Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

reply to post by SeesFar


You've taken the position that the public has the capacity to defend itself against the federal government if need be, thanks in large part to the right to own firearms...

Isn't it probable, though, that if the Federal Government was to plan some sort of attack on the citizens, their strategy would be more economic in nature than military?

It would be pretty hard to storm Upstate New York (where I live) and have people submit to martial law at the hands of troops.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be hard to strangle our food or energy supply... In this sense we truly might be incapable of defending ourselves.

Is the right to bear arms giving us a false sense of security? Doesn't the vulnerability of the citizen lie in the reliance on a Macro economy for the majority of resources?

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

It's hard to argue that the nra is on the pro 2nd amendment side.
Your stats only further prove that nra has been bought and sold.

The NRA tries to stay one step ahead of the usurpers of our 2A rights. They know as well as those of us that watch these surreptitious usurpers that when an ugly event happens such as the one in Aurora or the one at the Sikh temple, there will be hysterical people jumping up and down insisting the government "do something". That's when the NRA and 2A supporters have to stand strong, remain calm, and fight to maintain our rights. That takes funds and many gratefully provide them.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by beezzer

 

There are two debates that define the politics of today. Local vs centralized, and freedom vs. public safety.

Closely related to or reframing your second point is the Individual vs the Collective.

reply to post by RealSpoke

Most people got their front door location GPSed at the last census. All they have to do is enter those coordinates in the correct computer system and....Baam!

reply to post by RealSpoke

And once Basement Bob gives up his location...he wont even have the "opportunity" to reload his magazines.

reply to post by MassOccurs

Iraq and Afghanistan have proven the impracticality and thus improbability of going door to door to enforce martial law. However, that being said, what can (and probably will) be done is controlling and constricting the flow of food, water, energy and other utilities and resources to create an environment of scarcity, despair and hopelessness leading to surrender and submission.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I'm going to try and get back to the idea of tragedies being exploited to undermine rights...

The ultimate tragedy that we learn about is the holocaust. Because of how recently it happened, we place more significance on the plight of Jews at the expense of Hitler than things like Native American extermination and African slavery...

To the point, it is not outlandish to consider that this tragedy was exploited to a certain extent in the creation of Israel. A justified Western presence in the Middle East in the post imperial age.

And the rights of Palestinians? Does anyone have a better case against Western civilization in the 21st century than the Palestinians?

And this case extends to sympathizers of the Islamic and Arab world, putting a target on the back of any nation with historical ties to European imperialism. Setting the stage for further tragedy exploitation in the name of the global agenda.

Tying back to the here and now issue of gun violence, there is a clear history of placing the global agenda at a higher priority than individual rights. How can globalization continue without any further infringement?

Many theories center on the possibility of manufactured crisis in order to generate consent of citizens to be governed by a centralized global entity.

A deliberate attempt to shift the paradigm from prioritizing the individual to prioritizing the collective.

Shameless promotion: Paradigm Shifts

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Hefficide

 

WACO was filled with guns and they had no way to stop that government tyranny. Half of Americans are fat and can't even aim properly. There is no way they are going to stop any form of organized military force. All they would have to do is drone bomb us.

"They've got f-16's and Abrahams tanks..."

How many times is that argument been used to try and nullify the 2nd Amendment here?

Nowhere does it say: " violent revolution" against a tyrannical govt. should be easy; or taken lightly...
If we give up possession of our firearms ; they STILL have f-16's.

The power to go to War is such a terribly awesome responsibility: Personally: I'd be just Happier if ALL war making power returned to the people( a.k.a. Congress) as was intended by the framers.

reinstate "posse committatus". Absolutely No u.s. military/paramilitary; used against us citizens.

No more : executive authority to fire a single shot with out congressional debate/public vote.
Give us the "keys" for the planes; tanks and armories...
War should be reserved for defending the conus. from armed attack.

reply to post by 46ACE


Congress has a tendency to take a while to sort things out...

The executive must reserve the right to make a split second decision when faced with a crisis.

Curbing the abuse of that right is a baffling problem.

Posse Comitatus speaks directly to the core of the conditioning aspect of the gun control agenda.



Of particular interest is this:

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:
The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

emphasis mine

Source for above

Notice the ambiguity again.... Other condition... Exactly what is an "other condition"? If the majority of an entire state says "We're sick of this and we are NOT filing taxes this year... is that an "other condition"???

Think about it now. You can't even watch an ad on the television for cold medicine that doesn't include fifty lines of microscopic legal speak - none of which has any ambiguity to it whatsoever... So how and why does a Federal Statute end up being phrased as if it were written by a southern Cali stoner/surfer... Ummm other stuff could, like, happen, yanno dude... We're gonna like to be way prepared in case it gnarls...

This is deliberate ambiguity to get you used to the notion that ANYTHING is reason enough. Anything.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(wikipedia)

At least there is some open ended legislation to favor the states as well, even if the capacity to enforce is no match for that of the Fed.

reply to post by MassOccurs


The problem with relying upon the protections of the Tenth Amendment is that the courts have tended to often favor Federalism over States rights.

An example from the above link:

he balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.

This offers what I see as a cogent discussion of the issue. It's not clear where Federal authority ends and State authority begins - and the line doesn't seem to follow any logical path from one issue to the next.

So relying upon the Tenth amendment is iffy at best.

~Heff

Opportunism...? Could it be an accumulation of the destruction of the American way of life, the laws and loss of freedoms under 0bama's rein.......... People have had enough, and going postal the only answer left for them. I doubt you'll hear anything along those lines by Law enforcement and those interrogating the suspects. I doubt their anti-0bama views will find their way to media circles. Information and dis-information to serve TPTB, namely the
0bama admin.

OKS post truncated for space

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I am very familiar with the Wounded Knee Massacre.... I reviewed the link I was provided and had enough to comment on it.

The link you reviewed was on WKII and I must disagree that you read enough of it to have an informed opinion because as your exact comment was "..not to mention this was a tribal issue, not a United States government issue," when it was clearly a United States AND Tribal government issue.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
As for the Wounded Knee Massacre...they were armed...that was the whole point...they were being disarmed. So according to your logic, and others, since they were armed...shouldn't they have been able to stop the massacre? Shouldn't the fact that they were armed prevented the United States government from diarming them???

About 7-12 rifles among 300 people is not exactly armed especially when facing the U.S. Cavalry and machine guns and, most especially, when many of them were elderly, women, children and nursing infants.

The Wounded Knee Massacre - "December 29, 1890. It was a day when nearly 300 of their relatives were shot to death in cold blood by the enlisted men and officers of the 7th Cavalry. Ironically, 21 members of the 7th Cavalry were awarded Medals of Honor for this horrific slaughter of women and children." Slaughtered by the first machine guns; left to freeze to death and then dumped into a common trench grave. For what? For what were they being pursued? For dancing. But, more, for opportunism.

Everyone loves L. Frank Baum, right? He wrote "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?" Here's what he wrote in an editorial for the local paper 5 days before the massacre: "The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth."

THAT is one indication of how far back the media opportunism goes. THAT shows how long American have had opinions fed to them. And the American citizens bought it. Why? Because it was for their SAFETY ~ just like the TSA and the DHS and banning guns because of 7 or 8 lunatics since the turn of the century have used one. Just like a certain sector of the populace will scream for gun control when a random lunatic commits a crime with one.

Benjamin Franklin foresaw it: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Or is this just another example of being armed not really preventing the government from abusing their powers???

Which one? The massacre or WKII? At WKII, they held them off for quite a while. Just a few men held off the FBI, the U.S. Marshalls and others. If a FEW men can hold them off, then MANY could defeat.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And what was the result?

Is there a reason you are asking? You said you were "very familiar" with the history.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Did the fact that they were armed and decided to stand their ground prevent the government from doing what they were intending to do anyway? Did they get the tribal President removed? Did it make their lives better after the incident?

Again...none of that happened. The fact that they had weapons and attempted to use force to get their way did not stop the government from doing anything.

No, ultimately it did not stop the government from doing anything. The point is that they had the ABILITY and the MEANS to make a stand due to the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So yes, this is a poor example of "being armed prevents the government from abusing their powers"...because in both Wounded Knee incidents...that did not happen.

One cannot compare the atrocities committed by the U.S. government upon the People in the Wounded Knee Massacre to the events of the Wounded Knee Protest.

The Wounded Knee protest, from your POV, appears ineffective. That is due to your interpretation of “success” and it is not my place to try to change how you perceive “success” in an endeavor.

From my POV, as I explained earlier, it WAS a success because the Second Amendment provided the MEANS and ABILITY to TRY. And they tried!

Due to space considerations, and in order to properly address your questions to me, I will have to conclude in a secondary response.

SECOND PART:

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Are you advocating for equal weaponry to the United States military? Because if you are, then you are in the extreme minority.

In answer to your question: to an extent, yes.

In response to your statement: Really? I’m in the “extreme minority?” What about this guy: (hopefully I did that correctly; if not, I will fix it as quickly as possible)

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Like I said...we have already restricted what weapons citizens can have...and as a society we are fine with that. I think you may have missed what my position is on this whole issue. I am not anti-gun ownership...I am pro-gun regulation...much more strict regulation than what we currently have.

I disagree. YOU seem fine with that. Some OTHERS seem fine with that. But, WE, as a cohesive society are NOT fine with that. As Heff noted in a previous post, the position of gun control in the U.S. has dramatically changed.

Anti-gun ownership begins with gun regulation and it worsens with “strict” regulations.

Learn from history: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973)

Who's that, did he say? “Troops alone?” That’s what I read. So, our standard military … and a Civilian Army of equal force … AND the DHS (maybe they ARE the Civilian Army?).

No, that can’t be because if the DHS is the Civilian Army, then what is this? See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312: SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS. Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows: SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS. (a) ESTABLISHMENT– (1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. (2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
In terms of probability...very unlikely.

If our own government wants to kill us...they can...no matter how many hand guns and rifles you have. If our government wants to impose a law that we don't agree with...no amount of guns is going to overturn it.

I disagree with both statements; my reason for that disagreement as to your second statement is provided in a response to another contributor in this thread.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm sorry, I will not live my life in fear and paranoia.

Again, a differing viewpoint and one that I do not seek to change in you. You view it as ‘fear and paranoia.’ Others view it as ‘possibility and plan accordingly.’

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You have failed to provide any example where people having guns actually prevented the government from doing whatever they please.

I'm sorry, but fear propaganda will not work on me.

At this point, that portion of your post seems redundant and argumentative. However, rather than take it that way I will, in the spirit of good discourse, presume you just forgot you had already made that point and there is no need for me to address it.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
So is the NRA, Fox, and other pro-gun organizations. They've been harping pro-gun propaganda ever since this even happened.

Perhaps they are just providing a counterview to all the anti-gun propaganda "harping?" Have you considered that as even a possibility? Fairness in journalism?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The media is a business, their main goal is to get ratings, as ratings equal money. This is the main thing taught when you take a journalism 101 class. Most of America could care less about ghetto people, they do not relate to them and do not care. If the media reported it all the time, less people would watch and there'd be less revenue.

Media has BECOME a business more than it was initially intended to BE a business. Did the newspaper publishers of old expect a profit? Of course, they did.

I didn't say they needed to report it 'all the time.' I said the TRUTH of the living conditions of the people in the ghettos and those on the Reservations NEEDED to BE reported for. That has NEVER been done, to my knowledge. They do NOT show the day-to-day lives of the people, as I clearly explained in my post. They occasionally report gang killings in the ghettos, but never a word about the Reservations.

Colorado was recently on fire - it was all over the news. Montana, specifically Crow Agency, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and, iirc, the Rosebud Reservation were all on fire, TOO. Where was that in the news? Over 110,000 acres burned, evacuations, chaos, people running down the roads carrying children because they had no vehicles in which to escape, etc. Where was THAT on the news? It wasn't. Where is the news of the families, the children, those who go hungry, those who freeze to death IN their homes in the ghetto/on the Rez?

Journalists, on the other hand, have a certain moral and ethical obligation to report ALL truth. And have not, consistently, done that for a long time. There has always been an agenda of one type or another - or opportunism - the subject of this thread. In the case of newspapers, it started with the demonization of the Native Americans so that American citizens would get on board with the genocide that was planned. It has been used off and on since then with a huge surge of it during the last 2 or 3 decades.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
They are removed from it because they do not live there. They don't have to worry about it, ever.

They do not KNOW about it. Of course, no one HAS to worry about it; that would imply an obligation. But the hearts of many WOULD worry about it and they WOULD speak out about it IF they knew about it.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Most of white suburban America does not care. They blame the conditions on the people living in the ghettos on the people.

Do you know most of white suburban American? I do not. I cannot presume to know what they would or would not care about; however, I can safely presume they would have no reason to care about that which they know nothing about. Would anyone be worrying about, or arguing over, global warming if it had never been brought up?

Saying we accept your assertion that "they blame the conditions on the people living in the ghettos on the people," why do you think that is? I would say it is because of what the MEDIA has presented and Hollywood has perpetrated. Where, though, is the TRUTH?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
No, mass shootings are scary on their own. Most peoples reactions when the hear of a crime, is to ban the substance that is causing it. Just look at all the cases blamed on bath salts, people were screaming to ban them. It is a natural re-action.

The irrational fear response being brought on by the sensationalism with which the media reports it.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
No they wouldn't. Just look about how people were making Trayvons death seem like no big deal, once they started calling him a thug. Him being a "thug" was used to justify the killing, it was actually all kinds of sickening.

And you don't find the media fully culpable in that? Neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Zimmerman got fair treatment from the media in that incident. I do not believe that, to this day, we truly know what happened. There are three witnesses but that got hushed up quickly, didn't it? Who did the hushing? Media. Who was unfair to both men? The media. Who used it to try to stir tensions? The media.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Everyone has an agenda, the pro and anti-gun people, both have been vocal about their positions since these mass shootings have taken place.

What do you think they need to be? Quiet about it? I don't understand your position in that.

You seem unwilling to accept any viewpoint other than your own. I respect that and will leave the matter alone

reply to post by Plotus


This concept has been danced around, from the OP forward. But it is a relevant idea to state it outright - hope, IMO really does factor into the psychological meltdowns that occur with many spree shooters.

This is highly exacerbated by the as not yet covered concept of information overload.. We are literally inundated with negativity, violent images, extreme content, and fear-mongering... I challenge you. Pick any half hour news show - local or national - and then use a stopwatch to determine the amount of time spent for advertising, negativity, and positivity. I promise you that you'll see the results are:

1) Negative or graphic content
2) Advertising
3) Positive or reinforcing story content.

Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal Farm. Huxley, in Brave New World. And, later Kubrick in A Clockwork Orange all seemed to channel bits and pieces of what was to come.

I leave you with some quotes for now...

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson

Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.
Khalil Gibran

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing. Ronald Reagan

What rights are those that dare not resist for them?
Alfred Lord Tennyson[

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights.Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight. Bob Marley

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

I challenge you. Pick any half hour news show - local or national - and then use a stopwatch to determine the amount of time spent for advertising, negativity, and positivity. I promise you that you'll see the results are: 1) Negative or graphic content 2) Advertising 3) Positive or reinforcing story content.

The question that came to mind in response to your post: Is the negativity of the media/ general society a deliberate attempt at oppression by those running the show, or more of a capitalist result?

It works, doesn't it? People get hooked on fear and this site itself owes some of it's success to the extensive paranoia and fearful nature of many. Doesn't a news network have higher ratings in times of turmoil? Might as well make turmoil the norm.

It's an economic decision with the possible added bonus of preserving upper class status by keeping the majority cynical toward life and opportunity.

Googled "selling fear" .... one of the first results was a site marketing a book called "Fear Selling."

"ARE YOU STRUGGLING WITH SELLING?" Now You Can Exploit FEAR Selling To Sell More and Sell Faster

Fear Selling

Googled "fear marketing", more self help stuff for salesmen...Also a link to a concept called FUD:

Fear, uncertainty and doubt, frequently abbreviated as FUD, is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.

Sacrificing ethic and compassion for customers and prioritizing profits at their expense...

Clearly a form of oppression and abuse, which always leads to stress and possibly mental illness...

But this tactic can't be outlawed, obviously. Better education! Smarter consumers! Demanding companies to hold a higher ethic...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You do understand what a question is, right?

Yes. This was yours: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but all guns at some point were legally purchased, whether by a store, a government, or an individual....correct???"

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I relied on no assumptions...I asked a question and gave my unconfirmed opinion. This IS a discussion board...we are here to discuss...asking questions is part of a discussion.

You asked. I answered. You were incorrect and I carefully explained to you why you were incorrect. The result of that: there was discussion as well as a teaching process. There was no disrespect intended toward you, nor do I see any in my reply to you.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And all of those were purchased legally at some point. A spare part from a gun...came from a gun that was obtained legally from somewhere...either an individual purchased it from a store, a store purchased it from a manufacturer.

I'm sorry if I don't believe you that street gangs and criminals are building guns on their own...their guns largely come from guns that were once purchased legally. Are you denying this???

Define "legal" as it pertains to firearms. The laws are constantly changing. The definitions of the guns, themselves, are constantly being re-defined. What calibers are not now allowed? In what years were they once allowed? What qualifies as an 'automatic?' It rather never ends.

Addressing your claim that all guns were once legally purchased: No, many were never purchased at all - they were made by hand. Do you think only Remington, Winchester, etc. make guns? My grandfather and his brothers built guns (and the scopes for some!) by hand, including handcarving the stocks, machine tooling metal parts, lathing and boring barrels, etc. beginning in the 1920s. They also built bows. My father, his sibling and their cousins still have some of those guns. Were they purchased? No. Were the pieces and components purchased? No. Would you be able to tell, just by looking at them that they were close to 100 years old and made by the hands of an extraordinarily gifted craftsman? HIGHLY doubtful as they've been treated with kid gloves since they were made.

If it could be done then, it can be done now. My father continued the tradition until he became too ill last year to do so anymore. I still love walking into his shop because the smells transport me back to my childhood.

So, yes, I'm denying. Whether or not you believe me is entirely upon you as I have told you the truth.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
All the more reason for stricter gun regulation.

In YOUR opinion. Again, refer to Heff's post wherein he cites (and sources) the change in the opinion of the general public.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Correlation does not imply causation.

If you want to make that claim, it is up to you to prove it.

I did so in a reply to another poster.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

i swear thats the first thing you've ever typed on a pc that I actually agree with.....




referring to the very first post you made on this thread.