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.

 

Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Well, being a skeptic of what being shown on 'front page' and wanting to look behind the curtain, I'll wait till the time arrives and see if they stay true to the law, or will they crumble beneath FEMA.

Only time will tell.


Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


Way to go Mississippi! But I wonder how this is going to go over with the current cabal of gun grabbers in power?

This is quite a relevant and important story, particularly when we see L.E. agencies doing everything they can to confiscate guns, with "food for guns" and other ridiculous programs preying on people's desperation.

Quite interesting that this politician makes reference to "matial law"---This is not some "conspiracy nut" uttering these words folks...



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




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Do you people really think, that a gun will do you any good when Martial
Law is put in place? The military has fully automatic assault rifles, flash
bangs and all kind of other grenades, many of them lethal.. fighter jets,
bomber planes, artillery, rocket launchers, missile pods, war helicopters,
the monstrous Active Denial System that is able to cook people from
half a mile away to death, 'dragon scale' vests, kevlar protection and
who knows what other kinds of terrible weaponry.

Do you really think that you will even be able to kill a single soldier when
they storm into your house, the way they have been doing in the Middle
East? They are trained to destroy civilians, you will never stand a chance
to resist by force. People like Ghandi have showed us how to overthrow
an evil empire without any force, learn from him and use his techniques.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
uhh... the whole point of marshall law is to bypass law and give it to the army basically.. so any legislation passed isn't gonna work anyway

try convincing the army its okay for you to keep a weapon when there sole purpose is control



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 

There in lies the problem...everyone in our country sees our military might as all-powerful. Ask those coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan what a group of meagerly armed , determined individuals can do. That and you assume that the U.S. military personnell will, WITHOUT QUESTION, turn on us and execute as many as TPTB see fit. I'm sorry if you knew any of this nations military groundpounders you wouldn't be so sure. You seem to think that in order to get into the military you need to be "brainwiped" to suffer at TPTB discretion. This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone that has went through even the most basic assault weapon training will tell you...its not the amount of rounds put down range ...but the accuracy of the single shot you take.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 



If we dont stand a chance anyways, then why is the government so adamant about taking our firearms away?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
It's just a really good sign that states and people - are taking responsibility for protecting themselves as much as possible - against the agenda/s that might be brewing by those who may not have our best interests at heart.

Bravo.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I say way to go Mississippi! Kudos.

However, in a state of Martial Law, it's not always "Peace Officers" you have to thwart to keep your 2nd amendment rights.

How does this legislation stand up to military personnel?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 


Often, it's not the military that you're protecting yourself or your property from.

Your main concern would be to protect from looters or common home invaders. You should certainly have no problem defending from these threats with regular arms.

Automatic rifles are not limited to active military only. Many collector have fully automatic weapons AND ordnances. It's not legal, but neither are many drugs that are passed around on the streets. It happens. You can be just as prepared as a common infiltration squad would be.

You are correct in your assumption regarding a military home infiltration. But, I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of a soldier's equipment. Certainly, don't take that to mean that it would be easy to overpower a squad going from house to house on sweep and clear duty, but it could be done. It's not impossible. Though, even if you were able to fend off a squad, you'd better vacate the premises promptly because they'll be back with more soldiers and better equipment and you won't be able to overpower the next attempt, if they even bother with a second attempt. More than likely they'll just level the facility with an air strike.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by salchanra
reply to post by Wehali
 



If we dont stand a chance anyways, then why is the government so adamant about taking our firearms away?


To stop you from killing yourselves in such gigantic numbers..

Have you seen the latest statistics of deaths caused by guns in the US?
Over ten thousand deaths a year.. now compare that to every other
country in the world.. only Mexico comes even close. Most countries
never even reach triple digits, where the US is swimming in numbers of
5 digits for ages now.

It is proven that banning firearms, greatly reduces crime related deaths.

The only reason that your government wants to take away your guns,
is so you would stop killing each other just for looking at you wrong.

Because as you noted yourself, whether civilians have guns or not, really
does not matter to the government, as even a poorly equipped military
will still have no problems overwhelming a scared, lazy, obese population.

The american population is afraid of everything, because that is how they
have been conditioned. They eat themselves to death, and swallow tons
of medication, incapacitating themselves as intelligent, thinking humans,
just to douse that fear.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 


You have to put these numbers into context. I'll wager that we have a lot less per capita than many countries.

There was a study done by the CDC in 1994 that showed the U.S. topped the Richest 36 Countries per capita for firearm deaths. The U.S.'s average was slightly above Brazil's. However, if we take away the "Richest 36 Countries" factor and include ALL countries I think places like Sudan or Pakistan would certainly be able to give us a run for our money, if not completely (excuse the pun) blow the U.S. away with their number of firearm's death per capita.

If we take away the suicide factor I think the numbers would be even less lopsided. If a person is going to kill themself and doesn't have a gun, they'll find another means by which to do it. It would figure that suicides would inflate the figures for the U.S. because guns are so readily available opposed to a place like the U.K. where they're banned. That doesn't mean that suicides are any less common in the U.K. - it just means that someone will find another method like hanging, slitting wrist or jumping off a building.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This is a great example of Mississippi passing a law that validates the arguement of State's rights vs the Federal Government. The Federal Government is there to provide for the defense of the country(in my opinion) from external dangers. The States have the right to decide their own destiny.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

You have to put these numbers into context. I'll wager that we have a lot less per capita than many countries.


Maybe, but the number was 11.127 in 1998, which has been only increasing
ever since, is still staggeringly high. The times that a person ever gets to
defend himself with a gun against a home invader, is so tiny that it is less
than a weak argument. There are countries with far more civilians, that only
have a few dozen gun deaths a year.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 


Please provide a link for your claim.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


He obviously hasn't seen the stats from Afirca or Russia. They have more major problems with murder than we do!

Zindo



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
First, I live in Mississippi...

FINALLY a reason to live in Mississippi.
We're on the bottom of the list in education, health & income.
& at the top for teen pregnency.
Do we really want people with these stats to have guns?
...I guess so.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wehali
 


You see...the problem with taking guns away from everyone still means that there will be gun deaths. Actually gun crimes will increase because no one can defend themselves because only criminals will have them. Wherever you got your info from is full of it. Look at it this way. If someone holds you up at gun point and demands you give them all your money, you pull out a gun and 99% of the time they will run. Essentially, to lose our rights to fire arms means we lose our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That amendment is there for that sole purpose.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Nice. I hope other states follow suit.

What happened after hurricane Katrina was a fiasco.


3 years later & the fiasco is still going strong...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Firearm related death rates

Here's a list that shows the U.S. is NOT the highest per capita in the world. These numbers are taken at very different times. Many were taken during the 1994 CDC study, but many more are current.

Brazil = 14.5 per 100,000 annually
Estonia = 12.74 per 100,000 annually
Mexico 12.07 per 100,000 annually
U.S. = 10 per 100,000 annually

Just as I figured: if you take away the "Richest Countries" and base the number on ALL countries and per capita (it stand that if you have more people then you have more deaths) then the U.S. is doing much better than other countries.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I'm glad to see this law passed. That is good news!
However, if federal authority steps in, you had better bet the even Ole' Miss will step in and follow suit.

This bill effectively declares civil war if the Federal Authority wants to push it. If not, Mississippi caves in.

In the event that they decide to take the weapons, people will just make due.
I can think of all kinds of nasty little tricks involving things like stockpiles shotgun shells and lots of golf balls, but it probably isn't approriate to go into those types of things.
Just means the victory would be harder fought, but like a poster above said, it CAN be done. Our military isn't manned by a bunch of demi-gods, they are people just like you and I.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by willzilla
You see...the problem with taking guns away from everyone still means that there will be gun deaths. Actually gun crimes will increase because no one can defend themselves because only criminals will have them.


A ridiculous argument man,

The amount of times a civilian ever gets the chance to defend himself
against a real attack with his gun, is so tiny that this argument is even
less than weak. The only reason that Americans want guns, is because
they are scared of everything. You have been conditioned to be scared
of everything, which you could argue is not your fault, but a human is
still always fully responsible for all of his or her actions.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]




top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join