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.

 

Virginia: The People vs The Authoritarian Democrats

page: 9
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Swalwell, and other authoritarian demoncrats, is probably salivating over the notion of "using nuclear weapons against Americans whom dare want to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the 2nd amendment." Of course, Swalwell is an idiot, not sure what sort of idiots voted him in, whom thinks a nuclear weapon will leave alone people whom agree with being disarmed, meanwhile murdering only those whom DARE not want to give up their second amendment right...




edit on 29-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thankfully there are millions of armed Americans that will refuse to permit this.

The traitors will fire the first shots in the next war, but after that it is America's to win. Once the spirit of freedom and rebellion is reawakened, things will auto-resolve quickly.

They are illegitimate, we are legitimate. They despise the Constitution, well defend it. They'll give their "best 7th place effort" for their non-existent ideals, Patriots will die for ours! Our cause is just, and we're objectively right.

Now is not the time for fear, for timidity or doubt. We are America and we chart our own course. ALL Americans have the unalienable RIGHT to keep and carry firearms.

For our freedom, our Constitution and our Nation!



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: HalWesten
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.

Ummm... when, exactly, have the Rs ever affirmatively stated that it was an option when contemplating passing some law that a large number of Citizens had very vocally said they would not obey?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy
Only gunfire I hear sounds like it's from hunting rifles or maybe hand guns. Probably people trying to scare the bears out of their garbage. I dont have a problem with that and dont think the state legislatures are aiming their laws against hunting rifles and hand guns.

What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yet they can't seem to realize that. It's really an odd form of blindness, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko
kids have the right to go to school

Ummm... no, they don't. Public schools are a privilege, not a Right.


without worrying about some madman gunning them down in large numbers in such a short amount of time. I would say, they have a need to be able to do that.

Sure... and I have a need to be able to fly in my own personal jet wherever I want to go, anytime I want.

Seriously though - outlawing guns would not stop these kinds of things from happening. Period.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Because it doesn't??



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Lumenari
Okay, so explain to me, why wasn't it unconstitutional for the govt to slap some restrictions on machine guns back when the mobs were having open warfare with each other with them but now it seems that any type of restriction is unconstitutional?

It was, just like it was unConstitutional for them to outlaw private ownership of gold in 1933 and steal everyone's gold money. Or create the FDA, the DOA, the Dept of Ed, etc etc ad nausem.

Since when has someting being unConstitutioonal ever stopped them?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: tanstaafl

Because it doesn't??

That is my point??



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I am aware.

I was agreeing with you.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Whatever you do, just don't call these people "liberals." These new Democrats are not liberals. Liberals believe in freedom. Authoritarian is exactly the right word.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
This is a really bad situation that could get a lot of decent folk hurt.

I think it's best the governor back down and drop the thing entirely.

This definitely isn't the way to reduce incidents of gun violence ...


I would agree with you if they actually cared about reducing gun violence. They don't.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: tanstaafl

I am aware.

I was agreeing with you.

Ok, wasn't sure... thanks...



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?


Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl

What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?


Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.



I suggest you go get informed on the issue then, because this is an old debunked argument that anyone with even a passing familiarity with this issue shouldn't be embarrassing themselves trying to use. The founders saw firearm technology advance during their lifetimes. The idea that they thought flintlock muskets were the pinnacle of firearm evolution is absurd.

Not to mention, even if this was true, this doesn't change the fact of what's actually written. If you want it to only apply to muskets, you're gonna need a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Adults don't just get to ignore the written letter of the law, or in this case the Constitution. "I don't like what's written and I want it to mean x instead of y" is a childish argument.
edit on 30 12 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Because they absolutely, positively did not have cannons back then that could accomplish the mass murder of many people in a single shot ...



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl

What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?


Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.



So you're saying posting something online is not protected by the 1st Amendment because the Founding Fathers could not envision the internet.




posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl

What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?


Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.



So you're saying posting something online is not protected by the 1st Amendment because the Founding Fathers could not envision the internet.



Be careful ... he'll take you up on that.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

All those gunboats lined with 24 pounders loaded with grapeshot?

No they never could possibly imagine a death machine.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
When a politician is sworn into office, they are supposed to be representing everyone in their district, not just the ones that voted them based on party lines. Yes, they can lean a little to that side, but they cannot abandon the concerns of those of the other political party completely, that is why we have policies and laws to protect everyone. The Liberals are not following the rules set forth by our forefathers that were put in place to protect all citizens of this country, even those of the other party.



True , and this is Why All Citizens of this Country Defend Each Others Constitutional Rights Regardless of Political Leanings .......



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join