Ron Paul Warns of 2nd American Revolution if Obama Bans Guns

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Observor

 

any chance you have something to validate this statement ?

No. The kids were asked to leave the premises by their parents before the shooting started

at least, that's not what we saw or know to be true.

I stand corrected. It appears some children too died. However I saw some MSM program which states what I said. I will try to locate it and post it.

ETA: Here is a reference

The girl was among the 21 children and 14 adults who left the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, a decade ago during a 51-day stand-off following a botched raid by US federal agents.

how can any massacre be 'justified' ????

Psychopaths do that all the time. So if you find someone justifying a massacre, you know who you are dealing with.

Indeed. And those who keep reelecting them, what about them?

whoever said they wouldn't be targeted ??
both the CFR and the TriLats have 'membership rosters', ya know ?

Not sure what that has to do with people reelecting proven psychopaths. It takes psychopaths to elect proven psychopaths.

reply to post by Observor

I will try to locate it and post it

no need but feel free if you're so inclined.

the 'story' pumped out to the public wasn't quite representative of what was openly displayed on live TV ... no offense intended here, but later generations aren't supposed to know the truth.

imagine what damage that would cause to the overall program of "Unc Sam knows best" ??

Not sure what that has to do with people reelecting proven psychopaths

ummmm, then maybe you have a lot to learn ??
if interested, you might want to start here ... link ... and there is sooooo very much more available.

Ok it might just be me, but I'm having serious trouble finding the entire video. It always gets to a certain point and just stops... WTF?

"When any nation mistrusts it's citizens with guns , it is sending a clear message that it no longer trusts it's citizenry , because such a government has evil plans"

-George Washington-

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Observor

 

I will try to locate it and post it

no need but feel free if you're so inclined.

I edited my previous post to add a reference. Some children left, some remained.

Not sure what that has to do with people reelecting proven psychopaths

ummmm, then maybe you have a lot to learn ??
if interested, you might want to start here ... link ... and there is sooooo very much more available.

I have heard all the possible excuses. But no one put a gun to people's heads and make them vote the way they do.

One big reason why psychopaths continue to flourish is the rest making excuses for them. When you can recognise the psychopaths roaming next to you, you may be able to change the situation. Keep makling excuses for them and blaming some "elite", things will stay the course.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Gawd this is pathetic...no revolution for the starving and other more important problems in America, threaten to take guns...bam..threat of revolution.

Americans and their priorities are in need of some serious help.

i agree.. can you imagine if they took away their iphones O.o

reply to post by Thunder heart woman


You mean the sane voice that thinks states should be able to decide whether they want to follow civil rights laws? The sane voice that would say it's ok for a business to discriminate against you because they don't like the color of your skin or the fact that you are a woman so they will prohibit you from entering their business. You mean that sane voice? www.ronpaul.com...

reply to post by Beavers


"Ben Swann, a local Fox anchor for WXIX-TV in Cincinnati, offered up a fascinating fact-check of some of the stats that the British CNN host has been using.




“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people...the U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents."

source

cap4ur ass

reply to post by Observor

why would it take a gun ?
they did just fine without them at the 'nomination' last year.

i make no excuse for them, why presume i do ?
i gave you a link showing it's been common knowledge for a very long time ... 1979 wasn't just yesterday.

personally, i'd like to see legislation presented that declares an open season on all gun control activists ... perhaps then they'd get a clue that our rights, are non-negotiable.

ETA --> what your link glosses over is the fact that those 'survivors' left weeks and years in advance of the siege.
it was a 51 day ordeal ... that's nearly 2 months and still yet, they decimated the compound, with women and some two dozen (~24) children INSIDE.
and let's not forget the FALSE charges of illegal weapon stockpiling

you can rationalize it in your own mind however you choose, but, good luck convincing anyone the assault was justified

reply to post by Honor93

What makes you think I was justifying the Waco massacre? I called those who justify it psychopaths.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by digital01anarchy

 

So let me get this straight you really think the US military would kill its own people?

Yes. The US gov and military has killed its own people a bunch of times. Just off the top of my head.

Pat Tillman
Kent State Shootings
COINTELPRO killed many political dissidents through the FBI
US Civil War

edit on 10-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Pat Tillman died in friendly fire they didn't kill him for voicing something they didn't like
Kent State Shootings yes was military but you you really believe people wouldnt jump after 100's or thousands of deaths lol get bent
COINTELPRO killed many political dissidents through the FBI thats the FBI not the military

reply to post by Observor

this exchange between you and ThunderHeart

But wait, their massacre was apparently justified.

[color=amber]Apparently

did i misunderstand your reply (in color) ??

yes, i got the psychopath part in a later post but even then you didn't specify who were the psychopaths ... the invaders or the victims.

some ppl still believe the 'victims' were psychopaths and deserved it

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Observor

 

this exchange between you and ThunderHeart

But wait, their massacre was apparently justified.

[color=amber]Apparently

did i misunderstand your reply (in color) ??

yes, i got the psychopath part in a later post but even then you didn't specify who were the psychopaths ... the invaders or the victims.

some ppl still believe the 'victims' were psychopaths and deserved it

I repeated the 'Apparently' to show disagreement with the "justification".

I hope that clears it.

These days, we now are seemingly always doing “battle” with liberals on various forums and social sites so I wanted anyone reading this, to be better armed. One thing I have not seen clarified in the argument on “gun control” ,
I have addressed below –

“In the hands of the military or police only” – This little phrase is spreading like wildfire in the media and in the Left’s agenda to synergize their goal of disarming America. Are they under the impression that our military service men and women come from another planet and are maybe automaton droids that have no emotion or impulse and can “suddenly appear” during an act of crime or murder and save the victims? How about our police personnel, the same?

These human beings are subject to the same freedoms and challenges that the rest of us are. The military and police are our friends, family and neighbors. The argument then leans to “training”. Is it not the right and best choice for any man or woman to learn everything that they can to not only survive, but flourish in a free nation?

Training is available to anyone, anytime. And it should be the agenda of the Right to encourage the expansion of weapons training and hand to hand combat for sport and for defense at all costs. Most people that spend time at gun ranges and training events are surrounded not by “militia” or “military personnel”, but by average American citizens.

So, the weapons should be in whose hands? All of the possible leverage, in any life or death situation should be with whom, exactly? In what way, is that a good idea? In what strange and distant version of Earth is it a "good idea" to remove powerful weapons from a good and hardworking people? That's just it, right? These acts are not done by a "good and hardworking people" by and large. But good and hardworking people can celebrate their efforts with Freedom.

Punish the many, for the acts of a few? And you liberals are TEACHERS, Doctors and Lawyers? That model doesn't work in ANY scenario. Hence, the ridiculous claim that criminalizing over 140 million + people for their free interest to buy whatever weapons they want will never stop mass murders.

The case for "The Gun Show Loophole", "High Capacity Mags" and "Military Style Assault Rifles" is simply put, here. The events that have enraged the nation and call for change would not have been changed by any ADDITIONAL legislation or Executive Orders:

- The guns used were not purchased at gun shows, by criminals.

- 10 round magazines in an armed theatre, mall or school can be "swapped out" within seconds, allowing the shooter to continue any spree, easily. A ban on "high cap mags" will not prevent truckloads of manure from blowing up Federal buildings, etc.

- "Military Style Assault Rifles" are not accessible to the general public. They require a Class 3 Tax Stamp and extensive registration and background check. They operate at "Full Auto" or "Burst Fire" or are shortened or modified in a series of existing regulations. Not since the early 90's has an individual (American citizen) even so much as brandished one of these weapons in an act of "mass killing".

How many people died during the Spanish Inquisition? How many by "assault rifles"? How many people died during the attacks on 9/11? 9 TERRORISTS SHOULD HAVE, BY THE ARMED PEOPLE ON THE PLANES, no more.

The individual was given rights by God, an outside force, not to ever be confused by government. Even if that individual chooses not to believe in God, the system is still perfect. They are not required to and yet they get the same individual rights as designed into the Declaration of Independence! The argument falls into the Constitution, alone, too often!

The Declaration of Independence clearly shows that the life-blood and purpose of this nation is to support one’s initiative and drive to be more and have more, without the hand of tyranny to take it and “re-distribute it”.

47% of this nation…I mean 51% (after the election results)...Believes it is better to have a government take care of them, than to have to go out and get their goals accomplished on their own. This would not be quite as worrisome to the free-thinker, if simultaneously they were NOT trying to disarm those of us that make the cogs turn and feed the beast.

“Why do you need that”? – Great question! Why does a soccer player need a ball, “regulation size”? Why do cars NEED to go over a 100 miles per hour? Why, WHY, WHY??? – The free thinking, non-criminal, average American can buy what they want and the entrepreneurs can build and sell what they want. Bigger, louder and more exciting are all adjectives used to describe the average man’s inherent “interest” in the things he plays with. All innuendos aside, whether it’s a soccer ball, a backyard fire or a firearm –Safety, education and respect to all of it, for what it is, is where we start making change. Starting a fight, telling someone what kind of ANYTHING they can have, you will loose.

Conversely - NO ONE is more qualified to protect my family, friends and neighbors in any location, home, theatre, mall or school than my wife or myself with use of deadly force if our lives are threatened by a would-be murderer. The qualifiers: Timing, training and indisputable right to survive. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

reply to post by Observor

ok, if it was meant as sarcasm, i missed it.
pardon the bark but that event, thought to be 'justified' in anyone's mind, really makes my blood boil.

same goes for Wounded Knee and i'm pretty sure TH would agree.

Originally posted by braydenf

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Gawd this is pathetic...no revolution for the starving and other more important problems in America, threaten to take guns...bam..threat of revolution.

Americans and their priorities are in need of some serious help.

i agree.. can you imagine if they took away their iphones O.o

Ahhh...Folks from Patriarchies, Monarchies and Dictatorships voicing their opinions about us "foolish Americans". Clinging to our guns like pacifiers and blankies...They are symbols, you blood pudding eating, toothless, soon-to-be Muslims by force, UK, artards. Symbols that have been shown to be the pivotol representation of the balance between tyrannical or even under-qualified, treasonous leadership and our demand for like-minded representation in our government.

I can understand your malcontent, though. I’d be a negative lump of uselessness if I knew there was no hope for any democracy or freedom for me, ever - Such as your situation.

Chin up! Drink some more piss-warm "beer" and drown ye ol sorrows. "Dog Save Queen LaTifa" or whatever...

The Bill of Rights, can that be double meaning, Article 2, THRU THE MILITIONS, OR PERSONALY?
Maybe that is the problem?


????

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Nothing will happen. Gun nuts are all talk and no bite.

Why didn't you start a revolution when the first assualt weapons ban took place a couple decades ago?

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".

en.wikipedia.org...


Or for all the current assault weapon bans that have been going on in multiple states for years now?

In addition to New York (see above), Massachusetts and New Jersey have enacted similar bans. Cook County of Illinois has enacted a similar, but more restrictive ban. California enacted one of the first bans on semi-automatic rifles in 1989, adding stricter measures to the law several times since. Connecticut has enacted a partial ban that focuses on assault weapons with certain characteristics. Hawaii and Maryland have assault pistol bans pertaining to assault weapon characteristics only and pistols.

en.wikipedia.org...

Or the patriot act?
Or the NDAA?

Yeah.....that's what I thought.

Guess the only amendment you all care about is the 2nd one. Kind of sad really..

edit on 9-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

I agree with the sentiment that we should care more about other rights and loss of those rights as well. But I think your logic fails on a couple points.

First of all, I don't think there were an overwhelming majority of people who really believed they "were coming for our guns" with the last assault weapon ban. The political and social climate was a little bit different back then.

Secondly, while it may seem that many people "only" care about the second amendment, understand that many people believe the second amendment is necessary to defend the rest of them (potentially from our own leaders if the case may arise-- which I pray it never does.)

And for those who say armed citizenry is nothing compared to a military giant-- that is true, to a degree. But understand that a military giant is less gigantic when many of their numbers may include citizens unwilling to kill their own people under orders.

Also consider-- imagine for a moment (in this rather fantastical and hypothetical situation) that your loved one/s are being held captive, against their will, inside of a building. You have a small band of very well-armed friends (say 10) against 50 "enemy terrorist kidnappers" inside this imaginary building. Now-- in which situation would you feel better about storming the building-- if the guys inside all had handguns, or if they all had only knives?

Imagine that scenario the other way around... you're defending a building that is your home against a group of "invaders." How well would you want them armed? It may not seem at first glance, like an armed citizenry is any kind of protection against a better-armed government-- but no matter how you slice it, an unarmed citizenry makes overt and brutal takeover a no-brainer.

The President --might not-- get to grab your guns.

Breaking news, The full Supreme Court will hear Olrly Taitz on Obama's eligability

www.orlytaitzesq.com...