Sheriffs called out to fight the law

Originally posted by mal1970

Originally posted by winofiend
What I'm wondering now, considering that law abiding citizens with the right to own a gun are the focus, what happens IF the guns do become illegal?

Are these citizens law abiding citizens regardless of their weapons? Or only with them.

Will they hide their then illegal weapons and ammo?

Will law abiding people still be law abiding...

It seems law abiding citizens who stop being law abiding citizens are the ones who've created this situation in the first place. so I honestly do wonder.

Yes, they are still 'law-abiding' citizens. They are still following the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution for the united States of America. Gun owners recognize that Nature's God bestowed upon them the absolute right to defend themselves, including defending against a tyrannical government. The legislature cannot take that away.

Gun owners are simply resisting the unconstitutional color-of-law being imposed by this corrupt legislative body who is trying to pass a 'law' that violates the Constitution. This legislature are the law breakers. THEY are violating their oath to uphold & defend the Constitution.

Yielding to tyranny is a crime against God & mankind.

Any public official(public trustee) that violates their oath opens themselves up for Title 42 action.
Problem is, US citizens/persons, have contracted with the corporation known as United States and don't have any rights. They have privileges that can be revoked at any time. As stated above, united States of America, is the Republic. The United States, is the corporation. People need to get out of the corporation and back to the Republic if they want to have rights instead of privileges.

"A citizen of the United States
is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole
was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league
with the international bankers. They realized that a separate
nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a
Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is
known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited
rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of
Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands,
Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by
way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens).

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both
nations. One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has
the "stars and stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on
it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes
with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations
of the States of the Continental United States are, with or
without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The
abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal
United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA,
etc. (without any periods).

www.supremelaw.org...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


If you believe your guns and training will stop the power of the US military you are insane. A armed march on Washington DC. Will not happen. People who refuse to comply with law enforcement and try to use deadly force will be killed. It is only a matter of time before these laws become a reality and folks are forced to give up thier personal firearms and the ones that resist by trying to kill the cops that try to take them, will die.

In the end we should rid the world of guns. The sooner the better!

Sorry.....

Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess because these Sheriffs in Arizona want to protect those guns rights of their citizens.




The guy above ran for Sheriff in Arizona. But he decided to kill his family instead including a little baby.

kjzz.org...

EVERY ONE HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!!! This is just crazy.
www.liveleak.com...

reply to post by AtcGod


What you fail to realize is that the police and Military are made up of U.S. citizens who also believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Many of whom have stated they wouldnt even attempt to follow the order to confiscate guns and disarm the American public.
Looks like your theory is flawed.

Point of clarification:

There are some references to the Nazis in this thread. There is a lot of confusion about Nazism in our times and a group of people who think that Hitler was just great and that Jews, Gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, the mentally ill, people of Eastern European descent, Catholics, anybody who doesn't believe in Odin and anyone, including family members who piss them off, should be liquidated or turned into slave labor.

Dressing up like a Nazi or pretending to be a Nazi nowadays in the context of our present society is anti-social behavior.

In the 1930s the real Nazis, had a solution for anti-social behavior; slave labor in the concentration camp.

Most of the hooligan Nazi types that exist today, would be taken into custody and probably never seen again . . . by real Nazis, if they were operating today. In fact that sort of thing might well happen in our time if the current crop of "nazis" ever get unimpeded power.

I'm not personally against people who want to pretend to be Nazis, as long as they don't bother me. To me they are just another group of antequarians, like the folks who re-enact civil war battles, only with much less attention to detail.

That being said, it should be pointed out that the nearest thing to a real Nazi in today's world is not some swastika tattooed Hitler fan, but the sort of cold blooded, colorless personality that regularly walks the corridors of power in Washington. Their brand of Nazism, corporatism, is something that Hitler and henchmen could recognize and endorse.

Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

It is only a matter of time before these laws become a reality and folks are forced to give up thier personal firearms and the ones that resist by trying to kill the cops that try to take them, will die.

I'd be sipping a spot of tea right now as a lowly British subject if the 5% did not take up arms against tyranny. You were the type that hid in the basement while the shots rang out, and gave quarter to royal soldiers. But you sure celebrated your new freedom when it was all over, now didn't ya. I guess if you can't run with the big dogs, you're better off staying on the porch. Maybe Massa will throw you a dog biscuit?

In the end we should rid the world of guns. The sooner the better!

In the end we should rid the world of tyranny, and figure out a way to permanently disable the ability of any one group of people from acquiring too much power over ANYONE- be it in the private, public, or government sectors. And frankly if we had to rid the world of any kind of arms, get rid of the damned nukes. It's people that cause pain, grief, destruction and death, not inanimate objects.

reply to post by gnosticagnostic
If the content of the thread nauseates you then why, once you figured out what it was about, did you stay to contribute your .02? When a mature person opens a thread and finds they have no interest in the subject they close the thread and move on to the next one. Oh, ummm.... nevermind. I answered my own question.

To everyone else who is interested in this thread I have a question. How would you broach this subject with your own Sheriff's Department or would you even try, and why or why not?

In the end we should rid the world of guns. The sooner the better!

Yeah except we don't live in a fantasy world where all guns can disappear overnight.

Not to mention, even if all guns disappeared, the bad guys and the insane would still be there, and then whoever is the stronger physically would win... so women would have 0 defense against rape and beating... when a mob wants to lynch a black, a christian, a muslim, a jew, a gay... well too bad. When a knife welding crazy starts attacking kids (like it happens in China more and more), too bad.

People who want to ban guns don't live in the real world.

reply to post by winofiend

When they get around to outlawing breathing, tell me, will you break the law and continue to breathe or will you lie down and die like a good citizen?

It's highly unfortunate that people on here don't know the difference between law and statutes. All the crap we're talking about now is based on statutes. Not law. Please stop calling these statutes law. Statutes are enforced as law for members/subjects of United States Inc. In other words--US citizens. Statutes are corporation policy.
If you work for K-Mart you are subject to K-Mart policy. Same with US Inc. You filled the office of "Person" and are now subjected to it's corporation rules---statutes.
If you want to keep your guns you need to export them out of the United States Inc jurisdiction into one of the states of the union of states. Not into the corporate State, which is a sub-corporation of United States Inc.

US Titles and Codes,
in their awkward definitions,
call "DC" the "United States"

The new "United States" includes States such as District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does not include the 50 states united.
i.e. Title 26 Section 7701 Definitions (a) (9) and (10) 42 U.S.C. 405 (2)(c)(vii)

All Titles of the United States Code (USC) are strictly meant for the United States and none of the 50 states of the Union. Each of the 50 states have their own constitutions and laws. See Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452, and John Barron v The Mayor and City of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833). These last two cases clearly state that the United States is not the 50 states of the Union.

Politicians and the legislature of each state formed a new so-called government (de facto) and incorporated it into the corporate US commercial corporation a.k.a. UNITED STATES, Inc. and are therefore under its jurisdiction. This so-called government is actually a limited-liability corporation (Limited Liability Act of 1851), chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled "STATE OF…" as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the flag and the creation of a new constitution. Each "STATE OF…" collects whole life insurance premiums, known as "taxes," for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933.

"In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state. --Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.04.200

usavsus.info...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
It appears not all law enforcement officers are mindless drones with average IQ's, working blindly for The Corporation.

“Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.

“I hope and pray America’s sheriffs won’t allow any more gun control,” Mack said. “The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it.

“In the ’90s when I was the sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., we worked with other sheriffs and stopped two or three Brady Bills,” he recalled, a fight that he’s been detailing in seminars with sheriffs.

He said the office is critical, as it’s not only in law enforcement, but also is elected directly by the people.

“Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court,” Mack said. “Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.”

mobile.wnd.com...

Looks like at least some key players are drawing their lines in the sand:

Just a day earlier, WND reported that Firearms Coalition Executive Director Jeff Knox said Second Amendment supporters aren’t planning negotiations with Obama over gun control.

“We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” Knox said.

And they should, dammit. I will argue all day long that "regulation" = "infringement". The Corporation just will not come to terms with how and why the famous document was written, to give the people some kind of ultimate recourse if tyranny ensued.

And tyranny did indeed ensue. Question is, what to do now.

Now only if every Law Enforcement Officer at every level would stand up to this sh*t. I agree with regulation = infringement.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by gnosticagnostic

 

If the content of the thread nauseates you then why, once you figured out what it was about, did you stay to contribute your .02? When a mature person opens a thread and finds they have no interest in the subject they close the thread and move on to the next one. Oh, ummm.... nevermind. I answered my own question.

To everyone else who is interested in this thread I have a question. How would you broach this subject with your own Sheriff's Department or would you even try, and why or why not?

You could just go down and ask whatever you want. Just let them know that you are concerned about what is going on in our country these days and you would like to know where they stand when it comes down to their oath and what it means. But first you might need to educate yourself in the area of defacto vs dejure.
Defacto is unlawful, dejure is lawful. Are you with the dejure united States, or the defacto United States?
There is a huge difference. On this site usavsus.info... there are two columns. One for Original, the dejure, lawful government, and the other column for Corporate, the defacto, unlawful government which is in place today.
Take a look. Bring a puke bucket. Once you understand this you will be ready to start asking questions of all the public officials, sheriffs, "judges", cops, DAs, etc.

I've already asked our DA for his license to practice law. He couldn't answer. He does not have one. He handed me his BAR card and I laughed at him and told him I didn't want his friggin' union card, I wanted his license to practice law. Boy, did he squirm. They don't want us to know that they, all lawyers, have a secret oath to support the US Bankruptcy of 1933 AND they are controlled under the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain. Yeah, I know, Happy Independence Day.

Ask your sheriff if the courtrooms are Article lll, Section ll Constitutional courts. The answer is no. They are private tribunals operating in Admiralty under the Law Merchant.

Ask if their department is solvent. If they are dejure they will be solvent. If defacto, they will be insolvent according to the US Bankruptcy of 1933.

Are you a person? I'm not!

Cases Concerning the State Created Office Of Person
Exhibit A
OFFICE OF THE PERSON
The official state office known as "person"
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec. 1. Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice, (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
freedom-school.com...

Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

If you believe your guns and training will stop the power of the US military you are insane. A armed march on Washington DC. Will not happen. People who refuse to comply with law enforcement and try to use deadly force will be killed. It is only a matter of time before these laws become a reality and folks are forced to give up thier personal firearms and the ones that resist by trying to kill the cops that try to take them, will die.

In the end we should rid the world of guns. The sooner the better!

Sorry.....

Wake up. The military is also civilians who 99% believe in the 2nd amendment. The same goes for a large percentage of law enforcement although that's dependent upon the department. NYPD, for instance, probably is not very pro 2A.

I think you're underestimating things. There is a better chance that the military, etc is going to be on OUR side, not your side.

I love how every liberal out there assumes that the military and law enforcement are their personal slaves and will disregard the constitution at a moments notice.

reply to post by DriCo04


Ive tried, without success, to get this through the thick skulls of many gun grabbers. They just dont get it and wont until/if it happens.

As far as law enforcement officials taking guns by force, not likely. They are citizens too and are all too aware that America is a dangerous place. They might get to take their weapon home and protect their family when they are home, but they have mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers/aunts/uncles and other loved ones that will be unprotected. As far as the military, They pledged to protect the Constitution, they are not required to do anything against their principles. They also have family that need protection. I see no way to gather up all guns. If it were even possible it would require building a lot of new prisons to house people who ignored a ban on guns. We don't have the money for it.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What big shots. What do they have to lose? - Wasn't their kids killed. The 2nd amendment demand regulations and not just casual regulations - well regulations.

reply to post by AtcGod



Like the coalition forces are doing so well in Afghanistan against primitive tribesmen with 3rd world weapons,no airpower,no artillery,no armor, other than mud huts.Must be nice to live in happyland!

GPTS articles reply

reply to post by TrueAmerican


So, we have law enforcement that actually want to keep the real law of the land? Good for those that do! It's way past time that the over-sized federal government realized that they can't just toss out the laws they don't like.