Buy Guns Now Before You Can't, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:45 AM by kozmo
Originally posted by Valorian
Buy guns b4 u cannot?????

What kind of message does that give me?
it tells me that you are scared or confused.

That kind of post really does not sit well with me at all, the kind of mssages that we should be putting out to the ppls is about peace and opportunitites that are coming.

Well not if there are posts stating the above all the time.

I know most of you will say "Guns protect me" and "It is my right to carry weapons" BUT

That right was upheld 200 yrs ago and is no longer needed as that constitutional right anymore.

Provide peaceful solutions to your probelms and fears and you WILL find that a peaceful outcome will present itself to you.

PEACE to all

Valorian


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Valorian]




You are either incredibly naive or... well, let's just hope it's naivete! Let's just go revamping the Constitution because you, or someone you elected, doesn't find that clause relevant any longer. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Regarding your "Peace and opportunities that are coming"... Um, have you been paying attention or did you just arrive on Earth in the past 20 minutes? The economy is rapidly approaching another great depression, unemployment is one the rise, crime; especially the violent type, is rapidly increasing and you are seeing the emergence of despotism, tyranny and genocide at increasing rates as well.

Um, you can go to sleep with your idealism and naivete but I am going to sleep with my Sig Sauer and my Mossberg! Wanna take bets on who has more mornings in their future?


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 12:16 PM by KyoZero
Yeah...I bet on the one who promotes the peace personally...

now onto this



When a man who voted multiple times in the State Senate of Illinois to increase taxes on gun and ammo purchases, voted to uphold the City of Chicago's handgun ban, and has stated that he thinks semi-automatic weapons only belong on foreign battlefields rather than allowing us to decide for ourselves, we must be vigilant.


I would love to see a vote because I think some assume gun owners are all right wingers who believe against this...so I would like to be counted

My name is Daniel, I am a SSgt in the US Air Force. I own a .44 Ruger. I love havign my gun for personal safety in the house....

my personal vote/comment is this...

Automatic weapons belong on the battlefield...

do you truly need a .50/fully auto to hunt deer? Well a dmit I might because I am a dreadful shot sometimes with a rifle...

Point is...you don't need that gun to hunt. Want proof? People hunt every day with a bolt action .308. Now that is about as far as you can get from being fully auto without buying a front loader musket.

If a man breaks into my house, a well placed .44 round or a not-so-well placed .00 shot will do the trick.

Why do I need to have a M1, an uzi, or the ever famous AK? All that is to me is bragging rights.

Guns are fine. I have one and have had others in the past but regular folk don't need fully-auto weapons in my opinion.

I found this on a Dallas news site....loved this comment

"The laws that we need are already on the books," said James Dark, executive director of the Texas State Rifle Association. "You don't walk into a 7-Eleven with an AR-15 to rob the place."

Link to above quote

Now...with that said...

AK-47 Robbery Attempt

yep...that sort of thing never happens...

I love guns...fabulous...but this is insane to me. I highly doubt the 2nd amendment is going anywhere. It all sounds like spooky stories to me.

Obama's own words

"A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions"

I am not concerned in the least

but then...as I have been told...since I disagree I am a psyop...at least in another thread

-Kyo



reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 01:34 PM by surfinguru
AWB ban, ammo ban, limited ammo purchases or microstamping, doesn't matter to me. In addition to my 2nd amendment rights, THIS is why I'm a gun owner:



NY Times Article

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.


Yeah, it's from 2005, but get a clue. This case creates precedent for the way law enforcement agencies respond. Read the rest of the article via link provided. With budgets getting smaller and smaller, states, cities and municipalities all cutting services, do you really think the police are going to more helpful or take longer to respond to a 911 call? That is if you can even get through...


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 02:37 PM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by KyoZero


The 2nd Amendment is not about being allowed to own Hunting Rifles and recreational firearms.

It is about the populace being allowed (And encouraged) to arm itself against a tyrranical government who may use the armed forces against Civilian Citizens.

It is to kill human beings who are trying to take the people's freedoms away. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about; Ousting Tyrrany and overcoming the cludge of the military were it to be used against the people.

I'm certain the Military has Fully Automatic firearms, tanks, grenades, etc.

So, for those of you who want the .50 machine gun, go for it. If we ever need you to fend off an organized strike against the people I *WANT* you to be armed the best you can be.



reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 05:41 PM by bigfoot1212
reply to post by TheColdDragon


yes and i totally agree with you- a militia is allowed to be formed ( BY THE CONSITUTION) to protect against tyrrany and just how are we going to do that without guns? they will have them!!! maybe i'll go cut some maple switches to defend myself- they sting when hit with one. that should deter anyone with a gun. or RUN HE HAS A BOARD WITH A NAIL IN IT!!!!(simpsons) that might work too lol
and to preparefortheworst- in your signature- wtf is a 17 clip semiautomatic. if he really actually said that it shows the ignorance that 99% of people believe or don't know about guns


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 06:07 PM by pernox
reply to post by KyoZero


Daniel, thank you for your service.

With all due respect, I think that you've misconstrued the intent of the second amendment, as well as the thoughts leading up to its inception. The RTKBA has nothing to do with hunting. It is also not something "given" to us - it is something that we as a free people are entitled to - the 2nd merely defines and protects that "unalienable right."

The purpose of the RTKBA is to ensure that Britain's tyranny is never repeated by any other agent or body. The 2nd gives the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights their teeth. Without the means to defend themselves, a free people are only free as long as those who would subjugate them remain on the sidelines, and without "teeth" of their own.

As for the limits imposed on "arms" and the right of the citizenry to keep and bear them lawfully, the entire idea of the thing is that the citizens should be as well armed as the "paid officers" in order to prevent the latter taking advantage of the former, should it ever come to that.

-edit- A pertinent quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, member of the Continental Congress, as published in Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778.





[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Top 10 Non-Lethal Weapons
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags
A Different look at the Tunguska Event
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags
The Robots Of Boston Dynamics Inc.
  Posted 5 days ago with 4 member flags
Camouflage face paint \'resists intense heat from bombs\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
Freeze Dried Food
  Posted 1 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia’s New Arms Race: Missiles, Missile Defenses
  Posted 15 days ago with 0 member flags