...to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I was wondering; there's been lots of well-justified hard partisan talk around here, at my job,
on the radio. I see what is unquestionably an unabashed power-grab by the democrats, which
is to be expected; when socialists come to power they seek to solidify their power and authority
over their subjects. They've already made the first move, and that is to (apparently) unconstitutionally
change the way the census will be conducted, in an effort to gerrymander their way to an illegal and
undefeatable permanent majority in both houses. I am wondering, my brothers, how each of us interprets the meaning of the phrase this thread is listed under, but with a point to asking a very
specific question: At what point do American citizens bear arms against their own government,
in an exercise to restore a "free state" ?
It is not my intent to condone or encourage civil disobedience or citizen-on-citizen violence. It is an
attempt to gauge what it would take for relatively comfortable, peaceable and law-abiding citizens to
lay it on the line in the name of, call it whatever you want, patriotism, restoration of liberty, removal of
tyrannical rule...whatever.
I am hoping my american brothers can keep their heads and not let this new government take too much control over everyday life. Things happening up here are downright sickening as well, libby's looking to take control to only help themselves.[:'(]
The scumbag libbys do that wherever they go. Their initiatives are hollow, illogical, and ALWAYS based
on 1 of 2 principles:
a: decisions are made based on emotion, and not cold hard fact
b: their initiatives are ostensibly to help others, but they help nobody; rather, their initiatives
are designed to make THEM feel good about themselves.
It seems really quite fascist, the way they conduct themselves because they are socialist in bent,
and authoritarian in their method of operation. Mussolini would be proud. Maybe we can resurrect
the title 'Il Duce' for Obamhole....at least until he's defeated in his 2012 bid for re-election.
But I was wondering what sorts of government actions would provoke a middle-aged creampuff like
"Bergall" to leave his comfy chair and take to the hinterlands with his M-14 ? I agree it would be a
sad day indeed if it happened because these 'confederates' would be terrorists, brigands and rebels unless
they were able to defeat the forces of the federal government (the only way to actually succeed)
and replace it with an interim military protectorate while solidifying power and destroying it's opposition.
All this talk makes one think of alternatives and ultimately, at it's abject worst, of rebellion in the absense
of any bargaining power and in the presence of political and economic servitude. This stimulus package...it was passed the way it was...the republicans were excluded from the process and we will be
subjects of Obamhole, not citizens of the USA.
I think I can answere that bergall "brother", one more term with Bush and company in office would do it. The complete crash of our economic system, would do the trick. I am sure the road we were on would have led to worse than your ponderings. Now we have a reason to hope, and with the will of the people in charge, a chance to climb back out of a certain bad situation. Yes, just one more year of the Republican policy, would have led to horrible things. The upside, it did not take a militia to get them out of office.
You seem to be forgetting that Obama did not take over the government by force to implement his "socialist" ways. Whether you like it or not he was elected to office the same way as any other president before him was. How long has he been in office now? Less than a month and you are calling for an armed rebellion? And then you call the liberals illogical? You are NO better, I can assure you.
You seem to be forgetting that Obama did not take over the government by force to implement his "socialist" ways. Whether you like it or not he was elected to office the same way as any other president before him was. How long has he been in office now? Less than a month and you are calling for an armed rebellion? And then you call the liberals illogical? You are NO better, I can assure you.
No he did not. What he did, as all good socialists and fascists have been able to do in the past, was to
appeal to populist yearnings in vague and unspecified terms. He appealed to those with their hands out. He had the benefit of pure positive propaganda put forth by the mass media which explored nothing of substance in this candidacy, but which was partisan and jaded enough to actually report unsubstantiated stories proven false by medical records, regarding the status of Governor Sara Palin's baby. You can't pay enough for that sort of free positive fluff. The other thing you can't pay enough for, is the reams of negative propaganda put forth by that self-same media regaring the unsuitability of the republican candidates. That's more millions of free propaganda. Lastly, the use of the internet to raise money for his campaign was a money-laundering scheme par excellence, especially after Obamhole campaign folks TURNED OFF the security/tracking software which would have enabled investigators to determine who was donating, and how much. Can't charge anyone with illegal campaign financing crimes if the money is untraceable...these greasy snakes could teach La Cosa Nostra how to launder money and stay out of jail.
Plus, as as my 'disclaimer' clearly states, I am not calling for 'armed rebellion'. I am asking what it would take a slug like you to get up off your gluteus majoris and "stand opposed" to tyranny. I used the Obamhole victory and current events as a backdrop to somewhat qualify and motivate the thought process...but it was you who seems to think we would need to destroy the current admin. Seems you're no better than Rainman.
I think I can answere that bergall "brother", one more term with Bush and company in office would do it. The complete crash of our economic system, would do the trick. I am sure the road we were on would have led to worse than your ponderings. Now we have a reason to hope, and with the will of the people in charge, a chance to climb back out of a certain bad situation. Yes, just one more year of the Republican policy, would have led to horrible things. The upside, it did not take a militia to get them out of office.
Sooo, you think it will take a militia action to get BHO and friends out of office? I was hoping we could just vote them out.
No....they will be voted out. The losses will begin at the midterm elections in 2010, where due to that
pesky 'will of the people', the dems will lose seats. I'd like to see them lose both majorities, and I'd like
to see 'moderates' (read that as RINOs) get retired as well. It's time for our representatives to take a
stand and this is not a time for fence-sitting moderates. The big problem is, if the republicans do NOT
regain control of both houses (or even one), Obamhole stands to take his time for 4 whole years in
disassembling this country as we know it today.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary....
[:'(]
I think I can answere that bergall "brother", one more term with Bush and company in office would do it. The complete crash of our economic system, would do the trick. I am sure the road we were on would have led to worse than your ponderings. Now we have a reason to hope, and with the will of the people in charge, a chance to climb back out of a certain bad situation. Yes, just one more year of the Republican policy, would have led to horrible things. The upside, it did not take a militia to get them out of office.
