Swine Flu in Southwest USA = Excuse for Martial Law

[aviolet4u]

and the countdown begins:

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=54855&page=4

 

[aviolet4u]

This is probably the start of total american takeover and world war 3, when people start dying in mass the sheep are going to be told that anyone who doesn't take the vaccine is endangering everyone else they will be lining up for it and that's when the real pandemic killing will start, they will turn in family members and freinds and coworkers who aren't "being responsible", they will be happy to see the "non compliant" being rounded up off to "quarentine camps", once all the real americans are gone they can turn the country into anything they want do anything they want, within years america will be a foggy memory repaced by some form of dictatorship or another. My advise is learn anything and everything about wilderness survival peeps might only be days left, be prepaired to turn you back on everything and everyone and dissapear and survive in isolation for up to 10 years because that's what it might take to make it threw this war without losing your life and soul.

World Bank is stepping up plans to go start requiring Nations to use its cashless system to stop the spread of swine flu.

The World Health Organization will give people shots and implant a device to prove that particular person has been vaccinated against swine flu.

Then the World Bank will activate the implanted device and you will not be able to buy, sell, earn a living without it.

The FEMA camps will be the staging point for vaccination of the masses.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

IMO the US should disarm these survival nuts quickly before they harm themselves or others. Having these people play Rambo in the wilderness would be a nightmare for society. If they are that afraid of the "state forces", US military, FEMA etc. (and so of their fellow US citizens) why not just go to live elsewhere on the planet? They could live in normal houses then. Not sure that the rest of the world would welcome such people, with such strange ways of managing their fear of political oppression, but how can they even begin to think that this kind of survival lifestyle for 10 years would be a good idea?

 

[Travis]

IMO the US should disarm these survival nuts quickly before they harm themselves or others.

Doing so in a way that is legal is problematic especially if they haven't broken any laws.

Having these people play Rambo in the wilderness would be a nightmare for society. If they are that afraid of the "state forces", US military, FEMA etc. (and so of their fellow US citizens) why not just go to live elsewhere on the planet?

Fortunately they do tend to sequester themselves in remote places. Unfortunately it is places like where I live so I encounter these people often. They are, for the most part, nice and amenable persons unless you bring up the government in a conversation. Then all bets are off.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Doing so in a way that is legal is problematic especially if they haven't broken any laws.

Probably the way to do it is to change the law first, to make holding these modern guns illegal. Other countries (like the UK) did it that way. If the "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" thingamajig is a problem, say it only really applies to the controlled "National Guard" as a "Militia". The "Militia Act of 1903" apparently resulted in the creation of the modern "National Guard". So not to private individuals armed to the teeth with modern automatic weapons or to private unregulated "Militia" that could be re-branded as "domestic terrorists" after OKC etc. Let them keep the single-shot flintlocks, available during the American Revolution, if they really want. Since most of the explosion of crime in the USA in the last 100 years seems to me to be related to various prohibitions of "mind-altering chemicals", like alcohol, opiates, cocaine, psychedelics and cannabis, the government could legalise and tax them all. Then the general population could get so stoned and would be so grateful that the prohibition was over, they would probably gladly surrender their machine guns IMO.

There were 10,567 handgun homicides in the U.S. in 1990. There were 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 68 in Canada, 22 in Great Britain, 13 in Sweden, and 10 in Australia.

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - about 80 deaths every day. 38% (about 11,000) were homicides. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

In 2000 in the USA, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. (SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: Crime in the United States 2000: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice; 2001.)

 

[Drudgewire]

Probably the way to do it is to change the law first, to make holding these modern guns illegal.

 

[Robster FCD]

Wow. A govment is evil and wants to enforce martial law at the slightest excuse calling for an incredibly strict gun ban?

I'm not even sure how to react to that.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Wow. A govment is evil and wants to enforce martial law at the slightest excuse calling for an incredibly strict gun ban?

I'm not even sure how to react to that.

Or, a good government would be doing a good job if they did not have martial law and they took away all the guns from the loony citizens who want guns now. Might make a much safer country.

 

[zaphod2016]

Obama is many things, but he isn't stupid.

He's not going to make a move on guns until after 2010, more likely, not until after 2012. And his plan-of-attack won't be some martial law dance, he will simply revive the assault weapon ban from the Clinton years.

But, as Clinton learned in 1994, the gun issue motivates the conservative base like nothing else. I hate the GOP right now, but I will pinch my nose and go red again until the Dems understand the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable.

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, pass a new amendment revising it. Anything short of that is unconstitutional. Period.

 

[dudalb]

Obama will NEVER revive Gun Control because the Democrats in Congress will inform him that is political kryponite in swing districts.

 

[Drudgewire]

Obama will NEVER revive Gun Control because the Democrats in Congress will inform him that is political kryponite in swing districts.

As the NRA spokesman on 60 Minutes put it, "we replaced Republicans with better Democrats."

65 House Democrats to Obama: Leave Guns Alone

 

[Ohnoes]

Obama will NEVER revive Gun Control because the Democrats in Congress will inform him that is political kryponite in swing districts.

That's what I have been thinking...I'm sure it will be brought up, but I doubt it ever makes it to the front of the line anytime soon if ever.

 

[DavidJames]

Obama is many things, but he isn't stupid.

He's not going to make a move on guns until after 2010, more likely, not until after 2012. And his plan-of-attack won't be some martial law dance, he will simply revive the assault weapon ban from the Clinton years.

But, as Clinton learned in 1994, the gun issue motivates the conservative base like nothing else. I hate the GOP right now, but I will pinch my nose and go red again until the Dems understand the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable.

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, pass a new amendment revising it. Anything short of that is unconstitutional. Period.

I support the 2nd amendment. We need more guns, lots of them. Everyone should have (at least) one along with plenty of ammo.

I think it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at survival as a civilized society.

I'm putting my money on Darwin.

 

[dudalb]

Fortunately they do tend to sequester themselves in remote places. Unfortunately it is places like where I live so I encounter these people often. They are, for the most part, nice and amenable persons unless you bring up the government in a conversation. Then all bets are off.

I encounter those types at Black Powder shooting events. Nice until the words Government comes up, then they become raving anarchists who think that Libertarians are just the NWO in disguise.....

 

[zaphod2016]

I support the 2nd amendment. We need more guns, lots of them. Everyone should have (at least) one along with plenty of ammo.

I think it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at survival as a civilized society.

I'm putting my money on Darwin.

This is the best argument in favor of gun rights that I've ever seen. I couldn't agree more.

I also forgot to ask the most obvious question: why would a leader with a 64% approval rating need martial law?

More than half of your neighbors already approve of President Obama, without any jack-booted storm troopers sticking guns in their face. It begs the question: who needs storm troopers?

ETA: from the same article:

75 per cent of Americans oppose gun control reform

Obama's not coming for my guns any time soon.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I support the 2nd amendment. We need more guns, lots of them. Everyone should have (at least) one along with plenty of ammo.

I think it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at survival as a civilized society.

I'm putting my money on Darwin.

Darwin? A Mad Max future?
Inside Extremist Gun Culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PShXcq-Fs

 

[dudalb]

Darwin? A Mad Max future?
Inside Extremist Gun Culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PShXcq-Fs

Anybody else amused by AndrewIlluminatus accusing other people of being extreme in their opinions?

 

[Travis]

I encounter those types at Black Powder shooting events. Nice until the words Government comes up, then they become raving anarchists who think that Libertarians are just the NWO in disguise.....

Yes, you know the type. On the plus side they throw awesome barbecues. On the down side I have to remove my Obama sticker from my car before I show up for the prime rib. But for melt in your mouth prime rib it's totally worth it.

Anybody else amused by AndrewIlluminatus accusing other people of being extreme in their opinions?

I think it's amusing he opposes martial law but wants to make guns illegal which would probably require martial law to have any chance of success.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I think it's amusing he opposes martial law but wants to make guns illegal which would probably require martial law to have any chance of success.

What an ill-disciplined and un-socialised lot, you "gun-lovers" make your fellow countrymen sound, IMO, if you really think that "Martial Law" and internment would be required to enforce a perfectly sensible law that these pro-gun, dangerous extremists, should be disarmed, as they have been in other First World nations. There were 10,567 handgun homicides in the U.S. in 1990 but only 22 in Great Britain, before additional British gun control measures (yes, Britain has a smaller population of course, but clearly not that kind of ratio!). The British people, by and large, IMO, do not feel oppressed by "losing the freedom to own guns and to slaughter each other with guns". If we hypothesise that 70% of the current US population are (fairly insanely and) stubbornly "pro-gun extremist" at present, what would be needed then to change their minds? My (friendly) suggestion is to dope the population by re-legalising currently prohibited psychoactive chemicals. "Since most of the explosion of crime in the USA in the last 100 years seems to me to be related to various prohibitions of "mind-altering chemicals", like alcohol, opiates, cocaine, psychedelics and cannabis, the government could legalise and tax them all. Then the general population could get so stoned and would be so grateful that the prohibition was over, they would probably gladly surrender their machine guns IMO."

There are of course other, less pleasant and "morally dubious" ways, of getting the "general population" to change their "collective minds". If after 10 years or so of ending prohibition and letting the population have their psychoactive drugs back, they still wished to be armed, then again there are further steps that could still avoid Martial Law and imprisonment of the remaining recalcitrant hold-outs. All animals, that are amenable to domestication, (like humans, cows and dogs etc.), can apparently be mentally conditioned through the "carrot and stick" approach of behavioural psychological "conditioning techniques". The "carrot" could be called free access to psychoactive drugs but the "stick" would be something else, rather less pleasant. Generally the motto can be summed up as "order out of chaos" or to "shake the kaleidoscope up a bit" and whilst the pieces are still in flux, you can try to reorder the world. The ethics of "utilitarianism" are also that the "end justifies the means" or, "you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs". If we remember that in the summer of 1941 about 70% of the US population were isolationist and stubbornly not in favour of entering the war in support of the British, what event changed their minds virtually overnight? The attack of Pearl Harbor of course! Therefore, if 70% of the US population currently supports private militias and private gun ownership, a number of dramatic acts of mayhem, by private militias and private gun owners, could be used to reprogram the population to "swing the other way" without Martial Law or concentration camps or overt oppression.

If you tried to force these well armed people to do something you might simply end up with Civil War and millions dead. The absurd idea of Concentration Camps and Martial Law could therefore end up with a lot of people, perhaps millions of Americans dead. However, the sacrifice of a few thousand Americans, in a short period of time, in dramatic and well-publicised propaganda events, could mentally reprogram the stubborn holdouts to see how antisocial the "private militias and private gun ownership" business was. Naturally the sacrifice of a few thousand people quickly, necessary to shock the population psychologically, would be very sad for the loved ones that needed to be sacrificed "for the greater good". However if a sacrifice of say 5,000 lives quickly could then reduce the annual death toll in the USA down from about 11,000, to say a more reasonable and proportional 110 people per annum, think of the thousands of people that will then live in the future?

 

[Drudgewire]

OK, you can have my guns now.

Yeah, good luck with that.