Joe US Citizen calling the UNDERGROUND! What's the plan Stan? (Gun control, martial law, civil war, 2013)

grass roots, leaderless resistance

A ground swell?
We lose resources and they gain momentum!

FEMA camps with no exit doors?
Does this sound like a plan!

When dealing with psychopaths one must make a claim of truth and right and then have the power and the will to defend it.
Too much of a response is a threat, too little of a response is a sign of weakness.

The only guiding light I see is the Constitution!

"Those who dare to act or conspire against the Constitution must be rendered harmless with extreme prejudice."
Anonymous US President


There must be someone with a name that said the same thing?


How can it be possible that an America based on constitutional freedoms has no one that can stand up and defend the Constitution?


"If they cannot defend it;
They don't deserve it!"
Benjamin Franklin

(Did I just make that up!)

Last Edited by Dexter Livingstone on 12/31/2012 03:25 AM

Discussion on the Right to be Armed in America


If all being equal, the right to bear arms suggests that every American has the right to be part of a militia with an armory. National guards are such organizations at the State level.

The idea is that if the national level (White house) breaks the constitution, the States are able to mobilize their resources to defend their rights and cumulatively overthrow a rogue national army and restore credibility to the White House.

Now, should there not be sub-armories at the county, city, ward and block level? Should not Americans have the right to physically defend themselves from abuses at the State, County, City, Ward and Block level? Perhaps in this we see what was assumed to be unnecessary but may in fact be completely necessary to defend the constitution and protect themselves from Abuse at all levels.

Factors that complicate the issue:

Secret societies playing brinkmanship against the people.
Red and Blue lists using arbitrary arrests and executions planned.
Fascism in city administrations corrupting authority/powers.
Concentration style FEMA camps with disappearances.
DUMBS, black projects and black labs experimenting on people.

The argument of armories may have been appropriate in a non-predatory society, but the above factors indicate that a society has developed that is of a predatory nature.
A predatory society could not have been in the plans with the framers of the constitution, and so a provision would have been provided to guard against the development of such a society: The right to bear arms, and the assumed right to use these arms to defeat the formation and continuation of a predatory society.

Now there is a problem with the stability of gun owners. No person who is of an unstable nature should be stock piling guns! Memberships in local militias and armories to store guns would be helpful and could mitigate the risks of a lone wolf scenario. In the absence of local militias, the police are utilized to remove weapons from unstable individuals and Criminals. But the thought of police attempting to remove guns from the hands of law abiding persons and local militias is a sign of bad faith and bad intentions from the government. Confiscation of guns would therefore be against the right of defense as encouraged by the Constitution.

The reason I attempted to explain the theory of the right to bear arms is to form a basis for the protection of the right to bear arms. It appears that any attempt to arbitrarily arrest and detain gun owners and confiscate arms must be resisted with every due diligence.

Laws and the Constitution

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sounds like a silly question, but really, what came first?
A. Laws?
B. Constitution?

The reality is that without respecting the Constitution and its time honored amendments, laws are baseless, illegitimate, and not credible. Those enforcing such laws would therefore be considered extra-judicial and there for rogue or criminal according to the constitution. Even if courts uphold such laws, the entire system would have to be considered as criminal.

What came first; crime, laws or the Constitution?

Now your getting the picture. Crime is based on laws which are based on the Constitution. Changing the Constitution or its time honored amendments must there fore be against the laws that flow from an "unchangeable" Constitution. A Constitution that is changeable at a whim would by definition not qualify as a constitution, but rather merely window dressing.

Now what of punishment? Is it not reasonable that punishment is also based on the Constitution? But if punishment is based on crimes which is based on laws which is based on the Constitution; is it not reasonable that rogue punishment is not credible. Therefore resisting rogue punishment cannot be a crime even if it is called so by some who do not respect the Constitution or its time honored amendments!

Bang bang on; they allegedly killed Storming Morning.....and Private Tillman! When all the leaders are murdered before your eyes...Who will take your hand and lead you except the Fathers of the United States Constitution! He who defends what is right is a leader.