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.

 

It's the Guns

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
As I am not a government, the word doesn't really apply. The current US government, however, fits the definition. Especially considering the way Trumps EO's keep being rejected as unconstitutional.
ROFLMAO... You mean the edicts made by LIBERAL judges whom don't care for the U.S. Constitution?...

BTW, you better look up what has happened to those EO's these days, as other judges argued they are Constitutional and within the right of the POTUS to make.


Some of the judges are Republican party members and conservatives.

The judge who blocked Trump's travel ban EO was appointed by George Bush (Republican President at the time).

James Robart From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He has not revealed any political leaning, publicly, although some have alleged he was a "Mainstream Republican" as alleged below:

‘So-Called’ Judge Criticized by Trump Is Known as a Mainstream Republican - NYT

Also, there was an appeal against the denial of Trump's EO, but the appeal failed, so the EO stands as denied on grounds of unconstitutionality.

Washington v. Trump From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



originally posted by: chr0naut
The Bonus Army conflict was specifically the US government against US veterans. It strongly supports my argument.


Again, we don't give a crap what you think. You will use any and every argument to force your view on the U.S. We have our own arguments and could post how those people who essentially fought for their freedom kept it. To make case in point you forget that the majority of colonists in the U.S. were not military personnel and fought against a well trained army and won. We only need to present one argument in our favor as a reason to keep our right to bear arms, and there are many more. Including the fact that it is a RIGTH that shall not be infringed upon.

Even the pacifist known as Ghandi wrote in his own autobiography, and I quote:


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

www.quotes.net...


That quote was not from Ghandi's autobiography. It was from a pamphlet written in 1878, urging Indians to fight alongside the British against the Germans, but it is attributed to him.

It is somewhat at odds with Ghandi's philosophy of non-violent opposition of opressors:
(the audio to this video is actually of the actor Ben Kingsley, from the 1982 movie about Ghandi, but is word for word from a transcript of the original speech).




posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

I see your instances and raise you Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Now back to your lane.


Just because, they don't win away games, doesn't negate my argument, because they have always won on home turf



Your argument is bull#.

You cannot control an armed population with jets and tanks. You need people for that. Unless the government is willing to completely flatten whole US cities, which they won't do because they need the infrastructure.


Operation Northwoods From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and, in the light of that, are you sure that Pearl Harbour, 911 and so forth aren't false flags? There's lots of weird stuff for the conspiracy theorists there.

Not to mention the 'limited' civilian damage of MKUltra and the Montauk Projects (among others).


The US is orders of magnitude larger than any country we have invaded. The military and police forces cannot hold all of that territory without significant losses to insurgent activities.

With our AR15s, millions of trained veterans, police and military that would refuse to side against the people, you would bear witness the deadliest and most complex insurgency in history.

Stay. In. Your. Lane.


Do you think they will come against you with hand guns and rifles? Get real.

They would shut down communications, power, water and food supply first.

Then, they have a vast array of non-lethal weapons to try. Water cannons, tear gas, diarrhea and pain inducing weapons.

If none of that worked, they have tanks, bombs, drones, aircraft, bio-weapons and nerve agents.

Honestly, the public would, probably, never even see their opponents before they were taken down.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You're talking to a soldier.

No army is unbeatable.

Your defeatist attitude is not welcome.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

I see your instances and raise you Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Now back to your lane.


Just because, they don't win away games, doesn't negate my argument, because they have always won on home turf



Your argument is bull#.

You cannot control an armed population with jets and tanks. You need people for that. Unless the government is willing to completely flatten whole US cities, which they won't do because they need the infrastructure.


Operation Northwoods From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and, in the light of that, are you sure that Pearl Harbour, 911 and so forth aren't false flags? There's lots of weird stuff for the conspiracy theorists there.

Not to mention the 'limited' civilian damage of MKUltra and the Montauk Projects (among others).


The US is orders of magnitude larger than any country we have invaded. The military and police forces cannot hold all of that territory without significant losses to insurgent activities.

With our AR15s, millions of trained veterans, police and military that would refuse to side against the people, you would bear witness the deadliest and most complex insurgency in history.

Stay. In. Your. Lane.


Do you think they will come against you with hand guns and rifles? Get real.

They would shut down communications, power, water and food supply first.

Then, they have a vast array of non-lethal weapons to try. Water cannons, tear gas, diarrhea and pain inducing weapons.

If none of that worked, they have tanks, bombs, drones, aircraft, bio-weapons and nerve agents.

Honestly, the public would, probably, never even see their opponents before they were taken down.


You obviously know zero about asymmetric warfare and the power of bad PR. Do you honestly believe that other countries will sit idly by as the US Govt fires on their own people in that manner? If you do, you truly do live in a delusional tyrannical system, that has you so indoctrinated as to think you have no chance challenging them.

Their work was well done upon your mind.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


The bad side to this is China would come to the aid of government in suppressing the rights and freedoms of us.

But in the end, all tyrants lose. It's built into them because they can only exist with a willing populace.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa


The bad side to this is China would come to the aid of government in suppressing the rights and freedoms of us.

But in the end, all tyrants lose. It's built into them because they can only exist with a willing populace.


I beg to differ, China wants the USA to fold. The longer the conflict the weaker more fractured the USA would become.
Playing right into their hands. Making it possible for Cuba to take Miami and southern Florida creating a two front battle. That is a death knell to any single military, let alone when it means firing upon their own citizens and family.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


Well that's what I mean.

China would just "aid" the government in quelling our little uprising and stay here.

That way they could get Taiwan back with no issue and control the US when they place the American puppets in place.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Good thing there's a lot of them.

Would hate a target poor environment on a homefront war.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


oo-rah.




posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut



The US is orders of magnitude larger than any country we have invaded. The military and police forces cannot hold all of that territory without significant losses to insurgent activities.

With our AR15s, millions of trained veterans, police and military that would refuse to side against the people, you would bear witness the deadliest and most complex insurgency in history.

Stay. In. Your. Lane.


Do you think they will come against you with hand guns and rifles? Get real.

They would shut down communications, power, water and food supply first.

Then, they have a vast array of non-lethal weapons to try. Water cannons, tear gas, diarrhea and pain inducing weapons.

If none of that worked, they have tanks, bombs, drones, aircraft, bio-weapons and nerve agents.

Honestly, the public would, probably, never even see their opponents before they were taken down.


All the world powers' war machines are based on the US model of a "commuter conflict" against insurgents. Where troops are airlifted into a firefight, then airlifted or driven back to the rear afterwards.

This doctrine became standard after Vietnam. Up through the battle of Mogadishu.

It's based on the presumption that the soldier will fight, knowing that his family and civilian life are safe, "back home."

The US military is seriously handicapped in any attempt to hold the US against the will of the civilian populace.

-most police headquarters are downtown, in the canyons of the inner city.

-most military bases in the US only have a chain link perimeter, if that. Many of the most important ones are located on the edge of urban and industrial neighborhoods. With long highways for avenues of approach.

-US domestic military bases are totally dependent on the civilian supply chain of electricity and fuel. Utilities are uniquely vulnerable to insurgents, as shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. And with a foreign belligerent supplying aid to the insurgency, things like rocket launchers and ATWs find their way into civilian hands.

The US supplied the Mujahedin, just like the Iranian Republican guard supplied the insurgents in Iraq.

It has always been that way. In the US revolutionary war, the American forces initially had zero artillery. But the Spanish, and then the French stepped in to bankroll the patriot effort to subvert the forces of the occupying empire.

I'm sure in a modern US civilian uprising, the Mexican drug cartels would be battling each other to supply anti-tank and anti-air weapons to the insurgent American forces. SO would china, for that matter.
edit on 20-9-2019 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
For gods sake, man. Quit crying about our guns. It only makes you look weak. We will never give them up. The next civil war will be over the 2nd amendment. Guess which side will win. (The one with the guns.)



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.


If the Founding Fathers were able to travel to today, they'd ALL own ARs. They'd LOVE them!

They would also be asking why nobody has automatics or using an Abrahams as a daily driver.

I understand that there aren't home videos from back then and we only see the sanctioned paintings & portraits of historical events & people but they weren't always wearing their powdered wigs and golden buckle shoes.

They were MEN. Sure they were the intellectuals of their time but they were men that were full of testosterone. They loved to drink beer, screw women, blow things up with canons and give middle fingers to anyone who attempted to stop them from doing whatever the hell they felt like doing.

Yes, the founders would have all owned ARs had they had them available. They'd also have done anything to get their hands on a mini-gun. The argument of "the founders only meant muskets" is tired and not based on facts. It's based on a couple of pictures you've seen of them in history books and assuming they were a bunch of easy going nerds. They were REAL men. The kind today's society won't allow to exist. Betas have become the norm and soy has replaced testosterone. Enjoy your latte
edit on 9202019 by Tanga36 because: Correct spelling bc mobile



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
What a silly post.
An armed populace in a militia is a deterrent to tyrants. It is also a deterent and another factor thst an invading force has to factor in. It will cost more lives dle an invader.

The fact you can not comprehend something so basic amd obvious as demonstrated by your post is amazing.

If you really think guns cant be used to protect ones freedom and liberties, you..well..lol.
Guns form part of a defence force or military. Are you going to say they don't play a role there? You going to ask who the enemy is?

Who is the enemy?
Is your enemy today necessarily your enemy tomorrow.
Did the USA once fight on the same side as Russia and China technically?
Would you call the relationship the USA has with both as friendly and on good terms?

You either unintentionally ignorant or you chooseto be.


originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The American public has common sense. Guns protect our freedom.


Explain how guns protect your freedom?

If you think you can defend yourself against the military, you are deluded.

If you draw a gun on police (or if they think you are doing so), they have been trained to shoot for the center of your body mass in reaction. Things will most likely not end well.

Once upon a time, trained militias had the capability of defending the rights of citizen groups, but who is in a militia these days? The paramilitary groups are too small to oppose government agencies, the military or the police.

And, just for a minute, consider if the words "freedom" or "liberty" are even valid to use in the situation. At the time of the war of independence, the US had slavery and the British didn't. In fact that 'libertine' state of the US was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Such freedom under the Constitution!

And, look at the situation today, look at your prisons. There are more people in prison, and a higher percentage of citizens per capita, than any other country in the world. On those grounds, the US is the least free nation on Earth.

But wave that flag like crazy and keep chanting the slogans they taught you in your indoctrination civics classes. Then you can be excused for not reasoning out the obvious.


Your enemy wants you to lay down your gun and give up. Just roll over and die.


Who is this enemy that is seeking to kill or enslave you? Is slavery even legal or condoned by any nation? I'm fairly sure that murder is illegal across the planet, too.

Also, don't you know of the gun death statistics? Lots of people are dying of GSW. The vast majority of them are killed by their own gun! It's not some 'pew pew' game of goodies vs. baddies.


Seems like you lack common sense.


Really?



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Of course I give a crap. I'd be happy to hand it to you by the steaming load.

At least you own up to your posts.

Site the "statutory" law stating one can buy a car.
I will wait.....

Ps
What you think, as a non citizen, means nothing here.
There is not support here to change the 2nd amendment.

Pps
When siting government over reach you left one instance out....i wonder why...

www.vox.com...


But hundreds of protesters — some of whom were armed militia members — assembled in support of Bundy. The situation threatened to get violent, and so the government backed down and returned the cattle to Bundy.


We WILL STAND UP
The govt WILL back down.

THAT is why WE have the RIGHT.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You see, I see something a little different out of the take some/take them all crowd, not one single attempt (poor and as foolish as it would be) to argue against Patrick Henry’s point. If guns are for our protection, would it not be better to remain in our hands rather than to forfeit possession to those that may refuse to hand them back out when needed.

That control should be in the hands of the people and not the key ring of some clerk that may have went on a fishing trip that weekend. You got to pass it to find out what’s in it, is not good governance nor should it be the person two heartbeats away from the presidency.

Is it any wonder people are rather set against losing their preservation to lunacy feel goods, from an uneducated mob that hasn’t thought it through?
edit on 21-9-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Interesting qoute.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
"It's the Guns"

Okay then, hypothetical scenario:

You will be locked in one of two rooms of your choice for 24 hours. Whichever room you choose, you will have access to fully catered food, drinks, all the amenities.

The rooms are identical in all ways except one difference: In one room there is a fully loaded firearm on the floor. In the other room is a homicidal psychopath who is ready to kill people with whatever weapons are available, or he'll just use his bare hands.

Two restrictions: you cannot leave the room for the 24 hours and you will not have any access to knives, clubs, or other weapons (aside from the gun in room 1).

Pick a room to be locked in for 24 hours. Choose now.

If it's 'the guns' then I guess you're going to have a roomie?
edit on 21-9-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: shooterbrody
Yep, well-regulated...

Got it


At the time the Amendment was written, "well regulated" simply meant "in good working order"

Nice try though.

This is what happens when you think you know history, but only know the modern interpretation of it instead of historical context.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tortuga

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tortuga

You don’t understand, it’s a Right.

You simply cannot remove freedoms, rights.

That’s what authoritarians do. That’s what tyrants do.


We used to have democracy here, they can do what they want.


Sure, we still do.

And you can overturn that 2nd Amendment when 2/3 of the States form a Constitutional Convention and get 2/3 of all 50 States to vote to overturn it.

Good luck!



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

That's the way it's supposed to work...

But the "gun-grabbers" know that that way is doomed to failure from before the get-go. So that way is to be avoided at all costs.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join