Forum Post: Would you shoot me with a rifle to "take back this country"?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 7:44 p.m. EST by thomasmiller
(163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Some of this talk on here is scary about "taking back the country". Can you tell me straight because I want to know right now. If you had to do it, would you shoot me with a rifle or fellow Americans to take back this country.
I will tell you I think things are just fine and I am proud of this country. Sure, there is a recession, but they come and go every 5-7 years. You might be in a bad situation but I am telling you to work through it...man up and be an adult about it. 100 years ago did they have health insurance, benefits or any of that? They had nothing and they pressed on despite a lot of issues and problems at the time.
So I want to know the answer right now. Would you shoot me or any fellow American to take back this country?
That really depends. Would you shoot your fellow Americans with a rifle to prevent them from taking back their country?
Let's defend each other's rights rather then trying to take them away.
I am not an agent, but just a regular guy. Do you honestly think that Obama or Bloomberg sent me here? Maybe the NYPD sent me here? Look, Im just trying to talk some sense into you kids who are in adult bodies...
cointelpro... are they hiring?????? I need a job.
Dude, are you not proud of these people for having changed the dialog. I bet when you go to work, you are no longer talking about lame ass sports, silly degenerate celebrities or trivial ass products. I would hope that a greater proportion of the nation is talking about what is really important. And that is why I believe they should occupy and boycott whatever they please.
Very good. So stop creating the chaos designed to take our rights away.
Your rights are only taken when you quit doing what they decree.
If you are still confused as to what this movement is about, I stumbled upon this documentary. And i have to say it is the most "to the point" documentary i've seen so far that explains everything in a way that anybody can understand what's going on.
The title is "the end of poverty", it links the economic and social infrastructure that's been set in place since colonial times until now to the poverty and wars we see today. It shows what this 1% is doing to the world in a global scale. What I've been trying to get across is that people are not seeing/understanding the full picture. You have too see everything as the whole world, not just localizing it as a movement in the U.S. It's a global movement/reformation.
All the people on the streets marching right now, whether they know it or not, they are marching for the world as one. The reasons as to why there are so many ideas on change and not just one unified idea when you ask any one of the protesters, it's because of an accumulation of everything wrong in the world. They represent all. That is why many people are confused as to what these protesters are marching for, the "what" is the system we live in.
Please watch this video, it is free on Hulu. Just click on the link. It will clarify things about the world we live in.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/151119/the-end-of-poverty
Rex Diamond, Sorry, I can't listen to a guy with a porn star name.
Maybe it's his real name; maybe he's a real porn star, just saying...
The whole point of the Constitution and of democracy is that one can take back (or for that matter take over) this country without spilling a drop of blood or firing a single shot. Whoever and whatever has the final say over the information we receive has control of the country, and given the way many in this country follow politics whoever and whatever can shell out the most money for attack ads takes the election cycle and has way too much say over the direction of domestic and foreign policy thereafter.
However, if that phenomenon worked in service of one group, it can definitely work for another. When the people take their attention away from attack ads and diversionary political stunts (and off Jersey Shore and the game and onto politics and civics in general) and begin focusing on real issues like campaign finance/lobbying reform, the re-regulation of Wall Street, tax code reform, military spending, etc. then they'll go to the polls and vote for what's actually in their best interest. In that action, without firing a shot or spilling a drop of blood, the people will return America to its rightful owners-themselves. OWSers most likely wouldn't do that, because as much as we want change we have no desire to turn the country on its ear. We want to take back the country America was and can still be, not get gunned down in the streets by the army, or "take back" a bloody burning mess on the off chance that we actually could outshoot the army. If things get to the point where I'm turning a rifle on any of my countrymen to make a point then we're not in the America I recognize.
True revolution in America isn't wild-eyed or violent; in fact it tends to be rather slow in coming and rather orderly in manifestation. OWS is part of that tradition, but it's far from the sum total of the change that's coming and if our system still works it'll probably be the most raucous, disorganized, and obnoxious part of that change. While ordinary people here may find plenty to facepalm at in individual instances, they have nothing to fear from the movement as a whole.
I agree with you but two minor points: One, unknown to many including those civilians that federally govern, the military cannot take up arms against the American people (so what we're talking here are the Washington police); two, inherent in the Constitution, legally argued, is the right of revolution.
Kind of a ridiculous question I'm Canadian, so we'll pretend your talking about Canada for a sec... OK so if you are an immediate threat to any of the 33 million people that live here? Yes. I would shoot you right in the face. If you are asking if I would kill countrymen that don't agree with how I think things should work? No, that would be stupid. I would fight for your right to have opinions opposite of mine. I would stand up for anyones right to speak their mind. I will also openly state that I would take up arms against any government that trampled on our Charter rights with impunity. If the system was broken to the point where the government was no longer for the people, but against them? It would be my DUTY to fight them.
Only if you're attempting to take my property or harm someone. The same conditions I would use to shoot at anyone.
If you think things are just fine, you live in a fantasy bubble.
No, I would just continue to wallow in poverty.
Do you realize that Abe Lincoln did not necessarily believe that his actions, during the Civil War were Constitutional, but rather lawful, because his acts were indispensable to the survival of the Government and the Nation. Since our Government retains a means for the orderly transfer of representation, even following an assassination or following the Ameircan poeple ejecting a sitting politician, refusing to let the Government get away with corruption, criminality and internationally leaving Americas jobless, is not something that warrants shooting the people, since politicians are not Constitutionally entitled to commit crime, promote corruption, to intentionally promote US joblessness or to stay in office, if they do any of the above.
The Constitution does not say that the people cannot eject polititicians and even if the people had no right to do so, there is no right of the military or the police to use violence to stop them. Lincoln pointed to his Presidency as imposing a duty to preserve, by every indispensible means, the Government and the Nation, but even this exercise may simply have been utterly unlawful. Lincoln may have had no right to do what he did. He may have had no lawful justification to fight the Civil War, since our Constitution does not prevent states from leaving the Union and forming a new country, for instance. Chekoslavakia split without a Civil war, after all.
Politicians are not Constitutionally entitled to use the military or a policing force to kill Americans to prevent the people from kicking a politician out of office.These criminal and corrupt actions are outside the duties of the Government, are not necessary to achieve their actual duties. While lobbyist may be entitled to lobby, politicians are not Constitutionally entitled to undermine our National interests, to impose a Globalist order, to demand that I live at a low standard of living, so the rich can get richer. There is no Constitutional right to be a billionaire, no obligation for me to be poor and no Constitutional right to authorize the State of NY in its policing power to do anything beyond promote my heath, welfare and safety.
Depends, what did you do to instigate it? Take my liberties? Tax me into the poor house? Take my home and land as a penalty for having more than someone else? Hmmm? To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
But I'm canadian...
yep.
That would put us in jail and you can't do much while you are in jail.
they did not 'press on' you do not know that there were amendments to the constitution in the last 100 yrs? you do not know of the laws have been changed in favor of allowing this debacle of wealth distribution? they did not 'press on' they protested and the politicians did what the people said like they should.. problem is, the people stopped fighting and accepted the status quo. now that is over. you have to add your voice unless you want your grandchildren eating out of dumpsters for lack of a job.
Honestly? It depends on the situation...
Under current circumstances absolutely not! OWS is a movement of less than a million in a country of 307 million+ and has less than a 50% approval rating (net positive but still.. lots of on the fencers).
If OWS had more than half the population behind it, the cops/military decided to get marshal about keeping order, a new Declaration of Independence was ratified by public referendum and the (at that point occupying) government refused to step down?
You bet your damn hat I'd fight... and I'd fight on "the side of the Yanks".
Damn Yankees... You don't understand, in the next one we're siding with the South.
Talk about a pre-loaded question aimed at the people they are protesting against. C'mon now... hippies don't have guns.
There was an interesting article that appeared in local papers here today... It was written by two self-professed constitutional scholars... one, a judge, and the other, an attorney, who are presently teaching... in it they argue that the Constitution is a "living" document and then proceed to present two examples as the failure of a strictly applied Constitutionalism.
One of these, of course, is Dred Scott, which essentially ruled in favor of a continued slavery. The decision was correct because the Supreme Court judge applied the test of constitutionally, and not a test of morality. In 1857, slavery was Constitutional, and the purpose of the Supreme Court judge is to judge on the basis of Constitutionality, and not to inject a subjectivity.
Lincoln, as the quintessential master of metaphor, said, "I am a Constitutionalist; I cannot see you," or words to that affect.
The decision, of course, incensed many... and as we all know, helped fuel Lincoln's election, the formation of the Republican party, and ultimately a war that cost several hundred thousand lives, not to mention casualties, that left many to suffer for generations to come. Many families, including my own , have not recovered to this very day.
The point is, it took the force of an army, and several years, at a cost of these several hundred thousand lives, to amend the Constitution.
The other item that these two "Wise Men" mention is the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which were passed in Congress, and signed by Pres John Adams, that essentially outlawed all derogatory speech directed at government. They were passed against a backdrop of the French revolution, in fear of the Illuminati, whom many believed had infiltrated every American community, in light of the of the vehemence of several states respecting Federal law and a refusal to enforce. People were arrested, and in response, Jefferson threw together the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves which ultimately served to further define state rights and introduce the concept of "nullification" as a means of challenging unjust and obviously unconstitutional Federal law. The case never made it to the Supreme Court; the acts, as a temporary wartime measure, expired on their own primarily because no one in Federal government wanted to see the concept of nullification introduced as a just and Constitutional means.
My point is that it was cited here not because of some failure of the Supreme Court - the case was never judged or subjected to a test of its Constitutionality - but for one reason and one reason only and that is because a Founding Father signed the bill. Essentially they merely challenge the supposed wisdom of a John Adams as an author of the Constitution.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were obviously unconstitutional. Are Presidents and Congress capable of enacting unjust law, as unconstitutional, which violate our rights? Absolutely. And here again, that is my point: the law, if it is to be judged by the Supreme Court, must be judged on the grounds of its Constitutionality and NOT subjectively. The judge exists to judge the law; not to judge the Constitution. And when a practice is made of judging the Constitution subjectively, there is a very real chance that we will lose some portion of our rights.
You ask if me if I would shoot you to take back my country. Well, of course, there are many quotes that we could apply here: Lincoln said, for example, that the ballot was intended to replace the bullet, or words to that effect.
This article was put together by two attorneys, self professed Constitutional scholars; incredible that it would take two minds to create an argument so easily dissected and discarded as false. But this is our current state of affairs; these judges aren't Constitutional, they are political, with an agenda, serving as legislative representatives of their party. And if this trend continues, and rights continue to diminish, I believe there is very real possibility that the bullets will eventually fly. Because Americans are tired of a corrupt minority voice attempting, through force of law, to tread on them.
There was an interesting article that appeared in local papers here today... It was written by two self-professed constitutional scholars... one, a judge, and the other, an attorney, who are presently teaching... in it they argue that the Constitution is a "living" document and then proceed to present two examples as the failure of a strictly applied Constitutionalism.
One of these, of course, is Dred Scott, which essentially ruled in favor of a continued slavery. The decision was correct because the Supreme Court judge applied the test of constitutionally, and not a test of morality. In 1857, slavery was Constitutional, and the purpose of the Supreme Court judge is to judge on the basis of Constitutionality, and not to inject a subjectivity.
Lincoln, as the quintessential master of metaphor, said, "I am a Constitutionalist; I cannot see you," or words to that affect.
The decision, of course, incensed many... and as we all know, helped fuel Lincoln's election, the formation of the Republican party, and ultimately a war that cost several hundred thousand lives, not to mention casualties, that left many to suffer for generations to come. Many families, including my own , have not recovered to this very day.
The point is, it cost these several hundred thousand lives to amend the Constitution.
The other item that these two "Wise Men" mention is the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which were passed in Congress, and signed by Pres John Adams, that essentially outlawed all derogatory speech directed at government. They were passed against a backdrop of the French revolution, in fear of the Illuminati, whom many believed had infiltrated every American community, in light of the of the vehemence of several states respecting Federal law and a refusal to enforce. People were arrested, and in response, Jefferson threw together the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves which ultimately served to further define state rights and introduce the concept of "nullification" as a means of challenging unjust and obviously unconstitutional Federal law. The case never made it to the Supreme Court; the acts expired on their own, as a temporary wartime measure, primarily because no one in Federal government wanted to see the concept of nullification introduced as a just and Constitutional means.
My point is, that it was cited here not because of some failure of the Supreme Court - the case was never judged or subjected to a test of its Constitutionality - but for one reason and one reason only, and that is because a Founding Father signed the bill. Essentially they merely challenge the wisdom of a John Adams as a supposed author of the Constitution.
The Alien and Sedition Acts, as a war time measure, were obviously unconstitutional. Are Presidents and Congress capable of legislating unjust law, as unconstitutional, which violate our rights? Absolutely. And here again, my point: the law, if it is to be judged by the Supreme Court, must be judged on the grounds of its Constitutionality and NOT subjectively. The judge exists to judge the law; not to judge the Constitution. And when a practice is made of judging the Constitution subjectively, there is a very real chance that we will lose some portion of our rights.
You ask if me if I would shoot you to take back my country. Well, of course, there are many quotes that we could apply here; Lincoln, for example, said that the ballot was intended to replace the bullet, or words to that effect.
This article was put together by two attorneys, self professed Constitutional scholars; incredible that it would take two minds to create as argument so easily dissected and discarded as false. But this is our current state of affairs; these judges aren't Constitutional, they are political, with an agenda, serving as legislative representatives of their party. And if this tend continues, and rights continue to diminish, I believe there is very real possibility that the bullets will eventually fly. Because Americans are tired of a minority and radical agenda.
we wouldn't have to shoot you... all we'll have to do is say "boo" and you'ld go running ... just like they got you running now...
Depends if I have to field dress you or not, how much the taxidermist would charge to "stuff" you and what your head would look like mounted over my fireplace.....
I wouldn't shoot you with a rifle......but I would put my pistol in your bunghole
Ohhhhh baby
I would spray you in the face with cyanide, which is undetectable in an autopsy and makes it look as though you had a heart attack. But no, I wouldn't shoot you...
Cyanide binds with hemoglobin and is easily detected.
Shit!
Are you in season or not?
Is bow hunting permitted? What is the daily bag limit?
"would you shoot me with a rifle or fellow Americans to take back this country" ?
The moment you step across my property line with the intent to steal my stuff. One shot, One kill.
Any further questions?