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.

 

Time to take the gun from the American public!

page: 48
48
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
If you choose to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Many here stated they will defend their guns from being taken. Does that mean you will rather get shot dead, than have you weapon taken away? What then of your family who you wanted to protect with your guns?

vvv




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


I would rather die than live under that kind of tyranny. And my family would probably be right there by my side fighting as well. That would be their choice ultimately.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


I would rather die than live under that kind of tyranny. And my family would probably be right there by my side fighting as well. That would be their choice ultimately.


Understandably.

The fact of the matter is, that many guys on here claim to shoot back and fire back, if officials, military, police whoever came to fetch their guns. They use the exscuse of defending their families, and property. Yet, if they get shot, its all for naught. Their family lost a father and a provider, and most likely they will lose their property too.

If he choose not to engage in this violence, at least he still has his life, and his family has a father.

For me, the choice is easy. Rather live in peace with my family, than risk it all because I was too "hardcore" to hand over my weapons.

vvv



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes, redefining what constitutes an "arm" could potentially lead to quicksand. In the case of lasers, they have been used as "weapons" for some time, but not in the sense of burning holes through things. I don't know if you remember it, but several years ago, when the Russians were still "Soviets", there was an incident off the coast of Alaska where a Soviet warship aimed a laser at a US airplane, blinding the pilot. Now, strictly speaking, no projectiles were fired other than photons, and no blood was drawn. Was it a weaponization? I maintain that it was, but my opinion in the matter doesn't count for much.

It remains, however, that if the laser had blinded the pilot and caused the plane to CRASH because of that, the crew would have been no less dead than they would have been if the laser had burned the wings off, or punched holes through the crew.

Technology is entering a gray area. Take a Predator, for example. If it's just flying reconnaissance, is it a weapon? Or does it only become a weapon if missiles are attached to a firing platform? I personally think that it is a weapon in reconnaissance role, since the information gathered locates targets for whatever platform, just as the sights on a rifle locate the target for the rifle. I have a pretty broad definition of "weapon" personally. If it can be used to kill or injure, it's a weapon when used in that role. That covers everything from airborne lasers to sharpened pencils and even simpler things.

However, as I said above, MY definition doesn't count for much.

Can they exclude lasers and such like high tech tools from the definition of "arm"? Sure they can, but it won't change the use of them or how I view them. as long as they are used in a "weapon-like" capacity. So long as the definition pursuant tot the Second Amendment allows people to maintain projectile firearms, I'm ok with it. Let's face it - who is going to want to tote around a high powered laser, anyhow?

That would be more along the lines of a crew served weapon, and I'm confident that if the time ever comes that crew served weapons are needed in the people's hands, they will first have to gather a crew, and then the weapon availability won't be far behind. There's a lot of truth in the old saying that if war comes, you'll find all the weapons you need laying around the battlefield. gather the crew, the weapons will come, and at that point, no one is going to care who classifies what as which. if geurrillas/resistance fighters/insurgents/patriots/freedom fighter/insert you favorite label here worried over whether their weapons were legal or not, there would never be any revolutions any where. It makes no sense for a man to think "I'm about to kill - insert favorite tyranny here - but only if they allow me to have the weapons to X them out with".

One other thing about high tech weaponry - every weapons system that ever lived has had an exploitable vulnerability, and hi-tech is touchier in that regard than lo-tech. just because "they" have magic bullets it doesn't necessarily follow that the magic is going to work like planned - especially if some enterprising young soul discovers the weakness and exploits it via sabotage.

example - IR/heat detection in drones - you would be amazed what you can do against one with a mylar blanket. they can look for you all day to send a missile up your butt, but if they can't see you, the missile never comes.

You find the vulnerability and render it inop. Know what you get when you blow the track off of a multimillion dollar tank? 1) a paperweight, 2) a microwave oven to cook the crew in 3) bait to lure in a recover crew or 4) all of the above. Added bonus: If you blow it at the right point, you also have a roadblock to muck up transportation.

Similarly, everything on that battlefiled has vulnerabilities. This is why I don't lose any sleep when people say "butbutbut they have tanks and predators and artillery and Blackhawks! Citizens don't stand a chance!" There is ALWAYS a chance, and for a desperate man, a chance is enough to change the entire world.

It did 230 odd years ago, and back then muskets were a poor match for mortars and cannons, too.

Find the vulnerabilities, work them over, and play to win. Let the poeple who rely on hi tech worry about what went wrong with that reliance.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
If you choose to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.


Likewise, if you choose to live on your knees, you will die on your knees. Either way, you're gonna die, and most likely it will be the way you lived.



Many here stated they will defend their guns from being taken. Does that mean you will rather get shot dead, than have you weapon taken away?


You're damn right! I won't be going alone. If you won't stand up for yourself and your own freedom, what good is living in servitude? Can't live your life in fear of dying. It's going to happen eventually whether you're ready or not, whether you're scared of it or not. How you die isn't important - how you LIVE is.



What then of your family who you wanted to protect with your guns?

vvv


You know, I won't be around for them forever whether I get shot defending my rights, or whether I die of a heart attack walking out to the mail box at age 106. Sooner or later, I WILL die, that's just a fact of life, and it can happen at any time - there are NO guarantees in this life other than that it will end at some point. With that in mind, it's more prudent to prepare them to fend for themselves than it is to expect to live forever and always be there to haul their fat out of the fire. The time will come, regardless of unrest or no unrest, when they will have to be able to pull their own fat out of the fire. I prepare them for that, not for me to always be there to bail them out.

The entire purpose of raising a family is to prepare them for life, and whatever comes, then turn them loose and see if they can fly under their own power. I had to learn to fend for myself, and they will too. No one lives forever, and they will never see me set the example of caving in for slave masters, even if I have nothing left to fight with but rocks and ill will.

My family knows how to handle guns and think on their feet for themselves. I'm not an army of one, I'm a force multiplier.


edit on 2012/4/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

The fact of the matter is, that many guys on here claim to shoot back and fire back, if officials, military, police whoever came to fetch their guns. They use the exscuse of defending their families, and property. Yet, if they get shot, its all for naught. Their family lost a father and a provider, and most likely they will lose their property too.


If you get killed, you will have died for something, at least. I would rather die for something than live for nothing, In that case, I will have died having lost NOTHING. They won't take it until after I'm dead, and up to that point it's still mine.

Then they'll have to reckon with a thoroughly pissed of and motivated family. They will likely die with everything, too. I don't raise slaves for a living, and if that's the way you want the world to go, it will have to go there without me or my progeny. We won't live in it.



If he choose not to engage in this violence, at least he still has his life, and his family has a father.


Life is nothing. You will lose it eventually regardless of whether you stood up for what's right or not. My family doesn't need a worn out, broken nothing, a man who would not stand and be counted when it DID count, for a father.



For me, the choice is easy. Rather live in peace with my family, than risk it all because I was too "hardcore" to hand over my weapons.

vvv


Everyone would rather live in peace with their family. The fact is there are pricks in this world who make it their business to see to it that you won't have "peace" unless it's on their terms, at their pleasure. That's not "peace" at all.

There is another name entirely for that sort of "life".

I see you are from South Africa. I don't know your status, but ask yourself this: was freedom worth a fight to Nelson Mandela? Did guns make that fight easier? Regardless of his or your politics (and I don't much care for Mandela's politics myself) he put his money where his mouth was. He knew that anything worth living for is also worth dying for.

That concept is apolitical.






edit on 2012/4/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by lacrimaererum
 


Switzerland - only 68 firearm murders all of last year

www.nationmaster.com...

Switzerland has laws requiring EVERY male over the age of 18 to have a military assault rifle in their home. This is a government issued automatic weapon. They have a population of 6 million and there are more than 2 million publicly owned military weapons in the hands of civilians in their homes. This figure doesnt include privately owned firearms. They have - across the board - FAR lower violent crime statistics per capita than those of the US. The figures are so low that, until very recently, they didnt even keep statistics on them! What the US needs are MORE guns, not fewer.

BTW - Switzerland only began keeping records after they began to see an upswing in reports of violent crime in 1993 after - you guessed it - liberal àctivists were successful in abolishing their death penalty. There is now a referendum before their lawmakers to reinstate their death penalty. It is being opposed by - yep - liberal activists/politicians, who are calling for tighter restrictions on privately owned guns.

All these liberal psuedo-intellectual "arguments" against gun onwership rest on a single premise - blaming an inanimate object for human behavior. People kill - if you hold a loaded gun in your hand all your life and never pull the trigger, it will never kill any one or anything.

Guns do not kill, they are used by people who kill. People who know that, thanks to the fine work of liberal activists, they can kill and - even if caught and convicted - will never be put to death in many States, in more liberal states may get nothing more than years of mental counseling, and even in the states that have the death penalty they know they can live on for 20 years or more exhausting the appeal system, thanks to liberal activist organizations paying for legal help, while the rest of society pays to feed, clothe and house them.

Liberals actively work to reduce or remove the proven deterrents to criminal behavior, and are then shocked when this behavior occurs, then try and blame an inanimate object for the outcome of their failed and misguided policies.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
"I have the right to bear arms! It doesn't matter if guns being taken away altogether would solve all the problems. That's not as important as my right to bear arms! If people have to get shot by them, that's okay so long as I get to own a gun! I don't care if people children are taken away by gun-armed people, people are put through unthinkable things at gunpoint, or if every place imaginable is robbed by thugs. I have a right to own a gun even if it means it directly causes all of these things!"

Admit it. This is what 'The Right to Bear Arms' proclaims.

Irrelevant comments include:

"People are gonna get them illegally somehow anyway. People use knives for crimes too. People can make guns at home."

But, then again, I have no clue why I even try to convince anyone of anything. We'll call it ranting!
Yea..



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What about healthcare? Do you feel the government has a say in that?



Not merely no, but HELL NO! Great big capital letters with an exclamation point! None of the government's god-damned business how, when, or if I choose to take care of my own health.



Do you feel the government should have a say in ANYTHING other than declaring war every 2 years?



No, that's about it.


You'll have to specify which government you mean, but until then I'll assume you mean the federal government.; Their job is mediating disputes between states, and between this collection of states (the FEDERAL - i.e. a 'federation' - Republic) as a unit, and foreign powers. Their job internally is not micromanagement, it's mediation.

Their job in no way involves interfering to steal from one individual to give to another. If that were their job, they would be called "Robin Hood", not the Federal Government.



Yes I AM a progressive and PROUD of it.



I'm sorry. There are probably professionals that could help you shed that.

A cold hard look at reality, or the development of a desire for freedom would go a long way in shedding it for you.


All I know is that the health industry in america is way under-monitored and the rates exorbitant. Under such a free market system the prime objective is increasing profits each year for the stockholders.

Yes I am talking about the federal government. The conservatives think of the states almost as if they were individual nations bound in some loose union. The progressive views the states exactly as states bound to a federation called The United States of America. The job of the federal government is more than just mediating disputes. It SHOULD run social security, expand medicare and medicaid, run the military and protect the nation, ensure minimum requirements are met in all aspects of state governance. The federal government is the nanny of the states.

You go to ANY COUNTRY on this planet and what I say is nearly 100% accurate. The conservative in america needs to catch up with reality. The american constitution trumps all state constitutions and is the supreme law of the land, yet it is also outdated and dysfunctional. I think it needs to be re-examined thoroughly and updated/edited wherever necessary.

edit on 4/7/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Three
 


If you think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will "solve everything"........



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The healthcare system is a result of huge companies holding pseudo-monopolies, not being under-monitored..... You either need to be a billionaire, or climb into bed with those companies if you hope your treatment/cure sees the light of day. And if it is too good, it will just be buried by beuracracy, because these companies have too many politics in their pockets. Can't have a real cure get in the way of them selling you pills to mask symptoms for the rest of your life now can we



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three
"I have the right to bear arms! It doesn't matter if guns being taken away altogether would solve all the problems. That's not as important as my right to bear arms!


That contention has never been proven, anywhere on Earth or beyond. How do you propose that removal of guns will "solve all the problems"? Take hemorrhoids for example. Most people who have them consider them "problems". How will getting rid of guns solve the hemorrhoid problem?

The fact is, life comes equipped with problems. One deals with them, and always will have to.



If people have to get shot by them, that's okay so long as I get to own a gun!


it's more than OK, it's GREAT! That's the entire reason I have guns - in case I run into someone who desperately needs to be shot!



I don't care if people children are taken away by gun-armed people,


Twice I have prevented my children from being taken away by people with guns because I had an effective counter-argument, in a suitable caliber. Why do you not value your children enough to prevent people with guns from taking them away?



people are put through unthinkable things at gunpoint, or if every place imaginable is robbed by thugs. I have a right to own a gun even if it means it directly causes all of these things!"


My gun has NEVER robbed anyone, although I'm sure the gent who kicked my back door in thought it was an "unthinkable thing" to be met by a shotgun wielding householder. I did not pity him in the least, nor spare his "feelings". I'm not at all clear on why you think my gun "causes thugs to rob every place imaginable".



Admit it. This is what 'The Right to Bear Arms' proclaims.


It proclaims what I said, not what you ranted.



Irrelevant comments include:

"People are gonna get them illegally somehow anyway. People use knives for crimes too. People can make guns at home."


I'm not sure why you believe that crimes are irrelevant when YOU cite such directly above that claim as causes of concern


How are home made guns "irrelevant" to a discussion on the availability of guns?



But, then again, I have no clue why I even try to convince anyone of anything. We'll call it ranting!
Yea..


Yes, yes we can!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
If he choose not to engage in this violence, at least he still has his life, and his family has a father.
vvv


Existing in the stale calm of utopia does not sound appealing. Secondly just rolling over and turning the guns in will not stop crime. That is the very definition of the slippery slope argument.

Allow the guns to be taken and we effectively tossed the snow ball off the side of the cliff. By the time it gets to the bottom it won't be just guns that are taken.
edit on 7-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

All I know is that the health industry in america is way under-monitored and the rates exorbitant. Under such a free market system the prime objective is increasing profits each year for the stockholders.


I have no dog in that fight, since I am neither a consumer of nor stockholder in the health industry, nor ever will I be. I do agree it's a money-making mess, with little if any regard for health care, which is one of the reasons why I do not partake.



Yes I am talking about the federal government. The conservatives think of the states almost as if they were individual nations bound in some loose union.


That is precisely what "state" means in a political context. Look it up.



The progressive views the states exactly as states bound to a federation called The United States of America.


While you're looking up "state", look up "federation" as well. There is a reason the Federation is named "The United States of America", and not "The Monolithic Nation of America"



The job of the federal government is more than just mediating disputes. It SHOULD run social security, expand medicare and medicaid, run the military and protect the nation, ensure minimum requirements are met in all aspects of state governance. The federal government is the nanny of the states.


I can agree that the Federal government is mandated to raise an army in defense of the Federation against external sources, which is covered where I said that their job includes "foreign relations". Armies are a means of relating to nations who can't be otherwise reasoned with.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are absolutely NOT Federal problems. The federal government has no business at all dabbling in them. Nor should it be setting standards for state governmental internal affairs - only mediating in disputes between states.



You go to ANY COUNTRY on this planet and what I say is nearly 100% accurate.


How other countries govern themselves or handle their internal affairs is none of my business. I don't live in them, I live in the US.



The conservative in america needs to catch up with reality. The american constitution trumps all state constitutions and is the supreme law of the land, yet it is also outdated and dysfunctional.


It protects State Constitutions, but it does not "trump" them. It is a separate document, for a separate government. It governs the relationship between the people and the Federal government, and the relationship between the State governments and the Federal government. State constitutions govern the relationship between the people and their respective state governments.



I think it needs to be re-examined thoroughly and updated/edited wherever necessary.

edit on 4/7/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



Well of course you do! You've already admitted to being a Progressive, and that's what Progressives do. They have a proclivity to fix what isn't broken!



edit on 2012/4/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Their job in no way involves interfering to steal from one individual to give to another. If that were their job, they would be called "Robin Hood", not the Federal Government.


A free market system(aka ultra-capitalism) is based on the premise of money constantly flowing to the banks and business while workers starve from lack of benefits and offshoring. If the government does not intervene as it should then THIS is exactly what happens.

The government is supposed to govern. Companies exist to make money. Unions exist for the workers to bargain collectively with business. When government favors business by under-regulating them in all aspects, does not protect the local and national economy by implementing tariffs on foreign-made merchandise and services, seeks to literally weaken and destroy unions with nonsensical propaganda.......then we end up with A DYING ECONOMY where no one can afford to buy anything.

Please keep your distorted government hands-off approach to share with fellow misguided conservatives.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Good info...

My concerns are stemming from the advancement of less than lethal items / munitions. Currently tasers, pepper spray, batons / asp, bean bag rounds, flash bangs are all non classified / restricted to law enforcement use only depending on state.

We also have the newer techs coming out - sound guns / heat rays etc that falls under the same issues above. The only federal action taken on the list above is the taser and it came from the 9th circus court of appeals out on the left coast.

Their ruling established guidelines for when a taser can and cannot be used. It only applies to the 9th circuit but it reinforced the position those items are not considered weapons in the traditional form.

Another example / issue is how the technology is governed. A radar detector / radar gun are covered under FCC rules / guidelines, and there is some case law that supports the individuals use of the items.

Lasers on the other hand are governed by the FDA. I am seeing a trend with new technology where classification is being made through agency policies instead of Congress / Courts. Currently aside from a "gun" all other items fall under state laws / regulation / policies.

Food for thought and something we should be paying more attention to..



Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am pretty sure they said "bear Arms" on purpose, instead of "Own Guns". I could be wrong of course, but I think they said it that way to cover any future weapons as well as guns.

You are correct about right to bear arms.. My point in stating that is the 2nd amendmen t currently only applies to "guns"

Tasers etc (list above) are all weapons / arms but are not covered under the 2nd amendment. States that have laws restricting the sale, possession and use of tasers / asp / baton to law enforcement / military, are classifying those items as something not covered by the 2nd.

If they saw those items as the same then it would be noted in state laws (Taser in some states are considered a projectile weapon in the intrest of disclosure / debate).

I think in the zeal to defend the 2nd amendment we may have inadvertently backed the 2nd into the corner. All the rulings I have ever seen deal solely with the use of "guns". Until a case dealing with the others makes it to scotus the states can regulate and restrict those items.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lacrimaererum
 



Wow, this must have been a really good day considering all the people that live in the U.S.A. I say, this was indeed a good day. WOW, so few. We are getting better.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The healthcare system is a result of huge companies holding pseudo-monopolies, not being under-monitored..... You either need to be a billionaire, or climb into bed with those companies if you hope your treatment/cure sees the light of day. And if it is too good, it will just be buried by beuracracy, because these companies have too many politics in their pockets. Can't have a real cure get in the way of them selling you pills to mask symptoms for the rest of your life now can we


That is part of the problem. But another part of the problem seems to be a dogmatic church that discourages birth control and almost encourages families to have as many children as they want, while totally neglecting the big toll on the enviroment this places and the growing infrastructure necessary to accomodate a growing population.

MAYBE, just maybe, the elite know better that the world is over-populated but do not have the necessary conviction to tell us the truth and thus relly on the backdoor approach of killing people covertly by shortening their life span.

Who knows? The tax code and church encourage population growth, while the elite and georgia guidestones disagree.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

While you're looking up "state", look up "federation" as well. There is a reason the Federation is named "The United States of America", and not "The Monolithic Nation of America"


I could be wrong but it seems you are confusing unions with federations.



It protects State Constitutions, but it does not "trump" them. It is a separate document, for a separate government. It governs the relationship between the people and the Federal government, and the relationship between the State governments and the Federal government. State constitutions govern the relationship between the people and their respective state governments.


I am pretty sure the national constitution TRUMPS all the individual state constitutions. You could classify everything as "seperate" but in reality I think one form of government is merely an inferior or superior extension of the other.




Well of course you do! You've already admitted to being a Progressive, and that's what Progressives do. They have a proclivity to fix what isn't broken!

edit on 2012/4/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


That simply is untrue and does not make sense. You only fix what is broken!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

A free market system(aka ultra-capitalism) is based on the premise of money constantly flowing to the banks and business while workers starve from lack of benefits and offshoring. If the government does not intervene as it should then THIS is exactly what happens.


I have NEVER starved "for lack of benefits". I either scrounge my own grub or buy it with money - not benefits. If you think that approach will work for you, go to the grocery store and tell the manager you'll give him a cut of your 401k 20 years from now for a loaf of bread today, and see how far you get.

As far as offshoring goes, unions are as much to blame for that as government. Government allowed it, but unions DEMANDED it by pricing themselves out of jobs.



The government is supposed to govern. Companies exist to make money. Unions exist for the workers to bargain collectively with business.


Yes, govern. Not dictate. All the unions I ever dealt with were more interested in setting cars of fire, shooting into cars from overpasses, and beating passers by with ax handles. I was a member of SEIU for a while. They did exactly NOTHING for me, but expected me to do quote a lot for them.

Bastards.



When government favors business by under-regulating them in all aspects, does not protect the local and national economy by implementing tariffs on foreign-made merchandise and services, seeks to literally weaken and destroy unions with nonsensical propaganda.......then we end up with A DYING ECONOMY where no one can afford to buy anything.


Over-regulating is as dangerous to the economy as under-regulating, and unions have part of the shattered economic pie smeared all around their greedy maws, too. Rather than "under-regulation" or "over-regulation", I prefer to think of it as "malregulation", as that covers all bases.

If you find you can't afford something, tell the union to buy it for you. they have plenty of money, and some of it used to be yours before they took it for nothing.



Please keep your distorted government hands-off approach to share with fellow misguided conservatives.



Gladly, as long as you will keep your distorted, greedy "finger in everybody else's pie and nose in every one else's business" approach to share with your fellow misguided progressives.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join