# Most preppers are criminals already



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Most people who are prepping are already criminals. Read this link (and look at the other internal links) and start thinking it over:

American Defense Network - Gun Confiscations - Powered by ForumCo.com - The Forum Company


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

First it is only a restraining order when it's signed by the Judge. If it's never been filled out and filed with the court it doesn't exist. Also the final divorce decree most likely null and voids this when the divorce is finalized


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

No offense but this counterpoint lad is not all there. He makes very broad statements that are not supported in fact. Being prescribed medication doesn't mean that you are addicted to it. The only way to determine that is for the doc to cut you off cold turkey and see how you react. with regards to misdemeaners the only one that affects you gun ownership is domestic assault.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Camel's nose under the tent, If they can't ban guns, they change the penalties to increase those who are prohibited from owning. Backdoor gun control. jmho.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

No offense I'm not chasing the opening comments used to start a thread through a bunch of links or even one.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

While the reply's may be accurate, the fact still remains that the law is on the books and it WILL be up to you to prove/argue it in court at a later time if you actually broke the law. That can get very expensive and that is how many people charged by BATF end up pleading guilty of something, even a lesser charge, but still guilty and thus loose they're gun and voting rights. Always remember that when the state brings you up on charges you are guilty in their eyes until you prove your not.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

SARGE7402 said:


> No offense but this counterpoint lad is not all there. He makes very broad statements that are not supported in fact. Being prescribed medication doesn't mean that you are addicted to it. The only way to determine that is for the doc to cut you off cold turkey and see how you react. with regards to misdemeaners the only one that affects you gun ownership is domestic assault.


In fact you are VERY wrong. Every point in the thread is supported by FACT. For example, in your first posting criticizing the thread, you claim that it is not a Restraining Order until it's signed by a judge. Had you* READ* the freaking article, you would see that the form* REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH A DIVORCE PETITION INCLUDES A RESTRAINING ORDER SIGNED BY ALL THE JUDGES IN THAT JURISDICTION!!!!!!!!!!*

Second point, if you read the thread TWO researchers go to the trouble to show you that a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER is FOREVER. The only restraining order that is voided is the *TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER*. A MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER IS NOT TEMPORARY. If it were, it would say so by specifying a date on the ORDER.

You really need to read the thread before making such embarrassing statements... especially those that concern itself as to what was *FACTUALLY* shown. Sarge 7402 wrote:

"_First it is only a restraining order when it's signed by the Judge. If it's never been filled out and filed with the court it doesn't exist. Also the final divorce decree most likely null and voids this when the divorce is finalized._"

RESPONSE: Is there ANYONE else on this board stupid enough to believe that a restraining order against stalking, harassing, threatening or doing someone bodily harm - or death is EVER voided????? Really??? The point is, you should be able to get a divorce without a restraining order UNLESS there are facts brought to a judge's attention that a person is or has reason to believe they are in danger.

I think the rest of the posters here can read the thread, access the referencing links and decide for yourself whether or not smoke is being blown up your ass.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> No offense I'm not chasing the opening comments used to start a thread through a bunch of links or even one.


Then why bother commenting?

"_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_." Proverbs 18: 13

You can't get an education on an issue without sacrificing a little of your time.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

American Defense Network - Gun Confiscations - Powered by ForumCo.com - The Forum Company

All of the positions taken are supported by FACTS contained in supporting links to the actual documents.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Whew! I dodged that bullet (pun intended). I've never lived in GA and I've never been divorced.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Our government has viewed people like us as at least terrorists since Ruby Ridge. They can't stand the idea that many of us don't want to be dependent on the government. Our fearless leader has already referred to us as "the enemy". This thread is nothing new. I'm quite certain that all of us are already on some government list. Personally, I believe that puts me in good company.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

"Most preppers are criminals already "

I don't think that most preppers got a divorce in Georgia.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Most people who are prepping are already criminals. Read this link (and look at the other internal links) and start thinking it over:
> 
> American Defense Network - Gun Confiscations - Powered by ForumCo.com - The Forum Company


Sorry no time for the dribble, the fact is there are very few Americans that are not Felons, with 200,000 laws on the books you probably are breaking at least 1 of them really bad.

Case in point, I decided to eradicate all copied moves and music from my home over 10 years ago, and behold I just found another disk of songs the other day. Technically these are not pirated since I own the original CD's (I would call them backups) but I decided to not tempt the beast and destroy all of them, to date I think I am good, but with 5000 songs on my ipod can anyone be sure?

My point is there are so many laws, they can get you, even if you didn't know or intend to break the law.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> In fact you are VERY wrong. Every point in the thread is supported by FACT. For example, in your first posting criticizing the thread, you claim that it is not a Restraining Order until it's signed by a judge. Had you* READ* the freaking article, you would see that the form* REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH A DIVORCE PETITION INCLUDES A RESTRAINING ORDER SIGNED BY ALL THE JUDGES IN THAT JURISDICTION!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Second point, if you read the thread TWO researchers go to the trouble to show you that a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER is FOREVER. The only restraining order that is voided is the *TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER*. A MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER IS NOT TEMPORARY. If it were, it would say so by specifying a date on the ORDER.
> 
> ...


Lighten up dude. I am really sorry to have said anything to offend your sensitive nature. As I said it's not a restraining order until it's signed by the judge(s). And pardner that is a fact of law in most states. However if it is signed it still has to be served on the parties involved.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Reading the bottom of the order that the link post to it's kind of curious that it actually says the order stays in effect until further order or actions by the judges of this court. Here in Virginia this is refered to as a Peace Bond. One of the lawyer web sites (Fox) dealing with Georgia Divorce Law indicates that the MRO expires on finalization of the divorce.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

SARGE7402 said:


> Lighten up dude. I am really sorry to have said anything to offend your sensitive nature. As I said it's not a restraining order until it's signed by the judge(s). And pardner that is a fact of law in most states. However if it is signed it still has to be served on the parties involved.


And I repeat, had you *READ* the entire article, it says in plain English that you cannot submit a Petition for Divorce unless a SIGNED copy (signed by the judges and provided by the court) of the court you are petitioning accompanies the Petition. Period. You went on the attack before reading the thread. My best advice to you is not to attack someone until you *read* the facts presented.

While Georgia law was used as an example, the point was to encourage people to LOOK at the laws of their state and refer to the *FEDERAL STATUTES* as the interpretation of the law is left up to the *FEDERAL* government. The example of a person using "_legal_" medicinal marijuana in their home state does NOT supersede federal law that smoking pot is a *FEDERAL* crime.

You offer no support for your counter-argument, just your word that so and so said the Mutual Restraining Order is voided with a final decree of divorce. Let me tell you a secret: Mutual Restraining Orders for anything related to violence are* never* voided from the federal government's position.

In Georgia, the sheriff or process server absolutely will not serve a defendant a Petition for Divorce without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. * I suspect that most states have a similar law*. If yours don't, then feel free to think you've dodged the bullet. If not, let the guys in other states research their laws. Bear in mind, even if state law says one thing about their laws, the feds ignore the state's interpretation and go with the federal law's interpretation.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> "Most preppers are criminals already "
> 
> I don't think that most preppers got a divorce in Georgia.


According to the thread *many states have similar laws*. Had you read the damn thread and researched it, you would have seen that. Second point, the thread was MORE than divorce. It also contained information on people addicted to and or taking _"legal_" depressants.

"_According to a report released yesterday by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the rate of antidepressant use in this country among teens and adults (people ages 12 and older) increased by almost 400% between 1988-1994 and 2005-2008.

The federal government's health statisticians figure that about one in every 10 Americans takes an antidepressant. And by their reckoning, antidepressants were the third most common prescription medication taken by Americans in 2005-2008, the latest period during which the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected data on prescription drug use_."

Astounding increase in antidepressant use by Americans - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications

One in 10 people are legally addicted to anti-depressants and their doctors would testify to that fact if / when your health records are made available to NCIC (National Crime Information Center.) I'll bet you any amount of money you wish to bet that any PhD or psychiatrist you care to mention will not give a gun owner a pass on the background check if their patient is taking SSRIs.

Notsoyoung, you need to get your head out of your ass and realize that I'm trying to help people understand the gravity of the situation. Obamacare is thousands of pages of B.S. you haven't read yet. Son, you should back off and let me do my job of alerting people to potential dangers. As preppers you should learn to respect those who bring material worthy of consideration to the table where prepping is concerned. I'm not here for the popularity contest or to debate you on subjects you don't specialize in. I'm here to share worthwhile information relative to prepping.

Many are criminals under FEDERAL interpretation and don't know it. Now some of you DO know it and can research the laws in your area and you know what to look for so you can prepare accordingly.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

It sure is nice when people here can have a nice discussion without resorting foul name calling.

Turtle.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

The Resister said:


> One in 10 people are legally addicted to anti-depressants and their doctors would testify to that fact if / when your health records are made available to NCIC (National Crime Information Center.) I'll bet you any amount of money you wish to bet that any PhD or psychiatrist you care to mention will not give a gun owner a pass on the background check if their patient is taking SSRIs.


Another reason Mrs Inor and I are damn glad we have a family doc that is damn near as crazy as Resister.  Plus, he is a VERY good doctor.

Update: Neither of us has ever taken SSRIs as far as we know.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

We should all just pick and choose which laws we'll obey, just as the US AG has told folks not to enforce the laws they don't like. Just sayin. No worries.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Inor said:


> Another reason Mrs Inor and I are damn glad we have a family doc that is damn near as crazy as Resister.  Plus, he is a VERY good doctor.
> 
> Update: Neither of us has ever taken SSRIs as far as we know.


Being crazy is no bar to being able to give offer sound counsel and offer relevant advice when the clock is ticking away on your Rights. 1skrewloose made the point about picking and choosing which laws we'll obey. My point is that if you fail to obey a law, it better be for a good reason and backed up definable legal principles.... at least if you want others to come to your defense.

Making a pirate copy of your music or videos for private use doesn't offer the opportunity for the left to harass you over as does putting your Second Amendment Rights at risk through blind ignorance. I really liked that part of your reply that says "_as far as we know_." It went to the heart of this thread. As far as a lot of us know, we aren't criminals... but, sometimes you find some guy like me picking apart Obamacare or working in divorce cases to notice that the government is creating all kinds of back - door approaches to make us criminals.

Forewarned is forearmed. When I'm offering information that relies on federal statutes, state laws and policies, AND information from websites from attorneys it should be taken seriously. OTOH, unsubstantiated information allegedly from Faux News (which BTW is owned by a Board of Director of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince / Muslim) should be taken with a great deal of skepticism when your Freedom may be at issue.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> According to the thread *many states have similar laws*. Had you read the damn thread and researched it, you would have seen that. Second point, the thread was MORE than divorce. It also contained information on people addicted to and or taking _"legal_" depressants.
> 
> "_According to a report released yesterday by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the rate of antidepressant use in this country among teens and adults (people ages 12 and older) increased by almost 400% between 1988-1994 and 2005-2008.
> 
> ...


No, I didn't read the entire thread because after reading part of it I decided that it was CRAP. As far as my comment that it hardly affects most of preppers, let me say again, Most preppers HAVEN"T been divorced in Georgia, and as for your bs concerning antidepressants, I doubt if most preppers are on prescription antidepressants either. The title of your post is WRONG. If you said "some" or "allot", I might agree, but not "most". Don't attack me for your erroneous statement, nimrod. I for one have lost my patience for your propensity for attacking people who disagree with you. As for me "getting my head out of my ass", YOU can KISS my ass, jerk.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Notsoyoung said:


> No, I didn't read the entire thread because after reading part of it I decided that it was CRAP. As far as my comment that it hardly affects most of preppers, let me say again, Most preppers HAVEN"T been divorced in Georgia, and as for your bs concerning antidepressants, I doubt if most preppers are on prescription antidepressants either. The title of your post is WRONG. If you said "some" or "allot", I might agree, but not "most". Don't attack me for your erroneous statement, nimrod. I for one have lost my patience for your propensity for attacking people who disagree with you. As for me "getting my head out of my ass", YOU can KISS my ass, jerk.


Thanks Notso I couldn't have said it better. But he has made one point. If he can build the arguments that he has - and no I don't agree with them - there's nothing to say some government burearocrat can't make the same connection and have it incorporated into an obscure federal rule with the end result that a law abiding citizen get's jammed up.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> No, I didn't read the entire thread because after reading part of it I decided that it was CRAP. As far as my comment that it hardly affects most of preppers, let me say again, Most preppers HAVEN"T been divorced in Georgia, and as for your bs concerning antidepressants, I doubt if most preppers are on prescription antidepressants either. The title of your post is WRONG. If you said "some" or "allot", I might agree, but not "most". Don't attack me for your erroneous statement, nimrod. I for one have lost my patience for your propensity for attacking people who disagree with you. As for me "getting my head out of my ass", YOU can KISS my ass, jerk.


You would have to pull your head out of your ass before anyone could kiss it.

If the stats are right, one in 10 people are using "_legal"_ anti-depressants

_"More than 22 million Americans age 12 and older - nearly 9% of the U.S. population - use illegal drugs, according to the government's 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health_."

Study: 22 million Americans use illegal drugs ? The Chart - CNN.com Blogs

About half of all marriages end in divorce. Citing source:

Divorce in America [infographic]

According to Form 4473 (the form you fill out to buy a firearm at a retail store):

"Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, *or any other crime*, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

What percentage of the U.S. population do you think gets convicted of a crime that is not a felony, but could have netted a person more than a year... even if all they did was pay a fine???

You make much ado about Georgia, Notsoyoung, but the thread that this was about makes the following statement:

*While this thread begins with Georgia law, it may be relevant in your state*. It's the way the posting begins and it is in bold. How on God's green earth did you miss that??? Let's be frank and honest:

There is NO scenario whereby you would agree with me on anything. You don't like me and I respect that. I don't like you either, but I don't look for every thread you start and attack you. I don't make every issue with you a personality contest. I started this thread to help people. You cannot respect that so you want to make this nasty. Okay. Let's be brutally honest. You think everybody on this board is an idiot and if you tell them not to investigate the laws of their state and *compare them* to what I've found relative to my own state, they will blindly follow you. You have no trust in their judgement to read something you call CRAP *BEFORE* even reading it. Furthermore, making your mental health and medical records available to those deciding whether or not you can exercise your Rights has to be taken into account.

You don't have any facts that negate the information provided; you admitted that you didn't read the entire thread, yet you went on the attack against me. WTH?

"_He who answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and a shame unto him_" Proverbs 18: 13

Notsoyoung, it don't make two hoots in Hell whether or not most preppers have been divorced in Georgia. Half of the married population in the U.S. *HAS* been divorced *and MANY STATES HAVE SIMILAR LAWS AS GEORGIA*. Finally that thread does not deal only with divorce in Georgia OR even divorce for that matter.


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

ill have to admit im a fashion criminal. but I really do think a cowboy hat, tevas and kylex holster look good together. I think I need a lobbying budget here.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> You would have to pull your head out of your ass before anyone could kiss it.
> 
> If the stats are right, one in 10 people are using "_legal"_ anti-depressants
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight, according to you most preppers are criminals but people who enter the country ILLEGALLY aren't?

Yeah, we can all see who has his head up his ass.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Slippy to the rescue...

Oddly I think I get where Resister is coming from. The Federal/State Governments have become over zealous with law creation. Some of these laws are illegal themselves and many are un-Constitutional, and many are downright foolish. Because there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books, many of them (either by design or accident) can be used to convict people of "innocent" crimes. In a way they can be used as "backdoor" attempts for political gain. (i.e like banning people from owning firearms using loopholes like divorce or prescription medications) 

But Resister, dude, you have got to stop attacking people because they make a comment of disagreement toward your posts. You gotta admit that some of your posts are border line freaking crazy. (Some of mine are too!) 

So please just lighten up a bit, my man! I, for one, would like to see a kinder, gentler Resister. :shock:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Slippy to the rescue...
> 
> Oddly I think I get where Resister is coming from. The Federal/State Governments have become over zealous with law creation. Some of these laws are illegal themselves and many are un-Constitutional, and many are downright foolish. Because there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books, many of them (either by design or accident) can be used to convict people of "innocent" crimes. In a way they can be used as "backdoor" attempts for political gain. (i.e like banning people from owning firearms using loopholes like divorce or prescription medications)
> 
> ...


I was not being argumentative with Notsoyoung because he disagreed with me. He attacked me and he got what he deserved. His last posting let the cat out of the bag. Notsoyoung has his boxers in a bunch because I told the people here that immigration is *NOT* a crime. Now, had I set out to bait Notsoyoung, he would have taken the bait. And, since he opened the door, we can tie the two together.

I have been a strong proponent of *NOT* mixing civil and criminal laws so as to create a criminal action out of a civil process. The Notsoyoung crowd would not listen; they would have it no other way. Divorce, like immigration is* CIVIL LAW*. Just my opinion here, but if someone is harassing their spouse or beating them... or threatening them, etc. then that should be included in the Petition for Divorce. If all of that is not relevant, it should be left out of the Petition for Divorce. A Mutual Restraining Order prohibiting acts that are not an issue should not be signed by any judge. No more back door criminal legislation via the civil process.

The legal precedents for creating criminal laws out of a civil process began with the immigration issue. Now we can see the fruits of the labors of my critics. Yeah, I'm crazy and if you didn't have the Notsoyoung crowd attacking me before even reading the material referenced, I could be much kinder and gentler. Slippy, some days my elevator doesn't go all the way to the top... fact is it gets stuck at less than half way. Some days I have lucid moments that I regret - like trying to warn others of impending dangers ahead.

To answer Notsoyoung while I'm here:

Immigration is a civil process *NOT* a criminal action. Divorce is a civil process and, in a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, neither immigration nor divorce should be practiced in a manner so as to circumvent the *unalienable* Rights of all people.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Nobody listens to me anymore...


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> I was not being argumentative with Notsoyoung because he disagreed with me. He attacked me and he got what he deserved. His last posting let the cat out of the bag. Notsoyoung has his boxers in a bunch because I told the people here that immigration is *NOT* a crime. Now, had I set out to bait Notsoyoung, he would have taken the bait. And, since he opened the door, we can tie the two together.
> 
> I have been a strong proponent of *NOT* mixing civil and criminal laws so as to create a criminal action out of a civil process. The Notsoyoung crowd would not listen; they would have it no other way. Divorce, like immigration is* CIVIL LAW*. Just my opinion here, but if someone is harassing their spouse or beating them... or threatening them, etc. then that should be included in the Petition for Divorce. If all of that is not relevant, it should be left out of the Petition for Divorce. A Mutual Restraining Order prohibiting acts that are not an issue should not be signed by any judge. No more back door criminal legislation via the civil process.
> 
> ...


This was my first post: _
I don't think that most preppers got a divorce in Georgia. _

That is not an attack. That is an observation that in fact "most" preppers are not considered criminals. resister went bat-crap-crazy, as he usually does, and said that I "had my head up my ass". He constantly attacks anyone who doesn't agree with any of his "drama queen" and long winded statements. I suggest that everyone go back and look at all of resister's replies to other people's posts. They are filled with vitriol and name calling. As juvenile as it sounds, if someone starts calling me names, I will reply in kind. I am not going to let someone who because he is on the web and doesn't have to worry about getting bitch slapped try to bully me. If "drama queen mary" wants to have a civilized discourse, I will reply in kind.

Oh, I forgot, Illegal Aliens who are here ILLEGALLY are criminals which is why they are handcuffed and escorted by heavily armed guards and held in jails until they are rightfully booted out of the country. Also, any person who entered the country ILLEGALLY should NEVER be permitted to own a firearm, no matter what.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

shotlady said:


> ill have to admit im a fashion criminal. but I really do think a cowboy hat, tevas and kylex holster look good together. I think I need a lobbying budget here.


whoa girl. I'll chip in $1.00 (silver) to help you get a pair of cowboy boots to go with that hat. Cowboy hat and sandles! Is nothing sacred anymore


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

I could be wrong here but what I think Resister is saying is that the government in a round about way is building a case against any citizen to be used as a barging chip down the road. When you get stopped for that speeding violation or what ever a warning or a warrant may pop up on you and give them reasonable suspension to arrest, detain, or "search your car/person for what ever and be legal in doing it. The backdoor move is something the government will use to entrap you and put you in a position to have little to nothing to barging with. Just like most of the "nobamacare" law has little to do with healthcare and more about how you live your every day life and the government controlling you. The government never passes a law that won't help the government more than the average citizen!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

ekim,
You are probably right but I thought we were talking about Shotlady wearing cut off jeans, a cowboy hat, tank top with her holstered S&W!


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Slippy said:


> ekim,
> You are probably right but I thought we were talking about Shotlady wearing cut off jeans, a cowboy hat, tank top with her holstered S&W!


Now that's a picture that I would like to see.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> Now that's a picture that I would like to see.


Or this;
Cut off Jeans, Tank Top, Cowboy hat, TWO holsters, two .44 Magnums


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Slippy said:


> ekim,
> You are probably right but I thought we were talking about Shotlady wearing cut off jeans, a cowboy hat, tank top with her holstered S&W!


Better be careful what you say about a pistol packin mama, she just might shoot first and ask questions later! She is a prepper and knows what to do and when it's needed. :wink:


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

ekim said:


> Better be careful what you say about a pistol packin mama, she just might shoot first and ask questions later! She is a prepper and knows what to do and when it's needed.


10-4
Plus she may not be Mrs. Right...


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> This was my first post: _
> I don't think that most preppers got a divorce in Georgia. _
> 
> That is not an attack. That is an observation that in fact "most" preppers are not considered criminals. resister went bat-crap-crazy, as he usually does, and said that I "had my head up my ass". He constantly attacks anyone who doesn't agree with any of his "drama queen" and long winded statements. I suggest that everyone go back and look at all of resister's replies to other people's posts. They are filled with vitriol and name calling. As juvenile as it sounds, if someone starts calling me names, I will reply in kind. I am not going to let someone who because he is on the web and doesn't have to worry about getting bitch slapped try to bully me. If "drama queen mary" wants to have a civilized discourse, I will reply in kind.
> ...


What does the fact that most preppers did not a divorce in Georgia have to do with the *FACT* that the thread you accessed had virtually nothing to do with WHERE a person got a divorce???

You acused me of calling people names. My first follow up response is in post # 7. There is no name calling there. Posts 8 and 9 have no name calling in them. I didn't call anyone any name in post # 16 and in post # 17 I did say that some people may be "_criminals_" (based upon *your* consistent illogical "reasoning) - which is what happens when we call people criminals absent Due Process. Nobody is being called a name in post #21 and I did not call you any names in post # 24 when I responded to you. That brings us to post #29 and there is STILL NO NAME CALLING! Somebody did say I was crazy... which I admitted to.

Then again, Notsoyoung, I told you to get you should get your head out of your ass. That's because we both know what your beef really is with me and why you're here. It's over that damn immigration issue and you have your head up your ass because you got defeated in that debate which is why you cannot afford to lose face here.

*EVERY* person that gets arrested is not a criminal. A person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. It's the same missing ingredient when judges use a divorce action to impose a criminal penalty on you via the Mutual Restraining Order. Every time the authorities take a person into custody and transport them is no indication of guilt. If so, every person who is handcuffed and taken in for questioning would be a criminal by virtue of the fact that they are handcuffed.

These small elements of our system baffle Notsoyoung so he continues to rant and rave about "_illegal"_ aliens while remaining silent on the injustices of imposing criminal penalties when the system is called upon. Civil infractions are not crimes. I'm sorry, but that is the foundation upon which America was built. Now that you see the far reaching tentacles of not understanding that, I'm hopeful that some posters will see through Notsoyoung's criticisms for what they are.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Ahhhh,
A kinder, gentler Resister.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Why is it that Resister is always painted as the bad guy? Maybe I am too much of a skimmer, but I did not see him fire the opening volley of insult. I did see him point out the fact that people didn't read the offered information before replying in an informed manner. What I did see is the typical replies of condescension, replies meant only to detract from the point of discussion and belittle the member, the member who is only trying to get people to understand what the government is doing.

This is a group of pretty smart, self-reliant types who should be capable of more, and who should also be open to at least contemplating the notion of threats against our God-given, constitutionally protected rights by governments that are going farther and farther off the plantation.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Time for bacon.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Here's the problem.

"Ignorance of the law is now excuse."

That is not a blanket statement that covers all written and passed by government. Ignorance of constitutional law, that which is in accordance with what you know to be right and wrong without ever having read the law, is no excuse. On the other hand, not knowing the thousands of statutes that are on the books yet are not written on your heart by your Creator, is hardly anyone's fault, except in that we allowed the monster of government out of its cage.

This thread caused me to do a quick search to see if Alabama required a restraining order to accompany filings for divorce. Having been divorced twice in this state, you can understand why I was wanting to know. I didn't see any such requirement, and I am relieved.

I have been hanging out at the local gun store on more than one occasion and have witnessed more than one person be declined by the FBI when someone tried to buy a weapon. Even U.S. Army helicopter pilots. Yes, guys with security clearances, operating flying machines armed with guns, missiles and rockets, have been declined. They may have been declined due to their SSN also being issued to someone who is a deviant criminal, but they are not told the reason why they are denied the right to purchase a weapon.

Think about it. A right denied without explanation. Now, the onerous task of finding out why that right was denied and to fight for that right is on the one who was denied without explanation. Do you think the ones who penned the Bill of Rights would find this to be good and in accordance with the laws of natures and nature's God?

Now, how many statutes are on the books, and how many regulations are being created to not only deny us the right to own weapons but to take those weapons already purchased through what we are told are _legal_ means?

Rather than balking like a Georgia Mule (found that to be topic related, considering the opening argument was related to Georgia statute), and considering the recent moves against our rights by the government, it might be a decent notion to contemplate all things considered. There are veterans who jumped on the PTSD bandwagon who wish they had carefully considered the words of those who warned them of the potential consequences before those consequences became apparent.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Denton,

Here's my take on Resister. 

1.) He may be one of the more intelligent individuals on the Forum
2.) He seems to be a Constitutional Minded Person
3.) I understand what he is saying and agree with him...In principle.
4.) He does not play well with others but he cracks me up sometimes.
5.) Given a bottle of whiskey and a few hours with him, I could easily teach him the interpersonal skills that he sorely lacks.
6.) HOWEVER, it is too late for Theory and Principle in the Great Republic. US Immigration is FUBAR. Don Henley and the Eagles said it best; Get Over It.
7.) I actually like the dude.
8.) I wish the dude would lighten up
9.) Crack a joke every once in a while
10.) And the number 10 take on Resister is...Donde esta casa de pepe?


That "may" be all I have to say about this.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> What does the fact that most preppers did not a divorce in Georgia have to do with the *FACT* that the thread you accessed had virtually nothing to do with WHERE a person got a divorce???
> 
> You acused me of calling people names. My first follow up response is in post # 7. There is no name calling there. Posts 8 and 9 have no name calling in them. I didn't call anyone any name in post # 16 and in post # 17 I did say that some people may be "_criminals_" (based upon *your* consistent illogical "reasoning) - which is what happens when we call people criminals absent Due Process. Nobody is being called a name in post #21 and I did not call you any names in post # 24 when I responded to you. That brings us to post #29 and there is STILL NO NAME CALLING! Somebody did say I was crazy... which I admitted to.
> 
> ...


What does getting a divorce in Georgia have to do with it? The thread that you posted the guy stated that he got a divorce in Gwinnett county (Georgia), and there when someone files for divorce a restraining order is issued for both parties.

As for name calling, you attacked me when you replied to my first post.

I was civil in my post and it was not an attack of any kind. Any perception that I made a post only because YOU started the thread is in your mind only. Get over yourself. I just don't care that much about you one way or the other.

As for the rest of your ludicrous statements, when you are handcuffied, guarded by heavily armed guards, transported to the border in buses with bars on the windows, then kicked out of the Country, YOU ARE GUILTY. Illegal is illegal.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> And I repeat, had you *READ* the entire article, it says in plain English that you cannot submit a Petition for Divorce unless a SIGNED copy (signed by the judges and provided by the court) of the court you are petitioning accompanies the Petition. Period. You went on the attack before reading the thread. My best advice to you is not to attack someone until you *read* the facts presented.
> 
> While Georgia law was used as an example, the point was to encourage people to LOOK at the laws of their state and refer to the *FEDERAL STATUTES* as the interpretation of the law is left up to the *FEDERAL* government. The example of a person using "_legal_" medicinal marijuana in their home state does NOT supersede federal law that smoking pot is a *FEDERAL* crime.
> 
> ...


THIS is where I got Georgia from. From YOU.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

I tend to agree with Resister that Notsoyoung can't seem to get passed illegals and this has nothing to do with illegals. On the other hand aside from being handcuffed which is for the LEO's protection and to keep said person from getting away but if you are arrested,IMO, that means they "the LEO and or government think you are probably guilty and until proven otherwise you are detained/ jailed. But then again the LEO can always lie and charge you with resisting or some other bull shit charge you can't prove you didn't do and hold you til they can either charge you with the original charge or what ever they feel like charging you with. Either way your in trouble if they want you to be. And since most people are to stupid to keep their mouths shut they usually dig a deeper hole for themselves. IMO, Notsoyoung needs to keep his mouth shut as he has dug a deep hole by not even reading (by his own admission) the whole post but still making an uneducated response.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Resister, you need to back off as Notsoyoung doesn't get it and won't no matter what you say. He is on the defensive and isn't seeing what you/the Georgia law says, period and he doesn't care right now, he's hung up on illegals.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> What does getting a divorce in Georgia have to do with it? The thread that you posted the guy stated that he got a divorce in Gwinnett county (Georgia), and there when someone files for divorce a restraining order is issued for both parties.
> 
> As for name calling, you attacked me when you replied to my first post.
> 
> ...


Take a deep breath. When someone files for a divorce in the state of Georgia, they* MUST* get a Mutual Restraining Order. That applies to every county in this state. The information was provided with the caveat "_While this thread begins with Georgia law, it may be_ *relevant in your state*." If you don't live in Georgia, why be so obsessed with this subject? Why do you get so worked up about one sentence and then try your best to insinuate that I think all people in the U.S. are living Georgia? How come you don't want people to look up the law in their own state? Whose side are you really on... the communists???

I've tolerated your bullshit for how many posts now. Let's get something straight. You have *NO* regard for anyone you disagree with. Had you formed your criticisms in the form of a question, we would not be in this shit right now. But, we are. And most are giving you a pass because they don't understand the law nor the tension between us just because you keep getting your ass kicked.

You don't care about the foreigners and you would deny them their God given *unalienable *Rights. Well, here is a news flash for you: Hillary Clinton don't give a rat's rear about your Rights either. Yet she can depend on your idiotic notion that we can deny to one segment of society their Rights without it affecting OUR Rights. Such simple minded thinking is at the root of all the losses the constitutionalists have endured for over a decade now.

Immigration is simply a civil issue. If you want to believe that the cops pick up someone on a criminal charge and give them a free ride home, then son go right ahead. As for most on this board, I hope that they have accessed the laws and found out: it's not a crime. Sorry.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Denton,
> 
> Here's my take on Resister.
> 
> ...


Okay, who is Pepe? I've been called ****** and some words I can't spell in Spanish. I bet Nots.... oh we won't go there.

The next time I start a thread I promise to show you the bent side of an observant guy that sees the world differently.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

ekim said:


> I tend to agree with Resister that Notsoyoung can't seem to get passed illegals and this has nothing to do with illegals. On the other hand aside from being handcuffed which is for the LEO's protection and to keep said person from getting away but if you are arrested,IMO, that means they "the LEO and or government think you are probably guilty and until proven otherwise you are detained/ jailed. But then again the LEO can always lie and charge you with resisting or some other bull shit charge you can't prove you didn't do and hold you til they can either charge you with the original charge or what ever they feel like charging you with. Either way your in trouble if they want you to be. And since most people are to stupid to keep their mouths shut they usually dig a deeper hole for themselves. IMO, Notsoyoung needs to keep his mouth shut as he has dug a deep hole by not even reading (by his own admission) the whole post but still making an uneducated response.


ekim,
I have to stand up also for NotSoYoung.
We are past the time for certain remedies. We MUST stop the infiltration of illegals who want free stuff or to commit crimes. In a weird way, both NotSoYoung and Resister are both right.
God please save this great Republic!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Okay, who is Pepe? I've been called ****** and some words I can't spell in Spanish. I bet Nots.... oh we won't go there.
> 
> The next time I start a thread I promise to show you the bent side of an observant guy that sees the world differently.


Resister,
Donde esta casa de pepe is my ******* way of asking where is the bathroom. Where is the house of Pee Pee? (loosely translated) I usually bring down the house in a Mexican joint when I ask that!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Crap. Other important issues are being tossed aside for the sake of immigration. OK.

I stand by my original point that nations have the right and responsibity to protect their borders. I do, however, understand what Resister is saying and his points of law. 

I would like to make a couple points, though.

The politicians who want lax immigration are seeking cultural dilution to destroy any memory of the constitutional republic while building its voting base.
Those against it are merely being the antithesis for the sake of conflict. Conflict is the fertilizer that feeds the system as it is.

Meanwhile, our culture has been all but destroyed by secular-humanism and the refusal to teach generations the truth necessary to allow the dream of the founders a chance.

Why all of this? It should be obvious.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Take a deep breath. When someone files for a divorce in the state of Georgia, they* MUST* get a Mutual Restraining Order. That applies to every county in this state. The information was provided with the caveat "_While this thread begins with Georgia law, it may be_ *relevant in your state*." If you don't live in Georgia, why be so obsessed with this subject? Why do you get so worked up about one sentence and then try your best to insinuate that I think all people in the U.S. are living Georgia? How come you don't want people to look up the law in their own state? Whose side are you really on... the communists???
> 
> I've tolerated your bullshit for how many posts now. Let's get something straight. You have *NO* regard for anyone you disagree with. Had you formed your criticisms in the form of a question, we would not be in this shit right now. But, we are. And most are giving you a pass because they don't understand the law nor the tension between us just because you keep getting your ass kicked.
> 
> ...


YOU are the one who asked "What does the fact that most preppers did not a divorce in Georgia have to do with the FACT that the thread you accessed had virtually nothing to do with WHERE a person got a divorce???". You said that most preppers are criminals to which I replied that most preppers didn't get divorced in Georgia, ergo, they aren't criminals. Someday? Maybe. But not now.

As for being tired of my "bullshit" and not having any consideration for anyone who disagrees with me, talk about the kettle etc. In point of fact, you are wrong. It is not that I do not have any consideration for those who disagree with me, I just don't have much consideration for YOU. Talk about being tired of "bullshit", I got tired of yours when you repeatedly stated that trying to secure our borders has caused the U.S. to become a police state (bullshit), and most of all, I got tired of your bullshit when you claim that you "put your life on the line everyday". BULLSHIT.

As for not caring for foreigners, BULLSHIT. I like foreigners, work with them, have them over to my house to eat, go to their homes to eat, and have gone on vacation with them. BUT everyone of them came to this country LEGALLY after a long process. I don't like ILLEGAL ALIENS. There is a big difference. Another bullshit liberal ploy is to accuse those who believe that people should only be allowed into this country legally are somehow racists and bigots. BULLSHIT.

NO ONE has the Unalienable Right to enter this country ILLEGALLY. More BULLSHIT from the king of BULLSHITTERS.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton,

You are right. This thread was about to be tossed aside due to Notsyoung's attempts to make this an immigration thread. Well, he tried an immigration thread and he could not sustain it without lying about me and what I'd said. It figures, he couldn't be honest on this thread either. So, now we can get back on point. BTW, did you notice that before this thread in this forum, we didn't have many posters for a few days? There are so many people who realize how close they are personally to becoming a government statistic that they'd rather bury this thread than to participate.

In admonishing the liberal American Bar Association over the civil process, Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated:

"_Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime_..."

The ultra liberals and outright communists among us (like Supreme Court Justice Kagan) love to present our laws as if there should be a criminal consequence to every civil law. Hmmm. I wonder what the _"crime_" would become in a divorce action? But, I digress. The point is: If the system can create a crime out of a civil issue, then *ALL* civil law can have a criminal consequence. Research the terms stare decisis and precedent law if you doubt it.

You and I, the posters on this board, are not that far removed from the statistics of America. Some of you have criminal records; some are addicted to a legal or "_illegal_" drug and, if you aren't, we have some people (like one of my critics) who will claim you have mental issues and they would deny to you the Right to keep and bear Arms simply because they disagree with you on a philosophical, religious, or maybe legal / political issue.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Denton,
> 
> You are right. This thread was about to be tossed aside due to Notsyoung's attempts to make this an immigration thread. Well, he tried an immigration thread and he could not sustain it without lying about me and what I'd said. It figures, he couldn't be honest on this thread either. So, now we can get back on point. BTW, did you notice that before this thread in this forum, we didn't have many posters for a few days? There are so many people who realize how close they are personally to becoming a government statistic that they'd rather bury this thread than to participate.
> 
> ...


In the other thread you quoted another person and then added several lines as though they were what he said. That shows YOUR lack of character. The liar is you. The one who started the name calling on this thread is YOU. It is more then obvious that not only do you have a problem telling the truth but that you also have mental problems, and also since you seem to be constantly embellishing your accomplishments, in addition to your mental disorders you have problems with your self esteem. Many little men do, little in stature but more importantly little in character.

The whole name calling started with you when attacked me because I pointed out that according to the link you referenced, people who file for divorce in GEORGIA have mutual restraining orders issued against and therefore, according to YOU, it is illegal for them to own firearms (which I am sure that allot of folks in Georgia would be surprised to learn), and I pointed out that since MOST people do not reside in Georgia, most preppers are NOT criminals, as you have proclaimed. As usual, whenever someone gives even a hint of disagreeing with you, you go CRAZY, and over react. It is obvious that you indeed do have a mental problem and it obvious to most who are familiar with your posts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> Denton,
> 
> You are right. This thread was about to be tossed aside due to Notsyoung's attempts to make this an immigration thread. Well, he tried an immigration thread and he could not sustain it without lying about me and what I'd said. It figures, he couldn't be honest on this thread either. So, now we can get back on point. BTW, did you notice that before this thread in this forum, we didn't have many posters for a few days? There are so many people who realize how close they are personally to becoming a government statistic that they'd rather bury this thread than to participate.
> 
> ...


Civil. Civilian.

A thought just ran through my mind as I read your response. Words mean things. We patriots forget this, or never knew it.

When one reads the federalist papers, one will see the word, "civilian." The authors were not referring to people not in the military. They were referring to those who are knowledgeable in civil law.

My point? People dig in their heels and argue, they call you names and and goad your temper at every turn, because we have all been influenced by the illusions and sleights of hands meant to keep us from knowing the truth or even knowing the definitions of the words used.

Sleeping people wake up groggy and resistant. It is natural.


----------

