Several years ago a person who was running for the US Congress addressed a group at a Sportsmans Club that I belong to. One of his big issues was the ban on Assault Rifles. One of our members who is a Gunsmith asked him what constituted an Assault Rifle? He pointed to a rifle that in one of the stands and said that it was an Assault Rifle, he then pointed to the one beside it and said that it was a Hunting Rifle. The gunsmith then asked him if he was going to be staying for a little bit, that he wanted to show the candidate something and had to run down to his shop and get something. About 15 minutes later he came back with a couple of boxes and proceeded to convert the so called Hunting Rifle to an Assault Rifle in about 20 minutes. Both rifles were .223 Remington semi-automatics. All the gunsmith did was exchange the wood foregrip and stock for a black matte fiberglass foregrip and stock. The candidate promptly left. No he didn't get elected.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
As the tyranny grows, we MUST be armed.

That would be the nub of it. Alternative news junkies and conspiracy theorists alike have one thing in common. Whether they know it or not, tehy are paying attention to what their governments are doing. They are also paying attention to worldwide trends.

We are once again entering a period in our history wherein governments are becoming harsher. Americans are unique among Western peoples in that we have a tradition of independent firearms ownership that has survived to the 21st century.

The conspiracy element comes in to play when you realize that our social and political elites go out of their way to disarm us by using covert methods to do it. How many of you knew about the nuts and bolts of HR 1022 before I showed it to you? Don't feel bad. If I hadn't been on the lookout, I wouldn't have found it, either. In a better world, we would have no reason to fear our government because our leaders wouldn't be doing so much of this sneakiness.

It's worth remembering that when guns are not needed, they won't be used. The very notion that guns are a "check" against government seems out of place in today's world. Gun control advocates will say that your pea-shooter is no match for a standing army and all its hardware. If any government wants to come down hard on you...it will. A lot of people buy in to that argument, and they give up trying to keep guns.

The trouble is...that line of reasoning isn't sound. American politicians fear American gun owners becuase they know what you and I might have in our closets. Firearms of any sort can be used to START an insurgency. Long guns, and clip-fed weapons in particular are more useful under those conditions and they know it.

The simple fact is that they wouldn't hide their efforts from us if those efforts really were "honorable."

Originally posted by Damocles
justin, i just want to say, you may be my new personal hero. i served 12 years in the military with pride. ill be damned if im going to go quietly into that good night on our rights. without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the bill of rights is nothing but toilet paper.

Never forget that old men with obsolete guns were the FIRST to stand up to the British at Concord and Lexington.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Thanks Justin, now let's go spread the word! I've already E-mailed a good friend of mine who isn't an ATS member to come in and look at what you are sharing, because I know he'll want to know about this.

I appreciate your sentiments. While I am glad that more and more people are finding and reading my book, I hope that more and more of YOU will take the time to think and speak on this subject in your own words. the second amendment actually does mean different things to different people. For some, its a check against big government. For others, its a madate to be personally accountable for your own security. In all cases, we should question those who want to take it away.

Originally posted by Flyer
Complete bollocks, we in the UK got an unfair tax rescinded through mass demonstration and refusal to pay. Hardly politically compliant. When was the last time you and your guns got a tax overturned? Politically compliant is having a president elected through voter intimidation and voting fraud. Guns didnt really help there either. Did it?

With all due respect, I'd like to point out that your example is not appropriate for this discussion. We too fight unfair taxes through our own political process. Some times we win, without guns.

The tradition we're talking about here doesn't exist in your society and we do understand that. The American political process does have many things in common with yours, one of them being that the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly. The second amendment debate has been going on in this country for several decades, and its likely to keep going for the next 10-20 years.

the gun control lobby has already put many laws in to effect which we disagree with. The extent of those laws now make it very likely that our firearms policy will be much more like your own by the end of the next decade. This is something that many of us disagree with in the strongest possible way. Our government has become increasingly powerful and intrusive, which we object to. The overall trend leads us to believe that we might face disarmament and tyranny in the not-too-distant-future.

As you can see, I'm not the only one who shares this worried point of view.

Originally posted by nowshining
hi, i got this (only one actually in an email and haven't visited in a loooong time) and was wondering since I am copying this into notepad, i wanted to share it on frostwire and since I am going to convert this into pdb format for personal use along with ur username and post numbers, etc.. from at the very top u know where the date is all and stuff, can I please post/upload this to memoware.com for sharing with your permission of course. for both frostwire and memoware as a doc type pdb and for memoware as a pdb of the doc type variety. I'll add that you gave permission of course and esp. i need this permission for uploading to memoware, frostwire not so much.

You should contact the ATS administrators directly for that kind of permission. If you go all the way to the bottom of this page that you're looking at right now, you'll find a contact link that will let you do that. I'm sure they will get back to you quickly.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Several years ago a person who was running for the US Congress addressed a group at a Sportsmans Club that I belong to. One of his big issues was the ban on Assault Rifles. One of our members who is a Gunsmith asked him what constituted an Assault Rifle? He pointed to a rifle that in one of the stands and said that it was an Assault Rifle, he then pointed to the one beside it and said that it was a Hunting Rifle. The gunsmith then asked him if he was going to be staying for a little bit, that he wanted to show the candidate something and had to run down to his shop and get something. About 15 minutes later he came back with a couple of boxes and proceeded to convert the so called Hunting Rifle to an Assault Rifle in about 20 minutes. Both rifles were .223 Remington semi-automatics. All the gunsmith did was exchange the wood foregrip and stock for a black matte fiberglass foregrip and stock. The candidate promptly left. No he didn't get elected.

There is a generally held concept among gun control advocates that "guns are guns." When that's not enough, they rely on the notion that "some guns are more dangerous than others because they look more dangerous than others."

If somebody...anybody...were to log in to ATS and start an "assault rifle conspiracy" thread, they'd have a lot to work with. The simple fact of the matter isthat those who hate guns on an emotional level have been trained to have extra hate for the black assault rifle. Folding stocks and flash suppressors are just two of the accessories they are trained to look for. As JIMC5499 points out, parts is parts and they can be tacked on to most anything.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
As you can see, I'm not the only one who shares this worried point of view.

Hey, Id share it too if I lived there but my solution would be to move to Canada, Europe or Australia/New Zealand instead of stocking up on weapons.

Its a false sense of security and Waco proved it wont work.

Originally posted by Flyer
Hey, Id share it too if I lived there but my solution would be to move to Canada, Europe or Australia/New Zealand instead of stocking up on weapons. Its a false sense of security and Waco proved it wont work.

With all due respect, you may be over-generalizing. Most of the people who want their second amendment freedoms to remain in tact don't actually own guns, but they want that option left open to themselves and their future generations.

The rather one-sided incident in Waco (Texas) did not disprove the viability of gun ownership. It did, however, prove that religious extremists will die if they stubbornly hold a static defense position. Many of the nicest gun owners you're ever likely to meet are still worried by what they saw at Waco. The Federal government's willingness to act in such a fashion is a relatively new concept for us.

Your position is understandable. Because the pro-gun lobby is so small here in the U.S., its likely that we will be out maneuvered by our politicians by the end of the next decade. Then, we too will be at the mercy of our government. It'll be "normal" to us by the start of the next century. This tradition of ours may be slow to go, but it won't be extinguished quietly.

Hey, Id share it too if I lived there but my solution would be to move to Canada, Europe or Australia/New Zealand instead of stocking up on weapons.

Where there won't be tyranny? Canada will soon be merged with the US corrupt leadership, the corrupt mexico leadership and the already corrupt canadian leadership.

Europe? HAHAHA. UK, France, Germany and others are already police state, especially UK and Germany, soon France with the election of Sarkozy.

Australia? Yeah, Howard Dean, the bilderberger, provider of troops for Iraq, sorry but he's also a fascist but i'm not very aware of the situation right there and NZ... but it's in the ``western world`` so it's controlled by the same fascist people.

Waco proved that the government don't care about killing citizens, then lies about what really happenned.

I see guns to a person what an army is to a country. Bigger countries want to take-over you, if you're not armed, they will invade you.

Gun bans end up with Virginia Tech massacre, jews being killed during WW2, soviets being killed by millions and chinese being killed by millions. And when the government grows like this one, it ALWAYS ends up in dictatorship, oppression, massacre, real bad stuff.

That's why we must keep our weapons, train to shot and stop every other attempt by the government to grow bigger.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Vitchilo]

It's easy to get caught up in the social arguments going on in other countries. We need to stay focused on this social argument that is going on in this country.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It's easy to get caught up in the social arguments going on in other countries. We need to stay focused on this social argument that is going on in this country.

I believe you are right Justin, but, and on the other hand, sometimes people don't understand an example unless it is formed around something they are familiar with.

what is truly interesting to me is the vehemence that people, not of our country, show toward a culture that they are not part of and probably can not understand anyway. Seems to me, for the most part, that unless you are a native American (I mean here, born and raised) that it is nigh unto impossible to understand the brouhaha, and hte depth of the feelings on both sides of the argument.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by sigung86]

Well...that's why I'm here. It says a lot about the state of our dialogue today that somebody like me with just one mildly successful piece of published work can be here, talking with all of you. We might not be able to make people from other countries understand what we are going through, but we do have an obligation to explain ouselves when thjey ask.

the conpsiracy that we wrestle with is more than just a battle of ideas. Its a real program of steal legislation that we need to be on guard against. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone. but as as historian, I am prepared to argue that the peoples of many nations who have long since given up any pretense of self defense are not in a position to accurately judge what we are trying to do here.

Make no mistake. We are on the losing side of this issue. Those of us who advocate for the second amendment are a small and shrinking minority in our own country. With that in mind, I think we advocates need to aim our words at the future. Some day, somebody is going to look back and ask, "how could they let this happen to us?" We need to have an answer for them.

That's actualy why I published. My book will outlive me by atleast a hundred years. Assuming that its not burned, banned, or blacklisted, it may be found in some out of the way libraries in some of the more rural poarts of the country where...maybe...it will be found by a curious mind.

For as long as it remains legal and un-blocked, everything you post on the internet could be around for future generations. It's altogether possible that ATS itself might go through several owners during its lifetime. Who knows? What you read in this forum might one day be in their archives. "Best of 2007," or some such.

Some day, your kids and their grand kids are going to be adults, with fuzzy recollections about that second amended thing, or whatever it was they called it back then. If they don't have a context in which to put their ideas, it won't matter if they decide to fight for some old and moldy civil right which may no be in style. Nobody will believe them. If we left behind some cogent arguments and documentable observations, tney might just have a chance to do what we couldn't.

How's THAT for a conspiracy of your very own?

I don't know man, countries with no guns sound good to me. If we had to revolt against the government for any particular reason (after we were "disarmed") we would find a way to do it.
Something is wrong with American culture when we demand access to such a death switch.(I am very aware that many of you feel its a rite to bear arms, but I kind of feel, personally, that that was more a sign of the situation in America in the past)
Gun owners have only to fear ones that own guns(-The Police and military DO need them, regardless.)
The "gang" stuff I see around here, well, most of that is bull. I have been in and out of many American cities, yes, some unsavory people own guns-these gangs however are really a small percentage of the population. And if you didn't notice, this glorified city gangwar you see in the movies, news, and TV isn't how things really are. Chicago has no more ghetto, they demolished the public housing, New York, where I live now, is prolly the safest place I have ever lived(not to mention it lost alot of its culture in the process). Now the burbs(and personally some areas down south) , those places creep me out.
More on to my sordid point, your prolly not going to get in a shootout with "Leroy Blood", unless your REALLY looking for that sort of scenario, hope you survive.
IF YOU MUST hunt, I suppose one should be able to get a license and firearm for SOLELY that purpose. And I suppose firing range guns (that STAY) at the range would be cool.
Just trying to offer up some opinions is all guys.

@ jetflock

We don't just feel its our right, we know it is such as defined by the Second Amendment. A revolt without arms is nice but judging by history I would say that it would wind up as a bloodbath that would make events like Waco seem pale by comparison. Or if you want an example of unarmed resistance to armed military look no further than Kent State. To further illustrate why the Second Amendment was put in place I offer this selection from the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Second Amendment is directly related to giving the people the power to remove a government when necessary. People can talk all day about gun violence, the tragedies of school shootings, and a lot of other transient reasons why the government would seek to restrict and/or ban firearms but the bottom line is that those guns are our last line of defense against a government that has spiraled out of control and would enslave and subjugate the very people they are sworn to serve.

@ Justin Oldham

Most excellent post and subsequent thread sir, it is refreshing to know that we have some decent folk like you on the side of the people in such trying times as these.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I appreciate your sentiments. While I am glad that more and more people are finding and reading my book, I hope that more and more of YOU will take the time to think and speak on this subject in your own words.

I've already started talking to a lot of my freinds out side of ATS. I sent a copy of the info you shared along with my thought to my best friend from high school. We're planning to spread the information through our social networks as we get around. I wanted my Buddy to see the first hand info so he would have a referring source to send anyone with questions back to.

The Difference between Good information and a roumor is the facts that back it up. I want the people in my social circle to understand that this is Real, and not just a roumor I found on the internet.

Once people Know, they can Act!

Tim

Originally posted by jetflock
I don't know man, countries with no guns sound good to me. If we had to revolt against the government for any particular reason (after we were "disarmed") we would find a way to do it.

In as much as I appreciate your sentiment, I would like to point out one small historical fact. Over the last 2,000 years of recorded history, 96% of all documented revolts have...failed. The American Revolution throws the curve.

In the unfortunate and regrettable event that wer are forced in to rebellion, privately owned firearms would serve as a starting point for all those would-be civilian resistors. Hand guns and shotguns in particular would play a central role in allowing rebel forces to 'acquire' military-grade weapons from their Federal counterparts.

Because pro-Federalist politicians know this, they are now sponsoring legislation such as what you see in H.R. 1022 (scroll up, look at the beginning of this thread). Yes, it's true that criminals do use the same sorts of guns that you and I might have on hand for home defense, but...it's also worth noting that criminals use just 6% of the guns while the rest of us would be relieved of the remaining 94%.

Originally posted by jetflock
Something is wrong with American culture when we demand access to such a death switch.(I am very aware that many of you feel its a rite to bear arms, but I kind of feel, personally, that that was more a sign of the situation in America in the past). Gun owners have only to fear ones that own guns(-The Police and military DO need them, regardless.)

The civil right to bear arms accomplishes two significant purposes. Self defense, and national defense. In my own lifetime, I have had a need to defend myself with a gun just once. You and I would not be having this conversation if I had not had access to a gun. So long as I do have a gun, "my government" knows that it can't oppress me beyond a certain point. Re-sponsible firearms ownership means knowing when to use it, and when to leave it in storage.

Originally posted by jetflock
The "gang" stuff I see around here, well, most of that is bull. I have been in and out of many American cities, yes, some unsavory people own guns-these gangs however are really a small percentage of the population. And if you didn't notice, this glorified city gangwar you see in the movies, news, and TV isn't how things really are.

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Gangs do make up a very small percentage of our domestic population, but their effect on our society is disproportionate to their numbers. Why? The amount of violence they inflict is tremendous compared to their total numbers. One small gang may routinely posess more firepower than an entire neighborhood.

Gangs are also quite "posessive." I livei n a city that you wouldn't think was very impressive, but I can show you where the gangs "live" by pointing out their territorial markers. I have also lived in bad neighborhood where it was considered rude and impolite if you did NOT shoot back.

Originally posted by jetflock
Chicago has no more ghetto, they demolished the public housing, New York, where I live now, is prolly the safest place I have ever lived(not to mention it lost alot of its culture in the process). Now the burbs(and personally some areas down south) , those places creep me out.

Now that I am "the famous author," I tend to get around. South Chicago was and still is a very dangerous place. I'm sure that there's atleast one ATS member who can back me up on that. There are parts of New York City where even the cops don't go. If you get creeped by the burbs, I may suggest that you live a realively sheltered life. I'm not trying to pull your chain, but there's more of that bad stuff out there than you think there is.

Originally posted by jetflock
More on to my sordid point, your prolly not going to get in a shootout with "Leroy Blood", unless your REALLY looking for that sort of scenario, hope you survive.

When it comes to crime, most victims don't go looking for it. Gun-toting predators who break in to your home are banking on the high probability that you are unarmed. Trouble looks for you, because it can. It knows how unprepared you are likely to be.

Originally posted by jetflock
IF YOU MUST hunt, I suppose one should be able to get a license and firearm for SOLELY that purpose. And I suppose firing range guns (that STAY) at the range would be cool.

As a purely practical matter, the gun is a tool that can be used to do more than one thing. It's kinda silly to make the idealistic assumption that it can somehow be regulated to just one service. The same gun that puts food on your table can also be used to defend your home. It can also be used to keep your government in check. That gun can also stay in your closet for fifty years, without ever being used.

Originally posted by jetflock
Just trying to offer up some opinions is all guys.

Your opinions are important to the dialogue. Second amendment advocates need to know that your type of idealism exists. In a better world where we didn't have to deal with self preservaton and national security, you might very well win more converts to your cause. In today's world, the issue of national security takes on a new importance.

That's right, I said it. National security. You've seen atleast one poster from Switzerland in this thread who mentions the fact that his country remains un-invaded because former service personnel have guns in their homes. In our case, the national security issue revolves around keeping the Federal government in check.

Facts are that the cities were there are gun bans, the overall crime is much higher than in cities where people can carry a gun. Why? Because the criminals don't fear that the victim will take a gun to shot back...

The police? Well, they are coming AFTER the crime. DURING the crime, there's only the victim and the criminal. The criminal is armed, and the victim (thanks to the gun-grabbers) is disarmed... who's in danger now, where's the police?

Example: Virginia Tech. People were disarmed and the police were ordered by the FEDs to not go... this whole thing stinks black-op but anyway. In a college in a previous shooting, some students heard the first shoot, ran to his car, got a gun, violated the law of no guns on campus, but killed the shooter and saved lives. According to gun grabbers logic, this guy should have been arrested after... yeah right.

Also, there's the people who got their home invaded, defend themselves and kill the intruder, but they are arrested after not because they killed the guy, because they had a gun in a city where's a gun ban is in effect. Seriously, gun grabbers should investigate the matter, I was one before, I learned.

Revolutions that were successful under a tyranny... American Revolution, France revolution, what else Justin? And with all the technology now, the odds are even more against us than during the american civil war... where drones can bomb you, tanks can kill you from 3 miles away... And who would support an american revolution like the Frenchs did back then? China? Russia? To count on a country to help the revolution... maybe Venezuela? There's not much, most government of the western world are sold out to the same people running the USA... I'm not that informed on the american civil war, but I think that without France help, it would have been VERY difficult, maybe even a failure... but americans BACK THEN were the most proud and powerful people on earth, example, The Alamo and the many defeats, no matter what, americans would fight to the death, LIBERTY OR DEATH.

The american people would have the help of the canadian people and the mexican people because of the North American Union which is opposed by all North American population.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Vitchilo]

Now that we've identified this conspiracy, let's have a look at what we can do about it.

You've got several civic tools at your disposal. All of them require you to think. You may not like getting your hands dirty with this, but there is no otehr way to have your cake and eat it, too.

The first rule of American civics is that politicians react to input, and the threat of action that results from that input. If they don't act to deal with the things that keep you up and night, you might vote for the other guy. Before things get that far, you've got to speak up.

Your civic voice has five components to it. Your time, your money, your spoken word, your written word, and your vote. All of this may seem rather obvious, but I'm going to let you in on a few things that you may not know. It'll be our own little conspiracy.

Your vote seems obvious, but its not. You've got to use it before it does any good. Staying home on election day means you lose and "they" win. "They" count on your apathy. "They" bank on the idea that you will NOT vote for the lesser of two evils. The last thing "they" will expect is a vote that you have misgivings about. Why? Because they can't predict what effect it will have on their political calculations. If you want to throw a wrench in to the works, this is one of the ways you can do it. Always vote, no matter what.

Your time can be spent writing books, essays, letters, or talking with the people around you. "They" bank on the idea that you'll think this is too hard. They hope you won't do it, and they've got a century of declining voter interest behind them to prove that YOU don't matter. As all good conspirators know, anything that is up for grabs (including your opinion) is worth trying to get.

The most potent thing you can do is change minds. "They" know that, and so should you. You really can think of yourself as being the leader of your own little conspiracy. Your "crew" is the people who share your opinion. Your "agenda" is whatever you are passionate about. Think of your e-mail address book as your own little cache of top secret information. You and your fellow conspirators are unexpected, and undetected by "them."

What you say, and how you say it, matters. Publishing a book can help you reach hundreds of thousands. Posting on abovetopsecret.com can help you reach tens of thousands. Developing your own blog can help you reach thousands. Kicking things around with your local civic groups can help you reach hundreds. Talking to your friends and their associates can help you reach dozens. A few well-written letters can help you reach one or two people who may have greater influence than your own.

Your voice can do more than change minds or switch votes. It can also offer support. I'm not talking about campaign contributions, I'm talking about social social energy that YOU can harness. If you like what somebody says, say so. If enough people say that something is good, it will be regarded as 'better' than it actually is when the majority see things your way. Everybody likes to be on the winning team.

Written or verbal support can be worth more than money. If you read a book that you really like, you should consider writing a review and posting it online. Reviews are the best kind of advertising that there is. They convince more people than paid ads ever will. Remember this when you read a book about something you really care for.

There are plenty of times when you're going to feel alone, especially when it comes to the issue of gun control. The real test of your belief as regards any subject at all will always be that feeling of lonliness that comes from being the only one thinks a certain way. Gun control is no different.