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: 2
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
All the ones fighting to take away guns have none, so they send police to do the dirty work. I am sure that will work out well. LOL




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Snarl

CaticusMaximus
Bullies never stop pushing until they are pushed back.

I don't think we're talking about a shoving match on the schoolyard.


-Cheers


No, we're talking about a government that murders children with radio-controlled planes globally then passes legislation against the wills of the people with a title (and I paraphrase) 'for the children's safety!'

That's tyranny. So comical.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The Air Force in January 2013 published this: the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute's “student guide” entitled “Extremism.” The document says that it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.”

Highlights include:

This document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”

Now, I ask you: doesn't this phrase define the present U.S. government in ALL it's dealings with other countries and its own citizens?

It's a bit off topic, but bear with me here; I've been spending the last few days researching Sandy Hook for no particular reason except maybe that new 'school safety' guy who has made a recent splash. I finally concluded that the kids really did die (before I was dubious because the parents acted so oddly so soon afterwards) because in one shot in the redacted footage of the school building, there was a bloody smudge someone had let get past the blackouts. That and Victoria Soto's sister saying that they 'had baseball size holes in them'... apparently she saw at least one body; and there was someone here on ATS stating that she had been one of the EMT first responders.

My reason for bringing this up though, is that I find it weird that this has led to a discussion of gun rights and gun safety and how many bullets are in a legal clip, when the focus should be on the possible pharmaceuticals that kid was on, and the sheer lack of concern the mother seemed to have for having an 'odd' kid and that much firepower and ammo in the house.

I don't think Adam Lanza, if he was really the shooter and not some kind of patsy, was going to end this way given what his teachers and fellow students had to say about him; that he was nice enough and highly intelligent; rather maybe a discussion of the violent video games most kids play now, and the effects of mind shattering pharmaceuticals should be at least part of the equation.

How many Americans are on mind-altering drugs? How many lone and school shooters are on them? How many like playing exceedingly violent video games? And there's no mention of the possible effects THAT could be having on the body count? Just, 'give us your guns, register your guns, or else?'

Because suicidal and homicidal people would find a way anyways, wouldn't they? Or are they going to confiscate the kitchen knives, the hammers, the chainsaws and the fireplace pokers, too?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I swell with pride in the thought that a group of american citizens finally stand up to the political rats in the government. I hope it spreads like the flu. More and more people are finally getting fed the heck up with these namby pamby, wishy washy, liars. Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis. It's long overdue, that we the people, take back what was and always will be ours, freedom and the right to have a say in how we govern ourselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
My first thought when I read of the new cruise missile we have that can send out a downward focused EMP was, "Who inside our borders is properly protected?"

A civilian militia would have its hands full in any case, but the ability to communicate is pretty important. If gov't thugs can radio each other and citizens are left to create their own chain of contact then the fight starts with one hand tied behind their backs.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

stirling
Has anyone considered that this is EZACTLY the HOPED FOR OUTCOME?
The feds would then possibly respond to call for assistance from the governor and the bloodbath would stand to show the other 49 states what would go down should they too choose to resist being disarmed and enslaved.
Like the massacre of WACO...and the Oklahoma false fag attack, this would preceed even more draconian laws and violence....


Yes, this could be the catylist. Sooner or later, the fuse will be lit.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
he will be labelled a lunatic fringe tea partier.

but he is 100% correct. especially in that by bullet or by ballot, i still have a vote.


Well said BFFT, and I agree.
(like the purple
)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

stirling
Has anyone considered that this is EZACTLY the HOPED FOR OUTCOME?
The feds would then possibly respond to call for assistance from the governor and the bloodbath would stand to show the other 49 states what would go down should they too choose to resist being disarmed and enslaved.
Like the massacre of WACO...and the Oklahoma false fag attack, this would preceed even more draconian laws and violence....


Lol...I dont think Texas is gonna care or listen.

In the words of Leonidas " kneeling...that will be difficult, you see, slaughtering all those men of yours has left a nasty cramp in my leg..... Havent you noticed, we have been sharing our culture with you all morning"

There are many places full of those that will not kneel.

"better to die on ones feet than to live, even a long life, on ones knees"



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.


Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.


Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."


How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Shouldn't John McCain be here setting up some kind of deal with these freedom fighters for sams or something...
you know ...to spread democracy.
like they do when they go to other countrys to help AlCIAduH



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
after looking at the original document, this is a not a "confiscation order of all guns"....it is specifically about assault weapons, and hi-capacity ammo magazines. you have the options of selling them to a licensed dealer, or taking them out of the state. other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property. my impression of what you want, are weapons that will take less time to kill more people.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


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

I guess it was naïve to think something like this would not happen in America, the only thing to do at this point is watch this closely and prepare yourself mentally, the rest will come by instinct and preparedness.

Dying for ones freedom is easy to think and say but when it becomes reality it is a little different, some will stand, some will fall and most will give in...... easy, that's only my opinion.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
How long before that guy is in an auto accident? or in prison on DAD charges? or drugs?


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.


Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."


How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?


It was in compliance with "the law" to put the Jews in camps and kill them.

"the law" is not legal if it goes against the constitution for this very reason. "the law" made by tyrants doesnt mean it i just.

"the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"......is this law an infringement? Than it is not a just law, thus, not a law at all, but a try at tyranny.

Are you an American? If so, I would have thought you would understand this. If not, than I pity you for not being born free, and protected by such a system of laws that allow you to make up your own mind as to what is right and just and what is complete and total tyrannical attempt to take your rights away from you, in contravention of the law that they swore to uphold and protect.

I took an oath, it didnt have an expiration date, I intend to fulfill my oath as long as I draw breath.

Molan Labe



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

jimmyx
other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property.


Sure. Right up until the point that some legislator applies your thinking to those 'other rifles, shotguns and handguns.' How long afterward will that be? 5 years? 10? We all know where the end game is here.

The fact is, handguns are used in about 80% of all homicides. If those so called 'assault rifles' are such a threat to society, and can be banned on that basis, what does it say for the continued legality handguns, in particular, but also shotguns, both of which are used more frequently to commit violent crime? If you can justify banning and confiscating a class of weapons in common use, but that represent perhaps 1-2% of firearms used in all homicides, the rest will soon follow.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

DJW001
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?



You really did say that! Absolutely amazing!!!

How about giving us a "law" that ISN'T illegal itself. What part of "violation of the Constitution" is NOT understood here?

The "supreme" law of the United States; states very clearly; "shall not be infringed". Yet we should follow these traitors when they attempt to infringe on our rights....Tell ya what...when they have a "real law", you know one that is actually supported by the primary guidelines of this great nation; the Constitution; I'll be one of the first to publicly support it.

Until then; IF they want my guns they can either do it right, or not at all.

By the way; I'm a Texan with a Winchester and an itchy right index finger.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

oblvion

DJW001

oblvion

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
 


This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.


Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?

Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."


How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?


It was in compliance with "the law" to put the Jews in camps and kill them.

"the law" is not legal if it goes against the constitution for this very reason. "the law" made by tyrants doesnt mean it i just.

"the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"......is this law an infringement? Than it is not a just law, thus, not a law at all, but a try at tyranny.

Are you an American? If so, I would have thought you would understand this. If not, than I pity you for not being born free, and protected by such a system of laws that allow you to make up your own mind as to what is right and just and what is complete and total tyrannical attempt to take your rights away from you, in contravention of the law that they swore to uphold and protect.

I took an oath, it didnt have an expiration date, I intend to fulfill my oath as long as I draw breath.

Molan Labe


I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


It simply hampers your ability to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join