It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by Wehali

Here is some evidence. You should find some to back up your ridiculous claims.

Britian and Aus top list in violent crime

UK is knife crime capital

Everyone always screams "STOP THE GUN CRIME!!!"

It doesn't take a gun to kill someone. But if criminals are scared of them, then I want one.

I love how europeans keep trying to run our country for us.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Wehali

Originally posted by salchanra
reply to post by Wehali

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.

No. Governments take guns to control a population. The most successful gun banners in history include names such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin.

Wasnt it the Brits who came running to the US for private weapons when Germany was bombing the hell out of them?

Yes, people in the US use guns in crime. So do people in the Congo and Uganda, even in the UK.

Look at all the rights being taken away from people world wide, even in the US, why do you think governments can do that? The people cant resist. Now, if you are one of those who thinks that a one world government and big brother will take care of our ills, you have other issues entirely. As for me, Ill keep my guns, and not kill anyone. Havent killed anyone in 30 years, dont really want that to change. You can go on being a subject in whatever land you choose, me, I choose freedom.

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.

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

Um, I didnt note that, I asked you a question pertaining to your post. Honestly, the military I know, would not take up arms against the US. They would be right beside us. I would have my 8 mil and my AK, they would have the M-16. Kind of a nice balance really.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:22 PM

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM
In california they can seize your guns for any reason and you have to go to court and the burden is on you to explain why you should get your gun back. If it turns out there was absolutely no reason for them to take your gun, you get it back. But that is it there is no recourse and no apoligy and they can turn around and take it again the next day.
I hate this state so much.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:37 PM
It's gonna be interesting to see how the anti-gun lobby responds to this.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:51 PM
I agree. It would be easier to protect the State if the National Guard wasn't tied up in Iraq

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Wehali

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]

In the US, the number you count as so little, is actualy 2-3 MILLION times firearms are used to deter a crime or attack. Thats not including the times that aren't reported to any agency. As usual, you Europeans, that are so anti-self defense, always think we here are the barbarians when in fact to expect your government to protect you is a ludicrous argument. Remember when your are in danger of dieing in seconds, the police are only minutes away! Sometimes hours!!!


posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
I am really finding this "strange". During the Bush era, not one state dared to do something like this (Declaring sovereignty, gun owner protection, etc.)

Why? Why now?

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by Hyzera

Seemingly weaker leadership for one thing.
It's easier to do things like this while the media is distracted on less important things.
For example: while Clinton was in the White House with his scandal between him and his intern, he had the military busy dropping bombs on Iraq, more than Bush jr. ever did.
Give them a field day and you can get done what you want. But of course the Mississippi Legiaslature isn't in control of the MSM, they've just decided to take advantage of the current moment.

Clarification: the bill hasn't fully made it's way through the MI Legiaslature, it still has to get through the other section. It's just halfway right now and could still be shot down.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by Hyzera

The simple answer is that everyone was afraid of Bush's recklessness.
Now that Obama is in, people are starting to flex their muscles a bit because they don't know if he'll react with words, or ammunition.

And I'm not simply Bush bashing. Anyone that is honest with themselves knows that Bush was a reckless individual who, according to a member of Congress, threatened martial law if Bush didn't get his way on the bailout package.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:17 PM
I will be forwarding a copy of this bill to Gov. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) as I wish to see this pass here too. Nevada state congress will also receive a copy from me. Good for them.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by Hyzera

Oklahoma declared sovereignty during the Bush Admin because of that NAFTA superhighway. They were going to raze farm land and destroy lives so they could build this monstrosity.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by Wehali

Gun alone won't make a difference against Marshall law, however, if they thought Iraq was horrible because of IDEs and all kinds of other tactics, then wait till you see what American insurgents will unleash on our friendly providers of Marshall Law.

There is NO way that Marshall Law would be successful in this nation.

I'm of the mind to survive, so I won't do much in the way of fighting.

Edit to add:

Unless of course they come after me. Then they will see what kind of a guy I can be. I've been in martial arts for 20 years and I'm very good with almost any weapon. And there are many, many, many just like me.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by projectvxn]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by Retseh

What's illegal about protecting my property from illegal confiscation by force?

So then you are telling me that if agents come to your house, violate your rights, explicitly defy state law, you are going to hand over your firearms and do the fetal position in the corner?
We'll that's your decision. NOT MINE

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM

Originally posted by djvexd
They will use thier usual tactic and claim federal law trumps state law.

thats when you open fire.

protecting your rights...

survival baby, GO MI! hope NJ is next!!


[edit on 2/13/2009 by ugie1028]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:55 PM
You know, this may be good for a different thread, but what exactly do you think would happen on a national level providing that there was some mass gun confiscation that would happen? I know with the renewed threat of the "assault weapons ban" I've heard some things of what people may do. The local sheriff here pretty much said that he would never send in his deputies to go take people's guns. He doesn't want his deputies being shot. Not to mention that a good portion of his deputies would be ones that would have to have guns confiscated. What do you think would happen if they actually required a firearm confiscation of any kind? I would expect something pretty close to civil war myself. Or perhaps just chaos.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by Dienekes

In that case, no, I don't see a civil war. I see a massfully peaceful protest in refutation of their desires.
Nobody would cooperate.
And they wouldn't dare do anything about it because they would have every police force breathing down their necks.
The ONLY exceptions would be some of the PDs in the hardest "hit" inner-city blocks.
"The Shot" will be heard from somewhere else.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:01 AM
I'd Guess the Fed Gov would say their Word tops Anyones about Anything.

I'd also Guess they have this in Writing, probley in one of those 1000 Pg Bills the Prez Signed on Homeland Security that No Ones Completely Read.

It sounds Nice, but, Doubt it would be Backed if TSHTF.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

Depends on how many, IF any, states decided to follow suit.

If a bunch of them did, it would get very interesting from a Political POV. I would also wager that many Nations would get involved.
Could be the spark of WW3.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:23 AM
From what I've been reading and what everyone at work has been talking about over the last week, it sounds to me like if drastic action would be taken it would first come in the form of controlling the sale of ammunition.

That is scary for a variety of reasons.. Gun shops have been selling ammunition like crazy over the last few months. One of the scary things too is that if the government can control or altogether cease the sale of primers and ammunition components then reloading your own ammo will be nearly impossible unless you already have an ample supply of that stuff.

An important link:
NRA-ILA on ammunition control

Americans use upwards of seven billion rounds of small arms (rifle, shotgun and handgun) ammunition every year, mostly for target practice, competition and hunting. Commercial manufacturers produce most small arms ammunition used by private citizens, all small arms ammunition used by law enforcement agencies, and all small arms ammunition used by our armed forces. (Commercial manufacturers operate military ammunition plants, and produce ammunition for the armed forces in their own plants as well.) Many improvements in firearms that were developed for private citizens have later been adopted by law enforcement agencies and the armed forces, and the same is true for ammunition (for example, particularly accurate varieties of rifle ammunition developed for civilian marksmanship competitions).

For decades, when gun control supporters have failed to get severe restrictions on guns through Congress and state legislatures, they have tried instead to restrict ammunition in one way or another.

“Encoded/Serialized Ammunition”: In the 1930s, when gun control supporters failed to achieve national firearm registration, they proposed an ammunition registration scheme envisioning a small tape bearing a serial number being implanted in every bullet, and people being required to register ammunition purchases with their names and fingerprints. The idea lay dormant until 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended “to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy all such numbered ammunition.”

Not long ago, one company claimed to possess technology sufficient to turn the 80-year-old concept into reality, and gun control supporters in more than a dozen states quickly introduced so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition legislation to prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition unless its bullet and cartridge case are marked with a code and registered to its owner in a computerized database. Indicative of the ultimate purpose behind the legislation, it would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess, without compensation.

“Micro-stamping”: Another of the LBJ-era commission’s recommendations, “a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun”—now termed “micro-stamping”—was mandated in California at the end of 2007, to take effect in 2010. In 2008, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in Congress, supported by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), to mandate micro-stamping nationwide. Even if micro-stamping worked from a technological standpoint, however, it would be relevant to only a small percentage of guns, namely handguns made after the law took effect and acquired from retail dealers. (The 250+ million guns already owned would not be affected, nor would newly-manufactured rifles and shotguns, and nine out of 10 guns used in crime are acquired through unregulated channels.) The main purpose of micro-stamping legislation is to price handguns beyond the reach of many Americans, by requiring handguns to be made with gadgetry capable of creating the required stampings upon the ammunition.

Taxes: Another proposal to make gun ownership too expensive for most Americans, has been to drastically increase the federal excise tax on ammunition, from the current 11 percent to as much as 1,000 percent. In 1974, Kennedy said “if [banning handguns] is not feasible we may be obliged to place strict bans on the production and distribution of ammunition. No bullets, no shooting.” Since then, Kennedy and others in Congress have introduced bills to ban or impose prohibitive taxes on .25, .32, 9mm, 5.7x28mm, and .50 caliber ammunition; cartridge cases under 1.3 inches in length; hollow-point bullets; ammunition that “serves no substantial sporting purpose and serves primarily to kill human beings”; and (via the Consumer Products Safety Commission) “defective” ammunition. Sen. Obama supports prohibitive ammunition taxes.

“Armor-Piercing Ammunition”: Over the years, Kennedy and others have also tried to ban commonplace ammunition used for hunting, target shooting and other legitimate purposes by amending the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law, which currently restricts bullets made with certain metals and jacket constructions designed to penetrate protective vests worn by law enforcement officers. The change, supported by Sen. Obama, would ban any bullet that can be used in a handgun and that can penetrate the least protective vest worn by law enforcement officers. The concept has been rejected by the Justice and Treasury departments.

Such a ban would affect virtually all center-fire rifle ammunition and many calibers of handgun ammunition, because many rifle bullets can be used in hunting and target handguns, and minimum-protection vests are not designed to protect against center-fire rifle ammunition or the more powerful varieties of handgun ammunition, regardless of how their bullets are constructed. Kennedy has claimed that he is not trying to ban hunting ammunition, but he has objected to private citizens having .30-30 Winchester ammunition, the most popular deer hunting ammunition in American history.

Ammunition That Expands: Along with calling for banning ammunition that penetrates, gun control supporters have also called for banning ammunition designed instead to expand (self-defense and hunting ammunition). This is comparable to them claiming that handguns should be banned because they are small, and that rifles should be banned because they are large.

Conclusion: Goldilocks thought one bowl of porridge was too hot, and another too cold, but she eventually found a bowl that was “just right.” Gun control supporters’ complaints never end. Their many attempts to ban or prohibitively tax one or another type of ammunition, under one or another guise, are just some of many ways that they try to eliminate or severely curtail the ownership and use of firearms by private citizens.

Posted: 9/25/2008 2:51:55 PM


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in