Police Admit That Armored Vehicles Are for Fighting “Constitutionalists” With Guns

The video is obviously made with a bias, I would reserve judgement till I heard the whole thing.

I tend to agree that what he said is in itself correct and the vehicles are to be used against American people who do not share their view of how things should be.

I am curious why the interview in the video is cut abruptly short after his one statement and would like to have heard the whole thing. Easy to take someones words out of context when someone shows 1-2 sentences out of a conversation and throws the rest away.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Honestly though what is that vehicle gonna do for them....they gotta get out of it sometime.

a reply to: mwood

the full video has now been posted on infowars after the 9 minute video the sheriff put out claiming bias as well. There are now protests being organized for this saturday. This thread doesn't seem to really be getting much attention

I guess it's a harder pill for people to swallow when the police state issue is associated with the truth rather then putting a racial spin on it to get us all fighting.

I don't know, I find myself increasingly distant in social situations... there is a tension in the air ... everywhere. TPTB want us to fight each other, want to have us fight the police.. want the police to fear the people...

so long as they can do this no one is looking at their dirty deals being done under the table we are all sitting at.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: kdyam

Constitutionalists aren't necessarily members of the militia.

They have different names for a reason....

I agree, but I will add this, those that aren't most likely will be or will form their own when TSHTF and we have to take our country back.

I hope to never see that but things need to change here.

originally posted by: mwood

I am curious why the interview in the video is cut abruptly short after his one statement and would like to have heard the whole thing. Easy to take someones words out of context when someone shows 1-2 sentences out of a conversation and throws the rest away.

Ya I have been trying to find a longer version of this.. When I do I will add it up here just so we know.. But he specifically stated Constitutionalists so.. I dunno..

But if anyone else finds a longer version of this share it here cause I am curious to what else he had to say..

a reply to: akira131

Can you post that link please?

Here is the video.. It is more extended that what I had. goto 2:45 to continue from the one my vid left off...


And it still cut off.. But they made the point that this is for the people with guns....

It's time to honor Mr. Molatav and his wonderful invention; The Molatav Cocktail, the poor mans answer to the armored vehicle! a reply to: ThichHeaded

originally posted by: Bilk22
Why didn't the interviewer follow up with - "Don't you believe in the Constitution?"

Why didn't he ask:

1. "What is a Constitutionalist?"

2. "Is it someone that believes in the Constitution?"

3. "Do you believe in the Constitution?"

4. "If you believe, does that make you a Constitutionalist?"

5. "If you don't believe, how are you a ^%$!#ing COP?"

Peace

a reply to: ThichHeaded

But they made the point that this is for the people with guns....

That has always been the case, they just used different words about who has them.
Now I wonder what would happen if he just stuck to the word criminal.

I bet a good chunk of people that are mad right now would not be.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Now I wonder what would happen if he just stuck to the word criminal.
I bet a good chunk of people that are mad right now would not be.

Of course not.. If they said we have these to take out criminal behavior that have better weapons than we have.. I would be liegit with it..

But He specifically stated constitutionalists and people who had alot of weapons..

Those are 2 very different things..

Someone posted on YT that he was referring to the nutcases.. How far does that word go deeming someone a nutcase?

I had a friend a long time ago who collected mad ass amounts of knives and swords.. Is he a nutcase? or does he have a hard on for fine cutlery?

The definition for nutcase is broad as is constitutionalists because most people talking in this post here can be considered either.. And to them we are most definately both.

@Jude..

I think she was winging it. I may be wrong though..

Damn... I was hoping it was going to be a case of 'leading the witness'-type questioning

... but he just came out and said it without hesitation.

Damn

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I cannot fathom how anyone could think that the preservation of Constitutional values is a threat to security on any level, whether it be national or local, unless those holding that view intend to ensure that those Constitutional rights and values would be violated. Or perhaps they know that those rights are going to be violated, and instead of protecting the rights of the citizens they wish to crack down on them. It seems that there is a huge rise in criminalizing patriots. Anyone who would use weapons to fight for the preservation of their Constitutional rights is a patriot in my book. And not only that, but all the Founding Fathers would have considered such individuals patriots as well. This is quite obvious given their writings on the subject. John Adams said "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

And probably my favorite Jefferson quote: "...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

One of my absolute favorite quotes from Abraham Lincoln came from his first inaugural address: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Those are the words of a man who truly understood the system of government we have in place. Those in power, including the police, have forgotten their place. They have forgotten that the inalienable rights of every single American citizen is steadfast and is never to be trampled upon.

Dishonest Abe was a master of saying what the people wanted to hear and then doing the opposite. How many news papers were ran out of business due to their opposition to Abe? How many congress men were deported by him? How many southern women and children did Sherman kill in march to Atlanta? The same Sherman who desimated the native indians. The Able Lincoln that is written in history is a fabrication of history.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

So you are just mad about his choice of words.

If he used a different word starting with c then there would be no issue.

And people wonder why cops have them in the first place.

If we didn't allow them to use them for person/group a, they could never then switch their focus to person group b.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ThichHeaded

So you are just mad about his choice of words.

If he used a different word starting with c then there would be no issue.

And people wonder why cops have them in the first place.

If we didn't allow them to use them for person/group a, they could never then switch their focus to person group b.

Because I wouldnt have thought about it until my weekly meeting wit my local crazy group.. Someone would have brought it up and I would have thought about how shady it seemed and I would have got my pitchfork ready..

I do believe in the constitution man.. I am one of the few people on ATS that are still pissed Ron Paul got ripped in the last 2 elections..

So I would have probably caught on to it.. But it would have been more professional if he said criminal.. I already know I am on a list somewhere.. I make posts like this.. I goto protests.. It isnt hard to figure out who the criminals are..

I honestly think the average American is starting to see something is terribly wrong with our police force and by extension, the DHS who serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever outside of turning America into a police state within our own borders.

You can only call people "extremists" as it pertains to government abuses and outrage when they are in the extreme minority. When the extremists turn into the majority of the population, you call them..... The new government.

Corporate greed and corrupt politics aside, when you start to rob the everyday citizen of civil liberty and subject them to taxation without representation while simultaneously humiliating them for feeling patriotic about "terrorism" by wiping your ass with our founding documents, you start to find, not as many people are as complacent as you had hoped.

There is unrest brewing and it's gaining steady tempo. Those in "charge" would be wise to proceed with caution.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ThichHeaded

But they made the point that this is for the people with guns....

That has always been the case, they just used different words about who has them.
Now I wonder what would happen if he just stuck to the word criminal.

I bet a good chunk of people that are mad right now would not be.

Excellent point! Agreeing with you frightens me, it just feels... wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------

This is ONE cop giving ONE scenario where this vehicle could be used and very helpful.

I'm just as worried about the nutjobs living in the US as I am about the nutjobs overseas.

a reply to: Domo1

Cold day in hell I guess

This is ONE cop giving ONE scenario where this vehicle could be used and very helpful.

Ya I think the bigger point was how they couldn't handle her calling it what it was, a desensitization.

Fort Apache the Bronx anyone?
The very cop shops are death traps.....

a reply to: Sremmos80

Ya I think the bigger point was how they couldn't handle her calling it what it was, a desensitization.

That's more like it



While I will agree that they didn't handle that line of questioning well, I really have no problem with cops getting these things. They're strictly defensive. They make a ton of sense, and it doesn't make sense for the military to just scrap them when they are totally useable. You can go buy your own. It's like a big ass bullet proof vest. They also aren't strictly relegated for one type of situation. They're wonderful in a variety of disaster situations.

I would be more pissed if our tax dollars were put into these things and they were just scrapped.

a reply to: Domo1

I would be more pissed if our tax dollars were put into these things and they were just scrapped.

I still don't like something that was used in a war zone used on the people.

Or if we must have them, not parade them around all the time and use them in situations that call for them.
Which shouldn't be that many really.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You know someone is going to point out that most of the things that the police have is from the military?

Hell they have been using lrad on protesters since 04 at the RNC in nyc.. or the police had them since then as far as I am aware and they have been consistently u using them I think since the g 20 in pgh in 09.. now you see them as common as police cars as far as military weapons are concerned.

As I said I am on the right side of the criminal spectrum.