Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

DHS Prepares for Civil Unrest as Obama Poised to Destroy 2nd Amendment

Posted by   + Show Post

DHS Prepares for Civil Unrest as Obama Poised to Destroy 2nd Amendment

Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 28, 2012

Breaking: United Nations Small Arms Treaty Not Dead

Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for "public safety". Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

Napolitano stated : "With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it's in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information."

Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install "aerial remote sensing" which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.

"DHS believes these airborne images are essential for homeland defense missions, such as planning for National Special Security Events (Super Bowls or a national political conventions come to mind); enhancing border, port and airport security; as well as performing critical infrastructure inventories and assessments" and has spent over $50 million to employ contractors, as well as processors for images and dissemination throughout the DHS.

Coincidentally, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future.

Part of the preparatory measures was an order of 150 sets of riot gear that was requested to be filled exponentially - within 15 days.

The items requested were:

- 147 "Upper Body and Shoulder Protection" which are brand name or equal to "Centurion Soft Shell Riot Control System (CPX2500)"
- 152 "Thigh-Groin Protector" brand name or equivalent to "Centurion TPX200"
- 156 "Forearm Protectors" brand name or equivalent to "Centurion (FP100)"
- 147 units of "Hard Shell Shin Guards" brand name or equivalent to "Centurion (TS70)"
- 147 carry bags brand name or equivalent to Exotech (E4), 147 tactical gloves brand name or equivalent to "Damascus (DMZ333)"
- 147 riot helmets brand name or equivalent to "MaxPro (TR1000)"

The FPS is anticipating that police or military wearing the gear would encounter "blunt force trauma" to the upper torso, as well as potential beatings with "blunt objects". To compliment these outfits, are required riot helmets with "tactical face shield" equipped with "liquid seals".

In addition, the US military are ready to assist with local law enforcement "if called upon".

Five hundred military police and dogs will be allocated on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to "assist local authorities" in investigation, crime scene and case building. These same soliders were just stationed in combat areas like Afghantistan.

Meanwhile, the TSA have been patrolling trains stations and bus terminals in California.

According to one whistleblower : "We're doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we're even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we're inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we've fully expanded - we're no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint."

The preparations that DHS and FPS are making for civil unrest may be tied to Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This part allows foreign troops (preferably NATO forces) to offer assistance in implementing the ATT. As the ATT does not specify an adherence to the 2nd Amendment, but rather make vague definitions of who can own a gun, what type of gun and for what purpose, the Constitutional rights we take for granted now will be stripped from us once the ATT is signed.

To downplay the severity of our American right to bear arms against tyrannical dictators foreign and domestic, President Obama stated at a National Urban League meeting that: "We recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

Richard Schrade, attorney and member of the Libertarian National Committee commented on the 2nd Amendment: "The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government. Let's remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let's remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.... When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment."

Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the NRA, has called out Obama as being part of "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep. All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term."

LaPierre states that upon re-election, Obama will be "busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the US Constitution."

by on Jul. 30, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Replies (41-50):
lga1965
by on Jul. 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM
1 mom liked this
noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. ****************************** ear:

Militia meant every able-bodied (white) man. They were not organized militia, they were individuals. There's really no room for misinterpretation, unless you want it to mean something else. They were very clear as to the intent behind it. The Bill of Rights was not about the government. It was about the limits placed on the government to protect the rights of the people, in this case the right to bear arms.


Quoting IhartU:

 


Quoting cammibear:

No. It's not. Of you don't understand it, go research and read the Congressional Records, and other writing of the ones who wrote it and knew how to interpret it. In it's historical context, there is no misinterpretation.



Quoting IhartU:


 



Quoting cammibear:

Do you realize what you are implying here? Our Constitutional right to bear arms is to ensure we have means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Raising an army against civilians is as tyrannical as it gets.

Sheesh, some of you have things backwards. The government is supposed to protect our constitutional rights, not dictate what those rights are.




Quoting _Kissy_:



When you give a society the right to own assault weapons, you better have an army to deal with them.




 



 The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is vague because the wording is odd and that's why there is a such a huge debate about it. It could very well mean only the Militia- which is now the National Guard- has the right to bear arms and not private citizens. Until someone goes back in time and asks the Founding Fathers exactly what they meant, the Amendment is open for interpretation- and that means the laws can be changed depending on what interpretation is being used at the time.



 


The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."





lga1965
by on Jul. 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM
1 mom liked this

 

mi·li·tia

[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
 
autodidact
by Platinum Member on Jul. 30, 2012 at 2:35 PM
2 moms liked this

"the severity of our right to bear arms" 

wow, that's some amatuerish writing. 

frogbender
by Captain Underpants on Jul. 30, 2012 at 2:44 PM
4 moms liked this

Wait, wait, wait....This is in referral to the UN's Small Arms Treaty? What, was this written by an incompetent 4th grader? For the love of lemons, doesn't ANYBODY do responsible journalism anymore? 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Jul. 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM
1 mom liked this
Yes

They are nuts, well a good majority of them

But please stop spreading fear and misinformation ..no one is threatening to take any guns away

Lies are a pathetic desperate attempt to make someone do what you want them too..


Quoting candlegal:

There are way too many gun owners in this country, they would have a very hard time doing that.  If push comes to shove, many in the military would not do it anyway.  Have you ever heard of the oathkeepeers?

Quoting momof31995:

Our forefathers were a militia. At that time the people were expected to protect what was theirs until a formal military was put in place to protect them. At least that is my understanding if I am wrong please correct me.



For the record I am for the right to keep and bear arms and I'll be damned if I will let them just come and take mine and I know plenty more people who feel the same. I don't for a second believe this will ever happen.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Jul. 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM
1 mom liked this
You have such little faith in our Constitution and our country as a whole?

Quoting Carpy:

You would rather be the United Nations of America?

Quoting LauraKW:

Paranoia runs deep. So does shit.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Jul. 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM
3 moms liked this

 Which is why so many turned to the writings of the people who penned the constitution in the first place.

"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 Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Quoting IhartU:

 

Quoting cammibear:

Do you realize what you are implying here? Our Constitutional right to bear arms is to ensure we have means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Raising an army against civilians is as tyrannical as it gets.

Sheesh, some of you have things backwards. The government is supposed to protect our constitutional rights, not dictate what those rights are.


Quoting _Kissy_:

When you give a society the right to own assault weapons, you better have an army to deal with them.


 

 The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is vague because the wording is odd and that's why there is a such a huge debate about it. It could very well mean only the Militia- which is now the National Guard- has the right to bear arms and not private citizens. Until someone goes back in time and asks the Founding Fathers exactly what they meant, the Amendment is open for interpretation- and that means the laws can be changed depending on what interpretation is being used at the time.

 

babiesbabybaby development

Godgaveme4
by Platinum Member on Jul. 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting lga1965:

 IMO. that LaPierre guy is nuts. And the NRA is filled with paranoid, aggressive  people who are pretending to care about the average citizen but are heavily vested in selling weaponry. Its a business people.To sell their weapons they need to keep the naive in a state of panic. Thus---the article/blog we have here for us to read. SMH.

 Did the brady bunch tell you that?

sidesplittinglaughter

frogbender
by Captain Underpants on Jul. 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Godgaveme4:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 IMO. that LaPierre guy is nuts. And the NRA is filled with paranoid, aggressive  people who are pretending to care about the average citizen but are heavily vested in selling weaponry. Its a business people.To sell their weapons they need to keep the naive in a state of panic. Thus---the article/blog we have here for us to read. SMH.

 Did the brady bunch tell you that?

sidesplittinglaughter

Regardless of the above paragraph, this article is still very delusional. And idiotic. 

Godgaveme4
by Platinum Member on Jul. 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting frogbender:

 

Quoting Godgaveme4:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 IMO. that LaPierre guy is nuts. And the NRA is filled with paranoid, aggressive  people who are pretending to care about the average citizen but are heavily vested in selling weaponry. Its a business people.To sell their weapons they need to keep the naive in a state of panic. Thus---the article/blog we have here for us to read. SMH.

 Did the brady bunch tell you that?

sidesplittinglaughter

Regardless of the above paragraph, this article is still very delusional. And idiotic. 

 I think there is some truth in it.  I personally do not trust the president.  I base that decsion on his past voting record.

I am also not a fan of the UN and would like to see our country leave it and stop giving them money.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN