Obama Will Bring War To The USA In 2013 Using The Backing Of Anti-Gun Advocates to Divide Society.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Standard divide and conquer techniques being employed here in my humble opinion. I believe that most if not all of the anti-gun advocates just cannot see this comming through the fog. They are either in denial or blind to the facts.

Obama will use the weight of the anti-gun lobby to divide society before making his move. He will then claim he has the backing of the people when this is just not true.

He will have the backing of around 1/4 to 1/3 of the population at the very most. But when it is implemented the anti-gun people will realise thier mistake by inadvertently backing a civil war in the USA.

By then it will be too late.

Obama will use the military and the TSA to try and disarm people and he will also seek backing from the United Nations who will offer support.

So I just want to make this perfectly clear to people wanting a gun ban, "are you willing to go to war for it?". If so, then IMO you have never been in a war zone, its hell, and that is what I believe 100% you are inadvertently supporting.

Trust me when I say, I believe this isnt going to go well for any children in the US and IMO will make recent tragedies seem miniscule.

edit on 30-12-2012 by TheMindWar because: Typos




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
This thought has come to my mind once or twice. I hope it doesn't come to that. But gun rights, like gun control, isn't about guns.

Gun rights is about self preservation.

Gun Control is about control of the people.

The latter being antithetical to the former, a war may very well be what the anti-gun crowd gets from this.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The day someone knocks on a door and demands the household disarm is the day Americs dies and pretty much everyone in America.

The most that will come of this is a ban on high cap mags and even that is enough to start a civil war.


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


Removal of any immediate potential opposition for one.

And it would create an atmosphere of uncertainty, you'd have to pick a side, anyone not on theirs would be a target.

They then have the 'authority' to do many of the things they can only dream of right now.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


This is the blindness I mentioned above.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Wait, a civil war between who? The anti-gun people don't usually have guns, so who are the pro-gunners going to shoot - unarmed people?? Do you mean a war between the government and the gun nuts? Well, I hate to tell ya, but the government's military will win that one pretty quickly, as they have stuff a lot more powerful than guns at their disposal.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are trying to say here.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


Removal of any immediate potential opposition for one.

And it would create an atmosphere of uncertainty, you'd have to pick a side, anyone not on theirs would be a target.

They then have the 'authority' to do many of the things they can only dream of right now.


I don't think you grasp what I'm saying. Of course that would be the ideal play of this from a maniacal dictator, but any sane individual can see it would obviously not go so smoothly in the US right now.

Nobody would win. Complete lose-lose situation.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Removing guns out of the hands of the citizens makes them unable to defend themselves. Once that happens, the citizens become much more dependent on the government and the government is able to control them much easier.

The country will be divided on this issue and I fear for what will happen in the near future.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar

Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


This is the blindness I mentioned above.


You do realize I can easily find at least half a dozen rash judgments for your OP as well, correct?!

At the very least you're stretching the truth, and assuming things not evidenced. I'll just leave it at that.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Wait, a civil war between who? The anti-gun people don't usually have guns, so who are the pro-gunners going to shoot - unarmed people?? Do you mean a war between the government and the gun nuts? Well, I hate to tell ya, but the government's military will win that one pretty quickly, as they have stuff a lot more powerful than guns at their disposal.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are trying to say here.


OMG? did you write this?


Ok, lets get a few things straight here,
1. You ask who, well I ha e already mentioned that in my post, a little decorum would have been nice. However...
2. A guerilla war will be unwinnable for the US military, period unless you plan to wipe out at least 1/4 of the population.

3. Please feel free to add any wise comments



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by johngalt722
Removing guns out of the hands of the citizens makes them unable to defend themselves. Once that happens, the citizens become much more dependent on the government and the government is able to control them much easier.

The country will be divided on this issue and I fear for what will happen in the near future.


Fear mongering. Obama has NEVER stated that he wants to remove all guns from American citizens. EVER.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
All this anti-gun talk has done is make me go out and buy more guns. And judging from gun shows and local sales, I'm not the only one.

So good luck with the legislation and disarmament. It is sure to fail.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


You must have misread my post. I didn't say he wanted to remove all guns out of the hands of the people. You can remove guns without removing them all. Obama is trying to remove guns from the hands of the American people.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
To divide society? Yes there are a lot of guns in the US. Yes there are a lot of gun owners in the US. But there is only less then ten percent who are crazy and own sixty five percent of the guns in the US. Do you think the other ninety percent want civil war? Is that really a divided country or a crazy few who refuse to except the changes the rest want? Hell the NRA only has four million members. That is only one percent. I thought we just went through all this one percent and ninety nine percent crap?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



The US military is the people. What I believe will happen may be far less bloody than this thread would suggest. Not that there wouldn't be any bloodshed. But the 'just following orders people' will have a run for their money.While the vast majority of us who wear or have worn a uniform will not comply.

I believe this country is suffering from a lack of understanding what rights truly are. We are ok with taking the rights of others so long as they are not the rights we care about individually.

That day will come when this dismissive attitude among our population will lead to a level of chaos that will reshape the fundamental concepts of what once made America a free nation. While some will embrace the liberty of the past, some will gravitate toward the chains they crave.

In short, the idea that the US could split up into regions of self-determining nation states seems far more plausible these days, than an all out bloody war among the people. Though bloodshed is not out of the question, the veracity by which the current government pursues the destruction of our rights on the behest of two political extremes will determine exactly how much blood is in our streets.


edit on 30-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive


I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.


Removal of any immediate potential opposition for one.

And it would create an atmosphere of uncertainty, you'd have to pick a side, anyone not on theirs would be a target.

They then have the 'authority' to do many of the things they can only dream of right now.


I don't think you grasp what I'm saying. Of course that would be the ideal play of this from a maniacal dictator, but any sane individual can see it would obviously not go so smoothly in the US right now.

Nobody would win. Complete lose-lose situation.


Certainly not a lose-lose situation. You are running under the assumption there are only Two players here. Try lose-lose-win (three players my freind)

There will be a winner, just not who you expect.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Wait, a civil war between who? The anti-gun people don't usually have guns, so who are the pro-gunners going to shoot - unarmed people?? Do you mean a war between the government and the gun nuts? Well, I hate to tell ya, but the government's military will win that one pretty quickly, as they have stuff a lot more powerful than guns at their disposal.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are trying to say here.


OMG? did you write this?


Ok, lets get a few things straight here,
1. You ask who, well I ha e already mentioned that in my post, a little decorum would have been nice. However...
2. A guerilla war will be unwinnable for the US military, period unless you plan to wipe out at least 1/4 of the population.

3. Please feel free to add any wise comments


Well, if the US govt is as evil as you claim they are, then they'll have no problem wiping out 1/4 of the population, I guess, so they WILL win. But that 1/4th will be the pro-gunners, so.... doesn't affect me, as I am anti-gun, so I'm safe


My wise comment is... you are fear mongering. No one is trying to take all the guns - just trying to make it harder for the crazy guys to get the guns. That's all.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



The US military is the people. What I believe will happen may be far less bloody than this thread would suggest. Not that there wouldn't be any bloodshed. But the 'just following orders people' will have a run for their money.While the vast majority of us who wear or have worn a uniform will not comply.

I believe this country is suffering from a lack of understanding what rights truly are. We are ok with taking the rights of others so long as they are not the rights we care about individually.

That day will come when this dismissive attitude among our population will lead to a level of chaos that will reshape the fundamental concepts of what once made America a free nation. While some will embrace the liberty of the past, some will gravitate toward the chains they crave.

In short, the idea that the US could split up into regions of self-determining nation states seems far more plausible these days, than an all out bloody war among the people. Though bloodshed is not out of the question, the veracity by which the current government pursues the destruction of our rights on the behest of two political extremes will determine exactly how much blood is in our streets.


edit on 30-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


The military and police will be divided within thier ranks, (agreed). But the United Nations will not want the US government to fall and will offer backing. This is when TSHTF as I see it.

The US will bring in foreign troops, probably from NATO who will have a higher "world" command structure. This is where I believe things are heading.
edit on 30-12-2012 by TheMindWar because: Typos and added comment.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join