PDA

View Full Version : Delete


chaled
10-20-2009, 5:49 AM
Delete

bodger
10-20-2009, 6:00 AM
I see that the author of this has positioned the Oath Keepers with Timothy McVeigh.

I guess anyone who expresses a willingness to protect and defend the Constitution is a home grown terrorist.

Seems odd to me, especially since that's part of the oath one is required to take to become a member of the United States Military.

I used to think the feds would never dare try to come for our guns. I don't feel that way so much these days.

chaled
10-20-2009, 6:08 AM
I see that the author of this has positioned the Oath Keepers with Timothy McVeigh.

I guess anyone who expresses a willingness to protect and defend the Constitution is a home grown terrorist.

Seems odd to me, especially since that's part of the oath one is required to take to become a member of the United States Military.

I used to think the feds would never dare try to come for our guns. I don't feel that way so much these days.

Things are changing (deteriorating) very quickly. I don't think a sovereign, armed USA is part of the global elite's or the current administration's agenda.

Suvorov
10-20-2009, 6:19 AM
I don't think a sovereign, armed USA is part of the global elite's or the current administration's agenda.



Truer words have seldom been spoken on this forum. :(

liketoshoot
10-20-2009, 7:02 AM
sad, sad day when law abiding people have to worry about becoming law breakers over night.

benelli shooter
10-20-2009, 7:12 AM
I don't actually think the Feds will be able to come for our guns. Heller was the turning point for total confiscation. After we win incorporation, our focus will be on eliminating unconstitutional state laws all over the country. This will take decades.

We will have won the war. But, we will have small battles that will last the rest of our lives.

I would be more worried about what the crooks in the Federal government are doing to what is left of our economy.

P.S. That being said, I am 47 years old. I have had a great life. They will never get my guns peacefully. Everyone has to die someday. I can't think of a better way to go. But, I don't think it will come to this.

empty
10-20-2009, 7:26 AM
This article uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as their main source. SPLC is not an unbiased group by ANY means.

putput
10-20-2009, 7:31 AM
Every time I hear "Oath Keepers" I think of those young girls who promise daddy to remain a virgin until marraige.:wacko:

mikehaas
10-20-2009, 7:32 AM
Oh, how dramatic. Someone is watching too much TV.

Someone needs to remind these hotheads that Barack Obama's first defeat was at the hands of NRA. of course, the lamestream media didn't cover it, but FOX News sure did.

Don't you remember Eric Holder, in Obama's first month, stating the administration wanted to re-instate the AW ban? Do these flakes remember what happened?

None other than Nancy freakin' Pelosi publicly stated - SAME DAY - that such an action was NOT on the agenda of the House of Reps. She also suggested the DOJ focus on enforcing laws on the books already. Now who does that sound like? It's verbatim what Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston (God rest his soul) were saying back in the Clinton era!

There hasn't been a whisper about it since! In fact, there hasn't been any gun control passed at the federal level since BEFORE COLUMBINE (that's ten years ago, folks). (NRA prevented gun control from appearing in the subsequent "Juvenile Justice" legislation - it was in there but TAKEN OUT. Not even COLUMBINE tipped the hand toward the anti-gunners!)

I don't think the federal government is going to be grabbin' guns anytime soon and these hotheads need to CHILL OUT before they make fools of the gun industry as hotheads are known for doing.

Tell 'em to focus on taxes or health care or ??? like other good conservatives and leave the Second Amendment to NRA before they screw it up for the rest of us. I bet they aren't even NRA members.

rolo
10-20-2009, 7:34 AM
Any time someone couples the words "I'm not" and later qualifies it with "BUT" you can change the "I'm not" to "I am." It's a sign of moral laziness.

benelli shooter
10-20-2009, 7:38 AM
Mike, I couldn't agree with you more. The truth is that the gun grabbers will never ever go away. We will have to fight them the rest of our lives. Our children will have to fight them for their entire lives. But, right now, we are winning. That does not mean we can get lazy and relax. The anti gunners should be the ones in a panic right now. Next summer, we will overwhelm the system with lawsuits to reverse the last 50 years of bad gun laws.

There is a time for drama. This ain't it. Check the score. We are winning.

Jamsie567
10-20-2009, 8:02 AM
I see that the author of this has positioned the Oath Keepers with Timothy McVeigh.

I guess anyone who expresses a willingness to protect and defend the Constitution is a home grown terrorist.

Seems odd to me, especially since that's part of the oath one is required to take to become a member of the United States Military.

I used to think the feds would never dare try to come for our guns. I don't feel that way so much these days.

Their not a milita group they believe in promoting positive values with in our military, fire and law enforcement. That day does not belong to Mcveigh and is just the day some lunatic used because it had a greater meaning.

Peace,

pullnshoot25
10-20-2009, 8:05 AM
The threat is always there. However, discerning the right time to strike is a debatable topic.

chaled
10-20-2009, 8:10 AM
Oh, how dramatic. Someone is watching too much TV.


I'm glad you're thinking happy thoughts and staying positive.


Conspiracy -

"...One of the darkest words in the language of man. Yet there is hardly a single page of history that doesn’t reveal the deadly eye of conspiracy at work. It was a conspiracy that directed Brutus against Ceaser in the Roman Senate, on the Ides of March. It was a conspiracy that plotted the betrayal of West Point by Benedict Arnold, during the American Revolution. It was a conspiracy that led John Wilkes Booth to the assassination of President Lincoln on Good Friday, 1865. The past record of man, is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots, and betrayals in war. The tentative conspiracy has been a dominant force in all history. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have began to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea, merely as a conspiratorial view of history"

Legasat
10-20-2009, 8:36 AM
I believe it WILL happen. This whole One-World thingy will demand it.

We need to remain resolute and vigilant, regardless of which direction you believe the threat will come from.

Sgt Raven
10-20-2009, 9:20 AM
Oh, how dramatic. Someone is watching too much TV.

Someone needs to remind these hotheads that Barack Obama's first defeat was at the hands of NRA. of course, the lamestream media didn't cover it, but FOX News sure did.

Don't you remember Eric Holder, in Obama's first month, stating the administration wanted to re-instate the AW ban? Do these flakes remember what happened?

None other than Nancy freakin' Pelosi publicly stated - SAME DAY - that such an action was NOT on the agenda of the House of Reps. She also suggested the DOJ focus on enforcing laws on the books already. Now who does that sound like? It's verbatim what Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston (God rest his soul) were saying back in the Clinton era!

There hasn't been a whisper about it since! In fact, there hasn't been any gun control passed at the federal level since BEFORE COLUMBINE (that's ten years ago, folks). (NRA prevented gun control from appearing in the subsequent "Juvenile Justice" legislation - it was in there but TAKEN OUT. Not even COLUMBINE tipped the hand toward the anti-gunners!)

I don't think the federal government is going to be grabbin' guns anytime soon and these hotheads need to CHILL OUT before they make fools of the gun industry as hotheads are known for doing.

Tell 'em to focus on taxes or health care or ??? like other good conservatives and leave the Second Amendment to NRA before they screw it up for the rest of us. I bet they aren't even NRA members.

If we had listened to the NRA we wouldn't have Heller now! I've been an active Life Member of the NRA for a long, long time, but they are not always right.

benelli shooter
10-20-2009, 9:21 AM
There are many ways to bring a nation to it's knees. Our weakness is the very real risk of financial collapse due to an enormous debt, pandemic corruption at all levels of government, and an outsourced economy.

Our enemies can win this war without even firing a shot if they are smart.

spencerhut
10-20-2009, 9:32 AM
Beck mentioned they were investigating the health effects of having a gun in the home. He implied they may tie health insurance premiums to gun ownership, i.e. since you have guns in the home you are higher health risk so you need to pay higher health insurance costs.

I can see they current administration making this argument with a straight face.
Why no, we don't want to take your guns . . . but you do have to pay an extra $100 bucks a month in health premiums since you own a flintlock musket. Oh. you have a uber deadly "automatic" pistol. $200 a month extra for your insurance, per family member.

They are nudging, not shoving. We need to watch all this stuff, healthcare can be contorted to tie into anything they want it to. You know, for the children.

nicki
10-20-2009, 9:41 AM
The Feds are not going to send swat teams to collect guns, what they would do is they would give people so much time to turn them in, they would print up whatever money they needed to pay off gun owners for their guns.

After that, they could just say that if you possess an illegal gun, they will just seize your house, your car since it is contraband, just like they do with illegal drugs.

The risk of assett forfeiture will mean most Americans will get rid of their guns, they will either surrender them to the government or bury them out in the woods. Either way, the American people will be stripped of functional arms.

This conversation has been going on for decades, people's energy would be better focused on stopping these problems in the first place, but it is going to mean willingness to work with others.

Guerilla warfare is very ugly and if you take up arms against your government, you either win your struggle or die trying.

We can't get people to write or call elected officials, register and vote, yet some of us think these same people will take up arms against the government? I don't think so.

Nicki

ripcurlksm
10-20-2009, 9:42 AM
mikehaas, great post

If we had listened to the NRA we wouldn't have Heller now!

:popcorn:

Flopper
10-20-2009, 9:54 AM
I'm glad you're thinking happy thoughts and staying positive.


Conspiracy -

"...One of the darkest words in the language of man. Yet there is hardly a single page of history that doesn’t reveal the deadly eye of conspiracy at work. It was a conspiracy that directed Brutus against Ceaser in the Roman Senate, on the Ides of March. It was a conspiracy that plotted the betrayal of West Point by Benedict Arnold, during the American Revolution. It was a conspiracy that led John Wilkes Booth to the assassination of President Lincoln on Good Friday, 1865. The past record of man, is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots, and betrayals in war. The tentative conspiracy has been a dominant force in all history. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have began to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea, merely as a conspiratorial view of history"

This.

With all the BS that gets exposed in alternative media yet goes unreported (covered up) in the MSM, it makes you wonder what remains undiscovered.

Paranoia is bad, but being blind to the truth is worse.

I'd much rather cling to my guns and religion than be a blissfully ignorant sheep led to slaughter.

Sgt Raven
10-20-2009, 10:14 AM
mikehaas, great post


If we had listened to the NRA we wouldn't have Heller now!

:popcorn:

Go ahead and eat your popcorn, but tell me where I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

jmf_tracy
10-20-2009, 10:27 AM
I don't actually think the Feds will be able to come for our guns. Heller was the turning point for total confiscation. After we win incorporation, our focus will be on eliminating unconstitutional state laws all over the country. This will take decades.

We will have won the war. But, we will have small battles that will last the rest of our lives.

I would be more worried about what the crooks in the Federal government are doing to what is left of our economy.

P.S. That being said, I am 47 years old. I have had a great life. They will never get my guns peacefully. Everyone has to die someday. I can't think of a better way to go. But, I don't think it will come to this.

you are a good man. my thoughts exactly. if everyone would sack up we could even take our country back.

sspen003
10-20-2009, 11:25 AM
Quote: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Was true then and is true now...

Hunt
10-20-2009, 11:30 AM
I see that the author of this has positioned the Oath Keepers with Timothy McVeigh.

I guess anyone who expresses a willingness to protect and defend the Constitution is a home grown terrorist.

Seems odd to me, especially since that's part of the oath one is required to take to become a member of the United States Military.

I used to think the feds would never dare try to come for our guns. I don't feel that way so much these days.

they will never come for your guns because most the gun owners will be unfortunate victims of the "bizarre flu that randomly kills healthy people" aren't you watching the news?

SwissFluCase
10-20-2009, 12:30 PM
I'm not worried about them taking our guns at this time. I *am* worried about them doing everything else (blockading cities, denying health care, forcibly relocating people) while successfully convincing the people not to resist.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bwiese
10-20-2009, 12:36 PM
If we had listened to the NRA we wouldn't have Heller now! I've been an active Life Member of the NRA for a long, long time, but they are not always right.

Untrue.

NRA only opposed pre-Heller (Parker) when the court mix was wrong.

Once we had Roberts and Alito, there was a general thumbs up.

As we saw, Heller passed by one vote so we can indeed argue that Roberts & Alito were more than substitutes and likely at least one was necessary [assuming 50/50 prospect of pro/anti if another justice had been nominated].

GoodEyeSniper
10-20-2009, 12:52 PM
I don't actually think the Feds will be able to come for our guns. Heller was the turning point for total confiscation. After we win incorporation, our focus will be on eliminating unconstitutional state laws all over the country. This will take decades.

We will have won the war. But, we will have small battles that will last the rest of our lives.

I would be more worried about what the crooks in the Federal government are doing to what is left of our economy.

P.S. That being said, I am 47 years old. I have had a great life. They will never get my guns peacefully. Everyone has to die someday. I can't think of a better way to go. But, I don't think it will come to this.

I'm inclined to want to agree with you.

BUT. I think we're only one natural disaster, or economic disaster, away from the Feds at least attempting something to this affect. Remember Katrina? Sure, Arnie may have signed something saying that no government entity could try and disarm the populace in case of a disaster like that. WHOOPS laws like that have existed for decades, maybe not as specific. But that sure as hell didn't stop them in Louisiana.

7x57
10-20-2009, 1:13 PM
Sure, Arnie may have signed something saying that no government entity could try and disarm the populace in case of a disaster like that. WHOOPS laws like that have existed for decades, maybe not as specific. But that sure as hell didn't stop them in Louisiana.

There was no law so explicit in Louisana after Katrina. And the function of such a law is not to stop anyone directly. What it does is allows the NRA and friends to sue the living bejeezus out of the responsible officials afterwards and put their severed heads on a pole in the town square as an example to others. So indirectly, it's a deterrent.

I seem to recall that LEO immunity ends when they could or should reasonably have known they were violating a basic right. I don't know if the various "Katrina laws" have the effect of removing immunity, but I imagine that in combination with Incorporation they will one way or the other.

Legal beagles may want to clarify the immunity situation in a Katrina-like confiscation situation.

7x57

locosway
10-20-2009, 2:43 PM
I see that the author of this has positioned the Oath Keepers with Timothy McVeigh.

I guess anyone who expresses a willingness to protect and defend the Constitution is a home grown terrorist.

Seems odd to me, especially since that's part of the oath one is required to take to become a member of the United States Military.

I used to think the feds would never dare try to come for our guns. I don't feel that way so much these days.

Don't forget that one of the warning signs of a domestic terrorist is military training.

MP301
10-20-2009, 4:31 PM
A very interesting issue here.

On one side, how does an intelligent person reconcile the fact that throughout history conpiracies have occurred time and time again. All the while, regular folk just stood around grazing like...er....sheep?

How does this intelligent person come to the conclusion that these types of things could not possibly happen today? What is this conclusion based on? Do you ever wonder if the folks that became the victims of these types of things in the past (throughout the world) were thinking that these types of things could never happen to them? Just before it did?

The other side of the coin.... What kind of life does one have if they see a monster behind every corner? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! What kind of way is that to live? Does anyone want to spend thier whole life freaking out about something that may or may not ever come? What kind of life is that?

Here is the reality. If a government thinks it can get away with something that it sees as important or beneficial to its agenda, it will do it. Going on history, this should be considered as fact based information.

The reverse is true as well. A Government wont try something that it is relatively sure will fail and possibly upset its apple cart in a big way. The powers that be wont risk something that might cause it a loss of power unless its doable. Or unless its desperate....

What is the answer? Hope for the best but prepare for the worst? Well, basically yes.

This means, for starters, NOT flipping on the "blinder switch" just because you dont like certain information or dont like the person or group presenting the information. The reverse is true as well. Its just as self defeating swallowing everything your fed just because you like the person or group presenting the information.

Evaluate the information and treat it accordingly. And dont assume because a particular group has been wrong in the past are automatically wrong the next time around and vice versa. Remember that idiots get it right sometimes and smart people get it wrong sometimes.

Ive noticed that people here and elsewhere get caught in the comfort zone of thier beliefs and tend to shut off the flow of new information....expecially if it conflicts in any way with thier belief comfort zone. They not only cut off the flow of disagreeable information, but they fight it tooth and nail and even make direct attacks on those that might entertain the info as credible. Why is that?

The people here and elsewhere that i see really have it together are the ones that will actually take in the new information and disect it. They can assess its validity based on what evidence is presented or available. Its ok that if the evidence isnt quite enough to sway them that they fall back on thier beliefs, but at least they considered it and are more knowledgable then before. Everyone has a different credibility threshold and thats ok.

Example. Lets say there is this new YouTube video posted that is getting a lot of attention that says that the government is coming for your guns. Do you watch it? And if you watch it, do you watch it with only the intent of debunking it because you dont want to believe its possible? Or do you swallow the whole load that the video gives you without a second thought because you want to believe it?

What about taking in the information and looking at objectively? What a novel idea? Actually look for the truth where ever it leads? WOW! Never thought of that?

I dunno, maybe its a human nature thing that most people cant overcome....but it is frustrating to say the least. Maybe ill start a thread on it in OT

Sniper3142
10-20-2009, 4:32 PM
I don't think the feds or state/local police will be the ones coming for our guns.

They will say the Constitution is no longer valid and then call in the United Nations forces to "re-establish order".

:(

I've always been more than a little bit worried about how friendly the current administration is with the U.N.

FastFinger
10-20-2009, 7:00 PM
Outright confiscation would take a major trigger event. Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't image such an event.

However, death by a thousand cuts I can easily imagine, we see it happening every day.

A couple of months ago I received a parking ticket due to not vacating the street during scheduled street cleaning. Setting aside the fact that they ticket you even after the sweeper has passed, that infraction was $60. Not paying it within 40 days tacks on another $60. An overdue library book is now 35 cents per day, parking $3 for 2 hours. A soda tax? Transfat tax? Park use tax? DOJ tax? HSC tax? It's these little cuts that bleed the citizens.

So I can certainly see where the afore mentioned health insurance surtax due to firearm ownership could easily be instituted, it would be just another "sin" tax, they always get widespread support from the non-sinners. And once they're established, it's pretty easy to jack up the price a little, or a lot (Rhode Island cig sin tax is $3.46 per pack ).

gewgaw
10-20-2009, 7:15 PM
We can't get people to write or call elected officials, register and vote, yet some of us think these same people will take up arms against the government? I don't think so.

This.

REH
10-20-2009, 8:15 PM
Outright confiscation would take a major trigger event. Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't image such an event.

However, death by a thousand cuts I can easily imagine, we see it happening every day.

A couple of months ago I received a parking ticket due to not vacating the street during scheduled street cleaning. Setting aside the fact that they ticket you even after the sweeper has passed, that infraction was $60. Not paying it within 40 days tacks on another $60. An overdue library book is now 35 cents per day, parking $3 for 2 hours. A soda tax? Transfat tax? Park use tax? DOJ tax? HSC tax? It's these little cuts that bleed the citizens.

So I can certainly see where the afore mentioned health insurance surtax due to firearm ownership could easily be instituted, it would be just another "sin" tax, they always get widespread support from the non-sinners. And once they're established, it's pretty easy to jack up the price a little, or a lot (Rhode Island cig sin tax is $3.46 per pack ).

Well said.............

POLICESTATE
10-20-2009, 8:23 PM
I don't think the feds or state/local police will be the ones coming for our guns.

They will say the Constitution is no longer valid and then call in the United Nations forces to "re-establish order".

:(

I've always been more than a little bit worried about how friendly the current administration is with the U.N.

Only traitors would allow the UN to put troops onto American soil to act against American citizens, and I think things would be very far down the road to tyranny and SHTF indeed before such a thing would happen.

I would think that traitorous elements in our own government would invite UN "peacekeepers" in to restore order only after our own government has failed to maintain "order"

My 2 cents.

Foulball
10-20-2009, 8:31 PM
Only traitors would allow the UN to put troops onto American soil to act against American citizens, and I think things would be very far down the road to tyranny and SHTF indeed before such a thing would happen.

I would think that traitorous elements in our own government would invite UN "peacekeepers" in to restore order only after our own government has failed to maintain "order"

My 2 cents.

I wonder how many UN "Peacekeepers" would be willing to come here with force? I'd guess that not too many would relish that idea. They've never seen the amount of firearms that would be trained on them. I bet they'd be pissing in their boots as soon as they got on the plane.

:TFH:

dantodd
10-20-2009, 8:38 PM
I wonder how many UN "Peacekeepers" would be willing to come here with force? I'd guess that not too many would relish that idea. They've never seen the amount of firearms that would be trained on them. I bet they'd be pissing in their boots as soon as they got on the plane.

:TFH:

Most UN Peacekeepers already live here. There are a few others but they like to leave the heavy lifting to us.

The U.N. is like an aggressive pet dog. You brought it into this world and you're responsible for it so you put up with more than you should. Eventually it's going to bite you; and when it does it's your responsibility to put it down.

sspen003
10-20-2009, 8:41 PM
I don't think the feds or state/local police will be the ones coming for our guns.

They will say the Constitution is no longer valid and then call in the United Nations forces to "re-establish order".

:(

I've always been more than a little bit worried about how friendly the current administration is with the U.N.

Good thing its foreigners, at least I wont feel guilty when I defend myself and my property

bodger
10-21-2009, 4:54 AM
Good thing its foreigners, at least I wont feel guilty when I defend myself and my property


It was sickening to see what happened in New Orleans with the illegal gun seizures during Katrina.

A CHP officer participating in the absolute shredding of Constitutional rights.
It might not be foreigners if this happens.

AJAX22
10-21-2009, 5:03 AM
The Feds are not going to send swat teams to collect guns, what they would do is they would give people so much time to turn them in, they would print up whatever money they needed to pay off gun owners for their guns.

After that, they could just say that if you possess an illegal gun, they will just seize your house, your car since it is contraband, just like they do with illegal drugs.

The risk of assett forfeiture will mean most Americans will get rid of their guns, they will either surrender them to the government or bury them out in the woods. Either way, the American people will be stripped of functional arms.

This conversation has been going on for decades, people's energy would be better focused on stopping these problems in the first place, but it is going to mean willingness to work with others.

Guerilla warfare is very ugly and if you take up arms against your government, you either win your struggle or die trying.

We can't get people to write or call elected officials, register and vote, yet some of us think these same people will take up arms against the government? I don't think so.

Nicki

Some guns can't be bought with money.

To purchase my grandfathers pistol the only currency I accept is blood... 12 pints of my own, plus a large payment from others.

As far as the man ever seizing anything of mine with regards to real-estate, assets etc.... they'd be welcome to try, who knows they may be successful... but who knows? who is John Galt?

bodger
10-21-2009, 5:10 AM
... but who knows? who is John Galt?


Dagny Taggart knows.

510shooter510
10-21-2009, 8:05 AM
Nothing wrong with refusing an unlawful order. No department would consider this a bad thing. Just don't talk about revolting against your government when they haven't knocked on doors to take anything away yet. Talking about "I will revolt if...or I will revolt when..." does in fact show some sign of desire to revolt. An armed group threatening revolt is cause for concern in any society. These folks who have organized themselves seem to have good motives, and I agree with them as long as they do the right thing at all times.
Of course, taking the peoples guns away from them...not a good (or right) idea... Not in a place like America where the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people.

DRH
10-21-2009, 8:50 AM
Untrue.

NRA only opposed pre-Heller (Parker) when the court mix was wrong.

Once we had Roberts and Alito, there was a general thumbs up.

As we saw, Heller passed by one vote so we can indeed argue that Roberts & Alito were more than substitutes and likely at least one was necessary [assuming 50/50 prospect of pro/anti if another justice had been nominated].

Bill, I hate to say it but he was right and you are wrong. How do you explain the NRA introducing bills to void the DC ban and stop the case in March 2007 over a year after Alito had been sworn into office and the court makeup already changed? It is very simple the NRA wanted the credit and when some other group had better position instead of helping them for the greater good they fought them with legislation attempts and by trying to adjoin a weaker case.
The NRA is not always right and we need to always be objective to avoid becoming koolaid drinkers ourselves. Fortunately in this case they finally came to their senses and Levy was a big enough man to accept their generous help even after receiving some torpedo attempts from them previously. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8169

Don't get me wrong the NRA is the best group out there and definately the best venue for protecting the 2A. However we the members need make sure that they stay focused on our best interests and not the politics of any one stituation.

civilsnake
10-21-2009, 10:21 AM
A very interesting issue here.

On one side, how does an intelligent person reconcile the fact that throughout history conpiracies have occurred time and time again. All the while, regular folk just stood around grazing like...er....sheep?

How does this intelligent person come to the conclusion that these types of things could not possibly happen today? What is this conclusion based on? Do you ever wonder if the folks that became the victims of these types of things in the past (throughout the world) were thinking that these types of things could never happen to them? Just before it did?

The other side of the coin.... What kind of life does one have if they see a monster behind every corner? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! What kind of way is that to live? Does anyone want to spend thier whole life freaking out about something that may or may not ever come? What kind of life is that?

Here is the reality. If a government thinks it can get away with something that it sees as important or beneficial to its agenda, it will do it. Going on history, this should be considered as fact based information.

The reverse is true as well. A Government wont try something that it is relatively sure will fail and possibly upset its apple cart in a big way. The powers that be wont risk something that might cause it a loss of power unless its doable. Or unless its desperate....

What is the answer? Hope for the best but prepare for the worst? Well, basically yes.

This means, for starters, NOT flipping on the "blinder switch" just because you dont like certain information or dont like the person or group presenting the information. The reverse is true as well. Its just as self defeating swallowing everything your fed just because you like the person or group presenting the information.

Evaluate the information and treat it accordingly. And dont assume because a particular group has been wrong in the past are automatically wrong the next time around and vice versa. Remember that idiots get it right sometimes and smart people get it wrong sometimes.

Ive noticed that people here and elsewhere get caught in the comfort zone of thier beliefs and tend to shut off the flow of new information....expecially if it conflicts in any way with thier belief comfort zone. They not only cut off the flow of disagreeable information, but they fight it tooth and nail and even make direct attacks on those that might entertain the info as credible. Why is that?

The people here and elsewhere that i see really have it together are the ones that will actually take in the new information and disect it. They can assess its validity based on what evidence is presented or available. Its ok that if the evidence isnt quite enough to sway them that they fall back on thier beliefs, but at least they considered it and are more knowledgable then before. Everyone has a different credibility threshold and thats ok.

Example. Lets say there is this new YouTube video posted that is getting a lot of attention that says that the government is coming for your guns. Do you watch it? And if you watch it, do you watch it with only the intent of debunking it because you dont want to believe its possible? Or do you swallow the whole load that the video gives you without a second thought because you want to believe it?

What about taking in the information and looking at objectively? What a novel idea? Actually look for the truth where ever it leads? WOW! Never thought of that?

I dunno, maybe its a human nature thing that most people cant overcome....but it is frustrating to say the least. Maybe ill start a thread on it in OT

Hear Hear!

The logic is strong in this one...