The 2nd Amendment

deviate

Is it like when firefighters or police officers go on training courses to keep their skills fresh, make sure their equipment works, and they are not caught with their pants down?

The video was slightly alarmist.
'military style helicopters' - what on earth are they?
Choppers stalking the sky *waves arms around*? Really, or just one flying over in a fairly straight line?
It was straight up sensationalism.
I would like to know what they were actually doing, and why it was necessary over the city.
But what do you want me to think? That this is a sign of some military junta waiting in the wings to frog march you guys to fema concentration camps?

Don't put words in people mouths. : /

 

Me too. Times that by 10. No worries.

 

I've been an American living in America for 30 years and have never seen this happen. I am slightly alarmed it is happening now of all times, after the signing of the NDAA.

 

Here is someone's theory why they are doing it:


All these unprecedented military exercises in our urban areas, are they even legal?*

Someone like you and me, a concerned (sovereign) citizen of the USA, took the bull by the horns to collect and collate the published accounts of them.

They are so pervasive that it looks less and less like training exercises for the purpose of letting our military become familiar with operating in urban areas overseas. It has begun, by the signature of the behaviors themselves, to seem more and more like exercises for the following purposes.

To:

1) Make actual military operations within the United States seem more "normal" to our own, patriotically motivated military personnel.

2) Record the names of those in military or police services, or in other government positions, who question this behavior, or who are noted to have qualms, or object vs. those who are gung-ho for it. Perform profiling and psychographic studies, based upon this information.

3) Familiarize our military of the ins and outs of operations specific to each "urban zone" city in our nation.

4) Condition American citizens of all kinds to the "new normal" of our military operating for the sake of authoritarian government, against our people (especially patriot activists) who may be labeled "suspected terrorists" – by fiat, without our 4th and 14th Amendment rights, of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, of habeas corpus, and due process overall (see NDAA 2012 and 2013 http://gulagbound.com/tag/ndaa/ and these reports in Gulag Bound A, which includes a report of Obama administration indoctrination of the traits of a suspected terrorist, plus B and C, and in one of numerous examples, in NetworkWorld, Eric Holder's FBI brochure propagating their traits of a suspected terrorist: D).

5) Prepare for massive firearm confiscations and the resultant resistance from the actually patriotic Americans, ready, willing, and able to obey the mandate of the Declaration of Independence and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to if necessary, "throw off" government which has become "despotism," by means of free, "well regulated militias."

6) Provoke our freely armed patriots who heed the stern mandate of our Declaration and Constitution as referred in #5, to be engaged in free, well-regulated militias (and/or, whatever few kooks are really out there) into taking action which could become, in turn, actionable by national or nationalized, anti-American forces (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.).

7) Could this be, too? To do #6 as a actual pretext for further false-flag attacks, http://goo.gl/38JhT which would give Obamunist/NWO led forces pretext for martial law. (We have written about false-flag ploys, here.)

Test for repercussions and blow-back in general, right down to this article (see #2).

And to confirm just how it looks, those military exercises are, in at least some cases, being made jointly with police forces. It would be silly to think that even the Obamunist DHS would try to send our police overseas. They (our government) do purport something about a reason for some of this. They say it is for disaster preparation, nuclear war, for example – even as they target as "suspected terrorists" those "preppers" who prepare for disasters. "Go figure." http://goo.gl/6jtHV

So now, We the People have to do just that: go to the information and figure out what it means, together.

Here is the list in Facebook, http://goo.gl/1YZQ9 compiled by my new friend, Nanette White, who publishes Michigan's News & Views. Below it, we re-publish the Gary Franchi interview with Dr. Jim Garrow, of January 23rd, which attests to key military officers being asked whether or not they will fire on U.S. Citizens who refuse to give up their firearms.


What do you think about all this? So far there's Harrisburg, Houston, Minneapolis, L.A., Miami, Chicago, Boston, Long Branch, Laredo, Galveston, Scottsdale, Worcester, Denver, St. Paul, Portsmouth, and St. Louis.

Did I miss any?

 

Is that thing the president signs every year or so?
I love how you attach two things together to give yourself a mild stroke.
You'll be telling me next the media is just out to insight fear etc etc. HELLO^

 

I don't think even you believe any of that. If you believe a quarter of that is likely, I would suggest you take a long nap in a cool, quiet dark room.

Yes. Training courses to keep their skills fresh, make sure their equipment works, and they are not caught with their pants down

 

This allows for indefinite detention with no trial, why the fuck are you people constantly trying to downplay everything that is going on when everyone knows that the world is entirely fucked up right now?

I'm not being sensationalist, I'm being skeptical. Kind of like how you are about anything that goes against your ideas that the government exists to make sure everyone is ok and would never ever be corrupt.

I'm fucking done arguing, because quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what you guys think about this.

 

I know.

 

Well, now that the Englishman told me what they are doing it for, I feel so much better now.

I'm out of this argument. Fuck this, it's like pissing into the wind.

 

I didn't say that was what it was for. You asked if any(thing) was missed. I wasn't asking you to remove any from the list. Just add one more thing.

It's just crazy talk. I'm quite sure there will be patriots rushing off to the quickie mart to stock up their bunkers. But, I'm sorry, it's just beyond the realms of sanity, imho. I'm sure there will be some people around to indulge you later.


:cheers2:

 

You made an excellent point, which brings to mind the speech given by George Mason at the ratifying convention in 1788. It's well worth googling for and reading, so I won't post it and leave it to those who would like to read it to do so on their own.

How many more human lives will be wasted before it becomes recognized that there is, and never will be, no ONE form of government acceptable to both those who wish to govern and those who they would govern?

 

LOL,
Odon is really good at that..

 

Indie

While I do make the effort and remember what you say, and that is probably why you don’t seem to have a clue what’s been talked about.

But if you actually read my post I wouldn’t have to repeat - I’m arguing that if there wasn’t this level of fear, apprehension, dread, disquiet, foreboding, worry, etc about being harmed (by crime or government) seemingly amongst so many pro-gunners then maybe people wouldn’t feel like they needed guns for protection and there wouldn’t be this level of hysteria whenever any gun control measures were proposed. Then there could come a time when the 2nd Amendment could be changed by another amendment to make it clearer.

 

Indie

Exactly my point, - remember we went through this at length in the Effort or Luck thread – you didn’t seem able to address the criticisms of your view then and there and I’m sure you can’t now.

Can a child choose to whom it is going to be born?

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and the number of choices in life open to them - and long before they have the independence to take actions themselves.

The there is the point raised in my theory -

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.


So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

To repeat - I don’t think full equality is possible or desirable but I do think the goal of a society and its government should be to produce societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily to see wealth dominant and let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own to suffer or even die from want.

 

Indie

But you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth should have extra voting power to block or veto the wishes of the majority.

Oh hell indie don’t tell me you are another conspiracy theorist. Are you then saying that there should be no elections no democracy, what system are you proposing?

 

Deviate

But you then seem to be implying that if you lost the court case and they came lawfully to take your gun - you would try and kill them?

Protect society from what? How does shooting innocent police officers protect your society?

 

First of all, I am a proponent of following the Constitution, not re-writing or re-interpreting it to fit an agenda of those who would govern.

Mason, and others, brought about some changes to the Constitution to make it more acceptable, but none of the founders I'm aware of saw it as perfect or there would have been no need for article V.

I brought Masons' speech up because I thought it fit well as a response to deviates post and, if you were to read the speech one short portion of it,

"It is ascertained by history, that there never was a Government, over a very extensive country, without destroying the liberties of the people: History also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shew us, that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic Governments ever so extensive a country; but that popular Governments can only exist in small territories —Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general National Government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, where the people retained their liberty?"

seems to be a prognosis explaining our Constitutional government as it exists today.

No problem, give yourself time, some things become more understandable when the need arises to understand them.

 

Bal,

As far as I'm concerned, we're trying to talk about the 2nd amendment in this thread, not fear, democracy, where I live, where I keep my guns, etc.

You seem more intent in defining what kind of government we 'should' have in the U.S.A., and I and some others are not not trying to change our form of government, but simply return it to operating within the limits it should, and with the consent of the governed at all levels, Federal, State, and local.

You seem to want to talk about fear, while the second amendment is not about fear but about a right.

I've heard enough about fear already, so I don't care to discuss it further since it's irrelevant to the topic in my opinion. Maybe someone else might entertaining your continuous 'fear' banter.