Jump to content

Antifa arming up


vito

Recommended Posts

I guess we will agree to disagree on some points and I am familiar with the Federalist Paper #29.

To date. the only state that has taken steps to outlaw their right to a militia is Wyoming.

 

As far as training, remember the colonists defeated the most powerful military nation in the world at that time. They were for the most part just hunters - hiding behind cover. It seems to me that the British Army was the force that needed training; though that was the form of field combat at the time and was considered "honorable". As for the militia today, I'd have to argue that most of the members are driven and they do train even if the "state" is not responsible for, or fund that training.

To what extent they train, I have no idea and really don't care but have read that one such organization has two prior combat U.S. Army Rangers conducting their field preparedness. I would say it is arguable that if this is true, they certainly are not the only bunch of redneck civilians who are being trained by ex-combat vets.

 

That said, both Hamilton and Madison were Federalists - they did not support the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution and felt the states should be left to safeguard the individual liberties of the population. I personally, am glad they were not successful.

 

However - I do agree with much of your post in #175

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your claiming the military is an economic drain, hop on YouTube and search USNS Comfort. Look at what your tax dollars are doing right now.

 

The US sanctioned Venezuela for drug smuggling at the same time Venezuela began divesting in trading oil in US dollars (petrodollars). That means they confiscated money, froze bank accounts, and blocked US allied countries from either buying or selling imports and exports.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

 

This is textbook economic hitman stuff. https://www.c-span.org/video/?190718-1/confessions-economic-hit-man

 

Even Soros was involved in looting banks and cheapening infrastructure.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/21/business/soros-is-said-to-buy-caracas-bank-stake.html

 

So yes, we caused Venezuela to be poor, then we sanctioned them to be poorer, and now we're spending US tax money (and one day possibly US lives) to help the poor starving refugees. All so the likes of Soros, the other IMF cronies, and the Clinton and company NGO's can make a buck.

https://www.brookings.edu/events/imf-governance-reform-a-discussion-on-the-recommendations-of-the-committee/

 

Soros is not as the mastermind, neither are the Clintons but both have been big player in how the world works. Soros loves open borders because when he and the rest of the cronies destroy a country they're perfectly happy letting those refugees be some other countries problem.

 

I use and link his name here because those who allegedly hate him have no problems risking their lives and US tax dollars to clean up his and other global banking messes.

 

What do they do with that power and money? Take your rights away.

 

 

 

Official leaked army research document acknowledging and encouraging these "Economic Hitman" practices

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-fm3-05-130.pdf

Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare 2-44. The agent controlling the creation, flow, and access to stores of value wields power. Although finance is generally an operation of real and virtual currency, anything that can serve as a medium of exchange provides those who accept the medium with a method of financial transaction. For both reasons, ARSOF understand that they can and should exploit the active and analytical capabilities existing in the financial instrument of U.S. power in the conduct of UW. 2-45. Like the economic activity, which all nation-states, human groups, and individuals respond to, ARSOF can use financial power as a weapon in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war. Like the economic activity that it is related to, most financial power is unmanaged, routine, and peaceful. However, manipulation of U.S. financial strength can leverage the policies and cooperation of state governments. Financial incentives and disincentives can build and sustain international coalitions waging or supporting U.S. UW campaigns. As part of an interagency effort, the U.S. Treasury can recommend changes to U.S. policy that can provide such incentives to state governments and others at the national strategic policy level. Participation in international financial organizations, such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), offers the U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish such coalitions. 2-46. State manipulation of tax and interest rates and other legal and bureaucratic measures can apply unilateral U.S. financial action to open, modify, or close financial flows. Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors. 2-47. If properly authorized and coordinated, ARSOF can useor coordinate for other agencies to use measured and focused financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies, and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Such application of financial power must be part of a circumspect, integrated, and consistent UW plan. 2-48. Like all other instruments of U.S. national power, the use and effects of financial weapons are interrelated and they must be coordinated carefully. Once again, ARSOF must work with the DOS and IC to determine which elements of the human terrain in the UWOA are most susceptible to financial engagement and what second- and third-order effects are likely from such engagement. The Treasurys Office of International Affairs and Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) (and its components), together with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), provide financially mission-focused channels for identifying opportunities to employ the financial weapon. In addition to intelligence and policy changes that may provide active incentive or disincentive leverage, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has a long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF UW campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The militia clause has not been settled definitively in the Supreme Court to any satisfaction of gun owners and its true meaning. DC VS Heller said the 2nd ammendment is a right to personal defense.
Not exactly.

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The militia clause has not been settled definitively in the Supreme Court to any satisfaction of gun owners and its true meaning. DC VS Heller said the 2nd ammendment is a right to personal defense.

Not exactly.

 

 

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.
Yes, that's exactly what I was paraphrasing. DC VS Heller was the right to personal self defense beyond the militia. This is why the antigun groups have misappropriated it to mean that it didn't cover what they claim are "military style weapons".

 

This is why we still need a Supreme Court case similar to Friedman VS Highland Park with the scope of DC VS Heller. A case that shoves the obvious you have an individual right to defend yourself (DC VS Heller) AND a volantary collective right to join your fellow citizens in defense against tyrannical government. The latter is clearly implied in the 2nd ammendment and even the body of the constitution, but not reinforced by the judicial branch. Because, as these enlightened justices pointed out it would be redundant if the judicial branch, especially the lower courts would just act constitutionally.

 

Justices Stevens and Thomas dissented that Friedman VS Highland park was limited in scope and could have the opposite effect of the Federal or local governments arguing individually what should and shouldn't be banned. They worried it would turn into US VS Miller. Or be misconstrued like the anti's already were doing with DC VS Heller.

 

And that's the crux of my point and even what Steven's and Thomas reaffirmed.

 

 

The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Hellers rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald leave matters open on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: [W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, . . . and whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense. Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

The Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767 769. We excluded from protection only those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that [t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmenteven the Third Branch of Government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted). Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by the political process and scholarly debate. Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that since th[e] case represent[ed] this Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field. 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. Id., at 634635. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms were common at the time of ratification in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. 554 U. S., at 582. The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms. Ibid. But that ignores Hellers fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizensnot state governmentsit was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess

IE States are not in charge of and can't regulate the civilian militia, because it's made up of common citizens. Yet courts and legislature disobey this.

 

In DC VS Heller a historian even presented the story of a King who tells his loyal subjects to muster with their best weapons to show their readiness to defend the kingdom. Then the king confiscates them leaving them without self defense. A cautionary tale of any branch of government being in control of the citizens' militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does anyone have any proposed solutions that don't involve everything that we've already been doing? As far as I can tell the deck is stacked against us, guns are a cultural symbol and are squarely in the middle of the culture war, the MSM owns the public narrative on the culture war and it isn't in our favor. Sure we have stats and some courts on our side, but what do we do about the bigger issue at hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does anyone have any proposed solutions that don't involve everything that we've already been doing? As far as I can tell the deck is stacked against us, guns are a cultural symbol and are squarely in the middle of the culture war, the MSM owns the public narrative on the culture war and it isn't in our favor. Sure we have stats and some courts on our side, but what do we do about the bigger issue at hand?

A solution? Yeah, getting leftists to want to own guns. I don't mean the resident leftists that hang out on IC, blindly voting for gun control candidates and are active marching members of gun control groups. Actual leftists that reject the mainstream left's policies of gun control and gun control candidates.

 

But you have to accept these people will never vote for Republicans (plenty of gun control candidates in Republican ranks). They will likely come from certain cultures, practice certain customs, dress differently, look different, and harbor certain beliefs that may be incompatible or disagreeable with yours.

 

If you truly believe the sayings "an armed society is a polite society", and "God made all men, but Samuel Colt made all men equal" I fail to see the downside to equal 2nd ammendment representation on the left.

 

Unfortunately there are plenty of "guns for me and not for thee" types on both sides of the spectrum, and no shortage in this thread. They can be easily manipulated by the mainstream media to support gun control by interchanging a few words. If there isn't a counter left gun culture to combat the growing right antigun sentiment we're all screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your claiming the military is an economic drain, hop on YouTube and search USNS Comfort. Look at what your tax dollars are doing right now. The US sanctioned Venezuela for drug smuggling at the same time Venezuela began divesting in trading oil in US dollars (petrodollars). That means they confiscated money, froze bank accounts, and blocked US allied countries from either buying or selling imports and exports. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

This is textbook economic hitman stuff. https://www.c-span.org/video/?190718-1/confessions-economic-hit-man

Even Soros was involved in looting banks and cheapening infrastructure. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/21/business/soros-is-said-to-buy-caracas-bank-stake.html

So yes, we caused Venezuela to be poor, then we sanctioned them to be poorer, and now we're spending US tax money (and one day possibly US lives) to help the poor starving refugees. All so the likes of Soros, the other IMF cronies, and the Clinton and company NGO's can make a buck.https://www.brookings.edu/events/imf-governance-reform-a-discussion-on-the-recommendations-of-the-committee/

Soros is not as the mastermind, neither are the Clintons but both have been big player in how the world works. Soros loves open borders because when he and the rest of the cronies destroy a country they're perfectly happy letting those refugees be some other countries problem.

I use and link his name here because those who allegedly hate him have no problems risking their lives and US tax dollars to clean up his and other global banking messes.

What do they do with that power and money? Take your rights away.

Official leaked army research document acknowledging and encouraging these "Economic Hitman" practices https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-fm3-05-130.pdf

Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare 2-44. The agent controlling the creation, flow, and access to stores of value wields power. Although finance is generally an operation of real and virtual currency, anything that can serve as a medium of exchange provides those who accept the medium with a method of financial transaction. For both reasons, ARSOF understand that they can and should exploit the active and analytical capabilities existing in the financial instrument of U.S. power in the conduct of UW. 2-45. Like the economic activity, which all nation-states, human groups, and individuals respond to, ARSOF can use financial power as a weapon in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war. Like the economic activity that it is related to, most financial power is unmanaged, routine, and peaceful. However, manipulation of U.S. financial strength can leverage the policies and cooperation of state governments. Financial incentives and disincentives can build and sustain international coalitions waging or supporting U.S. UW campaigns. As part of an interagency effort, the U.S. Treasury can recommend changes to U.S. policy that can provide such incentives to state governments and others at the national strategic policy level. Participation in international financial organizations, such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), offers the U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish such coalitions. 2-46. State manipulation of tax and interest rates and other legal and bureaucratic measures can apply unilateral U.S. financial action to open, modify, or close financial flows. Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors. 2-47. If properly authorized and coordinated, ARSOF can useor coordinate for other agencies to use measured and focused financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies, and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Such application of financial power must be part of a circumspect, integrated, and consistent UW plan. 2-48. Like all other instruments of U.S. national power, the use and effects of financial weapons are interrelated and they must be coordinated carefully. Once again, ARSOF must work with the DOS and IC to determine which elements of the human terrain in the UWOA are most susceptible to financial engagement and what second- and third-order effects are likely from such engagement. The Treasurys Office of International Affairs and Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) (and its components), together with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), provide financially mission-focused channels for identifying opportunities to employ the financial weapon. In addition to intelligence and policy changes that may provide active incentive or disincentive leverage, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has a long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF UW campaign.

Your comments often fall short of pointing out the entire truth. If you want to be taken seriously you need to talk whole truth, not start somewhere in the middle and then go to left field. I recall Venezuela being considered one of the richest countries in the world in the 1990s. Then the country went socialist. That should make you stop and think about what's happening the U.S. today. If we don't help, then our enemies will. In 2010 China beat us to Haiti following their earthquake. We were fortunate to have the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the area when the earthquake happened, but it was not prepared to help. It had just completed its midlife upgrades in Virginia and was enroute to its new home port on the west coast. It only had a skeleton crew, and no aircraft onboard. We don't want to provide an opportunity for those who hate America to gain strength in our region of the world, especially when we have home grown terrorist organizations, such as Antifa, within our borders. A lone survivor on a deserted island rarely survives for long. Your tax dollars being used to provide aid to refuges keeps you safe at home. That is what "Winning the hearts and minds" truly means. The left knows this. That's why they think everyday is April 15th and they give away as much as they can here in the US. By feeding, clothing, and sheltering leftist groups like Antifa they have created allies that'll fight for their ideals.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments often fall short of pointing out the entire truth. If you want to be taken seriously you need to talk whole truth, not start somewhere in the middle and then go to left field. I recall Venezuela being considered one of the richest countries in the world in the 1990s. Then the country went socialist. That should make you stop and think about what's happening the U.S. today. If we don't help, then our enemies will. In 2010 China beat us to Haiti following their earthquake.

The Venezuelan oil industry was state owned during the period you claim Venezuela as one of the richest countries in the world. They were a Spanish colony, then run by a bunch of dictators, then they transitioned to socialism in the 50s (first elected president was a Marxist).

 

So were they profitable under Socialism? You seem to think so.

 

I would disagree, they've always been a rentier state who's wealth waxes and wains depending on foreign market manipulation of oil. Very little of that wealth has been shared with the people.

 

There's such an economic brain drain that everytime the government attempts to run the oil company themselves with their appointed cronies it fails. They have to go back to hiring foreign expertise.

 

With US sanctions you've already pointed out who that foreign expertise becomes. US invests in free food, China invests in the only part of the country that makes money, how is that not a bad deal for the US? I don't see them torching Chinese oil tankers.

 

Yes, Socialism doesn't work if your definition of Socialism is giving people free stuff and not expecting them to grow your GDP in any way. It also doesn't work if every corrupt government "elected" or appointed official or foreign business is robbing the people blind (Venezuela as praxis to that theory).

 

Compounding that there's a lack of other relevant non agrarian industries, and everytime we import boatloads of free food we destroy what little agrarian economy there was.

 

So thank you for your service of using my tax dollars to spread welfare around the world. Thank you for your minor participation in wrecking Haiti so the Clintons could profit. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

 

But tell me, how does just giving people free stuff without helping them establish industry really help these people? How much do people on welfare here love America? Why do you think it works differently on a global scale?

 

I would also agree there are a bunch of self proclaimed socialists that are nothing more then entitled middle class snowflakes who want free stuff. When they don't get it they throw tantrums and break stuff. I believe this is where you get most of your "antifa" activities.

 

We just have to channel them into the military so they can break other people's things and get their free stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that thinks that socialism can be a viable alternative to capitalism is either an ignorant fool, or a ideologue intent on using that ideology of false promises to gain personal power. The very concepts of socialism go against human nature. Socialism brings poverty and misery, and if that's all it brings, then that nation is lucky. Often it brings tyranny and death as well. No economic system has ever even approached the success of capitalism since it rewards those that produce value for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your comments often fall short of pointing out the entire truth. If you want to be taken seriously you need to talk whole truth, not start somewhere in the middle and then go to left field. I recall Venezuela being considered one of the richest countries in the world in the 1990s. Then the country went socialist. That should make you stop and think about what's happening the U.S. today. If we don't help, then our enemies will. In 2010 China beat us to Haiti following their earthquake.The Venezuelan oil industry was state owned during the period you claim Venezuela as one of the richest countries in the world. They were a Spanish colony, then run by a bunch of dictators, then they transitioned to socialism in the 50s (first elected president was a Marxist).So were they profitable under Socialism? You seem to think so. I would disagree, they've always been a rentier state who's wealth waxes and wains depending on foreign market manipulation of oil. Very little of that wealth has been shared with the people. There's such an economic brain drain that everytime the government attempts to run the oil company themselves with their appointed cronies it fails. They have to go back to hiring foreign expertise. With US sanctions you've already pointed out who that foreign expertise becomes. US invests in free food, China invests in the only part of the country that makes money, how is that not a bad deal for the US? I don't see them torching Chinese oil tankers. Yes, Socialism doesn't work if your definition of Socialism is giving people free stuff and not expecting them to grow your GDP in any way. It also doesn't work if every corrupt government "elected" or appointed official or foreign business is robbing the people blind (Venezuela as praxis to that theory). Compounding that there's a lack of other relevant non agrarian industries, and everytime we import boatloads of free food we destroy what little agrarian economy there was. So thank you for your service of using my tax dollars to spread welfare around the world. Thank you for your minor participation in wrecking Haiti so the Clintons could profit. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098But tell me, how does just giving people free stuff without helping them establish industry really help these people? How much do people on welfare here love America? Why do you think it works differently on a global scale? I would also agree there are a bunch of self proclaimed socialists that are nothing more then entitled middle class snowflakes who want free stuff. When they don't get it they throw tantrums and break stuff. I believe this is where you get most of your "antifa" activities. We just have to channel them into the military so they can break other people's things and get their free stuff.
You read too much into what people say, and thus come to inaccurate conclusions. Quote where I said they were profitable under socialism. I'm not going to bother to wait for a reply because I didn't say that. I said, "I recall Venezuela being considered one of the richest countries in the world in the 1990s." That was not my opinion. Don't confuse it as such.However, you've made your opinion very clear. Unfortunately, that seems to all you post -- opinion.You've clearly run amok with lies based on the fact that you didn't have the balls to put your name on the line in service of your country. Now you've come out and attacked military personnel. How does letting people suffer and die while they attempt to escape the socialism you hate do America any good? The Navy did not destroy Haiti. The Comfort only provided medical assistance. Haiti was a garbage heap before the Clintons were born. They simply found opportunity to take advantage of in 2010. I have never defended the Clintons, so don't bother painting me in that corner either.Furthermore, you've painted a group of people with too broad of a brush. Many on welfare have joined the military to do something more. I'm one of them. I joined the Marines to get out homelessness that was the result of housing prices skyrocketing once the city I call home was awarded the Olympics. Nobody in my family has a criminal history, nor ever abused drugs or alcohol. We were just too poor to live. Today everybody in my family is no longer on government assistance, and is a contributing member to society.As for your desire to send Antifa into the military, that wouldn't work the way you think it does. Had you ever served you would've known this. Case in point, my wife's Masters Degree was earned. She was with the Navy for 6 years before being approved into the program where the military paid for the education. She had to maintain certain grades. Anything below a B was bad, and could've resulted in her being kicked out of the program. Upon graduation she was required to serve 2 years of service for every 1 year the Navy paid for. This means she had to turn down a $100,000/year job at a hospital that tried to recruit her.One thing is clear. Your comments amount to tarradiddle. If you don't know what that means, it means "pretentious nonsense". You're making comments about things for which you have no actual knowledge in an effort to make yourself seem superior. You are no better than anybody else. We are all on equal footing. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We just have to channel them into the military so they can break other people's things and get their free stuff."

 

Sooo... serving in the military is a good way to get free stuff? Wow... What a clueless thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Won't ever happen. Antifa are the Democrat's "brown shirts" and they will be protected. If Trump tries to label them a terrorist org, the decision will be "blocked" by an Obama appointed "judge", as we've seen nearly every time Trump tries to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...