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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm not saying I think it's going to happen Kayla, but don't doubt for a second they aren't talking about it. You're naive if you think Obama is a gun rights supporter.


President Obama pledged Sunday to make gun control a top priority in his second term and vowed to put his “full weight” behind such legislation. “I’d like to get it done in the first year,” the president said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This is not something that I will be putting off.”


Obama makes gun control a top priority




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Time will tell, I am certainly not trying to "fearmonger" thats an accusation I am just not willing to accept. If you are afraid of this thread topic then thats only a natural feeeling. If you are afraid then I am sorry, but I am not here to console your feelings.

IMO if you are afraid then this gives a great deal of weight to my arguments. If my arguments were irrelevant and blind then you would not be afraid. Being afraid is not always a bad thing, it keeps you on your toes even if you dont like it.

If you are afraid then you have every reason to be, dont blame me for that.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


John McCain wanted to invade Russia.
So who is the delusional one who wanted to start WW3?
George Bush wanted mini nukes so he could bomb terrorist all over the world. Luckily the House and Senate repeatedly told him no. Bush brought it up about every three months his whole time in office and was always told NO.
So who was the one who wanted to start WW3 the first time he dropped a nuke in someones back yard?
Bush also started the crap with Russia. Why? Because that would have ended the treaty between the US and Russia that was preventing him from creating mini nukes that he wanted so bad.
And West Boro Baptist and Those crazy preachers like Terry Jones. Terry Jones I just outed for working with the guys who made the video that went around before the Embassy attack. And they got there funding from the Hudson Institute where Scooter Libby is one of the people who runs the place.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


John McCain wanted to invade Russia.
So who is the delusional one who wanted to start WW3?


Reading comprehension failure 101.
Or maybe, you are too blinded by your own world view.

Where did I say BO wanted to start WW3? I strictly stated he would lay the groundwork unintentionally through his own incompetence. He is not intentionally trying to start it, he is just instrumental in starting it because he is oblivious to the fact of what he is doing.

With his attempt at cutting down the US’s position in the world, he is doing more to help create WW3 by a large margin than any of the other actions by the presidents you listed.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluvDo 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 am a retired US Special Forces Officer who served from the mid-eighties in Special Operations and Military Intelligence community for just over 24 years. I only mention this for a sense of perspective – I have fought in and trained other nations to combat insurgency for most of that time.

An insurgency (civil war) is not something that is an easy thing to win for the government – any government. If so they wouldn’t happen so frequently.

An insurgency done right favors the insurgents in many ways. Insurgents are the people – they hide in and among those innocents who are not insurgents hoping that the government forces or their loyalists will bring to bear the full force of their high tech and as you termed it “more powerful guns” against them resulting in collateral damage. This in turn motivates even more of the population to turn against the government as they “crack down”.

See every draconian measure taken by the government will take more and more freedom and infringe further on the movement and daily lives of the average non-active or passive resisters. People who would not necessarily participate directly in actions against the government but give those who do a safe place to sleep and food and things like that.

As of the use of the term “gun-nuts” that is just offensive rhetoric. People who enjoy the freedom to own firearms are not nuts. Sometime, someday once they take firearms they will come for something you enjoy. By then you will regret the loss of the nuts.


Originally posted by JBA2848
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?


What makes a person who owns more than one (or even 100 firearms) “crazy”?

Because they don’t need them in your opinion?

I don’t think a person needs a pair of 500.00 shoes but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have them if they can afford them.

No one needs a car with 470 horsepower when the speed limit is 65 most places – that is just dangerous. Only a trained race driver on a track with safety equipment and a background check needs something like that. Only a trained chef needs a 8” butcher knife… Only a painter needs a spray gun, only a registered farmer needs fertilizer – those can be used to improvise explosives. These people need to be vetted. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!

See where I am going with this...this issue doesn't matter to you but rest assured the next one might. You can rest assured that without the rights of the second amendment the rest of them will topple quickly.

What can't we restrict? After the loss of firearms by the public - the government is free to enact whatever they want. Ask Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. They all agreee that gun control is the path to thought control.


Originally posted by JBA2848
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.


You are addressing the reason a republic exists – to protect the minority who enjoy something or exercise a right from the fear and tyranny of the majority who do not so choose.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Totally feasible. I chat a bit at work with my customers and the great majority of the people I've asked are stocking up like the hounds of Hell are coming through their neighborhood. People don't spend this much money on stuff just to give them up. The registration requirement will be the breaking point. That's $200 (NFA tax stamp fee) per serial number in a really bad economy. If this fee stands I know people that are going to have to shell out thousands of dollars just to stay legal. Worse if they bump up the registration fees by amending NFA 1934.

Oh, and getting a tax stamp that's for National Firearms Act stuff? You have to have the chief law enforcement officer's (residence within city limits = chief, out of city limits = sheriff) signature to have that piece of hardware within his jurisdiction. Most take some serious convincing, some won't sign at all. Don't like it? Move or surrender the item.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:43 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.


Wow the clueless are out in force.... So how did all that superior fire power work and is working for them in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? rense.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Civil war? One side with Guns , fighting those who do not believe in Guns? Will the side that does not believe in Guns fight with Guns? If not I can see which side would win pretty quick.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by kaylaluvDo 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 am a retired US Special Forces Officer who served from the mid-eighties in Special Operations and Military Intelligence community for just over 24 years. I only mention this for a sense of perspective – I have fought in and trained other nations to combat insurgency for most of that time.

An insurgency (civil war) is not something that is an easy thing to win for the government – any government. If so they wouldn’t happen so frequently.

An insurgency done right favors the insurgents in many ways. Insurgents are the people – they hide in and among those innocents who are not insurgents hoping that the government forces or their loyalists will bring to bear the full force of their high tech and as you termed it “more powerful guns” against them resulting in collateral damage. This in turn motivates even more of the population to turn against the government as they “crack down”.

See every draconian measure taken by the government will take more and more freedom and infringe further on the movement and daily lives of the average non-active or passive resisters. People who would not necessarily participate directly in actions against the government but give those who do a safe place to sleep and food and things like that.

As of the use of the term “gun-nuts” that is just offensive rhetoric. People who enjoy the freedom to own firearms are not nuts. Sometime, someday once they take firearms they will come for something you enjoy. By then you will regret the loss of the nuts.


Originally posted by JBA2848
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?


What makes a person who owns more than one (or even 100 firearms) “crazy”?

Because they don’t need them in your opinion?

I don’t think a person needs a pair of 500.00 shoes but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have them if they can afford them.

No one needs a car with 470 horsepower when the speed limit is 65 most places – that is just dangerous. Only a trained race driver on a track with safety equipment and a background check needs something like that. Only a trained chef needs a 8” butcher knife… Only a painter needs a spray gun, only a registered farmer needs fertilizer – those can be used to improvise explosives. These people need to be vetted. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!

See where I am going with this...this issue doesn't matter to you but rest assured the next one might. You can rest assured that without the rights of the second amendment the rest of them will topple quickly.

What can't we restrict? After the loss of firearms by the public - the government is free to enact whatever they want. Ask Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. They all agreee that gun control is the path to thought control.


Originally posted by JBA2848
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.


You are addressing the reason a republic exists – to protect the minority who enjoy something or exercise a right from the fear and tyranny of the majority who do not so choose.


Hell of a post Golf66! I concur fully and could not have said it better!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

The government is not in the inciting armed rebellion business. They are in the make money for the corrupt and powerful business. It does not make sense, at all, for them to force a revolution, rebellion, or anything else that will not only deprive their coffers of a large percent of their tax revenue - but will also cause them massive budgetary expenditures at the same time.

So what purpose does this current spasm of reaction serve?

My best guess is that none of us are actually talking about the real issue that needs discussing. The looming fiscal cliff that we're falling off of... I think today or tomorrow. No deal has been reached - yet nobody is saying a word about it. We're heading into uncharted territory now.

By the time the Feinstein bill is squashed or watered down to nothing - and everyone feels relieved? We won't even realize that, while we were distracted by this issue, unfathomable things changed in the rest of our world. Tax cuts aren't just going to expire, IMO, they are going to get raised across the board. Something nobody is going to notice as it happens.

~Heff


Taxes raising like a politician's salary.. sounds like they are forcing the circumstances, whether or not they actually realize it. I don't think they will make the first shot, but our side.. someone will realize the justification in it, and that's where it all depends on how that message is spread from that point. either we would hear of a terrorist action from MSM, or a Rebel attack from word of mouth.. not anytime soon, but as a result of the infighting from this fiscal cliff and further on when they need DHS to step up... IMO



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by amatrine
Civil war? One side with Guns , fighting those who do not believe in Guns? Will the side that does not believe in Guns fight with Guns? If not I can see which side would win pretty quick.


The side who doesn't believe in guns are the ones with the nukes... and they don't believe in powerful weapons in the hands of civies. Freedom vs anti-freedom essentially



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


John McCain wanted to invade Russia.
So who is the delusional one who wanted to start WW3?
George Bush wanted mini nukes so he could bomb terrorist all over the world. Luckily the House and Senate repeatedly told him no. Bush brought it up about every three months his whole time in office and was always told NO.
So who was the one who wanted to start WW3 the first time he dropped a nuke in someones back yard?
Bush also started the crap with Russia. Why? Because that would have ended the treaty between the US and Russia that was preventing him from creating mini nukes that he wanted so bad.
And West Boro Baptist and Those crazy preachers like Terry Jones. Terry Jones I just outed for working with the guys who made the video that went around before the Embassy attack. And they got there funding from the Hudson Institute where Scooter Libby is one of the people who runs the place.


Can you provide some sources? Bush and mini nukes, McCain and Russia.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Logic breakdown. Nobody wins. Period. People die on both sides, and the safe haven for many global elites becomes decimated in the process.


And that is your logical breakdown. You keep assuming he wants to win. He doesn’t care if he wins as long as he brings down the US with him. He is willing to be a martyr if it means taking the US down a notch.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


You do know there are restrictions on knives right. Folding knives can only be so long switch blades are banned.

You do know there are restrictions on fertilizer to right. And the general public can't buy the kind to make bombs.

And a insurgency only works when they are well armed by a foreign government that feeds them a constant supply of weapons right,

So what foreign government are you going to team up with? Russia, China, North Korea?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





But that 1/4th will be the pro-gunners, so.... doesn't affect me, as I am anti-gun, so I'm safe


This right here is exactly the attitude I speak of when I described the modern Americans' approach to the rights of others.

It's ok if they are all wiped out because you're anti-gun and they're not?

So not only do you have a selective view of gun rights, but you also have a selective view of the right to life?

Interesting.


It was a joke. Anti-gunners are peaceful, non-violent people who are usually against war at all costs. If anyone wants war, it will be the ones who love their guns and are itching to use them.

And I can joke, because there is not going to be a civil war over this, at least not one initiated by the government. Obama is not trying to take away all the guns from the people.



Its not a joke, people like you would not care if they killed whole families because they wont give up their defense, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind.

The corrupt murderous government wants Americans to be held accountable for Sandy Hook while they bomb the world into oblivion? What about all the kids they kill overseas everyday? Why don't you advocate that the government disarm? After all, if we talk numbers the Government is the biggest killer of children not American gun owners.


Dont like war outside of the U.S but so long as it here at home its OK, you will be safe because you will lick boots yada, yada, yada.....

This will lead to war because just like Waco and Ruby Ridge they will murder Americans who resist registration and confiscation, people like you will applaud it and anyone with any decency will be outraged.

The deaths will galvanize gun owners.

While the deaths of those who fight for their freedom will be quick, it is yours that will be slow as they strip you of all dignity and cast you into serfdom, unless of course you join in with the oppression.. (looks like you are good fit).




Here are some of the tactics Obama will use, we are already getting ready to counter act them with the TRUTH.

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from two main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Golf66
 


You do know there are restrictions on knives right. Folding knives can only be so long switch blades are banned.

You do know there are restrictions on fertilizer to right. And the general public can't buy the kind to make bombs.

And a insurgency only works when they are well armed by a foreign government that feeds them a constant supply of weapons right,

So what foreign government are you going to team up with? Russia, China, North Korea?


No other nation in the world has such a heavily armed citizenry. That's why there is a huge difference from an American 'insurgency' versus it would not need any backing. There are an estimated 200 million privately held guns, while there is only 150 million government held guns in the military and law enforcement agencies.

Source

I'm still waiting for sources from you on your statements about Bush wanting mini-nukes and McCain wanting to invade Russia, thanks.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:10 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.
and you're assuming that we're dealing with a 'sane' man, why ?

this same sane man who has ordered more drone strikes in 8 mo than his predecessor did in 8 yrs ? THAT sane guy ?? ok man, whatever.

what more 'motive' do you need ?
most lunatics operate similarly ... how many more need to die, needlessly ?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Every so often a theory on ATS is so completely out there and beyond anything logic or common sense will allow that I have to just shake my head. Not only is nothing the OP is talking about going to happen it is not even in the realm of possiblity.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


To do that would be an act of treason and automatically make anyone/organization an outlaw. No, when this happens or is done, I'm sad to say they must be the aggressor. They have been engaged in treason for a long time, deal is, it hasn't yet gotten to the point of 1930's Germany yet, but it will.

"No civil war will be started over guns...." Really? Read up on Lexington and Concord.

You sound so civilized and reasonable, you must have a hell of an education. I guess your idea of freedom is what they will allow you to have. Can you not see the writing on the wall? You or anyone are not allowed freedom, IT IS OUR RIGHT! It really is that simple.

You say they and O don't want to take all guns? If history tells us anything it starts with the little "reasonable" stuff, Next, they'll be desiding how much living space you should have or actually need. Just keep drinking the Kool Aid Comrade.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
First off, guns are dumb. Hunters used to hunt with bow and arrows and knifes, and they got along just fine that way for thousands of years. Guns are another example of mankind's amazing technological advances, with which we can kill each other. Awesome. Let's make something that shoots metal pieces at things, woo hoo!

That said.

Guns exist, millions and millions of them, and we can't make them disappear. The adage that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them...well, sorry, that is true to a certain extent. The only way I could see any kind of gun ban actually working would be if the government made it automatic life in prison with no parole for anyone killing someone else with a firearm. Most criminals would likely find another way to commit their deeds, but hey, less gun violence.

If the government does atempt to either ban or make it nearly impossible for citizens to own guns, I could see some major backlash...don't know about a civil war, but who knows.
edit on 30-12-2012 by BSFC123 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join