REGARDLESS... this does not mean that his intent was to make bombs, Fuel can be used for automobiles and generators, and fertilizer can be used to FERTILIZE plants. Since you want us to think 'outside the box', here is my theory: I bet they also found stockpiles of SEEDS for planting foods, and they decided not to release that little juicy bit of info to the press. Imagine the outrage if the public found out he had stockpiled fertilizer and seeds along with his fuel and ammo!

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Ionized]




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It took me a while to read the entire discussion up 'til this point. Now that I'm up to speed, I'd like to point out a few things.

This article you're talking about is not the first of its kind. This is not the first time something like this has happened. For the last 17 years, we've been seeing stuff like this happening at the local level.

Local poliice departments are on the lookout for anyone who makes a lot of gun-related purchases. When a known holder of many guns has a legal action against them, its not unusuaul for local P.D.'s to have a closer look.

As many of you already know, some communities just don't like the idea of large stocks of guns in private hands. The ATF itself has argued the definition of "an arsenal" ever since Waco.

Recommended Reading.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The possible anfo bomb he could have made is what got ATF snooping. As for ammo that is crap, I have friends with millions of rounds stored and no problems. To store all this in a suburban house was stupid. If he could afford all that ammo and guns he could afford a storage unit or a couple acres of land out in the country. Also if you want to live free move out of the north....Come to TX or the s west....they leave us alone out here after their waco mistake.
The gun biz is sweet right now, if you are a FFL it is hard to not make money...When news like this hits sales go through the roof out of fear that gov will start taking guns...so keep it up lib media....i want a new HUMMER.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
He may have other issues...But 1000+rounds of Ammo is an" Arsenal" and a permit is req. Another Glorious Day to Excel



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
This guy was mentally unstable. I hope to god they start investigating more people like this. What economic downturn? Jesus, it's the way of the world. Ups and downs. People like this guy (who are a threat to society) need some sort of control over them. Lets not forget that the guy had a restraining order against him. Someone seems to think the guy needs to be under a bit of control. He also has been watched since April, maybe there's more to this story than meets the eye. Oh, I forgot there can't be, the media tells us everything.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The original OP's Video can not be found? Well that seems very strange? maybe a erasing the facts?

*nevermind it must be my computer, sorry.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Optix]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
BTW I am all for disarming civilians or even destroying all hand weapons once and for all.


Well I'm sure they're happy to see you say that.

People can kill others with so many other things. Not just guns.

Crime is going to exist whether there are guns or not.

Guns are essential to protecting against government oppression. We are granted the right to own guns by the Constitution. When we start throwing out constitutional liberties, we're on our way to a dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i believe that the 2nd amendment is as much to protect US soil from foreign aggressors as much as it is to protect us in the event the consititution were to fail us.

i am all for laws that prevent those CONVICTED of domestic violence from owning or possessing guns. anyone that will abuse their loved ones is obviously too deranged to own a gun.


I am agreement about the second amendment. It is my belief that it is not only our right, but our duty to overthrow an overzealous government. That is why we have a 2nd amendment.

On your point about Domestic Violence, I would urge you to do a bit of research about it first. The legal charge of "Domestic Violence" actually does not have to involve abuse or violence of any kind. For instance, lets say a guy and a girl date and break up. Lets say the guy then acts stupid and lets the air of of her car's tires to make himself feel better and he gets caught. Want to take a wild guess what the charge is? "Domestic Violence- Tampering with an automobile" or it could be "Domestic Violence- Disorderly Conduct".

Domestic Violence is not an actual charge but it is a classification on laws that already exist. I have even had my own experience in this field and fought like hell in court to get the Domestic Violence classification removed from the charge, and I never hit anyone. In my case I walked into MY HOUSE (that I did share with her), and found my girlfriend of 3 years drunk on MY COUCH (bought and paid for by me) making out with my best friend. At that point I cussed them both out and walked out of MY HOUSE. On my way out the door, I put my fist through MY coffee table (bought and paid for by me) and I walked out the door. I was arrested for "Domestic Violence- damage to property" it did not matter that I was the owner of the property. It did not matter that I did not hit anyone. The only thing that did matter is that I broke a table and that I was involved in a relationship with HER. Want to take a guess WHO called the cops? No one, but the Best Friend left around the same time I did and apparently was on his way back to the house when he was pulled over. He told the police he was worried about her safety and was going to check on her. The police show up and see the broken table. They ask who broke it and find out it was me. They ask if I hit her or the best friend and they both say no. They ask if I live there, and are told yes. They get my name and the manhunt is on. Does this sound like what the "Domestic Violence" laws were meant for to you? IT cost me $3000.00 in legal fees, an affidavit from the "Victim" stating that I was the owner of the table and that I had already replaced it" as well as statements from the "Victim" stating that she at no time felt like she was in any danger or threatened. Sometimes I wonder how it would have turned out if I didn't have the means to pay out that kind of cash for an attorney.

I agree that anyone who would abuse their loved ones should not own weapons, but not everyone who is charged or convicted of Domestic Violence has abused their loved ones. Not everyone who is charged or convicted actually committed a true act of violence. Guess what else? I also had a restraining order put on me and I could not even go back to MY OWN HOME. Restraining orders in any incident that involves any relationship of ANY kind is actually the standard operating procedure. This includes man/wife, brother /sister, Aunts/Uncles, Boyfriend/Girlfriend if you have any kind of relationship with someone and you are involved in a Domestic Incident and the police show up. If someone is arrested (and some states have laws where the officer is REQUIRED to arrest SOMEONE in a domestic dispute) the arrest person will have a restraining order automatically placed on them until the case is resolved.

Just some food for thought.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Look your just not thinking rationally. If the guy looked suspicious then why not report him? Which is exactly what somebody did but the ATF dosen't come after one report it only starts investigating after four or five reports. Then they come up with a conclusion as to what the guy was doing.

And how you say prove it, what are you thinking. Your accusing the ATF of going with some crazy ass NWO plan and Im saying that maybe the man was gonna do something bad. So you prove to me that it was part of the NWO, until then we should stay with the reason that the man was dangerous because that is the best one.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
well, I read the first 4 pages and then red that last 2. I assume that all of them inbetween are the same. Here's the bottom line.

1.) the money that has been printed is worthless. Back in the 60's (maybe 70's) some president (i believe nixon) took the american dollar off of the gold price index. Meaning, before that, the government was only allowed to print as much money as it had in gold reserves. Since then, the government has printed hundreds of Billions of dollars. As a result, if there was an audit to take place in econmic terms of the government, it would be shown that the has more debt, then its ability to pay for it, and its current assets. This leads into #2.

2.) If the dollar was to deflate, (inflation) meaning other valuation of other currencies such as the Euro, or the Pound was worth more dollars, this could cause an economic crisis. Especially give the fact that the Euro, Yen, Pound, and almost 80% of the World economy has the American dollar as the benchmark of there valuation. In the sum of it, anything that is not produced in the U.S.A. would cost more, instead of 45 cents for a pack of gum, a 10X fold increase would put it at $4.50, Oil which cost me $50 to fill up today, would cost me $500. you get the picture. As a result, since the U.S. consumers are the world which consumes 80% of all products produced world wide we to suddenly stop buying. This would cause a spiral effect of Global economic downturn, and as a result, the currencies of the world, which trade freely with the U.S. and base there own currency on our currency would be impacted by this. As a result 80% of the worlds economies would spiral out of control. (think of a turd being flushed.) This leads into #3.

3.) in the event of an economic downturn, where money is useless, the only things of value are A) barter goods, or B) new money that is printed, that is ment to equal new evaluations. This is evidence in several nations, where inflation has lead to hyper-inflation, and as a result the government issues a new currency. As far as a barter system goes, this would only last until the new currency would be developed. As we are a World economy, there most likely would be a world currency. It makes it easier to trade between nations. Once one currency is instituted its a hope skip and a jump to a one world government. This is where the issue begins to come up of stockpiled arms. A NWO(one world government) would essentially be composed of the elite, the army, and the police, and the government workers. When dealing with a government responsible for a massive population, its impossible to allow everyone the right to have a say. Theres just to many. Indians are not going to want the same things that the chinese want. The chinese aren't going to want what the English otr Ausi's want. The list goes on and on. As a result, you get a disenfranchise peasant class, that like americans, just lost a bunch of freedoms. This goes into #4

4.) In the event that a NWO took control. Anyone with a stockpile of guns, and I mean basically more then 2, would be raided. Any gun that you purchased legally, currently in the U.S. has a serial number on it, that number is tied to your S.S. number, which if your a man(which makes up 99% of the people that stockpile guns) you had to register for selective service @18. Lets face it, when you got out of class when you were 18 to fill out the for that took 5 minutes, and then you went and played ball for the next 60 minutes. You became marked. That S.S. number is tied to every transaction that you make, as EVERYWHERE now adays has barcodes, barcodes make it easier to track inventory, such as toothpaste, chewing gum, and oh yea bullets. So when the NWO comes, and believe me it will, you might as well put a target on your door asking them to come on in. This leads into #5. The food.

5.) He who controls the food, controls the people. Theres already a corporation that controls 80% of seed of the world (Alsonto).



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Ugh - I have more ammo than this if you count .22LR.

We reload a lot - I go through shotgun shells like other people go through popcorn. But we shoot up several buckets of shells a week doing sporting clays. It's nuts to buy them by the box, you'd go broke. We've got enough powder that we had to build a bunker to stay legal.

On top of that, we shoot IDPA and I go through handgun rounds by the crate too. Same deal. I've got shelves full of reloads.

Further, you will occasionally run into a real good bulk deal on .223, so we get flats of it and park it in the garage. That's about shot up though.

With all that, the only thing we ever had challenged was the local cops/firemen wanted to make sure that we had the powder and primers stored properly (we did), and the ATF wanted to know why all the 50 cal reloading supplies.

Now, there's an interesting thing. You can buy all the small caliber arm reloading stuff you want, but when we bought the 50 cal reloading press (there's only one as far as I know), they told us we'd have to register it as some sort of "destructive device" or something. Not the rifle, the Rock Chucker. So we waved our hands and the press magically went elsewhere in order to avoid paperwork, yet still remains available.

But we still have to purchase primers, powder and bullets. They got curious as to why, since we didn't have a press for it. The moral is, if there is one at all, that if you're buying something sufficiently creepy they do poke their noses in.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
well, I would question it too. why does a homeowner need that many guns and ammunition? what's his motivation? he might use them to take revenge or harm someone. BTW I am all for disarming civilians or even destroying all hand weapons once and for all. In this case, I believe it was wise for them to raid his home.


Great.....so now the criminals would be the only ones to have weapons. Real smart. "When you criminalize guns only criminals will have them"

How do you think we keep the peace? Criminals don't play fair, thats why they are criminals....

You must come out of your parents basement once in a while.....



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Well i have 10 guns from hand guns to to assault riffles. And i crap load of ammo for them. So bring ATF, all my stuff is legal.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


They would not have messed with him if he didn't have all the fertilizer and fuel. It was a major safety hazard i bet. Now if the guy lived on a farm and stored everything properly then I would be crying foul but the guy had all that in a residential neighborhood. Remember Janet Reno is gone lol.
The guy might get some fines for the safety hazard but thats probably it.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I'm new here. So I don't know where I'm supposed to stand. But I don't like taking sides. I do feel that weapons should be used as a group effort..to protect or fight back against oppression. if we are to get invaded by an Evil entity and we have to go out there and fight them, then we can all organize and distribute the guns and use them orderly, as a team. that's what the constitution grants us.

I feel that some people are abusing that right and going SOLO fighting their endless personal war and it has nothing to do with our rights to fight back. but if we collect and destroy all our weapons then we wouldnt be having this problem.


While I think this particular case required intervention due to the information available, I cannot sit back and ignore your comments regarding the destruction of all weapons. The reason I have weapons is to protect me from the non law abiding , unscrupulous individuals in this great country. If my guns are removed by "legal" means, the non law abiding individuals win again because you will not stop them from acquireing them on the black market or stealing them.

Regardless of how it goes down, I can assure you that I will take all necessary action to protect my family and preserve the rights secured for me by my forefathers. It's all a part of the oath Uncle Sam had me take before he trained me to use these weapons for his defense and I'll be darned if I won't use them for my own.

Law abiding individuals cannot afford for laws to be passed taking away our right to protect ourselves.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Great.....so now the criminals would be the only ones to have weapons. Real smart. "When you criminalize guns only criminals will have them"

How do you think we keep the peace? Criminals don't play fair, thats why they are criminals....
You must come out of your parents basement once in a while.....


I absolutely agree! This is part of the problem in my opinion. If individuals don't want to own weapons, that's fine, but leave mine alone. Many good men died to give me this right and their sacrifice must not be in vain.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
well, I would question it too. why does a homeowner need that many guns and ammunition? what's his motivation? he might use them to take revenge or harm someone. BTW I am all for disarming civilians or even destroying all hand weapons once and for all. In this case, I believe it was wise for them to raid his home.


The answer to your question is "None of your business". The founding fathers of the USA, who were likely more informed than you on related issues, knew that a corrupt and tyrannical government should be confronted by an armed society.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Listen, In the U.S. it is your right to own guns, and as much ammo as you want. If you don't like the fact that people here have guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, you are free to leave the country at any time. Move to the U.K. or Australia where you can't have a gun.

It is our Right!! Not a "licence" that can be taken away. In fact our right is to be able to have any weapon on par with any of the world's military.

Think about it, if you were President you might think twice about throwing our National Sovereignty down the toilet if some of your constituents had f-16's and smart bombs.

Would you attempt to destroy the Dollar if you thought a Tomahawk missile would come through your bedroom window at 4 am?

Well these things may be a little drastic but all I'm saying is arm yourself if you are an American. The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, it is about Tyrant hunting!!

Our founders understood how the world worked, and how it still works today. They knew that an armed public was the only way to insure that the gov't didn't get out of control with taxes and whatnot. If they piss on your rights, shoot em'.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I'm new here. So I don't know where I'm supposed to stand. But I don't like taking sides. I do feel that weapons should be used as a group effort..to protect or fight back against oppression. if we are to get invaded by an Evil entity and we have to go out there and fight them, then we can all organize and distribute the guns and use them orderly, as a team. that's what the constitution grants us.

I feel that some people are abusing that right and going SOLO fighting their endless personal war and it has nothing to do with our rights to fight back. but if we collect and destroy all our weapons then we wouldnt be having this problem.


If you live in America, you've already been invaded by an evil entity. As for destroying all guns worldwide...grow up. I have yet to hear a solid argument for intelligent gun control from the left, other than "Guns are bad"...which really doesn't solve the problem.

I'm pro second amendment and pro gun ownership, however I have an open mind if you've got a decent debate for me.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I share the same feelings as most do here. This is intrusive, and flat out wrong. Eventually I think we will see more of this.. so I believe this is the time to stock up if you plan on having or using a gun in the future. The prices will go up and they will be harder to obtain. Now which was it I was going to buy this weekend... so many to choose from.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join