This is why they want our guns, and why they cant have them

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Absolutely, we're only postulating. I'd fight against people doing something like this tooth and nail. But everyone's got a line that it's a bad idea to cross, 'cause they're likely to react badly.

I don't know where my line is. I'll know it when it's crossed though, and so will some other folks. I'm not John Rambo, or Patrick Henry--or anyone else other than a fifty plus year old man who'd just as soon have a peaceful life. But I'm also someone who won't continence being pushed around/bullied by The Man.

But, I don't think that anything like this'll happen. Most fervently I hope it doesn't happen. 'cause it'll be bad, real bad.

a reply to: seagull

In 1944 there were 280000 Russian partisans at their highest level,these partisans killed wounded or captured a million Germans,destroyed some 4000 armed vehicles,58 armoured trains,10000 railroad engines,2000 railroad bridges and 65000 cars and trucks at the height of German occupation 70 million Russian people were under German control so all the above carnage was carried out by 0.004 percent of the population(sound familiar America)

a reply to: babybunnies

If you think for one instance that our military will kill their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters in the USA...you got it wrong sista. Won't happen here.

a reply to: babybunnies

Your an idiot. When was it you 1st bent over and took it up there a$$ and said "yes master" to tptb?. I'm ashamed of people with your defeated attitude.

a reply to: notsure1

So, I'm not okay with our guns being stolen, taken, rights being stripped away and all that...

But what do people have to say to things like Australia banning guns, and it being extremely successful?

Switzerland basically banning ammunition, and that being successful as well?

There's examples of gun control working in first world nations - why are the statistics wrong?

Honest question, by the way. I'm not pretending to hold the answer.

The whole "lay down and surrender" they got you attitude from some of you posters. You make me sick. You'll make good slaves. Cowards hoping for crumbs and fee men fighting for meat they can surely aquire themselves.

The first thing the government would do is outlaw the sale of ammunition and smokeless powder. Smokeless powder is very difficult to make without blowing yourself up. There is only a few companies that make it. Regular black powder will clog a firearm fast.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: notsure1

It seems to me that you are not fully educated on what actually happened. I don't mean to use the word "educated" as a way of putting you down. But that land was owned by the government and they did break the law. Clear as day in my mind. They did put up a strong argument and won in a sense but still broke the law. That simple fact can't be argued.

Uh yeah you should be quiet because you clearly aren't aware of the actual facts on what transpired. Don't start with the BS on this one and, no, I'm not going to educate you on what happened. There is plenty of documentation for you to perform you own due diligence. We have multiple in-depth threads here on ATS if you just use the search function.

a reply to: Outlier13
So the land the cows where grazing on wasn’t owned by the government lol And way to get all snowflakey on me. Yes I am fully aware of what transpired. In fact I personally know a few individuals involved. So maybe you should get your facts straight before openeing your mouth kid.

a reply to: babybunnies

That's why "we" have 10's of millions of them. They would have to invite the Chinese army to help, to field even a fraction of the force of the civilian law abiding gun owners.

You see, that is the problem. If they come for the guns... they are out of order and unlawful, literally by settled case law.

No wonder they want to field an AI army... because .mil folks won't turn on The People.

a reply to: curme

Yeah... that would have worked out real well for them.

Kill 100 citizens... and in a day there would be thousands of them... with many more thousands enroute.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

NOPE. Government was in "breach of contract", STRAIGHT up. The Bundys had grazing rights that went back nearly 100 years. Grandfathered in.

BLM action was unlawful. Period.

But, you know... go ahead and disregard the facts for the media version of events.

If you want to learn more... read what the judge had to say about the behavior of the government in this case. He ripped them a new one, over prosecutorial misconduct and lawlessness by BLM.

..... and before ANY of this happened ,



Intel services had rounded up ,

and incarcerated ,....

everyone who shot their mouth off ...

just sayin'

a reply to: dasman888
Buddy was indeed grandfather into the right to allow his cattle to graze on those lands but he refused to pay the grazing fees. Then in 2013 a Federal judge ordered him to pay those fees and he refused. The law is the law and he repeatedly refused to follow it. Numerous judges gave him demands and he never did and single one.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: notsure1

It is to protect from a tyrannical government, Which is the biggest threat to a free state.

LaVoy Finicum, a US citizen, on US soil, was ambushed by FBI agents and murdered in cold blood - fact. I saw it, you saw it - everyone watched it. When the US government finally drops the charade and comes for your guns - remember LaVoy - because that's gonna be you (the collective you).

Precedent has been set.

Freedom hangs in the balance.

I remember that case though I don't see it as fact. Like you I'm sure, I was not there. So, like you, I didn't see anything except what the press wanted us to see. For all we know he was armed to the teeth and opened fire on the FBI. Forcing them to return fire. The FACT is that cop shoots unarmed man sells more papers than gun shoots at cops and is killed by return fire. That is the only fact. Want proof, just a few weeks ago 2 cops were killed responding to a domestic call. Other cops returned fire. That story was in the news about 3 days. On the other hand if cops shoot a black man who was running from them then turned and came at them with a weapon. For the next 2 months you can't turn on the TV without hearing Black Lives Matter. You never hear about the weapon or why he was running. That I was afraid crap doesn't fly with me. I know a lot of black men who've never been shot at by police. I wonder why that is? Maybe because they are not out there running from cops and dumping drugs on the street for some kid to find. A few months ago a young female cop was nearly beaten to death by 3 young black men. She said she didn't open fire on them for fear of the backlash it WOULD HAVE CAUSED her fellow cops. I think that story was able to get 4 days before it was dropped. I think before you go saying something is FACT you should be there in person.

And just to head off the BS reply. No I was not there at any of things I mentioned that's why I didn't say they were facts. I do however know that they had a very short news life. 129 (if I remember correctly) cops were killed in the line of duty last year alone, how many did you hear about?

a reply to: notsure1

I think you are partially correct but I suspect what is coming may be a lot worse than that (I hope I'm wrong).

Look at the circumstances under which Australia lost their gun rights -

Port Arthur massacre conspiracy

Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head..

I believe what led to the National Firearms Agreement in Australia (big artillery being taken away from the citizens) is the same thing that is happening here - false flags carried out by the government.


I think they are trying to disarm the world. For what reason, I fear thinking about.

They = (the almost) World Government.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You're a liar. If you "know a few individuals involved" then you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Keep talking out of you ass.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Anyone who really thinks that even an AR-15 can go up against the might of the Government of any country in the world should be classed as insane and as a result, unable to purchase a gun of any kind.

If the Government really wants to wipe you out, they'll send a few tanks or a Predator drone. Your AR-15 or, if you're Alex Jones, a safe full of 50 guns, aint gonna be worth a damn against any military force the Government can bring to bear against you.

That depends which side the US Military is on.When it comes to a violation of The Constitution , they tend to get a bit "edgy"
The fight by the civilians would be one thing , the military has the power to arrest the Commander -in -Chief and suspend the entire government until The Constitution is restored.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

Oath of Enlistment

Keep this part in mind

according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

That one small part is very important.

a reply to: Outlier13
Really, how so? All I did was present facts and you have argued against them. Actually you didn’t even argue them you just deflected. Well play you. I have zero arguments for ignorance.