PDA

View Full Version : Great outdoorsman the real Crocodile Dundee killed by police



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 08:48 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-crocodile-dundee-dies-in-police-shootout-1110770.html

A RUGGED Australian rancher whose feats of survival in the Outback inspired the movie character Crocodile Dundee was killed in a shootout, policesaid yesterday.
From his hiding place in the bushes along a highway, Rodney William Ansell, 44, ambushed and killed Sergeant Glen Huitson. Another officer returned fire, killing Ansell, 30 miles south of the Northern Territory capital of Darwin. His barefoot body was found with two high-powered rifles.

Officers had spent the previous 12 hours searching for a man who had attacked a nearby house on Monday, injuring two people. Assistant police commissioner John Daulby said it was thought Ansell was responsible for that attack too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE

Posted By: Esclarmonde <mailto:iamliberty@sultanofbrunei.com?subject=CROCO DILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE>
Date: Saturday, 4 November 2000, 2:07 p.m.

The following article is purportedly from the November 2000 edition of The Firing Line. It was handed to me by a retired policeman and member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. In light of what is happening in Arizona and reported elsewhere on RMN, this story takes on a "critical mass" kind of perspective.
-----------------Begin Article---------------------
CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE

I am unashamed to tell you I am weeping as I write this story.
Last August, Rodney William Ansell, the rugged Aussie whose real life exploits inspired the Crocodile Dundee movies, died in a shootout with Australian police who had come (to confiscate his unregistered firearms. Oh, you didn't read about it in our ‘free’ press? That's cause it never appeared.

A police sergeant was also killed in the incident; the number of "peace officers" injured while invading old 'Croc' in his natural domain is unknown, but likely he took down several. I don't mean to imply glee over the death and possible additional injuries; after all, they were "just doing their job" like the obedient Nazi's tried at Nuremburg.

Ansell had been named 1988 Australian Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting Australia on the Tourism Map." of particular interest to us here in the tourism dependent desert, Ansell was probably responsible for hundreds of millions of increased tourism dollars flowing into his beloved country. This is how his country repaid him. Because you see, in today's world, no good deed goes unpunished and no bad deed un-rewarded. After all, Janet Reno was the laughingstock of DA's nation-wide for her inept to outright unlawful per-formance in Florida. She is now "our-Attorney General (in addition to Fidel Castro's).

See the difference in the two stories about how the reaL CROCODILE DUNDEE died?
Which one do you believe? I believe the one I read about on another site but forgot to bookmark. The one that stated he refused to give up his guns and fought it out with the police over their gun cinfiscation! . The man was right nobody has the right to disarm a law abiding citizen. Let them confiscate every single gun from every single criminal then we can talk about, thinking about , maybe pondering about, if we will even consider foolishly stupidly given up ours! They can not even disarm criminals so why should we foolishly volunteer to be unarmed victims!???-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 09:12 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-crocodile-dundee-dies-in-police-shootout-1110770.html

A RUGGED Australian rancher whose feats of survival in the Outback inspired the movie character Crocodile Dundee was killed in a shootout, policesaid yesterday.
From his hiding place in the bushes along a highway, Rodney William Ansell, 44, ambushed and killed Sergeant Glen Huitson. Another officer returned fire, killing Ansell, 30 miles south of the Northern Territory capital of Darwin. His barefoot body was found with two high-powered rifles.

Officers had spent the previous 12 hours searching for a man who had attacked a nearby house on Monday, injuring two people. Assistant police commissioner John Daulby said it was thought Ansell was responsible for that attack too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE

Posted By: Esclarmonde <mailto:iamliberty@sultanofbrunei.com?subject=CROCO DILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE>
Date: Saturday, 4 November 2000, 2:07 p.m.

The following article is purportedly from the November 2000 edition of The Firing Line. It was handed to me by a retired policeman and member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. In light of what is happening in Arizona and reported elsewhere on RMN, this story takes on a "critical mass" kind of perspective.
-----------------Begin Article---------------------
CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE

I am unashamed to tell you I am weeping as I write this story.
Last August, Rodney William Ansell, the rugged Aussie whose real life exploits inspired the Crocodile Dundee movies, died in a shootout with Australian police who had come (to confiscate his unregistered firearms. Oh, you didn't read about it in our ‘free’ press? That's cause it never appeared.

A police sergeant was also killed in the incident; the number of "peace officers" injured while invading old 'Croc' in his natural domain is unknown, but likely he took down several. I don't mean to imply glee over the death and possible additional injuries; after all, they were "just doing their job" like the obedient Nazi's tried at Nuremburg.

Ansell had been named 1988 Australian Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting Australia on the Tourism Map." of particular interest to us here in the tourism dependent desert, Ansell was probably responsible for hundreds of millions of increased tourism dollars flowing into his beloved country. This is how his country repaid him. Because you see, in today's world, no good deed goes unpunished and no bad deed un-rewarded. After all, Janet Reno was the laughingstock of DA's nation-wide for her inept to outright unlawful per-formance in Florida. She is now "our-Attorney General (in addition to Fidel Castro's).

See the difference in the two stories about how the reaL CROCODILE DUNDEE died?
Which one do you believe? I believe the one I read about on another site but forgot to bookmark. The one that stated he refused to give up his guns and fought it out with the police over their gun cinfiscation! . The man was right nobody has the right to disarm a law abiding citizen. Let them confiscate every single gun from every single criminal then we can talk about, thinking about , maybe pondering about, if we will even consider foolishly stupidly given up ours! They can not even disarm criminals so why should we foolishly volunteer to be unarmed victims!???-Tyr

Here is the link to the second story.^^^^^^
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/crocodile_dundee.htm

taft2012
08-25-2012, 09:16 AM
He chose to shoot it out with the police instead of quietly surrendering the arms and civilly arguing his case in court.

He *KILLED* a police sergeant, who might have had a wife and children. A police sergeant who was following the law of the land.... I don't know if Australia has any such 2nd Amendment rights,

but irregardless, this POS chose to *KILL* a law enforcement officer, who the POS commentator compares to a Nazi at Nuremberg.

Sorry, but I'm glad he's dead and hope he's been assigned a particularly hot spot in hell.

Voted4Reagan
08-25-2012, 09:18 AM
try to take my Guns....I'll take out more then one of them.....I promise you that!

taft2012
08-25-2012, 09:29 AM
I appreciate the message of the Tea Party as much as anyone, but one important distinction between the Tea Party of the 18th century and today's Tea Party is critical to remember:

THESE ARE NOT LAWS BEING ENACTED BY A FOREIGN POTENTATE AND ENFORCED AT BAYONET POINT BY TROOPS SHIPPED ACROSS THE OCEAN TO OPPRESS US.

These are our laws, being passed by our duly elected representatives, Constitutionally representing our will. These laws are being enforced by our neighbors, not redcoats. Our failure to achieve desired results at the ballot box does not open the door to fire upon our neighbors.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 09:44 AM
He chose to shoot it out with the police instead of quietly surrendering the arms and civilly arguing his case in court.

He *KILLED* a police sergeant, who might have had a wife and children. A police sergeant who was following the law of the land.... I don't know if Australia has any such 2nd Amendment rights,

but irregardless, this POS chose to *KILL* a law enforcement officer, who the POS commentator compares to a Nazi at Nuremberg.

Sorry, but I'm glad he's dead and hope he's been assigned a particularly hot spot in hell.

Gun confiscation will likely cause many deaths if its tried here. A damn shame that it lead to the police officer getting killed there. Likely the cover story put out for general consumption there didn't tell the entire story of it being about gun confiscation , instead they tried to make it about an ambush he supposedly set up using two high powered rifles. If thats true , how did the ambushed police kill him so quickly after he shot the first one. Its not like he was an amateur and not a fine shot. Give me a high powered rifle and I could if ambushing anybody easily do away with more than one before the other reacted get him too. Something stinks about this cover story! Ansell died too and its too bad anybody has to die because nobody has the right to disarm a law abiding citizen by confiscating his guns law or no law! F-that! Here its absolutely Unconstitutional and will be fought regardless of who tries to enforce it! Our founders understood that and specificly made sure we as citizens were not to be disarmed! Police officers and military had better understand that and refuse to enforce such an Unconstitutional order if given it. If they aid those trying to usurp our Constitution they will have to face the consequences, just that simple. I am all for Law and Order but not for tyranny and unlawful usurping of our Constitution and God given rights! F- anybody that tries that crap!-Tyr

CSM
08-25-2012, 09:47 AM
I appreciate the message of the Tea Party as much as anyone, but one important distinction between the Tea Party of the 18th century and today's Tea Party is critical to remember:

THESE ARE NOT LAWS BEING ENACTED BY A FOREIGN POTENTATE AND ENFORCED AT BAYONET POINT BY TROOPS SHIPPED ACROSS THE OCEAN TO OPPRESS US.

These are our laws, being passed by our duly elected representatives, Constitutionally representing our will. These laws are being enforced by our neighbors, not redcoats. Our failure to achieve desired results at the ballot box does not open the door to fire upon our neighbors.

I would agree with you EXCEPT that in current times, our elected representatives have chosen to ignore the Constitution (never mind "the will of the people"), are more concerned with the accumulation and sustainment of power and are aggressively pursuing the elimination of individual rights. At what point then, do the citizens of this nation actively rebel, knowing that the ballot box is no longer effective and, we, as a nation, have degenerated into a country ruled by the "elite nobility". No longer is America ruled by fellow countrymen who have the best interest of the people and this nation of primary concern. Heck, one cannot even run for office unless one is wealthy because of the system put in place by the very despots who rule; aided and abetted by the media, the unions and socialists of all stripes. It is my opinion that this nation is in decline and said decline will only accelerate as we continue down the current path.

Our founding fathers believed that NO government is sacrosanct just because it is the government (duly elected or not) but that is exactly the philosophy now ingrained by many. This indoctrination has largely been fostered because of social programs which make the people dependent on that government. Unless that changes, unless you are one of the "elite nobility" then you are doomed to be a peasant entirely beholden to the ruling class.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 09:50 AM
I appreciate the message of the Tea Party as much as anyone, but one important distinction between the Tea Party of the 18th century and today's Tea Party is critical to remember:

THESE ARE NOT LAWS BEING ENACTED BY A FOREIGN POTENTATE AND ENFORCED AT BAYONET POINT BY TROOPS SHIPPED ACROSS THE OCEAN TO OPPRESS US.

These are our laws, being passed by our duly elected representatives, Constitutionally representing our will. These laws are being enforced by our neighbors, not redcoats. Our failure to achieve desired results at the ballot box does not open the door to fire upon our neighbors.

Our 2nd amendment can not be simply outlawed like that. Even were it actually REPEALED the principle still stands as valid as it ever was . It boils down to either we make a stand on our rights or let em be chipped away until we basicly have none IMHO. Disarmimg law abiding honest citizens point to a tyrannical government that needs to be replaced by any means that it forces to be used.--Tyr

taft2012
08-25-2012, 09:53 AM
try to take my Guns....I'll take out more then one of them.....I promise you that!

If I thought for a second you actually had the balls (which I know you don't), or even the guns (which you probably don't) I'd call you a "cop killing piece of shit."

But why bother shouting at the wind?

taft2012
08-25-2012, 10:00 AM
screen freeze double post

taft2012
08-25-2012, 10:11 AM
I would agree with you EXCEPT that in current times, our elected representatives have chosen to ignore the Constitution (never mind "the will of the people"), are more concerned with the accumulation and sustainment of power and are aggressively pursuing the elimination of individual rights.

That's fine.

But what sense does it make to wait until one of your neighbors shows up wearing a blue uniform, doing his job enforcing the law, and shooting *HIM*? ... all while the real culprits in your scenario are safely somewhere else enjoying the fruits of their Constitutional abuses?

If this is really how you feel, I suggest you pre-empt the above scenario and go shoot yourself a few politicians or judges. You don't have to wait for anyone to show up, there's nothing holding you back...

I'm joking of course, because I know internet balls when I see them. :laugh:

So let's stop the fuckin' "I'm gonna kill me a cop" bullshit talk because somewhere, some lone crackpot reads this shit and isn't smart enough to realize it's a bunch of internet bullshit talking points, and some fine police officer somewhere may have to make the ultimate sacrifice for silly internet bloviating.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 10:13 AM
I would agree with you EXCEPT that in current times, our elected representatives have chosen to ignore the Constitution (never mind "the will of the people"), are more concerned with the accumulation and sustainment of power and are aggressively pursuing the elimination of individual rights. At what point then, do the citizens of this nation actively rebel, knowing that the ballot box is no longer effective and, we, as a nation, have degenerated into a country ruled by the "elite nobility". No longer is America ruled by fellow countrymen who have the best interest of the people and this nation of primary concern. Heck, one cannot even run for office unless one is wealthy because of the system put in place by the very despots who rule; aided and abetted by the media, the unions and socialists of all stripes. It is my opinion that this nation is in decline and said decline will only accelerate as we continue down the current path.

Our founding fathers believed that NO government is sacrosanct just because it is the government (duly elected or not) but that is exactly the philosophy now ingrained by many. This indoctrination has largely been fostered because of social programs which make the people dependent on that government. Unless that changes, unless you are one of the "elite nobility" then you are doomed to be a peasant entirely beholden to the ruling class.

Great post, I agree 100%.
Our founding fathers were indeed very, very wise men. No current government has the authority to usurp our Constitution or else we as a people ,as a nation , would have no security at all! Our Bill of Rights has been and currently is under heavy attack by a government hellbent on stripping us of our rights. This points to only one thing--Tyranny ! Jefferson had many brilliant words on what to do about such tyranny! I believe I'll side with Jefferson over any of the powermad ,sold out, corrupted politicians and government leeches of today's world! Its called standing on principle. A shame that so many Americans today never heard of that! Sold out and bleating for destruction is no way to go through life IMHO.-Tyr

taft2012
08-25-2012, 10:34 AM
... and for the record, anyone who poses a threat to my life or the lives of any officers working with me with deadly physical force, during the course of us acting duly and doing our legal duties, shouldn't be surprised if they're rewarded with a consolation prize of an eternal plot of real estate like the gentleman won outside the Empire State Building yesterday.l

taft2012
08-25-2012, 10:50 AM
Here is a simple question for gun owners: how many of you gun owners own licensed firearms?

If owning a firearm is a right it shouldn't be licensed then, should it? I mean, you don't have a license to come onto debatepolicy.com and use your freedom of speech, do you? Your pastor doesn't have a license to preach religion, does he? You don't need a license to go to church every Sunday, do you? The New York Times doesn't need a license to print a newspaper everyday, does it?

So if you're all truly the cop-killing desperadoes you claim to be, why do you acquiesce to this government intrusion upon your rights and allow your firearms/handguns to be registered and licensed? When you buy a gun, shouldn't you shoot the guy who hands you the registration/license form? Why wait until a cop shows up to arrest you for not having the firearm licensed/registered?

If you were a Catholic would you allow the government to account for every Communion wafer you've received? Would you sign a receipt for every newspaper you purchase for entry into a government database?

Right now the government is forcing the Catholic Church to violate its own sacred doctrines, and its barely causing a ripple in the public discourse. But merely mention the 2nd Amendment and people start frothing at the mouth that they're going to shoot their friends and neighbors.

Help me out here, what is it about the 2nd Amendment that drives otherwise normal people to the brink of insanity?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 11:14 AM
http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

Quotes on Firearms Rights
Here are some of my favorite quotes on the right to bear arms.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".

Love your country, but never trust its government.

-- Robert A. Heinlein.


-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

-- Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."




"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

-- Barry Goldwater
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.

-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."

-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 11:25 AM
... and for the record, anyone who poses a threat to my life or the lives of any officers working with me with deadly physical force, during the course of us acting duly and doing our legal duties, shouldn't be surprised if they're rewarded with a consolation prize of an eternal plot of real estate like the gentleman won outside the Empire State Building yesterday.l

It is best not to let the government pit the police against the law abiding citizens IMHO. For doing so pits ones duty against the duty of the other. Our police are here to serve the citizenry not the illegal and tyrannical dictates of a corrupted government hell bent on taking away our Rights. Police should refuse to enforce such unlawful orders and should think of their family's future as well as this nation IMHO. Our government wanted a treaty that would authorise foreign troops coming here to enforce anti-gun laws (it has failed). Thats because they did not trust that our military would obey unlaw orders to kill our citizens over unconstitutional gun confiscation. Police should wise up that they will be forced to help destroy this nation and they should refuse. Otherwise the citizen will have no other recourse but to defend also against the police too. We as citizens should make all police officers understand this IMHO.--Tyr

taft2012
08-25-2012, 11:28 AM
Tyr, all of those quotes are fine.

What I'm asking is why do people who stand by and watch First Amendment rights trampled with only the slightest of murmurs, then threaten to kill their friends and neighbors over the 2nd Amendment, particularly when they've already allowed enormous government intrusions into that right, such as licensing and registration?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-25-2012, 11:39 AM
Tyr, all of those quotes are fine.

What I'm asking is why do people who stand by and watch First Amendment rights trampled with only the slightest of murmurs, then threaten to kill their friends and neighbors over the 2nd Amendment, particularly when they've already allowed enormous government intrusions into that right, such as licensing and registration?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

I share your confusion . They should be hellbent against any of our rights being trampled upon as they are being now. Those intrusions fall, short of confiscation and maybe thats why they were allowed, this has been a long process which has been designed to gain eventually success by degrees. We should have stood firm many decades ago! But we failed to see the eventual goal as was the plan.
It doesnt make sense except that people are reluctant to fight unless severely provoked. Government knows this and have taken the long slow approach by design.
We should all urge our police officers to consider this coming divisive agenda and refuse to go along with it. I think many police have already made that decision although they do not announce it openly. I know my nephew did while he was still a police officer. He flat out stated should they order him to confiscate law abiding citizen's guns he would toss the badge in their damn faces and tell them to kiss his ass! Looks like my sis raised that boy right!-:beer:-Tyr

taft2012
08-25-2012, 12:08 PM
It is best not to let the government pit the police against the law abiding citizens IMHO. For doing so pits ones duty against the duty of the other. Our police are here to serve the citizenry not the illegal and tyrannical dictates of a corrupted government hell bent on taking away our Rights. Police should refuse to enforce such unlawful orders and should think of their family's future as well as this nation IMHO.

A citizen may be otherwise law-abiding, but if the firearm he/she possess is illegal it is my job to arrest them and confiscate the weapon. I don't get to write the laws and it is my duty to enforce them. Conservatives are rightfully all pissy about Obama deciding he's not going to enforce immigration laws, the Defense of Marriage Act, and laws against medical marijuana, yet they will turn around and tell the police to do the very same thing. Sorry, that's inconsistent and hypocritical.

Your job is to make sure the appropriate lawmakers and judges are elected. If you fail to do your job, don't expect me to half-ass my job to cover up for your failure.

And for heaven's sake, don't threaten to kill me for doing what your democratically elected government hired me to do.

taft2012
08-25-2012, 12:20 PM
and Votes4Rinos, fer Chrissake...

that little dweeb is too petrified to even utter a word against an internet forum moderator for making up rules on-the-fly to retaliate against fellow conservative posters, and crawls around on the floor groveling and sniveling at their feet, ratting out conservatives to curry favor...

I'm supposed to believe HE'S suddenly going to turn into a gun-toting desperado and start shooting it out with armed police?

Please... :laugh2:

CSM
08-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Here is a simple question for gun owners: how many of you gun owners own licensed firearms?

If owning a firearm is a right it shouldn't be licensed then, should it? I mean, you don't have a license to come onto debatepolicy.com and use your freedom of speech, do you? Your pastor doesn't have a license to preach religion, does he? You don't need a license to go to church every Sunday, do you? The New York Times doesn't need a license to print a newspaper everyday, does it?

So if you're all truly the cop-killing desperadoes you claim to be, why do you acquiesce to this government intrusion upon your rights and allow your firearms/handguns to be registered and licensed? When you buy a gun, shouldn't you shoot the guy who hands you the registration/license form? Why wait until a cop shows up to arrest you for not having the firearm licensed/registered?

If you were a Catholic would you allow the government to account for every Communion wafer you've received? Would you sign a receipt for every newspaper you purchase for entry into a government database?

Right now the government is forcing the Catholic Church to violate its own sacred doctrines, and its barely causing a ripple in the public discourse. But merely mention the 2nd Amendment and people start frothing at the mouth that they're going to shoot their friends and neighbors.

Help me out here, what is it about the 2nd Amendment that drives otherwise normal people to the brink of insanity?

I suppose you are the only one without internet balls here. That being said, I do not care who you are, if you work for a despotic government and knowingly oppress the people you are supposedly sworn to protect then you are fair game as far as I am concerned. As for MY balls (internet or otherwise) I can only say that I have killed many men, some of whom I am sure were better men than you ever thought of being. It would be fair to say that they were doing their best to kill me at the same time.

Truthfully though, I don't think anyone here is claiming to be a "cop killing desperado" as you allege. They are merely stating that they would defend what is rightfully theirs. I presume from your posts that you are a cop or work with cops. Good on ya but if you think that makes you special you are wrong. Last time I checked most cops are subject to the same laws as the rest of us and (with the exception of the cops who work around the law ... oh I know that would NEVER happen) I have to believe that public servants like cops still have a sense of right and wrong. The days of "I was doing my duty" in perpetrating criminal acts are long gone.

Furthermore, your argument about registration of guns is exactly the thing under discussion here (in essence). The government has infringed on individual rights despite what the Constitution states under the guise of public safety. Just because the citizenry has not reacted violently to that (yet) does not mean the government is right. Eventually, when the government gets bad enough, the citizens WILL react violently. At that point, I am certain you and your gestapo like friends will be there to enforce the tyranny being imposed on you "friends and neighbors".

CSM
08-25-2012, 09:09 PM
Tyr, all of those quotes are fine.

What I'm asking is why do people who stand by and watch First Amendment rights trampled with only the slightest of murmurs, then threaten to kill their friends and neighbors over the 2nd Amendment, particularly when they've already allowed enormous government intrusions into that right, such as licensing and registration?

It doesn't make any sense to me.


I guess you highlight part of the problem. Many people simply do not care what legislation is passed particularly if it does not affect them directly.

As for threatening "friends and neighbors", as you say, some of that it is pure internet balls (as you put it). However, there are some out there who really do know how to engage with deadly force (not solitary nut cases, survivalists, etc either) and are willing to do so if the situation is dire enough. Don't forget, some of our founding fathers were willing to sacrifice their lively hood, property and very lives in the fight against tyranny and yes, they were willing to engage and kill their friends and neighbors to do so. It is true that there is a definite lack of "balls" of any kind among the populace should the need arise again. Hopefully, the ballot box will prove to be as powerfull as it once was.

jafar00
08-26-2012, 04:08 AM
try to take my Guns....I'll take out more then one of them.....I promise you that!


Give me a high powered rifle and I could if ambushing anybody easily do away with more than one before the other reacted get him too.

hmmm... two gun nuts on a forum clearly stating that they have no problem with murdering people in cold blood. If that's not an advertisement for gun control I don't know what is. What is posted above would justify a visit from Homeland Security at least :p

Sounds like you would both deserve a police issue bullet to the head should you try to pull such a terrorist stunt.

jimnyc
08-26-2012, 08:14 AM
and Votes4Rinos, fer Chrissake...

that little dweeb is too petrified to even utter a word against an internet forum moderator for making up rules on-the-fly to retaliate against fellow conservative posters, and crawls around on the floor groveling and sniveling at their feet, ratting out conservatives to curry favor...

I'm supposed to believe HE'S suddenly going to turn into a gun-toting desperado and start shooting it out with armed police?

Please... :laugh2:

What's that about? Something that took place here?

jimnyc
08-26-2012, 08:26 AM
hmmm... two gun nuts on a forum clearly stating that they have no problem with murdering people in cold blood. If that's not an advertisement for gun control I don't know what is. What is posted above would justify a visit from Homeland Security at least :p

Sounds like you would both deserve a police issue bullet to the head should you try to pull such a terrorist stunt.

They were speaking of defending their 2nd amendment right. They are hardly the first and won't be the last, to say that they will fight to protect their constitutional right, up to an including force if necessary. We believe dearly in our long standing constitution and it IS something worth fighting over if it ever came to that. I don't think anyone truly wants to go out, proactively, and willy nilly shoot people in case they want to limit their rights. I think what they mean is that they will not give in if asked to relinquish their firearms, at any cost, and would fight back if anyone tried to use any type of force to take them away.

People tend to get a little excited in the way they express themselves regarding this subject. But a peek around the nation will show you that no one is running around like cowboys and shooting the police so that they don't take their guns. I agree that the way one expresses their desire to protect their COTUS rights should be a little more tempered.

But sorry, if it ever did come to that, our government going around trying to take away guns and ignore our 2nd amendment rights, anyone protecting those rights would not be a terrorist.

taft2012
08-26-2012, 09:38 AM
I suppose you are the only one without internet balls here. That being said, I do not care who you are, if you work for a despotic government and knowingly oppress the people you are supposedly sworn to protect then you are fair game as far as I am concerned.

So how do you define "despotic government"? This is a democratic representative republic. Any laws or issues that are heading in any direction you do not particularly like, you have the ability to elect entire new replacement governments and turn it all around. That is what the Founders left you. Only kooks think the Founders intended for citizens to resort to firearms just because all the of powers the Founders left in the hands of the citizenry didn't happen to go in a direction they agreed with.

Just because legislation and judicial rulings happen to go against you, does not make this a "despotic government".

So you consistently fail to sell your agenda at the ballot box, so what's the obvious answer? Shoot some police officers?

You disagree with some legislation and judicial rulings, as suddenly we're a "despotic" and "oppressive" government?


I can only say that I have killed many men, some of whom I am sure were better men than you ever thought of being. It would be fair to say that they were doing their best to kill me at the same time.

And I'm sure you'll agree that one of the reasons you survived is because there were some good men around you. We got a lot of those good men too. You may have some nifty guns and a super neat-o bunker and all, and I'm sure we'll have a long discussion about it at the bar afterwards over a few beers... you won't be there of course, but we'll discuss it all the same. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2012, 11:31 AM
hmmm... two gun nuts on a forum clearly stating that they have no problem with murdering people in cold blood. If that's not an advertisement for gun control I don't know what is. What is posted above would justify a visit from Homeland Security at least :p

Sounds like you would both deserve a police issue bullet to the head should you try to pull such a terrorist stunt.

It is an honor to be called a gun nut by the likes of you. Get in line reporting me to Homeland Security. We patriots are reported everyday for our posts and sometimes hourly.
Now American citizens vowing to uphold the Constitution here are terrorists according to you but your camelrug buddies that are actually murdering innocent women and children are heroes, great Jihad warriors or else non-muslim thugs ! You live in a lying ffkk up world bozo. One your kind will not impose on me or mine. I'll be happy to see to that! Now be sure to spell my name right when you report me , you ffing muslim snitch. And tell them I also said -ffkk- them too, they are just government scabs for the most part IMHO. NEED ANYMORE EVIDENCE ON ME JUST PM ME AND I'll speak even more bluntly about them and the damn muslim murdering graven cowardly scum too! Send the damn pm , I dont lie. -Tyr

jafar00
08-26-2012, 05:51 PM
It is an honor to be called a gun nut by the likes of you. Get in line reporting me to Homeland Security. We patriots are reported everyday for our posts and sometimes hourly.
Now American citizens vowing to uphold the Constitution here are terrorists according to you but your camelrug buddies that are actually murdering innocent women and children are heroes, great Jihad warriors or else non-muslim thugs ! You live in a lying ffkk up world bozo. One your kind will not impose on me or mine. I'll be happy to see to that! Now be sure to spell my name right when you report me , you ffing muslim snitch. And tell them I also said -ffkk- them too, they are just government scabs for the most part IMHO. NEED ANYMORE EVIDENCE ON ME JUST PM ME AND I'll speak even more bluntly about them and the damn muslim murdering graven cowardly scum too! Send the damn pm , I dont lie. -Tyr

If I the guy deciding on whether you would get a license or not, these kind of tyrades would put you in the no pile. Too unstable and unpredictable to own a firearm.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2012, 07:31 PM
If I the guy deciding on whether you would get a license or not, these kind of tyrades would put you in the no pile. Too unstable and unpredictable to own a firearm.

Too bad, I already own guns and have for well over 40 years. Have commited no felonies and have harmed nobody with a weapon of any kind ever. I used my fists as a young man to settle serious disputes. Havent even had to do that lately since I became so darn mellow!-;)-Tyr

CSM
08-27-2012, 07:35 AM
So how do you define "despotic government"? This is a democratic representative republic. Any laws or issues that are heading in any direction you do not particularly like, you have the ability to elect entire new replacement governments and turn it all around. That is what the Founders left you. Only kooks think the Founders intended for citizens to resort to firearms just because all the of powers the Founders left in the hands of the citizenry didn't happen to go in a direction they agreed with.

Just because legislation and judicial rulings happen to go against you, does not make this a "despotic government".

So you consistently fail to sell your agenda at the ballot box, so what's the obvious answer? Shoot some police officers?

You disagree with some legislation and judicial rulings, as suddenly we're a "despotic" and "oppressive" government?



And I'm sure you'll agree that one of the reasons you survived is because there were some good men around you. We got a lot of those good men too. You may have some nifty guns and a super neat-o bunker and all, and I'm sure we'll have a long discussion about it at the bar afterwards over a few beers... you won't be there of course, but we'll discuss it all the same. :laugh:


Pure internet balls on display again. I knew you had some.

You are deflecting. You know darn well what I am saying. I am not talking about "some" legislation I disagree with and you know it. You can denigrate all you want and heck you might even believe what you are saying. Hitler relied on men like you. "Go round up the Jews and kill them all; it's the law!" I bet you think it can't happen in this country. Native Americans were rounded up and put on reservations ... it was the LAW. American citizens of Japanese decent were rounded up and place in internment camps ... it was the LAW. Veterans of this country's military were fired upon and killed by the government ... it was the LAW. I know all you cops are big bad asses but I happen to know that cops bleed and die just like everyone else.

The bottom line is I and the other posters in opposition to your Nazi philosophy DO respect the law. We do vote. We also pay your salary (or some of us do assuming you are indeed a public servant). All we are saying is that when our duly elected representatives turn into tyrannical despots and ignore the very laws that frame this country, begin oppressing the citizens as a result and send out little storm troopers like you to beat (and shoot) the people into submission, then there will be opposition. Do your duty indeed but be prepared to accept the ramifications.

I have no doubt there will be long discussions in the bar after such a confrontation. SOME of you will discuss it but assuredly not all of you. Pelosi was partially right; veterans are a threat to the country. They are a threat to a country as she and her ilk envision it; a tyrannical state run by an elite class with little flying monkeys like you to run around trying to enforce that tyranny. What really makes veterans so dangerous to her and people like you is that veterans (especially combat veterans) are not afraid to stand up and fight. Cops like you rely on the fact that most people will not.

I have no bunker; I don't need one. I have plenty of brothers in arms though who are ready willing and able to take on the flying monkeys and their leash holders.

taft2012
08-27-2012, 08:34 AM
Hitler relied on men like you. "Go round up the Jews and kill them all; it's the law!"

No, he relied upon people like you who see wrong and do nothing about it except piss and moan on the internet.

The difference being between Hitler and the United States of America; WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

I realize it is convenient for you to ignore that little factoid.

The simple truth is; the government we have is the one we selected. Do I agree with it all of the time? Hell no, in fact most of the time I disagree with it. That doesn't mean they are oppressive Nazis and that I have go out and start shooting people. That just means that I, and my fellow patriots at the local level, have to start getting our message out better.


The bottom line is I and the other posters in opposition to your Nazi philosophy DO respect the law. We do vote.

So did Hitler and the Nazis. And when they had trouble getting everything exactly the way they wanted it through democratic means, they burned down the Reichstag and picked up weapons.

So in a comparison of you and me; which one sounds more like Hitler when the democratic process fails to delivery everything precisely the way he personally wants it? You or me?

CSM
08-27-2012, 08:57 AM
Ok folks, all this "internet balls stuff is kind of fun but really pointless. I do not believe that anyone here is seriously going to gunning for their friends and neighbors, cops, or forum posters ... at least I hope not.

The point I am trying to make is that an unarmed populace is truly at the mercy of any government that decides to oppress it's people. Disarming the population, silencing the opposition,removing undesirables, contolling the media and creating dependencies on said government are all part of the tactics used by tyrants (and tyrants can mean a single individual or a group). Unfortunately, when a government does decide to do that, those who are charged with serving and protecting the nation and it's citizens are placed in a severe moral dilemma. Do they enforce the law and hope that "something" happens to change the law or even the government? Do they leave their position, their livelyhood and means of economic support or do they do their assigned tasks knowing full well they are providing support to the oppressors? Do soldiers fire on fellow citizens? Do policemen arrest and incarcerate people based on immoral and illegal laws created by the despots? Tyrannical governments can only exist if they have support of those trained, equipped and willing to enforce the oppression. That last statement is why many find Obama's statements about a civilian equivalent to our military so frightening. There is also great reliance on the pacifist nature of most people. We tend to want to be left alone to pursue "life, liberty and ... happiness".

Taft raises some really good questions. How do we know when our government has become tyrannical? How do we know whether there is truly an effort underway to subjugate the people or there is just a plethora of stupidity and incompetence of our elected representatives? How do we know when our way of life is so threatened it is beyond recovery at the ballot box? Good questions all. By the way, the divisiveness we see in our own country only serves to aggravate the situation. That divisiveness makes it far easier for our government to head down the road to oppression.

Those of you who have seen me post all these past years know I am no advocate of anti-government, anti-military or anti-establishment efforts. I do, however, have a healthy respect for government along with a healthy skepticism of those who govern. I believe that awareness is the key. Be aware of what our government is doing, be aware of what our elected officials are up to ... and what they stand for. Root out the facts instead of listening to the pundits (many of whom have an agenda). Pay attention to what is news and differentiate that from what is journalistic opinion. Be aware of what our children are being taught, of the moral and ethical standards they are developing as they mature. In addition to being aware, be willing to get involved. I don't mean you have to run for office or join the military or any of that but be willing to present the facts when confronted by spurious or slanted media, campaign ads and so on. Be involved in the education and development of your children. Be involved in your community and the social circles that underpin that community. Resist the urge to "let someone else do it, I'm too busy". If you don't have personal principles and convictions or a moral code to live by, get them. Those steps, in and of themselves may be enough to ensure that we never have to ask ourselves the question listed above and may ensure that we never place those we ask to serve in the moral dilemma that governments create.

CSM
08-27-2012, 09:00 AM
No, he relied upon people like you who see wrong and do nothing about it except piss and moan on the internet.

The difference being between Hitler and the United States of America; WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

I realize it is convenient for you to ignore that little factoid.

The simple truth is; the government we have is the one we selected. Do I agree with it all of the time? Hell no, in fact most of the time I disagree with it. That doesn't mean they are oppressive Nazis and that I have go out and start shooting people. That just means that I, and my fellow patriots at the local level, have to start getting our message out better.



So did Hitler and the Nazis. And when they had trouble getting everything exactly the way they wanted it through democratic means, they burned down the Reichstag and picked up weapons.

So in a comparison of you and me; which one sounds more like Hitler when the democratic process fails to delivery everything precisely the way he personally wants it? You or me?

Sent you a PM.

CSM
08-27-2012, 10:08 AM
No, he relied upon people like you who see wrong and do nothing about it except piss and moan on the internet.

The difference being between Hitler and the United States of America; WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

I realize it is convenient for you to ignore that little factoid.

The simple truth is; the government we have is the one we selected. Do I agree with it all of the time? Hell no, in fact most of the time I disagree with it. That doesn't mean they are oppressive Nazis and that I have go out and start shooting people. That just means that I, and my fellow patriots at the local level, have to start getting our message out better.



So did Hitler and the Nazis. And when they had trouble getting everything exactly the way they wanted it through democratic means, they burned down the Reichstag and picked up weapons.

So in a comparison of you and me; which one sounds more like Hitler when the democratic process fails to delivery everything precisely the way he personally wants it? You or me?

The point is, Hitler did indeed come to power through the legal process in place at the time for that country. The point is, after they were installed, they transformed that government into a tyrannical regime bent on the destruction of segments of the population. Those laws requiring that abuse and oppression of legal citizens were enforced by the POLICE (among others). The population (at first) bought into the party line (hope and change, anyone?) and except for a few, stood idly by while their "friends and neighbors" were sent off to the camps or outright executed in the streets by the POLICE. The POLICE (along with elements of the military) enforced the LAW ... laws which were designed to fully oppress the people, ensure the despots in power stayed in power and fully perverted the government for which the people had originally desired and got.

An alternative point (so to speak) is that when extreme laws become SO bad that they encourage the murder of your own citizens, and the ballot box is ineffective, then armed rebellion is a possibly necessary step.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-27-2012, 10:32 AM
An alternative point (so to speak) is that when extreme laws become SO bad that they encourage the murder of your own citizens, and the ballot box is ineffective, then armed rebellion is a possibly necessary step.


I think at that point armed rebellion has become the only step to take to attempt to rectify the situation! Our Revolution that birthed this great nation would be a good example of that.
Our government clearly seeks that kind of oppression and has for quite some time now IMHO.
The crossroads could well be the 2012 election and if we get rid of one of the up and coming dictators !
Otherwise I see a future Revolution thats as assuredly coming someday as are taxes...-Tyr

CSM
08-27-2012, 10:45 AM
I think at that point armed rebellion has become the only step to take to attempt to rectify the situation! Our Revolution that birthed this great nation would be a good example of that.
Our government clearly seeks that kind of oppression and has for quite some time now IMHO.
The crossroads could well be the 2012 election and if we get rid of one of the up and coming dictators !
Otherwise I see a future Revolution thats as assuredly coming someday as are taxes...-Tyr

There are other alternatives (that is why I said "possibly). Intervention by a foreign power. Mass flight by the populace. Mass civil disobediance, etc. How effective any of those would be is dependent upon how willing the population is to engage in such, how willing the enforcement agencies are to abuse and murder their fellow country men and how willing any foreign power is to intervene. Armed rebellion is a last resort I would think.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-27-2012, 11:39 AM
There are other alternatives (that is why I said "possibly). Intervention by a foreign power. Mass flight by the populace. Mass civil disobediance, etc. How effective any of those would be is dependent upon how willing the population is to engage in such, how willing the enforcement agencies are to abuse and murder their fellow country men and how willing any foreign power is to intervene. Armed rebellion is a last resort I would think.

I think its coming because the government intends on forcing it to come(when they are ready). At some point they want to have it out expecting that they will win. Of course not until they have confiscated all or most of the guns. I truly believe if they do that then we will quickly see a full dictatorship emerge . Government has become too large , too powerful and they will not let go of that power without a fight IMHO. In fact, they desperately seek to greatly enlarge that power to the point of voiding our Constitution. Guns first, then burn the Constitution second, after that dictatorship is the plan . Matters not if it be one man or a group of men tyranny is tyranny! We have afight coming ot of opur making , regardless we must fight or be enslaved same as did our founders.. -Tyr

taft2012
08-29-2012, 06:48 AM
The Hitler allusions, fascism, etc., we've had an issue on that table for 30 years now and some people have acted on their words, but relatively few.

We are in the middle of a genocide against the unborn, tens of millions of Americans have been murdered in the uterus. Where are all of the shoot 'em conservatives on this issue?

In true conservatism, the right to life is even more fundamental than the right to keep and bear arms. So where is the armed insurrection?

I used to protest against communism in the Cold War with a group that used to respond to pro-communist rallies and show up as a counter demonstration. Trying to get conservatives to hold up a piece of oak tag with writing on it against communism was a Herculean task. They'd say "good job" to us when walking by, but when we asked them to join us the next weekend a look of terror would sweep across their faces and they'd run away.

What it all comes to do is my experience has taught me that conservatives will vote, write letters to politicians, and call radio talk shows. That's basically the extent of their involvement, the now-defunct Tea Party rallies notwithstanding.

The notion that people terrified of a piece of oak tag are going to dig in and go out shooting is laughable.

CSM
08-29-2012, 07:40 AM
The Hitler allusions, fascism, etc., we've had an issue on that table for 30 years now and some people have acted on their words, but relatively few.

We are in the middle of a genocide against the unborn, tens of millions of Americans have been murdered in the uterus. Where are all of the shoot 'em conservatives on this issue?

In true conservatism, the right to life is even more fundamental than the right to keep and bear arms. So where is the armed insurrection?

I used to protest against communism in the Cold War with a group that used to respond to pro-communist rallies and show up as a counter demonstration. Trying to get conservatives to hold up a piece of oak tag with writing on it against communism was a Herculean task. They'd say "good job" to us when walking by, but when we asked them to join us the next weekend a look of terror would sweep across their faces and they'd run away.

What it all comes to do is my experience has taught me that conservatives will vote, write letters to politicians, and call radio talk shows. That's basically the extent of their involvement, the now-defunct Tea Party rallies notwithstanding.

The notion that people terrified of a piece of oak tag are going to dig in and go out shooting is laughable.

I am confused by your stance. You stated (rather vehemently) your contempt for those who expressed their willingness to defend their right to own firearms and suggested the ballot box as the better method. Now you want armed insurrection over the right to life. During the Cold War you state you were participating in counter demonstrations and deride those who merely vote (among other things). By the way, back when you were holding that oak tag as a counter to communism, some of us were out shooting at them. I guess I do not understand what you are advocating other than contempt for anyone whose opinion differs from yours .... whatever that opinion is.

taft2012
08-29-2012, 08:04 AM
I am confused by your stance. You stated (rather vehemently) your contempt for those who expressed their willingness to defend their right to own firearms and suggested the ballot box as the better method. Now you want armed insurrection over the right to life. During the Cold War you state you were participating in counter demonstrations and deride those who merely vote (among other things). By the way, back when you were holding that oak tag as a counter to communism, some of us were out shooting at them. I guess I do not understand what you are advocating other than contempt for anyone whose opinion differs from yours .... whatever that opinion is.

No, I don't think in like 1986 through 1988 Americans were shooting at communists, except maybe for the little Grenada expedition.

I'm saying that *IF* conservatives were truly going to wage an armed insurrection they have a fascist-like cause already in place; the genocide of unborn Americans. Except for a few isolated incidents, they have chosen not to act.

I'm not advocating insurrection, so no, you don't understand. I'm saying most of the talk is a lot of substanceless bluster. If it had any substance we'd have had an armed insurrection decades ago, with the innocent body count quickly catching up to that of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

And my contempt is for those who say they will take up arms but were panicked at the notion of holding up a piece of oak tag. I think that was pretty clear.

CSM
08-29-2012, 08:36 AM
No, I don't think in like 1986 through 1988 Americans were shooting at communists, except maybe for the little Grenada expedition.

I'm saying that *IF* conservatives were truly going to wage an armed insurrection they have a fascist-like cause already in place; the genocide of unborn Americans. Except for a few isolated incidents, they have chosen not to act.

I'm not advocating insurrection, so no, you don't understand. I'm saying most of the talk is a lot of substanceless bluster. If it had any substance we'd have had an armed insurrection decades ago, with the innocent body count quickly catching up to that of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

And my contempt is for those who say they will take up arms but were panicked at the notion of holding up a piece of oak tag. I think that was pretty clear.

Ok, got ya. When you say Cold War I think of the period from post WW II thru the Vietnam era to the time Reagan was in office. I view the late 80s as the end of the Cold War. Apparently you are a bit younger than I am. I agree that actions speak louder than words and most folks are rather good at shooting their mouth off (pun intended) but fall short when it comes time to back up the rhetoric.