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.

 

Gun control is a distraction from the real issue. Part One

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I was reading about subdural chips and was a bit amused when Mr. Marrs (someone whose opinion and work I greatly appreciate and respect) stated that the reason we do not have martial law is the armed American citizenry.

As a retired master gunsmith and former Weapons Specialist, I can tell you that at this point the “right to keep and bear arms” is irrelevant in the discussion. Being pro-gun or anti-gun is also irrelevant. Being a lifetime NRA member in good standing I guess puts me in the “pro-gun” camp. Certainly, I am in the individual rights and liberty camp.

At the time the Second Amendment was penned the intent was to protect the American citizenry from a tyrannical federal government. At the time, this was a realistic notion. The standard weapons system was the Second Pattern Brown Bess Musket. It was a .75 caliber smoothbore flintlock with an effective range of 75 yards and was effective only when used in massed European style battle formations. As an individual weapon it was effective only at ranges of 25 yards or so or as a bayonet mount.

But the colonists (us) had begun widespread use of rifled firearms (originally for hunting) and the use of modern cover and concealment tactics. These were not a huge factor generally in the Northern and Eastern campaigns, but in the Southern and Western campaigns were devastating to the King’s forces. The British debacle at King’s Mountain was the beginning of the end for Cornwallis. It forced him into a fight on two fronts or flanks simultaneously. To his front (right flank) were the massed Continental formations, but of just as much concern (if not more) was the “rabble” selectively targeting key personnel and supplies pressuring his left with their stealth, mobility, and further reaching weapons threatening his retreat to the Virginia coast. All things considered he was lucky to have not fallen to a sniper’s ball. But this is not a history thread, so I digress.

Let’s briefly examine a couple of parallels. In 1934 the National Firearms Act functionally began the trend of disarming the American citizen. In response to law enforcement being outgunned at times during Prohibition (a failed policy) common citizens were technically and practically restrained from owning some firearms, particularly automatic weapons. In 1968 in a knee jerk reaction to several high profile assassinations The Gun Control Act was put in place. That really took a bite out of crime. The so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 did nothing more but extend the reach of the government’s tentacles, ostensibly as part of the “War on Drugs” (also a brilliant success).

For all practical purposes the weapons possessed by the citizenry are of little or no threat to the government. Technologically, we are way outgunned.

I question the push for electronic lockout “safety” and ignition systems for civilian sporting and personal defense weapons, yet not for the military. Have you ever heard of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)? How handy to disarm your opponent without direct confrontation.

Were an unjust (any) state of martial law declared our only recourse would be guerilla tactics, and thus we become “terrorists”. This is a handy propaganda label for any dissenter who takes action against tyranny.

Hold that thought and please read Part Two now immediately following.




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

At the time the Second Amendment was penned the intent was to protect the American citizenry from a tyrannical federal government. At the time, this was a realistic notion.


So, I take it for granted than you think that a tyrannical government is no longer a "realistic notion." What exactly do you base this on?




Were an unjust (any) state of martial law declared our only recourse would be guerilla tactics, and thus we become “terrorists”. This is a handy propaganda label for any dissenter who takes action against tyranny.


That is true. I think that the movie Children of Men is a pretty accurate portrayal of where society is .ed. If you disagree with the powers that be, then you are no better than a Muslim terrorist screaming Allah-Akbar..


[edit on 29-9-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


A tyrannical U.S. government is a reality in my opinion. The ability to rise up sucessfully as we are allowed to be armed is unrealistic. It seems I was unclear in my intent. My apologies. Thank you for pointing that out.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Technology is a great means to superiority when it’s working right. I had a discussion with my local auto parts guy the other day when his computer went down, and he was basically out of business. I think that the USA’s reliance on high technology could be a weakness in the long run, and as to how it might effect a popular uprising, can you name a guerilla army that’s ever been defeated?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The most dangerous thing going on in the United States today is the control of the mass media. America is being disarmed of ideas and intelligent debate. Americans are getting to the point where they don't know what is going on in the world or even in their own country.

Americans have acquired a reputation for ignorance. This is a shocking thing for a country that has accomplished so much. The country is being hijacked and systematically looted by an oligarchy. The prototype for the new America is Mexico, a nation of peons robbed blind by their rulers.

There is nothing to fear from gun control, just as there is nothing to fear from drug control. If the possession of firearms was a significant guarantee of freedom there would be no Patriot Act, Posse Comitatus would still be in force and there would be no encroachment on habeas corpus. Bush and Cheney would be in the crowbar hotel already.

These ideas never enter the .s of the average American because these ideas rarely make it into the mainstream media.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Going along with the spirit of your argument, I believe the constitution says a well armed militia. So shouldn't all the techniques and methods of control belong to the average citizen just like it belongs to the government.

Lets take domestic surveillance for instance. In the spirit of the 2nd Amendment all citizens should be able to store databases of ALL governmental communications, then mine them at will for corruption and illegal activities that go against the will of the people.

Is not transparency in government supported by the 2nd Amendment?



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

At the time the Second Amendment was penned the intent was to protect the American citizenry from a tyrannical federal government. At the time, this was a realistic notion.


So, I take it for granted than you think that a tyrannical government is no longer a "realistic notion." What exactly do you base this on?

I think what he’s saying is that at the time, it was realistic to think that having guns kept the citizenry safe from the government. Whereas now, the government has jets, nukes, etc. which the citizenry can never hope to defend themselves against.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I will confess to being an oddball. My grandfather was a high ranking elite society (never did disclose to me his associations) working on ruling the unwashed masses type. He had me educated and raised to replace him. When he died thirty-plus years ago I chose not to follow his path, but had chosen the path of a career Army officer. Besides having the benefit of an outstanding education, I was taught to think for myself and draw my own conclusions. I do not get my news from any of the "Big three" networks, but if I watch any news it is FOX (they have issues, too). For several years during the day I did listen to Rush until he became wealthy (obviously I generally have little problem with rich folk) and devolved into such an insulting blowhard who had forgotten from whence he came, and his unquestioning love of the GOP. But now his program is only about his XXXL ego (which at best should be a M). The Clinton News Network (CNN) lost me about '96 with their fair and impartial handling of Willy's administration and any other anti-U.S. cause they could dig up. Now I dig out my own news every morning. Sometimes it comes from ATS, and sometimes it doesn't.

What really frosts my gourd is being labelled as unpatriotic because I am fundamentally opposed to George W. Caesar's war on low oil profits. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and that oath did not end when I hung up my greens for the last time, but I did not take any oath to support and defend anyone's wealth. Be assured if Jenna or Barbara were eligible for the draft (I believe it will come back), this war would not have happened, or they also would be assigned to a stateside unit equpped with obsolete equipment with virtually zero prospects of combat exposure e.g. the F-102 Delta Dagger. As I said before. "I never vote for any incumbent." Thank the good Lord no other Bush has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever occupying that most esteemed seat. I voted for him in 2000, but only because Algore made me want to stain and varnish his sorry arse.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ankil
I was reading about subdural chips and was a bit amused when Mr. Marrs (someone whose opinion and work I greatly appreciate and respect) stated that the reason we do not have martial law is the armed American citizenry.

This is just an adjunct to the original post, but I found it interesting (almost stunning):
On a recent episode of "Myth Busters", they were exploring the myth that a subdural implant would explode if placed within an MRI scanner.
What was interesting was not the fact that it didn't, but the hosts' cavalier attitude toward the whole idea of having one. They were very jovial and non-chalant about the whole concept of having one: "Gee, If I had one it wouldn't be dangerous...It seems to not hurt at all...ad nauseam."
Am I the only one who saw this and wondered if it wasn't a bit of prepatory propaganda?
But anyway, back the the theme of the OP (of which I await the next part...).



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


Part two was posted within a few minutes of part two but is listed as a separate thread Same title but says part two. Sorry, I don't have the clout to post it as one large posting.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NRen2k5
 


That is exactly correct. Thank you for clarifying it. The biggest threat to the security and happiness of the American citizen is the American government in its current mutated form. It has become a monster not to be trusted or loved. I love its original form (the Constitution), but I despise this permutation and the resulting evil. Ask yourself a question in your heart of hearts. "Is the government we live under better that that the American colonists lived under King George III? Which was worse George III or George II?



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


I spent most of my career as an infantry officer and can tell you there is absolutely no more deadly weapon in any combat than the human brain. When the soldier's mind is allowed to function without political constraint it can do virtually anything.




top topics



 
1

log in

join