Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun-Grabbers Crank Up Anti-Second Amendment Propaganda

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Gun-Grabbers Crank Up Anti-Second Amendment Propaganda


www.infowars.com

TruthNews | November 27, 2007
Kurt Nimmo

Now that the Supremes have agreed to rule on the Second Amendment, the corporate media has launched a full-court press to convince America it does not have a right to bear firearms.

"Activists on both sides of the steaming debate over guns ought to be able to agree, at the very least, on two things. The first is that the language of the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, incomprehensible. The second is that the time has come for clarity from
In fact, the Second Amendment is quite explicit: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
A militia is not an army, nor are they terrorists. If it wasn't for a militia, the USA may never have gotten started.

I'm not American, but it is clearly obvious to me that the 2nd amendment is being torn away, just as the rest of the constitution is being slowly chewed and argued over by the elite and other power mad mongrels bleeting to their lawyer sheeple to give them the things they want.

As we are unable to reproduce the Egyptian pyramids, I highly doubt that anyone on the planet could create or reproduce such and amazing piece of script for an entire country.

The constitution is America and its people have lived by it.



www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


true that my friend! they obviously want nobody with weapons for a better control of everyone. This was talked about, predited, and propoused long time ago by many ppl arguing about thing that would happen to america... and now is happening. I believe Alex Jones already predicted this long ago when he first started talking about the Police State, and the whole martial law issue. We should keep watching cuz more is to come. THey want 100% full control over the citizens WHY? because the citizens, with weapons, are the only important threat to the government. Like it was when America first started.

The next to come the martial law... the implanted microchip to become law and many more. IT is also true they are getting rid of the constitution very slowly and disimulated. Unbelievable, the constitution is America.. well said.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I used to be an anti-gun sort myself. I have grown up since then and understand that owning a gun is the most American thing you can do. They may get in the hands of criminals and what have you, but the only reason we were initially free was because of our choice to bear weapons for hunting and the like, which carried over in our second amendment, blatantly showing the citizens of the country how important it is to be a responsible gun owner. If the upstanding citizens of this nation give up our right to bear arms, not only will we be defenseless against common criminals, but to our very own government with all the tanks, guns, and bullets you could imagine.

I dare anyone to try and take my guns. I dare them.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
good for u man, for your freedom is not the one they write up in washington but the one you give your self. You are a free man is you consider your self one. DONT ever let other pople decide on your freedom and liberty! EVER! and unfortunately guns are the only way to keep your house, your family, and your self as free as you want them.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
why do they want to take away our guns? could it be they fear when the dollar crashes and a loaf of bread is 5 dollars a gallon of milk ten that the poor people will rise up and take back the country probaly. look what happened in germany after they took guns from their people in the 1930s.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by proteus33
 


That's the tip of the iceberg as far as a military state and gun confiscation. I used to think "from my cold dead hands" was dramatic, but that may be a very closely related to reality here before long.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I'm a little concerned that the Supreme Court will rule in favor or firearm ownership and the Second Amendment and even that any state laws for permitting are unconstitutional and everything will be great then shortly thereafter things like the sea treaty and laws pertaining to the further unification of the North American Union will make it all moot and the multinational troops will go door to door and take them away anyway.

If the Constitution needs a ruling to back it up then a simple ruling at some other point in time can defeat it.

It's as plain as the moon in the sky. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Hunting is the last thing the founding fathers had in mind.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Our well armed public has been a deterrant from other countries trying to invade us. Guns are the great equalizer, and in most cases, makes you the superior. I'm not interested in giving up my 2nd Amendment freedom to a bunch of elitists. As much as I hate to stoop to symbolism:
"From my cold dead hands..." Charleton Heston



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I used to be an anti-gun sort myself. I have grown up since then and understand that owning a gun is the most American thing you can do.


Really? I would have thought the most American thing you can do is agitate for popular democratic change in a repressive regime. But Im not American so I wouldnt know such things...

Either way, I think this is historical and frankly, I agree with you. The Second Amenment reads pretty clear, you as a citizen, have a right to keep arms. And I agree that if you remove the civilians right to arms, you only strengthen the criminal element of society. I doubt they register their weapons, and I know they wont give them up.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DamnedDirtyApes
Our well armed public has been a deterrant from other countries trying to invade us


I doubt it. I think it has something to do with your large Navy and Air Force, superior logistics support and armoured division, etc etc etc.

Im sorry but i really doubt a few semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the civilians is what is keeping the dogs at bay.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


I read that our armed public was the reason Japan didn't invade the mainland here in WWII. They certainly would have lost troops to the gun toting public.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by DamnedDirtyApes
Our well armed public has been a deterrant from other countries trying to invade us


I doubt it. I think it has something to do with your large Navy and Air Force, superior logistics support and armoured division, etc etc etc.

Im sorry but i really doubt a few semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the civilians is what is keeping the dogs at bay.


Actually, your statement, while on the surface has merit, it is not the "rest of the story", as Paul Harvey would say. While initial invasion is a job for the regular army and naval and air components, defense, once those are breached, is the right and duty of the common citizen, and is also a major reason to think twice about invading America.

Look at how hard a modern coalition force is having in a country like Iraq? Considering the size differences, invading America would be one thing, but then holding it against an armed population, would be an entirely different problem. A problem much harder and costly than the invasion itself, IMO.

Edit for punctuation.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Just to add to what DamnedDirtyApes said,

If our biggest threat is really a bunch of cave dwelling fanatics sneaking across the Mexican border as so many politicians state it is than an armed Texas is most likely our best defense. What good will tanks, the Navy, the Air Force and "logistics" be against a handful of guerrillas blowing themselves up?

The trick is freeing the American population up to defend itself. There in lies the dilemma. How, in a nation where a citizen defending his property from an intruding drug addict is frowned upon and held as an example of why guns need to be banned, can American citizens be expected to protect their country?

Our soldiers can't patrol in Iraq with ammo in their guns, UN "peacekeepers" may as well be armed with airsoft toys all because of PC stupidity and some illogical reasoning.

If the U.S. were ever to admit the current invasion or any invasion is actually happening it wouldn't be until after thousands of Americans have been killed or jailed by their own government for defending themselves. By then it would be too late.

Hell, in most places you can't even shoot a rabid coyote on your land without doing a stack of paperwork and taking time off of work to go to court and defend your actions.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DamnedDirtyApes
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


I read that our armed public was the reason Japan didn't invade the mainland here in WWII. They certainly would have lost troops to the gun toting public.


Its possible it was a reason, but I doubt it was the biggest one. Japan was enguaged in the pacific, facing a serious US threat. I think Japan realized that if they have a chance at mounting an offence, it would have to crush you the US offence in the pacific first.

I guess ill throw in a line of clarity to my previous post. While in the past, an armed populace may have been a strong deterrent, with current logistics and military capabilities including but not limited to the US' Strategic Nuclear capabilities, a well armed populace is among the last line of deterrents for a direct invasion of US soil.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Look at how hard a modern coalition force is having in a country like Iraq? Considering the size differences, invading America would be one thing, but then holding it against an armed population, would be an entirely different problem. A problem much harder and costly than the invasion itself, IMO.


Maybe so but the armed population of Iraq or Afganistan certainly didnt deter US leaders from waging a war in either of those nations. What would have made them think twice would have been a Navy, ARMY, logistics, Air Force, etc etc etc.


Edit to add: I just wanted to highlight something I had in a previous post, just so people dont think im an anti-gun PC nut.


Either way, I think this is historical and frankly, I agree with you. The Second Amenment reads pretty clear, you as a citizen, have a right to keep arms. And I agree that if you remove the civilians right to arms, you only strengthen the criminal element of society. I doubt they register their weapons, and I know they wont give them up.


[edit on 28-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


It is wonderfull to see patriots on the left waking to what patriots on the right have been saying for so long. It is also nice to patriots on the right waking up to what some of the patriots on the left have been saying( patriot act0. One thing nearly all Amricans cherish is the constitution! Nothing could take it place, Nothing! Maybe the gov..media complex that has been ripping us apart for so long and destroying our love and respect for oneanother is starting to crumble. Lets Hope. i don't belelieve all " america will be a 3rd world stuff" but we have some darn tough choises ahead of us! we really do! Our governement has barrowed and spent us into near bankruptcy " not that we don't share in the blame"! We demand the gov. to provide so much "we take it for granted". polititions are terrifed to tell the truth because they know they will lose an election. European style socialism doesn't work because because it takes all the private wealth out of a nation and is redistributed among the masses. The problem is there isn't enough private wealth to redistribute so that everyone can live the life they think they deserve. Another problem is that the very people who create the wealth to begin with just give up! If we were in there shoes, would we work our tail off only to have it taken away. Not likly, evenually they get tired and jump in the wagon instead of pulling it. Capitalism under the constraints of democracy and socialism with extreme moderation can coexist and funtion well. But; when the greed factor and I want mine and I don't want to work to hard for it mentality take over, a nation is doomed to fail.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
The problem is there isn't enough private wealth to redistribute so that everyone can live the life they think they deserve.

You do realize that the richest 1% of the world own 40% of the worlds wealth, right? How about the fact that "Four fifths of the world's population live below what countries in North America and Europe consider the poverty line." Are you sure theire not enough wealth to go around?



Another problem is that the very people who create the wealth to begin with just give up!


Those who create great wealth, create great poverty. Someone must lose out and become poor so another can win and become rich.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Those who create great wealth, create great poverty. Someone must lose out and become poor so another can win and become rich.


Well what do you know? I guess Mercantilism is still alive and well, eh? I agree with you very strongly.






top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join