Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?

Well, no. If it is used to shoot a few mad cowboys it might have its point, however. I don't really understand American fatasies - just want to stop you killing children, if I can.

 

So you favor government having a monoploy on violence and encouraging violence and murder against the citizens? I guess you really don't understand, so...........
you can't so just stay home, subject.

 

If it is a democratic government, yes, obviously. And I'm sure it is not 'encouraging violence and murder' - just seeing it has the means to deal with traitors to the human race, child-killers and so on.

 

I sure hope you are referencing me. It is my duty to stand against tyranny. You wouldn't know democratic if it slapped you in the face........subject

 

Governments are the greatest threat to human life if we pay attention to history. The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

I don't think the gov. is loading up for a war imo, I think it's either a market manipulation or stalling for something bigger. Could just be economic forecasters telling the gov that with all the gun grabbing, they better stock up like anyone else.

 

Some will, they always do, Winter. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't. This whole federal governmnet is corrupt as hell. Local LEO gets a break when using military equipment for kicking in doors or patroling the streets. The defense department has supplied LEO with all of these things through grants. Armored vehicles, battlefield firearms, so why not ammo too? 1.5 to 2 billion rounds of ammo is enough to fight a war for 7 years. Don't forget, they stockpiled when they formed up and bought constantly over the years since then.
History is no liar when it compares us to 1939 Nazi Germany. But hey, if I'm wrong, then we have nothing to worry about, but if I'm right.....
You are aware of foreign troops, lots of them, are training on our bases in urban warfare combat techniques, right?

 

I'm more interested in the large stockpiles of plastic grave containers the Feds have placed around Atlanta and other large cities.
http://io9.com/5860519/are-coffins-being-stored-in-atlanta-for-a-high-casualty-event

Obama would very much like the military to be in lockstep with his agenda. As you have seen, the top brass in the Pentagon have gone right along with homosexualizing the military, and reducing the combat effectiveness by allowing women in combat infantry roles.

Allowing foreign nationals to join the military (usually from Africa or Hispanic nations) with a promise of citizenship, is yet another way to politically and ethnically clense the millitary of those who would be less willling to oppress American citizens. With Blacks supporting Obama 95% in last two election, I feel the majority of them in the armed forces would follow any order by Mr. Obama that did not generally did not go against large groups of themselves.

BTW, leftwing activists like Obama treat the Constitution like toliet paper. It can be torn and conformed to do what ever they want.

 

I think the government would be derelict in its duties if it wasn't prepared for a shooting war against gun owners. There are many gun owners who have been preparing for decades for a shooting war against the government. The war is just waiting for a spark. Those gun owners who stay at home will be safe.

 

They DEPEND on ignorance.

 

There is a problem with direct democracies though. Direct democracies have the will of the people behind it, even if it goes against basic human rights. All you need is 50.1 out of 100 people to say the other 49.9 can't do something and you have tyranny by the will of the people. If you need an example of this: slavery.

The white majority in America had slaves and then used these "lesser humans" as cattle and manual labor. Some were treated well, most were treated OK, but some were treated horribly. Even the best treated slave was still a slave even though a democratic majority said that the ability to own slaves was allowed. Just because 50.1% of a population says that it is correct and lawful and morally right doesn't mean that they can trample the rights of others.

We can extend this to gun rights because the majority says "you don't need that/why do you need that/you shouldn't own that" and you are now not following the rule of law, but the will of the mob. We have laws here in the United States that say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, reinforced by D.C. v. Heller (1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.). If the people that think like you want to get rid of the second amendment, then they need to follow within the law the rules that regulate laws and the supreme law of the land which means there needs to be an amendment to repeal the second amendment. Anything less is mob rule since it would not be following the Constitution of the United States of America.

This standard of the society is not to have the will of the people, but the rule of law. You live in a different country as by your flag in your SN line. I don't expect you to understand or even uphold the laws of a different country, just that you respect ours. If you want to continue this democratic nonsense, which America is not a democracy (it is called a Democratically elected Republic, big difference), then please refute my claim that the Constitution can be ignored when trying to exert the will of the mob.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

There are some commentators in the United States, Mark Levin specifically, that say the United States is a post-Constitutional Republic. I am not advocating this point, just that some are saying it already.