WH Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
They can pass all the legislation they want.

The guns are already out there.


That is the simple truth.
And the Powers That Be are afraid of it.




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.


How typical..............sigh. Another foreigner speaking from their ass that doesn't have one damn clue as to the meaning of the 2nd!!!!!!!

BRAVO!!!!

HINT HINT....The second doesn't have a damn thing to do with hunting nor home protection.......



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


sorry, yes, by "nasty guns" I was referring to assault rifles.


Define "Assault Rifle" for me, because when it comes to defining an "Assault Rifle" most people haven't the faintest clue as to what one really is.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 

i'm just waiting for someone to chime in with ... a super soaker ...

www.hobbyplow.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.




Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by woogleuk
 



You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.


How typical..............sigh. Another foreigner speaking from their ass that doesn't have one damn clue as to the meaning of the 2nd!!!!!!!

BRAVO!!!!

HINT HINT....The second doesn't have a damn thing to do with hunting nor home protection.......


I've yet to have any of them define exactly what an "assault rifle" is.

I am quite sure I can do more "assaulting" with my 30.06 than with an AR15.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Very rare you see gun crime here matey, yes violent crime is quite high, but at least the fatality rate is low. (and for the record, firearms aren't banned in the UK, just harder to get licensed for, I could easily get a license if I wanted one)

Besides, all I am saying is that banning AR is a good step, not they are taking away your rights to use firearms, they aren't, just the nastier types of weapons that can kill a lot of innocent people really quickly.

I have come to understand you lot like your guns, so I say banning all of them is probably a bad thing for you guys.

You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.
edit on 6/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


Oh, I see what you are saying. As a citizen of the UK, you are okay with guns being banned in the USA, while they are NOT banned where you live. Is that right?

Also, which is it, guns licenses are hard to get, or you can easily get one? I'm not sure I understand that blatant contradiction.

Also, assault rifles are not for hunting. They are for killing oppressors. It is why the 2nd Amendment exists. You remember the 1700s? Stop parroting the propaganda.

Also, mind your own business. We'll handle things on this end. Thanks for your concern, though.



edit on 6-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


I have been in the military, I have fired assault rifles (SA-80, inc. the light support variant, L86A1 and others).

I am fully aware of what assault rifles are.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I'm not talking about banning guns in the USA, I don't think they should ban guns in the USA, what I am referring to is fully automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than killing lots of people really quickly.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I'm not talking about banning guns in the USA, I don't think they should ban guns in the USA, what I am referring to is fully automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than killing lots of people really quickly.


That is EXACTLY why we need them, skippy.

And by the way, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE ILLEGAL. Get it straight and stop parroting the propaganda.


edit on 6-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by watchitburn
They can pass all the legislation they want.

The guns are already out there.

They are not going to go door to door confiscating guns, it's just completely impractical and unrealistic.
Not to mention it would put many officers unnecessarily at risk of harm.

For any type of confiscation to work, it would take a SWAT team going into every home. They would be at it from sun up to sun down, every day for YEARS.

The country is entirely too broke to pay the police the over-time. You think the cops are going to participate in that kind of nonsense for free?

Not going to happen.

What you need to do is imagine a scenario where people would be willing to give their weapons up voluntarily.

THAT'S what they are doing.


That's it!
Get ready for Obama's guns for food program.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Oh yea, then define what they are. What is the mechanism that defines an "assault rifle"? (If you were ever really in the military, you should know this.)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


Any rifle that has changeable magazine (or belt fed in some cases) and can fire semi or fully auto in constant or burst, any idiot could probably Google that info anyway.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Err...The USA has guns to prevent this sort of tyranny so why not get together and just tell them you aint happy, now i may be a brit but if your right to bear arms is being removed then you'd better make it known to the politicians what you want with a well armed but peaceful protest


Sounds good doesn't it?

Bad idea.

This is just the sort of thing the corrupt establishment is hoping for. It opens a window of opportunity. We can't even have peaceful (unarmed) demonstrations without being influenced by agents provocateur.

You are right, it should happen. But that is idealism, not reality.

It would be the next "shot heard around the world". Can we honestly see this happening without full advantage being taken?

Federal (or privately contracted) operatives would be sent to infiltrate the protest organizers to ensure a convenient turn of events at a critical moment. Faster than you can say facebook. Now, I'm no fortuneteller but this is how I see that scenario going down. There is no way armed citizens marching on city hall or capitol hill would be allowed to happen without a body count.

Sure, we could expect to see change immediately. Instead of showing up with batons, shields and teargas the police would arrive with AR's, SMGs, and the national guard.

Certain agencies have made it standard op to zero in on groups of people that "get together".

The option of peaceful protest is undermined at every turn.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Some folks seem to be having a difficult time understanding Americans, and, their relationship to modern, high capacity, semi-automatic firearms. Therefore, I humbly offer up this poster, in the hope this can bring forth a little clarification on that subject:




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
www.npr.org... older article from npr but i think the most important quote from this article is the one below

Of the 32 incumbent House Democrats who lost their seats in elections that year, 29 had voted for the crime bill that included the gun ban — including House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, who died Dec. 4 Those victories helped Republicans win control of the House for the first time in 40 years. "A lot of people credit the ban on assault weapons as the reason we lost the House," says Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. "When Democrats passed the assault-weapons ban, the Democrats got wiped out and the [Newt] Gingrich revolution got swept in."


so its basicly political suicide to try this and all it will end up doing is giving more power to republicans(isay this because more dems are anti gun then republicans) and thats IF the bill passes,but as with the last gun ban vote it seems that those who vote for this will be removed from office come the next election cycle at which point most likely the bans could be removed or reworded



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Would it be a political suicide if the government planned a takeover of its own citizens? As I can see a lot of people waking up to the fact that our two party political system in this country is one of total fraud and corruption, I am also very sure that these same people who we elected are shaking in their boots and "CODE RED" alerts are flashing thru out the corrupt halls of the whitehouse......

It will only be political suicide IF the United States of America EVER has another election.....

With the way things are going, I really dont think winning a future election is in any of their plans.....

Time for the END GAME folks!!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Executive orders are legal in the stance that they are enforcing the law. BUT when said EOs make the law from the executive branch then they are Unconstitutional. They are only "legal" under the "color of the law" (appearance). The first EOs (have not gone to your link yet) were for things like "ordering" the White House china. And yes I was aware that Thanksgiving was made a holiday by Executive Order....but really it should have been done by an act of Congress (Lincoln was very much a Federalist and not a friend of the Constitution as you probably know).
edit on 6-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Its more than that, though. Look at it from the GOP perspective. They gain virtually nothing by supporting any ban, but if they allow this to pass, they're going to take a big hit in their rural conservative districts...probably a quarter to a third of their total support there....and its never going to come back to them. They've got enough problems already. Support of a major gun ban would likely be the end of the GOP as a national party.

The GOP can be pretty stupid, but I'm not sure they're THAT stupid.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Finally a step in the right direction for the American people, proud of you.

You will still have your right to bear arms, but the nasty guns will be banned.

Great news.


STFU you British piece of trash. Speak for yourself and ONLY for yourself.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


i dont think obama could pull off getting rid of elections and if he tried the world would flip out as its all fun and games when 3rd world countries put in dictators but when super powers start doing such things people take notice,add to that the fact that not all federal employees would comply with such measures,the amount of fire arms in private hands(just the ones we know about)and the fact that the military might not just sit idly by and let this "dictatorship" happen as depending on what branches and units and type defect (ie a marine division defecting would be a propaganda coup but a nuclear missile sub defecting could be a force multiplier beyond any insurgents wildest dreams)that it wont just be a black and white "us vs them" mentality more of a smorgasport of chaos with many factions not all necessarily working towards the same goals as referenced in this link that has its own thread on it some where on ats.

www.bob-owens.com...

also what every one seems to be forgetting that the Arab spring set (for lack of a better term) a precedent that yes you can arrest your people and even have cops beat them up on live tv or stop them from protesting what the international community will not stand for is the using of advanced(jets tanks drones helicopter gunships etc)military equipment on civilians or in the case of Syria and Libya even armed rebels.with all the condemning and attacking we have done against "despotic" leaders in the international community for attacking their own people with gunships and jets you think Obama(or any president) could pull off bombing American citizens in the same manner? EVERY single country that hates us or that isnt fond of us will berate and condemn us in the international community and they would be joined by those we called allies before such a measure was attempted,hell we would get more crap and be more hated and condemned then even the Israelis and make any future "regime changes" or installing puppet governments impossible with the amount of flak we would catch for it.

www.bob-owens.com... updated version of earlyer linked article
edit on 6-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join