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: 22
84
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


This is correct.

I have 2 rifles that are .22LR. Both are semi-auto action (single shot with each pull of the trigger). One looks like a regular rifle with some cheap diamond pattern inlays. The other is a brazilian made AR-15 chambered in a .22LR. We put a red dot scope on it just for kicks and grins. It really is a lousy rifle. With the iron sights on the other, non AR appearing .22 I am an amazing shot (i usually get 1 or 2 in the local gun club saturday matches). I can squeeze off far, far more rounds with the non AR rifle, which has a stiffer trigger. And the magazine on it is smaller (i can load 25 rounds in the stock of the non-AR rifle)

It is hiarious that the law would outlaw based on appearance.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Let me just say, I'm an armed CT citizen. I legally hold my state pistol permit. I don't own any of the so called banned firearms out of a lack of desire but I do carry a revolver regularly. I have friends who do own the items in question and I know many other acquaintances who do. A lot of the people I know here in CT are very angry, and ready to defend their lawfully and rightfully owned property according to the second, fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land far outweighs what our local representatives think.

If there is blood in this state it will be the government's doing, and not the average law abiding citizen.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

DJW001

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?


Yep, I was right. We have a politician in our midst. You've managed to ignore the questions I asked...to another poster, I might add...replace them with similar statements, and then throw the whole big steaming pile right back in my face. Excellent work.

Wanna know something funny. Ive said many times on ats that I'm not theoretically opposed to registration, but one of my two irreconcilable objections is that I find the pro-gun-control side untrustworthy. Thanks for reinforcing that notion.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



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?


Good point.

A system crash is the only possible salvation. More firepower more better then.

Unless the folks at the top have a falling out. Doubtful given their selection process.

They know our instincts and they control the environment.

Is it possible that faux progressives in the system are trying to crash it? How could you tell?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Bassago
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.


Thank you!

Finally someone with enough guts and enough honesty to come out and state the REAL claims being made here!

This is the exact position most of you are taking, but you just don't have the cojones to say it outright.

You have been conditioned to think the 2nd means you get to have whatever firearms of whatever capacity in whatever quantities and carry them whenever, wherever and however you personally decide to do so without regard to rational or civil adult behavior OR to the will of the People at large.

Beyond your rhetoric, beyond the cute little graphics that skew the facts, beyond your misguided and (I must say) petulant beliefs is the will of the American people ... and the majority of us do not agree with your insane positions.

More than 80 percent of us believe that gun control laws should be either more strict than they are now, or kept as they are. (Gallup) (Pew).

Here's the thing: we're glad for you to have as many of your guns as you want at home, by and large. Heck, a lot of us have one or two ourselves. The Constitution is indeed VERY clear on this point, as are most State Constitutions. You DO have the right to own firearms to defend your person, your family and your home, for hunting, for sport, and even for collecting.

You do not have the right to carry your guns wherever you wish concealed, or not. You do not have the right to fully automatic weapons and/or high capacity magazines. You do not have the right to grenade or rocket launchers, howitzers or other ludicrosities.

I'm sorry you've all been inculcated so deeply into this rampant fear-mongering campaign that all Government (Federal, State or local) is a dark tyrannical diabolic-communist-fascist-progressive force out to get you, to stick you in a FEMA camp, to take away your guns or your toys, or to make you do your homework and go to bed early, etc. etc.

Sure, there are enough problems, dishonesty and potential threats within all levels of Government to keep us posting for years ... but threatening to start shooting duly-elected representatives, law enforcement, and, judging from what you're saying here, anyone who disagrees with your extremist positions ... is hardly the way to build confidence in your fellow citizens that you are trustworthy and reliable.

In fact, I started reading this discussion with basically a live-and-let live attitude, but the level of ... pathology demonstrated here is astonishing and has only inspired me to become active in gun control lobbies nationally, State-wide and locally ...

... because friends and neighbors, some of you have taken a flying leap off the very deep end. IMHO.

Take care of yourselves and rethink these extremist positions.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Gryphon66


Take care of yourselves and rethink these extremist positions.


Or what?

You'll take away more freedoms from us?

As I have stated, we don't HAVE gun "rights" any more.

We have gun "privileges" that the state has deemed appropriate for us to have. Until said time that they change their minds again and put more firearms on the "disapprove" list.

We don't have gun "rights".
We don't have free speech. We have free speech zones and we have to get permits and pay a fee to peacefully assemble.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are simple pieces of toilet paper, stained with the waste of corrupt politicians and their lackeys and followers.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 




More than 80 percent of us believe that gun control laws should be either more strict than they are now, or kept as they are.


Irrelevant, the Constitutions stands as it is. There is a legal method of amending it but there is also a reason politicians fear to tread in that area. It's not broken so leave it alone.



You DO have the right to own firearms to defend your person, your family and your home, for hunting, for sport, and even for collecting. You do not have the right to carry your guns wherever you wish concealed, or not.


"Shall not be infringed." You are incorrect and the 2nd has little (or nothing) to do with hunting, collecting or sport.



You do not have the right to fully automatic weapons and/or high capacity magazines. You do not have the right to grenade or rocket launchers, howitzers or other ludicrosities.


Actually yes we do. Legalese definitions of "arms" is the same trick Bill Clinton used with what the definition of the word "is" is. Arms are weapons of an offensive or defensive nature. Whatever fits the bill for the situation is the definition of "arms."



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Well, there's one thing we can all agree on. Each side thinks the other is full of extremists. One side wants nuclear weapons, the other side is afraid of spitballs and toothpicks.

Honestly, the fact that both sides are pi$$ed off about the laws as they stand is probably the best evidence we have that the proper balance has actually been achieved.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Beautifully said! And what that really all means since actual rights cannot be taken from you is that what is really going on is oppression. Right can only be oppressed, not taken away. No government of man on earth has the power to remove that which is intrinsic to you. Your rights are not privileges, and privileges are not rights. And all too often today, government seeks to draw an equivalence between the two so that they can attempt to pick and choose what they will allow us to have.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

vor78
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Well, there's one thing we can all agree on. Each side thinks the other is full of extremists. One side wants nuclear weapons, the other side is afraid of spitballs and toothpicks.

Honestly, the fact that both sides are pi$$ed off about the laws as they stand is probably the best evidence we have that the proper balance has actually been achieved.


Actually no. The last time the two sides were this angry and unable to talk to one another and reach an agreement, this nation wound up going to war with itself.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



You have been conditioned to think the 2nd means you get to have whatever firearms of whatever capacity in whatever quantities and carry them whenever, wherever and however you personally decide to do so without regard to rational or civil adult behavior OR to the will of the People at large.


Actually, we have been conditioned the opposite way. We have been taught that we have no rights but those the state allows.

The 2nd Amendment states "arms shall not be infringed" , not firearms. Many militia units had cannons, such as the militia at Concord.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I hear you. But change the law in either direction and its just going to get worse. My statement was made somewhat jokingly, but intended to convey that, yes, both sides need to tone it down a little, not necessarily here, but the national division is getting to be a bit much.
edit on 4-3-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I won't disagree with you, but I also don't think that's likely to happen. People are too invested in appealing to emotion these days, and when you get there, you have to use the tactic of delegitimizing your opponents by making them the other and inhuman or evil. Once you do that, you can safely dismiss any and all arguments they make, rational and otherwise, without having to engage intellectually.

Right now, we have a populace that is primed to think emotionally, not rationally. Nothing in our public education system teaches us to use our logic and reason so everyone pretty much defaults to emotional appeal as the only grounds in any debate. Go back through this thread and look at how many emotional appeals are made.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Gryphon66, I really think you're on the loosing side of this battle. The right to carry a firearm in self defense beyond the home is being recognized by a vast majority of states in the country. There will be/are restrictions on the manner, type and place, but clearly the courts are deciding that the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT not a privilege as you espouse.





posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





Beyond your rhetoric, beyond the cute little graphics that skew the facts, beyond your misguided and (I must say) petulant beliefs is the will of the American people ... and the majority of us do not agree with your insane positions.


THEN CHANGE THE BLOODY CONSTITUTION AS IS YOUR RIGHT!

That is the only way, the only legal way, to change things.

I do not give a rats behind for your polls.

I do not care what your view is of 'the will of the people.'

There is a legal way for you to change things. It is the only way to change things.

So ........ hop to it and change the 2nd Amendment or quite frankly all of the gun grabbing groupies can just STFU.

Seriously, if that 80% figure was accurate or even in the ball park, the second would have been changed by legal means a long time ago.

P



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
To the anti's in this thread, how's that MAIG group working out for you? And they wonder why 2A supporters question their motives? These criminals are who you put your beliefs and trust in to guide public policy?




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


For the most part, it is a "not one more inch" position.

I don't want to be on a list. I just don't. For whatever my reasons, i do not want to be on a list that "the authorities" have.

But I should also add: of the gun control crowd, you are among the most reasonable. Despite quite a bit of frustration and outrage shown at your comments, I have rarely seen you speak ill. In the "old ATS" i would label you a "Respected Foe". That isn't quite right. You are absolutely a friend.

edit on 3/4/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

pheonix358
Seriously, if that 80% figure was accurate or even in the ball park, the second would have been changed by legal means a long time ago.


I don't doubt that its true. Take another look at it. He's including those that want the law to stay as-is in that 80%. Of course, one could just as easily say that 50% of the country wants the laws to be less strict or remain the same.

Either way, the real story in the poll is the long term trend. Support for more strict gun laws has been consistently dropping for most of the last 20 years. Even the spike from last year has mostly dissipated. Public opinion is shifting such that, in another 10 years or so, a plurality, and perhaps a majority, will likely be in the 'kept as now' category. The primary reason for this is quite likely the huge growth in firearm sales in recent years, resulting in a public that is more exposed and more educated about the issue than ever before.

Its just my own opinion, but I think the reason why you're seeing such a hard push against gun rights at the moment is because the other side is well aware that the trend is against them and that it could be now or never for stricter gun laws in this country.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

pheonix358
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





Beyond your rhetoric, beyond the cute little graphics that skew the facts, beyond your misguided and (I must say) petulant beliefs is the will of the American people ... and the majority of us do not agree with your insane positions.


THEN CHANGE THE BLOODY CONSTITUTION AS IS YOUR RIGHT!

That is the only way, the only legal way, to change things.

I do not give a rats behind for your polls.

I do not care what your view is of 'the will of the people.'

There is a legal way for you to change things. It is the only way to change things.

So ........ hop to it and change the 2nd Amendment or quite frankly all of the gun grabbing groupies can just STFU.

Seriously, if that 80% figure was accurate or even in the ball park, the second would have been changed by legal means a long time ago.

P


Oh lord, well said!

That's the problem, really. They can spout any poll, they can point to any heart-breaking tragedy, but in the end, the very core of freedom remains.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 





I don't doubt that its true. Take another look at it. He's including those that want the law to stay as-is in that 80%. Of course, one could just as easily say that 50% of the country wants the laws to be less strict or remain the same.


Thanks, yes I did notice. This demonstrates one of the major problems, that is, that it seems to be the belief that it is OK to lie to the voters.

IT IS NOT!

Lying to the citizens in a democracy disallows an informed vote and IMHO should be dealt with by a substantial prison term. This is why the whole system is stuffed up! Everyone is lying and it starts right at the top!

P



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join