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

Originally posted by Happy1
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.

Hold on a second. I am in my 30's and I have worked since I was 12. I walked beans and rouged corn. I work hard for what I have and I am not lazy. Also, I have never done a drug a day in my life. I would rather fight than die.

reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal


I grew up in eastern Iowa and lived in Des Moines for 7 years. I'm glad there's still some people who grew up like me (I'm 49 y.o.) - worked since I was 12 y.o.

Is prescription drug abuse, or meth abuse, a big deal there? I've lived in Madison, WI, for the last 15 years, and my son is 30 y.o., he knows more people with drug addictions, and, unfortunately, many dead people his age from such. He's doing well for himself, but the number of 20 - 30 year olds he has known are really sad.

Upper middle-class kids.

Ok, lets look at this issue with sound, logical reasoning. The reason for the recent interest in disarming is so crazy people cannot obtain guns and hurt anymore people, That's the basis of any anti gun protester's argument.

"Guns kill people, so take them away"


The funny thing is that there's so many other things out there FAR more dangerous than guns. Lets take heart disease for instance, literally kills millions of people a year but you don't see the government doing anything to increase the amount of money toward heart disease research, I'm sure the money we put toward curing heart disease is a 1/10th of the amount put toward stopping terrorism, which even if you include 9/11 and all the shootings doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to heart disease deaths every year.

You want to save lives? Why don't you ban fast food restaurants, or petition to make ACTUAL grocery food more affordable. GET RID OF THIS LIFESTYLE OF EATING POORLY! Junk food is less expensive than the stuff that's actually GOOD for you. People are always going to travel on the path of least resistance, that's how energy works. So if you go into a store and see Nutty Bars for a 1.79 or a bushel of oranges for $3.00, people are gonna go with the junk food. I was always told I am what I eat. Maybe if people ate properly and got a healthy diet, they wouldn't be all but depressed and wanting to hurt others in the first place.

So leave guns alone, you wanna blame something, blame genetically modified (Government Moderated) foods, increased prices, taxes, etc, etc, and the aggravation that comes with it

reply to post by TheMindWar




I can hear the newscasters preaching to

the ignorant masses explaining their sons & daughters

need take up arms in order to ban arms...

war is peace, we are the good guys!

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by severdsoul

 

Dude, it was a joke. Ain't no civil war happening over guns no how.

And guns do not keep the government in check. Not with the kind of fire power the military has. If the government wanted to over-power a segment of our population, they could/would have already done it. I have yet to see any desire on their part to do that.

My question is, with all the anger and complaining I have seen on this board alone by the gun lovers, etc. on how horrible and evil and suffocating our government is, why haven't you all overtaken the government already with your guns? All hat and no cattle? No guts? Go ahead - overtake the government already - get it over with. You got the gun power - do it.

You cant be that naive can you? You really need to spend a few minutes reading. Here is a good link to get you started. Good Read

Originally posted by Rezlooper
One other thing people need to consider as well is that it wouldn't be a walk for the government to win any civil war. I'd bet that there'd be a great many defectors of Obama's forces who would refuse to fight against their own families. They'd defect and join the militia's that would form up. They'd defect and take as many weapons with them too. I'd bet that there are internal government studies going on right now about the feasibility of disarming American citizens in the simplest way without any bloodshed. These scenarios are surely being discussed.

Studies...Hell, they are doing drills in Iowa or at least they are attempted to until the people of the town stopped them. Take a look at this article. God bless the people of Iowa.

Iowa Guard Drills

Obama supporters used to say, "Obama does't want to take your guns, why, he has improved gun laws! He has no desire to take your guns! You people are so paranoid."

Now, it's, "Obama doesn't want to take ALL of your guns, just SOME of them! Get over it, it's so necessary, don't you see? Gosh, you people are so blind. He doesn't want them ALL."


Yet.

reply to post by Mr Tranny

hahaha, as a dyslexic, i had to read that more than twice but yes, i agree.

as one who still remembers "pet rocks" ... they'll never get all of the available implements, Earth will make more

someone (maybe even you) mentioned that salt peter was on the 'chemicals of concern list' and surprisingly, that worries me more than any 'unit' that can be re-built, re-designed, never released and hence, unknown.

here's the part the really get me going ... many say this about the Constitution ... it's just a piece of paper. well, yeah ok, that's true ... but What do they think Executive Orders are ?? just another piece of paper, right ?

so, why would any group of ppl be inclined to follow the guidelines of one piece of paper over another ?

reply to post by beezzer

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

agree with what you said in bold because the 'gang' element resolved that problem decades ago.

yes, the majority would prefer non-confrontation but just like any animal, pushed far enough, instinct takes over.

30 & 40 yrs ago, i could agree with your statement completely.
today, not a chance. perhaps in some small enclaves throughout the country, but even they are dwindling.

this effort has been ongoing for several decades, it is nothing new.
for this generation, it may be, but ya'll are the only ones.

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.

I'm going to guess you have zero military experience. There is an oath all military members take that says.."...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestics." The 2nd amendment is part of our Bill of Rights.

Also do you really think the US military would be willing to fight against American citizens, their own families? Also the American people are much better armed than Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters yet were are still there fighting even with our mighty war planes and technology.

It will be interesting to see what would happen if tptb decide to disarm citizens. No one did anything when the TSA was put in place. Every day, people allow themselves and their children to be touched between their legs by strangers. Who rioted against that? Oh, people complained and made a fuss, but all in all, everyone has become complacent and accepting, so the TSA will never go away now.

What would happen is, you'll have pockets of resisters who will fight, then the rest of America will hand over everything they have. The resisters will be taken down in the same manner that Katrina survivors were and forced to hand over their guns.

And some of you say.... "Oh, that will never happen" "They won't do that, they just want the bad guns".

Watch this, (I urge every one here to watch this) tell me it can't / won't happen. I promise you, sure as the sun rises and sets, they WILL take the guns if they WANT to.



Will they come door to door? OH YES, they WILL, they will go house to house as you see in this video. With instructions to ENTER the house and use strong force. Look at what they are carrying....




Look at what happens to Patricia Konie, an elderly woman who got pushed down ..... for what? Oh, her gun!! A law abiding citizen forced to give up her gun and become prey for looters and attackers.





I'm not fear mongering. I don't need to fear monger, all I need to do is present evidence as an example of what CAN happen. I don't fear anything anyway. My faith and my will is strong.

Originally posted by mwood

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...

No, here is how I see it going down:

The final gun legislation that Obama approves will be the same as the assault weapons ban from the 90's. The world didn't end then (there was no civil war), and it won't end now. I also see Obama setting up social programs to more efficiently deal with the mentally ill. I see him putting more federal dollars into better protection of public schools.

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.

Don't assume anything about me. I'm from Texas - born and raised - multiple generations. Many years ago, my family came over from Kentucky - I am related to Daniel Boone - he's an uncle, with a lot of "greats" before it.

My in-laws own a small cattle ranch in West Texas. Yes, my father-in-law has a big old truck that he uses around the ranch. He also has a small car that they use to travel across Texas to visit family. Yes, he owns a gun, and he has used it to kill hogs on his property. Several members of my family own guns. They go deer hunting all the time. None of them have any intention of battling it out with anybody if this gun legislation passes. Know why? Because they are sane, peace-loving people. None of them believe that the government is going to come banging on their door to confiscate their guns. They understand that this gun legislation is being passed to help prevent mass shootings by crazed wackos - not to make all Americans defenseless slaves. I'd be willing to bet that most average gun owners feel the same way. It's the minority "fundamentalist" gun owners that feel the way you do.

divide and conquer - that's the beast in east game plan.
this is why he uses the race card.
i'm on the side of the U.S Constitution - and the the 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms 'shall not be infringed'.

reply to post by kaylaluv

well of course not, TX will secede.
they have no need to 'fight' the Feds, they'll just give them the finger and go on about their daily business.

why do you seem to think that same analogy applies to the other 49 states ??

btw, since owning an operating guns is a fundamental right, there should be fundamental followers ... that goes without saying.

tis a shame that apparently, Unc Boone's genes didn't make the trip.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Well, at least you posted this crap in the right forum.

Oh, and don't misunderstand an overwhelming ATS community support response with a surging grassroots movement gathering behind you. This community isn't indicative of the mindset of the rest of this society. If it was, then the Tea Party would be in charge of everything, and we all know that it's fading rapidly.

Just offering a little useful perspective here.

Carry on.

Originally posted by Honor93

tis a shame that apparently, Unc Boone's genes didn't make the trip.

Why, because I'm not a professional hunter? Don't fall for the folklore. Uncle Daniel was a great hunter and outdoorsman, but he was a terrible soldier. He came from a Quaker background, so he really didn't believe in killing people, including Indians.

www.britannica.com...

reply to post by kaylaluv


Advocating armed rebellion is a violation of the T&Cs as well as a felony. Even in jest.
2nd line

ganjoa

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Advocating armed rebellion is a violation of the T&Cs as well as a felony. Even in jest.
2nd line

ganjoa

Good, then we'll stop seeing all these stupid threads about the gun-lovers rebelling against the government. My work here is done.

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Advocating armed rebellion is a violation of the T&Cs as well as a felony. Even in jest.
2nd line

ganjoa

If you don't know the legal difference between a discussion of hypotheticals and an act of active recruitment attempt to organize or incitement then perhaps you should avoid giving legal advice.

Nothing here has violated the law. It is not illegal to discuss hypotheticals.

It is not against the T&C to do so either. It is a breach of T&C to use the cite to recruit for a cause...be that cause rebellion against the US government or cancer awareness.

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TheMindWar

 

Well, at least you posted this crap in the right forum.

Oh, and don't misunderstand an overwhelming ATS community support response with a surging grassroots movement gathering behind you. This community isn't indicative of the mindset of the rest of this society. If it was, then the Tea Party would be in charge of everything, and we all know that it's fading rapidly.

Just offering a little useful perspective here.

Carry on.

This was posted to open what I see as an important debate and it has. As for "crap" time will tell. But it seems to me the people who are asking for a gun ban dont even trust the government themselves?!

Go figure?

Seems to me that everyone asking for a gun ban is doing so on the basis of thier emotions and nothing more. No common sense whatsoever is being applied by the gun control lobby.