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.
Originally posted by Shoktek
(unless you count the little "militia" clubs with about 15 members that meet in the woods and shoot guns at trees)...if the government ordered the national guard to round up their fellow citizens and throw them into camps, they'd do it.
Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
I wonder what you guys think about this. Should such a conflict break out, how many people in the military would refuse orders, shoot their officers, defect, etc? WOuld there be mass assassination attempts on government leaders by citizens and military alike?
Originally posted by Shoktek
By the time people are in the military, and have been for a while, they WANT and NEED to obey orders...the conditioning is so much, that I think most people would just obey.
Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
I can't confirm or deny your conclusion, but being from where everyone of my uncles, a third of my siblings and cousins, and a good number of my friends have served in the military, I see no indication whatsoever that they felt or feel a need or desire to follow orders.
Originally posted by RockerDom
Face it, the Remington 870 IS an assault weapon. What the hell animals are you hunting that you need an 870 to take them down, whales? Maybe bear hunting, but not if you want to keep the carcass for mounting. Ever shot a deer with an 870? There'd be a hole big enough to put your head in.
Originally posted by para
So, while a law against a .50BMG or �assault rife� may seem sensible to Mr. and Mrs. America, it really is just the beginning if the end
[edit on 7/23/04 by para]
Originally posted by curme
The second Amendment was never intended for invidividuals to fight a corrupt government, but a state with their militia.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by curme
The second Amendment was never intended for invidividuals to fight a corrupt government, but a state with their militia.
Why wouldnt they have phrased it ,the right of the state militia to keep and bear Arms ,shall not be infringed? If this was their intent. The people that wrote the Amendent were not stupid they picked their words carefully. The used the word the ''People" for a reason.