It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Patriot or not?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:38 AM

I know who I can trust in my immediate area. I know which of my neighbors and friends share similar viewpoints regarding our govt. and most importantly the constitution. I also know who is adequately armed to protect their families and homes.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:00 AM
I fought in Iraq and Afghan, I know how to fight a hit-and-run war. I know because they trained me on how to fight it and how to counter it=) The next war I fight will be for my country no more false bravdo in other third world nations, right here on American Soil...

If it comes to that... Fbi =) I know your watching=)

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:03 AM
A patriot does not plan on attacking his own country because he loses an election. A traitor does. Imagining threats doesn't make one a patriot either.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:13 PM
A die hard Texan here.

Nuf said!

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:18 PM
But of course to both
Hell, my crew and myself are in touch with a few friends in other states and have made some emergency plans. It is scary how many people are preparing!

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

both bro the 9 is always by my side, fixing to get a new rifle this weekend too and start stocking up on necessities as well

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by thumper666
I'm all about the 2nd Amendment, but guns tend to be a pretty permanent solution, even when attempting to wound, and most citizens aren't that familiar with marksmanship as a concept. Now a blade will actually give one pause to consider their present course. Way easier to control the potential for lethality.

Way easier for a seriously armed opponent to take you right on out of the gene pool.

You know the saying - " Never take a knife to a gun fight."

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:24 AM
With me i have the guns but what i have in my brain is a lot more dangerous.

I worked as a blaster for many years.
Why shoot them one at a time when you can take them out by the dozen.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:41 AM
Nope, guess not

I do have a Zulu spear from 1880

I must be a mexican and not know it-

Have fun you crazy kids, can you guys make sure walmart changes their signage afterwards?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:44 AM
Guess I'm not getting an answer to my question at the bottom of page 1. I'd like to see the OP's definition of "patriot" though. I'm beginning to get the feeling that it's some sort of secret code word that I'm not understanding.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Guess I'm not getting an answer to my question at the bottom of page 1. I'd like to see the OP's definition of "patriot" though. I'm beginning to get the feeling that it's some sort of secret code word that I'm not understanding.

Well I get the feeling you are not a patriot

thats my suspicion-

someone would have winked at you already...

you are probably not a real American too, so be happy!

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Janky Red]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:03 AM
What happened to the post about the ruler?

And NO, rubbing alcohol will disinfect that well

Anyhow buy your own, their cheap enough for gods sake

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Janky Red]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:07 AM
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson

Freedom is not a privilege granted by nation states nor governments of any kind but is a God given right of all people. It is not the sovereignty of nations that make us free but the sovereignty of individuals that makes us free. While the Second Amendment is...well, second only to the First Amendment it is second for a reason. It is second because the right to keep and bear arms is paramount in protecting the First Amendment rights of all people. For those who are armed and prepared to fight the long and constant fight for freedom, they deserve all peoples respect and admiration. However, long before the people go into agreement with taking up arms against their own government, there is a Constitution for the United States of America that was specifically designed to protect the rights of all people and to arm those people with the rule of law so that they might find more peaceful ways to fight for freedom before they surrender to the violence of bloody revolution.

Long before the blood need be shed there are peaceful and more enviable ways in which to take control of the unwieldy beast known as government. I would like to take this opportunity to remind those patriots ready to shed blood of the Great Seal of the United States. On one side of that seal is a picture of a bald eagle that holds in one talon 13 arrows and in the other an olive branch with 13 leaves. While the 13 arrows represent the same 13 original states of the U.S. so do the 13 leaves on the olive branch. The point that should not be missed is that the eagle is facing towards the olive branch rather than the arrows. The message that should be gleened from this is that we as a nation of people will look towards peaceful solutions long before turning to warlike solutions. While it should not be overlooked that we as a free and sovereign people are prepared at all times to defend zealously our freedom and even use the force of arms if need be, we will do so only when all peaceful solutions have been exhausted.

Have all peaceful solutions been exhausted? I think not! There are far more than the 1st and 2nd Amendments of unalienable rights that have been enumerated by the Bill of Rights. There is the 4th and 5th Amendments which mean every bit as much as the first two do in terms of the right of the people to protect their own rights. Indeed, so too does the 3rd, which prohibits a soldier of the federal or state government from abusing their right as soldiers to abscond with an individuals property. However, we are not yet at a point where our own standing armies have begun to trespass in this way. We are, however, long past the point where the federal and state and even local governments have willingly and brazenly trampled all over the peoples 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

The U.S. government has for too long been too willing to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, have too willingly issued warrants without probable cause, and done so not by any verified oath but by hearsay alone, and too often will seize an individuals property without any type of warrant what so ever! Furthermore, too often has the government forced an individual to bear witness against themselves, for far too long been deprived of life, limb and property without any due process of law and private property has been seized without any just compensation. The greatest infringement upon the rights of individuals has been the governments and the sham lawyers who play their game of blatant and willful disregard for the Ninth Amendment.

There has been a concerted effort by government officials, lawyers licensed by state agencies and public school teachers to put out the false data that rights are granted to us be either a.) the government and/or b.) by the Constitution. Neither is true and if rights are granted at all they have been granted by a higher authority than human. This false data that is being relentlessly taught and promulgated hopes to convince the populace that if the right has not been enumerated in the Constitution then it is not a recognized right by the U.S. government. But here is the rub, if the people are so stupid as to believe such nonsense and are seemingly incapable of interpreting the meaning and intent of the Ninth Amendment then what good does it do anybody if those people are heavily armed and willing to start a civil war?

Is it a given that all those who are armed and chomping at the bit to start squeezing their triggers and popping off several rounds at "the enemy" are people who know the law? We are all presumed to know the law but do we know the law? Do these so called patriots know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land? Do they know that long before we descend into civil war again, their are numerous ways in which to stave off the steady march of tyranny?

A government of the people, for the people and by the people means exactly what it says and if we are a government that willingly suppresses the rights of individuals then under the U.S. Constitutional republic that we have ordained, the people in the U.S. have got the government they deserve. They got this government by first affably going into agreement with the suppression of rights as long as these suppression's have not affected their own comfort and infatuation with mediocrity. They got this government by willingly condoning suppressive legislation, by accepting an out of control federal government where all three branches have insidiously conspired with each other to illegally expand the scope of their jurisdiction. They got this government by condoning the tyranny of their own state governments that have done the same.

In every DMV across the state, there are fat and lazy bureaucrats who gleefully look down their noses at the people they've been paid to serve while shoving outrageous policies down the peoples throats and declaring it law. How many of us have stood in line at a DMV for hours on end while staring at the numerous signs that tell the most insidious of lies, that "driving is a privilege and not a right"? How many people, including the so called "patriots" have accepted this lie unchallenged and submitted to the tyranny of this insipid administrative agency and meekly begged their masters for a license to drive and even more stupidly handed over the bill of sale to their own automobile...


posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:07 AM
Continued from previous post:

...the automobile that they spent their hard earned income on, or at the very least lent their name to a debt in order to own that automobile only to turn right around and surrender the bill of sale to the DMV in order to get a "title" in return? That bill of sale that all licensed drivers who've registered their vehicles with the DMV is proof of ownership and yet, it is the DMV that holds that proof of ownership not the people who have spent their incomes on those vehicles. Then, when some police officer or even a deputy of the duly elected Sheriff's department, seizes that vehicle for some mundane and meaningless infraction without first being convicted of any crime, without any DUE PROCESS OF LAW, scratch their heads feebly and wonder what happened to their rights?

Everyday thousands of people enter into this insipid administrative agency known as the DMV and meekly and stupidly surrender their right to travel as they see fit in exchange for a license and registration without ever once question the more than dubious assertion made by these insufferable bureaucrats that "driving is a privilege and not a right." These people do so not out of a sense of patriotism, not even a out of a sense of respect for the rule of law or even the respect for rules in general or respect for legislation, but do so out of expedience.

How many so called "patriots" diligently file a "valid tax return" on their personal income with out ever even thinking to ask such pertinent questions about the tax they so blindly assume that they have been made liable for and therefore are subject to the revenue laws without once asking what the damn subject of the tax is? What is the damn subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax"? Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax? Does the tax fall in the category of People, Property or Activities and where specifically in the Internal Revenue Code have the vast majority of hard working people been made liable for this extremely dubious tax? How many so called "patriots" now so willing to take up arms against the tyrants they helped to create ever once dared to ask such a simple question as what is the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax?' How many so called "patriots" dared to peacefully and respectfully challenge the jurisdiction of the multitudes of government officials working for administrative agencies not at all mandated by the Constitution they seem to love so much?

The Federal Reserve, the FDA, the EPA, the USDA, the CDC, the FBI, Child Protective Services, police officers not duly elected by the people and therefore comfortably buffered from Constitutional restraint are all administrative agencies where too many thuggish and rogue government employees paid by the tax dollars collected from hard working people, have stepped way beyond the bounds of their jurisdiction and in doing so are most likely guilty of acting under color of law, impersonating a police officer or government official, simulation of legal process, malicious prosecution and obstruction of justice just to name a very few laws they have broken by willingly and with such careless disregard for the Constitution they all took an oath to uphold. Yet, how many so called "patriots" even bothered to calmly, quietly and respectfully challenge the jurisdiction of these thugs and rogue officials?

How many parents have allowed a slovenly and ill mannered bureaucrat from Child Protective Services either kidnap their child or threaten to do so and thereby guilty of extortion? How many parents have grieved in agony over loosing their children to the state of which they reside and meekly protest without ever thinking to rely upon the rule of law that exists solely to protect their rights?

How many of us all have endeavored greatly to avoid jury duty when it is not just our solemn duty but a wonderful opportunity to challenge the suppressive and unconstitutional legislation constantly passed by artful and ambitious politicians by simply refusing to convict the poor hapless soul who has been charged with a "crime". How many of us who have accepted, most of the time begrudgingly, that jury duty and then for some insane reason agreed to convict someone of a so called "consensual crime"? How many juries have foolishly gone along with the ambitions of tyrants and agreed to fill our nations prisons with people who are guilty of no more than paying for sex with a prostitute or having a drug addiction or not even having an addiction and just wanting to buy some drugs?

How many people have voted for "the lesser of two evils" in our President based entirely on the ridiculous assumption that that President will appoint Supreme Court Justices more in line with our own views, mistakenly believing that this is all they can do to reign in the out of control government they so willingly created? Grand Juries across this nation can at any time refuse to indict people of the dubious "crimes" they've been charged with, especially if no victim has been presented and failing that juries in a criminal court can flat out refuse to convict these so called "criminals" and there is not a damn thing any government official can do about it, and yet, how many juries even know that, let alone do it?

There is far more that the We the People of the United States of America can do to reign in our out of control and increasingly disrespectful government before finally choosing to take up arms. I do not offer this to sing the praises of pacifism nor even sing a song of peace. I offer this as a necessary step that must be taken before We the People finally and shamefully decide that violent revolution is the only answer. The blood of our own is not the only answer and velvet revolutions are much more effective and far less costly than violent ones. I offer this as a matter of practicality not a meek and pointless plea for peace. Either We the People can fall prey to these artful and insidious tyrants or we can cleverly and effectively lay our own traps and let them fall prey to justice!

If, and only if, those efforts fail, then perhaps it will be time to take up arms. But we have not even come close to setting these traps or using the law as it is meant to be used and if we can't do something as simple as that, then what in God's name makes us think we can effectively win a civil war against such clever tyrants? If we are to establish justice then let us be just!

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:38 AM
"Remember also that the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Ayn Rand

"Civil rights", "minority rights", "woman's rights", "elderly rights", "disabled rights", "gay rights" and on and on and on, every day a new cause for "new" rights for some group that imagines their qualification of being a minority gives them access to some special rights above and beyond the very simple and basic rights they all ready have and have had since the moment they were born. One does not need to have a skin color other than white, does not need to have a gender other than male, does not need to have youth, does not need to be fully abled, nor do they need to be heterosexual in order to enjoy their rights, the same rights that any person has.

So, why is it then, that We the People have so foolishly and so willingly gone along with allowing for these special rights which are tantamount to government granted privileges be framed in terms of rights? Everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness. This means everybody has the right to speak freely, to print freely, to worship freely and to gather peaceably in public and demand a redress of grievances from their government. Everybody has the right to due process of law! Everybody, regardless of who they are, what sex they are, who they are having consensual adult sex with, and age, race, or creed, has these rights and no special privileges granted by government can be superior to that.

Yet, here we are in these modern times actually debating whether or not gay people have the right to get married. The tragedy of this farce lies not in the question of whether gay people have that right, but lies in the fact that all the people, including many so called "patriots" will apply to the state for a license to marry! To marry the one we love is a sacred right not granted by government and a license is a privilege granted by government to do something not otherwise legal. Yet, is it illegal to marry? What is to stop a church that wants to marry gay people from doing so? The debate is not about being free to marry, it is sadly about homosexuals wanting the same tax breaks as heterosexuals get on this so called "Personal Income Tax" that most of these people are not likely liable for and therefore not subject to the laws they so willingly submit to.

So, the whole question of why free and sovereign individuals are so willingly pleading with their state and local governments for a license to wed gets lost in silly debates over whether gay people should be "allowed" to marry. On both sides of this insipid issue there are people that declare "as a taxpayer I have rights!" What does that mean? Do "taxpayers" have some special right elevated above and beyond the very basic human rights belonging to all people? What the hell is a "taxpayer"? How many people have even bothered to look up the very specific statutorily defined meaning of "taxpayer". Do "taxpayers" have rights? Those who think they do should take a look at the so called "taxpayers bill of rights" and compare that with the actual Bill of Rights enumerated within the Constitution for the United States of America.

How pathetic and pitiful We the People have become and to add insult to injury, now as we enter into this so called "awakening" we mutter and mumble and even loudly declare that it is violence that is the answer. In the end, violence may indeed be the only answer, but not before we have exhausted all other avenues. What is wrong with us that we would actually go to the state or city and apply for a license to wed? What is wrong with us that we might very well not attend a church that is not a 501c3 "tax exempt" status? What the hell has happened to us and if we are so stupid as to willingly enter into such foolish agreements with ambitious tyrants what makes any of us think we are prepared for another civil war?

How many of us have agreed to be licenses in order to do business? Indeed, there are certain enterprises that give cause to a government demanding license in order to do business, but do book sellers and shoe makers actually need permission to make shoes and sell books? Of course, if book sellers and shoe makers think they do need a license to do business they can't get that license until they have first applied for a "tax ID number" with both federal and state tax collection agencies. But why? What tax has been laid upon the activity of shoe making and book selling?

We have become a hopelessly inept people and yet too many of us shout for all to hear that we have guns and we will use them! How many of those people who have those guns actually went into an agreement with being licensed in order to enjoy their 2nd Amendment right? We have got the government we deserve, indeed! We can fix the problem peacefully and reasonably or we can resort to chaos and violence, the choice, as it has always been, is ours.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:28 PM
Day 2 just checking.
I thought so...

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by stevegmu
It is the patriotic duty of all responsible Americans to be armed- legally. Here in Va, owning guns is a requisite.

Well if we loose the bill of rights all that goes out the window.
Think about it...

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

If I get a .45, will I be a bigger patriot than I am now with my .38.

My 12 gauage must make me close to Rush, Sean and Savage.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by whaaa]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by whaaa

Star for you.

Now why exactly are you packing?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

My personal opinion is that every person must first rely on self, family and friends, whether that is in SHTF scenario or any other... To expect timely (if any) help from agencies is foolish, or worse.

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
Ammo makers can not keep up with the demand.

Why the increased sales in general and why the first-time gun ownership sales specifically? I believe it has more to due with increasing economic hardship, rising crime and the belief in a need for self-protection than it does a fear of gun-control. There is eroding/ed confidence in the ability of agencies to protect the people and an increase in the understanding that one must be able to rely on self, family and friends.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by LadySkadi]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in