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.

 

NRA Calls 'Open Carry' Rallies Scary and "Downright Weird"

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: neo96

So, based on that you should be granted whatever device you feel deserved to continue the killing? Does it become a question of efficiency because the gun is 'the new killing tool on the block?'


Based on the US constitution, and the BIll of Rights.

The government, my neighbors need to keep their GD grubby little hands out of my gun closet.

Once again we already have a law that says ' A person can't kill another person'.

So ban inaminate objects !

FOR WHAT ?


edit on 4-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




Taking guns away from the people would make us more dependant on the government to protect ourselves, giving them more power....I am against that.


Thank you.

Why the hell would give up their arms to an entity the US government that is one of the largest arms dealer in the world.

Who arms two bit dictators, and terrorists, and drug cartels alike all over the globe.

They will give them 'worse' guns, and other things they deny us.

Anyone who has been deemed to be 'friendly' to them.

But us ?

We get nothing.

Something seriously wrong with that picture.

edit on 4-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: neo96

So, based on that you should be granted whatever device you feel deserved to continue the killing? Does it become a question of efficiency because the gun is 'the new killing tool on the block?'


Based on the US constitution, and the BIll of Rights.

The government, my neighbors need to keep their GD grubby little hands out of my gun closet.

Once again we already have a law that says ' A person can't kill another person'.

So ban inaminate objects !

FOR WHAT ?



But are you any less a person for not having a gun? Remember: with live in a world of privileges and not rights. Guns and the infamous Book have been our undoing. Could we not envision another way forward?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
"Shall not be infringed."



Second Amendment to the United States Constitution



The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.


The constitution is not set in stone..it gave the courts the ability to challenge it. So they have followed the constitution...or are you cherry picking what part of the constitution matters?

The Court and Constitutional




The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996




The constitution is not set in stone


Zeig Heil




The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest. The American Credo: A Contribution toward the Interpretation of the National Mind (1920)


en.wikiquote.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Based on the US constitution, and the BIll of Rights.




You love to bring those up.

As I asked the other person..are you cherry picking part of the constitution to fit you arguments.

None of those are set in stone. They can be changed and have been changed throughout the years.

They gave the courts the ability to determine what can be done with the second amendment and other amendments.

The courts have stated..the second amendment is not an unlimited right..there can be rules for it.

They have done so be the constitution...do you think your precious constitution was wrong?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

Im supporting the 2nd Amendment here. Just stating the difference between licensing requirements, and the given right to bear arms.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: rickymouse




Taking guns away from the people would make us more dependant on the government to protect ourselves, giving them more power....I am against that.


Why the hell would give up their arms to an entity the US government that is one of the largest arms dealer in the world.

Who arms two bit dictators, and terrorists, and drug cartels alike all over the globe.


The idea of a person with this kind of attitude, this anger, and hatred of the government, and disgust for a large percentage of citizens who disagree with him, walking around with a chip on his shoulder and an assault rifle on his back... Sounds like trouble.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

You should be careful with that "but the courts ruled" stuff. Sooner or later the courts will rule against something you hold dear.

As far as dragging out the Const and the BOR to defend my right to own a thing, well I haven't. I've said over and over that shredding the BOR tonight doesnt make me a slave tomorrow. I know what being free means to me and it has nothing to do with some musty old parchment.

So tear them up, amend them all you want. It's not like I'll just say well, okay the Bill of Rights says I have to ask permission to own a thing now so I guess that's okay.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996




You love to bring those up.


Yep sure do because he called it like it is.

Here is another dose:



All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are


en.wikiquote.org...



Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable,


Which is why I support Americans right to bear arms.
edit on 4-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I wonder why he's angry? If he is.

It's not like he was just minding his own business not bothering anybody and then all of a sudden somebody said he needed a license for a thing, had to go through special dealers for a thing, couldnt take his thing where he wanted, told which versions of a thing he could and could not have.

Things were pretty much honky dory until it became politically expedient to marginalize a group of people minding their own business.

Think of it this way. There are some fish living in a pond happy as can be. A group of humans come along and decided the pond was too big and emptied half of it. Now the fish have half the room they once did through absolutely no fault of their own. Shouldnt they be a little peeved? Assuming fish get mad of course.
edit on 4-6-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie




The idea of a person with this kind of attitude, this anger, and hatred of the government, and disgust for a large percentage of citizens who disagree with him, walking around with a chip on his shoulder and an assault rifle on his back... Sounds like trouble.


And yet between me and my government only one of us has blood on their hands.

There are millions of people like me.

For the record ?

Someone with a semi auto strapped on their back is not threat to anyone.

ITS STRAPPED TO THEIR BACKS!.

And for the record don't call them assault weapons that is a political word coined by asinine politicians who don't know what the hell they are talking about.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Onslaught2996
The constitution is not set in stone


neo96
Zeig Heil



This is the attitude that wants to walk around the streets with the biggest baddest gun they have, slung over their shoulder. This self-righteous, angry, hateful rhetoric that has a "so what" attitude toward mass killings.

Bad idea...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie




This is the attitude that wants to walk around the streets with the biggest baddest gun they have, slung over their shoulder. This self-righteous, angry, hateful rhetoric that has a "so what" attitude toward mass killings.


Sure the hell beats those who prefer the 'biggest' .'Baddest' government with their feet on our necks ready to snap it on a whim.

That self 'righteous' HATEFUL attitude is a threat to us all.

THAT IS A BAD IDEA.

Because for the last 30+ years, and longer. Those shills on capitol hill have time, and time again abused their power.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I wonder why he's angry? If he is.



Mass killers would also like you to focus on why they were angry. What set them off...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I wonder why he's angry? If he is.



Mass killers would also like you to focus on why they were angry. What set them off...


What?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Jesus some of you people make me ashamed.....I am a gun owner. If you feel the need to walk down main st. with an assault rifle in your hands to 'declare your rights' I would say you are no better than the feds you complain about.

You know why the police do it? Fear tactics. Why on earth would you want to scare random passerbys?

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say you get to act like a #ing moron with your weapon.


I think anyone attending these open carry rallies is clearly overcompensating for something else.



Go CC, or simply carry a sidearm open on your belt, either way is fine and much more effective than this ass hattery.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

And some wonder why the whole Team America reputation prevails. No one needs an assault weapon strapped to their back when out to lunch.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: lightedhype
Jesus some of you people make me ashamed.....I am a gun owner. If you feel the need to walk down main st. with an assault rifle in your hands to 'declare your rights' I would say you are no better than the feds you complain about.

You know why the police do it? Fear tactics. Why on earth would you want to scare random passerbys?

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say you get to act like a #ing moron with your weapon.


I think anyone attending these open carry rallies is clearly overcompensating for something else.



Go CC, or simply carry a sidearm open on your belt, either way is fine and much more effective than this ass hattery.



It is good to hear common sense prevail. And from a gun owner nonetheless.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: lightedhype

Go CC, or simply carry a sidearm open on your belt, either way is fine and much more effective than this ass hattery.



That right there is the point of the Texas open carry protests. They cannot carry a sidearm on their belt so they carry the rifles openly to encourage the state to pass open carry of handguns so they can have a sidearm on their belt.

It's supposed to look ridiculous because the obvious and somewhat ordinary sidearm on the belt is not legal in Texas.



new topics




 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join