It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adam (vs the Man) Kokesh organizing an armed civil disobedience march on D.C.

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
sadly, the supreme court doesn't always get it right....it shouldn't be up to them to "interpret" a document written in english, and tell us what it means...if you can read, it all makes perfect sense.


So you are a constitutional scholar who knows the minds of the founders and can interpret what was actually written down as the Second Amendment. You think you know what it means and are going to act on that knowledge.
Who should interpret a law? Does everybody get to decide what a given law means? Do we throw out the court system and go for another way of settling differences of opinions and redress of wrongs?

Here's a tip for you. If you find employment, pay your income taxes or wind up in jail with all the other misguided souls who decided that income taxes were unconstitutional.
edit on 5/10/2013 by pteridine because: Saving Daedalus from the IRS




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
sadly, the supreme court doesn't always get it right....it shouldn't be up to them to "interpret" a document written in english, and tell us what it means...if you can read, it all makes perfect sense.


So you are a constitutional scholar who knows the minds of the founders and can interpret what was actually written down as the Second Amendment. You think you know what it means and are going to act on that knowledge.
Who should interpret a law? Does everybody get to decide what a given law means? Do we throw out the court system and go for another way of settling differences of opinions and redress of wrongs?

Here's a tip for you. If you find employment, pay your income taxes or wind up in jail with all the other misguided souls who decided that income taxes were unconstitutional.
edit on 5/10/2013 by pteridine because: Saving Daedalus from the IRS


i've got a better tip for you; don't tell me what to do, and don't presume to pass off your opinions as fact.

if it were written in a vague, and nebulous fashion, then it might need interpretation, but it is not, so it does not.

nobody's saying toss out the courts....where do you get this stuff?



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
i've got a better tip for you; don't tell me what to do, and don't presume to pass off your opinions as fact.

if it were written in a vague, and nebulous fashion, then it might need interpretation, but it is not, so it does not.

nobody's saying toss out the courts....where do you get this stuff?


I was suggesting that those [like you, for example] who think that their uneducated opinions are facts often end up in jail. I wouldn't want to see anyone led by those who think that they know what they are doing with everyone ending up in the jackpot, hence the example of the income tax dodgers.
As to the courts, I followed your logic that we should interpret laws as we see fit. If that were the case, we wouldn't need courts....or laws for that matter.
Now maybe you can tell me who should interpret laws and what you would do if you don't agree with the interpretation. In this case, we have someone who is willing to risk catastrophe and sacrifice himself and others for a questionable cause.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Nicks87
Thats right!

Shut up and step in line with the rest of the slaves. No need for rebellion you might get somebody hurt or killed.

From one house slave to another: "C'mon it really isnt that bad, is it?" "Our masters give us plenty of table scaps to eat and keep clothes on our backs and at least we're not working out in the fields..."


PUHLEASE!

You wouldn't know slavery if spanked you on the behind and called you Sally!
This is insulting to people who actually DO live in abject poverty around the world, claiming you have it sooo bad


You have more opportunities in your life than billions of people around the world, and you have the balls to whine about your government not bending over to do everything you demand of them?


Guess what? We arent far behind those "billions of people around the world". This is how it starts, they take our rights/freedoms away little by little until we "live in abject poverty". You might see that if you took time to look at the history of the world. You know, do some research instead of just spew mainstream media talking points.

Despotic governments always start out the same way and end in total tryanny. They say "it's for the people" and "govt is here to help" in reality it's just about power and control. The problem is people like YOU that say "Oh it isnt so bad, dont speak out against our corrupt govt because it might offend someone."

Those people that live in "abject poverty" those are people and descendants of people who never stood up to tyrannical govts thats why they are forced to live the way they do. The people that started this country, America, stood up to tyranny and now we are the greatest country in the world with more rights and freedom then anybody else. I want things to stay that way and the only way to do that is to excercise our constitutional rights and criticize govt officials when they cross the line and own guns and stand up for your right not to be searched and detained without just cause.

I really dont understand why people like you, govt apologists, think you have the right to silence those of us that just want what is guarenteed to us by the constitution. You people just make me sick.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I was suggesting that those [like you, for example] who think that their uneducated opinions are facts often end up in jail. I wouldn't want to see anyone led by those who think that they know what they are doing with everyone ending up in the jackpot, hence the example of the income tax dodgers.
As to the courts, I followed your logic that we should interpret laws as we see fit. If that were the case, we wouldn't need courts....or laws for that matter.
Now maybe you can tell me who should interpret laws and what you would do if you don't agree with the interpretation. In this case, we have someone who is willing to risk catastrophe and sacrifice himself and others for a questionable cause.


i love how you're trying to derail, by turning this into an income tax legality debate..sorry jack, that dog don't hunt..

i'd love to know what uneducated opinion you think i'm holding, and trying to pass as fact...i don't pull that crap.

additionally, i love how you glossed over how i said there should be no need to interpret something written in plain, clear english....keep it simple, and there is no need to interpret, because interpretation, in this particular context is just another word for "redefine", and in this context. it gets redefined based on the opinions and beliefs of people who may not have our best interests in mind..



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
I really dont understand why people like you, govt apologists, think you have the right to silence those of us that just want what is guarenteed to us by the constitution.


didn't u get the memo?

begging for your own enslavement is the new black..



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

i love how you're trying to derail, by turning this into an income tax legality debate..sorry jack, that dog don't hunt..

i'd love to know what uneducated opinion you think i'm holding, and trying to pass as fact...i don't pull that crap.

additionally, i love how you glossed over how i said there should be no need to interpret something written in plain, clear english....keep it simple, and there is no need to interpret, because interpretation, in this particular context is just another word for "redefine", and in this context. it gets redefined based on the opinions and beliefs of people who may not have our best interests in mind..


I can see you are easily confused. You are now talking about dogs not hunting in an original turn of phrase.
I refer to your opinion that you can interpret the absolute meaning of the amendment and know what was in the minds of the founders and that those concepts made it, unchanged, into the written amendment, as ratified by the states. That you think that the amendment means you can carry whatever weapon you choose where ever and when ever you want to. That you think the Supreme Court got it wrong and that you know better.

I also asked you who should interpret laws and what you would do if you disagreed with the interpretation but you cannot answer that.

Regardless, an armed march through DC on the 4th risks catastrophe and violates the laws of the District. It is fortunate that you cannot attend.


edit on 5/12/2013 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

i love how you're trying to derail, by turning this into an income tax legality debate..sorry jack, that dog don't hunt..

i'd love to know what uneducated opinion you think i'm holding, and trying to pass as fact...i don't pull that crap.

additionally, i love how you glossed over how i said there should be no need to interpret something written in plain, clear english....keep it simple, and there is no need to interpret, because interpretation, in this particular context is just another word for "redefine", and in this context. it gets redefined based on the opinions and beliefs of people who may not have our best interests in mind..


I can see you are easily confused. You are now talking about dogs not hunting in an original turn of phrase.
I refer to your opinion that you can interpret the absolute meaning of the amendment and know what was in the minds of the founders and that those concepts made it, unchanged, into the written amendment, as ratified by the states. That you think that the amendment means you can carry whatever weapon you choose where ever and when ever you want to. That you think the Supreme Court got it wrong and that you know better.

I also asked you who should interpret laws and what you would do if you disagreed with the interpretation but you cannot answer that.

Regardless, an armed march through DC on the 4th risks catastrophe and violates the laws of the District. It is fortunate that you cannot attend.


edit on 5/12/2013 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


perhaps you are easily confused....the phrase means "that ain't gonna work"

as a free private citizen, who can read, i don't need presidential appointees to tell me what words in my native tongue mean. you're obviously not familiar with the difference between private citizens, and government...private citizens just want to be free, and those smart enough to be able to read and comprehend, well understand what the words on our founding document say and mean....government, on the other hand...when it gets too big, and too full of itself, just wants to control everything everyone does, or says, or thinks.....

it is ridiculous to put all one's faith in someone to interpret something that you can read just as well yourself...especially when that someone is a government functionary, who may not be properly explaining it, because it's contrary to their personal beliefs and opinions....

i have answered the question that you said i can't...NOBODY should "interpret" the meaning...as it is written in plain english...rulings should be made, based on the word of the law...not what a federal court thinks it should mean, or wants it to mean...the amendment means that we have a RIGHT (not a privilege) to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (weaponry) in this country...it is recognized as a natural right by the constitution....explain to me what version of english you use where the 2nd amandment can be understood to mean differently

i can, and have answered your questions...you're just being evasive, and making a whole lot of assumptions, because you don't like the answers you're getting...i agree that there is a potential for disaster in D.C. during that march..but i doubt it'll be caused by the participants....and i thank you for your concern for my personal well being..
edit on 13-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

i love how you're trying to derail, by turning this into an income tax legality debate..sorry jack, that dog don't hunt..

i'd love to know what uneducated opinion you think i'm holding, and trying to pass as fact...i don't pull that crap.

additionally, i love how you glossed over how i said there should be no need to interpret something written in plain, clear english....keep it simple, and there is no need to interpret, because interpretation, in this particular context is just another word for "redefine", and in this context. it gets redefined based on the opinions and beliefs of people who may not have our best interests in mind..


I can see you are easily confused. You are now talking about dogs not hunting in an original turn of phrase.
I refer to your opinion that you can interpret the absolute meaning of the amendment and know what was in the minds of the founders and that those concepts made it, unchanged, into the written amendment, as ratified by the states. That you think that the amendment means you can carry whatever weapon you choose where ever and when ever you want to. That you think the Supreme Court got it wrong and that you know better.

I also asked you who should interpret laws and what you would do if you disagreed with the interpretation but you cannot answer that.

Regardless, an armed march through DC on the 4th risks catastrophe and violates the laws of the District. It is fortunate that you cannot attend.


edit on 5/12/2013 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


perhaps you are easily confused....the phrase means "that ain't gonna work"

as a free private citizen, who can read, i don't need presidential appointees to tell me what words in my native tongue mean. you're obviously not familiar with the difference between private citizens, and government...private citizens just want to be free, and those smart enough to be able to read and comprehend, well understand what the words on our founding document say and mean....government, on the other hand...when it gets too big, and too full of itself, just wants to control everything everyone does, or says, or thinks.....

it is ridiculous to put all one's faith in someone to interpret something that you can read just as well yourself...especially when that someone is a government functionary, who may not be properly explaining it, because it's contrary to their personal beliefs and opinions....

i have answered the question that you said i can't...NOBODY should "interpret" the meaning...as it is written in plain english...rulings should be made, based on the word of the law...not what a federal court thinks it should mean, or wants it to mean...the amendment means that we have a RIGHT (not a privilege) to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (weaponry) in this country...it is recognized as a natural right by the constitution....explain to me what version of english you use where the 2nd amandment can be understood to mean differently

i can, and have answered your questions...you're just being evasive, and making a whole lot of assumptions, because you don't like the answers you're getting...i agree that there is a potential for disaster in D.C. during that march..but i doubt it'll be caused by the participants....and i thank you for your concern for my personal well being..
edit on 13-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning

-In a perfect World you are correct- But it isnt a perfect World.
You keep saying we have the "right" (which we do...) but where were you (and others) when Felons lost their "right" to prtect their families. Most Felons now arew "non Violent" and 1/7th of your Countrymen are Felons and have had that "right" stripped.

By allowing this, it was a slippery slope into the fact that the Nation readily admitted there is no RIGHT other than that which is given.

-My point is that regardless of the fact that its in plain English (it is-) it has already been butchered and redefined as a Court has decided and nobody really said a thing- Now a precedent has been set to allow our "rights" to be decided by a court .

You can now do this, be thrown in jail and use the Constitution as your defense and you WILL LOSE. Is it right? No. But it is what it is....



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I will be there. We need everyone's support. For those in the rear; stream it, record it, post it, talk about it, volunteer

legal advice (if your a legal professional). This is not a pro-gun march, we are going to prove the point that America

Does not welcome freedom. Any resistance by the police or military is in direct violation of their oaths. No threats

have been made by either side 'that I know of', so I look forward to an armed escorted tour of DC. With so many

criminals already there we appreciate the extra guns.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

perhaps you are easily confused....the phrase means "that ain't gonna work"

as a free private citizen, who can read, i don't need presidential appointees to tell me what words in my native tongue mean. you're obviously not familiar with the difference between private citizens, and government...private citizens just want to be free, and those smart enough to be able to read and comprehend, well understand what the words on our founding document say and mean....government, on the other hand...when it gets too big, and too full of itself, just wants to control everything everyone does, or says, or thinks.....

it is ridiculous to put all one's faith in someone to interpret something that you can read just as well yourself...especially when that someone is a government functionary, who may not be properly explaining it, because it's contrary to their personal beliefs and opinions....

i have answered the question that you said i can't...NOBODY should "interpret" the meaning...as it is written in plain english...rulings should be made, based on the word of the law...not what a federal court thinks it should mean, or wants it to mean...the amendment means that we have a RIGHT (not a privilege) to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (weaponry) in this country...it is recognized as a natural right by the constitution....explain to me what version of english you use where the 2nd amandment can be understood to mean differently

i can, and have answered your questions...you're just being evasive, and making a whole lot of assumptions, because you don't like the answers you're getting...i agree that there is a potential for disaster in D.C. during that march..but i doubt it'll be caused by the participants....and i thank you for your concern for my personal well being.


The well being of all is important, even those who disagree on ATS.

The point is that the laws have to be interpreted by some entity. This is to prevent everyone from interpreting laws in their own fashion and doing what they will. If that were the case, there would be no enforceable laws.
As to disaster on the march, you "doubt it'll be caused by the participants" but have no way of knowing who will do what. Who instigated any disaster during the march is unimportant as the outcome will be equally bad regardless of who started it. Kokesh should be held responsible if his publicity stunt even takes the first step.

Much like we have a right to free speech, there are limits to that speech. Such rights are limited when the good of society is threatened by individual exercise of those rights. There are also limits to the Keep and Bear arms concept. Convicted felons are a notable exception. Some types of weapons are an exception.

As to my not liking answers, it would seem that it is you who have a closed mind. If felons are an exception and poison gas is a limitation then there must be exceptions and limitations to the amendment. If there are exceptions and limitations, then the amendment must be open to such. Do you think that felons should be permitted to own firearms? How about people owning hand grenades and poison gas? The Second amendment is not absolute and is silent on the details of what constitutes an acceptable firearm so as times change, it must be reinterpreted to reflect those times.

If you want to be historically correct and strictly hold to the founder's concepts and intent, then the arms that you may bear would all be black powder flintlocks.
edit on 5/13/2013 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

perhaps you are easily confused....the phrase means "that ain't gonna work"

as a free private citizen, who can read, i don't need presidential appointees to tell me what words in my native tongue mean. you're obviously not familiar with the difference between private citizens, and government...private citizens just want to be free, and those smart enough to be able to read and comprehend, well understand what the words on our founding document say and mean....government, on the other hand...when it gets too big, and too full of itself, just wants to control everything everyone does, or says, or thinks.....

it is ridiculous to put all one's faith in someone to interpret something that you can read just as well yourself...especially when that someone is a government functionary, who may not be properly explaining it, because it's contrary to their personal beliefs and opinions....

i have answered the question that you said i can't...NOBODY should "interpret" the meaning...as it is written in plain english...rulings should be made, based on the word of the law...not what a federal court thinks it should mean, or wants it to mean...the amendment means that we have a RIGHT (not a privilege) to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (weaponry) in this country...it is recognized as a natural right by the constitution....explain to me what version of english you use where the 2nd amandment can be understood to mean differently

i can, and have answered your questions...you're just being evasive, and making a whole lot of assumptions, because you don't like the answers you're getting...i agree that there is a potential for disaster in D.C. during that march..but i doubt it'll be caused by the participants....and i thank you for your concern for my personal well being.


The well being of all is important, even those who disagree on ATS.

The point is that the laws have to be interpreted by some entity. This is to prevent everyone from interpreting laws in their own fashion and doing what they will. If that were the case, there would be no enforceable laws.
As to disaster on the march, you "doubt it'll be caused by the participants" but have no way of knowing who will do what. Who instigated any disaster during the march is unimportant as the outcome will be equally bad regardless of who started it. Kokesh should be held responsible if his publicity stunt even takes the first step.

Much like we have a right to free speech, there are limits to that speech. Such rights are limited when the good of society is threatened by individual exercise of those rights. There are also limits to the Keep and Bear arms concept. Convicted felons are a notable exception. Some types of weapons are an exception.

As to my not liking answers, it would seem that it is you who have a closed mind. If felons are an exception and poison gas is a limitation then there must be exceptions and limitations to the amendment. If there are exceptions and limitations, then the amendment must be open to such. Do you think that felons should be permitted to own firearms? How about people owning hand grenades and poison gas? The Second amendment is not absolute and is silent on the details of what constitutes an acceptable firearm so as times change, it must be reinterpreted to reflect those times.

If you want to be historically correct and strictly hold to the founder's concepts and intent, then the arms that you may bear would all be black powder flintlocks.
edit on 5/13/2013 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


no, the founders concepts and intent was that the people be armed and equipped in the same fashion as the average infantryman. as arms evolve, the equipment and armament evolves as well....i see you went into a form of the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, which i warned you would end this interaction, as that argument is desperate, and nonsensical....



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
no, the founders concepts and intent was that the people be armed and equipped in the same fashion as the average infantryman. as arms evolve, the equipment and armament evolves as well....i see you went into a form of the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, which i warned you would end this interaction, as that argument is desperate, and nonsensical....


At the time, the average infantryman and the average citizen had the same weapons. That is no longer the case. There are exceptions and limitations to every law as I pointed out to you but that you chose to ignore. Is your position so untenable that now you have to invoke your escape hatch "warning" because you are desperate?

What should the limits be on the 2nd amendment? Any? Obviously, the average infantryman doesn't have nerve gas, atomic weapons, or even mortars and heavy machine guns. Tough to "bear," anyway. Those are out.
The average infantryman has an M-16/M-4 variant. It may have a grenade launcher. He also has a few hand grenades. We have already limited destructive devices as being more dangerous to the public than the need to own such, so no grenades or grenade launchers.
He may also have a Beretta 9mm pistol and a K-Bar, or the latest version of the K-Bar.

It is easy to own a semi-auto version of the M-4 and the Beretta, unless one is a felon, so we have ready access to the weapons of the average infantryman. Anyone can buy a K-Bar. Can you think of anything else?

Now the part about carrying. Concealed carry is permitted in most states. There are a few that suppress the right [Illinois comes to mind] that will continue to be challenged, but the 2nd amendment says "state" [ratified by the states] or "State" [passed by Congress] and the states think that they can control such. Do you think this needs some interpretation?

Maybe what we need is the Swiss model where every citizen serves and is a member of the reserves, subject to recall. At one time, each had his military equipment, including weapon and ammunition, and was required to maintain it. There might have been a required summer camp, also. This sounds more like the second amendment than what passes for it now with a "well regulated militia." The problems with this model are George Bush presidents and the whiners who don't want to serve in any fashion, not even in the Americorps. Maybe the right to vote should be limited to those who have served the country in some way, including the military. Maybe the right to own firearms should be limited to those who have served in the military who would know how to be that militia when needed. I'd bet these ideas won't sit too well with the camo commandos who run around the woods pretending to be patriots of some sort; hardly a "well regulated militia." That phrase also needs some interpretation, doesn't it, because it could mean the National Guard.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

At the time, the average infantryman and the average citizen had the same weapons. That is no longer the case. There are exceptions and limitations to every law as I pointed out to you but that you chose to ignore. Is your position so untenable that now you have to invoke your escape hatch "warning" because you are desperate?


i'm not desperate at all...i simply dislike the nonsensical. idiotic, willfully ignorant nature of the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, and all it's various la-la-land variants..

i tend to not deal with people who choose to use that argument, because it usually demonstrates that they have no valid point, can't defend their views without resorting to nonsense, and that they are dumb...i hate dumb people.

the rest of your post has demonstrated that you are not terribly dumb, so i'll keep talking to you for now..

i didn't ignore anything, i simply refuse to accept and acknowledge idiotic "laws", that violate the actual law, which is the constitution..



What should the limits be on the 2nd amendment? Any? Obviously, the average infantryman doesn't have nerve gas, atomic weapons, or even mortars and heavy machine guns. Tough to "bear," anyway. Those are out.
The average infantryman has an M-16/M-4 variant. It may have a grenade launcher. He also has a few hand grenades. We have already limited destructive devices as being more dangerous to the public than the need to own such, so no grenades or grenade launchers. He may also have a Beretta 9mm pistol and a K-Bar, or the latest version of the K-Bar.


well, actually, in infantry, you can be assigned an MOS which require weapons other than the standard M-16 platform. for the most part, i agree here...thing of it is, obviously, things like nerve gas, nukes, fighter jets, missiles, and all that other crazy s**t are out...but saying people shouldn't be allowed to own certain kinds of firearms, because a group of idiots in suits don't think you should be allowed to have them, or because they're scary looking is just retarded...




It is easy to own a semi-auto version of the M-4 and the Beretta, unless one is a felon, so we have ready access to the weapons of the average infantryman. Anyone can buy a K-Bar. Can you think of anything else?


yeah, not try to criminalize guns that LOOK scary...it's silly...

point is, a soldier has a rifle, or carbine, or sometimes a machine gun..some soldiers carry pistols in addition to that main weapon..the federal government, as per the constitution has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to tell me what kind of rifle or pistol i can own.




Now the part about carrying. Concealed carry is permitted in most states. There are a few that suppress the right [Illinois comes to mind] that will continue to be challenged, but the 2nd amendment says "state" [ratified by the states] or "State" [passed by Congress] and the states think that they can control such. Do you think this needs some interpretation?


actually, "state" is in reference to the country as a whole, i believe..

that's the thing about the constitution...it's the one set of rules EVERYONE has to follow...it's the supreme law. federal, state, county, and local are ALL subject to the laws laid out in this document...it's the one set of rules they're not allowed to break, but because nobody pays attention, states break these most important rules all the time, and NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING..

laws against concealed and open carry are illegal.




Maybe what we need is the Swiss model where every citizen serves and is a member of the reserves, subject to recall. At one time, each had his military equipment, including weapon and ammunition, and was required to maintain it. There might have been a required summer camp, also. This sounds more like the second amendment than what passes for it now with a "well regulated militia." The problems with this model are George Bush presidents and the whiners who don't want to serve in any fashion, not even in the Americorps. Maybe the right to vote should be limited to those who have served the country in some way, including the military. Maybe the right to own firearms should be limited to those who have served in the military who would know how to be that militia when needed. I'd bet these ideas won't sit too well with the camo commandos who run around the woods pretending to be patriots of some sort; hardly a "well regulated militia." That phrase also needs some interpretation, doesn't it, because it could mean the National Guard.


"regulated", in the context in which it is used in the constitution means trained and supplied. militias are allowed, as per the constitution. the federal government doesn't want people to know that though, so they make militias out to be dangerous, and full of bad people. kinda makes it hard to train, when people keep calling the cops on you. and the national guard is NOT a militia
edit on 17-5-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 

wow........just wow


if you have to have permission you are not exercising a right.






The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you.

You do not always have a right to assemble.


(first amendment) *any action taken by the state/gov to stop people from practicing their NATURAL (not civil) rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL therefore ILLEGAL
(i say Natural rights, because this Civil rights sham is given to the citizens by the states, while Natural rights are given to the people/sovereigns by a higher power)




i agree we must stand up to tyranny but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Having a showdown with armed weapons will never lead to anything positive and should only be held as an absolute last resort, such as during our Revolution.


(second amendment) *if the officers infringe on the peoples rights, the people have a RIGHT not a privilege to defend themselves*

the people are practicing their rights, 1st.
the way a revolution happens is when the people get fed up with the current regime 2nd.

police officers going house to house doing illegal searches (4th amendment), militarization of the police (who are supposedly our subject *read up on common law...heres a link to get you started 1215.org*)
and now this ginormous debt that our nation is in *not us but the American Corporation*



I imagine that since they have no permit they will quickly be disbanded before they even start. Either way, the cops won't let them march and shouldn't.

These guys should take a lessen from the Civil Rights protestors and hold unarmed marches or sit-ins. What these guys are planning is the same thuggery they are supposedly fighting against.

Why trade one armed government tyrant for one public one?



permit.........do you know what a right is
in the constitution it clearly states that the people are sovereign (please, PLEASE look up this word)
and that means that they are not held liable to the state, or it's agencies, or the states agents.

UNLESS the people (sovereigns) infringe on the rights of other sovereigns.

the agents of the state CANNOT INFRINGE on the rights of the people (THE NATURAL RIGHTS)
do you understand this sentence?

victimless crimes =/= legal
theft is a crime
murder is a crime
rape is a ....?, yes a crime

walking/marching =/= a crime
protesting/gathering is NOT a crime
owning/carrying arms (weapons) is not a crime
even smoking/carrying pot is not a crime

do you know why??? because it's a victimless 'crime'

the fact is, the FEDS control the commercial aspect of the law, so they can charge you with
1. transporting weapons across state lines (for carrying a weapon) but they would have to prove that it was meant for sale.
2.carrying pot (drug trafficking) but they would have to prove that you were transporting the drug for commercial purposes.

for federal crimes it's a matter of commercial purpose or stopping someone from practicing their RIGHTs.


also the order of Authority goes

the People *WE THE PEOPLE*
then the State
then the Agencies and the agents

we stand above the "Civil LAW"



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



They tried all other means first so by the time it got to open revolt they had no choices left.





They were being taxed to death with a standing British army on our land that they were being told to pay for. We are nowhere near the circumstances that they were.


one word ObamaCare, ok maybe a whole paragraph...
NDAA(5th amendment), CISPA, The attempted Gun Grab(2nd amendment) earlier this year.
The fact that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and the whole spaghetti-O's is spying on the PEOPLE is considered ok by the gov (4th amendment)
THE HUGE DEBT acquired within the last few years
The fact that the US is part of the UN *still* and follows it's policies *agenda21* which disregards sovereignty and land ownership.
OH, and the corrupt Officials who consider themselves above the law....theres more, but the point is, that protesting isn't going to cut it, not a 'civil' protest, not a 'quiet' protest, but one backed with a vicious bite if tested.







They had no options left, we still do. However there is nothing wrong with protesting just don't do it armed because it won't be nearly as effective.

when they treat the people like cattle, when they act as if were dumb, when they'll just give us enough freedom to keep us docile (while in the shadows plotting on how to enslave us) and the problems keep getting worse, you expect us to respond with the childish act of compliance? compliance w/the same government who has sold out it's people? compliance w/the same system that defends those in power while at the same time subjecting the people to injustice? no...the answer is not compliance, not a UnArmed protest, we know what happens when you are unarmed and protest Big Bro, the expression goes, "history repeats it self", look at the protest where the natl. guard were called....look at OWS....the people in power CONTROL the police, the police are THEIR Employees not ours, the politicians feed the police from the palm of their hand.

The point being that if the people want REAL change, there's going to be resistance from those who've USURPED the authority from US, THE PEOPLE.

We the People are in the Right and were just getting back that which already belong to US.


Does anyone here think that getting into a firefight is going to make the government back off or increase their pressure to infringe on our rights.


Once they place stricter laws on US, you'll be able to see that the tyranny is not a myth.
Once the people see that the government has overstepped it's authority *if they wake up* there'll be hell to pay.

"poking at a hornets nest/waking up a sleeping bear/taking food from a fat person"



"Think about it. This is just plain stupid and is riddled with horrible scenarios."


~Red Coat to American Rebel



that's all for today....PLEASE, read up on COMMON LAW and you NATURAL RIGHTS, not civil rights
(1215.org)
edit on 17-5-2013 by ss830 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


My point was that interpretation of the amendments must be made and limitations must be set. In the case of the second amendment, felons are not permitted firearms even though they remain citizens. Their legal ownership of firearms was forfeited when they chose to commit a crime. Too bad.
Free speech has limitations. The press has limitations. All must be considered in light of the greater good. As to the "average infantryman" call him the "average rifleman." At various times, I operated many weapons systems that were not anticipated by the founders and wasn't primarily a rifleman but I believe that the rifle is what was intended.
Limiting ownership by appearance is the height of folly. The "pistol grip" concept that makes a weapon an assault rifle is particularly idiotic and is a measure of the intelligence of an estrogen poisoned Congress. A Ruger ranch rifle with a wooden stock is not an assault rifle. The same rifle with the ugly fiberglass stock is an assault rifle.
I had a discussion with someone on ATS about this. I maintained that the M1918A2 BAR was an outstanding assault rifle but the counter argument is that the BAR fired a full power .30-06 rifle cartridge and was not officially an assault rifle because of that and because it didn't look like a Sturmgewehr, so I conceded based on the definition rather than the intent of JMB when he designed it.

Back on topic. I still think that a self-designated, armed group marching through the Capitol on the 4th of July risks catastrophe and should not be permitted. Marching with signs and pictures should suffice.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by pteridine
 


My point was that interpretation of the amendments must be made and limitations must be set. In the case of the second amendment, felons are not permitted firearms even though they remain citizens. Their legal ownership of firearms was forfeited when they chose to commit a crime. Too bad.
Free speech has limitations. The press has limitations. All must be considered in light of the greater good. As to the "average infantryman" call him the "average rifleman." At various times, I operated many weapons systems that were not anticipated by the founders and wasn't primarily a rifleman but I believe that the rifle is what was intended.
Limiting ownership by appearance is the height of folly. The "pistol grip" concept that makes a weapon an assault rifle is particularly idiotic and is a measure of the intelligence of an estrogen poisoned Congress. A Ruger ranch rifle with a wooden stock is not an assault rifle. The same rifle with the ugly fiberglass stock is an assault rifle.
I had a discussion with someone on ATS about this. I maintained that the M1918A2 BAR was an outstanding assault rifle but the counter argument is that the BAR fired a full power .30-06 rifle cartridge and was not officially an assault rifle because of that and because it didn't look like a Sturmgewehr, so I conceded based on the definition rather than the intent of JMB when he designed it.

Back on topic. I still think that a self-designated, armed group marching through the Capitol on the 4th of July risks catastrophe and should not be permitted. Marching with signs and pictures should suffice.


ok, so we're finding common ground...we both think bans based on looks is retarded..though i doubt the push for it has anything to do with an "estrogen poisoned congress", so much as a few idiotic troublemakers, and mindless drones, voting based on party affiliation, and their own personal desire to control everything everyone does...

as to limitations...see, the system works differently today, than it did back then....back then, they weren't afraid to execute criminals...i forget which volume, and who exactly aid it, but it was stated in the federalist papers that no free man should be disbarred the use of arms..that was the spirit and intent, because back then, when you were released, it was usually not for something truly terrible, and you were considered to have paid your debt to society. now, we have parole...so we let rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and other truly broken people back out into society, when they have committed crimes who's cost to society can NEVER be repaid. Therefore, now we have people loose on the streets, who back then, would never be free, and thus, would never be allowed to have arms again.

fundamentally, what is the difference if they're carrying guns, or signs?...as long as we're talking responsible owners, the only difference i can see is with the signs, they are now unable to defend themselves if/when the cops decide they wanna start something with them....



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

fundamentally, what is the difference if they're carrying guns, or signs?...as long as we're talking responsible owners, the only difference i can see is with the signs, they are now unable to defend themselves if/when the cops decide they wanna start something with them....



If they are carrying signs, there will be no reason for the police to do anything but control the crowds. If they are carrying guns in violation of the laws of the city, there is reason.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
i see you went into a form of the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, which i warned you would end this interaction, as that argument is desperate, and nonsensical....


I notice that it often "ends the interaction", but usually because it refutes absolutely the old nonsense about 'freedom to own guns because you should be allowed to own anything you like'. It's a case of hitting an unanswerable argument and pretending you don't like it for other reasons.

It also gives the lie to the nonsense about owning rifles in order to defend against an oppressive conquering power. Those riflemen were pretty useful in the 18th century. Not quite so effective now against a cruise missile.




top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join