A Real Message From Protestors

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   


This veteran group is exercising their 2nd amendment right peacfully, ensuring the safety of the protestors as a fairly objective party in light of the discussion.

I can't argue with much of what is said, and I'm sharing it because I really can't think of anyone who could disagree with 90% or better of what is being said here. I think once we start hollering messages to be droned out, were crossing lines I'm not willing to cross. Intellectual discussion between parties should be all the protest needed. If you just flood the streets with enough people calmly and peacably conversing, it should send the message clearly enough and not give reason to use violence.

Sadly, I believe these protests will turn violent, and I really don't have any critique of the group at this time unless someone else brings something to light. I hope that they make the right choices, but I respect the freedom to do exactly what they are doing. I'm hoping they're responsible enough to bear this burden honorably.

On a side note, I had wanted to suggest only having one round in the magazine to symbolize the sacrifice of ones self ( not I don't mean suicide ) for the country, but I don't want to put anyone at a tactical disadvantage either.

I loathe discussion of violence more than most people here, and I've been appalled at the number who are ready to grab the rope and start hanging people. Having said that, I think that most veterans ( some excluded here and around the US ) who have seen violence don't want to ever see it again.

I think it's a failure on behalf of the government for leading us into so many wars. It's their job to deal diplomatically, and our job to protect America and her allies abroad who stand to be the greatest nation in the world of wealth and character. I want to make sure that we always maintain our honor, even if some day we find out for sure that our country has not.
edit on 2011/10/26 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Outstanding video. The guy was well spoken and polite and to the point.

But I see this as ending badly in other parts of the country. Most cops would take exception to the fact he had a magazine in his weapon.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I have my problem's with this and while i am pro second amendment that is just asking for trouble there is a time and a place for everything and that isn't either.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
US war Vet Scott Olsen dies who is currently in critical condition in an Oakland, CA hospital succumbs that will be the Gamechanger.

I really don't want it to get violent but as these incidents occur in a larger frequency like what is being seen in Oakland, NYC, Atlanta, Albuquerque the precipice of armed counter conflict is seemingly to be more likely as the days continue.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
To be honest I fully support these guys. There was a huge argument on one of the Occupy FB pages because someone suggested just this, almost everyone thought it was a bad idea or gave off the wrong image, but in light of the events in Oakland and other cities around the country, I feel now this is necessary to protect the protesters from abuses of the law at the hands of the police.

"Today we are exercising our 2nd Amendment right so that everybody can have a 1st Amendment right..."

They aren't acting like cowboys, they're not brandishing their weapons threateningly, they are simply standing guard to make sure that the occupiers in Phoenix aren't dicked around by pricks with badges- I mean Police officers.

God Bless America and keep these people & protesters safe from injustice at the hands of the out of control Law.

(To clarify, not all cops are dicks, just most of them.)
(Also, I don't condone anyone opening fire on a police officer, I just believe that if they're there and carrying, then the police will be more hesitant to use force. It's a deterrent, and completely within their rights as US Citizens)
edit on 10/26/2011 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry


This is awesome


"Today we are exercising our 2nd Amendment right so that everybody can have a 1st Amendment right..."






So now let's compare Arizona to New York and California




edit on 26-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I see no problem with it so long as the guidline was:

We will protect you from the police, but if the protesters start the violence against police first we will cease protection

Otherwise I think it's a wonderful idea.. for all protests. Do you think the police would bash people skulls in with batons and shields if they knew armed trained men with military grade weapons were among those on the first line? The second amendment is not intended to protect us from burglars, that was no the intent.. it was to protect us against GOVERNMENT which in most cases is the police.

PS whoever was the speaker behind the camera needs to shut up .. so annoying.
edit on 10/26/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by neo96
 


Do you think the police would bash people skulls in with batons and shields if they knew armed trained men with military grade weapons were among those on the first line?

The second amendment is not intended to protect us from burglars, that was no the intent.. it was to protect us against GOVERNMENT which in most cases is the police.


I believe that if you study the picture below we will begin to see a pattern emerge.

This is from 2005 so some of the data may be out of date.

edit on 26-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't too many thing's can go wrong and recent event's has shown how wrong they can go that could easily turn into a blood bath.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't too many thing's can go wrong and recent event's has shown how wrong they can go that could easily turn into a blood bath.





The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. T. Jefferson.


I see more and more REAL patriots joining the movement. This must scare the livin **** out of the right wing conservatives ala Rush and Sean with their support of greed and corruption from the corporate oligarchy.
edit on 26-10-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Real patriots eh wanting to destroy other American's.

No not in the same class.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by whaaa
 


Real patriots eh wanting to destroy other American's.

No not in the same class.


I see it differently. Protecting the 1st amendment rights of everyone. Even the "dirty hippies" "commies" and "socialists" as you and others have branded your fellow Americans. The war against the middle class must end...Now!

edit on 26-10-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by whaaa
 


Real patriots eh wanting to destroy other American's.

No not in the same class.


I see it differently. Protecting the 1st amendment rights of everyone. Even the "dirty hippies" "commies" and "socialists" as you and others have branded your fellow Americans.


The money of the Republic comes from the People.

edit on 26-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Since when have we ever agreed on anything?

Don't recall calling them "dirty hippies" and feel free to quote that and guilty as charged on "commie" or "socialist" guess it just depend's on how those word's get defined.

If you want a whole bunch of money and want to dictate how much anyone can make or how much they own if the shoe fit's but Democrat's,socialist's, and communist's have always been slightly different shades of the same thing.

OWS doesn't have my support never will and anyone who will use violence as a mean's to get it can consider me their enemy and anyone who embrace's any ideology to create more number's for that cause has my contempt.

True liberalism would be against OWS not supporting it.
edit on 26-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I would like to add a couple of things. First that map is mostly accurate, Arizona though is a constitutional carry state now, like Alaska. No need for a permit. Secondly, while I have been very vocal in my my disagreements with OWS and it's supporters, I feel it is necessary to allow them to exercise their rights, never misunderstand my disagreement of the movement as wanting it shut down. It is their right to say what they want, and I will strongly support their right to express themselves, until they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Such as the doorstep doodies left in NYC.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by neo96
 


I see no problem with it so long as the guidline was:

We will protect you from the police, but if the protesters start the violence against police first we will cease protection

Otherwise I think it's a wonderful idea.. for all protests. Do you think the police would bash people skulls in with batons and shields if they knew armed trained men with military grade weapons were among those on the first line? The second amendment is not intended to protect us from burglars, that was no the intent.. it was to protect us against GOVERNMENT which in most cases is the police.

PS whoever was the speaker behind the camera needs to shut up .. so annoying.
edit on 10/26/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)


If you didn't watch the video, or didn't pay attention, I will clarify. The man said, as he pointed to the protestors, "We are trusting them to say nonviolent, and we don't have to agree with what they are saying."

Something to that effect anyway.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I'm pretty sure it scares ..... pretty much every politician. Unless you are under the delusion Democrats don't accept big corporate donations.. And the guy in the video admits he's Conservative but is defending their rights to have a different opinion than his own. You know, the way America should be.



reply to post by InformationAccount
 



Why yes, I do see a pattern .. Liberal states = more restrictions! All for your own good of course.
edit on 10/27/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by InformationAccount
 


NJ allows but bans concealed but can be out of sight but fully displayed in front of law enforcement. If you are an "Out Of Stater" as long as everything cheques out in regards to dl license, insurance, registration, permit, firearm registration and you are obeying all commands given by le and are non threatening and non violent/hostile towards the LE you have nothing to worry about.

Weapon possession if drunk I believe is banned. Those who can't own guns are as follows :
Felons, Mentally Disturbed, Released Federal Prisoner, Probation, parole.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I'm against violence but if anyone is going to carry a gun who better than trained soldiers?

I'd guess they are better trained in weapons than the police so IMO they are in safe hands...

It's a much better trade off than having armed protesters and IMO much safer..



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I see more and more REAL patriots joining the movement. This must scare the livin **** out of the right wing conservatives ala Rush and Sean with their support of greed and corruption from the corporate oligarchy.


But, but, but i'm on the right and these banksters are screwing us all so lets not try to say all the protestors are out of work and on the take.

I don't need to borrow money but Lloyds offer me 1% less tax if i lend them money and want me to pay 19% plus admin fees if i borrow money.

Can you see what's wrong with that picture when my money is being lent out 10 X 19% to people that are stupid or are forced to borrow at that rate.

The left can have the bankers feet and we will have the bankers heads.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join