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.

 

Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Memes don't make the realities of 2015 into those of the 1770s.

Also, I'm as patriotic as the next American, but the Brits "lost" because of poor logistics, a divided Parliament, and the French.

The fact that G. Washington was one crafty son-of-a-gun didn't hurt.

The rest of it is mostly American folklore ... and that was 240 some odd years ago.

Citizens with hand weapons and long guns are not going to stop a modern war-machine, should one turn its baleful eye upon us.

I mean, let's get real.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, come on, we all know how effective small arms fire is against aircraft and armored vehicles.

Really, any hope the citizens of the US have against any government-committed atrocities comes from defectors within the army that actually have the training and access to high-tech hardware. Your rifle, fully-automatic or otherwise, isn't doing diddly-squat against an APC.

This isn't to say that armed civilians would be totally useless, just mostly. The true issue is that they for the most part have no training for actual combat situations.

The thing I've always found interesting about the argument that the second amendment's "militia" statement actually refers to every citizen is that it often tends to forget about the "well-regulated" part. That's where I think a primary-school course on gun safety and responsibility would come in handy.
Or would that be too liberal-PC-whatever the hell the bogeyman of the week happens to be at the time. (Socialist?)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn




That's where I think a primary-school course on gun safety and responsibility would come in handy.

Wait a minute. That sounds like a requirement for gun ownership. No way. We don't want no one telling us we need to take no class. That's against the Constitution! I been shootin' since I was knee high to a grasshopper and ain't shot no one accidental.
edit on 12/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your post is a fairly accurate - if obviously sarcastic - example of the kind of response I expect from several people.
Still, I believe a fair majority of the pro-gun faction still understands the necessity of a culture that respects what guns represent and teaches that respect to its children.

I think that is the issue. Everyone is concerned about the guns themselves rather than what they symbolize.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



Still, I believe a fair majority of the pro-gun faction still understands the necessity of a culture that respects what guns represent and teaches that respect to its children.

But apparently a good number (if ATS could be considered representative of the general population) say that it is a violation of Constitutional rights to place any requirements on gun ownership.


Everyone is concerned about the guns themselves rather than what they symbolize.
Hmm. I think it may be the opposite, actually. If you are talking about the anti-regulation bunch. "I dont' care how much sense it makes. It's against the Constitution."

A general outlook consistent with a conspiracy theorist world view.

edit on 12/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


But apparently a good number (if ATS could be considered representative of the general population) say that it is a violation of Constitutional rights to place any requirements on gun ownership.


Did I list it as being a requirement for gun ownership?
While it can easily be seen as a logical progression of my suggestion, it doesn't necessarily have to occur that way.


Hmm. I think it may be the opposite, actually. If you are talking about the anti-regulation bunch. "I dont' care how much sense it makes. It's against the Constitution."

A general outlook consistent with a conspiracy theorist world view.


When I speak of what they symbolize, I speak of two things in particular: Power, Autonomy (Freedom). Many Americans have shown how little they actually care about the constitution, as noted by the continued existence of the Patriot Act.

I often wonder if, given the opportunity to replace [Guns] with something more effective at providing those two things, would that deal be taken? I'm honestly not sure.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn




Did I list it as being a requirement for gun ownership?
Fair enough. You said "it would come in handy."
I think that it is a rather small and very sensible requirement.
edit on 12/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Murgatroid

...

Citizens with hand weapons and long guns are not going to stop a modern war-machine, should one turn its baleful eye upon us.

I mean, let's get real.


Lets. You do realize that many citizens are former military don't you? And do you also realize that if our government did turn against the people, many military units would break ranks and stand with the people. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo




And do you also realize that if our government did turn against the people, many military units would break ranks and stand with the people.

How could the government do anything without the people or the military? It can't.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

By "come in handy", I was sort of implying that it could be used to dodge that pesky "well regulated" precursor to "militia" that seems to be ignored by the people who say that "militia" = "every American citizen." If there is no mandatory gun education/training, then the militia I do not believe can be said to be well regulated.

Well, yes, it can easily be seen as a small, natural progression. However, for the sake of the people who believe any restriction on firearms whatsoever is unconstitutional, it may not be a requirement for gun ownership. Regardless of whether or not that becomes a case, I do believe a class on gun safety/respect for primary school children could go a long way to reducing the accidental deaths, if not the suicide or crime rates.
edit on 27/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



I do believe a class on gun safety/respect for primary school children could go a long way to reducing the accidental deaths, if not the suicide or crime rates.

In some states it is required. Though, whether or not an online course is actually adequate, that's another matter.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Too little, too late. It is best to have the correct procedures taught when young and malleable.

Someone who has reached adulthood or in some cases their teenage years, I do not believe could attain a healthy respect for firearms if they had previously not possessed it, without excessive instruction or some sort of personal experience. (Such as nearly shooting their sister/mother/father.)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

When I got my C.C.W. I had to take classes and pass a written test
and a shooting test.I assume this was gun education/training?

I think proper gun training for primary school children should be
done by the parents.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And it is those military personnel that break ranks who would win any potential civil-war type scenario.

Relatively untrained civilians would be minor support at best, cannon fodder as a middle ground, active hindrances at worst.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Apparently.

That is not only unreliable, it is non-standardised. The issue with having the parents do it, is that the parents may not know what they are talking about.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And it is those military personnel that break ranks who would win any potential civil-war type scenario.

Relatively untrained civilians would be minor support at best, cannon fodder as a middle ground, active hindrances at worst.


As for me personally,I would be in my home as the last line of defense.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
I went on hunting trips starting at about 8.
I wasn't allowed to carry a gun until I was 14. My tutors were very good but I would not assume the same for everyone.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
More right wing lies. That's the differences I see in the two parties. The republicans lie about everything



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: damwel

The republicans lie about everything

Damn straight. And Democrats always tell the truth.

Wait. You weren't serious, were you?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Below minor support, above cannon fodder. In that situation a firearm is no better defense than a club.
You will die either way.
Perhaps you will be able to bring someone with you, at least. If your house is not erased from the map with a keystroke.




top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join