Will, We the People Succumb To The Assault Of Our Second Amendment Right?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
right on !!!

this is 'merica !!!!

we need to arm the pre-schoolers !!!!




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Yea you said it....we still got those guns. Makes you sick does it?


Makes me laugh actually.

Seriously though, its reading posts like yours that makes me glad my mother didn't drop me on my head as a baby.


edit on 22/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 




With the greatest respect for your OP hounddog which you’ve obviously put some effort into, but essentially this thread is a rehashing of a large number of threads on the same topic so I do not see why you won’t respond to anything else I’ve said.

I understand exactly what you’re saying about Iraq and Afghanistan but here you make a few assumptions which I will address.

Let’s assume your fears are real and that at some point in time your government will turn against you. Why would they do and what would their motivations be? Not to enslave you, for TPTB are already getting everything they need out of you already. Basically they’d simply want to wipe you out to get the population down to about 500 million or so (also this chosen remnant population would probably not include too many US citizens – too much hassle).

Now wiping out everyone left alive in a certain locale is a lot easier than going after specific targets hiding in amongst innocent civilians. Send up a drone, turn on your heat seeking/night vision, and then blow up anything alive larger than a small calf. Easy. I highly doubt that will take longer than a few years or so.

 


Although you’ve chosen to ignore all other points I’ve made at least let me ask these few questions. I promise to play nice. Your opinions about guns seem so alien to me I simply want to understand where you’re coming from.

***If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?

***If not why?

***If this reason is based on your fear that one day TPTB will turn against us, is there a particular level of violence society would have to reach before you would consider restrictions on guns or is your fear of TPTB just too great for you ever to consider this? If any other pro-gunners wish to answer these questions please go ahead.

edit on 22/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
home.comcast.net...

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody.


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sun Dec 23 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mwc273
 


Inspiring. No truly it is. Seems kinda familiar though...

home.comcast.net...

Way to go trying to rip off someone else's hard work and pass it off as your own. I knew I'd seen this propaganda before.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Wasn't trying to take credit for it. Just love it. Have saved it as a text file and I just copied and pasted because I couldn't improve on it. Should have, and now have appended my copy with:

Author Unknown: ( from Soldier of Fortune magazine, October 1994.)


home.comcast.net...
www.crossbownation.com...
mbd.scout.com...
www.wopular.com...
thesurvivalpodcast.com...
www.activistpost.com...
theulstermanreport.com...
groups.google.com... .constitution%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1999-01%3F
www.keepandbeararms.com...

And about 146,000 other results...



edit on 23-12-2012 by mwc273 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwc273
Wasn't trying to take credit for it. Just love it. Have saved it as a text file and I just copied and pasted because I couldn't improve on it. Should have, and now have appended my copy with:

Author Unknown: ( from Soldier of Fortune magazine, October 1994.)



Seems you really do love it as you've posted it approximately 1/2 a dozen times without giving this particular reference.

It's probably a good idea to reference anything that you didn't originally author even if you cannot provide a link. You may also want to frame it using the

ex-text
box located above where you type your responses just so this is quite clear to everyone else.


edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mwc273
 


While you're at it, care to answer any of the questions I posed in the post above your first one (which I included below)? No body else here seems too interested in pulling their heads out of the sand and having a meaningful debate.

-------------------

***If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?

***If not why?

***If this reason is based on your fear that one day TPTB will turn against us, is there a particular level of violence society would have to reach before you would consider restrictions on guns or is your fear of TPTB just too great for you ever to consider this? If any other pro-gunners wish to answer these questions please go ahead.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


***If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?

***If not why?

***If this reason is based on your fear that one day TPTB will turn against us, is there a particular level of violence society would have to reach before you would consider restrictions on guns or is your fear of TPTB just too great for you ever to consider this? If any other pro-gunners wish to answer these questions please go ahead.


first let me let me say that the first is a loaded question,if i answer in the way you expect me to i'm gonna sound like a ass. so be it.

No.

no one in their right mind wants to see men, women, or children killed. but i also don't want to have to be penalized for some people not being able to control themselves,or someone who gets angry,or someone who looses it for a brief amount of time, or for what ever reason. me, i have never killed any one, and no one can take my guns and use them to kill someone else, i take out the firing pins, trigger groups, or bolts when in storage, and lock them away in a separate place. and the two that are not, are hidden so that i am the only one who knows where they are, but not so well that they can't be accessed quickly.

just like i said in my op that there are said to be 20,000 gun laws on the books here in the U.S. i don't know that for sure, i do know that there are many federal laws, and states have many laws, i,ve only looked a a few of both. it has also been said that there are not that many, maybe only a few hundred. whether it is hundreds or thousands, there needs to be better enforcement of those laws. i could point how, but then this would be a long drawn out post, maybe we could talk about that later.

one thing is for certain, the heart of some men is truly evil, and if they want to kill someone they will find away to attempt it. and it might be more horrific, than shooting some one.

the second question, i will try to choose words that hopefully get by the prying ears.




No.

if i was ever to be at odds with them, it would be all out. even now my own, has chosen to make life difficult in some areas. but not so much as to cause me to to go it alone, that would be ridiculous. there may come a day that i or someone else my have to set a example. but hopefully that day will never come. but that's just wishful thinking. sooner or later, maybe in my lifetime, maybe not, it will happen here again. the world will never be a enlightened utopia that many want it to be. man has always been at one anthers throat, and always will be. just go back and look at what the scientists,anthropologist or any other fields say about the early version of man and check written history, man has been killing man in some form or another as long as there has been a species.

as i said before, the heart of some men is truly evil.


one thing is proven. government is out to feed it's self. history shows this time and time again. there has been no government that has not, no matter what form it takes. they are always passing some sort of law, that is design to control you. not expand your freedoms. if you buy into the to the spiel that they give you about , how good this law is, or how this will help this, or do that. then your blind. it is designed to give them just one more measure of control. look deeper into the laws and see who benefits the most and then you see who is coming out on top.

now don't misunderstand me, some laws are need, but should be enacted with common sense, not by playing on emotion or fear.thank God that our founding fathers knew that

tptb can and will try to enslave people with laws, the founders knew that, and in adding the second amendment, and interpreting it the way they meant it, (if there are doubts read their own writings about the subject or see the speeches they gave.) so we could stop any and all corruption in our government.
another thing our founding fathers intended, was that the government was to for the people and by the people, not some ruling class like that was in europe or some carrier politicians like we have now.

that means that even the lowest person in society,could serve in public office if their peers wanted them to. not just the elite/rich.






edit on 23-12-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


Sure.

Part one: Short answer, No.

Part two: Because statistics show just the opposite is true. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Contrary to propaganda put forth by anti-gunners, having more guns in the hands of civilians ( IE; concealed carry ) does not result in chaos and anarchy, it actually results in lower crime rates, as the criminals are more cautious because they never know who might shoot back. I personally think that any teacher, principal, school janitor, or visiting parent, who chooses to make the commitment to the CC lifestyle should be able to do so. If someone at that school, or at that theater, or at any of the other horrific murder sprees of late, had had their weapon, the body count(s) would have been much lower.

Part three: Re-read my previous post, by Author Unknown.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Thanks for putting in the effort into responding; and its nice to be able to discuss such things civilly. I know I can be pretty hot headed initially as well. I do believe there are a few flaws in your logic when one looks at the wider picture, but I got a feeling my time on this thread is done as what little debate has taken place just seems to go around in circles. If you are interested I'd love to respond in detail as you seem nice and you've obviously put a lot of effort into your response. Otherwise thanks again.

Also if it means anything I tried to make that 1st question as 'unloaded' as possible.



edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mwc273
 


I'd be interested in what statistics you are actually looking at. Also you are avoiding the question by fobbing it off as propaganda.

I asked

'If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?'

What I didn't ask was your opinion on whether or not the stats are merely propaganda or not.

It can and has worked before. Australias last major massacre was in 1996. After this the Australian government outlawed assault rifles and instigated a buy back scheme. No bodies kidding themselves that it has completely removed every gun, but those that are left are rarely seen and used even less because otherwise they would be confiscated. Since that time the two main crimes associated with firearms (robbery and homicide) have actually dropped.
www.aic.gov.au...



edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
You have no chice. This is the beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment idiocy. Gun "rights" WILL be minimized. Fascists on SCOTUS, like Scalia, WILL be replaced. The old white male is going extinct.

Like all great change, this will take awhile ... but it is I N E V I T A B L E. It is as inevitable as the old white male being in the minority.

America is now a VERY different Nation. It is why the Right is squalling so much. It is over and America is saved.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by angrysniper


reply to post by Logarock
 


American ideals of freedom... Give me a break. Do you feel free when the TSA are feeling up your privates just to board a plane? Do you feel free having armed guards at your children's schools? Do you feel free living in a country where the rate of gun related homicide is 10 times that on average of almost all other 1st World nations? If this is your idea of freedom you can keep it.

You're not free to own a missile launcher, your not free to own an atomic bomb; and this is what is what you'll need if you want any chance of survival assuming your government were ever to turn against you.

So yeah, go ahead and keep your bushmasters and your pitch forks and whatever else you'll feel might protect you when an unmanned drone fires a missile at your prepper compound. I'll stick to my country where even though people aren't allowed guns except under exceptional circumstances; my kids can go to school without having to walk through a metal detector, where i don't have to worry that every thief carrys a gun and children aren't
being massacred on an annual basis.

As I said above you are weighing up some imagined NWO fear with the very real occurrence of children getting massacred. Maybe the reason the States has gone to the dogs is because instead of doing something that might actually make a difference you all just sit there with your assault rifles tightly grasped in your bony knuckes thinking 'well at least i've still got my guns'.

But hey, anything to free right...
edit on 22/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)


It is my considered opinion that the moment our government disarms us your government will have nothing to fear in descending on you. This is why you see people of other nations (including your own), begging america not to give up our guns! Once we free ourselves from tyranny, we will then be able to free the rest of the world. The whole world watches this with great interest for a reason!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 


I have what you need to hear..
I can see your point only when I view the world as small....the land as crowded and close socially.....and inactive desk sitters or university proffessors society. Here in Texas one is all on his own about personal space. Freedom greets one immediatly....as you go out and try "to not be a victim", and enjoy the blessings of the days and years with your people.
There's 7 miles of open pasture and fields between my addition and the town. We go out predator calling at night, and there's hogs that fun to interact with....PLEASE don't tell me I have to go exploring out there with my grandsons.....WITHOUT MY S&W 44 MAG with red-dot quick point( that groups 2 inches at 130 yards benched).....please, not that



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 



This post and your point of view is seriously one of the more pathetic ones I’ve read in quite a while. At least the other pro-gunners (on the whole) are trying to counter with points that seem logical to them. You on the other hand involve yourself in a thread which is pretty much guaranteed to end up slightly confrontational, yet as soon a dissenting voice rouses itself you stick your fingers in your ears and start shouting ENOUGH!!! Quite sad really. If you really do speak for everyone in your county as you claim then it’s little wonder the once great USA is little more now than a great big international joke.

Well. again, what Utopia is it you live in? England? Norway? Germany? France? Err...I can site MULTIPLE spree killings that have happened in EACH of those nations full of people throwing stones at us this week. Really.... ENOUGH.


I would wager a substantial amount of money that the combined number of victims of the massacres in all the countries you mentioned above would not equal the body count littered across the USA.


You know...I wasn't even going to reply to this. Then? I came to this.


I'd be interested in what statistics you are actually looking at. Also you are avoiding the question by fobbing it off as propaganda.

I asked

'If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?'

What I didn't ask was your opinion on whether or not the stats are merely propaganda or not.


Now after the unprovoked nature of the ugliness you showed me, coming across the above reply to another member blew me away. Look again at your reply to me a page ago. WHO is using unsourced and unsubstantiated claims of stats? Who isn't supporting wild claims while using those claims to 'debunk' or question the credibility of other specific folks?

Hey, I'd appreciate it...in hindsight, if you could now support that statement you made on the reply to me. Your "wager" is no more valuable to me than opinion and everyone has one of those....most are full of unmentionable content without legitimate sourcing...so as you are obviously a man who appreciates sourcing by the attacks you levy against others, you can absolutely source your own claim there......correct?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Response to the video asking How many more?
As many as it takes the Federal Government to convince us to give up our rights as citizines.

These "actors" are just that, Paid to say whatever is written for their part in the show.
I'm sure everyone knows that actors are nothing more nor less than professional liars, it is what they do for a living.

silo13
True many in this country have lost the courage of their convictions.
But I can still hope we are wrong.

Wrabbit2000
Sad to say it, but Obama is now in a position to change the balance in the supreme court.

1littlewolf

***If outlawing assault rifles and placing severe restrictions on other types of guns was shown to reduce the amount of people/children being killed each year, would you then be willing to wave you 2nd amendment rights?

Nope,
Assault Rifles plural of as·sault ri·fle
Noun
A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

***If not why?


There is a falsehood being perpetrated upon the public. You see an “Assault Rifle,” has what is known as a selector switch. This switch allows the shooter to change the weapons function from semi automatic (like a hunting gun) to rapid fire or in some cases auto fire. Rapid fire allows the weapon to fire a burst of three rounds. Auto fire allows it to continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed.

This is important: An AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.”

It’s Military counterpart, the M16 IS an “Assault Rifle.”

www.infowars.com...

***If this reason is based on your fear that one day TPTB will turn against us, is there a particular level of violence society would have to reach before you would consider restrictions on guns or is your fear of TPTB just too great for you ever to consider this? If any other pro-gunners wish to answer these questions please go ahead.

Short answer: No
Long answer:
When all governments, worldwide, affirm that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When all governments, worldwide, lay down their weapons and no longer use force and manipulation to ensure their rule over the people they are supposed to protect and serve;

When all governments, worldwide, lay down their weapons and no longer feel it is necessary to try to impose their rule upon another government, or the people in another territory;

When religious leaders no longer call for the forceful conversion of non-believers.

When the criminal elements within the population of the world no longer threaten peaceful people and/or the resources thereof;

Then, and only then, will I relinquish my ability to defend myself from them.

I will however, retain my ability to defend myself and my property from wild predatory animals and my ability to hunt for food.

I do not fear the criminal element in society, because I have the ability to defend myself from them.
I do not fear wild animals, also because I have the ability to defend myself from them.

It is the governments of this world that are my greatest concern, because they have no respect for the common people and no incentive to listen to them. I say this in the full realization that many of the governments of this world, even the United Nations, seem to feel that the people of this world are only here to serve them, not the other way around.


A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Ayn Rand

www.aynrand.org...

The United States government was never meant to be sovereign over the people of this country quite the reverse actually.

LeLeu
Many of America's schools already have armed police or guards. Most also have CCTV in the halls, I wonder where that film is from Sandyhook.

1littlewolf
Let me put this quote into a better context for you:

All it takes for Evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing
-Edward Burke
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to be unable to act. Get it?



syrinx high priest
No we need to guard them with responsible, trained and armed adults.
Why are there no threads about the number of weapons in the hands of the people of Switzerland?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I pose a question to all you anti-gun people. If and when confronted by an armed criminal, (and they will always have the ability to be armed as they do not follow the law) whom has the better chance at survival, me with my weapon, or you with your Lamborfeeties?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
No takers? Just answer the question with a simple you or I, I dare you!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mwc273
 



Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.



Have you ever heard of the “Dick Act of 1902?” More properly known as the “Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654″. Oddly enough it is not available online from government sources, only a “catalog page” found at The Library of Congress .

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
12160.info...

The only part of the linked article I disagreed with is where it says "vote republican". Now if he'd said vote with your feet, I'd be pullin' on my boots.






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join