Obama Will Bring War To The USA In 2013 Using The Backing Of Anti-Gun Advocates to Divide Society.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The truth:

Your post is nothing but an articulation of your own, personal dream.

I think you secretly actually wish that Obama would "disarm the people" by military force, so you would have a reason to "go to war". Isn't this the primary reason you have guns in the first place?

It's nothing but a childish fantasy where you, as the gun-supporter, see yourself as some sort of hero who will then come to anyone's aid (using your gun).

It's a naive fantasy. Again..why don't you freely admit you would be more than eager if such a war would happen?

You are probably already polishing your guns in excited anticipation.... /facepalm
edit on 30-12-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JBA2848
 

dude, do you even read your OWN links ??

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.
so, are you saying we are better off and 'restricted' to a point that it provides greater safety to the public, or not ?


It kind of reminds me of a comment I made in another thread a while back.

They was bragging about how the gun control laws, and ownerships restrictions had prevented countless thousands of suicides in his country.

My response was something along the lines of….

“It must be a sad country you live in when you think the only reason the people around you are still alive, is because they are unable to find a way to kill themselves.”

My opinion also holds for this situation. It is a sad country you live in, when you think that the only reason people around you haven’t went on a mass murdering rampage, is because they can’t find anything to hurt anyone with.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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.


Using Obama and 'sane' in the same sentence is the best example of an oxymoron I've seen in a long time.

The man is hell bent on destroying the US and any other Nation in the World that he can before he proclaims himself as dictator. Sane people don't kill kids and call them acceptable casualties as a means to an end and sane people just aren't pathological liars like he has proven himself to be over 4 years.

And now the people line up to bow down and bend over once again? Believe me when I say that the World is confused as to why this mass murderer is in a second term.

The man is quite obviously not sane IMO. But if that's who the US wants in their office, so be it.

Peace



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
And if he doesn't will you stop posting and leave?

Good God man, your not a prophet and you have a poor imagination at that.
edit on 30-12-2012 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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.


I would normally agree with you but one thing on this issue the says otherwise is the tens of thousands of guns that are flying off the shelf right now. That says just the opposite. People are not buying them so they can turn them in or their hi cap mags etc... That sends a message loud and clear that the gov is not getting the guns period!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your average American gun owner will not turn their weapon on another American. They would rather cede their right than harm another. The government is counting on that. And, in my humble opinion, they are correct.

In the end, they will erase the 2nd Amendment from the lexicon of American history. To attack just to keep the right to defend, would be an anathema to most Americans.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I sure as hell would love to be wrong about the entire issue.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
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...



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

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...

I'm not sure why the big rush to purchase guns. Ideally, to arm themselves against a tyrannical government?

The media is in Obama's back pocket. The disinformation THEY spread concerning any gun grab will be spun so much that it'll almost be patriotic to turn them in.

I have a very poor view of our government's intentions and of the media in general. Of the average American? They are peaceful, law-abiding folks that just want to live their lives.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   


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.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

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.


He doesn't need to take all our guns, but when we are left with only six shooters, and pump shotguns we don't stand even half a chance against the machine, if you know why I'm saying...



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

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.


People with your view just don't understand how it will work.

I guess this is how you see it going down....

The government lines up on one side with their weapons and
Patriotic Americans (or armed domestic terrorists depending on your view) line up on the other with their weapons and just shoot it out like we did with the Redcoats...

That's not how it will happen. Will the military shoot every person they come across? If not how will they know who is a civilian and who is a civilian combatant? We will all look the same, till it's too late.

How come the mighty US military has such a problem with "terrorists" in other countries who run around in sandals, live in mud huts, and carry a 50 year old rifle?

With your logic all these wars over sea's should have been over in hours and we should have wiped the floor with them.......yet they drag on.

You try to go into a town or neighborhood occupied with locals and try to root them out isn't so easy.

Ask any Vietnam vet, Desert storm vet, Iraqi freedom vet or research the trouble the British troops had against the American Colonists.


After reading all the posts the narrow mindedness of the typical anti-firearm person really becomes apparent.
Your side believes there is only one side to any argument, that nobody has a different lifestyle, hobbies or environment they live in where owning firearms may not only be enjoyed but mandatory.

Same way enviro-bunny huggers think everybody should drive a Hybrid Prius and if you drive a big old 4x4 truck that your compensating for something. They don't realize that outside Berkley, CA. or Seattle that some people actually do work that don't require a computer. Some of us REQUIRE a big gas guzzling vehicle because thats what will pull what we need to haul.....And we Require a gun because unlike inside one of your Starbucks there are actually critters out here that will eat your pasty white behind.
edit on 31-12-2012 by mwood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

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.


That's like saying, "If you don't have anything to say, you don't need the 1st Amendment."



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


A war started with anti-gun advocates. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Who is going to be there in the front lines? Moms Against Guns?

Wait...wait...a bunch of hippys with peace signs?


I can't wait to see this WAR.





posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

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


Gee gunshooter...what might have been the right answer?

Everyone needs a gun for pesky bluejays, cats, troublesome mailmen?

And they are a real plus to many aspects of society.

Take for example the funeral business. In fact would you even WANT to be a casket maker or a incinerator operator in any other country? How do those guys survive?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


If, or when, this all starts, who is going to be on the gov't's, obambo's side? The obambo phone idiots? The inner city criminals and drug runners?

The electricity and internet is shut off? Who's going to protect the politicians?

The cartels from Mexico with their US gov't guns, are going to protect politicians?

What's going to happen in the urban areas? Those big houses, with their lush lawns and swimming pools? Who's going to protect them?

The UN troops from other tyrannical nations? Russians, Chinese, who are they going to go after? Who are they going to protect?

Really - get a clue.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


To be honest this war has little to do with guns. It has to do with mindset. They want the people to become progressives and let TPTB make choices for them. From health to education to your finances. Welcome to the NWO it has already been put in place like it or not.


They probably will not ban all guns this time around but the next time it will be all of them. They are grooming the next generation to be weak of heart and mind. Look how many younger people are dependent on someone else. Many 20-30 see nothing wrong with never leaving the parents house. The have little to no pride in themselves and could care less about independence.




What do you think is going to happen when this generation takes over and the baby boomers are gone. We reap what we sow.
edit on 31-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SubTruth
 


The 20-30 year olds are entitled, lazy, idiots..... who grew up on violent video games, and free stuff. They aren't going to work, and God knows, there's enough guns and ammunition stocked around. Do you have any understanding about how rampant oxycotin and other presription drug use is with this bunch?

Good luck, getting any of those people to "go along" with the progressive program. They'd just as soon die, than work for anything.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Not in public or on camera





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join