Seventy-Two [were] Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston

page: 1
37
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+17 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
News from Boston! I'm sure most of you have already heard this, but for those who haven't for some reason, here's the source:
News from Boston


Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.


The article goes on to quote the MA Governor:


Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.


A warrant was put out for the arrest of those who committed this:


The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.



Do the circumstances around that seem eerily similar to today? Did the article seem like it could be happening right now?

The article, written in the style of a news bulletin from today, can lead one to notice striking similarities between present conditions and those during 1775, specifically:
- the "radical right-wing tax protest movement" of 1775 and the "Tea Party" of 2013
- the anger being directed towards the "internal revenue offices" of 1775 and increasing animosity towards the IRS of 2013
- the ban on "military-style assault weapons" of 1775 and similar bans being worked on by government officials in 2013


Wake up, ATS. The components that sparked a revolution in 1775 are present once again today in 2013. Could an armed revolution happen again? Would it take the government to finally begin an over-reaching assault weapons ban? Would the military attempting to confiscate firearms lead to mass bloodshed?

Would the military even cooperate?

It seems that things are slowly spiraling towards a rehashing of what was lived in 1775. I pray that more peaceful solutions are sought, and won.

But, if the need arises, I stand ready.

Do you?

Molon Labe


Note: I apologize ahead of time if this post seemed like a trick to cause panic or a knee-jerk reaction because of the headlines. I was scanning Facebook when I saw a friend post the link/headline, and it immediately caught my full attention. I believe that the style it was written allows, in this instance, to make the news seem current to our situation today, so that the full effect of the source can be felt. I hope this leads to a promising and intelligent discussion this evening on ATS.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Oh shut up your such a liar!


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I've seen this one here before, But serves as a good reminder the kind of Tyranny that can happen when governments decide the will of the people does not matter.


CX

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

benrl
I've seen this one here before,


Yep, was posted on ATS many moons ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CX.
edit on 4/11/13 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure that I understand the point of this article, and I think it plays at a larger question that I have about Gun Rights in general.

If The Second Amendment is legally repealed following the constitutionally laid out method of doing so, gun ownership in the United States could become a thing of the past.

Understanding the state of the Prison System in the United States, I am always curious to know how many people would actually risk their lives, and their families' lives, in pursuit of the very guns that were no longer constitutionally protected.

Would people like "The Constitution Party" immediately change their position, or would they themselves decide to support an idea that was repealed from the Constitution?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

MichaelPMaccabee

If The Second Amendment is legally repealed following the constitutionally laid out method of doing so, gun ownership in the United States could become a thing of the past.


The sad thing thats not whats happening, I would be fine if they followed the amendment process and it was ratified by all 50 states.

No problem with that.

That will never happen, its death by a thousand cuts, lawmakers are trying to attack the 2nd piecemeal by passing restrictions and furthering the regulation of the 2nd.

Rather than using the constitutionally laid out method to address their concerns they are using methods that bypass that to get their agenda further along.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Legally, the second amendment could never be done away with.

Not "constitutionally".

The language used in it's writing was for a specific purpose: to avoid that ever happening. The phrase "shall not be infringed" is laced with finality. As if to say "debate over, deal is done".

So, while the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch could, in all of their political dancing and endless bills, attempt to change the Constitution to make this amendment null, they could not. No matter what Bill they introduce, it would not change this final, undeniable freedom that all humans possess:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

gatorboi117
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Legally, the second amendment could never be done away with.

Not "constitutionally".

The language used in it's writing was for a specific purpose: to avoid that ever happening. The phrase "shall not be infringed" is laced with finality. As if to say "debate over, deal is done".

So, while the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch could, in all of their political dancing and endless bills, attempt to change the Constitution to make this amendment null, they could not. No matter what Bill they introduce, it would not change this final, undeniable freedom that all humans possess:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


They put the amendment process for a reason, it was so that with changing times, the people could decide.

I am not one of those the Constitution was perfect, I understand its a set of Ideals to strive for, and that with changing times it could be altered.

BUT that would take an agreement by all states, and not some whim by one political party.

It would be all well and could if they left it at that, Don't touch the 2nd, unless by amendment.

Instead we are getting infringement in the form of increasing regulation, its a cowardice move, as people with the Anti-gun agenda know an amendment would never pass.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

benrl

MichaelPMaccabee

If The Second Amendment is legally repealed following the constitutionally laid out method of doing so, gun ownership in the United States could become a thing of the past.


The sad thing thats not whats happening, I would be fine if they followed the amendment process and it was ratified by all 50 states.

No problem with that.

That will never happen, its death by a thousand cuts, lawmakers are trying to attack the 2nd piecemeal by passing restrictions and furthering the regulation of the 2nd.

Rather than using the constitutionally laid out method to address their concerns they are using methods that bypass that to get their agenda further along.


Every law restricting gun ownership -is- constitutional according to the body the Constitution has delegated to interpret the document. No governmental body is acting outside of what the Supreme Court has deemed Constitutional in regards to gun control.

So, if the government isn't acting unconstitutionally according to the body the constitution has set up to interpret the law, it is illegal to resist the gun control measures.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

gatorboi117
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Legally, the second amendment could never be done away with.

Not "constitutionally".

The language used in it's writing was for a specific purpose: to avoid that ever happening. The phrase "shall not be infringed" is laced with finality. As if to say "debate over, deal is done".

So, while the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch could, in all of their political dancing and endless bills, attempt to change the Constitution to make this amendment null, they could not. No matter what Bill they introduce, it would not change this final, undeniable freedom that all humans possess:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


www.archives.gov...

Article V of the Constitution was written to give a clear path to changing the Constitution. You may be shocked to discover that the Second Amendment, as the name implies, was itself a change to the original Constitution following this very process, and is subject to its rule.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

MichaelPMaccabee

benrl

MichaelPMaccabee

If The Second Amendment is legally repealed following the constitutionally laid out method of doing so, gun ownership in the United States could become a thing of the past.


The sad thing thats not whats happening, I would be fine if they followed the amendment process and it was ratified by all 50 states.

No problem with that.

That will never happen, its death by a thousand cuts, lawmakers are trying to attack the 2nd piecemeal by passing restrictions and furthering the regulation of the 2nd.

Rather than using the constitutionally laid out method to address their concerns they are using methods that bypass that to get their agenda further along.


Every law restricting gun ownership -is- constitutional according to the body the Constitution has delegated to interpret the document. No governmental body is acting outside of what the Supreme Court has deemed Constitutional in regards to gun control.

So, if the government isn't acting unconstitutionally according to the body the constitution has set up to interpret the law, it is illegal to resist the gun control measures.




When ever a "gun" Incident happens, its usually becomes pretty clear what the will of the people is, with some emotional pandering aside, the strong majority is against further regulation.

The 2nd exist to ensure the government never forgets the will of the people, something this OP points out clearly.

At a time when they push more laws, when the majority of the populous is against such things, the 2nd simply become more important.

Trust the system that brought NSA spying, Drone strikes, Extraordinary rendition, and Enhanced integration interpreting the constitution?

We all see what that gets us, now more than ever a strong 2nd is important.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gatorboi117
 


You really cheesed me off at first with this little bit of trickery but the point is well taken. What is important to remember here which has already been stated and I will reiterate is the 2nd amendment is to protect the people of this nation from an over reaching government. A people should not fear their government. A government should fear its people.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

benrl
When ever a "gun" Incident happens, its usually becomes pretty clear what the will of the people is, with some emotional pandering aside, the strong majority is against further regulation.

The 2nd exist to ensure the government never forgets the will of the people, something this OP points out clearly.

At a time when they push more laws, when the majority of the populous is against such things, the 2nd simply become more important.

Trust the system that brought NSA spying, Drone strikes, Extraordinary rendition, and Enhanced integration interpreting the constitution?

We all see what that gets us, now more than ever a strong 2nd is important.


You are actually beginning to speak to my point.

If one, like yourself, believes that "The System" is acting unconstitutionally when they make a gun control law that outlaws their guns, even though such a law is deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, would they be willing to become criminals to keep a gun?
edit on 4-11-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

MichaelPMaccabee

benrl
When ever a "gun" Incident happens, its usually becomes pretty clear what the will of the people is, with some emotional pandering aside, the strong majority is against further regulation.

The 2nd exist to ensure the government never forgets the will of the people, something this OP points out clearly.

At a time when they push more laws, when the majority of the populous is against such things, the 2nd simply become more important.

Trust the system that brought NSA spying, Drone strikes, Extraordinary rendition, and Enhanced integration interpreting the constitution?

We all see what that gets us, now more than ever a strong 2nd is important.


You are actually beginning to speak to my point.

If one, like yourself, believes that "The System" is acting unconstitutionally when they make a gun control law that outlaws their guns, even though such a law is deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, would they be willing to become criminals to keep a gun?
edit on 4-11-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)


Molon Labe my friend.

I violate laws I find unjust on a near constant basis.

I don't recommend it to others, but for myself its my little stand against injustice.

Would I take that to being a felon? who knows, but funny, I seem to have misplaced all my guns... Wonder where they went.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I respect civil disobedience, and believe me, I'm not passing judgement on anyone. I really am just curious as to how this would actually play out in a real world scenario.

Personally, I think the majority of guns would go away from the public very quickly if a ban was enacted, because I don't think the vast majority of people in the US are interested in civil disobedience or criminal disobedience.

Once that happened, a generation or two would pass and then gun ownership would be as foreign as human ownership.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There seems to be a problem though. The name National Guard did not get used until 1903, Before that they were called Militias.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





If one, like yourself, believes that "The System" is acting unconstitutionally when they make a gun control law that outlaws their guns, even though such a law is deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, would they be willing to become criminals to keep a gun?


Would I be willing to be come a criminal if and or when my government decided to try and take away my rights? It doesn't have to be guns... it could be just coming to a website and... damn, daring comment to a subject something like this.

But, back to the guns...

Yes. I would accept the scarlet letter of being a political criminal for refusing to surrender my firearms.

Made that choice a long time ago.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


It's getting late and I would like to say a few things, before bedtime, after reading your comments leading here...

This nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty. It was an escape from centuries of rule by wealth and royalty and a system that created classes of people that were bound to serves those set above them. They had little or no say in anything... in the laws they were subject to, in wars they were forced to fight or in how well they prospered no matter how hard they toiled.

That's just a few of the motivations that led us here.

Now, here we are in the magnificent 21st century. Our government and corporate hierarchy rose to become a new class of royalty and their desire was to merge 8+ billion humans into a single body of people. Some call this the 'globalist agenda'.

To reach this point, there was one nation standing in the way because it had this radical constitution and ideal that was specifically designed to head off just such an agenda.

The US could have never been defeated by war... so the first thing was to cripple it from within. To do this, our induustrial plant was allowed to flee to foreign shores, taking with it millions and millions of jobs, all but rendering the great middle class extinct. All those jobs and all the revenue it sent to run this country, is gone.

If there was an attack on the US today, we would have no steel industry to produce the materials we would need to build the tools of self defense. The ships we build today... the carrier George HW Bush and that new destroyer everyone is talking about? The steel that built them did not come from the US. In fact... we can't even make bullets anymore as the last lead smelting plant in Missouri is closing up shop.

The globalist almost have us where they want us but for one problem... we are a nation with civilians armed to the teeth.

Depending on what numbers you choose to believe, the US has between 80 million and 200 million firearms owned by between 70 and 100 million citizens. So, even if the UN or China or Russia were to land multiple divisions on our shores... and even though our own armed forces would quickly become depleted of equipment... 70-to-100 million people with guns and knowledgeable in their use... would make such a a military adventure more than problematic.

Millions of armed, partisan warriors fighting for their homeland could be a headache.

So... yeah. The globalist agenda frets this nation being armed and is working like hell to find a way to disassemble the constitution that binds them together and keeps them standing. It's also a pain in the neck to any domestic desires to turn this nation into something resembling George Orwell s darkest visions of tyranny.

So, in closing... one more time, yes. I am willing to risk the tag of being a political criminal because I won't surrender my guns on demand. I don't do it for me but for a dream of a life that has been almost ripped to shreds... and for a day when we can be the land of the free and home of the brave once again.

I'm comfortable with that...

G'night.
edit on 4-11-2013 by redoubt because: typo repair 1
edit on 4-11-2013 by redoubt because: typo repair2



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



Once that happened, a generation or two would pass and then gun ownership would be as foreign as human ownership.

Interestingly, the same 'final word' of Constitutionality, the SCOTUS, backed up human ownership for quite some time in the US. I don't place a lot of faith in them.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gatorboi117
 


I think my heart skipped a couple beats and I was about to wake up my husband, then I read "Paul Revere, John Hancock"

lol... trying to give me a heart attack are you?
edit on 5-11-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<<   2 >>

log in

join