Armed Coup D'etat Happening on American Soil RIght Now (updated 2x)

a reply to: Klassified

Yeah funny like a heart attack. I stay away from County cops. Can't stand them. They like to act like John Wayne or something. Have gotten into it a couple of times with them. Just a sham

originally posted by: dieseldyk

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DYepes
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

yes absolutely it is. She will just order all the Sheriff's and police chiefs in America to do this same to any Mayor that does not want to curb the second Amendment just like NYC or Chicago. Which will of course lead to some very colorful event. Hillary is the devil the country will be damned if she gets in.

But in any case, lets us hope justice can prevail in this small town.

LOL What? Gun rights people have it all wrong in regard to democrats and liberals. I don't want your guns taken. I want registration, like a car. Waiting periods, classes-like a 5 hour class. The ability to have a gun safe and use it. It's best for people who want to own guns to register them and to make sure to change that registration when selling or gifting. If someone gets killed with that gun, the suspicion goes to the owner of record. If gun rights people stay out of my bedroom and body I will certainly even march against any extreme change to the 2nd amendment. People seem to forget the definition of the word liberal sometimes. It is frustrating. And, if you want to be in a well-regulated militia, join one, they exist. You are not your own militia on your own.

Progressive say what? You're the one that has it all wrong

Uhhh Second Amendment "shall not infringe?" means hand off, that means all laws and regulations regarding firearms are constitutionally null and void and the 2nd Amendment may be the only right that is entrenched in the constitution and therefore unamendable and irrevocable given the words "shall not infringe." But I think the Entire Bill of Rights is likewise entrenched and unamendable as they derive directly from God to us.

And the 2nd amendment right is not tied to a militia as you state. When the founders said militia they meant army, but did not believe that the word army was appropriate because they did not want the US to have a standing army so they used the word militia instead. The need for a well regulated army is the reason the right exists, it does not qualify or limit the right to bear arms.

To better understand the 2nd amendment I added a few words for clarity

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

So it goes THE REASON FOR THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT, IT'S UNAMENDABLE

The second amendment is there so that citizens can own firearms the equivalent of any military in the world. Citizens hold these firearms to be ready if and when called upon to defend the nation. The founders didn't leave it to chance, they spelled it out in black and white, they did not leave it to chance that progressives would whittle it down to a right to own a "sporting" gun for the purposes of hunting. This is a right necessary for national defense, the purpose of which is to disperse military grade firearms into the community.

Sorry if that hurts your progressive sensibilities but that's what it says and that's what it means.

Penn and Teller on the 2nd Ammendment

Sheer genius, and clearly shows what the 2nd Amendment means.

a reply to: poncho1982

I stole this from the comments off that video cause I felt like it summed it up amazingly…and I knew it would be missed by those needing to see it.

The 2nd Amendment only protects state militias?

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.

Who has the right to arms, a "well regulated militia" or "The People"?

A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and bear food, shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food, a "well balanced breakfast" or "The People"?

See the error in your thinking??

This is the same police who were gonna resign if she took office. Idk but most towns the mayor hires and fires police heads so she can easily do a shake up not need lawyers. Fight fire with fire.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I live just outside Chicago. Nothing like this surprises me any more...

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: poncho1982

I stole this from the comments off that video cause I felt like it summed it up amazingly…and I knew it would be missed by those needing to see it.

The 2nd Amendment only protects state militia? ______
____Who has the right to arms, a "well regulated militia" or "The People"?
____
Who has the right to food, a "well balanced breakfast" or "The People"?

See the error in your thinking??

Uuuuum, no I don't.
It's in simple black and white that the people have the right to breakfast..

I don't see how that's able to be misinterpreted.

b

a reply to: Bspiracy

Lmao...that is all...
2nd.

originally posted by: bullcat
About time a colour revolution happened in America, ironic since America is the instigator of coloured revolutions in other countries.

What mental asylum left the doors unlocked exactly? ~$heopleNation

I'm a St. Louis resident. Just what this city needs... More outrageousness.

originally posted by: DYepes
holy smokes. There should be a Federal probe into this incident right now!

No, the Feds need to stay out of it. If the residents of St. Louis had any sense, they'd be all over their local magistrates and municipal judge to deal with it.

This will be a real life test of how far a tyrannical public leader can go before the citizenry intervene.

a reply to: schuyler

But technically it really is a Coup happening. If I took a bunch of police pals down town and made up a bunch of false things about the mayor and we just kicked her out without even following rules or laws like this one now happening, it would sure sound like a coup attempt.

Granted Coup's are usually reserved for taking over a country and not just some back woods town.

They should drop a 2000 pounder on city hall and in essence, kick out the mayor who isn't supposed to be in there now. I would enjoy this. Gosh, but people would be killed? I guess they should have thought of that before showing the world just how corrupt they are.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Crazy this isn't being discussed by the MSM. All I keep seeing is the unrest (it's nahhtt a riahhhttt) in Baltimore.

This is very disturbing to me, that all it takes to remove someone, who hasn't even been in the office yet, is someone's word and a LEO. Talk about a sore loser!

I guess it is a sign of the times to come here in the USA. God, I miss the old days.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's corporate wackjobs throwing a hissy fit because they couldn't rig the elections as always.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DYepes
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

yes absolutely it is. She will just order all the Sheriff's and police chiefs in America to do this same to any Mayor that does not want to curb the second Amendment just like NYC or Chicago. Which will of course lead to some very colorful event. Hillary is the devil the country will be damned if she gets in.

But in any case, lets us hope justice can prevail in this small town.

LOL What? Gun rights people have it all wrong in regard to democrats and liberals. I don't want your guns taken. I want registration, like a car. Waiting periods, classes-like a 5 hour class. The ability to have a gun safe and use it. It's best for people who want to own guns to register them and to make sure to change that registration when selling or gifting. If someone gets killed with that gun, the suspicion goes to the owner of record. If gun rights people stay out of my bedroom and body I will certainly even march against any extreme change to the 2nd amendment. People seem to forget the definition of the word liberal sometimes. It is frustrating. And, if you want to be in a well-regulated militia, join one, they exist. You are not your own militia on your own.

What democrats and liberals want is control. Control of if you can get a gun, a list of who has guns and where you live, etc. They want that so that WHEN it is decided that guns will be taken, it will be an easier process or a longer process of slowly stopping people from becoming or remaining armed. They want to disarm the livestock so the livestock is completely defenceless. Sure...a rifle or handgun is next to nothing in an armed conflict between the people and the government, but why take the chance. WHEN we all finally get off our asses and decide to take OUR country back, either some military will join us (hell...they may even start it) or they won't. If they don't, the militias will have to result to terrorist style attacks, at least in the beginning and for that, a rifle or handgun is valuable.

While I am not a avid gun owner nor a member of any such group, I understand some simple, logical things. If one group in government wants to take guns, control our money by taking and redistributing and constantly cause race problems (turn on the news...again) and the other doesn't...I know where to look for my enemy. Everyone's enemy that DOESN'T want to end up with a dictatorship run with a puppet and controlled by people like the Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the lot that will lie, cheat and steal and do so to your face in order to control what you are allowed to do, think and say.

THAT is how I see the progressives. Progress for them...and we should simply crawl back into our pens until they decide to throw us some feed.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

What's the point of having elected officials if folks can eject them without due process or, as far as I can tell from the OP, any proof? I haven't been able to find any more recent information about this. On whose authority are the police acting? I'm glad this post is here because apparently it isn't newsworthy, although the implications of elected officials being ejected without due process are pretty heavy. That's one of the last... Even... Illusory bits of democracy left.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If she were fairly elected into office and then forcefully impeached it wouldn't be "priceless", it'd be a shame. It's incredible how many will stand up in support of tyranny, as long as they're on the side that's gonna win. Freedom applies equally or it isn't freedom at all, and it's important to reject tyranny in any form, even when it supports something you disagree with. You don't have to like a fairly elected official, as long as the elections are fair (which, is it's own bit of confusion, unfortunately)

a reply to: RickyD

You know whats funny? The fact that A militia was always armed by its members personal firearms SO if you make it so only militias can have weapons you disarm the very people who make up the militia!

a reply to: yuppa

That was my point

I thought the analogy used to clarify the 2nd amendment was beautifully done. It takes all the confusion out of the way they wrote it. Don't get me wrong at the time it was written it wasn't confused a bit. However these days it seems to get quite lost in the propaganda.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: schuyler

Law enforcement are illegally preventing her from physically getting into City Hall where she must go to carry out her elected office. How is that not a coup?

The headline would have you believe "Armed Coup D'etat Happening on American Soil RIght Now"

Now what do you think when you read a headline like that? It SOUNDS like something BIG! is going on with the entire country. What do you think of when you hear the words "Coup D'etat"? You think of soldiers in the street and the government of a country being taken over by, usually, a military leader. You think of executions and rioting.

Now what is REALLY going on? A pissing match in a very small town (which has been going on for years) where the newly elected mayor was not allowed to take office by every other existing member of the city government. It may very well be the case that the "elected" mayor did so via voter fraud and that it was this person attempting the coup against the established government which fought back and PREVENTED the "coup" from taking place. At this point THAT'S the accusation, and we don't know. YOU say "illegally," without really knowing if that is true or not.

And what is going to happen now? It will go to court, and the court will rule on whether the allegations of voter fraud are sufficient to bar the mayor, and if not, she will be forcefully put into office. This will likely happen at a county level.

My objection here is the sensationalism AND deception of the headline out of proportion to what has actually happened. "Armed Coup D'etat Happening on American Soil Rlght Now" (sic)

"Armed coup"? Really? the cops, who happen to carry sidearms, sided with the town's City Attorney and simply refused to use their "armed" power to force the City Attorney to hand over the keys. They did not pull their weapons. They did not aim them at the mayor. They did not arrest or jail the mayor. Did you expect them to jail their boss? So that makes this an "armed coup"?

Ridiculous. Sensationalistic. Deceptive. Engineered to excite. Yellow journalism. Amateurish. Laughable.

A more responsible headline would have been something like:

"Small town mayor refused keys to City Hall."

is that news? Sure, of local interest, and anywhere else on the back pages, but it simply does not deserve the biggest headline of the day for an International site. Here we have riots in Baltimore with people getting killed, a major earthquake on Nepal with thousands killed, and what does ATS come up with?

An "Armed Coup d'etat" that is really "Small town mayor refused keys to City Hall."

I would expect a typical ATS user to post something like this. It happens every day, but it is really a sad case when the site itself comes up with this stuff. Talk about crying wolf, the problem here is that it desensitizes people. What if something big REALLY happened. ATS has already used up its sensationalistic headlines. You ought to be ashamed of this. Really.

originally posted by: schuyler
This happened several days ago and the more sensationalistic media are just getting wind of it. Kinloch is a town with a population of 300 and is well known for being utterly corrupt. Kinloch is 94% African-American. The headline here makes it sound as if a Coup is happening in America right now, like to the whole country. But, as usual with sensationalistic media, what's really happening is a very small town is having a hissy fit that isn't worked out yet. There are no tanks rumbling the street, no troops barricading, no round-ups of citizens. Just a couple of armed cops supporting one side instead of the other.

Sensationalistic media? A lot of hype? And yet for a town of only 300 people, it took 20 armed cops to stop this lady from entering the building?