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: 21
84
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

vkey08

thisguyrighthere

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.




Well-regulated = not for darkies.

Especially when coming out of CT.

.
edit on 4-3-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




I do not think that ANYONE, white, black, yellow, purple or otherwise, myself included, needs for defense, a weapon capable of mowing down an entire street, if you are a decent enough shot, a handgun or rifle will do, you do NOT need a fully automatic weapon firing five hundred rounds a minute to kill someone. Nor do you need that to take shots at a government if they decided to start goose stepping through the streets and declaring Martial Law. A few good shots from a single action rifle will do the same thing in the right hands. (and single action rifles are NOT on this list)




Want to know how I know that you don't know what you are talking about?




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 



Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all legal professionals throughout history have based their job security. Radicals are only to be feared when you try to suppress them. You must demonstrate that you will use the best of what they offer.


-Frank Herbert, American author


Linkypoo

Quite a bit of political wisdom in all of the Dune books that could be applied to our current situation.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

vkey08

thisguyrighthere

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.




Well-regulated = not for darkies.

Especially when coming out of CT.

.
edit on 4-3-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



We are NOT in the middle of a general insurrection, if we were then I'd be out there raiding the cache's with the rest of them, and fighting the Government, I took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and I do it every single day, much to the chagrin of my superiors. But we aren't.. This isn't a war zone, it's a little extra paperwork, period. It's not like they don't know these weapons are out there to begin with, there are only a few they don't know about, and they wouldn't even after this law, as they are in the hands of criminals with the serial numbers filed off, or misrepresented.





I highly doubt the part about "raiding caches every day." As it is, if it came to this, it would already be too late because you helped disarm your fellow citizen from the very weapons that they would need. You really contradict yourself with that one.

Secondly, you swore an oath to defend the Constitution and "do it every single day?" I doubt that as well, given your superficial understanding of the Constitution as demonstrated here, but I'm curious. In what context did you swear that oath and in what context do you defend it every day "much to the chagrin of my superiors?"



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


But Cuomo said it best. "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer".

Because after all,



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Can I pause this great debate for a second?

As shown in this thread, gun registration HAS lead to gun confiscation.
FACT.

As I've tried pointing out, no-one wants to touch the concept of government registration of IP Addresses. (Done in the name of safety, of course)

Finally, what a person "wants" in relation to a firearm is none of anyone's business. To have government dictate what a person "wants" is an infringement already. As stated, we don't have gun rights anymore.

We have to get permission from the state in order to exercise that right.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


This statement will always get glossed over, because those that are Anti-2nd Amendment have no way to respond to it.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if the federal government passed laws that required the following:

1) Registration and permits for your cell phone and computer
2) Registration and permits for practicing your religion.
3) Permits for owning radios and televisions.
4) Forcing people to show ID in order to vote



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
comment withdrawn
replaced with this:

The NRA's dirty little secret:


edit on 4-3-2014 by Asktheanimals because: original post replaced allowing others to say it more eloquently



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I don't know why I even bother, but: Did you know that there are an estimated 350,000,000 guns in the United States? If the government worked with highly un-governmental efficiency and seized one gun every minute, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year, it would take the government 665 years, 10 months and 26 days to grab all the guns? Can you see why some of us are a bit skeptical that "they" are going to grab our guns? As for the politicians who promise to "get tough on gun violence:" is there any particular reason why you actually believe they are doing anything but pandering?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't know the rest of us continue to try.

You do realize that what they are doing, criminalizing the ownership of certain firearms and banning others can take the place of actually kicking in doors and taking guns away from people.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if the federal government passed laws that required the following:

1) Registration and permits for your cell phone and computer


They don't need to, they just tap in.


2) Registration and permits for practicing your religion.


If you use your religion as a tax shelter or tax deduction, you do have to file paperwork.


3) Permits for owning radios and televisions.


You do need permits to operate radio or television stations.


4) Forcing people to show ID in order to vote


Republican legislators have done that in certain areas. Where is your outrage?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

DJW001
is there any particular reason why you actually believe they are doing anything but pandering?


It ceases to be simple pandering when ordinary folks get thrown in jail or worse.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

DJW001
I don't know why I even bother, but: Did you know that there are an estimated 350,000,000 guns in the United States? If the government worked with highly un-governmental efficiency and seized one gun every minute, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year, it would take the government 665 years, 10 months and 26 days to grab all the guns? Can you see why some of us are a bit skeptical that "they" are going to grab our guns? As for the politicians who promise to "get tough on gun violence:" is there any particular reason why you actually believe they are doing anything but pandering?


If they make ownership illegal, many law-abiding people would simply turn them in and do the job FOR the government.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
This all boils down to some people refusing to acknowledge the simplicity of the 2nd amendment and following that up with extraneous laws in an attempt to circumvent the obvious.
    Right to bear arms means any and all arms, no restrictions.
    Unlimited right to carry open or concealed at citizens discretion.
    No free citizen to be barred the right to bear arms.
    Attempts to circumvent the Constitution are crimes against the republic.

Also something that hasn't been mentioned but the Supreme Court is a part of the judicial branch of the government and are not exempt from making mistakes, pushing agendas, corruption and as such are also part of the reason we need the 2nd amendment.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

vkey08


you do NOT need a fully automatic weapon firing five hundred rounds a minute to kill someone. Nor do you need that to take shots at a government if they decided to start goose stepping through the streets and declaring Martial Law. A few good shots from a single action rifle will do the same thing in the right hands. (and single action rifles are NOT on this list)



Thank you for bringing up the opportunity to define what an assault rifle is:
A fully-automatic or select fire rifle (one trigger pull = multiple rounds are fired)

The anti-gun lobby has used the term assault rifle to demonize rifles that look similar but are semi-automatic only (one trigger pull -one bullet)
That's it, the entire basis for assault gun legislation is based on superficial appearances.
Because they are military designs they somehow look more deadly.
Changing a magazine only takes a second or 2 for trained operators, making the number of rounds in a magazine irrelevant.

That's what gets me about this new law - it wouldn't change anything in a mass shooting incident.
All it achieves is to make felons of people who have broken no law.
Given the nature of the for-profit prison industry maybe they're just looking for new sources of revenue.
edit on 4-3-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I have to hand it to you. You'd make a fine politician with that much side-stepping.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
OK looks like this is picking up some momentum. Go Connecticut!


Gun rights group Connecticut Carry has issued an ultimatum to politicians in the Constitution State today, telling the government that they should either follow through on their threats to try to confiscate more than 325,000 undocumented firearms and 2 million standard capacity magazines, or admit that they passed a law without the consent of the people, and will repeal it in its entirety:
    …State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probably that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly.

    If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.

Link

Connecticut Carry Press Release
edit on 931pm2929pm32014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

vor78
reply to post by DJW001
 


I have to hand it to you. You'd make a fine politician with that much side-stepping.



Or a better boot licker.

Why oh why do people love turning over rights, decisions and freedoms to the Govt?

I just don't get it.

I will fight on my feet, instead of serving on my knees.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

vor78
reply to post by DJW001
 


I have to hand it to you. You'd make a fine politician with that much side-stepping.



So you're okay with the government reading your emails, snooping on your religious practices, not allowing you to broadcast over the air without their permission and requiring you to have a photo ID to vote, but registering a gun makes your blood boil?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



I will fight on my feet, instead of serving on my knees.


All talk, no action.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join