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.

 

Ban "Assault rifles!" Liberal Politicians Fear Violent Uprising by Americans.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
total numbers are absolute.


I will remind you of that statement the next time you're pissing and whining about how the wealthy "dont pay their fair share" of taxes. Of course you'll say "that's different" but you really do need to be forced to choose between having your cake and actually getting to eat it.




posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Poor Europe....those liberal politicians had their police go harder on their own citizens who questioned things then foreigners who were raping.

They were many groups questioning what was going on with their country and boy were they stopped swiftly.

There can be zero opposition zero criticism.

Take this



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
For love love of God then move the hell out. Go where gun control is more pervasive. Canada?



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: semperkill
a reply to: chr0naut

Reading your response i truly believe based on what you said that you know nothing about guns. First off modern firearms do not have a safety (the trigger is the safety) secondly if you carry a gun and dont a;ways have one in the chamber you may as well be carrying a brick. I am from NYC where gun deaths caused by illegal guns are ridiculous. People do not have have the right to defend themselves there> Maybe the elites like Boogaloo Bloomberg who has a complement of armed men but doesnt think that the serfs should have the means for self defense. I am active duty military with three combat tours currently living in NC. I have many guns (actually i lost them all in a boating accident recently) If i chose to I could go to the gun store right now and buy whatever the # i want then go down to the range and shoot all the ammo that i can afford. I keep a gun (until my boating accident that is) with no safety and one in the chamber. So does my wife (I mean did until the boating accident) becasue no one can guarantee my safety except myself. American police have no duty to protect me The supreme court said so. Police respond after the fact. I will not burden the system and its resources waiting for help of any kind. That, in a nutshell, is the typical law-abiding gun owner in this country. I don't run around waving it or acting stupid. It is a tool like all the other tools I have. That is my God-given right. As far as rising up against Tyranny and the whole argument of You cant take on a government that has tanks and bombs etc. Well, that is bull# as well. It has been proven that a motivated enemy will use whatever means at their disposal to fight against anything you throw at them. It happened in Vietnam and it is happening now. I fought against men with rusty Ak 47s and sandals. They gave us a go with their limited resources and knowledge. Do you know how many combat veterans are currently in America that are well trained well-armed and motivated? do you know how many hunters with years worth of supplies and resources there are here? Just because gun control has worked in other countries ( My opinion is you are a bunch of pussies and not free men at all) it will not work here. Those of us that have recently lost our weapons in boating accidents will not allow it. In closing, if you arent from America you will never understand the American mindset about guns and gun ownership, liberty the constitution or apple mother#ing pie. We are different. Mind your buisness!


It isn't my business. I don't buy and/or sell guns and never have. Probably never will.

To me, having a knowledge of guns is like having a vast knowledge of septic systems - i.e: not an actual requirement for use and not a particularly interesting topic for social gatherings.

The statistics are that gun ownership comes with risks. Where the risks are small with the majority of consumer goods, you can't un-kill people. That is a big risk.

Bullets can also follow somewhat unpredictable paths, ricocheting off objects, and so are dangerous beyond the area where they are aimed.

Then there is the issue that general public access to firearms, which while it may arm some public defenders, also absolutely arms offenders. You can't ever 'win' by further proliferation. The more guns there are, the more are in the hands of criminals.

In countries that I have lived in, if someone is found by police to have an unlicensed gun, or that they carry or use a gun is in a careless manner, then the person in charge of the gun is charged and the gun confiscated.

The net result of this is that, while there are some guns that get into the hands of criminals, the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals reduces and the number of guns in the hands of law enforcement and of those who are registered and responsible does not.

edit on 8/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: forestpicori

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.


hmmm i wonder where most of those death by guns take place.


The Americas.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: chr0naut
total numbers are absolute.


I will remind you of that statement the next time you're pissing and whining about how the wealthy "dont pay their fair share" of taxes. Of course you'll say "that's different" but you really do need to be forced to choose between having your cake and actually getting to eat it.


Really?

The absolute monetary values indicate that the rich hold most of the wealth and are taxed less than the poor are. It is an absolute based, not upon people numbers, but on the amount of money each person has relative to the tax they pay.

Total numbers are still absolute.

Do some research:

Pareto principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Poor Europe....those liberal politicians had their police go harder on their own citizens who questioned things then foreigners who were raping.

They were many groups questioning what was going on with their country and boy were they stopped swiftly.

There can be zero opposition zero criticism.

Take this

That only happens if you believe Facebork.

Migrant crime rates around the world are consistently lower than the crime rates among the indigenous, probably because there are far fewer migrants.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: chr0naut
For love love of God then move the hell out. Go where gun control is more pervasive. Canada?


I live in New Zealand.

It's like a Pacific island paradise (well it is, actually) but with lower gun crime than any country in the Americas.



(We do have guns, but we register and police them properly, just like we register and police motor vehicles because they can be dangerous, too).
edit on 8/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

A bullsnip example of picking and choosing on your part. Me saying the absolute number of firearm deaths within the US as it relates to the total number of firearms in the US is less that the total number of firearms deaths in Finland as it relates to the total number of firearms in Finland is EXACTLY the same as you saying the amount of taxes a wealthy person pays as a relation to their overall available wealth is less than a non person pays as a relation to their wealth. I mean it is literally the same goddamned statement with the only differences being one is about firearms and the other is about taxes. The cognitive dissonance is staggering if you claim there is a difference.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: chr0naut
For love love of God then move the hell out. Go where gun control is more pervasive. Canada?


I live in New Zealand.


A place that rolls over when challenged. Cowards.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.



Dont bet on that.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

A bullsnip example of picking and choosing on your part. Me saying the absolute number of firearm deaths within the US as it relates to the total number of firearms in the US is less that the total number of firearms deaths in Finland as it relates to the total number of firearms in Finland is EXACTLY the same as you saying the amount of taxes a wealthy person pays as a relation to their overall available wealth is less than a non person pays as a relation to their wealth. I mean it is literally the same goddamned statement with the only differences being one is about firearms and the other is about taxes. The cognitive dissonance is staggering if you claim there is a difference.


(Emphasis above is mine).

'nuff said.


edit on 8/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: chr0naut
For love love of God then move the hell out. Go where gun control is more pervasive. Canada?


I live in New Zealand.


A place that rolls over when challenged. Cowards.


I don't think that we do.

But we don't hold guns to our own heads as a way of showing that our 'freedom' is any different.



Stand back or I'll shoot!




posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.


If you opposed your government with arms, they would shell you from over the horizon. They have the means and, really, what's to stop them?

They'd probably have a flag waving news report on FauxNews about government soldiers bravely subduing a violent terrorist group. And your President would nod gravely and give a speech about "these criminals who violently oppose the freedom and peace of the American people".



edit on 8/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.



Dont bet on that.


I'd bet on it ten times over. Proved as much when taking federal lands. Ban bump stocks. No Riots. Ban high capacity magazines, no riots. Ban semi auto weaponry, no riots. Ban this and that, and no riots.

It would not be a national bloodbath. It wouldn't even be close.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.


If you opposed your government with arms, they would shell you from over the horizon. They have the means and, really, what's to stop them.

They'd probably have a flag waving news report on FauxNews about government soldiers bravely subduing a violent terrorist group. And your President would nod gravely and give a speech about "these criminals who violently oppose the freedom and peace of the American people".


Government wouldn't have to do that. Its citizens will turn over gun owners of their own accord.
edit on 12/8/2019 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.


If you opposed your government with arms, they would shell you from over the horizon. They have the means and, really, what's to stop them.

They'd probably have a flag waving news report on FauxNews about government soldiers bravely subduing a violent terrorist group. And your President would nod gravely and give a speech about "these criminals who violently oppose the freedom and peace of the American people".


Government wouldn't have to do that. Its citizens will turn over gun owners of their own accord.


What happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people" not perishing from the Earth? Was the Gettysburg address just BS to placate and control?



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.


If you opposed your government with arms, they would shell you from over the horizon. They have the means and, really, what's to stop them.

They'd probably have a flag waving news report on FauxNews about government soldiers bravely subduing a violent terrorist group. And your President would nod gravely and give a speech about "these criminals who violently oppose the freedom and peace of the American people".


Government wouldn't have to do that. Its citizens will turn over gun owners of their own accord.


Well, it IS their civic duty.




posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.


No it wouldn't. You'd roll over. Just like every other individual.


If you opposed your government with arms, they would shell you from over the horizon. They have the means and, really, what's to stop them.

They'd probably have a flag waving news report on FauxNews about government soldiers bravely subduing a violent terrorist group. And your President would nod gravely and give a speech about "these criminals who violently oppose the freedom and peace of the American people".


Government wouldn't have to do that. Its citizens will turn over gun owners of their own accord.


What happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people" not perishing from the Earth? Was the Gettysburg address just BS to placate and control?


Ask the media and its sycophants...
edit on 12/8/2019 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join