Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

page: 30
81
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This video is an eye witness account of how Hitler took over Austria, she talks about guns at about the 28 minute mark.





posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I do think that depending on the size of the revolt (most likely rather small), that action would, and could, be isolated. They would not have to cut off everyone. Cell-phone jamming, internet lines, power, gas, satellite jamming, etc. could all be targeted and locked off to a specific area without much difficulty. Again, it's on our own soil, where all lines (power, cable, etc.) in and out are well-known and mapped.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
www.usatoday.com... another reply from the nra and this time they did a pretty good job in my opinion


Threats don't convince These events weighed on my mind as the NRA braced for a firestorm of hatred in the days after the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. A university professor suggested that NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre be beheaded so that the more thoughtful among us could display his "head on a stick." People who should know better told the NRA's receptionist that we were "responsible" for the actions of the lunatic who killed 20 schoolchildren. Someone posted on my son's Facebook page that I ought to be killed. When my son and his sister posted in response that that they were not me and that, in any event, they consider me an OK guy whom they don't really want killed, the response was swift: The man suggested that perhaps it would be better that they be killed, "so that your dad can suffer the loss of his children." Nice. I have wondered over the years at the intolerance of the political left. If those of us on the right were to engage in such over-the-top rhetoric, we would be rightly attacked by the news media and justifiably marginalized. Column after column would be written about how people like us are a danger to civil society because we reject the rules that allow such a society to function without violence. Too many establishment liberals not only mock conservative ideas, but also see those who hold them as either marginally deranged or, as a Homeland Security report suggested a few years ago, as potential terrorists. The "gun question" has always sparked heated debate between those of us who believe in the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" and those who disagree. It's a legitimate debate, one the NRA welcomes. Fortunately, facts matter to the millions of Americans who — whether they own firearms or not — aren't so easily convinced that we would be living happy lives in a violence-free utopia if we could just ban guns.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by okrian
 


Well, I must admit, that is the most creative attempt yet to decry gun-owners. Let's try a slightly more realistic scenario.

The revolution back in the day, only had 2% of the total population participating. many were loyalists, or just people trying to survive scratching a living out of the ground and couldn't have cared less.

The percentile of people in Afganistan fighting against us is even less if my understanding is correct.

This current system is much more fragile than back in the day. Your shutting of off all utilities etc. would wipe out multiple millions of lives, an unlikely scenario for addressing the "2%" rebelling.

It would be the rebels who would hack and shut down critical gov't systems. DOD, Satellite, drone computing systems, not the gov't. A Federal force couldn't move without being sniped, booby-trapped, it's their water that would be cut off, fouled, poisoned....

A good percentage of military would defect, either to be with their families and their safety or outright support of the rebels.

The rebels don't have to travel, per say, they federal troops would. The rebels pre-set "barriers" traps etc. blow bridges, railroads, dams making moving a large force pure hell.

There is a huge amount of food production in this nation. Those outside the cities wouldn't suffer much at all if the disribution system for food collapsed. Eventually, the gov't would suffer more than the civilians from what I can see.

Sure the Gov't can stockpile neccesities, but so can the rebels. The gov't locations are known, not so the "rebels".

No gov't can survive without the population's support for long. With 250 million weapons in civilian hands, it wouldn't take long at all....

Hopefully, neither scenario occurs. "Deny" all you want, an armed civilian population is a deterrent.

In the meantime, a whacked out 20 year old won't be able to get my whole family before one of us get him.

So have your faith in the police....to arrive when it's far too late. If I'm right, me and mine survive, you and yours do not. If I'm wrong we both survive anyways......

If you don't want a gun, fine. Stay a way from mine and you and I won't have any problems.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
A civil war is what they'll get if they attempt this proposed ban. But who would be fighting? 88% of military and police polled have stated they would refuse to go along with an unlawful order of this nature. So, theres estimated 80 million gun owners in America. And lets say 1/2 of them say "No WAY" and decide they'll fight. Thats 40 million gun owners. Fighting a force of what? 12% of the military and police? I dont see this working out well for them at all.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
To show how truly ridiculous this proposed ban is,

The Ruger Model 10-22 will cease to exist in one generation, if this bill is passed.

They have the 10-22 listed as an assault weapon.

Image of the 'ASSAULT WEAPON"
edit on 2-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by netwarrior
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You just compared a slower jacketed hollowpoint projectile with a faster full metal jacket projectile. Of course it's not going to expand as much, FMJ is designed for penetration.

Best ammo to use for 9mm is a quality jacketed hollowpoint. It doesn't punch through and the expansion slows it significantly, transmitting that energy to the surrounding tissues. That being said, I carry a .40 s&w, but I wouldn't feel terrible if that was 9mm. With good ammo 9mm is very effective. Just don't feed it cheap target ammo and expect it to work as good as the latest flavor from Cor-Bon or Hornady. FWIW.




I find it strange that people want both big caliber and fast speeds. An expanding .32acp is like a .380acp fmj and probably more destructive. An expanding .380acp is almost like .45acp and probably more destructive.

Fast speeds cause tunneling which is bad most of the time, not good. There are some instances where added penetration would be a good idea but not for everyone and not all the time.

Why spend more money on a big caliber gun with expensive ammunition? I simply don't get it.

And by chance has anyone seen the .38special and .44magnum? Are those like 100 yard weapons from a 3 inch pistol barrel not something to laugh about or what? Of course one man's beast is another man's angel. Whatever floats your boat!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My mistake. I googled around a bit and didn't find anything on crosswired, so I thought you were poking fun of me lol


Yeah its mostly slang for "right handed and left eyed" or "left handed and right eyed".

No worries man!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by elmrich
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I prefer the bigger, heavier loads for a pistol due to increasing trauma on the intended target. Here's a link to some excellent ammo testing if anybody is interested. www.youtube.com...
This guy also has the best video I've seen yet on this future AWB.


I prefer the big rounds for a short barralled rifle configuration. You get a more solid foundation to work on, which equates to more control and comfort. Of course these weapons are strictly controlled both by the federal and state governments. The feds tax you $200 and the states differ as to what they allow. If state says no, $200 is meaningless.

There is way too much gun regulation in america despite the second amendment which is pissed upon.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Multiple attackers. Say...3. Moving quickly, swinging at you with fists and weapons all while you are backpedaling and trying to get off a clear shot.In real life, most of the rounds will miss. And a handgun is really not ideal for stopping an attacker. Especially since most people carry a 9mm. Even with a high grain +p load, its not nearly as effective as a rifle/shotgun round.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


As far as I know, I am right handed, and also right eyed. My right eye is a tiny bit better than my left eye, on the rare occasions I close one eye to get a "better look" it's always my left eye that closes. Unless I am using a scope, normally both eyes stay open, but my head is a little angled putting my right eye closer to the target.

The guy I shot, I think he must have smoked not too long ago, I would say at least 80% of the pellets hit him. He was pretty close, my APT was pretty small lol. I had one BR, one livingroom/kitchen, and a bathroom. My walk in closet back in the country was bigger then my BR in that APT. My country BR bigger than my livingroom kitchen combo.

I opened the door, saw his knife, and picked up my first shotgun. I told him to drop the knife, he kept moving forward instead, so I moved back while firing the first shot. I hit the far wall, he kept coming forward so I unloaded two more as fast as I could. His night must have sucked horse balls getting all those pellets removed, but he lived.

Where I live now, it would be my AR15 with hollowpoints being fired, no worries about hitting neighbors, and no one sleeping on the first floor. But like I said many times, I am way more worried about giant coyotes and bears and wildcats, than human intruders here.
edit on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:14:09 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


As far as I know, I am right handed, and also right eyed. My right eye is a tiny bit better than my left eye, on the rare occasions I close one eye to get a "better look" it's always my left eye that closes. Unless I am using a scope, normally both eyes stay open, but my head is a little angled putting my right eye closer to the target.

The guy I shot, I think he must have smoked not too long ago, I would say at least 80% of the pellets hit him. He was pretty close, my APT was pretty small lol. I had one BR, one livingroom/kitchen, and a bathroom. My walk in closet back in the country was bigger then my BR in that APT. My country BR bigger than my livingroom kitchen combo.

I opened the door, saw his knife, and picked up my first shotgun. I told him to drop the knife, he kept moving forward instead, so I moved back while firing the first shot. I hit the far wall, he kept coming forward so I unloaded two more as fast as I could. His night must have sucked horse balls getting all those pellets removed, but he lived.

Where I live now, it would be my AR15 with hollowpoints being fired, no worries about hitting neighbors, and no one sleeping on the first floor. But like I said many times, I am way more worried about giant coyotes and bears and wildcats, than human intruders here.
edit on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:14:09 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Right eye, left eye...It is purely academic when you get to a high level of pistol training, anyway.
The pros teach the triangle sight alignment techniques, so it comes from muscle memory and not visually aiming your weapon. And, most CQC instructors will frown heavily if you take the time to aim with your eyes, anyway. No time to think about perfection when you find yourself in a serious confrontation. Besides, in the time it takes you to draw and point your weapon, you have already determined the threat, assessed your background and have nothing left but to squeeze twice and move up a tad for a final. Then re-assess...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Don't be foolish enough to think we are going down like New York probably will either.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Does anyone else wonder, Why aren't the Gun Manufacturers protesting all of this???

This ban, if passed as written would put many out of business! That is, unless they have already secured some nice Govt. contracts...Can you say Kel-Tec??? Anyone???



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


also in the political arena, these anti gun idiots have armed guards, their own guns, point guns at crowds as speech props with their finger on the trigger, advocating gun confiscation, cheer berry soetero on for having drones mass murder unarmed kids, but soetero has a cult of personality backing him and his photoshop birth certificate. it's a pageant with national socialist motivational speaking under the guise of partisan vs. partisan looney tunes. i think if you look a little deeper, you might find gun manufacturers protesting this. usually after false flags like this, gun sales go up, why? tptb want our guns, the gun prices go up, as people know they want our guns, so getting new ones during a false flag attack, is counter effective when you try to buy something like an m-16$5-600 or an ak- 47 $3-400 normallly is now $600 to $1500. so how many of these manufacturers are making bank on this?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 





so how many of these manufacturers are making bank on this?


Not too many, I'd presume...They are still selling to the wholesalers which are selling to the distributors, which sell to the retailers...I think it's the latter that's making the big money! Those and all the private collections that are taking advantage...

p.s. Where can I get an M-16, for $600? I'll buy a pallet of them for that price...lol



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


it's near colorado but since anonymity is an active trend on the internet, i must respectively not say where. like near montana in a place with lollipop forests and gumdrop smiles (cabin fever anyone?) but since false flag attacks, the prices are kinda rising. i might suggest gun shows between washington and colorado to start off with. and since i gave you advice, i want pick of the litter. i mean hell since they traded pokeymon cards we might as well trade oldsmobiles for guns since oldsmobiles are like guns except you cant play pedestrian polo with an m-16
so they might try to take our oldsmobiles
edit on 4-1-2013 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
thehill.com... an update on various guns bills proposed from republicans(get rid of gun free zones) and democrats (various ban attempts)
snippet from the republican bills

Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990. "By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children," Stockman said. "In the 22 years before enactment of 'gun free school zones' there were two mass school shootings. "In the 22 years since enactment of 'gun free schools' there have been 10 mass school shootings," he added. "Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger."


from the democrats bills

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was shot to death in 1993, introduced four of the bills. The congresswoman has vowed to seek changes in federal law in response to the school shooting. H.R. 137 and 138 from McCarthy would require people prohibited from buying firearms to be listed in a national database, and would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips. McCarthy's H.R. 141 would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows, which would close the so-called gun-show loophole. Her H.R. 142 would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.


and just for the heck of it one of the better comments from the article


Meathead • 3 minutes ago I've owned firearms for 67 years and during that time, Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my guns did. Proof: A liberal with a car is more deadly than a conservative with a gun. You really believe that you want "gun control" by the government? You're wanting Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Sharpton, etc., who have armed guards, to have total control over you? Here's some gun control history for you: * 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. *That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated. When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty. John Perna



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


I just picked up 3 handguns today, Shhhhhhh, most canadians think handguns are gone from the country

Many people who owned them didn't bother giving them up. Many people opted out of registering their "long guns" too. It would shock a lot of candians to know we legally have 6 "assault rifles" in our house


It amazes me to see canadians posting here, under the delusion that guns are wiped out of canada. Shunning the US like they are evil, yet the gun laws up here are pretty similar. Canadians got plenty of "gun nuts", there are more guns than people in my town, by a long shot. The long gun registry experiment up here solved a whopping zero gun crimes, and the handgun grab didn't even wipe out half the handguns, and only opened up a lucrative black market. If I thought it was worth that hassle, I could have brought my handguns up here in the moving truck, and gotten ten times what I paid for them in the US.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas

Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated. When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty. John Perna


Yep. Part of the long range plans, no doubt. They are preparing to disarm the American population, and extermination of all opposition on the lists will follow shortly thereafter.

"We're sorry Ma'am, your son was listed as a potential terrorist, and he was killed. Our new policy of preemptive zero tolerance after the gun confiscations has been quite successful. You should rejoice!"






new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join