NY Mayor Warns Of "Waco-Style Standoff" Over Gun Control Laws

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
If 90% of Americans were bedridden , we'd still outnumber active military 10:1. Who do you think is going to "bomb Americans" If you're a pilot , do you really think for one second that you'd bomb civilians knowing that someone else is bombing your family? You don't need anyone to fund an uprising, the uprising would be everywhere guerrilla warfare would be rampant, federal government would be crippled. The president and his subsequent chain of command wouldn't be able to show their faces in public, local politicians that supported the Feds would have threats on their lives and the lives of their families. The federal government doesn't control food and water, municipalities and private industry do.

You've read my mind. Kudos and a star. And we have all these people willing to just lie down because they have already given up before they've even begun

reply to post by muse7


You're describing a thing that will make the people who actually give orders trouble with their subordinates who are taught to refuse to comply with an illegal order and to use that as the reason for arresting their asses. Believe me, when I served, we understood that "order" of "do not follow unconstitutional", unlawful orders to mean don' t follow orders especially to murder American citizens for political reasons. We certainly understood that this was wrong because of the Kent St massacre we could not miss.

Once we have citizens being taken out by military attack without a chance because they posses firearms in compliance with the 2nd amendment, the sleepers will awake. Just like Waco they will have the opportunity to take these people in custody without the standoff drama but will choose the drama. And if they start taking people at a whim and the word gets around that they have started violating peoples right to due process, the sleepers will awake. At that point we WILL have confirmed treason beyond a normal persons reasonable doubt and we witness tyrannical people acting in treason to the very public safety they are payed to serve. People can only have a boot at their throat for so long before they find a way to remove it permanently or die.

The bad guys literally want to suppress the Constitution and those who read it clearly. Do or die is a game changer for those I call sleepers. They hate that most people read things like 'not infringed' and believe it meant not when it said not. It is obvious that these people who they already know can do this, perhaps me and perhaps you are now in the way of TPTB. They appear to be power greedy, possibly inbred monsters, having their way with mankind and every single good person's HOPE of a better world. You do know the real reason people move here to the US from everywhere on the planet, hope. A sliver of it is all I seem to need and I think I know way more people that are that way than are not.

I truly believe him when I read that which Gandhi stated about those telling the truth (to paraphrase), first they ridicule you and then they fight you and eventually YOU win. The truth is irrepressible!

I'd like to offer some advice for this thread about disinformation tactics called ~Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist~ written by Marco Torres:


Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Boy do I see this a lot! Not getting to the point - going on and on about nothing...

2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

Read the other 5 traits here.

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Oh I see, so gun owners who WOULD make a stand against this nonsense, right down to an armed confrontation with LEO's, are now crazy?



Ya know, I just friggin give up.

Don't give up my friend!

You have many more Americans than you think that feel the same way you do.....

You'll have to concede to the fact that the government became this tyrannical due to the fact they were able to create so many "useful idiots" whom bow to their knees to those whos only goal is to murder and enslave them and their families.......

No, definitely do not give up. I have seen a few pro-gun-control posters on this site come around to an understanding of and support for the 2nd amendment.

I am of the opinion that TPTB want an armed confrontation, and if they continue the way they have been, they will get it, soon.

Agreed, the PTB NEED a conflict, this is why a recent horrific events details are so whacky.
The PTB is looking for an easy out, on guns, on financial trouble, Etc.
If we are indeed the majority and we hold the high ground, make them the bad guys and we can win the restoration of the US without firing a shot.
More and more every day people are finding out just who in the US is the true enemy of the state.
It is my hope that in the next American revolution, the only thing that will be spilled is some ink.
Americans and innocents dying is not acceptable.

reply to post by Ghost375

TeI think what he's trying to say is not that every gun owner is crazy....but rather there are quite a few crazies who own guns.xt

I totally agree. I think those gun owners who are willing to kill people to defend their right to own guns are not any better than the crazies that go out and commit mass shootings. There's a way to protest peacefully against your government, and than there are ways that make you look worst than your government. There's no justification for killing another human being.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by Ghost375

 

TeI think what he's trying to say is not that every gun owner is crazy....but rather there are quite a few crazies who own guns.xt

I totally agree. I think those gun owners who are willing to kill people to defend their right to own guns are not any better than the crazies that go out and commit mass shootings. There's a way to protest peacefully against your government, and than there are ways that make you look worst than your government. There's no justification for killing another human being.

No justification really? So even if someone about to set off a bomb in a school full of children you wouldn’t shoot to kill him before they could. I can tell you arnt the protective type.

You would sacrifice others for your principles. Make sure you let your loved ones know how expendable they are.

I think one thing that needs to be pointed out is neither side of the issue is totally right or wrong.

First, easy access to AR's, or any firearm, will make it easy/easier for wackos to obtain them. There's no point denying it, as it's true.

Second the argument that enforcing existing laws will has much affect, such as criminal background checks/psych checks are effective is questionable, as well, obviously weapons can be procured illegally. Where there's demand, there will be supply. It's just the price will soar.(Dammit!) A person with a criminal/psych background merely has to get someone else to purchase it for them, too easy...

The very fact that, this tragic event took place in a state with strong gun control, not ARs is proof positive that increasing the scope of the gun control isn't any kind of an answer, if your honest and thoughtful about the issue.

The insanity is increasing. The so-called treaters of insanity have become nothing more than agents for the drug companies pushing psychotropics which INDUCES psychosis in a small percentage of the population. So using these guys as a measuring stick for ownership is a non-starter to say the least!!

Fear of the gov't is a part of the American DNA. Gun ownership as a fundamental right in that same DNA.( Non-US posters...just accept it as fact, it is what it is)

This is a society which allows more partial birth abortions...read that viable babies... on a daily basis than the events in Conn.!! Yet, Obama says if we save "even one child" it's worth it. With an EO, he could save thousands. It's beyond a joke, it's sheer insanity.

As long this insanity is prevelant, gov't or civilian-wise, I will keep arms, legal or forced into criminality, for the survival of me and mine.

To those that fear guns and the events in Conn. I say this, deal with it! That fact is nothing suggested by either side will change it. To think otherwise is wishful thinking. Either way Conn. will repeat itself. Sad, but true.

No justification really? So even if someone about to set off a bomb in a school full of children you wouldn’t shoot to kill him before they could. I can tell you arnt the protective type. You would sacrifice others for your principles. Make sure you let your loved ones know how expendable they are.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I knew I was going to get a response like this. No, what I was referring to is protesting your right to bear arms by killing someone to make your point is just crazy. I'm all for protecting yourself if your life is threatened. What I am against, are the dramatic and fanatical way some gun advocates want to use their guns to make a deadly point. Let's be clear that the gun control issue is not about eliminating handguns and hunting rifles. So the dramatic, and panic fear mongering tactic that "oh my God, our government wants to take are guns away," doesn't really hold water (hence the run on gun sales). To use this as a means to justify killing people is just plain crazy.

And before I get another response like yeah, first they'll take our assault rifles than they'll go after the handguns and our hunting rifles. I think you will have more support at that time if that ends up being the case.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

If 90% of Americans were bedridden , we'd still outnumber active military 10:1.

You think all Americans would fight against the government? No. Only a small minority would. Most Americans can't be bothered, not to mention not very many Americans agree on political views.

Who do you think is going to "bomb Americans" If you're a pilot , do you really think for one second that you'd bomb civilians knowing that someone else is bombing your family?

Other Americans will willingly kill one another. They did this in the civil war. All they have to do is label you a terrorist.. The rebels would get a bad reputation by the "terrorist attacks" actually being performed by the rebel group or the Fed could always stage some false flags.

You don't need anyone to fund an uprising, the uprising would be everywhere guerrilla warfare would be rampant, federal government would be crippled.

I guess bullets, food, medical supplies and everything else just appears out of thin air.

The president and his subsequent chain of command wouldn't be able to show their faces in public, local politicians that supported the Feds would have threats on their lives and the lives of their families.

The feds and especially the president have a ton of Americans that would like to kill them right about now. This isn't stopping them. But common sense they wouldn't parade around out in the open if such attacks were taking place.

You're under the assumption that the whole country would be on the "terrorists" side...which is just extremely unlikely Most people are docile, lazy, subservient, and cannot be bothered.

The federal government doesn't control food and water, municipalities and private industry do.

In a time of war the governemnt can take over any private industry. This already happened in WWI. There is also an executive order giving the federal government this power.

Eight months after the United States enters World War I on behalf of the Allies, President Woodrow Wilson announces the nationalization of a large majority of the country's railroads under the Federal Possession and Control Act.

In March 1918, the Railroad Control Act was passed into law. It stated that within 21 months of a peace treaty, the railroads would be returned by the government to their owners and that the latter would be compensated for the usage of their property. Consequently, the USRA was disbanded two years later, in March 1920, and the railroads became private property once again.

www.history.com...

Law currently in place that gives the Fed gov the power to take over private businesses in times of "national defense"....

Defense Production Act

The Act contains three major sections. The first authorizes the President to require businesses to sign contracts or fulfill orders deemed necessary for national defense. The second authorizes the President to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the President to control the civilian economy so that scarce and/or critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Executive order that does similar things...

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

www.whitehouse.gov...

reply to post by seabag


I think that for people to go ahead with 1,000 Wacos, that they would all look like morons in the end.

Can't you see?

They're looking for this exact type of reaction.

It fits so well in their equation (Problem + Reaction = Solution).

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Call it WACO and not Ruby Ridge. Do anything that will make anyone defending their right to bear arms a Wacko and not a law abiding gun owner.

not only are our rights minimized already but we are letting them take away our rights to speech, movement, bearing arms, freedom of religion and much more one Media hype step at a time.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


The majority of those looking to defend their rights to bear arms are:

1. White
2. Male
3. Possibly delusional, slightly schizo, most likely a poster on ATS and related sites
4. Very adamant about their gun rights, even if it conflicts with common sense

Fit the profile. Keep posting. They're waiting for you to trip up.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


How is this post not racist?

We all know that it would be racist if I said the VAST majority of gun crimes are commited by:

1) African-americans
2) Male
3) age 17-25
4) from an urban environment

My post will be racist while your's will not be. You paint a distorted picture of law abiding citizens. I post facts about criminals.

reply to post by 200Plus


The vast majority of those chiming up about gun rights are white males.

You cannot deny that.

Unfortunately, some of them have forgotten that it was a white male who shot up the theatre, a white male who shot up a school and a white male who shot a congresswoman.

See the pattern here?

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


While white men may have been behind these hyped up shootings. Everyday Black males and Latinos shoot up their neighborhoods and kill each other with semi-automatic handguns to the tune of 1,000 plus per year.

Based on those kind of stats I would say blacks have killed more than all the white mass shootings combined.

do you deny the pattern seen in that?

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


The pattern I see is that a majority of one group obeys laws.

The tragic thing I see about the whole debate is that 20 (white) children died. We all care. Hundreds of black kids die and we don't hear a peep.

reply to post by 200Plus


Do they obey laws simply because they are white?

Don't try and pussy-foot around this issue.

When the majority of people opposed to gun control are male and white, then there's just no way that you can possibly spin it into an opportunity to bash minorities.

Get real.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


Where did I bash a minority? Put away the one card monty table. I'm not playing.

Seems that a person that only cares about whites being killed would be the racist, but thats just how I see it.

OP, sorry to derail the thread.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag

I think that for people to go ahead with 1,000 Wacos, that they would all look like morons in the end.

Can't you see?

No…I can’t! I don’t see how standing up for your constitutional right to keep and bear arms is a moronic move. I think bowing at the altar of fascist big government goons is a moronic move. How else will they get the point that their policy is barbaric, dishonest, and unconstitutional if nobody takes a stand?

I’m not justifying what happened in Waco. They may very well have been morons but I just don’t know enough details to make that determination.

They're looking for this exact type of reaction.

It fits so well in their equation (Problem + Reaction = Solution).

Well, you may be right but for now I disagree. I don’t think they are looking for this reaction at all. I think they truly believe they can impose their will with little to no resistance. The people calling the shots are narcissistic.

reply to post by 200Plus


Don't deny it.

You saw what I posted and you chimed in that these people I mentioned are "law-abiding citizens".

They're white.
They're male.

What, they don't commit crimes?

Or is that only the "urban" demographic that you so freely love to mock?

Oh right, only black people commit crimes with guns.

You, the white male gun-owner, are INNOCENT.

Obviously, your brain melted a long time ago because that jell-o inside of your head isn't able to put 2 and 2 together at this point.