Posted on 02/18/2010 10:22:05 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
You are a sick freak if you haven’t the sense to recognize that governments have killed well over a hundred million. Stop taking the stupid pills—the evidence is there. I share no common ground, nor do I want to share common ground, with whatever you claim to be. This killer is a posting member of both the KOS and DU. His posting near identical to many of the same posts on those sites and I wager you post there too.
Maybe not, and Paine probably didn’t make it either.
>Add to McVeigh the Unibombers manifesto which easily could have been Gore’s Earth in the Balance.
Actually disturbing is how QUICKLY McVeigh’s execution went through compared to the rest of the criminals on death row.
(It’s almost as though the Government were sending out a message against those who dared to stand up, in whatever way, against the government that they would be crushed.)
[/semi-conspiracy]
>I’m not going to play the political blame game on Stack; the guy was nothing but a domestic terrorist and complete loon, whatever his political persuasion.
Actually I’ll stick up for him; consider this:
The New Mexico State Constitution says the following in its Article 2, Section 6:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms. (As
amended November 2, 1971 and November
2, 1986.)
Yet, here is a state law that ABSOLUTELY abridges the right to keep and bear arms for self defense:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=10bb5#JD_30-7-24
If I was to take my .45 onto campus do you think that my rights would be honored as the State Constitution demands, or would I be arrested and charged with violating the subordinate and contra-constitutional law?
It’s a no-win scenario because the government-led law enforcement can [and do], whenever possible, ignore all laws that might inconvenience them... like the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Or, consider this, the Amendment authorizing the [federal] regulation of Alcohol was repealed; Tobacco was NEVER so federally regulated; and Firearms have an Amendment barring the infringement of possession & operation thereof... yet we have a Federal agency called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, whose job is the federal regulation of the aforementioned products. Explain that.
Let’s face it everyone:
We ALREADY live in a DE FACTO Tyranny.
>>By what is known so far it is *likely* that Joe Stack was a Tea Party attendee.
>
>Why is it likely? Because he hated the IRS? Is it also likely that he’s marched with Code Pink because he hated Bush?
I think he’s saying it’s likely because the Tea Party is all about being against government’s ever-encroaching & self-serving arrogance... the twisted maze of laws that we have, ESPECIALLY in the Tax arena, is proof of that; recall Ayn Rand’s line about [governments] controlling people.
>>He is not a communist.
>
>He quotes Marx favorably in direct contrast to an anti-capitalist play on Marx’s words. After reading the entire screed again, I don’t think he knew what he was.
>But he was clearly more sympathetic to communism than he was to what’s left of our system — probably because no communist country’s revenue service had ever audited him.
Well, it could be argued that the “what’s left of our system” is analogous to the hypocrisy of the pharisees that Jesus called them on, that is “whitewashed tombs” which is obviously against the righteousness they pretended/presented outwardly.
The same with our system: they CLAIM that it’s Constitutional, but in reality it isn’t. (See Keelo, the 4th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, the prohibition against bills of attainder and/or ex post facto law...)
>>Why are you and the others trying to stiffle discussion?
>
>Speaking for myself, because we crossed into the realm of praising the guy.
I don’t think there was any praise in my post 403:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2454242/posts?page=403#403
I was more or less just saying that I certainly could sympathize with the guy; being on the receiving end of no-win situations myself... and that the deck is stacked against those who would try to use the laws for their own [governmentally unauthorized] gain/advantage.
>One poster — who is either a troll or a ticking time-bomb — said he loved Stack and suggested we have an obligation to follow in his footsteps.
I didn’t see that post. But to be honest, if it came down to a fight [Civ War II] I should hope that I’d cause the tyrants a lot of pain & inconvenience. {Though until the SHTF we won’t know, will we?}
>It was the single most bizarre post I’ve ever read here.
I’ve read some bizarre posts... but you may be right, I missed the post you’re referring to.
>And it’s the kind of thing that can do serious damage to FR should it go viral.
True, it certainly COULD.
>In retrospect, I don’t see anything else that rises to the level of that post. So, no, I don’t care to see any purge.
Good, because I kinda liked my examples in the aforementioned post.
>I just over-reacted to one really disturbing post that struck a nerve.
I’ve done that myself a few times... so I won’t hold it against you.
Actually I’ll stick up for him...
OK, then tell all of us how many you want to murder, how and when!?
What kind of person must you be to stick up for this Socialist looter and pathological murderer!?
>>>I’m not going to play the political blame game on Stack; the guy was nothing but a domestic terrorist and complete loon, whatever his political persuasion.
>>
>>Actually I’ll stick up for him...
>
>OK, then tell all of us how many you want to murder, how and when!?
I said stick up for, not emulate. Haven’t you ever heard of the Boston Massacre? The soldiers on trial were defended by John Adams, who did such a good job at the defense that he secured acquittals. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre ] If our founding fathers were such that they sought justice for even their enemies, shouldn’t we as well strive to?
Therefore, please quit throwing the accusations around [name calling] and engage in reason.
>What kind of person must you be to stick up for this Socialist looter and pathological murderer!?
One who has served in the military to secure the ideals and rights that brought forth the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights. One who would rather see justice done than the “good old boy” system.
Did you even read my whole post? What sort of person are you?
Apparently. I heard of it, and saw a website explaining how it is to be done, about 10 years ago. There is, or was at the time, a piece of tax code that did not require any actual church-like activity to be done. One could, according to that Internet advice, file the right papers under the right paragraph of the law and bingo, become a pastor of the church of one. Then any income was supposed to be laundered through that church.
Huh? What does a crazed communist tax dodger intentionally flying his plane into a private office building have to do with Red Coats enforcing The Kings Peace in the British Colonies?
Obviously you miss the obvious link: Taxes.
This man, whether rightly or wrongly, believed he was being oppressed by our government. Having seen but a fraction of the mess of unconstitutional laws I am somewhat inclined to agree with Ayn Rand: “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. [...] One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Again I present to you the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article 2 section 6:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=3dcd#JD_nmcartii-6
Here I present State Statutes 30-7-1, 30-7-2, 30-7-2.2, 30-7-2.4:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=10bad#JD_30-7-1
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=10baf#JD_30-7-2
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=10bb1#JD_30-7-22
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&nid=10bb5#JD_30-7-24
30-7-1 defines “Carrying a deadly weapon.”
30-7-2, using the definition in 30-7-1, makes it [technically] illegal to open carry (publicly accessible places are not on the list of exempted places you are ‘allowed’ to carry).
30-7-2.2 illegalizes self defense as well as open-carry; read section A and its listed exceptions.
30-7-2-4 flatly prohibits firearms on campus for self-defense.
ALL three of those last listed are contrary to the State Constitution. Do you doubt for a second that, despite the State Constitution’s assurance that my right to defend myself with firearms will not be abridged by any law, I would be prosecuted if I took my Glock onto campus with me?
It is PRECISELY this sort of legal shenanigans which can [and will] be used against the people... yes, I would be violating a state law if I did as I proposed. ALTHOUGH, considering the State Constitution, that law is NULL & VOID.
bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.