ABC News Video: Citizens Handcuffed, Forced To Give Up Firearms
http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

Local News Video: Elderly Woman Tackled In Her Home, Gun Taken
mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

[Edited on September 19, 2005 at 3:22 PM. Reason : 1]

9/19/2005 3:20:21 PM

[old]

Why would the elite zionist media be showing us all of this?

Please keep all of this in one thread. Theres no need to start a new one everytime you find something that gives you a hard on.

9/19/2005 3:22:13 PM

OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT


EVERY BODY COME TO MY HOUSE FOR A MEETING

WE'RE TAKING THIS THING BACK




PUNCH AND PIE.

9/19/2005 3:23:26 PM

FREE HAT.

9/19/2005 3:24:58 PM

9/19/2005 3:29:35 PM

what ever happened to calling him "salisburybot"?

9/19/2005 3:37:44 PM

Quote :

"Local News Video: Elderly Woman Tackled In Her Home, Gun Taken"

hahaha

9/19/2005 3:41:36 PM

Calm down guys, this is bullshit and you know it, taking away an american's right to arms when they need them most. Those guys in the first video clearly had legally registered weapons, and now have no way to protect their property.

9/19/2005 3:53:03 PM

read:

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=348979

9/19/2005 3:57:24 PM

Quote :

"" If they were legal, they tagged them with your contact info so you can get them back.""

We let the Japanese out of the concentration camps after WWII, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do in the first place.

9/19/2005 4:02:56 PM

9/19/2005 4:04:19 PM

Hardly. It's an apt analogy of denying the rights of well-behaved Americans during times of percieved crisis.

9/19/2005 4:09:02 PM

Yes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. It is a piss poor analogy.

9/19/2005 4:14:10 PM

You think guns were allowed in the internment camps? For that matter, do you think Japanese Americans were allowed to protect their own property during the civil unrest that preceded the internment? Were their shops and homes still standing three years later?

[Edited on September 19, 2005 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2005 4:19:59 PM

Quote :

"It is a piss poor analogy."

9/19/2005 4:21:18 PM

ATTN: Mr. Joshua

Practically everyone posting here except you and a few other police state apologists and disinformation agents strongly opposes confiscation of firearms from Americans. They know that this is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is un-American and dangerous. It is the hallmark of a tyrannical government and reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Watch the videos. Cops busting into the homes of U.S. citizens with automatic rifles to confiscate firearms. Tackling and jumping on old ladies who refuse to turn over their firearms and leave their own property, and then arresting people and taking them off to be "processed" at a camp.

I would have thought that even you would see that supporting the actions of the government in these videos damages your pro-police state agenda here. Guess I was wrong. I underestimated your stupidity. Please continue posting.

9/19/2005 4:21:56 PM

Quote :

"you and a few other police state apologists and disinformation agents"

OMF!!!1!!1 MISREPRESENTATION!!!!

Quote :

"I underestimated your stupidity."

OMF!!!1!11!!!!1 SLANDER!!!!1

I'm actually all for gun rights, I just think that you're an alarmist moron who can only see the world through the filter of prisonplanet.com.

9/19/2005 4:24:58 PM

Analogies aside, these people were prepared for the crisis and had sufficient resources to support themselves. However, to reap the benefits of being prepared, they had to stay in and protect their homes.

Pulling them out barefoot and screaming sends a wonderful message to the rest of the nation that preparing for disasters is a waste of time.

9/19/2005 4:25:22 PM

Let me first preface this by saying that salisburyboy is obviousely insane. Everything is clearly not a conspiracy, as he seems to contend. However, I think he often manages to highlight disturbing trends. Also, the viewpoint of many of his detractors is equally false.

Having myself conspired at times to achieve certain objectives, I cannot accept that nothing is the result of conspiracy, that all political outcomes are the result of some sort of random, brownian motion or purely open, honest, good faith and public proceedings.

That aside,

This video should disturb every American who understands the ideals that this nation was founded upon.

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

9/20/2005 2:03:01 PM

^ No one is saying that conspiracies never occur, they obviously do.

However, we are arguing that meaningful conspiracies tend to be perpetrated by small groups of people.

9/20/2005 3:14:48 PM

^ There is no global conspiracy that controls all media and is responsible for the majority of world events.

9/20/2005 3:38:44 PM

Quote :

"Everything is clearly not a conspiracy, as he seems to contend."

I've never stated that everything is the result of a conspiracy. And I don't mean to imply that. But the reality is that the conspirators behind the globalist movement are immensely powerful and have been responsible for many important events/occurences over the past few centuries. Their dominance/control of the finance/banking industry allowed them to become immensely wealthy to the point that they control entire nations, and dominate/control entire other industries, including the oil industry and the "mainstream media" all over the world.

Such a vast conspiracy seems far-fetched to many, because it goes against practically everything they've ever been taught or are bombarded with in the mainstream media. That, and the fact that it makes people uneasy, and therefore they don't want to believe it could be true.

But the fact that it seems unbelievable or people don't want to believe it could be true doesn't mean that it isn't, in fact, the truth. Ignorance of facts doesn't make those facts not true. Those who investigate the "new world order" conspiracy for themselves, open their minds, and seriously consider it will more than likely come to the conclusion that there is at least some truth to it.

9/20/2005 4:44:50 PM

Quote :

"Ignorance of facts doesn't make those facts not true."

LOL.

Quote :

"Those who investigate the "new world order" conspiracy for themselves, open their minds, and seriously consider it will more than likely come to the conclusion that there is at least some truth to it."

investigate for themselves = get all news from prisonplanet.com

9/20/2005 5:43:38 PM

But the fact that such a conspiracy would run against human nature or merely rational thought WOULD make it unlikely.

As I said, any conspiracy consisting of more than 20 people would be improbable to keep quiet. Especially if any of them are poorly paid.

We don't care if it sounds immoral or we don't want to believe it, we only care that science renders it so unlikely that we won't accept it without strong evidence.

9/20/2005 5:50:16 PM

Quote :

"As I said, any conspiracy consisting of more than 20 people would be improbable to keep quiet."

Well, obviously, if salisburyboy knows about it, they haven't done a very good job of keeping quiet.

Seriously though, the whole "New World Order" conspiracy theory is not without a large amount of factual basis.

We all know that large corporations and their leaders are strong proponents of the current trend towards economic globalization.

What most people don't realize is that this is not so much free international trade as it is government-managed international trade. A good example of this is NAFTA, with something insane like 1200 pages of regulations. As with all regulations on business, this entails a certain cost of compliance. Usually, this compliance cost doesn't scale proportionally with the volume of business done, giving large companies a huge advantage over small ones. Once again, we have an example of the established wealthy and powerful trying to use the power of the state to maintain their position in the face of potentially much more capable competition.

Only slightly less well known is the support of many these same commercial elites for political globalization, the concentration of political power in ever higher layers of unaccountable, international, bureaucracy. Often, as is the case with organizations like the WTO, political and economic globalization are simply two sides of the same coin. This absolutely makes sense, because international government, even more so than national government, would necessarily be government of, by and for the powerful, well-connected interests. The idea that disparate people in far flung regions of the globe could hold a massive global bureaucracy accountable to some notion of the "common good" is absurd. How many people could you even get to agree on what the "common good" means?

None of this is particularly secret. Much of the work that these elites do to bring about global governance is publicly available, just not widely advertised. Of course, it's not like some giant, all-pervasive conspiracy or anything. There are many groups and many individuals working on parallel or even opposing plans to achieve a relatively wide variety of forms of global governance. To get a small taste of this, just contrast the Project for the New American Century, which envisions a new world order under the (de facto, if not de jure) hegemony of America, with evangelical Christians at the helm, versus the Trilateral Commission, which has a much more multi-cultural, multi-lateral vision.

In all cases though, the result would be the same. Powerful and concentrated interests with much to gain would be able to easily hijack the apparatus of international government to plunder and enslave a dispersed group of victims who, because each may have only a little to lose individually (at first anyway), would be unable to muster the political resources and determination to mount an effective opposition.

World government would be a great racket for the rich and the powerful, while it lasted, but it can only lead to corruption, abuse, misery and eventually, ruin.

9/21/2005 6:36:29 AM

Yea, but none of that is a secret, which it would be IF there was in fact a conspiracy.

Bush/Clinton stated specifically that it would be managed trade through NAFTA. They felt the people would be too frighted by real free trade, so they threw in corporate corruption to make it more familiar with the average American, and thus far less frightenning.

9/21/2005 3:26:22 PM

It is secret, at least in a sense.

Ask your average American what people like George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller are doing daily to forge for them the chains of globalist slavery, and you'll probably see little more than blank stares and quizical expressions. The information itself isn't secret, but the would be helmsmen of global leviathan have certainely done an excellent job of keeping people's attention elsewhere.

9/21/2005 8:45:17 PM

you will get stares because the average american doesnt care

9/21/2005 8:46:54 PM

That only means that the "would be helmsmen of global leviathan" has done his job very well.

[Edited on September 22, 2005 at 2:47 AM. Reason : zieg heil the grammar nazi!]

9/22/2005 2:47:15 AM

those people are retarded for telling them they have guns in the first place...
don't tell them you've got them and just stay

9/22/2005 5:47:51 AM

Katrina refugees placed in "concentration camp"...

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3006502

Quote :

"Evacuees' stories are moving, but fence isn't By Diane Carman Denver Post Staff Columnist DenverPost.com If I didn't know better, I'd have thought I was peering through the fence at a concentration camp. The signs on the buildings say "Community College of Aurora," though for now they're serving as an impromptu Camp Katrina. About 160 hurricane survivors are being housed in the dorms, surrounded by fences, roadblocks, security guards and enough armed police officers to invade Grenada. There's a credentials unit to process every visitor, an intake unit to provide identification tags and a bag of clothes to every evacuee, several Salvation Army food stations, portable toilets, shuttle buses, a green army-tent chapel with church services three times a day and a communications team to keep reporters as far away from actual news as possible. It probably was easier for a reporter to get inside Gitmo on Tuesday than to penetrate the force field around Lowry. But survivors occasionally breached the lockdown and came to the fence to tell their stories, each one astonishing."

[Edited on September 22, 2005 at 11:36 AM. Reason : 1]

9/22/2005 11:31:32 AM

"I don't want you in here. I don't want you in here period[BAM!]"

9/22/2005 11:50:49 AM