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.


Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes Pledges to Resist Any Assault Weapons Ban - Hundreds Agree...

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:03 AM

Originally posted by freedomwv
I do not mean to stir up some s*** but I have to wonder; Why would someone need a fully automatic assault weapon? That kind of gun is usually used to kill a lot of people really fast. How many times does the average person find themselves in that kind of situation during the course of their life?

When I lived in America I had three guns; a shotgun, rifle and a handgun. I never felt the need to own a fully automatic assault gun...ever. Daily life was never so dangerous that I needed the kind of fire power which could kill a mass amount of people at once. I grew up in America and lived there for 27 years and never once did I feel I needed a super high power gun. Are there really places in the USA so dangerous that someone needs a AK-47?

Well, this is the problem--that people are arguing on the subject without knowlege of the subject. Full autos have been banned without special governmental permissions and licenses since 1934. The AR-15s and AK-47s are semiautomatic versions of the military rifles that resemble them in appearence, but do not have the full auto capability (and no, they are not "easily" convertable). They operate no differently than any otehr semi-automatic, including your grandfather's browning deer rifle. They just look more scary to the uninformed.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by DaTroof

Legal guns are the source of illegal guns. This isn't the chicken and the egg. It's really sad how many here think taking guns away is one step away from chaos or whatever paranoid delusions they've carved into their belief systems.

A gun ends someone's freedom, it doesn't provide it. Two guns end someone's life.

Life, liberty... impossible with armed citizenry.

What? Liberty has been created by the armed citizen throughout history. Throughout history, the ruling elite has tried to consolidate power by disarming the peasants: word bans, crossbow bans, matchlock bans. Bans on armor. Bans on spears. An armed citizen is an anthema to a power hungry elitist.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by DaTroof
So they take an oath to defend the Constitution, but cry when there is public support for Constitutionally repealing an amendment?

They don't really understand what the Constitution is, do they?

Actually it is YOU who does not understand the constitution. The first 10 amendments CAN NOT be repealed. That is why they are the bill of rights... that is why they are UNALIENABLE. What you fail to realize is that the Bill of Rights exists whether or not it is on paper. "We hold these truths to be self evident" means exactly that. The founders felt it necessary to write them down, even though they are indeed self evident, just in case a bunch of morons came along and didn't get this very easy to understand concept.

The phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident...." actually comes out of The Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution. Re the Bill of Rights...they are a list of individual rights that were written into the Constitution after the fact but nonetheless represent "Amendments" (first ten) and as such they can technically be repealed.

This has been debated quite a bit. The main difference with the Bill of Rights, or the First Ten Amendments of the Constitution, was that none of the states would ratify the original document without those Amendments in place first. Thus, there is strong historical and legal thought that removing the bill of rights would actually make the whole document null and void.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:12 AM
Thank you Oath Keepers.

I'm still amazed by people, who even after you explain to them the importance of the 2nd amendment, just don't want to believe in it's original intent or why it's still so important.

It seems for many this hinges on their believe and trust in big government, they laugh when you suggest tyrannical governments can take everything from you once you're disarmed. Despite evidence throughout history and in recent times our own country has given us the clearest evidence there is.

After I explain this simple point to someone who is anti-2nd amendment, if they refuse to recognize it, I lose all respect for them in so many ways. Some people just want to have a big brother protecting and telling them what to do all the time, it's just the way it is. They dislike that you don't submit and are so independent. The media loads their lips and teaches them how to think against what should be a natural instinct.

Safety does not outweigh freedom to true Americans.

I'm ready for this fight. If I leave this earth tomorrow or years from now, I want to be able to say I at least tried to do the right thing for myself, my family and future generations. It always takes sacrifice, I just hope we can recognize each other when the time comes.

new topics

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in