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 Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Again, my posts are meant to illustrate that two of the major arguments put forth (protection against the government and assault weapons having a purpose other than killing people) are quite unrealistic.


So you're telling me that my 3-gun comps dont exist or are unrealistic or what?



I am not sure I understand what you mean by "3-gun comps." Please elaborate on your question.




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
Come on people, flag this and get some discussion going.


=.=



I don't like guns in the hands of juvenile gangs in economically unprepared neighborhoods.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


You are assuming the military would go through with such a thing.

You should read this..
oath-keepers.blogspot.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The only way this will be stopped is that we have to assualt washington with over 5 million people. We need to remove the corruption and reinstate our morals and values.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Mexico's Drug War Bloodbath....



A minute is all the time that it takes for an employee in one of almost 7,000 gun shops dotting the U.S./Mexico border to accept a wad of cash from an eager customer, fill out a triplicate sales slip, and slide a nice, new Taurus .45 caliber pistol across the counter. Or two, or three, or twenty, as the case may be. Add those handguns to the countless tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pistols, sniper and assault rifles, semi-automatic machine guns, shield-piercing bullets, grenades, plastic explosives, as well as anti-tank weapons outfitted with self-propelling rockets passing illegally through the hands of drug cartel foot soldiers and assassins.


Oh, that's right, I forgot that you could get all of those things at your local gun shop. Sorry guys, gotta head out early today, I've got to go pick up some milk and PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES at the local grocer. Got a gopher in the backyard, going to take care of it Bill Murray style.

Ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


You are assuming the military would go through with such a thing.

You should read this..
oath-keepers.blogspot.com...


I totally agree. However, I feel that an armed resistance will only make it more likely that the military would follow through on their orders, if for no other reason than self defense.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well..not to play devil's advocate or anything (actually I look forward to it) but why do civilians need automatic and semi-automatic weapons?


Non sequitur. It's not about someone saying what one needs or doesn't. Civilians (citizens actually) are entitled to own any stuff they want to, period. Prohibitions are opression.

I'll meet you on reasonable terms with malum in se and where living creatures are involved however.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Well the way I see it is our military and especially retired military would be part of the armed resistance. As a 'potentially' armed citizen arming myself to defend against an oppressive government, hypothetically I am not going to march down to the local military base, I will be marching on capital hill clean out the tyrannical trash. Chances are there will be a few current and retired military personnel along side me and my gun-owning neighbors.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well..not to play devil's advocate or anything (actually I look forward to it) but why do civilians need automatic and semi-automatic weapons?


Non sequitur. It's not about someone saying what one needs or doesn't. Civilians (citizens actually) are entitled to own any stuff they want to, period. Prohibitions are opression.

I'll meet you on reasonable terms with malum in se and where living creatures are involved however.


Exactly, the government nor anyone else for that matter has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do as long I am not hurting or infringing upon anyone else.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Why do people keep bringing up the fact that AR/AK style guns are made to kill people. Is this something some people don't know?

Yes, AK and AR style weapons were designed to kill people. That is the point of having them with regards to the second amendment. The point is when the government decides it's time to kill/enslave/rape/steal/abuse/ etc... the population (just as many have in the past) we can kill them. As in shoot them with our guns until they are dead before they shoot us with their guns until we are dead.

If they were designed to tickle, they wouldn't be too effective now would they?

As for them being ineffective against the government, you underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of millions fighting on their own soil for their very freedom. The entire US military is somewhere around 1.3 or so million. If you take out all the non-combat roles that number goes down.

The US has around 300 million people. I don't know the stats but lets take out 1/2 for the elderly and children and that's still 150 million capable persons. Now disperse them across the entire US and do you see how that 1.3 million will suddenly have quite a task to control all of us? Just as a comparison, Afghanistans entire population is around 30 million. Of that, how many are we actually fighting?

Add into that, that just because someone is a civilian don't assume that they don't know how to improvise something with similar capabilities to the weapons that the government possesses.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
They can be "ready for battle" all they want.

They're kidding themselves.

They don't have the legislative support to make it happen

The AWB is toast. Nancy Pelosi (of all people) basically told Holder to stick it, and Harry Reid said he would campaign against it.

When the ranking Democrats in the House and Senate are speaking out against it, it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed.

As long as people keep up the pressure on their local legislators (hint "I urge you to oppose this bad law" works better than "go to hell you filthy commie bastard!"
) and let them know they hate the idea, it's going to die in committee - if it even makes it that far.

Second Amendment folks don't seem to realize how much political power they now have, across a wider political spectrum than the old stereotypes would suggest. They're the best-organized, most dedicated voting bloc in the country, and not just in the GOP.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bruiex
 


As Stated in my last reply...keep your Assault Rifles.
Obsolete hardware and a useless as swords in modern warfare.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Bruiex]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Again, my posts are meant to illustrate that two of the major arguments put forth (protection against the government and assault weapons having a purpose other than killing people) are quite unrealistic.


So you're telling me that my 3-gun comps dont exist or are unrealistic or what?



I am not sure I understand what you mean by "3-gun comps." Please elaborate on your question.


www.3gunrules.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bruiex
 


I'll keep my ancient weaponry because it will be better than none. I would rather have a knife than a fist.

The amount of people that do not understand why we have guns amazes me.
We have our weapons so we can protect ourselves from everything from government to wild animals.

In the world we live it is necessary to own protection. If you think otherwise and think you are safe in your little neighborhood watch the news more. Regardless of what you do or don't someday you will more than likely be targeted by some kind of threat. Whether its a fender bender to someone robbing your house at gunpoint. Air bags were made for protection in car wrecks. Guns were made for protection against sick people. People that vary from calling the shots in government to serial killers.

Fully automatic or not they have a purpose and to slowly eliminate them with excuses like crime rates and gangs only takes away our protection. It does not matter if they are fully automatic. A gun is a gun, a assault rifle the same. Take away my guns I will find something else to protect myself with either way. I don't care if it's a toaster. The argument is nothing more than an attempt to weaken our defenses piece by piece so that the NWO may be established with the least resistance.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Well the way I see it is our military and especially retired military would be part of the armed resistance. As a 'potentially' armed citizen arming myself to defend against an oppressive government, hypothetically I am not going to march down to the local military base, I will be marching on capital hill clean out the tyrannical trash. Chances are there will be a few current and retired military personnel along side me and my gun-owning neighbors.


That is my point. You go marching on Washington with an armed group of citizens with the purpose of "cleaning out the trash" and I guarantee you will not get within ten miles of the capitol. Then the trash will spin the incident calling you domestic terrorists and your actions will be for naught. However, if your movement were non-violent and un-armed, the government will be unable to meet your movement with violence and be forced recognize your frustrations.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
However, if your movement were non-violent and un-armed, the government will be unable to meet your movement with violence and be forced recognize your frustrations.


Right. Like those monks in Burma.



[edit on 18-3-2009 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Ok gotcha. No, I am not saying that assault weapon can't be used for other purposes. My statement was that they were designed for one purpose, killing people, and lots of them.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
However, if your movement were non-violent and un-armed, the government will be unable to meet your movement with violence and be forced recognize your frustrations.


Right. Like those monks in Burma.



[edit on 18-3-2009 by thisguyrighthere]


Hey, don't roll your eyes at me. lol

Well, what about Ghandi's non-violent resistance to the British military in India?

I never said that this action was foolproof, however, I still stand by my statement that an armed resistance will only serve to justify the government in their actions and only work to hurt your cause.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Hey, don't roll your eyes at me. lol

Well, what about Ghandi's non-violent resistance to the British military in India?

I never said that this action was foolproof, however, I still stand by my statement that an armed resistance will only serve to justify the government in their actions and only work to hurt your cause.


That was because the Indians were deprived of their use of firearms.

Ghandi himself also said...


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

www.quotedb.com...



[edit on 18-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


It depends on what your goal is. If you just want the government to reconsider some benign position then yeah, nonviolent protest would probably work providing your government is still holding itself to some sort of moral or ethical standards. Such was the situation of Britain in India.

If you're government doesnt give a crap about you in the first place and doesnt need you for anything and has lost all semblance of morality and your goal is to be rid of the damn thing then nonviolent protest will just end up in your death.

Like the American Revolution could have been won with drum circles?
Like if all the Jews just went limp instead of marching into train cars the Holocaust would have never happened?

Some people can be dealt with in nonviolent ways and others cant. There are a multitude of factors that can sway one method in a better favor than another but to come out and say "nonviolence is the answer" is frankly naive.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join