Police: Man with weapons cache was preparing for Armageddon

Originally posted by debunky
Now: Can you show me a revolution in the past 100 years that succeeded and did not have support by the military and/or was peaceful?

Not sure what your position is here. Are you saying taking MORE guns away from citizens would help this somehow?

My point is this:
When the 2nd Amendment was written military weapons looked like this:
Frontloading guns
Swords

Civilians had these types of weapons at their disposal:
Frontloading guns
Swords

The Idea that an armed populace could overthrow a tyrannical regime was absolutely valid.
Since about WWI though, with the appearance of Tanks, and later bombers, your 2nd amendment is nice, but of no practical value anymore. If the Tyrant has control of the Army, you lose. If You have control of the Army, the Tyrant loses.
Gun control wouldn't affect the outcome one bit in a US-Revolution szenario.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by debunky]

reply to post by debunky


Not always so. Guerrilla warfare on a mass scale would render tanks and airplanes all but worthless. With no clear battlefields, unless they simply aim to destroy all residential areas, etc. and massacre tons of innocents, there wouldn't be much point in even leaving them around in the open.

Guerrillas in Vietnam successfully beat US forces out, also Che Guevara successfully defeated US-backed leadership in Cuba while outnumbered 10 to 1 and against enemy technology such as tanks. So there are 2 examples from the last 50-60 years off the top of my head.


It is CRITICAL that we remain extremely armed as a citizenry. That is what makes it nearly impossible for a foreign enemy to occupy us. It also makes it near impossible for our own government to institute martial law and control us all by force.

Originally posted by DarkspARCS

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Let it be known to all that CONSTITUTIONALLY, a Citizen of the United States can physically resist an attempted arrest by an authorized police representative - IF THAT ARREST IS AN ILLEGAL ONE AS GOVERNED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Even to the point of taking the life of that authorized police representative if need be, to defend and protect yourself and your rights of freedom.

The Supreme Court made this ruling - and thus it's a factual allowance governed under logical intuition and individual choice.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest


“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

I felt that this needed to be reemphasized.
Thank you for your input.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by v3_exceed
Your Avatar indicates that your "Mind is Firmly Closed". Your argument belies the position of a government shill with zero knowledge of history.

You mean 'reveals', not 'belies'. At least they teach us to use dictionaries in shill school. And that's quite enough of that, if you please. Let's keep this polite and civilized, or you will discover to your regret which of us packs more rhetorical heat, and can deploy it to best effect within the admirable constraints of this site's terms and conditions.

Get a better dictionary or perhaps a thesaurus. You had mentioned making the police safe from "Automatic weapons" in the initial post i replied to. You are arguing that the people exterminated after having their guns stripped from them doesn't count because it happened over a period of years?

Again, you have proven yourself unworthy of a debate.

Also I corrected your spelling mistakes in my first response, please re read your shill dictionary.

My statement should have read: "Your argument belies the position of a non government shill with knowledge of history." Or I could have said "Your argument does not belie the position of a government shill with zero knowledge of history."

But It would have been completely misconstrued...

Belie
1. To give a false representation to; misrepresent: "He spoke roughly in order to belie his air of gentility" (James Joyce).
2. To show to be false; contradict: Their laughter belied their outward grief.

And finally..
your statement

Originally posted by Astyanax
If Americans abrogated that nonsensical 'right' in their Constitution and strictly regulated the ownership of guns by the public, as is done in other civilized countries, the contest would certainly be more even. Especially for your long-suffering police, who have to deal with criminals carrying automatic weapons and other armaments more suited for the battlefield than for the ghetto or trailer park.

Was the basis for even bothering to respond in the first place. So it is again pointless to debate a person who doesn't even know what they have already said.

..ex

And now how about a post from the man himself.

patriotsforamerica.ning.com...

Permalink Reply by Greg Girard on January 24, 2010 at 9:49pm
Just days ago, certains posts were squealing with near hysterical fear of the "terrorism" and violence that lied in waiting at Massachusetts polls. As a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, the claims were worse than merely exaggerated or inflated; they were misguided and fabricated out of thin air. Fear of violence at the polls has never been an issue in 350+ years of Massachusetts democracy. What ever minor issues the author may have found to have occurred in Massachusetts, I asked around and no one here in Mass had ever heard of such a thing. It was painful to listen to this girlish squealing on a sight that is committed to the noble and courageous objective of restoring our Constitutional Republic.

I have studied the "National Security Force," which is Obama's name for the secret police force he is creating. I have read the new law that gives them the right to operate as an extension of the DoD, carrying firearms, and executing search warrants, executing arrest warrants, and the like. Needless to say, it's a secret police force of some kind, and it appears likely to be created from inner city youths. These "volunteers" are paid a salary as well. So we have 350,000 young toughs doing whatever their vague mission is. FDR created a similiar force of well over 100,000 thugs at a time when the population was much smaller, and no where near as well armed.

Is there a way for posts like this to refrain from squealing like a frightened little girl when a challenge is discussed? As if absorbing the sinister and menacing information were not enough punishment, we also must endure a conclusion that tosses all hope and self-confidence to the wind, and instead cries out for aid as if the end is near. This sitution is NOT the end of the world, and it is incorrect to characterize it in a demoralizing, defeatist, and very unrealistic way. If all 350,000 thugs went to the New York City metro area, they would be outnumbered 50 to 1. And if they were sent around the U.S., they would be outnumbered by significantly more than 1000 to 1, and about by about 500 to 1 if we want to count only gun owners.

If they are attacking people, invading homes, or otherwise terrorizing any community, they will have signed their death warrants. Desperate to defend home, property, and our way of life, communities accross the country will declare it to be open season on these thugs, and a eighty to one hundred million weapons will annilate them and any others with them no matter where they go. There will be millions of ambushes across the highway system, and any place they attempt to stay for the evening will be subject to any one of a thousand different types of murderous traps, contrivances, and deceptions.

The gov't can make all the diabolical plans it wants to terrorize citizens, and no doubt the gov't will succeed in some towns initially. But once the surprise is gone, Americans will be motivated by this desperate struggle to defend home and loved ones; to that end, they will exploit the fact that they are well armed, and stocked with ammo, and then apply their ingenuity to the task of pursuing a truly brutal and horrific defensive program that puts and end to the reigh of terror. We would not throw up our hands, and squeal in fear, but instead we might put our heads down to plan, practice, and push ahead with all we have. And some of might take a moment to thank the Lord for blessing us with the courage and resolve to steadfastly protect those we love, and to ultimately fight to restore our Constitution.

So how many people think Obama has a secret military of inner city youths coming to take your guns? I see Glenn Becks hand up any body else? Shawn Hannity and I see Rush in the back any body else?

Heres some more postings from him.
patriotsforamerica.ning.com...


[edit on 12-2-2010 by JBA2848]

And Greg loves Palin thinks shes perfect to run our country.

Comment by Greg Girard on January 14, 2010 at 6:11am If you recall, Palin had no trouble ripping Obama a few new ones during the debate and divers other speaking occassions. I remember clearly because I so badly wanted to toss McCain in the political chipper and replace him with Romney, and leave Palin where she was. All we heard was McCain getting trounced and begging for calm, which made it effectively impossible to for him to get across any message other than he must have left his spine in his other shirt, which is at the cleaners.

As for the time with Glen Beck, remember that she is not just a guest, but being welcomed on as staff. She will be involved in various productions on a regular basis. I would guess that the point was to keep it warm and happy for the first time around, and focus on getting the viewers to latch onto her charismatic "I'm just like you" side before they let her loose in a more confrontational situation. Many viewers may not have seen her in a comfortable, relaxed setting, and we know that millions of people decide whether they like someone early in the contact with the person and based on whether they perceive the person as "nice" and pleasant. Of course, everybody around here is looking for red meat, and its always great to watch Palin or another guest take a whopping chomp out of the dictator wannabee Obama. I just sense that to do the "fallin' in love with Sarah" thing early.


Up until about six months ago, I viewed Palin as granite mountain of integrity, tightly connected to the real world and real issues, a model of reverent devotion to the Lord, and as a person who who not for a moment hestitate to put all of those outstanding character issues into the service of God and country. But at the same time, viewed her as grossly politically ignorant of the process, the structure of gov't, essential details of our history, awkward in dealing with confrontation media, and generally lack the intellectual prowess and sophistocation necessary to lead this great country in its top office.

I have heard her speak more recently, and watched her moved forward in speaking engagements, writing various pieces and a very successful book, and dealing with the scum that continually try to smear her with lies of all types and expensive frivolous law suits. She has powered through these challenges like a bulldozer, defeated every adversary, increased her knowledge of key issues and history, converted debt to prosperity, and looked great doing it all. And all this while refusing to compromise her integrity, family, and devotion to God and country.

I'm now of the opion she is exactly what this country needs to fix decades of rot and evil that started back at start of the 20th century, when American progressivism first reared its ugly head. I believe we can only restore the majesty of Constitution, as the truly the Supreme Law of the Land, with a gov't so committed to the task that it be willing to dismantle and declare voice mountains unlawful legislation and ramantly unconstitutional Execute Orders, such as ALL of those related to War Powers and Continuity of Gov't. (which are all simply plans for tyranny). With the right cabinet and key appointees, I cannot imagine a better person for top job. She's got my vote if she runs. .

Here he says there rewriting the bible to "some kind of liberal, pacifistic, politicially correct philosophy that calls for submitting to, and indirectly participating in all manner of evil acts committed by whoever claims political leadership."

Comment by Greg Girard on January 9, 2010 at 7:38am Thank you so much for writing this essay. There seems to be tsunami of perverse views among Christians, wherein the plain language and truth of the Bible is adapted to some kind of liberal, pacifistic, politicially correct philosophy that calls for submitting to, and indirectly participating in all manner of evil acts committed by whoever claims political leadership. This morally repugnant inversion of God's word is really a thinly veiled attempt to incorporate the ideological basis of gun control advocates and others opposed to self defense (for others) into a religious context, and it addition, it is obviously standard liberal statist propaganda using the power of religion to accelerate the road to tyranny, and the ultimate abolition of religious freedoms. One extreme extreme example recently occurred when my son receive an "adolescent's" bible that used modernized English and themes. In it, the few sections that dealt with self defense, protecting others, and the like had be substantially changed to include fully pacifistic language that grossly distorted the original text to the point of inverting its meaning. An so it goes that even those young folks that want to explore scripture with a "modern" Bible are fed liberal lies and distortions. It is as if there is no end to the lengths the leftists/liberals will go to infiltrate every aspect of society with their vile trash idealogy.

Comment by Greg Girard on December 26, 2009 at 7:57pm In response to the excellent comment posted by Jon H, I would like to offer the following:

I appreciate and agree with most of your opinions. I too can envision the creation of a fake crisis to justify forestalling an election that Obama's believes could substantially cull his herd of Marxist minions. If he decides to go forward with such move, and install himself as a defacto dictator, we can be certain this affront to the civilized world will be a long planned maneuver. Accordingly, one can only assume that he will deploy, or have at the ready, every member of the armed services and federal agencies that can carry a firearm. The whole security machine will be on high alert, ready, willing, and able to unleash death on any actual or perceived threat. If patriots were to launch a campaign to restore the Constitution during Obama's ill-fated crisis, the timing of the act would be on a par with a plan to shut off a running snowblower only after one has reached into the turning blade to clear a blockage. For those unfamiliar with snowblowers, every year attempts to knock out and clear blockages, without first turning the snowblower off, result having one both arms torn off at the shoulder, as if effortless plucked off by a giant (who says to the other giant: "don't worry, they can't feel pain"

Indeed, it may require retraint and patience to bide one's time. But for a political movement to respond to an affront with complete predictability, and at time when one's adversary is at it acme of readiness, is to provide the perfect justification for the adversary to make the most of its heightened ability to crush any action by the patriots, and to extend the use of force as far back into communities as possible to disarm anyone it can, to cart off dissidents or suspected dissidents to concentration camps, and to "make examples" out selected victims. This pattern I describe is so common in Marxist regimes that it is truly a well worn path. In general, I would prefer to slay the dragon when he's sleeping, or have a sexy she-dragon seduce him and kill him with poison dragon lipstick.

I believe that any activity of patriots should be engineered to carefully exploit the timing of certain events and shifts in national focus. This strategy approach makes it possible to compensate for not having such a massive security machine as those in power. It enables an optimized use of available resources in a way that mulitplies the overal impact. Importantly, careful time can dramatically reduce the potential magnititude or lethality of any response to action taken by patriots.

More to the point, I believe strongly in the need to maintain a mind-boggling veneer of apparently shifting objectives, conflicting evidence regarding the location and timing of events planned by patriots, overt displays of (feigned) failures and incompetance for the benefit of any undetected obvservers (spies), an ongoing program of disinformation using leaks and patriots posing as disgruntled defectors, and every other kind of deceptive practice that comes to mind. Aside from protecting the identy of patriots and the details of actual plans, the great peril of walking into a trap or having a planned event quashed is dramatically reduced. Of course, the most significant benefit is the obvious one of having the important element of surprise. :

When you read the last part of this he begins to sound like a terrorist.

Looking at the date he posted this day after christmas. Maybe he was mad because he didn't get the gun he wanted from Santa.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by JBA2848]

i agree with mattifaktion why isnt the article reading man arrested for having gun range in house instead of making abig deal about guns he owned LEGALLY that in my mind is just another way the media can scare the rest of us into not wanting to own or stock pile guns!

yeah it goes on to say the real reason but what is the eye grabber? the title of the article whats most likely to be read by the average person browsing the title! what made the op even post the article on here anyway THE TITLE now! get the picture?

its all mind control even if we consciously fight it off it still sticks on our sub-conscious! aslong as people in general dont go and read the whole article all the average person will ever know is that someone got arrested for having lots of ammo and guns and they will think it was ok

but the real issue is the gun range in the house that in my mind has more value what if there were kids in the house? did they have access to it all questions start to rise and you see where he went wrong!

Obviously the guy was running his mouth or his neighbors don't like him or something. If you aren't doing anything wrong, are already part of the law or have friend's in the military then what do you have to worry about? I know the old saying of "if you can't beat em join em" won't sit well with some of you, but try it once in a while.

That pretty much makes anyone who buys .22LR in bulk a stockpiler. I routinely buy those 525 round boxes because I typically go through that many rounds on a guys weekend in the mountains.

Same goes for 12 gauge shot shells and 5.56. My skeet gun and AR15 see lots of action when the boys get together. Does that mean I am stockpiling?

If anything I am supporting the economy and our broke state (NY) by purchasing ammo on a regular basis. Something tells me this guy made enemies with the wrong person and bam, enemy of the state...

Originally posted by JBA2848


When you read the last part of this he begins to sound like a terrorist.

Looking at the date he posted this day after christmas. Maybe he was mad because he didn't get the gun he wanted from Santa.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by JBA2848]

When I read his words, I am thankful his wife had the good sense and courage to alert police. One less, heavily armed nutbag parading around as some sort of delusional Patriot-wannabe, on the streets is a very, very good thing.

That won't stop others from treating him like some victim here, as sad and unbelievable as that may be.

reply to post by v3_exceed

You seem a little confused. When you are feeling better, perhaps we can take up our little discussion again.

I look forward to it. Meanwhile, ponder my signature.

reply to post by JBA2848

Yes, that makes fascinatingly chilling reading. The man was clearly as mad as a hatter, and given the arsenal he had accumulated, was a clear threat to the community. I applaud the authorities' decision to arrest him, and the officers who tackled him deserve to be commended for their dedication and bravery.

Putting these people behind bars isn't the way, though. The way is strictly to limit access to firearms by anyone not authorized to carry them in the line of duty. As for the poor fellow's peculiar form of mental illness, perhaps science may one day uncover a treatment for it. It seems ironic to me that Americans, a people enjoying more opportunities for democratic choice and participation in government than almost any other, should be so particularly susceptible to it. Looking at some of the posts on this thread makes one wonder whether to laugh or to cry.

[edit on 13/2/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by bsbray11


But in both examples you bring an army was facing of another army. Both had a supply of russian (and chinese) military hardware. You are also suposing that our hypothetical tyrant would shy away from killing innocents. Now, if he does not do that, and his troops do, he will have lost controll of the military (see, whoever controlls the military wins, no matter if the slaughtered civilians had a revolver, or not) Look at the revolutions in Rumania and China in the 90ies. Look at east germany. We have the whole scale of troop control in these cases, from complete government, to 50/50, to complete alliance with the populace.

And the Outcomes:
Germany: Not a single shot fired
Rumania: Bloody, yet sucessfull once the military turned around
China: Bloody and unsucessfull, since the military didn't turn around

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JBA2848

 

Yes, that makes fascinatingly chilling reading. The man was clearly as mad as a hatter, and given the arsenal he had accumulated, was a clear threat to the community. I applaud the authorities' decision to arrest him, and the officers who tackled him deserve to be commended for their dedication and bravery.

Putting these people behind bars isn't the way, though. The way is strictly to limit access to firearms by anyone not authorized to carry them in the line of duty. As for the poor fellow's peculiar form of mental illness, perhaps science may one day uncover a treatment for it. It seems ironic to me that Americans, a people enjoying more opportunities for democratic choice and participation in government than almost any other, should be so particularly susceptible to it. Looking at some of the posts on this thread makes one wonder whether to laugh or to cry.

[edit on 13/2/10 by Astyanax]

That's right buddy. Keep acting like you're the only one whose opinion is legitimate, and that anybody with a different point of view must be absolutely insane to think differently than your almighty self.

Someday you might find yourself in a situation where seconds count and the police are just minutes away. I wonder what your opinion on gun control would be if somebody with a knife was coming after your family?

Guns are not evil, insane, or uncivilized. They are tools made out of wood, metal, and plastic. You can own a hundred guns and be completely healthy. You can go your entire life without ever touching a gun and be completely out of your mind. The solution isn't to crack down on guns. The solution is to crack down on criminals.

The only thing that I don't know whether to laugh or cry about is that you find it necessary to come back every few hours and cry about how insane and uncivilized people are based solely on the fact that they have different points of view on gun control.

I'll concede that in this particular case, the guy was a lunatic. A gun range in ones' attic when you have neighbors (especially in an apartment building) is absolutely not okay, and it does show that he had no value for the lives of his neighbors. But simply owning a lot of guns and militaria doesn't make somebody crazy, and that seems to be what you're trying to say here.

A collection of weapons is no more dangerous or less sane than a collection of baseball cards, if the person collecting them isn't a bad guy.

More than likely echelon software has picked up on something and the CIA have notified the local authority.

It's at times like this one can be greatful for the security service and the great work they do in these difficult challenging times.

Look at the other side of the coin guys n gals. What if he was intending to use those arms on innocent people? Think Wako, think Hungerford, think Dunblane, think the recent incident at University of Alabama.

Is it not at times like these you are greatful for echelon? The majority of people on here, and the media would be the first to criticise the "authorities" for not acting on "intelligence" gathered. Sure they would.

I say the police were tipped off and successfully removed the toys from another potential crackpot.

Long may echelon / intelligence / continue, if it means I can go to the local mart without being shot / killed by some crackpot, then I'm all for it.

Remove the guns from the equation, and you remove the death of innocent people.

Originally posted by mattifikation
That's right buddy. Keep acting like you're the only one whose opinion is legitimate, and that anybody with a different point of view must be absolutely insane to think differently than your almighty self.

Thank you for the encouragement. It is good to know I can count on your approval.

The solution isn't to crack down on guns. The solution is to crack down on criminals.

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. incarceration rate on December 31, 2008 was 754 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents.

The USA also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world. 2,304,115 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails in 2008. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million inmates, while having four times the population. Source

How do you plan to crack down any harder than that?

This is great news.

Paranoiacs should never be allowed to own firearms.