Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46436
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10
    #46438
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    The real danger will be the next time that the Democrats have control of the Oval Office, the Senate and the House. Until then what they can do is limited. If we are then at a point where the leftists have a majority on the Supreme Court, all bets are off. There might as well not even be a Constitution if that happens.

    #46439
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    Civil war would be better than no Constitution . Count me in !

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #46440
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Tolik, We all knew this was coming. O will do everything he can to start a civil war. He wants to stay in power. O has 12 months to start a civil war.

    #46441
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    And like the Tsar , he underestimates his opposition .

    #46443
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Playing right into the hands of the gun grabbers we have a perfectly timed conflict between the feds and armed citizens.

    “Three of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons and what they claim are 150 militia members have occupied a federal building in eastern Oregon in order to keep two local ranchers out of prison, according to local reports.

    The group is believed to be heavily-armed.

    According to The Oregonian, the group seized the headquarters building at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge about 50 miles outside Burns, Ore. The remote facility was closed and unoccupied at the time.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-of-cliven-bundys-sons-militia-seize-federal-building-in-oregon/article/2579459

    #46444
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Tolik,
    I don’t like an unrestrained government marking any rule they like. I would like even less a unrestrained government in open warfare. The images coming from war torn countries are not the images we need here.

    #46445
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    I don’t like an unrestrained government marking any rule they like. I would like even less a unrestrained government in open warfare. The images coming from war torn countries are not the images we need here.

    I don’t know what the answer is, though I do not believe it’s “sit back and do nothing.” What Bundy’s son and his group are doing MAY be just the answer – as long as the report in the Examiner is just the media building up the story in a sensational manner (not that the media, and particularly the Examiner, would ever do that!).

    “FEDERAL Building!” Oh, come on. That evokes an image of a big office building like the Murrah Federal Building, or any other large FedGov facility in some large city. This is Burns, Oregon. And this is a CLOSED little building at a national wildlife refuge. And there is far more to the story than is being generally reported, because it’s not just a sensational story about a father and son torching something, being charged with arson, and people are trying to keep them from facing justice.

    Think 60s lunch counter sit-in demonstrations. As a society we CELEBRATE those civil rights sit-ins. But the press back then often simply told stories about groups of unruly blacks taking over private businesses and not allowing others to come in to eat, thereby potentially driving the restaurant owners out of business. True, but only one slant on the story. This is a SIT-IN – 60s style! What’s the difference?

    The “rest of the story” is that the father and son were charged under anti-terrorism laws for something that they at least CLAIM they were doing to safely clear land of overgrowth. Right or wrong, I have no idea. But they were convicted, the son did a year, and the father did 3 months of time. They were released. THEN a federal judge decided they hadn’t done ENOUGH time, so he ordered them back to prison. They went through the appeals process, lost, and were planning to go report for their additional 4-year sentences tomorrow – peacefully. Cliven Bundy’s son (the father isn’t even part of the story, except that the media has tried to make him part of it) organized a protest march in town, and then a take over of the little facility at the closed wildlife refuge, planning to stay there a “long time,” years if necessary.

    I’ve read multiple stories on this, but one of the surprising sources of what appears to be relatively accurate reporting is USA Today. It summarizes much of what I’ve gotten in other stories so far – but as usual, you have to read all the way to the bottom in order to get “the rest of the story,” after having already been stirred up by the sensationalism.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/03/militia-members-occupy-us-building-in-oregon-after-protest/78226600/

    IF accurate, and IF the occupiers aren’t heavily armed and hoping for a shoot-out with the feds, I don’t see this as playing into the feds’ hands. It’s a lunch-counter sit in, 21st century style. The feds MAY be the ones to make it into something entirely different.

    #46446
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    They always grab upon any incident even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the proposed legislation. Last year I went to hearing at the VT Statehouse on anti-gun legislation being advocated for by Bloomberg’s group. The gun rights side was saying there isn’t a problem here that needs solving. The anti-gun side was using examples that happened as far away as in Alaska and as far back as in the 1960’s for why we needed more gun laws in VT. They talked about gun violence (actual or threatened) against women by husbands and boyfriends and when challenged couldn’t come up without a single example of a guy that bought a gun legally that wouldn’t have been able to do so if their proposed legislation was in place. In the end most of what they wanted didn’t get passed. The parts that did pass was prohibiting people with felony convictions for certain violent and drug offenses from having guns and for people judged in court to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others from having guns. Amongst the things not passed was requiring background checks for private sales and not allowing the liberal heart of VT (Burlington) to have its own gun regulations. What Burlington wanted was to prohibit guns from any place that served alcohol, to require certain “safe” gun storage, and to allow police to confiscate guns in domestic dispute incidents. We’ll see what they come back with this year.

    #46447
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Playing right into the hands of the gun grabbers we have a perfectly timed conflict between the feds and armed citizens.

    “Three of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons and what they claim are 150 militia members have occupied a federal building in eastern Oregon in order to keep two local ranchers out of prison, according to local reports.

    The group is believed to be heavily-armed.

    According to The Oregonian, the group seized the headquarters building at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge about 50 miles outside Burns, Ore. The remote facility was closed and unoccupied at the time.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-of-cliven-bundys-sons-militia-seize-federal-building-in-oregon/article/2579459

    74, This news is not being reported everywhere in the news media. Fox has it on there front page online but on TV they have not talked about it. I think if the shooting starts it may start civil unrest which can grow fast into a war. O then can say it is white right wing terrorist. This is what O has wanted all along.

    #46448
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    Thing is , guns and race are an automatic fail , Blacks, Hispanics , asians , etc . are just as unwilling to give up their guns as whites are .

    #46449
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    I agree but the news media keeps making this about white men thing when it is not! All races have a love for the 2nd Amendment freedoms.

    #46450
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Here is Trump’s view.
    “We’re not changing the Second Amendment,” front-running Donald Trump said Saturday at a campaign rally in Biloxi, Miss. “I will veto that. I will un-sign that so fast.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/03/gop-field-rips-obamas-move-toward-executive-action-to-tighten-gun-control-laws.html?intcmp=hpbt1

    #46451
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Just got home finally, and only had a few minutes on line to post my previous comments before leaving. I watched the “news” on several channels, but for the most part all that was on was the Sunday “news” magazine talk-talk shows. CNN did cover this story for several minutes, and though obviously slanted, they did provide some interesting additional information. But they certainly did take the opportunity to include MULTIPLE commercials for the upcoming “Guns in America” broadcast later this week when The Executive Orderer-in-Chief will meet with carefully, hand picked, but otherwise {choke!} ordinary citizens, and “listen” to the American people about “Guns in America”. But regardless of that, they frequently included in one of their split-screen images, men in heavy winter clothing, in the dark, OUTSIDE, around a fire to keep warm – those were the “occupiers” and it was the land they are occupying as part of the protest. Agree with their principle(s) or not, agree with the manner in which they chose to demonstrate it or not, but suddenly this has been downgraded to NOT a “FEDERAL BUILDING!!!” and is what it really is – basically a 60s style sit in. And I cannot find anywhere, so far, where the occupiers have termed themselves as “militia” members. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t – I just can’t find it. Yet all I see is the media blaring out the word “MILITIA,” and I’m propelled back in time to the days of JJ Johnson and his cohorts testifying to Senators Feinstein, Specter, et al, at the Senate militia hearings after OKC. Plus, the “reportedly heavily armed” story has dwindled down to “may be” with a single quote by Ammon Bundy himself in which he said they planned to be there a “long time,” and WHEN ASKED, he said that if they were attacked, they would defend themselves. Yes, and who wouldn’t?

    The media has created their desired impression in the minds of the viewers, and first impressions are the lasting ones – especially with the low-information crowd that shows up at the polling booths after watching the unbiased, objective NEWS on their TV screens. Regardless of whatever else happens with this story, another log has been tossed into the fire to help stoke it – i.e. “the people” now know that the militia is still out there, still ready for a bloody takeover of the U.S. government, yada, yada, yada. And “everyone” will certainly agree with the logic, yes, the necessity of keeping those nasty assault weapons out of the hands of these crazy folks that are lurking all around “out there.” If you haven’t looked at the comprehensive list of specific weapons in that new legislation, DO SO! It’s virtually any/everything. And the definition of an “assault weapon” isn’t something we haven’t heard before – but now it’s in introduced federal legislation with well over 100 co-sponsors. Will it pass THIS round? Of course not. But as was said above, give us a solidly Democrat government (President, Congress, + a solidly liberal set of Supremes), it’s either “on” or it’s over – probably both, and in that order.

    Oh – and the other thing I had to laugh at (only because of the predictable absurdity of it, not because it’s truly light hearted) is the fact that the stories I do see, whether on line or on TV, have almost ALL had Cliven Bundy’s photo emblazoned at the top (or beginning) of the story. He’s not even involved, and isn’t even in agreement with the method his son chose! I understand the association that is of news interest, given that THIS organizer is related to the central figure in an OLD story in Nevada, but that should qualify for 3rd or 4th paragraph mention, MAYBE with a photo of the elder Bundy down that far only – NOT making it appear that “Cliven Bundy Is At It Again!!!!” (my sarcastic take on the media coverage, not a real headline)

    This is a manufactured media event. Unfortunately, I believe this is a highly likely way an armed conflict could indeed start – the media promoting a false story that gets hair-trigger right wingers all fired up before they know the facts, and possibly in connection with an intentional government “response” to a manufactured event, and it all mushrooms out of control. But IF that becomes the case, it will not be “out of control” at all – that would have been the carefully coordinated plan all along, just like news “leaks” from politicians (that deny them) are intentionally placed with their co-conspirators in the media, to create a story that will compel action (or seem to).

    I don’t know if the younger Bundy played into anyone’s hands or not. Frankly, I believe that almost ANY civil disobedience – once a celebrated means of change in this country (but only by certain groups, in certain cases) – can and will be misrepresented intentionally and by plan, to justify and generate an over-the-top government crackdown. So regardless, it’s either cave in or let all hell break loose, it would seem. The “right” thing to do, though, is to very carefully choose and plan the action, weighing ALL of the consequences. I’d personally favor no armed massive conflict, devolving into the chaos we see in so many other countries. And I also recognize that as an unfortunate possibility regardless.

    2¢ + 3%

    #46455
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    I found the following comment under the original videos (bottom of the two – the one specifically on HR 4269) that started this thread. That guy has the right idea:

    You don’t understand. This bill is designed to kick off the 2nd civil war. Then Obama can declare martial law and remain in power. Hitler could not have planned it any better. Get ready, it’s on it’s way.

    While it may or may not be a ploy for Obama to remain in office and become the official dictator rather than the unofficial (by default) one because of a complicit Congress and Supreme Court, the basic idea certainly seems more than just plausible. It’s ploy to achieve something far more grandiose – rendering the Constitution finally impotent.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.