19 votes

Anonymous "throws down the gauntlet" Try to take our guns and we will take you down.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Guns don't make people kill, SSRIs do.

It says so RIGHT ON THE LABEL. I am going to put it to music.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Cyril's picture

Understanding the underlying INTENT of the process

Whether gun confiscation will be attempted or not (if it is, then by a completely obvious TOTALITARIAN STATE) there is one thing that everybody needs to be reminded of :

once guns confiscation occur, then they can continue to proceed with confiscating gold, silver, oil, land, or whatever-other-real-asset is.

So, once self-defense is denied, and then private property, you know IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE to look back.

The converse ALSO LOGICALLY holds :

WHY would ANY "fair government" consider DENYING a natural, founding right such as armed self defense - ENSHRINED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT - IF IT WERE NOT for pursuing private property confiscation at some later point in time and/or arbitrary physical person custody ?

And the key phrase to catch here, is : at some later point in time.

That's the thing : it REALLY, REALLY does NOT matter HOW LONG after the first type of confiscation.

For it is ONLY a question of time, precisely - but you have ALREADY the certainty that the next stage is on the way of being planned, scheduled.

It is ALL ABOUT the evidence of whether the (Law Perverted) process HAS STARTED AND CONTINUED THAT FAR, OR NOT.

WATCH OUT for any "winds" (on MSM, "intelligentsia", false flags, you name it) that call, or strongly suggest, or advocate, directly or indirectly, for guns confiscation.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

How important can gun confiscation be?

In 1775 About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. They were met on their march at Lexington Green by about 500 militiamen and the first shot of the Revolutionary War was fired.

Confiscation of arms was the trigger that began the violent part of that historic time.

Maybe Obama wants to repeat history, or perhaps is caught up in forces beyond his perception and control. We certainly are a divided nation as we were in 1775, and as then we are in a crisis period. In both cases revolution was or is not on the minds of the majority who looked to political compromise to resolve differences peacefully. In both cases there was resentment against monopoly, in 1775 the principal monopoly being the Dutch East Indies Company, and today the principal monopoly being the Federal Reserve System. In both cases, the attitude of those in political power was uncompromising.

Of course there are other possible trigger events that drive societies to the revolution point, the point where the pain and suffering from continuing with the then present political arrangements exceeds the pain and suffering that is perceived to come from revolution. But in most cases the violence seemingly comes from nowhere and it is left to historians, who are appointed by the winner, to describe the cause and effect.

Confiscation of the means to defend ourselves is a gross violation of the right to live, and I would rank it quite high on the list of things that will cause revolt. Watch and wait.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.