Dictator ? You think ?
We of late have been bombarded with claims that somehow we are welded into a borglike mentality ..that we all somehow think, react, and depend upon each others slightest gesture to chart the path towards the future.
Much has been made of the fact that I am the `head ass'...that somehow means that the rest of the Canary Asses take their cues from me concerning how they should act.
Naturally, this observation is only made by the weak-willed...those unable to grasp the concept of `individual action'...
That is just how far out of touch with the spirit of `being American' so many are here in this country. The idea that a group of men can be INDIVIDUALS...each a leader in his OWN rights...is foreign to most.
Those men might come together for a common purpose...but they remain individuals.
Each has his OWN methods of teaching, of training, of imparting knowledge to others.
I happen to be an ass, these days...I no longer suffer fools gladly...I am not divinity.
I `gained' the position of `head ass' simply BECAUSE I am abrupt, brusque, and deadly blunt.
Most of the other Asses are much more diplomatic in their endeavors...with the occasional flashes of thunder and lightening when they get fed up with some particularly obnoxious collectivist.
They are gentlemen ..to a man.
I am not.
You that feel put upon by my posts may well find it instructive to put the matter before the Council of Canary Asses. Make your best case.
You convince them that I am injurious to the cause of the Canary Asses, that I cause them loss of stature; I will abide by their decision. I trust and respect those men.
I will withdraw my name from the roster.
Mind you...I will continue to continue EXACTLY my personal method of gathering the fighting men of America....but you will not be allowed to use your personal dislike of me to defame the Canary Asses, if they so chose.
Much has been made of the fact that I am the `head ass'...that somehow means that the rest of the Canary Asses take their cues from me concerning how they should act.
Naturally, this observation is only made by the weak-willed...those unable to grasp the concept of `individual action'...
That is just how far out of touch with the spirit of `being American' so many are here in this country. The idea that a group of men can be INDIVIDUALS...each a leader in his OWN rights...is foreign to most.
Those men might come together for a common purpose...but they remain individuals.
Each has his OWN methods of teaching, of training, of imparting knowledge to others.
I happen to be an ass, these days...I no longer suffer fools gladly...I am not divinity.
I `gained' the position of `head ass' simply BECAUSE I am abrupt, brusque, and deadly blunt.
Most of the other Asses are much more diplomatic in their endeavors...with the occasional flashes of thunder and lightening when they get fed up with some particularly obnoxious collectivist.
They are gentlemen ..to a man.
I am not.
You that feel put upon by my posts may well find it instructive to put the matter before the Council of Canary Asses. Make your best case.
You convince them that I am injurious to the cause of the Canary Asses, that I cause them loss of stature; I will abide by their decision. I trust and respect those men.
I will withdraw my name from the roster.
Mind you...I will continue to continue EXACTLY my personal method of gathering the fighting men of America....but you will not be allowed to use your personal dislike of me to defame the Canary Asses, if they so chose.
0
-
I have reached the necessary conclusions in my own mind already.
I seek only to inspire forward thinking individuals so that they too can be ready when the time comes.
Being paralyzed by 'ethics' when the shooting starts will merely condemn one to death.
The loss of even ONE Patriot due to the actions of sob sisters is one too many.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could.
Or it could be a simple case of greed....
"I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you can't live here anymore because we can't trust you. No, you can't take anything with you, but we'll put it to good use...after all, we're BETTER than you."
The End justifies the Means, right?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
The loss of even ONE Patriot due to the actions of sob sisters is one too many.
The loss of any jackboot intent on preying upon his neighbors is a good start.0 -
Highbail, I hope you are learning a lesson by having Rack Ops turn against you. You and your little gang of asses have set yourself up for more such lessons. Reason being that you have taken the militant position that ONLY your interpertation of the 2A is or ever can be correct. You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever; even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms. You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse. You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros." You have formed your goofey little club apparently so as to create a hostile "us vs them" situation. You have condemned everyone who doesn't agree with you as not being "real men" which of course makes it look as you asses are claiming to be the only "real men."
In other words, you asses have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.0 -
"Learning a lesson " ???
I continue to accomplish what I started out to do...separate the wheat from the chaff.
You, TR, have blown away with the wind ..a proven lightweight. You are unable to keep even the most basis facts straight in your mind ..and you persist in smearing decent people by your own fevered fears of individuals possessing weapons without government approval.
Rackops has staked out his position. It is unalterably opposed to mine.
So be it.
You and he and millions more will make fine shock troops for the enemies of freedom one of these days...as you obey orders to `kill the dissidents'.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
I was hoping you'd be along, lt. Now we can get somewhere.
Well hello to you to Rack.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
Under the circumstances of such a scenario, would HB and his merry men not be the de facto government of his imaginary fiefdom?
I am not sure of the parameters of Highball's scenario, but will address mine.
I am hypothesizing a SHTF scenario, where gov't has broken down and/or active hostilities have broken out with said gov't, rather than a "post-revolt new government" scenario.
Maybe we are speaking of apples and avocados here.
To answer your question, any group that was allowed to gather with me would contain no quislings, fellow-travelers, or those who advocated subversion of whatever the goal happened to be, in this case, the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
Private citizens, banded voluntarily with ol' Lt and his family (under select circumstances of my choosing), does not make this the Federal, or the State gov't. It merely makes a voluntary association of people.
There simply is no "de facto" to it in my scenario.
quote:
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Even if not, I still see no difference in the positions.
Well, Rack, therein lay your problem in grasping the concept.
When speaking of the Constitution, it is restraint on government, Federal Government actually, but for the sake of argument, we will concede coverage to the sovereign states also.
The Rights recognized under the Constitution (all of them) are pre-existing and a taking of those rights by one is the same as a taking of those rights by the other.
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
All else is related to civil law and societal norms as it pertains to the actions of a private citizen.
See the distinction?
What HB, or any of the other "individualists" (HA!) in this discussion do on or with their own property is one thing..... but the road to tyranny begins when they, and you, decide to make the rules in their own "AO"
Again and speaking to my own scenario, my "A.O." is the scope of my private area of control or influence. That could be my home (permanent or temporary), my remote property, or it could be those who choose and are allowed to accompany me on the move, etc..
Regardless, I, as a private person and being in control of that which I choose to be in control of, in this case my family unit and maybe a few select others, decide who associates with me in my "area of operations".
You want to be there and have been invited, fine, but you can't be an advocate for that which we fight against, nor can you undermine the "group", or family, or me, by working toward the success and victory of that which I am fighting against.
You get sent down the road, one way or the other, period.
The argument can be made that one has an obligation to help their fellow man if he is in need....I don't agree with that position, and wouldn't help someone I considered to be "worthless", but thats a different cirumstance entirely than physically taking their possessions (and lets be honest, this is exactly what you're advocating, unless you plan on moving their house too)
I have an obligation to myself and my family first and foremost. I have an obligation to the Constitution and the Republic. I have no obligation, unless it is a moral or religious one, to care for anyone but those things mentioned.
Nowhere did you see me refer to "worthless". I spoke of those who take an opposing philosophical position to liberty and to those who contribute nothing by choice. Those may have "worth" to someone else in my scenario, but that is for others to decide.
As to taking someones property....what the hell are you talking about?
Take your schit and get out, unless you are an open and immediate threat to me and mine.
quote:
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either.
"They won't be allowed"....how lame.
I am speaking in my scenario about my unit, family, or voluntary association. Any with me would be there because they are family, or because they asked to be, or were asked to be.
Don't like the rules, you are no longer allowed to be an associate.
Difficult concept, huh Rack?
What if they don't go. You gonna burn 'em out, Janet Reno?
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
If you are in my roving band and/or in my home, temporary or permanent, you will leave if you are instructed to do so.
It is what it is.
This simple and direct concept applies to my home and to my association situation right now also, Rack.
Come on over to my house and then try to subvert and/or pervert our family, our home, our beliefs, our customs, or our way of life and guess what, you will leave, no doubt.
Another difficult concept?
quote:
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference..
As has been clearly stated, by both sides, time and time again...this isn't a discussion of "individual decisions" or "private circumstances", its about imposing one's will on their neighbor, at the point of a gun.
I think that I have covered this thoroughly in my above descriptions, but will simply say that you seem to have a comprehension problem and great difficulty in separating the Constitution and individual rights, from private vs. government actions.
This isn't even about the second amendment anymore. I'm as pro-gun as anyone on this forum, but I've been told I wouldn't be welcome in highball's Amerika......Since I'm not an anti-gunner, I must be a "fellow traveler" (I admit to having never heard that term before this discussion, so thanks to HB for broadening my vocabulary at least)
Highball can speak for Highball, he is quite capable.
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
I am not speaking to a "rebuilt America", but if that is the scenario, then the Constitution is reinstated as intended and although individuals may have their personal anti-liberty, anti-Constitution views, all who achieved public office would be held to their "oath of office" to support and defend said Constitution and if that oath were violated, then immediate removal from office proceedings would be desired and expected.
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Either you support the whole Bill of Rights or you're pissing on it just as surely as those you preach against
Well Rack, I do indeed support the Bill of Rights AND the remainder of the Constitution. I always have.
......it is what is, lt.
It is indeed what it is Rack.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
You and he and millions more will make fine shock troops for the enemies of freedom one of these days...as you obey orders to `kill the dissidents'.
The only one advocating harming dissidents is you, jackboot.0 -
lt, my reply will be short as much of what you stated I agree with. highball has staked out his position, as have you.....and you are correct that I have, perhaps unfairly, lumped your positions together.
For the sake of bandwidth, if I don't address the point.....we're in agreement [:)]
quote:
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
Analogies often fall short, and this one is no exception.
The "attacker" in your scenario is making a direct, physical attack upon me.....I have no choice but to defend myself if I have any desire to continue to "pursue happiness" [;)]
A more accurate analogy would be blowing away my neighbor because they have a "men are pigs" bumper sticker on their car.
quote:
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
BS.
Does an employer have a right to strip-search employees at their whim? Can they tell me what religion I must (or must not) follow?
I can find volumes of legal cases where someone in authority (and not just government authority) was "nailed to the wall" for violating someone's rights.
quote:
See the distinction?
No, I don't.....That whole "...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" thing keeps getting in the way.
quote:
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
Based on your comments above, you're wrong again. My guess is I'd be lucky to have a couple of your type as neighbors.
quote:
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Your assessment of history is correct. History tells us that EVERY democracy will fall at some point, its just a matter of time. Its what Jefferson was speaking of in his famous "liberty tree" quote.
The cycle cannot be stopped, it has yet to be disproven as a law of human nature, but nothing is gained by jumping directly from freedom to tyranny....0 -
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Others may well find value in pursuing dialogue with sob sisters ..and I will indeed read their posts, if they do so.
However ..I don't associate with sob sisters in real life ..and I have my fill of them here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Are you, by chance, related to Baghdad Bob?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could.
Or it could be a simple case of greed....
"I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you can't live here anymore because we can't trust you. No, you can't take anything with you, but we'll put it to good use...after all, we're BETTER than you."
The End justifies the Means, right?
If that were the case, Rack, I would be happy to leave. Tyranny is tyranny, plain and simple.0 -
originally posted by trfox:
Highbail, I hope you are learning a lesson by having Rack Ops turn against you. You and your little gang of asses have set yourself up for more such lessons. Reason being that you have taken the militant position that ONLY your interpertation of the 2A is or ever can be correct.
Once again, imbecile, it is not 'our' interpretation. We have simply stated we espouse what the Founders believed.
You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever;
Exactly what the Founders believed. It is evident that you take issue with what the Founders stood on. No surprise, considering the company you keep/support.
even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms.
An individual who has served their sentence, paid their debt, and released back into society should have full restoration of their rights. Period.
You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse.
You earned it. Every bit of it. By the way; you assigned yourself that label. All we did was set the shoe out; You tried it on, saw that it fit, and decided to wear it.
You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros."
There is a vast difference between 'welcoming' violence and being willing to engage in it for a just cause.
You have formed your goofey little club apparently so as to create a hostile "us vs them" situation. You have condemned everyone who doesn't agree with you as not being "real men" which of course makes it look as you asses are claiming to be the only "real men."
Listen, 'we' did not create an "us vs them" situation. There is the Constitution; you either accept it or not. There is no gray area, and no room for fence sitters. There is a line of distinction. Which side are you on?
In other words, you asses have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure
'Flawed structure', huh? I'll give you the epitome of a flawed structure; the NRA.
that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
How can stating the truth ever be a 'bad' thing regarding the RTKBA, or anything else for that matter? If more folks would speak the truth, and more folks would simply accept the truth, we'd be a lot better off. However, it is much easier for some to prefer a sugar-coated, watered-down perversion of the truth, because deep down, they are frightened by the cold, hard truth.
"sane gun owners"? You mean like those who vocally and monetarily support organizations or entities that are hell-bent on perverting rights for profit? IS that how you define 'sane'?
You know, tr, is is readily apparent that you are lacking in the 'guts' department. You only jump in once a fight/discussion/debate has commenced, and then it is only to nip at others ankles.
Deleted by pickenup[:(!]
While I may agree......please refrain. [;)]0 -
Wow,.....just got caught up on this thread.
I am surprised at some of the turns this has taken.
Not much I can add per se, other than to say I understand fully LT's position, and it sounds much like what mine would be.
I also think I understand what Highball is saying as well.
A total meltdown such has been presented here, would not allow for the entirety of civil rights that exist at this time. Most were added in stages after the writing of the Constitution, even up to modern times.
We have a duty to throw off the chains of a tyrannical government, and just like the Loyalists long ago,.....there will be many that do not wish to lose the "perceived" comfort or safety, of said government.
Once a person of that mindset crosses over to "aiding and abetting" the enemy,........they must be considered one and the same.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Highbail, I hope you are learning a lesson by having Rack Ops turn against you. You and your little gang of asses have set yourself up for more such lessons. Reason being that you have taken the militant position that ONLY your interpertation of the 2A is or ever can be correct.
Fox, you've missed the point.....most likely on purpose.
This isn't about highball's (or anyone else's) opinion on the second amendment. If it was, there would be no debate....since as of yet I've found no disagreement with highball in that regard.
This is about control, plain and simple.0 -
Pick,
What? The abbreviation? I was just telling Tr, 'Good For You'.[;)][:D][:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Pick,
What? The abbreviation? I was just telling Tr, 'Good For You'.[;)][:D][:o)]
Oops, my bad. [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Others may well find value in pursuing dialogue with sob sisters ..and I will indeed read their posts, if they do so.
However ..I don't associate with sob sisters in real life ..and I have my fill of them here.
I see we are back to close minded name calling again. You are confusing close mined with intelligence in this case.[V]
But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.[;)]
Jeff,
I think I can say we are on the same sheet of music if or when the SHTF![8D]0 -
quote:But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
I am sorry that that offends you.
Or not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
I am sorry that that offends you.
Or not.
HB,
You do not offend me. The point I am making is you are recognizing, even if WE do not see eye to eye, we are not enemies or cowards, just sob sisters who will shot back if the need arises![;)]0 -
quote:The point I am making is you are recognizing, even if WE do not see eye to eye, we are not enemies or cowards, just sob sisters who will shot back if the need arises!
Remember, always ..what EVER I say does not make it so.
My calling out gun controllers as cowards, ect ..while being factual and true ..does not place any particular individual in that category.
Only they THEMSELVES can do that...by their words and actions.
Support for gun control places one in a position of being diametrically opposed to the Constitution.
Not by I...but by that document itself.
It is what it is....in the words of an illustrious member hereabouts.
A member, might I add, of a truly unique `club'...the 3 % that will stand and fight tyranny.
Remember, also...I have not moved one inch from my position of inflexibility concerning the Second Amendment...YOU have made whatever movement there has been.
In other words...you have not gained a convert to your flawed position;
You have merely moved closer to a Constitutional position.
Sitting in a Council, after the war...your position allowing government control of full autos will be greeted with the contempt it deserves..and will be laughed off the slate.
You still have a ways to move...before you adopt a Constitutional position.0 -
I already knew how you feel. But thank you for saying in a courteous way!!![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Highbail, I hope you are learning a lesson by having Rack Ops turn against you. You and your little gang of asses have set yourself up for more such lessons. Reason being that you have taken the militant position that ONLY your interpertation of the 2A is or ever can be correct. You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever; even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms. You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse. You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros." You have formed your goofey little club apparently so as to create a hostile "us vs them" situation. You have condemned everyone who doesn't agree with you as not being "real men" which of course makes it look as you asses are claiming to be the only "real men."
In other words, you asses have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
"I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, BUT there must be reasonable, common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."
---Sen Charles Schumer, Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen John Kerry, Sen Dick Durbin, Sen Barack Obama, tr fox, Jim Rau, et al.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Don;
Perhaps you would care to explaing the difference in these occurances ?
quote:I do not see where bands of patriots establishing Areas of Operation will be of any benefit to the cause, rather I see 100s of individual battles of defense of hearth and home that will inevitably combine
Personally, I think given a break-down of society, one would be duty-bound to secure your area. Eventually, you would be, I believe, forced to clean out the nest of bikers in the next town...the free-booters across the river...for the protection and survival of the group.
At some point, you would join forces with the decent folks of Anytown...thereby expanding the areas safe to travel, trade with, and consort with.
I ALSO cannot see ANY Patriot resting comfortably while his country is dragged into the dirt by various rat-tag thieves, criminals, and assorted garbage that will surface as soon as the iron hand of government fails to keep them subdued just enough to be an irritant to
the populace and useful tools of that government.
HB:
I missed your post earlier, and it deserves a clarification.
The scenario I see is not the complete breakdown of society, rather the increased power of the state. The assault will be that upon our freedoms by LEOs, BATF, etc. coming door-to-door to confiscate that which our Constitution says they cannot.
In that scenario, the PR battle will be won not sniping at them as they pass, but resisting them when they come to break the law of the land during the enforcement of the law of the day.
The complete breakdown of society as you note above, and in the 'whatchaagonnado' thread will require the coordinated offensive action to which you refer.0 -
quote:In that scenario, the PR battle will be won not sniping at them as they pass, but resisting them when they come to break the law of the land during the enforcement of the law of the day.
Ahh.....I see.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ahh.....I see.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Those martyrs would be people known to their community, upstanding folk who probably have played a leadership role in some fashion.
I have often asked myself how Ruby Ridge would have been received differently if Mr. Weaver could not have been labelled a 'White Separatist' and if he had not fallen for the sting operation. Public opinion was strongly mixed following the death of Vicki. I suggest that it would have been almost unified against the FBI absent those two media strikes against the Weavers.
Yes, the feds would win rounds 1 - 100, but many would be taken out in the process. Three things would then happen.
1. Those conducting the raids would be forced to evaluate the Constitutionality of the assaults as they weigh morality and mortality.
2. Neighbors helping neighbors would make each successive assault more costly than the last. This may be optimistic. One can hope.
3. Finally, the muddled masses would begin to realize what was going on, and political pressure would be brought to bear.
IMO, we need to break through the 40% and 50% barriers so we can use their democratic mob mentality against them. It will be difficult if officers are being lost to IEDs, but possible if good people take a moral stand against tyranny and it is seen as such.
We will not defeat them through strength of arms in either case. We can only hold them off long enough for public perception to change, and thus must plan the quickest and least costly method of changing that perception. If public perception cannot be changed, we are screwed, regardless of which path we take.0 -
Interesting concept, Don.
Bears thinking about...and I will do so.0 -
HB,
I have been saying this exact thing since day one here! But now it 'bears thinking about'?????[?]0 -
Excuse me, Jim Rau;
What you have been saying since 'day one' is that the government has the authority under the Constitution to impose gun control on sovereign Citizens.
Most anything else you have said had been drowned out by the echoes of that statement ..repeated endlessly by you.
At NO time have I read a post from you concerning multitudes of Citizens dying on their doorsteps defending the Constitution...nor the value of that versus the jack-boots being met at the edge of town and shot down like the dogs they are.0 -
HB,
You are missing the point. The methods Don described are those I have been advocating all along. The fact that you will never get your 'ideal' met is not part of this equation. You fail to admit that there always have been and always will be some restrictions and exceptions to ALL of our rights, including the RTKABA's. I am aware of your 'demands' even if it is not possible for you to ever have them met.
The restrictions on our rights today is totally unacceptable and we have got to get these restrictions reduced as far as we can. There NEVER will be a time when there are ABSOLUTLY NO restrictions, even if you can't except this it is a fact of life.[V]0 -
Going to let Don address the issue of you and he sharing the same views here.
I fail to see the similarity, myself.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
189 comments