It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order: ‘We Are Armed… Familiar With Marksmanship

page: 19
84
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I cannot say that my government is not my enemy. I have no inclination to alert my potential enemy as to the kind of methodology available to me to dispatch threats.

I like having an element of surprise. It doesn't level the playing field, but it helps offset the fact that I would be horribly underpowered should that potential enemy show itself to actually be my enemy.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
That only works if you are talking to someone who has similar religious beliefs as you.

What does it matter? the First at work here, which makes it irrelevant what others believe in relation to myself.


One of those rights you take for granted is the 2nd amendment. It was put there so that when it was YOUR turn to defend our nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, you would be able to stand up and do your part.

I do not take the 2nd for granted. If I am armed, I am armed for a reason. That being said, guns aren't really my bag. They don't interest me, and if they didn't exist, it wouldn't bother me. Guns are an extremely unfortunate necessity in a violent world.
I am no warrior, and I am not militant. I do not have to resort to violence to defend a nation, and can do my part peacefully. If that makes me any less "American" or Pro 2nd Amendment in your eyes, then you are just exercising your First Amendment Rights.



God isn't in the business of keeping you alive. Quite the opposite. You have been placed on a very dangerous planet with irrational people.

Noted, and I can control only what I can control. I cannot control a theoretical argument about the government turning against its people and swiping everybody's peashooters. I can control whether or not a home invader leaves my house alive. Savvy?


And for what its worth, the tyrant doesn't want your soul or your heart. He wants only your money. And he is happy you acquiesce so easily.

I'm not here for money. Whether or not you believe in God is your business, but in my experience (being basically homeless when I lost everything) I was well taken care of and was able to eat and stay with people. All without going on welfare. So if the government took everything I had, I might just believe somebody would have my back.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JackSparrow17
 


90% of my concern relates to hunting, a cultural thing for us. As well as protection from the deadly wildlife present in Texas..

A home invasion is the least of my concerns.

Since I don't live in a populous state like CT, my concerns are quite different than theirs.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Hunting is a big deal and absolutely necessary in some communities. I don't hunt but I'm all for it as long as it's not just for sport.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Battleline
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is very unsettling, these people seem like they will stand their ground and so they should. I guess it had to start somewhere.


Perhaps it is wise to heed the words of those whom have been subjected to confiscation in the past.



And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If...if...

But we didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.


-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Funny, as I don't need a long winded dissertation to explain to me what right the 2nd guarantees me. You might need that, but the right was written so there is no need for such crap to label it as this or that.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is very very very clear.

Only lawyers, politicians and Progressives could screw this and come up with something other then what is stated.


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?


I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?


I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

jimmyx

macman
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Funny, as I don't need a long winded dissertation to explain to me what right the 2nd guarantees me. You might need that, but the right was written so there is no need for such crap to label it as this or that.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is very very very clear.

Only lawyers, politicians and Progressives could screw this and come up with something other then what is stated.


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?





One should be able to carry a book anywhere, under any circumstances, without caveats, without fear of arrest or any harm.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

vkey08

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?


I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed




A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.


Except it doesn't. Before our state invented rule by regulation, "well regulated" meant "in good order" and "well equipped."

IE: "A well regulated clock runs smoothly."



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

You and I both know what the statement "well regulated" means.
To restrict or impose rules against is not what it is.


We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Except it doesn't. Before our state invented rule by regulation, "well regulated" meant "in good order" and "well equipped."

IE: "A well regulated clock runs smoothly."


Precisely.


And a well regulated, well oiled gun fires every time, with a particular predisposition towards gun grabbing tyrants.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


So again, you are a Gun Rights advocate, but are for just a little infringement of said right.
Sounds like a walking contradiction.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Exactly as well.

Where you been? You seemed to have dropped off the map.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.


The militia, yes, it is supposed to be our frontline forces

The Right to keep and bear arms is not to be regulated.

Regulation mostly means -- able to immediately incorporate into an army chain of command



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Yep. It does not state "Arms that are well regulated". Regulated is for the Militia.

Seems people these days are just not reading this simple text.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
A right is something to be recognized, it is not granted. A right is bestowed by birth as a person, in common with all persons.

A privilege is something given by an authority. Liberty is a privilege possibly given by society, or not.

The Bill of Rights is a list of things that will disappear when the government begins to become tyrannical. I think that is its only real function.
edit on 4-3-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by vkey08
 


So again, you are a Gun Rights advocate, but are for just a little infringement of said right.
Sounds like a walking contradiction.


It's par for the course in much of states like CT. It goes back to restricting minorities access to firearms. Well-regulated to them means it's okay for them and their friends to have guns but not for the poor, black or stupid to have them.

Saw this all the time around Yale. Lots of gun owners among the faculty and staff but they're also heavy gun control proponents because they have the clout and means to collect silenced SBR's. Better the poor and stupid don't because they're dangerous.

Well-regulated = not for darkies.

Especially when coming out of CT.

I should qualify this post so it doesnt come off as a race thing. I use the old raced based restrictions as an example. Prohibitionists have a class them deem unworthy is my point. What that class is varies. For some it's felons, others it's the poor, still others it's everyone who isnt them and for a few it's everyone on Earth including themselves.

My point is prohibitionists have an unclean class in mind when they discuss prohibition.
edit on 4-3-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

macman

jimmyx


if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?


I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed




hey, I'm just asking....If I was a black person that lived in the south, I would be heavily armed any time I went out in public, and if I was a Mexican-American in Arizona or Texas, I would have a AR locked and loaded every time I went out the front door. and if I just got out of prison, I would head straight down to the gun shop for my 45. and my CC holster.
edit on 4-3-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well good for you.

And your point is what?



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join