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.


Why not just let the government take our guns? What's the big deal?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Diplomat

Originally posted by doorbell412

Just obey the law and everything will be fine.

Wow, I mean just WOW. There is no way you can be serious, this must be a joke or something.

This website is about denying ignorance, so what exactly are you doing here? Just obey the law and everything will be fine? I'm speechless.

well.. what will u do without a government? especially now? we'd be idiots to give up our rights but LOTS is at stake. theres a nice drougt going around worldwide.. cars would cease to work if we get involved in other war because maybe our money wouldnt afford oil.. we probably cant afford anyones exports.. china i think has already shut down to feed its own people that its struggling with... how many ppl r knowledgable in farming? combat skills? weapons?... not many. so if anything went sour do u really want the same idiots u mindlessly controlled for 8 yrs with a weapon trying to survive?... more than likely the idiots would only go for CASH!... so really... its about power.. and if one group of people dont have close to ALL power then the same fools who had it befre will continue to have it... (hint: same folks who funded hitler.. who then funded russia and its super cool NEW tanks that defeated hitler.... who won? hitler? not really. russia? not entirely.. theyre still living in poverty.... the banks did. the government had control of currency before n needs it again. it wont be easy n people will fight back.............. so u gtta stop it. otherwise we'd have a bad sucky war.. a world war... for survival. so dont forget marial law still exists...

[edit on 12-5-2009 by NipdPrice]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by doorbell412

History repeats itself my friend, its been proven time after time. When our Forefathers founded this country, they knew this as well and wanted this land to be different...and free...the New World....(not to be confused with the disgraceful New World Order.)

"Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
-James Monroe, 5th US President

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
-Thomas Jefferson

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
-Thomas Jefferson

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."
-George Mason,(1725-1792), drafted the Virgina Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

[edit on 12-5-2009 by StraightShot]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:06 AM
I'm going to try to break this rather rambling block of text down to individual points, and reply to them, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by doorbell412
Don't you see? Guns have caused nothing but trouble throughout the decades.

Your mileage may vary. I spent many very enjoyable hours with my dad, my grandfather, and various cousins and uncles hunting and target shooting. Guns were not just defensive weapons, they were tools, and recreation as well. To say that they're 'caused nothing but trouble' reveals a certain lack of research on your part.

Can't we all just get along?

Based on personal observation, and a perusal of some six thousand years of human history, no, we can't.

Besides, there's too many kids dying by playing with their parents loaded gun. By banning guns from the citizens, their wouldn't be any accidental deaths by kids who had their whole lives ahead of them.

I could make an identical argument regarding tobacco, alcohol or automobiles, any one of which has tragically ended more young lives than guns. Should we also, then turn over our alcohol, cars, and smokes to the government 'for our own good'?. What else should we not trust the poor, unwashed masses to handle on their own?

And please, don't use that lame excuse "you need a gun to defend your family." That is the biggest bull I have ever heard. There's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned baseball bat to defend your family with or taking up some martial arts lessons.

And that, friend, is one of the biggest loads of 'bull' that I've ever heard. You should try living in a small town that has no police force of its own, and has a roughly 20-minute response time from the county sheriff's office. There are a fair number of small towns like that in the Midwest. Home defense in such places isn't the job of the police, it's the job of the home owner. As for the baseball bats, that's all well and good if you're a teen-to-twenties young punk...err...person, but it's not such a great idea if you're in your mid-to-late 40's (or older). I guess those of us who aren't young are just supposed to be at the mercy of the bat-swinging youth? As for martial arts, once again, you should try visiting small-town farming country. Martial arts schools are *everywhere* out there (and if your sarcasm meter didn't ping on that, it needs new batteries). In short, yes, there really *are* places where guns are not only reasonable for property defense, but are the only such method that is practically available.

Laying aside the home invasion scenario, I can also tell you that baseball bats and tai-kwon-do really don't work well to protect livestock from feral dog packs (yes, they do exist, mostly because some people think it's too cruel to have their pets spayed / neutered...but that's another rant). Once again, guns about the only viable option.

So everyone saying Obama is the bad guy for trying to take away your guns, you need to take a LONG look at yourself in the mirror. He's trying to make this country a better and safer place, and you people wanting to keep your guns aren't helping at all. You all need to get with the program, and if there is ever a law that bans guns, you should give them up PEACEFULLY. It's not worth it to start any unnecessary violence over.

Hmm. So, if I disagree with the President, I need to sit down, shut up, and get with the program because he's 'trying to make this country a better and safer place'? Funny, that argument didn't hold water when it was advanced by President Bush's followers...back then, it was every citizen's patriotic duty to resist the President by any means necessary, legality notwithstanding. Why is Obama different? Why must one President be resisted at all costs, and another be obeyed without question or reservation? Because you happen to agree with one and not the other?

As for your comment about peacefully abiding with a law that bans guns, let me make something crystal clear. I would resist such a law to the fullest extent of my ability. Not because I have any desire to maintain a private arsenal (my pistol, a couple of rifles, and a couple of shotguns suits me just fine, thank you)...but because *no* right expressly granted by our Founding Fathers should be casually surrendered. By the logic of your post, if a law was passed making dissenting speech illegal, we should all just shut up and sing the party song...

What rights do you think the people *should* have? Only those that the government allows us to keep? That's an absurdity that strikes at the very foundations of our nation. Here...let me refresh your obviously fading memory with a small quotation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Sound familiar? I don't care whether the right in question is the right to keep and bear, the right to assemble and petition, or the right to be free from search and seizure, the rights of American citizens belong to the citizens, and are safeguarded by the government...they are not the government's property, to dispense or withhold on a whim.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:07 AM
I'm a pacifist. I'm here today because i used to keep an "assault rifle" duct taped underneath my desk. When several non-american criminals kicked in my door carrying handguns while trying to evade a small scale manhunt, they were greeted by what they could see of my smiling face that wasn't obscured by the SKS i had trained on the "leader's" forehead. They lowered their weapons and walked slowly out the door backwards, got back in their vehicle and left.

Id you're really for peace and the preservation of life, that includes your own life, preserving your life furthering peace by not allowing yourself to be defenseless in the face of an armed opposition, by not handing over the duties of ensuring peace and the preservation of life to others. By supporting a government that attempts to disarm a peaceful populace you are not taking any personal responsibility for yourself when it comes to the issues of freedom, justice, peace, and safety.

The "law" means nothing unless you fear your master's vengeful hand of control. Do you obey the law because you fear repercussions or because you truly believe that the law is just? To obey a law only because it is law is another way of denying your responsibility to peace, freedom, and justice. And, i don't know about you, but i never agreed to be ruled or governed over in the first place. I never was given the choice of whether i wanted politicians and businessmen to decide things like issues of freedom,morals and justice for me. They can make the minimum sentence the death penalty, but if i believe the law is unjust or impinges on my peaceful pursuit of freedom and happiness, i still will not obey the law out of fear. What's right is right, no matter the law. I'll die before i obey laws that further the cause of government slavery. No matter any constitution or UN treaty, local, state, federal, or even galactic law, i've never agreed to follow such things and i am a flesh and blood, a composition of physical matter containing whatever the essence of sentience is, and not property of anyone or anything. I will do whatever i decide is just by the interpretation that i am free. I believe in total freedom, peace, and justice, three things which the law does anything but provide or support. The law means nothing if you choose freedom over slavery.

So, you can obey all of the slavemaster's rules if you wish, but don't attempt to impose your will to be a slave on those who value freedom.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:19 AM
i see those quote above with thomas jefferson saying all should be soldiers and militia etc.... quick update: less than half the us population knows what militia is... and less than 70 % knows how to spell it... we're not militia.. nor are we anywhere near being so... we're infiltrated by the worlds highest obese rate... tell a fat person about how to work a gun and they'll simply look at u n drool because they thought u said 'gum'..... u try n explain to em while in their mind, they think its bubblelicious ur talking about... 'reloadable gum'.. "mmm i bet i can sho make tha flavor last a loooong time.. i can chew it while i sit.. i can chew it while i sweat... i can chew it while i sink into the fabric of my seat............ mmmmmmmm freedom"

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:33 AM
WOW doorbell412, WOW.

You seem quite willing to just give up everything you own to the master..

Where does it end? You just assume everybody is jolly go lucky and happy, and if we all turn in our guns, then crime will go away.

If you acually believe in your post, then I have an Island to sell you.

Why dont we give up our video games? Give up the internet? Give up cars, they pollute!

Where does it end? People like you scare the bejesus out of me.

And I laugh at your 'guns have done nothing but cause problems' Statement.

War, guns, Killing, Death, has given us our freedoms. Not John Lennon.
The Brown bess. and today the M16/M4 Keeps you alive, whether you like it or not.
Learn to love it.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:35 AM
he cant make up his mind if he lives in cali. or georgia, and claims to be 16...


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:26 AM
From what I understand of gun ownership in the US

1) If gun ownership was to be repressed then that's a huge step to dismantling your constitution

2) Guns hold off the government from exerting their totalitarian rule on you.

3) Guns protect you and your family from other gun holding criminals

4) Guns make your country uninvadeable.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:28 AM
People people, I wouldn't give someone this ignorant the time of day.

Just state your opinion as well as you can and don't reply anymore.

The site's motto is deny ignorance. DENY it. There were many people that explained the reason for guns very well. If the person doesn't get it, they don't get it.

JUST WATCH OUT. People like this will sell you down the river when the # hits the fan.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:55 AM

Originally posted by ElectricWizard
People people, I wouldn't give someone this ignorant the time of day.

Just state your opinion as well as you can and don't reply anymore.

The site's motto is deny ignorance. DENY it. There were many people that explained the reason for guns very well. If the person doesn't get it, they don't get it.

JUST WATCH OUT. People like this will sell you down the river when the # hits the fan.

true... probably even more so because he didnt prepare..... im gonna watch war of the worlds. brb.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:26 AM
Yall ninja's be posting in a troll thread.

Why wouldn't I give up my guns... My right to free speech angers someone and they try to harm me for something I said. At this point it's now proven that talking endangers citizens. Should they pass a law to limit speech?

You are falsely accused of a crime. Your only defense is your alibi. However, your alibi is that you were at someone elses home where you were committing adultery (also a crime). Should you be forced to admit to a lesser crime to defend yourself of a heinous one? Or should the state, with all their masterful ability be forced to prove that you committed they crime they are charging you with?

Say you are found not guilty...but on the way home you run over a child who runs out in the street. If you had only been locked up for admitting adultery, that child would have survived. Is that fair to you?

The last example I can use, is that after you see the light on these amendments, you can realize that the only way to secure you keep these rights is by owning the tools to fight anyone who tries to take the other rights from you. Say you own a car. Car wrecks kill people by the thousands yearly. Now because its a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, do they have the authority to pass a law requiring you give up your car?

You my friend are either ignorant, or incredibly naive. Or maybe both. But don't worry. I'll protect your first amendment with my second amendment

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:56 AM

Originally posted by nunya13
If we were all ordered to take away our guns the only ones left with guns would be hardened criminals(and I'm talking about the ones who will take a life to get what they want) and the government.

From where I am sitting, it seems that in most 'civilized' countries, there is not much difference between the two!

I think we should all rise up and say to our 'elected' governments,



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by doorbell412

OP - I cant think of a more ignorant and stupid comment posted anywhere on ATS ever.

While the USA is in the middle of a complete takeover by a fascist leader, you are advocating people give up their only means of keping the entire country free.

You should realise that the 'gun related deaths' statistics are run by the 'polical motives' related statisticians.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by midnightbrigade

Ape taint nothin but a big monkey. Forgive the short post.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by doorbell412

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you.

But the US government has consistently proven that they are not interested in working on behalf of the people.
They, just like elsewhere, abuse their positions for personal and political gain, they make decisions against the public, they interfere where there should be no federal involvement.

I hate to sound predictable, but your constitution states that the people have the power to remove any government when it no longer meets the needs and will of those people.
You have long ago seen that point arrive and leave, and they are still growing in power over the people.
The people should be able to survive without them if need be, but the people have become so reliant on government (through the force of government upon the people) that leaving a government behind is going to be more difficult and tumultuous than ever before.

Government should be minimized. They need to be small, and efficient. They don't need to meddle in the many thousands of ways that they currently do (and this goes for every western government).

Personally, I truly believe that every state needs to declare their separation from the union with immediate effect. The federal government is too large, too powerful and too intrusive.

If I'm not mistaken, every state has that right, and I'll bet any money the federal government wouldn't allow it to happen with a single state.
And that will be the final nail in the coffin, because it would prove once and for all exactly what the federal government is there for; control.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by doorbell412

If you don't want to be able to defend yourself, fine. The second you decide that I shouldn't be able too, you just crossed the line, god help you.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by doorbell412

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by doorbell412
He's trying to make this country a better and safer place, and you people wanting to keep your guns aren't helping at all.

Before the Nazis had their little party, Hitler took away all of the guns.
Before Stalin killed off millions of his own citizens he took away their guns.
During the 'Cultural Revolution' in which millions were murdered, Mao took away the guns.

Why do YOU want my guns? To make me safer?

Not likely.

What you need to understand is that times have changed. We no longer live in those days. Times are different now. We are ready to advance as a people and live peacefully, but we can not do that when people like you hold the rest of us back by holding on to your deadly weapons.

What you need to understand is that while times have changed, politicians and lust for power have not changed, the constitution are not laws enforced on the American citizens, the constitution are the laws that enforced on our government.

Laws Direct American citizens on what they can and can not do, the constitution Directs congress, the Senate, and president as to what they can and can not do, and trust me that politics have not changed one bit. We give these men and woman the power to govern us, and power easily corrupts men just look at Washington.

If you really think that banning guns will stop crime and stupid people from owning guns ( and that’s exactly what anyone is who’s kids shoot them selves playing with a gun! STUPID) you’re very naïve. It won’t stop violent crime either violent crime has existed far longer then the gun has.

People use guns to hunt, and hunting serves a purpose to the eco system, something non hunters just don’t understand, Humans are a predatory species and it is our responsibility to the eco system to be so. Animal rights activist will never understand it but hunters keep down the population of animals from growing to the point that disease is rampant.
Sure hunters could use Bows at least until some one gets killed with them.

You want to prevent violence and accidents with guns, get tougher on criminals, educate people about guns!

You can have my 2nd amendment right, when women are no longer allowed to vote, same for minorities, I can own a damn slave, and you no longer spew your ignorance about taking others rights while using one of your own. If your so willing to take my second amendment I’m sure you would not be opposed to give up the rights that affect you.

If we allow the government to take one of our rights what makes you think they will stop there? Where will it end? I will tell you look at history and see how well unarmed populations fair!

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:40 AM
This guy doesn't get it at all...

A baseball bat isn't going to defend you, your family, or your rights. Just because they outlaw guns, won't keep people from getting them. In fact, if they do outlaw them, all of the GOOD people won't have guns, and all of the BAD people will. So you and your family will still be tied up, raped, tortured, robbed, and shot in the night, while your baseball bat lie on the floor useless.

OR as mentioned before, when the government decides to inact the 'right to exist' tax, and you refuse to pay, they will come enforce that without paying you no longer hold the right to exist.

Listen to the previous posts. It has happened over and over in history, and every time, PEOPLE DIE!

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:44 AM
what if a super hero came to take your guns away, and even though you shot him your bullets couldn't affect him?

would you still keep shooting or would you be convinced at that point that your guns are useless?


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:02 AM
By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in