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

reply to post by seabag


They may not WANT this type of response, but I think they NEED this type of response.

Criminals will lways have guns and nobody is trying to take them away. The government has to paint peple willing to fight for the constitution as criminals for two reasons.

1) it allows the propaganda machine to further ostracize anyone that is wiling to stand up
2) to totally crush any resistance with overwhelming force to display the futility of resistance

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


Which of the truths about the majority of gun crimes did you find mocking?

White, black, yellow, green, purple does not play a part in this. The people that are the most vocal about gun rights, are those that own them legally.

If I owned a gun that I bought of the street and owned it illegally, why would I even care about further guin laws.

Blacks in rural areas want to keep gun rights, whites in urban areas don't care about laws.

It's law abiding citizens that are fighting to defend the Constitution. To make our rights a racial issue is disgusting.

reply to post by 200Plus

They may not WANT this type of response, but I think they NEED this type of response.

Criminals will lways have guns and nobody is trying to take them away. The government has to paint peple willing to fight for the constitution as criminals for two reasons.

1) it allows the propaganda machine to further ostracize anyone that is wiling to stand up
2) to totally crush any resistance with overwhelming force to display the futility of resistance

So you’re saying the government needs this type of Waco-style stand so they can move forward with their plan to crush us?

I kind of agree with that but I don’t think they are expecting more than one or two incidents. I think they are seriously underestimating the response they are going to receive if they move forward.

…and maybe WE need it, too. Maybe they need to be on the receiving end of some “overwhelming force”? I’m not advocating this….I’m just making an observation.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
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.

Hold on hold on.... let me correct you there. A majority of us are wha??? No


A Majority of us looking to defend our to bear arms are:
1. Of All Color and Creed
2. Men AND Women who have sworn an oath to the constitution
3. Mad as hell that the constitution is getting S# on.
4. Very Adamant about that oath we swore to support and defend The Constitution of the United States from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

I know I will uphold that oath until the day I die. Then will they pry a gun out of my cold dead fingers, but not before. So before you make stereotypical racist comments think of all parties involved. Not everyone is a gun toting redneck.

reply to post by seabag


Pehaps I could have worded my response better. I am sorry for that.

I do not think the government has plans to "crush" the american people. I meant that the need a "show of force" to end dissent and force the fence sitters to comply with Constitutional restrictions.

You may be right on the effect this will have on the populace. I have no doubt that many of the fence sitters will side with the "little guy". However, I think the government will be able to stop any large scale support operations (at least in the near term) coalescing around any hold-outs,

reply to post by 200Plus

If they cut off supply then we'll take out the source. Strategic stockpiles wouldn't be that hard to maintain not to mention making diesel generators run on animal fat. Surprisingly very many places to pop out from, if your taking into account urban warfare. Though this is all theoretical anyway.

reply to post by SemperParatusRJCC


It is theoretical and I am hoping it stays that way

The problem is if people "prepare" for this then they are domestic terrorists. Any violent actions on the part of the citizens MUST be defensive in nature, at least in the beginning. Anything else will only play into the hands of those in power.

This leaves the common man/woman with a choice. Do they prepare to defend themselves (and become a terrorist), or do they not prepare to defend themselves (and become martyrs)?

The tree of liberty at times must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and the tears of tyrants (I am not positive that the quote is correct, but that is the way I learned it. Sorry if it is misquoted)

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


Of course, if the "majority" of gun owners are "white males" Then the majority of shootings, criminal acts as well as noble/defensive acts will be "white male". Irrelevant and not germane to the issue of gun rights/gun control.

Just more attempts at making one group feel "guilty" for the acts of others. Sorry, but we feel ZERO guilt for those that abuse their inate rights.

Right out of the liberal handbook, yawn...

reply to post by 200Plus


A little off, but no offense taken. It was "with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Yeah I know what you mean it's just one giant game of chicken. Who'll scramble first. Us or them? Who will make the first moves. I'm anxious to see

For the most part I have seen people putting a huge effort in making this a democrat vs. republican thing for a while there was an effort in making it an American vs. Foreigner thing now I see a trend to make this a black vs. white thing.

I really haven’t seen much effort in making this a crazy vs. sane thing. Why is that?

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by VaterOrlaag

 

Of course, if the "majority" of gun owners are "white males" Then the majority of shootings, criminal acts as well as noble/defensive acts will be "white male". Irrelevant and not germane to the issue of gun rights/gun control.

Just more attempts at making one group feel "guilty" for the acts of others. Sorry, but we feel ZERO guilt for those that abuse their inate rights.

Right out of the liberal handbook, yawn...

that would be the majority of registered gun owners are white. the number of the majority of non registered illegally obtained guns belongs to blacks and Latinos

reply to post by SemperParatusRJCC


Thanks for the correction.

I am not anxious to see who "scrambles" first. American blood will be lost either way. I know you did not mean anxious in that way, I am just stating my opinion on the whole issue.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


I am not sure that is true and I doubt is can be proven either way.

From personal experience the illegal gun ownership is about 50/50 while the legal gun ownership is 80/20 (white being the majority).

reply to post by 200Plus

-nods- it's totally understandable. And I meant as in Anxiety. I know it will happen, it's inevitable, just not the when.
Now I know I am not as prepared as I would like to be. Nor is most of America.

I'd bet if factor in cost, and the cost of legal ARs has soared, the illegal market is even more expensive by a large factor. i have a friend who has 2 .50 cal Barretts for sale at $8400 each, in a state where that sale is legal. Envision the cost blackmarket...

As the white male group has more inclination and means than other "ethnicities" , it's a safe bet that militia groups and so on have a pretty big chunk of the less than excepted forms of ordinance.

Claymores, 203 rounds....

reply to post by Ghost375


Let me understand this clearly. What you are saying is those gun owners who passively surrender their guns and take all new regulations up the wazoo without Vaseline are the sane ones, and those who refuse to surrender their guns and refuse to bend over for the "shafting" are the crazies. Do I have that right?

Yeah Mr.Mayor......We are called Patriots who have always protected the freedom of the American people from vile , lying politicians like you. Our forefathers...Washington and Jefferson warned us LONG AGO about thieves like you and recent Administrations that have been lying and thieving from us the American People. My Uncle, Thomas Kelly put a torpedo up the backside of the Bismarck in WW2.....we have been fighting tyranny abroad and now at home. One third is the number you can count on Mr. Mayor who are rising up in the country while a third sleep and a third backs you.....Always has been this way. Obama and people like you Mr.Mayor will find out the you will follow us.....whether you like it or not...
Ricky Revere

reply to post by WeRpeons


In that situation you have already given up any chance at resistance because you will be left with only shotguns and bolt actions. It isn’t an opinion that they would try to push it further it is a fact. Tommy guns used to be legal and they were true assault weapons they mainly banned them to put an end to Bank robberies and the Mafia. So let me ask you this is the mafia gone did it put an end to bank robberies or since then have criminals stopped holding up banks with fully automatic weapons. I posted a video earlier that should answer two of the three questions.

We only need to look at Australia to see how weapon bans have worked out for them. Not only did the crime rate go up but the government didn’t stop there with banning dangerous looking items. They have gone so far that they have banned slingshots, crossbows, blow guns, throwing stars and all kinds of pointy knives, just about everything you have seen in a martial arts movie but yeah those are weapons. Fact is they didn’t stop there the kept going with fireworks, bb guns, LASER POINTERS, some kind of Yo-Yo’s, paintball guns, high pressure squirt guns, certain web sites, video games, literature, and movies plus a bunch of stuff that makes even less sense.

So why exactly do you want to follow Australia’s lead? Oh yeah and don’t forget that they are essentially an island and don’t have outside influences like Mexico but hey it did wonders for their crime rate it went up 49% and the murder rate stayed the same. They have the illusion of safety though. Good for them. Our country went the other direction and loosened restrictions on CCW permits the crime rate dropped across the board almost 30%.

So when are we going to talk about the real problem? The reason people are losing their minds.

edit to add

BTW you can’t tell me the government is doing this to protect us or that people really give a damn about life, not when I can go to the convenience store and buy a pack of smokes. It’s all just an illusion of safety.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I really haven’t seen much effort in making this a crazy vs. sane thing. Why is that?

Does the term gun nut ring a bell?

reply to post by TrueAmerican
The Waco incident, whether or not it involved so called "cult members", boils down to Americans exercising the rights granted to them. The fact is, a Federal force raided their compound, and they fought back. They defended themselves from what they viewed as a oppressive, tyrannical force. You can't twist that with facts about their legitimacy, or their sanity.

The Second Amendment and it's implications are not grayscale; they are black and white.

Because they are black and white, one cannot and should not attempt to differentiate between groups defending and exercising their rights. One cannot support the rights of law-abiding, gun-owning homeowners, and NOT support the rights of a "fringe group". That is called a double standard.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the Second Amendment ISN'T black and white. All that would mean, is that it is not your place to determine who is fringe and who is not. It is the place of the Supreme Court. That Court built on the Constitution. Feel free to have your opinion on the matter; just don't expect your opinion to be of any importance.