It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by clayb2004
Yes, you should.
Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Phenomium
I'd just like to add a small bit to your post about protection from government.
An armed populace can never be overtly enslaved. They are only susceptible to covert slavery.
I dont know about anyone else but I personally would much rather be covertly enslaved than overtly.edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)
So from what I can gather from the information gleaned from these boards, and from the vast majority of Americans I have met in the real world, outside Internet Land, is that they, yourself included, would only give up their firearms if it came to the end of the world, or if force was used to remove said firearms
Not sure if you know any Australians outside these boards here, but let me give you some information about us - we have a VERY sarcastic sense of humour. If you honestly thought that was an attack on you, or your character, then you need to take a step back and look at what I said from a different angle, or at least realise that some of the things I have said have been in a sarcastic attempt at humour. May have worked, may not have. Not everyone has the same sense of humour, and finds the same things funny.
In all seriousness though, answer me this - At the end of the day, is it ABSOLUTELY necessary for a Civilian to own an Automatic/Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle, regardless of the calibre of the rifle? As many people have said on here, even a .357 Magnum will make someone have a bad day, even with body armour on.
And think of this, too. To all the people saying "well even if one person in the cinema was armed, they would have been able to stop the gunman from shooting/killing so many people" - how many people, outside of the Military/Police Forces, have the ability, the critical thinking, and the plain old rational thinking, to take down an armed gunman in a crowded cinema, ESPECIALLY if the reports are true that he threw smoke and stun/concussion grenades into the room? Not very many at all.
The point I'm trying to make (just so it's clear to everyone), is that if there was someone other than the Gunman in the Cinema that was armed, there is a fairly good chance that things could have gotten uglier VERY quickly if a firefight broke out, especially in a crowded cinema with smoke going everywhere, making visibility less than ideal.
Originally posted by clayb2004
reply to post by projectvxn
I'm also a member of the Military and share your thoughts exactly. Our oath is to first support and defend the constitution before all other sentences. The 2nd amendment just happens to be one of my favorite parts of that constitution. Any order to violate it, in any way, would be unlawful in my opinion.
And that's why I said Civilian in my question to you. I have no problems whatsoever with those who are in service owning Assault weapons, because of the simple reason that you have the proper training to use them, and handle them as part of you job description.
How many Civilians can honestly say the same? I'm making a guess of not many at all.
I guess we are to disagree with each other though. From my point of view, if someone can't take down an armed intruder/robber/rapist/whatever with a pistol, then I really wouldn't want that person to be able to access weapons that have a higher round capacity, that is able to fire on full-auto.
When does the tipping point happen, where US Citizens rise up, armed, to take those freedoms back? Not being a US citizen, I don't really follow how the US Constitution goes, but isn't that the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written, so that US Citizens could rise up against the Government when it begins stripping freedoms from its citizens, and have weapons to use and defend themselves?
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
That's if that senior NCO or Officer doesn't agree with you. Which would be hard to find in today's Army I assure you.
There are all kinds of disagreements with NCOs and Officers. It's not all cut and dry.