destroying private propery, treason, burglary. that's what the Founding Fathers were guilty of. They thru privately owned tea into Boston Harbor, fired upon Duly sworn troopers who served the State at the time(at Lexington and Concorde) No Declaration of war, no nothing, just started shooting the jbt's.
Shooting gov't agents from ambush,
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
Well, just exactly IS that line that divides treason from exercising the constitutional right to forcibly tell the government they have stepped over the line? Unfortunately in such a conflict, it will be the winners who will say where that line was, ex post facto.
Also unfortunately, it is the government who will define such terms, enforce the laws concerning such terms, and try you in a court composed of employees of the system you are trying to oppose.
They have already outflanked you by emasculating the second amendment by taking away the balance of power it was to bestow on all citizens by giving them the same weaponry that was available to the government.
The media would just paint a picture of you being some radical right wing gun nut out on a rampage. The propaganda machine would make darn sure you had very little of the public on your side. After all, the public at large wouldn't want their daily routine of beer and chips sitting in front of the boob tube disrupted, now would they?
The deck is heavily stacked against you. And getting more so every day.
I guess you read Unintended Consequences, eh? I really liked the book, but I truly believe in real life, it would have ended nothing at all like the book did. In real life, a LOT of people would be dead when martial law was declared and the government tried to confiscate all firearms.
Just my opinion, of course.
Also unfortunately, it is the government who will define such terms, enforce the laws concerning such terms, and try you in a court composed of employees of the system you are trying to oppose.
They have already outflanked you by emasculating the second amendment by taking away the balance of power it was to bestow on all citizens by giving them the same weaponry that was available to the government.
The media would just paint a picture of you being some radical right wing gun nut out on a rampage. The propaganda machine would make darn sure you had very little of the public on your side. After all, the public at large wouldn't want their daily routine of beer and chips sitting in front of the boob tube disrupted, now would they?
The deck is heavily stacked against you. And getting more so every day.
I guess you read Unintended Consequences, eh? I really liked the book, but I truly believe in real life, it would have ended nothing at all like the book did. In real life, a LOT of people would be dead when martial law was declared and the government tried to confiscate all firearms.
Just my opinion, of course.
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
> Well, just exactly IS that line that divides treason from exercising the constitutional right to forcibly tell the government they have stepped over the line? Unfortunately in such a conflict, it will be the winners who will say where that line was, ex post facto.
Well, along those lines, I remind everyong that the Jewsshould have fought back when the Nazi's came for them. By time theywere on the trains, it was too late. It was WAY too late when they were in th camps starving and dying. The couldonly wait for gun ownerswith a fighting spirit to help them at that time.
Howver, at the time, I'm sure it didn't seem like the time to fight was when they were "just being rounded up" and shipped to somewhere else. Violence to the death wasn't necessary - or so it seemed at THAT time.
The same thing will happen to us if our government gets that far out of control. Our future generations will say "THAT is when they should have started fighting because the peaceable answer would no longer work." I haveNO idea when that point will haveoccured. Was it 1934? Was it 1968? Did it occur in Waco or on Ruby Ridge? Is it something happening thissecond or going to happen tomorrow? Is that point 50 years in the future? If history isa lesson, that point HAS to occur, but the actual occurance is the mystery.
> They have already outflanked you by emasculating the second amendment by taking away the balance of power it was to bestow on all citizens by giving them the same weaponry that was available to the government.
...because people want the allusion of a LITTLE more safety (from law abiding citizens!) now at the lose of freedom & liberty. Disgusting. Things getting proposed now would have gotten politicians hung in the early part of the last century.
> The media would just paint a picture of you being some radical right wing gun nut out on a rampage.
No comment. I've already mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge in this post once.....
> I guess you read Unintended Consequences, eh?
Heck YES! I have two copies. I wpuld like one copy lent out to people at all times, and the other copy on my shelf for me. Sadly, both copies are usually lent out (like right now). I need some more copies. I tell people they can stop - if they can - when it hits "present day." The first half is the most important part. (What true freedom loving American can read that wthout getting upset?????) The second half is pure fiction and not as important.
> I really liked the book, but I truly believe in real life, it would have ended nothing at all like the book did. In real life, a LOT of people would be dead when martial law was declared and the government tried to confiscate all firearms.
I agree that it ended too easily. Something like that MIGHT end as predicted, but the average person would suffer a LOT more first. Set-up innocent people would die after being framed, too. I don't doubt that would (and maybe has) happen.
KJ
Well, along those lines, I remind everyong that the Jewsshould have fought back when the Nazi's came for them. By time theywere on the trains, it was too late. It was WAY too late when they were in th camps starving and dying. The couldonly wait for gun ownerswith a fighting spirit to help them at that time.
Howver, at the time, I'm sure it didn't seem like the time to fight was when they were "just being rounded up" and shipped to somewhere else. Violence to the death wasn't necessary - or so it seemed at THAT time.
The same thing will happen to us if our government gets that far out of control. Our future generations will say "THAT is when they should have started fighting because the peaceable answer would no longer work." I haveNO idea when that point will haveoccured. Was it 1934? Was it 1968? Did it occur in Waco or on Ruby Ridge? Is it something happening thissecond or going to happen tomorrow? Is that point 50 years in the future? If history isa lesson, that point HAS to occur, but the actual occurance is the mystery.
> They have already outflanked you by emasculating the second amendment by taking away the balance of power it was to bestow on all citizens by giving them the same weaponry that was available to the government.
...because people want the allusion of a LITTLE more safety (from law abiding citizens!) now at the lose of freedom & liberty. Disgusting. Things getting proposed now would have gotten politicians hung in the early part of the last century.
> The media would just paint a picture of you being some radical right wing gun nut out on a rampage.
No comment. I've already mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge in this post once.....
> I guess you read Unintended Consequences, eh?
Heck YES! I have two copies. I wpuld like one copy lent out to people at all times, and the other copy on my shelf for me. Sadly, both copies are usually lent out (like right now). I need some more copies. I tell people they can stop - if they can - when it hits "present day." The first half is the most important part. (What true freedom loving American can read that wthout getting upset?????) The second half is pure fiction and not as important.
> I really liked the book, but I truly believe in real life, it would have ended nothing at all like the book did. In real life, a LOT of people would be dead when martial law was declared and the government tried to confiscate all firearms.
I agree that it ended too easily. Something like that MIGHT end as predicted, but the average person would suffer a LOT more first. Set-up innocent people would die after being framed, too. I don't doubt that would (and maybe has) happen.
KJ
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
I agree, emphatically. EVERYONE should read at least that part of Unintended Consequences. Most people alive today do not even know what they have lost. Heck when the assault weapon ban was being debated in congress, I talked to people who thought there was no way such a law would ever get passed in the U.S.A. Just as people today are saying things can't get any worse and they certainly can't be talking about MY guns!
Even today, I still see people at gun shows that are SHOCKED when they find out that the NICS check applies to them when they want to buy their new shotgun. And I wish I had a dollar for everytime I saw someone walking away from a table when they found out about this intrusive law standing in the way of them exercising their constitutional right to obtain a firearm. I am certain the founders of the constitution are spinning in their graves thinking about citizens of this country having to ask PERMISSION of the government before they can buy a gun.
Yes, 50 years ago, any politician even suggesting such a thing would have probably been tarred and feathered and run out of Washington DC on a rail.
we have not YET reached a point where
the gov't CAN'T be stopped, but it SHOULD have been stopped at the point of suppressors, thats for sure. Full auto or sawed off shotguns dont mean jack crap for effective resistance to tyranny, and I REALLY dont agree with letting just anyone have hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, etc. You KNOW that they'd just be used for murders and bank robbery.
However, better draw the line at outlawing semiauto rifles, because those pcs are the MOST effective at covering your butt (while you do things that are FAR more effective at stopping Big Brother than merely shooting a few score of his jbt's. that IS as many as you will ever get with just guns, you know.
the gov't CAN'T be stopped, but it SHOULD have been stopped at the point of suppressors, thats for sure. Full auto or sawed off shotguns dont mean jack crap for effective resistance to tyranny, and I REALLY dont agree with letting just anyone have hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, etc. You KNOW that they'd just be used for murders and bank robbery.
However, better draw the line at outlawing semiauto rifles, because those pcs are the MOST effective at covering your butt (while you do things that are FAR more effective at stopping Big Brother than merely shooting a few score of his jbt's. that IS as many as you will ever get with just guns, you know.
A 22 auto rifle is a very efficient tool
for inflicting lots of harm on lots of" innocent" people. Big Brother demonstrably doesn't give a damn about people, so their REAL concern is how effective a gun is at either assasinating those punks, or resisting their JBT'S. So the gun grabbers will NOT stop at the centerfire line, Nor will they stop at ANY repeating arm. If you tolerate their confiscation of 6 million (each) garands &.30 Carbines, nearly as many AR's, another 6 million AK's, sks's, Fals, M1A's, etc, and 20 million (or so ) 22 auto rifles, they will QUICKLY also take the remaining 10 million pump and lever rifles, cause you will be MUCH less able (and willing) to fight them. When all that remains is the bolt actions, you are done for. beause less than 1% of us will actually FIGHT, and those few NEED the "force multiplier" that is offered by the suppressed auto rifle. Such a rifle can get one man "clear" of a half a dozen or more, rifle armed troops, and make him confident of attacking even larger groups, at times and places of his choosing. It makes him dare to smack a sentry or two, and move in to destroy billions of $ worth of stuff that helps generate trillions of tax dollars for Big Brother to pay his jbt's with. That ability is NOT to be just given-up.
for inflicting lots of harm on lots of" innocent" people. Big Brother demonstrably doesn't give a damn about people, so their REAL concern is how effective a gun is at either assasinating those punks, or resisting their JBT'S. So the gun grabbers will NOT stop at the centerfire line, Nor will they stop at ANY repeating arm. If you tolerate their confiscation of 6 million (each) garands &.30 Carbines, nearly as many AR's, another 6 million AK's, sks's, Fals, M1A's, etc, and 20 million (or so ) 22 auto rifles, they will QUICKLY also take the remaining 10 million pump and lever rifles, cause you will be MUCH less able (and willing) to fight them. When all that remains is the bolt actions, you are done for. beause less than 1% of us will actually FIGHT, and those few NEED the "force multiplier" that is offered by the suppressed auto rifle. Such a rifle can get one man "clear" of a half a dozen or more, rifle armed troops, and make him confident of attacking even larger groups, at times and places of his choosing. It makes him dare to smack a sentry or two, and move in to destroy billions of $ worth of stuff that helps generate trillions of tax dollars for Big Brother to pay his jbt's with. That ability is NOT to be just given-up.
it's actually getting EASIER for a very
few men to be able to have MASS effects on Big Brother. By depriving Big Brother of billions of $, the rebels can remove BB's ability to PAY his jbt's, and they dont work for free, BB CAN'T tax what AINT profit, and almost no business has more than about a 10% prfotitability. It aint at ALL hard to remove the profitability of nearly every large biz in the country, by stopping rr traffic, increasiing the price of electricity, fuel, etc. Doing the latter is dead easy, and not at all dangeroous.
Every $1milll you take from Big Brother, is 20 thugs that he can't pay 50k a year too. Taking a billion $from Big brother is dead rock easy, and amounts to the same thing as killing 20,0000 of his troops, which is easily 50x as much as any one man can do, just by killing men with a rifle. Yes, fighting this way will cause mass death and misery to millions of the sheeple, but if they'd each "fought" BB even a LITTLE bit, such deplorable measures would never have been necessary. They SHOULD have opposed fighting overseas, the Reserve Bank, the income tax, etc. Because they diddn't, their grandchildren are going to starve.
few men to be able to have MASS effects on Big Brother. By depriving Big Brother of billions of $, the rebels can remove BB's ability to PAY his jbt's, and they dont work for free, BB CAN'T tax what AINT profit, and almost no business has more than about a 10% prfotitability. It aint at ALL hard to remove the profitability of nearly every large biz in the country, by stopping rr traffic, increasiing the price of electricity, fuel, etc. Doing the latter is dead easy, and not at all dangeroous.
Every $1milll you take from Big Brother, is 20 thugs that he can't pay 50k a year too. Taking a billion $from Big brother is dead rock easy, and amounts to the same thing as killing 20,0000 of his troops, which is easily 50x as much as any one man can do, just by killing men with a rifle. Yes, fighting this way will cause mass death and misery to millions of the sheeple, but if they'd each "fought" BB even a LITTLE bit, such deplorable measures would never have been necessary. They SHOULD have opposed fighting overseas, the Reserve Bank, the income tax, etc. Because they diddn't, their grandchildren are going to starve.
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
I think the talk of "killing men" is ended here, gentlemen. I do not believe it is a discussion that is in keeping with what I want this site to be about. Any further messages along this line will be deleted upon my discovery of such talk.
I hope you make this easy on me by simply refraining from such discussions here in the future.
Talk all you want about guns, but killing people is not an acceptable topic on this site.
I hope you make this easy on me by simply refraining from such discussions here in the future.
Talk all you want about guns, but killing people is not an acceptable topic on this site.
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Good for you Rich -- The cleaner your site is, the less hassle there will be, from whatever alphabet agency, that may decide to become interested.Rich Z said:
It is interesting to note, that MELVIN, never abides with any rule, or request, from any site manager. A typical trait of the sociopath.
Bill
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
copy that
RICH, but for a fleeting nano-second a glimmer of crystal clarity in his cyhperator OWWWEEEE never mind i've been up to long !!!thanks
RICH, but for a fleeting nano-second a glimmer of crystal clarity in his cyhperator OWWWEEEE never mind i've been up to long !!!thanks
Actually, the Boston Tea Party was about taxes.KJUN said:
The "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord was because the British troops were moving in to confiscate muskets and poweder of the militia stored at Concord.
I.E. gun confiscation started the last war for independence, and might just start the next, which is why they're pulling the "little bit at a time" method of bans/confiscation.
they aint CAPABLE of an all out ban. they
have TRIED that, all thru the 70's, and never even got CLOSE to succeeding. Now that the Republicans control Congress, BECAUSE of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle ban, and because of 9-11 "fever", the antis KNOW that there's no hope of a general ban on firearms.
have TRIED that, all thru the 70's, and never even got CLOSE to succeeding. Now that the Republicans control Congress, BECAUSE of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle ban, and because of 9-11 "fever", the antis KNOW that there's no hope of a general ban on firearms.
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
climton
have you seen the list of bodies left in the wake of the climton's ascension to power? it's real close to 50 people! man thats alot of blood on there hands. anyone seen her monday interveiw on t.v. ?what pos s-he is! when she mentioned how 93or97%[i don't remember } of nations infrascructure is in PRIVATE hands you knew right then they plan on nationalizing, it's there socialist agendum they got cooking! ever wonder where the u.n. would be after 9/11 if ALGORE was the man? he would've dropped his pants and grabbed his ankles right then!!! do not even go to the keoto accords! what B.S. thanks
have you seen the list of bodies left in the wake of the climton's ascension to power? it's real close to 50 people! man thats alot of blood on there hands. anyone seen her monday interveiw on t.v. ?what pos s-he is! when she mentioned how 93or97%[i don't remember } of nations infrascructure is in PRIVATE hands you knew right then they plan on nationalizing, it's there socialist agendum they got cooking! ever wonder where the u.n. would be after 9/11 if ALGORE was the man? he would've dropped his pants and grabbed his ankles right then!!! do not even go to the keoto accords! what B.S. thanks
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
