It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: HalWesten
Yes, that is how I interpreted it as well. Speculative based on opinions. And yes, the GOA statement was a preemptive ''don't ya dare cuz if you do'' position.
And yes again, calling out the Guard is always held ''as an option'' by state authorities, be they Dems in powr or Repubs in power. This is a far cry from authoritarians threatening to call out the Guard though of course we can ''speculate'' that it is.
Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
You are missing the point. The problem with you 2nd Amendment right wing lunatics if there are NO restrictions you will consider okay. Flip this around and you tell me which guns you think should be banned because they have too much fire power, too big of a clip, or too fast of a rate of fire?
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: dawnstar
Knowing a bit about those mountain roads and towns myself. Taking the guns by force is the easy part. Getting back down off the mountain with them will be the real trick.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker
I just think this clearly shows how little democrats and the left think about the Constitution and the rights of American citizens.
Or else they wouldn't even be "speculating" about this.
originally posted by: dawnstar
You do realize that there are a few Democrats in the areas that are "sanctuary" I hope.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think the actual weapons that they are going after are the ak style CV weapons, bump stocks, and silencers... I am probably wrong in that understanding, but it's not like the op, or anyone else that has actually clarified just what they want to confiscate, if anything. All I know is that all of a sudden counties and cities around here started deciding where they wanted to stand on the issue, and I am wondering just what kinds of weapons I can offer sanctuary to. Maybe I will write to my county representatives and ask them if out sanctuary extends out to missile launchers... and if not, why not.