If martial law, then what? (NH seige of the Browns related)

[macerico]

A question.

We talk about the coming police state, but I've been hit with some key points to consider by people who respect my views but have varying perspectives on life.

1. Katrina showed us how incompetent the U.S. Government was at dealing with a mass of displaced people. Granted, FEMA doesn't exist to save lives...it exists to regulate who gets the available resources. Nonetheless, if we had the means to impose a police state, New Orleans would have been more efficiently handled.

2. Iraq is nowhere near the size of the USA. The "green zone" is a few city blocks in Baghdad. Nonetheless, our military can't maintain peace and security. If they can't control even one city, what will the NWO accomplish in a whole nation under martial law?

...

My only conclusion is that THEY CAN'T DO IT. The government relies on terror/fear imposed amongst the people to control them. If people, even in amazingly small percentages, say "NO," they know they can't do anything. To what I understand, all efforts to control the population will rely on channeling people into major population centers. Those in the country side might be sought out, but for the most part, the government would rely on people coming in voluntarily to obtain possession over their persons. There just isn't the means to send armed troops out across the nation to subjugate the masses.

Your thoughts? Apologies if this isn't the best forum to post this thread.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Two points:

1) Consider how many persons out of a crowd of 500 that might willing to stand idly by while three armed persons with badges even when doing wrong--how many out of that 500 would even do anything?

2) Consider that, in the event of chaos, maybe one of the key folk responsible for maintaining order around you (with the help of God perhaps?) might be you.

[tuckerl]

I think fulltitle makes a good point. Remember the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. Even though macerio makes a good point there are still question marks in my mind. What if the controlling parties don’t want the military to maintain peace and security in Baghdad? What if they want a reason to keep having to send more troops there?

[macerico]

I, for one, believe 100% a large part of why we are mired over there is to deliberately run down our domestic military capabilities.

Still, I guess the point I originally was making is that the government relies on fear and intimidation to control the masses.

In Iraq, a large part of the population hates us, and our boys spend most of their time trying to secure a few city blocks in one city.

In America, a handful of foreign troops would control a city until a small group of patriots stood up to them and showed how powerless they really were (in spite of their guns).

If Americans wake up and realize that there is no tactically conceivable way to control the population of one city, nonetheless a whole nation, even if they flew in thousands of troops from around the world to help, we would not be so fearful of the "wrath" of the government when it threatens to impose martial law.

***

This was a liberating thought for me, because I was worried about the feds knocking down my door when the time came for not having "acceptable" ideas regarding the NWO. A friend of mine pointed out that I simply wasn't that important a person to the feds and that after Katrina, did I really think the government had the means to control people?

The fact was, he was right. The government relies on fear to make people do what it wants. If pushed into a corner to fight, the feds know they can't follow through with their threats outside of taking down a handful of people. The more desperate they are to make good on their threats, the more lawless and violent THEY would have to become, which only exposes their evil to the masses.

Right now, they rely on the propaganda that people like us are the ones to be feared and avoided. If they showed their true nature, people would wake up and realize that it is people like them that are the bad guys.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by macerico

I, for one, believe 100% a large part of why we are mired over there is to deliberately run down our domestic military capabilities.

This seems to be part of the hidden agenda.

Still, I guess the point I originally was making is that the government relies on fear and intimidation to control the masses.

Yup, for the most part.

However, there is more to it, I think:

The only thing that stops the PTB from implementing Marshal Law is the fact that too many Americans have firearms. This is #1 priority with the PTB. Get them away from us. Until that happens the PTB will remain at bay. Once they have our firearms, however, the end will come swiftly. We have to make sure we do not let that happen.

They must grind the public mind down some more before they can accomplish this mission.

In Iraq, a large part of the population hates us, and our boys spend most of their time trying to secure a few city blocks in one city.

In America, a handful of foreign troops would control a city until a small group of patriots stood up to them and showed how powerless they really were (in spite of their guns).

Yes, sir, plus see the above.

If Americans wake up and realize that there is no tactically conceivable way to control the population of one city, nonetheless a whole nation, even if they flew in thousands of troops from around the world to help, we would not be so fearful of the "wrath" of the government when it threatens to impose martial law.

***

This was a liberating thought for me, because I was worried about the feds knocking down my door when the time came for not having "acceptable" ideas regarding the NWO. A friend of mine pointed out that I simply wasn't that important a person to the feds and that after Katrina, did I really think the government had the means to control people?

The fact was, he was right. The government relies on fear to make people do what it wants. If pushed into a corner to fight, the feds know they can't follow through with their threats outside of taking down a handful of people. The more desperate they are to make good on their threats, the more lawless and violent THEY would have to become, which only exposes their evil to the masses.

Right now, they rely on the propaganda that people like us are the ones to be feared and avoided. If they showed their true nature, people would wake up and realize that it is people like them that are the bad guys.

This is true. However, this is where 9-11 type events come in handy. They scare the people out of their minds. The people then ask the government to save them, when it is clear to anyone using a small amount of brain matter, that the government (actually, criminals in government, or Powers that Be (PTB)) is a part of the problem in this case. The people can save themselves, against nineteen mostly unarmed fools and patsies.

40 Reasons to Ban Guns

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops
need guns.

2. Washington DCs low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are just statistics.

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates,which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

[...]

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

[...]

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
whic was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

14. These phrases: right of the people peaceably to assemble, right of the
people to be secure in their homes, enumerations herein of certain rights
shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people, and The
powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people all refer to individuals, but the right of the people to keep
and bear arms refers to the state.

15. The Constitution is strong and will never change. But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns arent necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

[...]

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks,
fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily
available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order; no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms,...and there were no school shootings.

[...]

19. The NRAs attempt to run a dont touch campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobbys attempt to run a dont touch campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is an accident waiting to happen and gun makers advertisements aimed at women are preying on their fears.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers, but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at
gun shows.

[...]

27. Most people cant be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

[...]

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do civilians who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban Saturday Night Specials and other inexpensive guns
because its not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens dont need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them--even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens dont need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police
chiefs who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. Assault weapons have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, thats bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, thats good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Guess what? You have the wrong hands

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by macerico

A question.

We talk about the coming police state, but I've been hit with some key points to consider by people who respect my views but have varying perspectives on life.

1. Katrina showed us how incompetent the U.S. Government was at dealing with a mass of displaced people. Granted, FEMA doesn't exist to save lives...it exists to regulate who gets the available resources. Nonetheless, if we had the means to impose a police state, New Orleans would have been more efficiently handled.

I think there were Mexican troops used in joint operations during the Katrina episode. This makes one wonder....Hummm.

2. Iraq is nowhere near the size of the USA. The "green zone" is a few city blocks in Baghdad. Nonetheless, our military can't maintain peace and security. If they can't control even one city, what will the NWO accomplish in a whole nation under martial law?

Notice how the iraqis are resisting with armed force. If everyone just follow orders, without question, things may be somewhat different.

...

My only conclusion is that THEY CAN'T DO IT. The government relies on terror/fear imposed amongst the people to control them. If people, even in amazingly small percentages, say "NO," they know they can't do anything. To what I understand, all efforts to control the population will rely on channeling people into major population centers. Those in the country side might be sought out, but for the most part, the government would rely on people coming in voluntarily to obtain possession over their persons. There just isn't the means to send armed troops out across the nation to subjugate the masses.

Your thoughts? Apologies if this isn't the best forum to post this thread.

One other situation arises, the US soldiers may lose interest in putting their family and friends in prison, or firing upon them.

However, there may be plans to deal with this:

Think about this, non-US citizens wearing the uniform of American soldiers. These troops would be more likely to fire on US citizens and follow extreme orders. Every empire, when it represses its own people, brings in foreign troops to do the job. Urban warfare drills we have covered over the years show that the military is being prepared for this.

As this issue has raged on and tensions have continued to mount we have also seen that 'Immigration Protests' are being used as a cover for a racist ethnic cleansing movement. The fallout of increased tensions could lead to rioting and may provide the perfect pretext to begin round-up and internment procedures that have been previously outlined in the REX 84 program and were cited in the recent Kellogg Brown and Root contract to construct detention camps which was given to them by Homeland Security.

http://infowars.com/articles/immigra...t_illegals.htm

[Akira-]

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

Maine's dejure Constituttion, Article I, Section 16, says:

Section 16. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

In 1875, Maine's dejure Constitution was unlawfully "statuatorized" to:

Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

In either case, there is no mention of a militia, which can be used by anti-gun proponents to obfuscate the meaning, as is done with the federal constitutions.

Let there be no doubt:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[FredLP]

Originally Posted by Akira-

Maine's dejure Constituttion, Article I, Section 16, says:

Section 16. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

In 1875, Maine's dejure Constitution was unlawfully "statuatorized" to:

Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

In either case, there is no mention of a militia, which can be used by anti-gun proponents to obfuscate the meaning, as is done with the federal constitutions.

Let there be no doubt:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

And I am exercising that right to the best of my ability...

Yours in Liberty,

Dave