Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So the dreaded day arrives and they are coming for your guns

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Only an idiot would die for a tool..


Then again all your going to get is internet Rambo's doing some online strutting and such...saying..I will take one or more out...blah blah...all who have this romantic version of the outcome.

Truth is..most if not all of them would be wetting themselves or even better handing their weapons over without no fuss.

These same morons also say that the American gun owners would give them a hard time if they ever came for them...not even realizing that these same idiots would be scattered throughout the country and would pose no threat for any well armed and trained military. A few tanks...a few jets dropping bombs..and it would be over in a matter of hours or hell even minutes.

But hey ...keep your fantasies if it helps you sleep at night. I know and so do others who live in reality know what the outcome will be...annihilation...


The Russians felt the same way in Afghanistan prior to being booted out of that country. They figured Military might would dominate the landscape, and make short work of the Taliban. They were wrong.

Dont underestimate the will and tenacity of rebels with small firearms.
edit on 2-8-2012 by crawdad1914 because: spelling




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Dont underestimate the will and tenacity of rebels with small firearms.


Exactly.
If my memory serves me correctly, a rag tag group of relatively untrained "rebels" kicked the redcoats ass at one point in history. I do not see any reason why history could not repeat itself....again.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I live in Texas so as far as anyone knows, I don't own any guns. But if they want them, they need to be prepared to receive them one bullet at a time.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Your points are valid, what I am trying to say is there is no need for it to ever get that far. There is no reason for violence or talk of conflict.
Pass laws now that affirms your states membership in the Union is voluntary. Insure into the Federal Branch that the leaders of the state know this and the citizens of the state know this.
Let the laws passed by the people make it understood to Washington that there are limits not to be crossed, and if they are crossed consequences will be forth coming.
Each state needs to define its Line in the Sands so the Federal Branch knows its operating parameters and can legislate accordingly



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


We do not need laws, we have the Constitution. What more is needed?
What do you do when it is ignored and just thrown in the trash?
Suppose we did pass laws, what then when they ignore those too?
edit on 2-8-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


That is laughable on soo many levels. Using tanks or bombing a residential neighborhood would go over real well. Them jets and tanks need fuel and folks a bit tiffed at seeing their fellows house blown up may make it impossible for them to get that. A military force against a bunch of civilians don't always end good for the army.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
Well, if it is the blue hats, I might have a few options.

I could shoot on site, after all, a foreign armed soldier on my soil is an act of war and I could respond as such.

Of course I could try and catch me a POW.


Just wondering, I intend to uphold the oath I took, but would I also be held accountable to follow the Geneva Convention? While I do agree with it, in this case, I am not so sure I would be inclined to follow the directives of it.


The oath you took trumps all other doctrine. The Constitution is superior to all others.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Only an idiot would die for a tool..


Then again all your going to get is internet Rambo's doing some online strutting and such...saying..I will take one or more out...blah blah...all who have this romantic version of the outcome.

Truth is..most if not all of them would be wetting themselves or even better handing their weapons over without no fuss.

These same morons also say that the American gun owners would give them a hard time if they ever came for them...not even realizing that these same idiots would be scattered throughout the country and would pose no threat for any well armed and trained military. A few tanks...a few jets dropping bombs..and it would be over in a matter of hours or hell even minutes.

But hey ...keep your fantasies if it helps you sleep at night. I know and so do others who live in reality know what the outcome will be...annihilation...


It has nothing to do with the tool, or dying for a tool. It has EVERYTHING to do with natural rights and liberty, and resisting tyranny. If they get all of the guns, we are all just as good as dead anyway. All other countries have been disarmed, and they saved us for last because they know that it will be no easy task.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.




“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)



The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.



When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.



I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.



What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?



When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.



These are all quotes by Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, and one of the writers of the Declaration of Independance.
There are many other quotes by him about similar ideas, but i think that these few serve to illistrate how he felt about big government and the second amendment.
I think that they point out the actual reason for the second amendment.The supression of tyranny.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 



dont forget the one about revolution.....a little one now and then its a good thing.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Feltrick



The intent of the militia was that the people be the militia an dthe militia be the people. The intent was that every free man be armed because the RTKBA is the mark of the freeman. I suggest you read Hamilton's the Federalist #29. LINK


I think it goes beyond that. The framers had a check and balance for every government office and what better check than to have an armed populace. A dictator cannot control a populace that he is afraid of and a populace will never be controlled that can defend themselves.

As I stated previously, the idea was that the individual states would control the soldiers and the officers and, if the central government tried to overreach their authority, then the states could resist. Again, the idea was a weak central government acting on the states behalf in international affairs, and the states allowed a measure of autonomy in domestic affairs.

Seems the framers immediately forgot this at the end of the Revolutionary war when Congress ordered the army to disband. When the order was not carried out, Congress reissued the order stating, "standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican government, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism." One of my most favorite quotes!

But I digress, back to the 2nd Amendment..

The right to bear arms is two fold: Defense of the nation and the right of freemen to defend themselves. In some ways both are the same, in that, defense of ones nation is also defense of ones self. Basically, the central government created a ready made army for national defense. That was the purpose, defense, not nation building.

In the early 20th century, with more and more people moving into cities, the populace became less reliant on firearms. Congress, in 1932, seeing a need for a better trained populace, created the Civilian Marksmanship Program in order to ensure a better trained populace in the event of war.

Again, I do not dispute the fact that the framers believed in the right of freemen to bear arms, I just believe it was also for national defense and used to limit the powers of the central government.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
The premise here assumes the authorities coming to confiscate guns that are registered, and thus known to the authorities.

It does not consider the many guns out there, NOT registered, and thus NOT so easily subject to siezure.


Doesn't matter they will come to your house with metal detectors, infrared and probably x-ray guns to see any firearms you may be hiding.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
It is like talking to a wall sometimes, so let me try again to rephrase this.

You know how sometimes people find it necessary to renew their marriage vows, as a way to remind and reaffirm the commitment they made to each other so many years before
We got a serious need to either divorce or renew those vows.

The Constitution is our countries marriage vows, believe it or not there is some serious adultery going on and we need to apologize to each other, decide if we can still remain married and renew our vows, learn from our mistakes and pledge to never break those vows again



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


I think we get your intention and meaning in the post and your intentions are well meaning I'm certain. For me personally it's all about not giving the parasites in Washington any real legitimacy in this regard. They don't have the right or the power under our constitution to come for our guns so even opening the discussion with those in DC gives a legitimacy to the subject that is not deserved. This topic in regards to gun confiscation is not open for discussion with that ilk.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I don't have any… So ha ha!



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 

They have been training for years in Iraq and Afghanistan to find caches of weapons. And the technology is improving all the time (same will go for finding hidden gold, etc). They have "magic wand" hand held metal detectors, x-ray see thru the wall devices and ground penetrating radar.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 

Not only that but there will be many road blocks where you have to drive thru a big x-ray machine that can see thru your car and ID any hidden guns. AND if you are CCW licensed they will know it when they check your ID and perhaps when they pre-run your plates by computer as you approach the checkpoint. You can run but you cant drive.....



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I suspect that most of the so-called conservatives and guns-rights people on this board would fold like a cheap suit in the face of any actual attempt to take their guns. Look at the thread ongoing now about the FBI raiding homes because of subversive literature. While some posters with a rightward bias are arguing against this, a number are saying its great because anarchists are "criminals" and spoiled do-nothing Occupy hippies. They don't care about the actual violation of rights, which they've spent many an hour yapping about before. All that matters is sticking it to "the other side."

All the feds would have to do to get all these swaggering manly men to turn over their guns is to say they are doing it to protect the nation against those Godless hippies. "I sure ain't no hippie lover, officer. Here, take my guns. It's for the good of the nation, right?"



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
I guess its hard for a coward to imagine dying for what one beleives in

Agreed, a truly free man considers prison much worse than death.
Cages are for criminals and rabid animals, I am neither.
Star to you.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ronnieray123
reply to post by Sulie
 


Just where exactly are you gonna buy bullets from if there are no more legal guns? Walmarts? come on you guys think through the topic thoroughly, know your enemy better than that.

Our power is in enacting laws that say cross this line and we are outta here, The federal Branch cant live without ALL the tax dollars...we can win but not with bullets,
edit on 1-8-2012 by ronnieray123 because: (no reason given)

I do not simply "buy bullets", I make my own, then I reload them in old shells, it's called reloading.
Who says I need a walmart for primers and powder?
I think I would shop at the black mart!

And if we reach the point where our guns are being confiscated, diplomacy has failed and there is our line in the sand, clear as day.
At that point, any ammo you pull off of officials are spoils of war.
Or the new "Citizens Tax" if you will!
edit on 2-8-2012 by g146541 because: oops





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join