Posted on 01/11/2013 8:55:59 PM PST by jimluke01
A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rearview mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.
Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons. As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box, withdrew a military-grade, semi-automatic handgun – an “assault weapon,” if you will – and, with intentionality and great theatre, leaned across his young bride, pointing the gun out the open bay and directly between dirt bag’s booze-flushed eyes.
Van vanished amid a plume of gray smoke as wheels locked, tires screeched and “assault vehicle” fishtailed – jerking to a halt with taillights aglow skyward from the ditch.
Not a shot was fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I love a happy ending.
Continuing from the article:
“Back at the couple’s rural farmhouse, two boys – boys who would not be orphaned that night – played. We most likely played – my brother Pete and I – with assault rifles fashioned from sticks. I always love to hear Dad retell the story. He does it with an ornery, satisfied grin. “No one’s taking my guns,” he’ll say.
This might be a good time for me to add that no one’s taking my guns either. Period. And if Dianne Feinstein orders me from her lofty perch on the left-coast to retroactively register them with some federal autocracy, I think I might just forget I even have them. Tens of millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans just like me and Dad, I suspect, feel the same way.”
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear ARMED DRONES, shall not be infringed
I had a bad day today. found out the hard way just how difficult taking poorly interpretations of the 2a and exercising them...
I repeat, YOU CANNOT arm a grouchy half hibernating bear...!
It sounds like the driver of the van was trying to kill somebody.
(shrug) I wonder if in a similar situation I would have fired.
And then drove on...
It will take years to put-together the political, and military forces to wage a Civil War. If Washington passed an act tomorrow banning all guns, and all of us agreed it was unconstitutional, but The Federal Employees in black-robes upheld their appointees desires anyway.(As they usually do in all matters being little more than hand picked Employees.)
We still would be in no position to fight for our rights. We would instead have to evade the unjust law as individuals, and if we were successful in that capacities we would have no drive toward war. If we were not successful in that capacities we would very soon have no means for war.
Either way the Unconstitutional usurpation would stand for lack of ability or compelling will. You must never forget the words of our forefathers. Men are indeed more predisposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than right themselves by the risks & costs of revolution.
If there is to be a revolution to liberate us from this oppression it will have to have been in the planning long before any such move was ever made. The will would have to have been there in the whole of the population of the State for years so much so that the legislator should be visablty willing to resist.
Indeed the very situation which we describe is almost invariably a product of a population at odds(political war) with an there population elsewhere. In which case the real war would not so ironically be simply an extension of that political war.
Now this could very well describe the situation as now exist and is developing in theses United States. But while we are quickly approaching that point where it may become violent, nobody could doubt that we have yet to reach such a fevered pinch of Civil War. There will be smaller scale political violence first, some of which might lead to a more defused situation such as the assassination of President Obama.
Others will simply inflame the population further into taking up arms. Overall however the great bulk of event’s and actions being driven by the political greed of Congress and the Federal executive branch will tend to drive us both towards greater mutual antagonistic animosity. Thus the end result of separation and/or Civil War.
I don’t really see a politically likely path out of this. Our political discourse has been building towards this for decades. Everything from the effective arbitrary lawlessness of Washington to the unsustainable debt, to the political patronage systems all have their substance build upon a foundation of antagonistic competition, with ends set in the natural limits of debt, resources, and tolerable power.
Throw into the mix an already long established history of sectionalism, and you have not only the cause of war but the means of war.
A Civil War could start very quickly—but it would have to come from the states—I see Texas as the leader. There would need to be a leader arise as well—a recognized and honored person—I believe it would be an old White Guy with white hair, someone trusted. Such men do exist—one just left the house—last name Paul. Others are out there as well. It would start small—and grow like the Christos War in Mexico in the 1920s. It would be ugly and bitter. It would be the end of the US as a great power—but maybe that would not be so bad.
I agree, except Texas would not go on a military offensive. They would not repeat an assault on Ft. Sumter, but they would defend against a Federal gun grab, etc.
It would be wise for the Free States to form some sort of association now, to organize strategy for dealing with the advancing Tyranny, even if there is no secession.
Never fight with an old man. He will just kill you and leave you in the ditch to rot.
By an old man who is strictly without remorse. None at all.
You have one bucket for crap and one for money. I’ve had all the crap I need or want.
Clark is my hero.
Some have and soon others will figure out they can’t get the guns and that they don’t have to. All they gotta do is stOp the ammo.
The Constitution tells us how the free states should proceed. It's called an article five Constitutional Convention. We need 34 states to trigger it and 38 to ratify changes. Just a few amendments or changes to amendments and it's OVER for this out of control federal government.
It would take some work but it's far more likely to succeed than a brutal civil war or succession.
I disagree about how it would roll out. If we have a civil war it will look like Northern Ireland on a continental scale. Informal, amorphous and anonymous, with nasty atrocities on both sides, and some of them false flag.
“Some have and soon others will figure out they can’t get the guns and that they don’t have to. All they gotta do is stOp the ammo.”
During WWII, Mao Tse Tung advised his guerrillas that the enemy would bring them weapons and ammunition.
Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?
What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past: “Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“
Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.
A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.
Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.
I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.
Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.
Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.
You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."
Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????
Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."
Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"
Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.
What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.
An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."
FLB:
Power abhors a vacuum. Somebody will fill the vacuum the US leaves when the lights are turned off. If you think our best interests have been sidelined today wait for that day. You ain’t seen nothing yet!
“No man can stand success! Another’s that is.” Mark Twain
For God’s sake, fix the apostrophes in the title and your sig! Those errors are jarring and destroy the credibility of your writing.
It won’t take years to build up a force - it can be done quickly, Zer0 could:
1. Bring in UN troops, and/or
2. Federalize the unions
If you haven’t read Matt Bracken’s EFOD trilogy, recommend you make it a HIGH priority.
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.