How long before the War for Civil Rights??

imported post

molonlabetn wrote:

DreQo wrote:

Let me propose to everyone a scenerio:

You have, in your house, legally owned firearms. There has been a legitmate, large scale emergency in your area, and "they" determine that, for a period of time, all firearms must be confiscated in order to ensure the safety of the public. Before you have a chance to contact anyone to question this obviously unconstitutional decision, two policeman show up at your door stating they know you have firearms and that you must surrender them.

For the sake of the scenerio, this happens tomorrow.

What would you do?? Try to reason with them? If that didn't work? Give in? Lock them out? What if they tried to break in? How far would you go?

I honestly don't know what I would do. Part of my mind starts chanting "cold dead fingers, cold dead fingers.." while the other part of my mind says "umm yeah, even if I think I'm right according to the constitution, I am DEFINATELY going to spend quite a few nights in jail for this."

So what would you do?

Click to expand...

"Leave this property at once, there is nothing here which you have the authority to sieze"

They're not really authorities if they are breaking the law... I would deal with armed home invasion quite harshly. Nonetheless... I would be shocked if any of the local LE in my area went along with a confiscation order, having families of their own...

Click to expand...

Most of the cops I've met are pretty decent folk...until they put on their Darth Vader gear...

But yes, most local cops won't go along with it which is why:

1. Most major city police forces are now being run by CIA.
2. All police are being encouraged to recruit straight from the military- they have conducted checkpoints and raids already, they take orders and do often not have any idea what real freedom ever looked like.
3. Private Blackwater security forces are paid to take peoples' arms by force.
4. The US has said that in a big enough crisis without national guard available (ya, they're all overseas) that foreign and UN troops will be used to "restore order".

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/red_alert_means_you_will_be_a_prisoner.htm

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Governor James E. McGreevey, Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's Director of the Office of Counter-Terrorism, stated, "If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home."[/font] [font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]The article also stated, "A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate." It went on to report that Caspersen said, "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out."[/font]

Click to expand...

http://www.infowars.com/ouwmar9901.html

If you've never seen this guys "police state" videos you should check them out...I used to think he was a total and complete nut.

He actually has video of the marines staging drills of forcibly removing people from their homes. The hired actors were instructed to say things like "I'm an American I have rights!" and "you can't take my guns!" while they are forcibly removed...it's all actually on video and makes you want to puke when you watch it.

imported post

About coming for *your* guns. First they have to come. Second they have to know what you (still) have that they have records for. Third they have to know where they are. Fourth they have to know about the ones that they do not have records for and find those.

Not all firearms records are available, nor do they accurately reflect what is where and owned by whom, more especially here in the Western states where firearms are traded like bubble gum and without records.

And the feds know ALL of this, so they will act accordingly. YOU just have to anticipate this and prepare accordingly as well.

imported post

No rebellion will ever happen. Even if they outlaw guns everybody will just hide them in barrels buried in the back yard or something and say, "I'll just save these until we really need them."

The fact is, if we used the criteria that the founders did, there would have been a war 150 years ago..... er............... yeah....


It's just not going to happen. When you have 50 guys with automatic weapons and grenade launchers pulling the wall off your house at night and flash bangs going off everywhere, what do you think is going to happen to you?

On the same note. During any catastrophic event like Katrina, I don't think everybody is going to let the cops take guns now. In fact, if I were a cop I wouldn't want to be going to anybody's house during a disaster. I think many gun owners are going to have a shoot-first-ask-questions later policy after the Katrina gun grab.

imported post

No rebellion will ever happen. Even if they outlaw guns everybody will just hide them in barrels buried in the back yard or something and say, "I'll just save these until we really need them."

The fact is, if we used the criteria that the founders did, there would have been a war 150 years ago..... er............... yeah....

Click to expand...

Well I'll make sure to dig up your back yard for some extra ammo while the rest of us are fighting for our freedom.

imported post

Someone mentioned earlier about camps built for "illegal aliens" and such. I've been telling people that I smell somethign fishy with this whole immigration thing. The politicians screw us if they "enforce" it or not. If there is nothing done, we are flooded with illegals. If something is done, the government will justify requring SS numbers for getting jobs (you don't actually need one atm), build a fence on the border (which also keeps people inside from getting out), and other such things.

It's just a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't

imported post

DreQo wrote:

Not true. alcohol only DIRECTLY effects the individual ingesting it. Cigarettes, when lit, spread the toxins and chemicals through-out the room, free for anyone to breath (whether they know it or not.) The extreme of that would be to mix a big bucket of ammonia and chlorine in the middle of wal-mart, then watch while everyone inhales chlorine gas.

Click to expand...

This is only true of alcohol when the person consuming doesn't get behing the wheel, or drink too much and start spewing forth from the mouth, and on and on. That's where I think your wrong. I'll give you that cigarettes have a more immediate impact on the individual and others around them, but I don't think you can say that alcohol only directly effects the individual ingesting it. Sure, only the person drinking it gets the buzz, but the results of that person drinking it can impact others around them.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

DreQo wrote:

Not true. alcohol only DIRECTLY effects the individual ingesting it. Cigarettes, when lit, spread the toxins and chemicals through-out the room, free for anyone to breath (whether they know it or not.) The extreme of that would be to mix a big bucket of ammonia and chlorine in the middle of wal-mart, then watch while everyone inhales chlorine gas.

Click to expand...

This is only true of alcohol when the person consuming doesn't get behing the wheel, or drink too much and start spewing forth from the mouth, and on and on. That's where I think your wrong. I'll give you that cigarettes have a more immediate impact on the individual and others around them, but I don't think you can say that alcohol only directly effects the individual ingesting it. Sure, only the person drinking it gets the buzz, but the results of that person drinking it can impact others around them.

Click to expand...

Direct your attention to the word, in my original post, that is highlighted in all CAPS. The word is "DIRECTLY". Driving, beating, raping, killing, etc are all decisions made BY THE PERSON, not the alcohol. I have, and know plenty of others who have, been drunk to, or near the point of, complete incapacitation, on multiple occasions. None of these people, myself included, have EVER driven drunk, or hurt anyone. Alcohol DOES NOT make you do things you normally wouldn't do...it can simply effect your judgement.

Smoking a cigarette near someone else DIRECTLY POLLUTES THE AIR the other person is breathing, and introduces the toxins and cancer causing chemicals into their body WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

That is the difference between alcohol and smoking. If drinking alcohol caused the people around you to get drunk, too, then they'd be the same thing.

Yes I understand other people can be effected by someone who drinks, but it is not a DIRECT effect. There are many other factors that are involved. Lighting a cigarette and burning those chemicals into the air DIRECTLY EFFECTS other people.

imported post

molonlabetn wrote:

... I would be shocked if any of the local LE in my area went along with a confiscation order, having families of their own...

Click to expand...

This is why they bring in po-lice from faciast states like NJ and thugs from private security companies.

Katrina is (again) a perfect example of this.

imported post

Out of pure and simple curiosity (I'm nor trying to ruffle feathers, I just want info):

What is the legal recourse if you DON'T follow the directives of a private security officer (e.g. Blackwater 'operative')? at least in texas the definition of a Peace Officer is pretty clear, and so is that of a Security Officer.

Again - just wondering for information's sake.

imported post

seburiel wrote:

Again - just wondering for information's sake.

Click to expand...

Great question! I to am curious.

imported post

seburiel wrote:

Out of pure and simple curiosity (I'm nor trying to ruffle feathers, I just want info):

What is the legal recourse if you DON'T follow the directives of a private security officer (e.g. Blackwater 'operative')? at least in texas the definition of a Peace Officer is pretty clear, and so is that of a Security Officer.

Again - just wondering for information's sake.

Click to expand...

They have zero authority, they have guns and are propped up by defense contractors and private corporations.

I bet at a later date they would claim they had been deputized by the sherriff or something. That is totally false because doing so in most cases would require them to obey the constitution. Additionally, there are cases of local law enforcement objecting to their presence.

If your neighbor put on a black thug mask and came into your house armed and demanded your guns...

imported post

casullshooter wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I rather like the sound of the "Second American Revolution" better.

 

Oh, and it's already begun in our hearts and minds......

Click to expand...

Actually it would be the Third American revolution, the Second one was from 1860-1865 . The war was one of independence as the South did not want to take over the existing Gov't but to break away and form their own country .

Click to expand...

Actually, the Civil War was the final battle of the American Revolution. It settled once and for all the question of wether a state, once admitted to the Union, could secede from the union. This was a fundamental Constitutional issue left somewhat open when the Constitution was written. It is now settled. It also settled the issue of slavery, also left as only partially settled in the Constitution.

Technically to have a revolution, the goal would have to be the dissolution of one government and the formation of a new one. So the Civil War does not qualify as a revolution.

So the second American Revolution would be an appropriate name.

Regards

imported post

I cannot say with any degree of certainty, but I doubt very many others than myself on this board have had a dozen or so of those cowarldy thugs, faces covered, launch an all out assault against you and yours.

Forget standing up by yourself at your own door against at least a dozen rogue, cowardly thugs. The ONLY way to overcome these guys is to overpower them with MORE force. Superior force is the ONLY thing that will repel them. Ever watch the video of the criminal assault on Waco? If David Koresh were alive today, he'd tell you in a heartbeat that trying to reason with someone at your front door who is incapable of reasoning is futile. These guys are automotons, pre-programmed by their handlers to accomplish their goal. NOTHING short of superior force is going to make any difference, nothing.

80 million gun owners? Yea, uh huh.

imported post

"Civil war?" WHAT "civil war?" The definition of a "civil war" is where two, or more, factions are fighting for control of the government ( take a look at current day Iraq) Look at the facts. The south certainly wasn't trying to exert control over the northern states. Quite the contrary. The southern states called it quits(which they had/have every right to do) and went to the house. The northern states attacked them. Now, explain to my stupid self, how, just how does that equate to a civil war?

The question of secession is NOT settled. It just proves if you have SUPERIOR force you can insist onsomeone elsedoing something your way. Sounds more like a conquered nation to me.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

80 million gun owners? Yea, uh huh.

Click to expand...

Have to agree. 80 million gun "owners". 79 million of which will hand them over when required with no more resistance than a sigh.
Gun owner does not equal freedom fighter.

imported post

Waaaaaaay back in the '80's, I tried to encourage some of the Louisiana "libertarians" to accompany me on an outing. Was this to be an open carry event? Were we going to break into the Watergate Hotel?

Naw, nothing that daring. With leaflets in hand, the plan was to fan out around the Bluebonnet post office, a scene of activity as thousands of Baton Rouge sheeple dutifully filed their "income" tax paperwork at the last possible minute. Naturally, the mainstream media ALWAYS airs this ritual on their "news" cast to help brainwash the sheeple and keep them in line. With thousands of persons with taxes fresh on their otherwise numbed minds, this would be the ideal opportunity to inject some thought provoking ideas. The response of the local "libertarians?"

FEAR. The very THOUGHT of doing something controversial was just too much for them to overcome. One of the "libertarians" was honest enough to verbalize his reason for not coming along. "Mark, the TV crews will be there, I might be shown on the 6 o'clock news, my boss may see me, I'd lose my job."

Will gun "owners" be any different? Look around at the evidence.

imported post

If only 79mil give them away that would be great. That means there are still a million fighting. I think that is too good of an estimate.....

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

If only 79mil give them away that would be great. That means there are still a million fighting. I think that is too good of an estimate.....

Click to expand...

Probably correct but I like to be optimistic
Even as such (over estimated) it still gets the point accross.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

"Civil war?"  WHAT "civil war?"  ...SNIP...

The question of secession is NOT settled. It just proves if you have SUPERIOR force you can insist on someone else doing something your way. Sounds more like a conquered nation to me.

Click to expand...

In a historical context, the war was not about slavery, it was about secession, and weather states could detach themselves from the union. Actually while you may not agree, that the question was settled. While there has been a lot of talk from different states over the years concerning secession, none have even tried it. Why? Because they know they will not be allowed to. While we may argue that this is by force of arms and not force of law, and that the provisions for secession still exist in the Constitution, the fact is that the issue is settled.

The invasion of the South by the North was in fact an attempt to take control of the state governments of the various states that had broken away. While I grew up around a lot of people who still call that the "War of Northern Aggression", it was in fact a civil war, as the combatants were all citizens of the same country when it started, it did not involve an outside foreign power, and they were all citizens of the same country when it ended.

Perhaps people alive at the time and lived through the events themselves are more expert in determining just what the nature of the conflict was. Perhaps it is from them that we should take words to describe the event -

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

I think he pretty much knew what was happening before his very eyes.
Regards

imported post

OK, I got it. Forget what the most respected, renowned, called upon dictionaries consider to be a "civil war." Let's go by the version of the Great Violator himself, Abe "screw habeus corpus" Lincoln.

I believe it was Adolph Hitler who claimed if you told a big enough lie often enough, people would believe it. I guess Hitler knew what he was talking about.