Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/13/2013 7:16:28 AM PST by frithguild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: frithguild
Ben Franklin Stamp act testimony. (Ben used a bit more tact than this guy but not much)

Benjamin Franklin, Testimony Against the Stamp Act (1766)

Q. Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated?

A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. . . .


And again

Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?

A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose.

Q. Why may it not?

A. Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.


And one more time.

Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions?

A. None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by force of arms.

2 posted on 01/13/2013 7:24:51 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

Rule #1: Don’t hand the enemy effective propaganda! JY didn’t only shoot himself in the foot with his shooting threats, he shot our cause in the foot.


3 posted on 01/13/2013 7:25:03 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

I posted this the ither day, but it was the last post on the thread very late and really, no one saw it. So reposting. Would like to know what others think.

Friday, January 11, 2013 1:13:47 PM
MestaMachine to Travis McGee
obama and company are intent on doing this fast. VERY fast. They think the faster they move, the less time we will have to organize and plan. They think we haven’t really seen this coming or didn’t believe it would ever happen, and sadly, to a great extent, they were right.
They intend to overwhelm us with chaos and confusion
I believe they will think they have won in the early stages, but as the general public begins to comprehend that this is for real, the ‘nothing left to lose’ mindset will take hold and the bloody backlash will be something they never expected or bargained for.
It is a terrible way to learn the lessons we have been trying to teach, but terrible it will be for all sides. We will not escape this reality, and neither will they.
War is hell, but slavery and tyranny is far, far worse.
We WILL fight and many who started out against us will come over. The military, if it does not intervene on our behalf in the beginning, will find itself with more internal strife than it can handle. Desertions and fragging will be impossible to control.
Government employees are still Americans. It is the corrupt and power hungry leaders who will have the most to fear, and we will MAKE them fear.
They will try to isolate us from each other, but they will find that impossible as their isolation increases and their power dwindles away.
WE see outcomes. They do not. They have not truly contemplated the consequences of their actions and they will lose.
FREEDOM IS JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.
In this case, that is the truth and it will work FOR us, not against us, as they so self-righteously, stupidly, and wrongly think.
WOLVERINES!!!


4 posted on 01/13/2013 7:29:10 AM PST by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

May I suggest to Mr. Yeager he needs to step back and contemplate how he looks to the conservative leaning ladies. They appreciate real men with “potency” (see Ann Barnhardt) but they don’t really feel comfortable with the wild eyed look. So I suggest to Mr. Yeager his next video appearance he wear a long sleeve shirt and calmly but firmly explain that he will not allow tyranny end of point. Folks we need the ladies.


5 posted on 01/13/2013 7:31:49 AM PST by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
Question: "In the Gun Debate, How Far is Too Far"

Answer: There is no debate, discussion or the expression of different points of view. One does not discuss with anti-gun people one commands them!

10 posted on 01/13/2013 7:43:54 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
As I've said almost continually for years... "Liberals are cowards." They will happily knuckle under to anyone who threatens to use force to support their political position. That's why they've maintained a policy of preemptive surrender in all international conflict, and will happily bully non violent Christians domestically while they cower in fear of violence from a tiny Muslim minority.

They are not acting out of cowardice. It is a concept that author Micheal Prell calls "Underdogma".

They support the tiny Muslim minority precisely because they are a tiny minority. They're convinced that a minority, an "underdog", has virtue simply because it is in the minority.

Conversely, America is the top dog. The top dog is evil, simply because it is the top dog. Nobody (except them) gets to be top dog out of merit, it is always by cheating and evil. As part of this tog dog group, liberals exhibit a tremendous amount of self-hate.

They believe that everyone should be on the same level and that everything should be "fair". Of course, the top dog has had it so good for so long, he needs to suffer for a time at the hands of the newly elevated underdog. How long does the top dog need to suffer? Nobody has figured that out yet. They'll let everyone know when the time is right.

16 posted on 01/13/2013 7:50:21 AM PST by Washi (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

So they yanked his pistol permit! I wonder how many law-abiding Americans do NOT have so-called ‘pistol permits’? I say, so-called, because they are UnConstitutional, (shall not be infringed). How many may have a ‘truck gun’? A ‘glove box’ gun? Hmm?? The Usurper, Communist Baboon, and Thug-In-Charge, wanted to make it illegal in his home state, to own a firearm within your home! What part of “shall not be infringed”, did the renowned and acclaimed ‘Constitutional Scholar’ miss on his collegiate examinations?

A municipal ‘pistol permit’ is something that could be revoked. As of late, the U.S. Constitution still stands.

Long live the Republic!
(”Dress RIGHT!”)


20 posted on 01/13/2013 8:11:35 AM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

The rattlesnake rattles when cornered, not when hunting. It seems better to mevthat the threat be implied rather than stated; the scary-fraid liberals will imagine all sorts of threats when faced with steely reserve and silence. Imagine Zero and Joe when there is no compliance with their edicts.


21 posted on 01/13/2013 8:13:15 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

Original Brady Bill Testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BKuUVduvoJo


22 posted on 01/13/2013 8:16:13 AM PST by TsonicTsunami08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

“how about if that 1% was heavily armed and actually represented something like 1 million men who would resist your presidential edict with force? That means that your (at least arguably illegal) act would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths at a the very least - would you do it then?”

Indeed - they see such an outcome as even more justification for doing so: anyone who would oppose them to that degree for any reason must be neutered with extreme prejudice.


24 posted on 01/13/2013 8:25:59 AM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

It went too far the first time a gun grabber opened his filthy mouth. The discussion should be about safety in a decadent, fallen culture, and that safety would require armed guards and employees at public schools, and in general, it requires armed citizens who are capable of putting down scum who threaten them and others. Gun grabbing won’t move us one step closer to safety.


26 posted on 01/13/2013 8:38:52 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
I once led a group of RKBA folks into a meeting at our state reps local office. At the time an AWB was being debated for Florida. I looked him in the eye and told him that if the bill passed we would defy it, but, I did not wave my arms and scream in his face.

We have a solid position, well backed up by facts. It isn't served well by hysterical ranting.

29 posted on 01/13/2013 9:23:02 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
The opportunistic stance taken by this administration and its supporters, immediately following after the Newtown massacre, accomplishes more than putting federal "gun control" at the top of their agenda. It distracts attention away from other matters, like continued revelations concerning the Benghazi tragedy - and who can imagine what else?

It's difficult to say what matters more to them...

Prudence, more than fear of prosecution, dictates a degree of caution on the part of those most likely to react emotionally to any threat to the natural right of self-defense.

Rather than ending up being made into a public example, ending up on a secret black list or inviting the brutal retribution of dog killers and SWAT teams hitting in the wee hours should inspire a greater fear.

Yet, the overall pattern of these particular statists would seem to be to inspire their opponents to "fire the first shot," as it were, and to divide and marginalize - as well as to merely identify - the most "dangerous" among their opposition; to win any prospective civil conflict by increments, winning before an opposition can coalesce.

And all of this fits the context of an even larger strategy in league with ceaseless hustling designed to inspire uncertainty and keep a population constantly on edge with a string of outrages.

Prudence, more than passion or the letter of the law, sets our boundary.

Faith and vigilance, rather than answering outrage for passion, is a better reaction.

Let the statists cross their line first, and let them worry about boundaries.

Consider the recommendation of a renewed acquaintance with Sun Tsu, and his Art of War, without commentary, and especially its sparse opening statement explaining why his strategies need study in the first place.

30 posted on 01/13/2013 9:25:34 AM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

I think we all have our own ways of communicating this message. This guy, IMO, just ends up looking foolish - an in-your-face rebel type who purports to be a self-defense instructor, and yet cannot resist getting some attention when the opportunity presents itself - sound tactics and strategic goals be damned. A drama queen. A narcissist. A lifetime spent covering over a weak, empty core with quasi-effective bravado. No thanks.

When the time comes, I want at my side a quiet old vet who likes to hunt, someone that people just instinctively know not the mess with. Someone else can enlist with the berserkers.


33 posted on 01/13/2013 9:54:59 AM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild

“The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that you won’t need it until they come to take it away” Thomas Jefferson


35 posted on 01/13/2013 9:58:37 AM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
James -- Too far too fast.

Glenn Beck -- Make Sheeple of us all

36 posted on 01/13/2013 10:00:08 AM PST by bmwcyle (We have gone over the cliff and we are about to hit the bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: frithguild
in the gun debate, how far is too far?

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" there are no ifs or other ambiguities in that statement so what is so difficult for the anti-firearms people to understand? Being selectively stupid could be the answer to the question but we all know it is about how a few want to devise a way where they can control the many. Granted, those in DC have for years circumvented our constitution by passing and enacting laws that do not meet constitutional muster and this administration is preparing yet another assault on our second amendment rights granted us in that guiding document. Their only purpose is to increase their control over the rest of us. But until that day comes where our Constitution has been void by the people in every state house and not by the corrupt lawless anti-Americans currently in DC in this administration and congress it remains the law of the land for which we all shall be held to account. Disarming the defeated is the first act of the victor in any war. A declaration of Martial Law only to nullify the constitution as a path to implement government's infringement on the possession of citizen's firearms would be received as an act of war against the people of the United States. The King of England ordered the confiscation of all gun powder held by the settlers and we all know how that ended. End of discussion.

37 posted on 01/13/2013 10:14:38 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson