It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JBA2848
dude, do you even read your OWN links ??
so, are you saying we are better off and 'restricted' to a point that it provides greater safety to the public, or not ?
The law, which the fertilizer industry supported, leaves the U.S. with weaker controls on ammonium nitrate than Britain, Germany, Australia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and many other nations.
Originally posted by unityemissions
Where is the motive
I fail too see why any sane man would attempt to create and lead a civil war in the US without very good reason.
Originally posted by beezzer
The right to self-determine is being fought right now and we are losing.
We no longer can self-determine our own healthcare.
And the American people took it.
I don't see the gun argument being much different. People will be vocal. People will voice their opinion.
It won't matter.
The disassembly of the 2nd Amendment has just begun. How we respond AFTER they take it, will be very telling.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by beezzer
So you think people are rushing to get guns right now only to turn them in if they pass some BS statute? I beg to differ my friend...
ANYONE who would try to oppress me by trying to remove my God given rights, is a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by johngalt722
Removing guns out of the hands of the citizens makes them unable to defend themselves. Once that happens, the citizens become much more dependent on the government and the government is able to control them much easier.
The country will be divided on this issue and I fear for what will happen in the near future.
Fear mongering. Obama has NEVER stated that he wants to remove all guns from American citizens. EVER.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Wait, a civil war between who? The anti-gun people don't usually have guns, so who are the pro-gunners going to shoot - unarmed people?? Do you mean a war between the government and the gun nuts? Well, I hate to tell ya, but the government's military will win that one pretty quickly, as they have stuff a lot more powerful than guns at their disposal.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are trying to say here.
Originally posted by CB328
ANYONE who would try to oppress me by trying to remove my God given rights, is a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
You sound like much more of a threat to humanity to me. Gun fanatics are dangerous, backwards, immature and often anti-social, so who's bad for society?
Unless you live in the inner city, or Alaska where there's lot's of Grizzlies, you don't need a gun.
Originally posted by CB328
ANYONE who would try to oppress me by trying to remove my God given rights, is a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
You sound like much more of a threat to humanity to me. Gun fanatics are dangerous, backwards, immature and often anti-social, so who's bad for society?
Unless you live in the inner city, or Alaska where there's lot's of Grizzlies, you don't need a gun.
Originally posted by gunshooter
Originally posted by CB328
ANYONE who would try to oppress me by trying to remove my God given rights, is a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
You sound like much more of a threat to humanity to me. Gun fanatics are dangerous, backwards, immature and often anti-social, so who's bad for society?
Unless you live in the inner city, or Alaska where there's lot's of Grizzlies, you don't need a gun.
(BUZZER SOUND) Wrong answer, try again!
2