Jump to content

Megatron

Marxist masquerading as militia

Recommended Posts

A fear I consider is the idea that you take Marxist types who pretend to be Patriots.   They even make social media accounts to play the role. All to disguise themselves for the bigger event.   

 

They attack a church or mall or something larger.   They work as a fire team. They make the attack like the Beslan school event.  Killing and using IEDs to nail responders.  

 

Now what happens when the smoke clears.   It looks like 3 percenters and Joe six pack Republican militia members did the attack.  The results will be gun control like no other and more lock down of freedoms.   Militias will be ousted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the mass shootings in fla some wack job militia said the shooter was a member and when it was investigated they found the militia leader was just trying to make a name for him self and the mass shooter had nothing to do with it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, fixer said:

one of the mass shootings in fla some wack job militia said the shooter was a member and when it was investigated they found the militia leader was just trying to make a name for him self and the mass shooter had nothing to do with it

i totally missed that....to your point megatron...im sure were a big event away from losing something else from are arsenal...id suggest buying your mags and binary triggers,trigger cranks w/e now...if for anything to watch your own ass..

Edited by Ripcannon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Megatron said:

They even make social media accounts to play the role.

if you know of one could you show me i wouldnt mind opening a dialog...i think ive talk to some of these folks before...they talk like us then say some off socialist shit.

Edited by Ripcannon
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ripcannon said:

if you know of one could you show me i wouldnt mind opening a dialog 

It's a theory none I am aware of 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fixer said:

one of the mass shootings in fla some wack job militia said the shooter was a member and when it was investigated they found the militia leader was just trying to make a name for him self and the mass shooter had nothing to do with it

 

Wow, If I was in that Militia I would get out fast!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2018 at 6:46 PM, Ripcannon said:

if you know of one could you show me i wouldnt mind opening a dialog...i think ive talk to some of these folks before...they talk like us then say some off socialist shit.

i hate to say it but ideology isnt just a tale tale sign of someone being against what we stand for. you and i may have a difference in opinions but that doesnt change the oath i took to support and defend the constitution. no matter how seemingly socialist an opinion you or imay have. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 8:27 PM, Mark Schroeder said:

i hate to say it but ideology isnt just a tale tale sign of someone being against what we stand for. you and i may have a difference in opinions but that doesnt change the oath i took to support and defend the constitution. no matter how seemingly socialist an opinion you or imay have. 

 

I am having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you are trying to say, bud.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 8:27 PM, Mark Schroeder said:

i hate to say it but ideology isnt just a tale tale sign of someone being against what we stand for. you and i may have a difference in opinions but that doesnt change the oath i took to support and defend the constitution. no matter how seemingly socialist an opinion you or imay have. 

 

 

Sometimes people may have an opinion to make, but for whatever reason they miss the mark.  I do it all the time myself.  In your case, more than one person does not understand what you're saying.

 

Without a proper knowledge of the Constitution, you cannot support the principles contained therein.  Put another way:

 

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."  (Matthew 6: 24)

 

That religious principle can apply to the militia because, at the end of the day, politics is religion in action.  Our nation was founded upon the concept of Liberty.  The founders, being Christian, understood Liberty from a Christian perspective.  Today, the mainstream has discarded the foundational principles.

 

So, you can claim that you took an oath to defend the Constitution, but if corrupt men in positions of power illegally rule (as they have) that the Constitution does not mean what it says, then you have to decide which Constitution you took an oath to defend.  Do you believe in the Constitution as originally written and intended OR do you believe in the "living Constitution" where the law is  grounded only on nine judges wearing ladies robes and pretending to be God?

 

Your post almost sounds like you have no problem with socialism which is the antithesis of the Constitution (as originally written and intended.)  So, maybe you had better rephrase your post so that we understand it better.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry guys, my point was that we need to not be so quick to judge someone based on an opinion. part of what i read had to do with socialists essentially pretending to be us... if i believe we can have effective social programs tax payers fund, this doesnt mean im a socialist. for instance, instead of doing loan forgiveness that we flip the bill on for people to become indoctrinated into liberal ideology at a 2 year college, why not provide funding to a private trade school of the students choosing? this will lessen the blow on tax payers paying for higher education, strengthen the industrial work force, and instill conservative morals as most blue collar workers and shop owners are conservative. at first glance the program sounds socialist, but in reality, its playing the liberal game (fighting fire with fire) and is all around cheaper. the fact is we have had socialist programs since social security started at the very least. no i am not a fan of socialism. i know what it does to nations. essentially socialism is controlled through taxation. we elect representatives to levy taxes on us. they've gone absolutely nuts with taxing us and im surprised we haven't hung congress yet. so in reality these social programs paid for by taxes are in fact legal according to the constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Schroeder said:

sorry guys, my point was that we need to not be so quick to judge someone based on an opinion. part of what i read had to do with socialists essentially pretending to be us... if i believe we can have effective social programs tax payers fund, this doesnt mean im a socialist. for instance, instead of doing loan forgiveness that we flip the bill on for people to become indoctrinated into liberal ideology at a 2 year college, why not provide funding to a private trade school of the students choosing? this will lessen the blow on tax payers paying for higher education, strengthen the industrial work force, and instill conservative morals as most blue collar workers and shop owners are conservative. at first glance the program sounds socialist, but in reality, its playing the liberal game (fighting fire with fire) and is all around cheaper. the fact is we have had socialist programs since social security started at the very least. no i am not a fan of socialism. i know what it does to nations. essentially socialism is controlled through taxation. we elect representatives to levy taxes on us. they've gone absolutely nuts with taxing us and im surprised we haven't hung congress yet. so in reality these social programs paid for by taxes are in fact legal according to the constitution. 

 

Some things Congress does might be "legal" on their face, but are wholly unconstitutional.  Take the 14th Amendment.  It was not legally ratified.  Congress has the power to uphold that law, but they lack the authority.  The 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and unconstitutionally enforced.  It is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.

 

Year upon year of allowing these things to go unchallenged has changed our form of government.  The militia should have reacted many many years ago.  They didn't.  So, now we have to relearn the constitutional limitations of government and hold them accountable.  Otherwise, the Constitution might very well be what George Bush once called it.

Edited by The Resister
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so my question to you is what can essentially be in the constitution and what cant? theyve had the right to levy taxes since the beginning for various programs. should we abolish other amendments? the purpose of the constitution was that we can add to it to better the liberty of americans not take it away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Schroeder said:

so my question to you is what can essentially be in the constitution and what cant? theyve had the right to levy taxes since the beginning for various programs. should we abolish other amendments? the purpose of the constitution was that we can add to it to better the liberty of americans not take it away. 

 

We allowed for an amendment process and, as you say to better America.  But, the rules absolutely were not followed in the passage of either the 14th or 16th Amendments.  The 14th Amendment failed to pass constitutional muster.  See what judges, historians, lawyers, civil libertarians, and tax protesters have said:

 

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/189373/

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/217951503/14th-Amendment-Never-Properly-Ratified#

 

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

 

http://www.resurrecttherepublic.com/utah-law-review-the-14th-is-unconstitutional/

 

Most people will not read the links, but they do answer your question.  So, you think the 14th Amendment that took away your unalienable Rights and replaced them with privileges and immunities (in other words giving up God given Rights for privileges doled out by an unconstitutional government) was a good trade?  Do you think that the 14th Amendment that allows people to become citizens simply by virtue of being born here - thereby negating the existing requirements to become a citizen was a good idea?

 

I don't have a lot of patience with the crowd that says the 14th Amendment does not extend citizenship to children whose parents came in this country improperly.  That ship sailed; the courts have ruled; that position will not prevail in the United States Supreme Court regardless of what others think.  Even Gorsuch has ruled against Trump on immigration.  The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and nothing good has come from it.

 

The 16th Amendment was pushed as a temporary tax to pay for the costs of a war.  Taxing a person's labor is unconscionable and immoral... not to mention unconstitutional, reprehensible, indefensible, and most of all unnecessary.  This country operated from 1789 to 1913 without the income tax.  Most government programs were operated from the local and state levels (without the cost of federal bureaucracies.)  We did not have the national debt you have today either.  AND, above all, if taxes were levied at the state level on taxable sources (NOT a man's labor), the federal government could not take taxpayer money from Georgia, Texas, and forty seven other states in order to finance Sanctuary cities in California.  I could name at least a hundred things that some states do that other states disagree with, but still have to pay for via the federal government.  

 

Do yourself a favor.  Check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0&t=24s

 

It is informative and it will keep your attention.  If you watch it, you will come back and thank me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mark Schroeder said:

i never said taking away my rights was a fair trade. im not sure where youre getting that statement from. 

 

 

I never made it a statement; I asked you if you thought it was a good trade.  I brought info to the table; maybe it's new to you - and maybe not.  It's only being brought to the table for your consideration.

 

In politics and law, everything has a price.  Do you want to pay the price?  Maybe before I put up those links you had never heard the other side of the issue.  Today you have access to both sides.  My hope is that you avail yourself to all available viewpoints and then make an informed decision.  That is all.  No insult meant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't think you was insulting me. i was just confused. funny thing about the english language... its not just a ballet of words to make points. vocal tones and body language occupy the other two thirds of it. lol any ways, my point was not directed initially towards the 14th amendment. it was aimed towards idea regarding whats good for a nation just because it sounds socialist in nature, shouldn't be immediately stricken from the table. i'm going to tell you that by trade i am a machinist. i make precision parts for robotics, aerospace tech, computers, food services, logging industries, so on so forth. the one lesson i was taught that will hold true to the end of time is, "your abilities as a machinist are limited only to your imagination." my instructor at the US army ordnance school for machinists in aberdeen proving grounds maryland, told me this. with this said i'm going to use an example here to explain my point. 

 

no one wants socialised medicine because like in the uk, the gov is forcing a child to die in the hospital and wont let the family remove the child to achieve a professionals second opinion. of course! who would want that? rand paul said if you make healthcare a right, you are conscripting him and others like him into providing a service that voids capitalism all together... but what if by chance, we made healthcare a right? what if we closed down a couple bases we didn't need in countries who aren't paying us to protect them (just like trump said,) bring our brothers and sisters home, and save all that money we are sending to those countries that hated us anyways? we could put that astronomical amount of money towards only allowing the government to write the checks. what if there was another amendment that stated american citizens all have a right to healthcare funded by the federal government to all americans abroad and homeside with the clause that the limit of the governments reach in the matter is simply to process the checks and that's it? going back to rand paul's statement about conscripting him... how would that be? because so long as my doctor where to still want to see me if this hypothetical situation took place, i could still see him. if not, i find a different doctor... after all last i checked i had to fight through the capitalist market in order to achieve my arms and ammunition.... i don't have a direct line to glock forcing them to supply me in arms and ammunition? this is my point that things seemingly socialist need to not be entirely stricken away without thought. 

 

furthermore into the discussion regarding the 14th amendment, sure theres excessive government overreach on, yet a few minor benefits to it. do i agree with people immigrating to the us? absolutely. do i want the immigrants vetted properly before coming into my home? you bet. do i think the immigration system is broke? you bet. there needs to be a better way to get the good hard working law abiding people into this country while keeping the shitty ones out. immigration is what created this country and kept it going in advancement. sure federal oversight needs to be heavily regulated. its in itself a double edged sword. if oregon doesnt want some nuclear power supplier coming in building the next fukushima incident, the federal government should not be able to tell us we have to let them build because its their ultimate say. thats buillshit. but if wyoming sells coal to china, who is oregon to try and stop that? that's where the federal government says no... that's a violation of the free commerce clause leaving oregon open for lawsuit from the state of wyoming. i want to say the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions but more and more with our government, i believe its back door communism that needs to be eradicated. and honestly if we cant come together and all fully be in support of a right that truly benefits us, that has been thought through, that has been so heavily evaluated, we should not be passing half baked amendments that leave our nation vulnerable to ruin. this is where its supposed to be our job to stand up and march together on those who are failing to represent us.  we should just continue to do without until we can perfect it. but with that said, the second amendment wasn't wrote with the intention of a nuclear arsenal... liberals can suck my dick. im keeping my AR. and as soon as the m249 full auto comes available for public purchase, you bet i am all over that shit! this is where its supposed to be our job to stand up and march together on those who are failing to represent us. 

 

so with all this, hopefully you understand where i stand. haha

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Schroeder said:

i didn't think you was insulting me. i was just confused. funny thing about the english language... its not just a ballet of words to make points. vocal tones and body language occupy the other two thirds of it. lol any ways, my point was not directed initially towards the 14th amendment. it was aimed towards idea regarding whats good for a nation just because it sounds socialist in nature, shouldn't be immediately stricken from the table. i'm going to tell you that by trade i am a machinist. i make precision parts for robotics, aerospace tech, computers, food services, logging industries, so on so forth. the one lesson i was taught that will hold true to the end of time is, "your abilities as a machinist are limited only to your imagination." my instructor at the US army ordnance school for machinists in aberdeen proving grounds maryland, told me this. with this said i'm going to use an example here to explain my point. 

 

no one wants socialised medicine because like in the uk, the gov is forcing a child to die in the hospital and wont let the family remove the child to achieve a professionals second opinion. of course! who would want that? rand paul said if you make healthcare a right, you are conscripting him and others like him into providing a service that voids capitalism all together... but what if by chance, we made healthcare a right? what if we closed down a couple bases we didn't need in countries who aren't paying us to protect them (just like trump said,) bring our brothers and sisters home, and save all that money we are sending to those countries that hated us anyways? we could put that astronomical amount of money towards only allowing the government to write the checks. what if there was another amendment that stated american citizens all have a right to healthcare funded by the federal government to all americans abroad and homeside with the clause that the limit of the governments reach in the matter is simply to process the checks and that's it? going back to rand paul's statement about conscripting him... how would that be? because so long as my doctor where to still want to see me if this hypothetical situation took place, i could still see him. if not, i find a different doctor... after all last i checked i had to fight through the capitalist market in order to achieve my arms and ammunition.... i don't have a direct line to glock forcing them to supply me in arms and ammunition? this is my point that things seemingly socialist need to not be entirely stricken away without thought. 

 

furthermore into the discussion regarding the 14th amendment, sure theres excessive government overreach on, yet a few minor benefits to it. do i agree with people immigrating to the us? absolutely. do i want the immigrants vetted properly before coming into my home? you bet. do i think the immigration system is broke? you bet. there needs to be a better way to get the good hard working law abiding people into this country while keeping the shitty ones out. immigration is what created this country and kept it going in advancement. sure federal oversight needs to be heavily regulated. its in itself a double edged sword. if oregon doesnt want some nuclear power supplier coming in building the next fukushima incident, the federal government should not be able to tell us we have to let them build because its their ultimate say. thats buillshit. but if wyoming sells coal to china, who is oregon to try and stop that? that's where the federal government says no... that's a violation of the free commerce clause leaving oregon open for lawsuit from the state of wyoming. i want to say the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions but more and more with our government, i believe its back door communism that needs to be eradicated. and honestly if we cant come together and all fully be in support of a right that truly benefits us, that has been thought through, that has been so heavily evaluated, we should not be passing half baked amendments that leave our nation vulnerable to ruin. this is where its supposed to be our job to stand up and march together on those who are failing to represent us.  we should just continue to do without until we can perfect it. but with that said, the second amendment wasn't wrote with the intention of a nuclear arsenal... liberals can suck my dick. im keeping my AR. and as soon as the m249 full auto comes available for public purchase, you bet i am all over that shit! this is where its supposed to be our job to stand up and march together on those who are failing to represent us. 

 

so with all this, hopefully you understand where i stand. haha

 

 

I have to disagree with you about the intent of the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment took from you unalienable, God given Rights and replaced them with privileges and immunities doled out by a corrupt federal government.  You cannot lose sight of that.  Your Right to keep and bear Arms is absolutely connected to a Right that is above the ability of the government to legislate.  That would be the Right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your country (even from a corrupt government.)

 

Other than that, we're closer than you think regarding most issues.  On immigration, the sheeple cannot differentiate or delineate between citizenship and the Rights of employers to hire who they think will best do the job they have available.  I'm against forced and / or instant citizenship.  I only brought up the point that the 14th Amendment makes instant citizens out of anyone who is born inside the U.S.  As can be seen, most of those people end up being left of center and are going to ultimately vote the militia into oblivion.  

 

So, how far will you go in accepting a socialist solution?  And, is there no other option other than those concocted by the Ds and the Rs? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 9:15 PM, The Resister said:

The 14th Amendment took from you unalienable, God given Rights and replaced them with privileges and immunities

It did no such thing.

 

On 9/15/2018 at 9:15 PM, The Resister said:

Your Right to keep and bear Arms is absolutely connected to a Right that is above the ability of the government to legislate. 

If that were true then Felons could not be denied the right to own a firearm; Illegal immigrants and LPR's could not be denied the right to own firearms.

 

On 9/15/2018 at 9:15 PM, The Resister said:

are going to ultimately vote the militia into oblivion.

The Militia is the Armed Services of the Untied States and is protected by the US Constitution, you conflate the unorganized militia with the actual militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WMD said:

It did no such thing.

 

If that were true then Felons could not be denied the right to own a firearm; Illegal immigrants and LPR's could not be denied the right to own firearms.

 

The Militia is the Armed Services of the Untied States and is protected by the US Constitution, you conflate the unorganized militia with the actual militia.

 

Liar.  I do not respond to feds.  Go to Hell.  You lied to the owner of this board when you signed on to this board and you are a fed or fed informant.  Go troll someone else.  I don't like you; you are a pathological liar and you're an idiot.  Go the Hell away and leave me alone,.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WMD said:

It did no such thing.

 

If that were true then Felons could not be denied the right to own a firearm; Illegal immigrants and LPR's could not be denied the right to own firearms.

 

The Militia is the Armed Services of the Untied States and is protected by the US Constitution, you conflate the unorganized militia with the actual militia.

 

I disagree with your definition of militia and I'm pretty sure most other members on here would as well.  The militia are the armed citizens of the united states as individuals whether they are organized or unorganized, not federalized soldiers as a standing army.  The armed services of the United States is a standing army under Federal direction for the good of the citizens of the United States but it is not the "organized militia".  During the revolutionary war the militia was always considered as a separate force from the Continental Army and is so Constitutionally as well.  Calling the armed forces of the United States / including federalized guard forces the "organized militia", is a semantic ploy of the leftist/globalist/elitist to take the power away from the citizens as a rightful militia.  They tie it to the statement in the 2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" twisting the meaning to be the National Guard or our Armed Forces in general to make an argument that it is not meant as a right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

 

What the Founding Fathers Meant by the “Militia”

https://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

I disagree with your definition of militia and I'm pretty sure most other members on here would as well.  The militia are the armed citizens of the united states as individuals whether they are organized or unorganized, not federalized soldiers as a standing army.  The armed services of the United States is a standing army under Federal direction for the good of the citizens of the United States but it is not the "organized militia".  During the revolutionary war the militia was always considered as a separate force from the Continental Army and is so Constitutionally as well.  Calling the armed forces of the United States / including federalized guard forces the "organized militia", is a semantic ploy of the leftist/globalist/elitist to take the power away from the citizens as a rightful militia.  They tie it to the statement in the 2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" twisting the meaning to be the National Guard or our Armed Forces in general to make an argument that it is not meant as a right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

 

What the Founding Fathers Meant by the “Militia”

https://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

 

 

Members of the body politic are able to be conscripted into the militia, otherwise the militia is a body recognized by the state itself, its leaders are appointed by the state, and trained by the state itself, always have been dating back to 1606 and through out the colonies until the present.

 

I have no doubt many on this board would disagree with me, yet I can back up my claims with actual history, not distorted phrases taken out of context and perverted to fit some inane narrative.

 

Your right to own or posses a weapon precedes the US Constitution, it is derived from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 2A, second section, merely says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, based on the 1689 EBoR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WMD said:

Members of the body politic are able to be conscripted into the militia, otherwise the militia is a body recognized by the state itself, its leaders are appointed by the state, and trained by the state itself, always have been dating back to 1606 and through out the colonies until the present.

 

I have no doubt many on this board would disagree with me, yet I can back up my claims with actual history, not distorted phrases taken out of context and perverted to fit some inane narrative.

 

Your right to own or posses a weapon precedes the US Constitution, it is derived from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 2A, second section, merely says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, based on the 1689 EBoR.

 

It's fine to disagree on here but you don't need to imply that someone else posting on here is inane and willfully taking phrases out of context.  3 day posting suspension.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

Liar.  I do not respond to feds.  Go to Hell.  You lied to the owner of this board when you signed on to this board and you are a fed or fed informant.  Go troll someone else.  I don't like you; you are a pathological liar and you're an idiot.  Go the Hell away and leave me alone,.  

 

It's fine to disagree on here but you don't need to swear at other members posting their own opinions or call them liars.  This board must be kept to a civil discourse in the postings.  3 day posting suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    21 members have viewed this topic:
    WMD Whiskey6 secondrecon Let_Freedom_Ring Ripcannon John Last fixer Sandlapper Dylan Stamper Throne The Resister SPECTRE 6 Mark Schroeder Calvin Champion Woods Dav Harzin Shammer Skillet DasBlinkenlight M andresen Old Timer Megatron
×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy