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.

 

SICK Sweeping Gun Ban proposed H.R 5717

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: macaronicaesar40

Gotta remember our military is still all voluntary so the fed would be asking kids to go shoot their neighbors or family for holding on to their guns as the constitution says they can.

Now if you want to say tech advantage, I say Vietnam called they would like to have a word, plus we have 22+ million veterans in the country so we wildly outnumber what they can put in the field, so unless they find enough people willing to carpet bomb towns and cities the military has no shot in confiscation.




posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: macaronicaesar40
I’ve never understood this debate to be honest. Being from another country. Do people really believe their guns at home would pose any kind of threat/opposition to a tyrannical government who has drones, nuclear weapons and an Arsenal strong enough to wipe out the entire world 100 times over.

I get wanting to have a gun to protect your property from unwanted intrusion, but this idea that you need them to fight the government just doesn’t make sense. The government is corrupt and doesn’t give a rats ass about you, that I agree, but if they wanted to # you up your guns will serve no purpose. I know my opinion is not welcomed and no I’m not a troll or a government shill. I just want to understand this debate better. Seriously.



Well, there are probably 10,000 threads here on ATS which can explain it in far greater detail, but in a nutshell you have to look back to the founding fathers of this nation and the Constitution of the United States, and in particular the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This Amendment was enacted not as a rule of law, but rather a statement of the inalienable rights of the people, and it was specifically crafted as a warning to those in government should they ever decide to do exactly what some (democrats) have long wanted to do, to disarm the population, there will be severe and relentless consequences.

You are correct in saying the military has immense firepower, far greater than that of the people, but they will never use this firepower on the people for one simple reason...the dead don't pay taxes. And, as the poster above correctly points out, a door to door campaign could never succeed because the odds are against them. Now, if the solution ultimately becomes to begin carpet bombing large segments of the population, then the government has gone completely insane and anarchy across the planet will be the order of the day.

The legislation described in the OP attempts to enact laws which the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was specifically crafted to prevent.

This is about the best way I can describe the argument for you in three short paragraphs.



posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: macaronicaesar40
I’ve never understood this debate to be honest. Being from another country. Do people really believe their guns at home would pose any kind of threat/opposition to a tyrannical government who has drones, nuclear weapons and an Arsenal strong enough to wipe out the entire world 100 times over.



The Taliban.

They're still rockin' the casbah against Uncle Sam, after 17 years.

They actually hold the record for the most recent use of "war elephants" in combat. 2008 (I know, right?)

all they have had is small arms.

As long as a group of fanatics can field an army, it is "on!" regardless of the cost.

General George Washington never won a pitched battle in the Revolutionary War.

Not even when he accepted Cornwallis' surrender an d the British withdrawing to Canada....



posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13

- 50% tax on ammo (this is BS!)!



Does anyone honestly think this has any use besides trolling gun owners? That's how you know this isn't serious, these people don't actually care about gun violence. This is all about giving the middle finger to us "bitter clingers." That's all it is and everyone knows it.



posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: macaronicaesar40




Do people really believe their guns at home would pose any kind of threat/opposition to a tyrannical government who has drones, nuclear weapons and an Arsenal strong enough to wipe out the entire world 100 times over.


tell that to the taliban, isis al qaeda which held off how many of the worlds governments all at the same time, that had all that you mentioned for how long and some still are.

plus lots of folks in the U.S. that own guns were in the military and know how to operate the equipment. so if a bunch of them banned together.


edit on 22-3-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2020 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: macaronicaesar40

Yes, the military has incredible fire power at their finger tips. No denying that.

However...

The PTB/Military aren't about to nuke anyone.

Remember that the US military is voluntary, and most of them are very young. Asking them to shoot their neighbors, friends, and family is a tough row to hoe. Many of them won't be willing to do anything of the sort.

As for equipment? Most of us mere civilians haven't got near the firepower on call that any military unit has...but, who says we can't, should circumstances warrant, get a hold of some??

Nope, the Founding Fathers who wrote, and approved it, the second amendment knew exactly what they were about.



posted on Mar, 23 2020 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Perhaps we need to take away tax payer funded medical insurance from congress. They threaten our rights, we threaten their entitlements.



posted on Mar, 23 2020 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Mao Zedong famously said something in Chinese that means :"Political power flows from the barrel of a gun."

America's declaration of Independence claims that all governments rule by "consent of the governed".


If you put those two realities together, you arrive at something like "All governments that rule over an armed population rule by consent of the governed."





originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: macaronicaesar40
I’ve never understood this debate to be honest. Being from another country. Do people really believe their guns at home would pose any kind of threat/opposition to a tyrannical government who has drones, nuclear weapons and an Arsenal strong enough to wipe out the entire world 100 times over.



The Taliban.

They're still rockin' the casbah against Uncle Sam, after 17 years.

They actually hold the record for the most recent use of "war elephants" in combat. 2008 (I know, right?)

all they have had is small arms.

As long as a group of fanatics can field an army, it is "on!" regardless of the cost.

General George Washington never won a pitched battle in the Revolutionary War.

Not even when he accepted Cornwallis' surrender an d the British withdrawing to Canada....


Same goes for the war of 1812.

It's why I always give respect to the Vietnamese. They're the only people who have ever defeated America in a war by our own definition of "winning".

Perhaps the Taliban are on their way to doing so, but they haven't gotten our surrender yet.



posted on Mar, 23 2020 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13


Just REMEMBER , The Government Politicians and their Lawyer Lackies Cannot Amend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Without the People as a Whole Allowing it . The LAW Protects US as Long as WE Protect it ..........



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 04:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 04:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: JoseGarcia

Yeah, how about ideas that actually, oh I don't know, stand a chance of actually happening???

That this bill won't get out of the Senate, assuming for a moment it gets out of the House, is a virtual certainty. But this is where contacting your reps and threatening their jobs comes into play. Not them, 'cause that'll just get you arrested, their jobs.

should the worst occur, and it passes, I pity the idiots assigned to track down those evil guns...it won't be pretty in many cases.



Reasonable points.

I just believe that more noise & fuss, protest earlier mean less trauma & drama as a last recourse.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry to say, that wouldn't stop me from buying, or carrying, should I be so minded. The more they try to tighten the screws the more likely it is that people will go to "other" markets.

At the moment, I have a sufficiency of firearms for most any probably situation, and the skill to go with it.

The way I see it the constitution was created to be the king of our country. It was written with the mind that all government in the United States would be subservient to the limitations imposed upon them by this document. It is the supreme law of the land just as a king might have been.

A man's allegiance and obedience should be to his king in accordance with God's will. If our government body wants to betray our king, then their authority is illegitimate.

So, if you should be so minded to do that, then good on you.

... Sorry, I had to indulge in a little romanticism!



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




TextThey're the only people who have ever defeated America in a war by our own definition of "winning".


Not really. Our military finally beat them into submission. It was American politicians who lost it for us after they did what politicians do and bailed on our commitment to South Vietnam after the treaty. The North Vietnamese recognized the political discord in America, recognized the weakness of our suits and ties, and tested us sometime after the treaty. When we bailed on South Vietnam because of cowardly fat cats politically motivated decisions that's when we lost the war.

We never "surrendered". Our military utterly destroyed them. The only other reason it didn't pan out is that our politicians never had an end game. You can't "win" a war without an end game.

Was it territory? No. We'd take control of a large enemy base, leave it, allow them return in our absence, and then we'd storm it all over again. We advanced, destroyed everything in our path, and then give it back. It became a war measured by numbers, and on that it was no contest.

A major difference to the Vietnamese and Americans is that we practically have guns behind every door. Our soldiers would search for gun caches. If it were in America, they wouldn't have to search!



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoseGarcia

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly about the fussing and noise.

Replacing some of these nincompoops wouldn't be amiss, either. ...and if the replacements do stupid things, too? Replace them...rinse and repeat, eventually some of them will catch half a clue



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: silo13

"DO you want to start a revolt???? Because that's how you start a revolt"


Surprised but not surprised. a$$clowns like Johnson will never stop, and never get any smarter.

I'm hopeful that this crap will be stopped in its tracks.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: macaronicaesar40

Go ask the Vietcong, Afghanistan people and other guerilla warfare based people.
Then go research the history on of the Continental Army, American Revolution Militia, Fighters in the Korean War.......

If the US citizen with a gun is no threat to a military, then the gun is a non-issue.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join