Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Yup, it's always been said that America would fall from within.
Article Warns of Violent Response To Pending Gun Control Lefislation
- Thread starter mistergus75
- Start date
dbrow6272
New member
Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
Tell that to some people in New Orleans after Katrina. LEO's went door to door checking on safety and confiscating the home owners weapons.
New Orleans is notoriously corrupt from the top down. Although at times you hear about an attempt to "clean up" the PD in the Parish of Orleans and the city of New Orleans you never hear any outcome. Parish and City police murder at will and get away with it. There is no Constitution in Orleans Parish or the City. They just do as they wish and go on their merry way.
Tell that to some people in New Orleans after Katrina. LEO's went door to door checking on safety and confiscating the home owners weapons.
New Orleans is notoriously corrupt from the top down. Although at times you hear about an attempt to "clean up" the PD in the Parish of Orleans and the city of New Orleans you never hear any outcome. Parish and City police murder at will and get away with it. There is no Constitution in Orleans Parish or the City. They just do as they wish and go on their merry way.
1911 Headbanger
Leave Me Alone!!!
That's not true. It may be glorious to talk of Blackwater Mercenaries on the Alex Jones network, but it's still not true. The people you saw confiscating guns were local and imported Police Officers. The infamous video of them taking the little old ladies gun, were Officers that came to assist from the California Highway Patrol. The Black Democrat Mayor and Black Democrat Police Chief, decided that it would be "for your own good" to prevent anyone from "Having Weapons" due to some shooting activity from local gangs at night. So what is the typical Black Democrat response. Nobody can have guns. It's what they've been taught in decades of Democrat rule on the Democrat Plantation. But no Mercenaries, Federal Troops or National Guard kicked in any doors.
First, they knew very few people were still in their homes and they were without power and communication for the most part. Then, when the idiots in charge gave the order, Police Officers from Gun Control Utopias like California, had no problem confiscating guns. You also had the @$$hole Sheriff in St. Tammany Parish who decided that it would be best to confiscate guns from people leaving the area, because homes were being burglarized, and guns were being stolen. Again, yes the tactics were thuggish and jack booted, but they were all local or imported cops. Not Mercenaries or Feds.
tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
I'm just as pro-2A as everyone else on here, but honestly, if this were ever to happen, I'd hand them over, and here's why. At this point in my life nothing, and I mean nothing, means more to me than my family. If given the choice between resisting and risking death (and thus being unable to be with my family) or complying and living under tyranny (but coming out alive and still have my family) I'd choose option 2. Besides, the government has police dressed in full body armor, fully automatic weapons, tanks, and nukes. No private citizen has an arsenal that can match that. Trying to resist that with my arsenal (a handgun and a 12 gauge pump shotgun) would be a suicide mission. If I were single, then resisting would cross my mind, but as a family man, my family will always come first, and as far as I'm concerned, they're better off having me alive and disarmed than dead with a pistol in my hand.
Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk HD
ptco911
New member
What part of living under tyranny is living?
longslide10
New member
The NWO elite have been planning something for a long time. It could be a man made pandemic, a civil war brought about the economic collapse and a push for disarmament, there is an estimated 20,000 AlQaeda trained terrorists inside our border (came thru Mexico) just waiting for the order to attack our infrastructure if we don't let Iran play with their nukes and lift the sanctions, could be for some natural disaster they know about but aren't telling us etc. DHS has been working and training along side foreign troops (Russians, Germans, Chinese--only God knows) here on our soil prepping for something as well. They did drills to protect places like currency mints and other interests. Just keep your eyes and ears open, powder dry & locked and loaded. The globalist elite are getting ready for their master to come on scene.....the anti-christ.
Research NWO agendas, Bildeberg group, CFR, Trilaterals, the UN, FEMA internment camps--a guide and instructions were released by someone on the inside a few years ago, the last pope, look up the paintings/murals inside Denver Int'l airport and the hushed military base supposedly underneath it. I hope that'll get ya started
ricardo900
New member
I don't see the government going Door to Door, they will be smarter than that. If you look at how they handled banning & confiscations in Australia, England & New York City. They outlawed the weapons first, barring the Sales and Transfers and then set up confiscation sites, where people could turn in their weapons. You will be forced to hide your weapons forever. If you are caught with them, even for self defense of your home in a home invasion, you'll be charged. They will nit-pick us gun-owners until they drastically drop our numbers. They will send out warning letters and threatening newspaper ads. A year of two later they will offer Amnesty programs, "Turn in illegal assault rifles, no questions asked". No grandfather clause! The government knows that the majority of Assault Rifle owners will comply like good citizens.
So why bother with Door to Door, when they will be lined up to hand them over. Like you guys always say on this site, It's a slippery slope because next shooting they will blame handguns and CCW holders.
So why bother with Door to Door, when they will be lined up to hand them over. Like you guys always say on this site, It's a slippery slope because next shooting they will blame handguns and CCW holders.
tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
It's better than being dead with a gun in my hand and my family not having me around.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Everyone who has paid attention to even a little of what I have to say knows that I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. In fact, they would acknowledge that I am actively hostile towards him. (I've got my well-defined reasons, unrelated to this reply.)
That said, this particular segment of an infowars.com webcast is not of Jones, but rather, one of his employees or volunteers or whatever their structure is there, and he's not talking about Blackwater mercenaries, but he's talking directly with a caller who identifies his Oklahoma Army National Guard unit and goes on to describe their deployment to NOLA in the aftermath of Katrina. If this were a setup by Jones or his cohorts, I would immediately dismiss it as unreliable. But this guy called into the show to talk about the previous day's topic (government gun confiscations) because he couldn't call in then, but he thought the info he was sharing was important enough to go off-topic the next day. I don't know....I suppose it's possible that the huckster Jones could've set this up, but the guy sounds credible to me, and anyone who knows anything about military unit designations can figure out if there's any inconsistencies in his unit identifiers.
Umm....Really? Besides the (apparently all-white) Oklahoma National Guard troops featured in this news report taking over a church as a "base of operations" without permission from the pastor, I suggest you watch and pay attention to the whole 2:06 video, but that you listen very carefully to the last few seconds of one of them giving an interview to the ABC reporter, starting about 1:55:
I knew I had heard this meme before that only cops were involved in confiscations in NOLA. "Where did I hear that," I kept thinking as I read this post. Then it hit me. Of course! Wayne LaPierre and the NRA to the rescue! (Part 1 and Part 2) For some reason, LaPierre and this whole freakin' commercial sales pitch lies about no feds or National Guard being involved in gun confiscating in NOLA after Katrina. But as this screen-cap from the first minute and a half of Part 1 proves, federal agents were attached to local Sheriff and PD units during the sweeps. In this case it was a DEA agent that LaPierre's producers neglected to edit out of the video:
That, combined with the first link to the infowars.com webcast, should put to rest the myth that no NG or feds were involved in confiscating guns in NOLA.
Click on this link to a clip from, "Washington, You're Fired," and hear the narrator talk about the National Guard, DEA, ATF, and US Marshals breaking into people's homes, confiscating weapons, and in some cases, evicting residents who were on dry land in their own properties.
Feds were definitely involved, and the only reason I can think of why LaPierre and the NRA would try to claim otherwise is linked to what I've been talking about all week - The NRA is in bed with the feds. They make their living(s), and damned good ones at that, by compromising with feds over our supposedly unalienable rights. You can't compromise on something that is unalienable or inviolate, which means the NRA would cease to exist if the feds ever accepted that our rights are such. The NRA works with the feds within the structure of all-powerful government that issues permission-slips for when/how/where/why we will be allowed to exercise our "rights." Being *allowed* to exercise rights is a total contradiction in terms, an oxymoron for which the NRA uses to dishonestly separate you from your money. They are controlled opposition.
Blues
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Oldgrunt
Well-known member
Charles: There have been a number of threads written on the different forums which cite Acts, Laws, the Constitution and other information which one would think that our lawmakers should be familiar with. If people on here can come up with the reasons why the government CAN NOT violate the Constitution, why in hell are we permitting the government to run amok? It has been said that Obama wants the populace to act up in order to instigate martial law and have us all under his thumb. It would seem that we are going to be screwed regardless of what we think and our doofless Congress is complicit in the process. Hell of a way to run a railroad!
Taking down old ladies no less. Yep, these are the cops and soldiers who would supposedly disobey an order to disarm civilians.
Here's how it works folks.. You resist, they burn you down, the news portrays you as a crazy gun nut, and the world keeps on turning.
Some of you folks must have been asleep during Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Katrina.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
BluesStringer
Les Brers
BINGO!!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
One78Shovel
New member
^^^this^^^
I had a mason tell me the other day the exact same thing. He said lay low, keep your mouth shut because you have a target on your back as a white, successful gun owning American.
-178S
One78Shovel
New member
There are many veterans who watched their buddies pay the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom and fighting tyranny. Would they/me rather die alone at home forgotten, or die at home defending your constitution?
That's a pretty simple question to answer.
-178S
That's a pretty simple question to answer.
-178S
BluesStringer
Les Brers
The axiom of conflict I prefer to follow is, it's not my goal to die for what I believe in, it's to make my adversaries die for what they believe in. And that's what is missing from these discussions really. Everyone is OK with volunteering to die for the cause, but many of us seem to forget that if it's important enough to die for, it's probably important enough to kill for. And if it's not, then what exactly is the point of dying for it?
I'm a simple Patriot. I have no interest in being a martyr. If I must fight, I will, but it will be a fight to win, not to lose.
Blues
I'm a simple Patriot. I have no interest in being a martyr. If I must fight, I will, but it will be a fight to win, not to lose.
Blues
That's among the most ridiculous ideas I have heard in a loooonnnnggg time. And I'm 76!
