The disarmament of the militia a conspiracy?, page 1

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:43 AM

link

There are a few things I despise about the United States. The major thing is the ignorance of the country's history. The country was founded upon the ideal that the people would be tasked with security. A standing army was supposed to be authorized and funded for only two years. It was supposed to be the task of the militia to enforce the laws and suppress invasions and insurrections.

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "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".

Here in the United States most people are oblivious to what this means. Most people are oblivious to the intents in the Constitituion that the founding fathers had.

I want to present some quotes here so people a little less informed can learn something:

"The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [ when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 28 "

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426."

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... -- Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code.
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen. -- Richard Henry Lee "

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. --- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors."

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them. -- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates at 48"

"An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- James Madison ( First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.) "

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. -- Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 "

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788."

This is only the tip of the iceberg as far as understanding the people who created the United States. The very idea of having a standing army was to them the greatest threat to freedom. Allowing Congress to regulate the militia was the "greatest evil". Making sure the people always had a check and balance on the government with the force of arms was the greatest freedom.

What happened?

The time is now 2006.

In the 1930's Congress decided they would start to "disarm" the militia by pasing the 'National Firearms Act' which people did nothing to stop. The 1930's also happened to be around the time of the great depression and MASSIVE immigration. It is understanding that the US lost her way. Most of the people at that point were not prospering, they were not appreciate of the county's history. It was no doubt a time of great corruption, and the corruption of our rights started to show.

In the 1970's they banned exporting and importing weapons. In the 1980's they banned the manufacture of machine guns to civilians (the militia). Now it is 2006 and you can no longer own artillery, rockets, missiles, machine guns, or explosives. The militia is almost entirely dissolved (except for small militia groups) and we have one of the largest standing armies in the world.

There can be alot of motives for why the government would want to centralize power and keep the populace disarmed (none of them usually good for freedom). I feel strongly that there is a conspiracy and agenda to abolish many basic freedoms that this country was founded upon starting with the 2nd Amendment, and many others like the freedom of speech and privacy. Please take the time to read the quotes I provided, and I would also suggest reading up on the founding fathers and this country's history yourself if you are in disbeleif.

A great source of quotes about almost all aspects of government from our founding fathers can be found at Fort Liberty.

I just want to leave this post with one final quote

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787 (P. Ford, 1888)"

Please discuss, I would like to hear any opinions people may have.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

ludaChris

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:16 PM

link

Do you forget that the firearms act was enacted to fight the mob and other organized crime. The lawmen of the time were outgunned, there was no choice at the time to do so. It never took anyones weapons, it made them register them. On the note that today we cant own rockets, artillery, or other destructive pieces, why does a civilian need that. I can still go buy a shotgun, rifle, handgun, and now even an automatic weapon. You do realize that there are still militias out there, that have weapons that the military uses. Though from what Ive heard, they are mostly white suppremacists. I'm pretty sure the militia thing went away with the Militia Act of 1903 that established the National Guard. You can still maintain your own militia if you want, its your choice. It was the National Guard System that has taken its place.

Militia Act of 1903
National Firearms Act

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:10 PM

link

Originally posted by ludaChris
Do you forget that the firearms act was enacted to fight the mob and other organized crime. The lawmen of the time were outgunned, there was no choice at the time to do so. It never took anyones weapons, it made them register them. On the note that today we cant own rockets, artillery, or other destructive pieces, why does a civilian need that. I can still go buy a shotgun, rifle, handgun, and now even an automatic weapon. You do realize that there are still militias out there, that have weapons that the military uses. Though from what Ive heard, they are mostly white suppremacists. I'm pretty sure the militia thing went away with the Militia Act of 1903 that established the National Guard. You can still maintain your own militia if you want, its your choice. It was the National Guard System that has taken its place.

Militia Act of 1903
National Firearms Act

You refused to read my post.

The National Firearms Act was the law that forced a tax on destructive devices and machine guns. It was the law that prohibited the manufacture of destructive devices and weapons without licenses. It also required that you register your arms. All unconstitutional.

Why do civilians need destructive devices? To enforce the laws, the Constitution, and to preserve them. It is not law enforcement officers and US soldiers that were intended to enforce the laws and fight wars, it was the militia. The militia is EVERYONE taking up arms and taking up the responsibility of enforcing laws and fighting wars.

Most of the militias are white supremacists? I beleive it is against forum rules to post something that is not truthful. For every white supremacist militia you think you can find, I will post 25 that arent.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say the people in the country have seriously diluted interpretations of the United States Constitution. You know nothing about what the militia is, what the 2nd amendment means, and the reasoning behind it all. You are brainwashed, ignorant, and uneducated to the truth.

The Militia Act and the National Firearms Act are illegal for Congress to have created.

I ask you please please to go read the quotes I had given. And please please goto Fort Liberty and read the rest of them. Spend 15 minutes doing so, you will get alot of insight into the illegality and unconstitutionality of the National Firearms Act and the Militia Act as well as most other laws that people feel are unconstitutional.

And do you really think becuase the mob had killed 30 police officers in the 1930's it was cause for the government to revoke a constitutional right to the 100 million other United States citizens? Please say you dont think that.

ludaChris

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:37 PM

link

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
You refused to read my post.

The National Firearms Act was the law that forced a tax on destructive devices and machine guns. It was the law that prohibited the manufacture of destructive devices and weapons without licenses. It also required that you register your arms. All unconstitutional.

Why do civilians need destructive devices? To enforce the laws, the Constitution, and to preserve them. It is not law enforcement officers and US soldiers that were intended to enforce the laws and fight wars, it was the militia. The militia is EVERYONE taking up arms and taking up the responsibility of enforcing laws and fighting wars.

Most of the militias are white supremacists? I beleive it is against forum rules to post something that is not truthful. For every white supremacist militia you think you can find, I will post 25 that arent.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say the people in the country have seriously diluted interpretations of the United States Constitution. You know nothing about what the militia is, what the 2nd amendment means, and the reasoning behind it all. You are brainwashed, ignorant, and uneducated to the truth.

The Militia Act and the National Firearms Act are illegal for Congress to have created.

I ask you please please to go read the quotes I had given. And please please goto Fort Liberty and read the rest of them. Spend 15 minutes doing so, you will get alot of insight into the illegality and unconstitutionality of the National Firearms Act and the Militia Act as well as most other laws that people feel are unconstitutional.

And do you really think becuase the mob had killed 30 police officers in the 1930's it was cause for the government to revoke a constitutional right to the 100 million other United States citizens? Please say you dont think that.

You must not have paid attention when I was talking about artillery pieces and missiles. The only way I could see these groups having these is if they are classified as Organized Militias(National Guard of an Official State Supported Militia.) The ability for unorganized militias to obtain such weapons, especially the white supremacist groups(which I overstated previously but are an internal threat to this country no less) should not be allowed. How is the registration of firearms unconstitutional? You fail to recognize the times that the people who made this bill a law, were living in. With organized crime running rampant, cops being outgunned, and no regulation as to who can obtain a weapon. While it is every citizens right to be part of a militia, the National Guard Act is right. It pulled these unorganized, less effective groups, and turned them into a better funded, organized, and trained fighting force more capable of doing their jobs in a crisis situation. For reference you can refer back to my previous link.

While I am a firm believer in the second ammendment, I do not support the fact that everyone should be able to own a weapon or be in a militia. Its not that I dont have faith in my fellow Americans to bear the responsibility owning firearms brings with it, its my lack of faith in all of my fellow Americans to exercise that responsiblity properly. Without handgun registration, many crimes would go unsolved, criminals could obtain weapons without issue, and weapons could fall into mentally and emotionally unstable people. While this does happen today even with these laws in place, it dramatically reduces the possiblity of it happening. I dont believe the types of firearms one can own should be regulated, but more emphasis should be put on the background checks of civilians who want to own guns of any kind.

Further more, the Second Ammendment is a collective right, not an individual one. The requirement to register firearms came under fire in the case US v. Miller, and was upheld. Due to the fact that it is a collective and not an individual right.
US v. Miller

The murder of police officers were not the only issue. The intimidation of witnesses, corruption, and murder of civilians were also reasons for the NFA to be enacted.
Purple Gang
As you can see, with the rise in violence(dont know the number exactly attributed to guns, but assuming this particularly violent gang was involved in all of these, is it safe to say maybe 75-80%?

As far as I can tell from the searches I have done on the legality of the National Guard Act, it has never been challenged. If you can find anything post it so I can have a read of it.

nightbreid

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM

link

The political stigma that has been attached to American militias which culminated from the Oklahoma bombing, I doubt, will ever be undone. One only has to look at the media-generated word association anytime militias are mentioned worldwide to be reminded of that fact. In a nutshell, the term "militia" = violent lawlessness.

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:17 PM

link

Originally posted by ludaChris
You must not have paid attention when I was talking about artillery pieces and missiles. The only way I could see these groups having these is if they are classified as Organized Militias(National Guard of an Official State Supported Militia.)

The organized militia (The National Guard) was created in the Militia Act. There was no organized militia before then. The Founding Fathers intent was for the militia to organize and train as if they were the organized militia of today.

The ability for unorganized militias to obtain such weapons, especially the white supremacist groups(which I overstated previously but are an internal threat to this country no less) should not be allowed.

There is no unorganized militia(s). There is only the unorganized militia. As in only one.

Violent white supremacist groups are a minority and are not "militias". There is more black on white hate crime then there is white on black hate crime in the United States. I think you should talk more about the criminality of black's not deserving the right to posses arms. I suspect your black since you keep bringing up racism as being your reasoning into disarmament.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 "

How is the registration of firearms unconstitutional? You fail to recognize the times that the people who made this bill a law, were living in. With organized crime running rampant, cops being outgunned, and no regulation as to who can obtain a weapon.

Cops being outgunned? I think you watch too much TV and propaganda. Cops used machine guns to fight organized crime, they were never really outgunned. Are you saying only criminals had access to machine guns? Smoke another. Maybe the cops were racist white supremacists and werent allowed to carry machine guns, hence why they were outgunned *rolls eyes*.

The registration of firearms is unconstititonal because it infringes on the right for citizens to posses them. infringe is defined as a law or procedure. A procedure to register your firearms is an infringement.

While it is every citizens right to be part of a militia, the National Guard Act is right. It pulled these unorganized, less effective groups, and turned them into a better funded, organized, and trained fighting force more capable of doing their jobs in a crisis situation. For reference you can refer back to my previous link.

I think we should have a National Guard and full time Military, but I also think we should have the same powers in the hands of the people (the militia). Being ruled by a government with a standing army is dangerous to my freedoms. And the people who created this country recognized that fact.

While I am a firm believer in the second ammendment, I do not support the fact that everyone should be able to own a weapon or be in a militia. Its not that I dont have faith in my fellow Americans to bear the responsibility owning firearms brings with it, its my lack of faith in all of my fellow Americans to exercise that responsiblity properly. Without handgun registration, many crimes would go unsolved, criminals could obtain weapons without issue, and weapons could fall into mentally and emotionally unstable people. While this does happen today even with these laws in place, it dramatically reduces the possiblity of it happening. I dont believe the types of firearms one can own should be regulated, but more emphasis should be put on the background checks of civilians who want to own guns of any kind.

Arms is alot more complicated then handguns and rifles. And most criminals dont use registered firearms, lol. And neither can you solve a crime with a gun registration database. It is not like each gun is unique and I am the only person in the world to own a 9mm pistol. The only good thing a gun registration does is keep a catalog for the government on who will resist them when they suspend our rights.

The murder of police officers were not the only issue. The intimidation of witnesses, corruption, and murder of civilians were also reasons for the NFA to be enacted.
Purple Gang
As you can see, with the rise in violence(dont know the number exactly attributed to guns, but assuming this particularly violent gang was involved in all of these, is it safe to say maybe 75-80%?

As far as I can tell from the searches I have done on the legality of the National Guard Act, it has never been challenged. If you can find anything post it so I can have a read of it.

Gun registration stops the intimidation of witness's? The murder of police officers? The murder of civilians? That logic has no real integrity. THese are criminals, not polite people who will register and keep a nice and neat paper trail to their armaments.

The Militia Act has been challenged more then once. But you cant really challenge something like that can you? You can, but you just hope politics works.

Thats not freedom. Thats stupid blind faith.

Which was why the militia (the people as a whole) was supposed to retain a check and balance over the government with arms.

As crazy as that sounds, thats the bottom line enlightenment.

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:34 PM

link

Originally posted by nightbreid
The political stigma that has been attached to American militias which culminated from the Oklahoma bombing, I doubt, will ever be undone. One only has to look at the media-generated word association anytime militias are mentioned worldwide to be reminded of that fact. In a nutshell, the term "militia" = violent lawlessness.

If we actually had a militia then there wouldnt really be twisted rogue militias running around everwhere, they would be squashed by the militia.

Hypothetically the Oklahoma City Bombing was an act of a legitmate patriotic militia group avenging the governments disarmament of the militia, the murder of the branch davidians, and the other infringements on our rights. Maybe we wouldnt of had the Oklahoma City Bombing if the government had not overstepped its powers. Hypothetically.

"This country belongs to the people and whenever they shall grow weary of their government they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it. -- Abraham Lincoln"

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's 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. -- Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy"

"We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. -- Dwight David Eisenhower"

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. -- United States Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds"

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link

The registration of firearms is unconstititonal because it infringes on the right for citizens to posses them. infringe is defined as a law or procedure. A procedure to register your firearms is an infringement.

Explain in greater detail on how this infringes onto your ability to posses a firearm. People buy gun's, use gun's to commit crime's. With firearms registered to those who buy gun's you not only cut down on crime's out of fear of being implicated, you also make your job easier in finding the criminal's who used a registered gun. You still retain your ability to bear arms, you just lose your ability to commit crime's with your registered firearm. Why would you have a problem with this?

There are still militia's around. Do they really need high grade artillery though? Taking away the ability for civilians to purchase high grade artillery also cut's down on certain acts of violence. How many people can you list absolutley NEED a rocket launcher or missle? I'm very interested in your answer.

Yes, when cops are up against a civilian who has purchased high grade artillery, those cops are out gunned. We have laws put in place to protect against this. You can also think of the Army reserve's as a more official militia as well. Would you rather have people trained to handle certain situation's or would you rather have a gang of gun totting people who think they're doing the right thing when in fact they aren't?

How is a standing army exactly dangerous to your freedoms? So long as you don't commit any crime's or conspire to commit any crimes or associate with known terrorist or criminals, then you've got a hell of alot more freedom in this country then you do in most other's. Including the ability to STILL retain the right to own and bear arms!

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt

The registration of firearms is unconstititonal because it infringes on the right for citizens to posses them. infringe is defined as a law or procedure. A procedure to register your firearms is an infringement.

Explain in greater detail on how this infringes onto your ability to posses a firearm. People buy gun's, use gun's to commit crime's. With firearms registered to those who buy gun's you not only cut down on crime's out of fear of being implicated, you also make your job easier in finding the criminal's who used a registered gun. You still retain your ability to bear arms, you just lose your ability to commit crime's with your registered firearm. Why would you have a problem with this?

How does a registration database help track down who commits crimes with firearms? Also, law enforcement isnt allowed to keep a gun registration database, only the federal government is allowed. You cant tell who used a weapon to kill somebody else just because the weapon is registered.

There are still militia's around. Do they really need high grade artillery though? Taking away the ability for civilians to purchase high grade artillery also cut's down on certain acts of violence. How many people can you list absolutley NEED a rocket launcher or missle? I'm very interested in your answer.

The New York citizens could of made good use on an anti aircraft weapon system.

Yes, when cops are up against a civilian who has purchased high grade artillery, those cops are out gunned. We have laws put in place to protect against this. You can also think of the Army reserve's as a more official militia as well. Would you rather have people trained to handle certain situation's or would you rather have a gang of gun totting people who think they're doing the right thing when in fact they aren't?

Well local law enforcement should maintain there own artillery coverage of their jurisdiction to protect against others that do.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson

How is a standing army exactly dangerous to your freedoms? So long as you don't commit any crime's or conspire to commit any crimes or associate with known terrorist or criminals, then you've got a hell of alot more freedom in this country then you do in most other's. Including the ability to STILL retain the right to own and bear arms!

Because I have aboslutely no power to fight against the government and the majority who may think it is in the best interest to suspend my freedoms and create a dictatorship 'potentially].

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link

Local law enforcment can get that information from the federal government. Yes, They can tell.

Evidence A: set of fingerprints belonging to John Doe
Evidence B: firearm register to John Doe
Evidence C: Bullet found in victim match's bullet found in gun with John Doe's fingerprints that was found near the scene of the crime.

Now of course, the court's would need access to the database to figure out this gun was in fact registered to John Doe.

So, if the NY citizens had an anti-aircraft weapon they could've blown the plane out of the sky themselve's before it hit the WTC. How would they know beforehand with enough time to blow the plane out of the sky? What do you think is going to happen when that plane come's down in a big city like that? Please, use common sense on this one.

So, we should have police carrying rocket launcher's and missle's just because criminal's are aloud too? That make's absolutley no sense whatsoever. Your basicly saying let's allow criminal's to easily obtain rocket launcher's and other high grade artillery. Are you out of your mind?

You do have power. It's called voting and etc... I've said it to many time's to bother ... If you don't think you have enough freedom or any freedom, try living in another country. What would lead you to conclude the government is going to turn into a dictatorship? You really think the president has that much power over congress?

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt
Local law enforcment can get that information from the federal government. Yes, They can tell.

Evidence A: set of fingerprints belonging to John Doe
Evidence B: firearm register to John Doe
Evidence C: Bullet found in victim match's bullet found in gun with John Doe's fingerprints that was found near the scene of the crime.

It would only be good if fingerprints were found, else the registration database is useless by itself. The end doesnt really justify the means in that regard. It is an intrusion on privacy, and a infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

So, if the NY citizens had an anti-aircraft weapon they could've blown the plane out of the sky themselve's before it hit the WTC. How would they know beforehand with enough time to blow the plane out of the sky? What do you think is going to happen when that plane come's down in a big city like that? Please, use common sense on this one.

In case you forgot, there were two planes that hit the WTC buildings. If the citizens were a militia, the second plane would of never been able to initiate a divebomb on the city, it would of been destroyed.

So, we should have police carrying rocket launcher's and missle's just because criminal's are aloud too? That make's absolutley no sense whatsoever. Your basicly saying let's allow criminal's to easily obtain rocket launcher's and other high grade artillery. Are you out of your mind?

Because others dont deserve the right to keep and bear arms, doesnt mean I dont. The golden rule is, do unto others as you want done unto you. There is more good of having an armed populace in regards to upholding freedom, then there is negative from those that wish to abuse the power.

You do have power. It's called voting and etc... I've said it to many time's to bother ... If you don't think you have enough freedom or any freedom, try living in another country. What would lead you to conclude the government is going to turn into a dictatorship? You really think the president has that much power over congress?

Any presidential candidate that has existed in my voting lifetime has never had any integrity to the Constitution. Voting is useless.

You dont have an absolute right to freedom of the speech anymore. You dont have an aboslute right to freedom of the press anymore. You dont have an absolute right to the right ot keep and bear arms anymore. You only have that right when it fits into the conformity of the majority and what they think is good for you. That is a dictatorship. And it will continue to get even worse.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison"

"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it. -- Woodrow Wilson, in a speech in New York City, September 9, 1912"

"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. -- Harry Emerson Fosdick "

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. -- Edmund Burke, letter, April 3, 1777, to the Sheriffs of Bristol"

"It is seldom that liberty of any kinds is lost all at once. -- David Hume"

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link

Voting is useless.

I want everyone to look upon this example. This is how bad politic's is born my friends.

It is an intrusion on privacy, and a infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

Your privacy? Why would you need to hide information about owning a firearm from the police and or government? I can understand from a criminal's perspective...

In case you forgot, there were two planes that hit the WTC buildings. If the citizens were a militia, the second plane would of never been able to initiate a divebomb on the city, it would of been destroyed.

Along with a wider range of destruction on the ground where the plane crash's onto. Good idea!

Because others dont deserve the right to keep and bear arms, doesnt mean I dont.

This is why you still have the right to bear arms. Even concealed weapons too! Do you really need a rocket launcher or machine gun on your person while walking or driving down the street?

That is a dictatorship.

Move to Cuba.

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt

Voting is useless.

I want everyone to look upon this example. This is how bad politic's is born my friends.

That is just the truth. I vote for whatever President I think will most uphold my Constitutional rights and preserve the security and integrity of the country, all other politics to me is irrelevant and unimportant.

It is an intrusion on privacy, and a infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

Your privacy? Why would you need to hide information about owning a firearm from the police and or government? I can understand from a criminal's perspective...

Because my arms are supposed to be my check and balance over the government. Why would I want the government knowing what my capabilities were? THINK please.

In case you forgot, there were two planes that hit the WTC buildings. If the citizens were a militia, the second plane would of never been able to initiate a divebomb on the city, it would of been destroyed.

Along with a wider range of destruction on the ground where the plane crash's onto. Good idea!

An airliner did crash into a New York City suburb once, only around 12 people died. Remeber the one that crashed into the gas station?

The damage of the plane going down in pieces over or near the city would of reduced the damage in my opinion. I cant really prove that though, but neither can you. There are too many "possibilities" to be answered.

Common sense tells me the damage would of mitigated.

Because others dont deserve the right to keep and bear arms, doesnt mean I dont.

This is why you still have the right to bear arms. Even concealed weapons too! Do you really need a rocket launcher or machine gun on your person while walking or driving down the street?

A concealed pistol permit and a rifle on my bedside is not going to do jack all to someone with a machine gun. Nor is it going to do jack in rebelling against a dictatorship, nor is it going to do jack in repelling an invasion from a foreign country. Nor are they going to supress inssurection.

That is a dictatorship.

Move to Cuba.

I dont like hurricanes and hot weather all the time. The United States might be one of the better places to live but that doesnt justify anything really. Especially when there is no reason that it cant be "what its supposed to be".

I just look at life realistically. I dont try to pretend that war doesnt exist because I havent witnessed it. I dont try to pretend that next year a police state couldnt be instituted where robots monitor my every move and I have no right to own weapons to protect myself.

Id appreciate if you didnt either.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link

Why would I want the government knowing what my capabilities were?

Again, I ask... do you really need a rocket launcher or high grade artillery. If your concerned about the direction of the government, vote. Lobby. Petition. Boycott. Many many non violent option's are out your's and ever american's disposal.

Common sense tells me the damage would of mitigated.

I'm amazed your common sense can deduce that all future aircraft accident outcome's based upon a few isolated incident's. Your common sense scare's me.

A concealed pistol permit and a rifle on my bedside is not going to do jack all to someone with a machine gun. Nor is it going to do jack in rebelling against a dictatorship, nor is it going to do jack in repelling an invasion from a foreign country. Nor are they going to supress inssurection.

So, you would estimate your reaction time if you owned a machine gun yourself would be quicker to get the gun, load it, aim and shoot before the criminal had the chance to shoot at you with his already loaded and aimed gun? Maybe I should look into getting a machine gun too!

personal freedom.

What your describing is nothing short of the right to do whatever you please without thinking of society as a whole nor the benefit's of society as a whole. Personal freedom in this day and age isn't me me me, it's society. We are in this together, like it or not. We elect people to protect us. WE ELECT. They don't decide who, WE do. It's your personal freedom that allow's this to happen. Use it!

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt

Why would I want the government knowing what my capabilities were?

Again, I ask... do you really need a rocket launcher or high grade artillery. If your concerned about the direction of the government, vote. Lobby. Petition. Boycott. Many many non violent option's are out your's and ever american's disposal.

Just because I think the Constitution should have integrity, doesnt mean that my politicans do. I do write my Senator, what good do yout hink that does? Nothing if you ask me. They are still going to support arms control and infringements on my privacy.

Common sense tells me the damage would of mitigated.

I'm amazed your common sense can deduce that all future aircraft accident outcome's based upon a few isolated incident's. Your common sense scare's me.

Im amazes your common sense can deduce all future aircraft accidents based upon ZERO isolated incidents. YOUR common sense scares me.

A concealed pistol permit and a rifle on my bedside is not going to do jack all to someone with a machine gun. Nor is it going to do jack in rebelling against a dictatorship, nor is it going to do jack in repelling an invasion from a foreign country. Nor are they going to supress inssurection.

So, you would estimate your reaction time if you owned a machine gun yourself would be quicker to get the gun, load it, aim and shoot before the criminal had the chance to shoot at you with his already loaded and aimed gun? Maybe I should look into getting a machine gun too!

No, but my chances of laying down suppresive fire is alot greater then trying to snipe you with my single shot rifle. I cant spray and pray with a semiatuomatic rifle.

personal freedom.

What your describing is nothing short of the right to do whatever you please without thinking of society as a whole nor the benefit's of society as a whole. Personal freedom in this day and age isn't me me me, it's society. We are in this together, like it or not. We elect people to protect us. WE ELECT. They don't decide who, WE do. It's your personal freedom that allow's this to happen. Use it!

I support the Constitution. I am not supporting anarchy.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link

I support the Constitution. I am not supporting anarchy.

You've got that backwards.

Supporting the constitution involve's a little more then complaining about gun control to you senator.

Ouch. You got owned.

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt

I support the Constitution. I am not supporting anarchy.

You've got that backwards.

Supporting the constitution involve's a little more then complaining about gun control to you senator.

Ouch. You got owned.

What do you propose? I start a rebellion? I cant, the US is a dictatorship. It is illegal under Federal law to try and incite a rebellion against the United States government. EVEN THOUGH the US government was founded on rebellion and insurrection.

I might be loyal to the Constitution but I am not stupid.

Or did you have something else in mind?

PS: The CIA's supercomputer has just isolated the words rebellion and united states in the same post, they have now tapped into my computer and telephone line, they also have agents inserting electronic eavesdrop devices into my home. My master plan for rebllion has been squashed. They will now search my library records, my internet history (oops they have already done that), and try to psychologically profile me (unfavorably). Then they would have deemed im too much of a "POTENTIAL THREAT" and im to be assasinated.

Welcome to the United States. Since I am not a billionaire or a conformist, I am a potential domestic terrorist (aka demonized patriot).

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link

Ok... So, what's the point of having a militia if you can't rebel against a dictatorship? Also, as far as I know, nothing of the sort has been removed from the constitution.

Altho it's been fun debating the issue, it's sad to know your going to be assasinated. It was fun while it lasted. Survive as long as you can and keep a low profile!

ImplementOfWar

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link

Originally posted by Produkt
Ok... So, what's the point of having a militia if you can't rebel against a dictatorship? Also, as far as I know, nothing of the sort has been removed from the constitution.

No, thats the whole point of having a militia. To be able to hold power over the government with the whole of the people being armed.

Altho it's been fun debating the issue, it's sad to know your going to be assasinated. It was fun while it lasted. Survive as long as you can and keep a low profile!

Yeah it was fun fun. There is already a GPS device in my vehicle. And the CIA's psychic's had already knew I was going to make this post ahead of time. They had removed my kidney while I slept last week and inserted a tracking device in its place. I am pretty much doomed.

Which is another point of respecting the right the 2nd Amendment gives. With all this technology it could very easily be turned around and used to enslave us and enforce their political agenda. It will get worse for our children and grandchildren.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Produkt

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link

Ok, now why can you have a militia, but not a rebellion?

Yes, alot of technology *could* be used if forced upon us. It isn't being forced tho. People wouldn't allow certain thing's to be forced upon them either. My favorite part about america though... The right to vote. It hold's more power then you think it does.