Gun Control, Terrorism and the New American Revolution!!!

reply to post by seeker1963


Ok let me try to keep this civil by doing this,

How about you ask me a question and we will take it from there.

I was actually reading and giving this thread a chance until I ran into this sentence,

Most of these Rambo threads are not about the very serious issue of gun control and the erosion of rights they are about “Joe the gun-nut” making sure he can keep his constitutionally assured penis enlargement.

What is it with you foreigners and the word penis? Every one of these gun threads includes that phrase. It really is getting annoying, plus you sound plain stupid. And what is it if a woman is on this thread? I am sure it's not a penis enlargement then huh? Sounds to me like your being sexist just a wee bit.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok let me try to keep this civil by doing this,

How about you ask me a question and we will take it from there.

Read my first response to you post. You know, the one you have avoided answering? Just so you know, I AM an American, and I don't take kindly to someone who isn't an American calling me or others like myself terrorists! You might want to actually read the Constitution before you make some wild ass assumptions that those of us who do not agree with our government officials actions and obedience to the banks and corporations are terrorists, instead of the real terrorists being those whom were elected to office and have violated their oath to the Constitution...........

reply to post by seeker1963

I AM an American, and I don't take kindly to someone who isn't an American calling me or others like myself terrorists!

With respect I don’t think you understand

So first of all understand this your government defines terrorism thusly

The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Now yes under the likes of the Patriot Act the definition does differ somewhat but this is the most relevant definition when looking at a federal crime such as an act of domestic terrorism. This is not my opinion on what constitutes a terrorist it is what the Federal regulations say.

With that definition in mind then, it is clear that if any person or a group of people where to commit an act of violence to “coerce” or to “intimidate” the government into changing its current policy towards gun legislation it would constitute an act of domestic terrorism under US Federal Regulations.

It’s not my opinion it’s a fact.

reply to post by jaynkeel


That is a fair enough comment and I will remember your words in future.

What I was trying to do what demonstrate the impression these threads or other people on the internet give off when they start talking about a new American Revolution. This was not meant as a blanket generalisation of all gun-owners or gun enthusiasts but rather it was to say that this is the stereotype that such views promote.

I am also sorry you found it sexist.

Thanks for your feedback.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now yes under the likes of the Patriot Act the definition does differ somewhat but this is the most relevant definition when looking at a federal crime such as an act of domestic terrorism. This is not my opinion on what constitutes a terrorist it is what the Federal regulations say.

With that definition in mind then, it is clear that if any person or a group of people where to commit an act of violence to “coerce” or to “intimidate” the government into changing its current policy towards gun legislation it would constitute an act of domestic terrorism under US Federal Regulations.

It’s not my opinion it’s a fact.

Still avoiding my original questions I see!



You do realize, that the Constitution, is ABOVE, Bushes Patriot Act and Obama's NDAA??? As far as Homeland Security and their so called laws go, Unless they fall under the provisions of the Constitution, they are NOT laws! They are nothing more than tyrannical actions, by a corrupt government whom has gone against the laws and knowledge of our founding fathers? Be careful now! You are a "British Citizen" not a subject, as you have previously pointed out. I respect your status, and I would wish that you would respect the status of those whom you like to consider terrorists under a corrupt government........

Just so you know. I don't like calling myself a terrorist. But being that I am a veteran, and I believe in the Constitution of my country, and the FACT that according to Homeland Security, I AM a terrorist???? I will wear that badge proudly to my death.......

Just so you know. I don't like calling myself a terrorist. But being that I am a veteran, and I believe in the Constitution of my country, and the FACT that according to Homeland Security, I AM a terrorist???? I will wear that badge proudly to my death.......

reply to post by seeker1963


Well said!! And I will second that! If that is what I must be then so be it!

Originally posted by okiecowboy

Just so you know. I don't like calling myself a terrorist. But being that I am a veteran, and I believe in the Constitution of my country, and the FACT that according to Homeland Security, I AM a terrorist???? I will wear that badge proudly to my death.......

reply to post by seeker1963

 

Well said!! And I will second that! If that is what I must be then so be it!

One mans terrorist is another mans patriot. Count me in as well.

What's the most disturbing about this so called "Al Quada" terrorist organization is that most of them (including OBL) were originally trained and funded by the American CIA when they were the Mujahadeen fighting the Russians.

American CIA made sure that their weapons were the best available of the day, and that they were trained extensively in the use of those weapons.

Same with the Iraqis - they made sure that Saddam Hussein was outfitted royally when he was fighting the Iranian regime.

Today's freedom fighter is tomorrow's terrorist in many instances.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Sorry if you feel being called a British "subject" offended you, there is still a Queen and royal family, until they are no more, Great Britain is still a monarchy to me. So, sorry I offended you. On the case of using the first amendment to battle the infringement of the second, if our voices held merit this would be no problem, if we did not get met with police force for protesting peaceably, this would be no problem, if our politicians were not corrupt, money hungry, corporate puppets, this would be no problem. "We the people" have tried peaceful protests many times over, each time the leaders of these protests winds up being assassinated, or put in prison. I am not saying start a civil war, but the line has been crossed one to many times and the time is getting nearer before "We the people" take back what is ours by force. I of all people hope this does not happen, I have four children I would love to see grow up peaceably and safe from war in their homeland. But as the world knows "Sh%t Happens".

reply to post by seeker1963

You do realize, that the Constitution, is ABOVE, Bushes Patriot Act and Obama's NDAA???

Yes I do and I agree with you on that, however that does not negate the fact that if you commit an act of violence against the government or people of the United States as a means to intimidate government into changing policy you will still be regarded as a domestic terrorist.

they are NOT laws! They are nothing more than tyrannical actions, by a corrupt government whom has gone against the laws and knowledge of our founding fathers?

You may not recognise the authority of those laws but as a Citizen of the United States of America you are considered to be responsible under American law if you deviate from those laws. Just because you say you don’t recognise the laws that make murder illegal for example does not excuse you if you were to commit an act of murder under the law, you will still be tired as a suspected murdered and if found guilty you will be punished as such. The same applies here, you may not recognise the definition of terrorism I have provided or the laws that cover terrorism but if you were to commit an act that meets that definition of terrorism then regardless of whether or not you recognise the definition you will be tried as a terrorists and punished as such if found guilty.

I respect your status, and I would wish that you would respect the status of those whom you like to consider terrorists under a corrupt government

I have at no point called you a terrorist, what I have said is that if you were to go and commit an act of violence with a object to intimidate or coerce the government into changing its current policy regarding gun legislation you would then be considered at terrorist by the US Government. The key phrase in there is by the US government, not be me as an individual.

I don't like calling myself a terrorist. But being that I am a veteran, and I believe in the Constitution of my country, and the FACT that according to Homeland Security, I AM a terrorist????

I have not seen any legal definition of terrorism form an official source including homeland security that defines either veterans or anyone who believes in the American constitution. So to answer your question there while I respect your patriotism you are not a terrorist because you are a veteran and a believer in the constitution.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
i'll show you mine if you show me yours but no copying them, my list is DHS FBI NSA and TSA all have a how to spot, see say, and do you know some one that .... i even post videos of them from above list to inform you as how to act respond and do if you see any one doing something from the...again above list.
Half the people i know or read about are... as they would state or would have, list them as terrorist. some are from here do not know directly... but enough to know when the time comes... the jack boots will be at their door!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Again fail for this you say the P act and the NDDA act i not above the Constitution, not true for if you read there will you find in time of war, or when martial law is invoked or when the US is deemed a Battle field, the Constitution is suspended did you know that we in the US are now in times of 2 or the 3, can you post which 2?

reply to post by bekod


I think part of the problem some people are having with this thread is an assumption that their views on what constitutes a terrorist are what matters. While yes I can respect your views, although I disagree with them, that the FBI constitutes a terrorist organisation in your view, under American law they are not.

It is the legal definition which matters, not what you “think” terrorism is but what your government says terrorism is.

So you might want to argue that a person who was to hypothetically assassinate a senior member of government or take a federal building hostage as a “revolutionary” because you agree with his motives. That does not matter what matters is that according to the state under their legal definition of terrorism, he would be tried as a terrorist and if found guilty punished as such.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


This happens all too often. A foreigner comes in and spouts their rants, as you have every right to have, but you truly don't understand the situation.

Your definitions you provide lead everyone on to believe that The Founding Fathers of the United States were not patriots because, as you said,

There is nothing patriotic about taking up arms and advocating acts of terror against your fellow countrymen because you don’t agree with their views.

What was the Revolutionary War based upon again? Oh that's right, it was a punch of people taking up arms against despotic leaders because they didn't agree with their views. Fastforward nearly 250 years and you have a very similar scenario with the leadership roles brought very much close to home. These people calling for civil unrest and Revolution aren't doing so against other American's. Anyone who is fighting for the Constitution knows that other Americans have their rights to say and practice whatever the hell they see fit, so long as it does not impose on everyone else.

What this Revolution would be against, and this is where everyone seems to get hung up, is those in power who are actively trying to debase the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, a process that has been occurring by our government knowingly for many years, only recently have actions been standing on the lines of straight up infringement of our rights and TREASON against the American people and the rightful government.

If that is not a right to take up arms and fight, then in your mind there is nothing. You would rather wait until all our weapons are gone and we are slaves under a dictator to take up arms. What arms? Would we take up arms like the people during the Mao Revolution in China after THEY were disarmed? Or what about the Germans or Austrians after THEY were disarmed?

It is simple fact, that once the 2nd amendment goes, the rest go with it. Therefore, the idea of fighting to preserve that amendment is a good one in my eyes, for if we don't then we sacrifice ourselves to whatever wills the government has in store for us.

reply to post by bekod


When did I say that the Patriot Act or any other law was above the American constitution, I didn’t, I wish people would stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Yes the constitution is above the likes of the Patriot act that however does not excuse any act of terrorism. You can’t go out and blow up a building and when the judge asks why you do it cite that you were “Defending the second amendment” and get let off, you will have still committed an act of terrorism no matter how noble you might perceive your cause.

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing"

A quote from Thomas Jefferson

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

In a letter of correspondence with Madison which can Abe seen at the link below
www.earlyamerica.com...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by bekod

 

I think part of the problem some people are having with this thread is an assumption that their views on what constitutes a terrorist are what matters. While yes I can respect your views, although I disagree with them, that the FBI constitutes a terrorist organisation in your view, under American law they are not.

It is the legal definition which matters, not what you “think” terrorism is but what your government says terrorism is.

So you might want to argue that a person who was to hypothetically assassinate a senior member of government or take a federal building hostage as a “revolutionary” because you agree with his motives. That does not matter what matters is that according to the state under their legal definition of terrorism, he would be tried as a terrorist and if found guilty punished as such.

did you even read what i posted ?? for it is not what i think a terrorist is but what the DHS, TSA, and NSA, FBI list them as.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


The American Revolution was about breaking away from British rule; it is not comparable to the current situation or calls for a new American revolution because a democratically elected president has said he is going to request Congress make changes to gun legislation. A disagreement with this law , that has not even been passed yet it is not a justification to resort to violence, it is not the abolishment of the second amendment.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
but you did in a reply too this,

You do realize, that the Constitution, is ABOVE, Bushes Patriot Act and Obama's NDAA??? Yes I do and I agree with you on that, however that does not negate the fact that if you commit an act of violence against the government or people of the United States as a means to intimidate government into changing policy you will still be regarded as a domestic terrorist.

is this not your response ?