Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'1776 Will Commence Again If You Try To Take Our Firearms'...

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

'1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS'...


www.youtube.com

The only link to the source is a youtube video showing what happened.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 7-1-2013 by Rising Against because: Removed all caps title.




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   


Listen, I know Alex Jones comes out as a loon here. That's the reason behind CNN taking this interview as can seen with the propaganda that takes place directly after this. The point is though, the second amendment states: "shall not be infringed". The fact is, every law against gun control in the United States, is unconstitutional. Period. There is absolutely NO argument.

Love him or hate him, Alex Jones has successfuly gotten a petition signed by more than a hundred thousand people in the United States to deport this man. And the response? Brits petitioned back to not have him back! Tell me what that says about this guy?! His own people don't even want him back, yet we as Americans are letting him trample our Constitution the same as a Russian spy would!

www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Is this really "Breaking News"?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Vidpci
 


We will NOT have him back. Send him to Guantanamo instead.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


In the name of American politics, especially with our President trying daily to come up with a plan to take our guns, I'd say yes, yes it is.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Impossible. I think what you mean is revolution will commence again. But even then... impossible.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
This is TOP LINKED on drudge right now by the way. So I'd think it IS breaking news.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Vidpci
 

Now that someone else has posted the video...
I can say that I totally disagree.

edit on 7-1-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
edit on 7-1-2013 by Zeta Reticulan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
AJ should have been more composed during his debate with PM. I would have rather seen the retired Marine who wrote the letter to Feinstein argue the with Morgan.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Impossible. I think what you mean is revolution will commence again. But even then... impossible.


It's hilarious to think anyone considers it a possibility.

You can take the 1700's and twist intended things... but you cannt take the fat youth of today away from their xbox.

give me liberty or.. pause while I get another 7up.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Vidpci
 


We will NOT have him back. Send him to Guantanamo instead.



Maybe just let him live in an embassy someplace in London 'til he figures out what's next



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Guns?.....................YAWN.

God, I thought for one moment it might have been something serious.

God help they don't take your guns people, OMG!!!!! Everybody will invade you. The streets will be awash with murder! Just like the rest of the world.............

Not.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Guns?.....................YAWN.

God, I thought for one moment it might have been something serious.

God help they don't take your guns people, OMG!!!!! Everybody will invade you. The streets will be awash with murder! Just like the rest of the world.............

Not.


But, didn't our guns prevent a Japanese invasion during WWII???



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Have they taken your guns yet? Whats that, they haven't? Have they tried to? No? Then way all the freaking fuss.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I never thought I would say this in my life but, alex is kinda right on this one. Not on the whole 1776 thing but the other stuff.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 





But, didn't our guns prevent a Japanese invasion during WWII???


Are you serious????????????????????????????????????????????????

Not sure if I can agree with that. By all accounts Japan never tried to win a head to head war vs the US. They wanted to keep a steady rythm of victories over them, while establishing a double layer of ring defences on the pacific (phillipines-marianas-marcus island was the inner, NG-solomons-Marshalls-wake-eastern aleutians was the outter) to convince the US that a counterattack was unfeasible. They never intended to invade the US mainland as such, as far as I can tell.

Midway was never in the initial plans of Japan when the war started. It was out of the twin concentric defence rings they planned to set up in the pacific, and too far from the mainland (and too close to Hawaii) to set an easy invasion. The reasons to attack Midway rested mostly in the aftermath of the doolittle raid over tokyo. Pearl Harbor had crippled the US battleline but their carriers were still unharmed, and Yamamoto wanted those carriers to be sunk at all costs. The attack on Tokyo was an insult to the Japanese armed forces (and the IJN in particular), and had been launched from carriers. And the US Carrier striking force was the only offensive weapon left in US inventory by then, so it only made sense to force a major battle to trap and sink them. Midway was intended to be that battle, the island was of secondary or even tertiary importance, what Yamamoto wanted was the US carriers...things turned out to be pretty different tho.

Had Midway been a Japanese victory what would've happened?...probably not much. Hawaii was out of the scope of probable (or even possible) japanese targets because it was almost unfeasible to successfully invade it-it would've overstretched the japanese navy to the point of rupture.

US mainland was completely out of question-the distances involved were extreme.Remember aswell that both to invade hawaii and/or the Eastern US a lot of troops would've been needed. The Navy did not have enough manpower to pull something like that (the Japanese Marine force was mostly based on regimental combat teams for amphib operations of limited scope), and the Army was:

1-Absolutely not going to cooperate with the navy, at least not easily (japanese Army-Navy rivalry was extreme, they fought each other constantly). That would mean that one of the key points of any long range invasion like Hawaii or US would be poisoned from the start -no interbranch cooperation meant the operation would be a disaster from the start.

2-already heavily commited both in China, Burma/India, and New Guinea. There was a hefty manpower reserve in Manchukuo but neither the Imperial staff nor the Army staff wanted to weaken that force too much because they wanted it to act as a deterrent against possible Soviet agression. The Japanese Army without taking large units out of Manchukuo-which was politically impossible to pull off, would've had no resources to mount a successful large scale invasion in the US Mainland.

3-Lack of proper amphibious resources. The japanese landings at the start of the war were doing against unprepared enemies, and using barely adequate ships as amphibious transports. To land in USA would be very very different than landing on, say, Legaspi. The scope of the operation would be much different, the ammount of troops to be landed ,too, the distances from the Japanese supply sources (the mainland) would be all the way across the pacific meaning enormous travel times for the supply convoys, and Japan had not enough ships to keep such a invasion supplied.

Those 3 points were well known for all the IMperial staff and of course by the IJA. They would've never agreed to such an operation. There's also the important part of intel and recce. It was nigh impossible for Japan to conduct a proper recconaisance over the US mainland, and it would've been very difficult to the point of almost impossible to conduct a proper research on the possible landing locations.

We all know the ammount of preparation work the landings on Normandy needed, and the immense logistical problems faced by the allied force in france afterwards after one of the mulberries was put out of order, cherbourg port destroyed by the germans, and Antwerp not captured until late in 1944. The japanese had quite a stretch of water to cross (quite bigger than the Channel), no Mulberries at all (they were an allied improvisation), and would've needed a similar or bigger ammount of troops to succesfully invade US mainland.

Nope-it was impossible. Japan never planned nor intended to invade the US mainland. It was well out of reach for them, and they always knew it.

Your argument relating to American being armed.............Invalid and a fail.

Learn some history.

Capt



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Is this really "Breaking News"?


Not if you are a communist and want to spin it differently.

I think it should be top position on ATS.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
I never thought I would say this in my life but, alex is kinda right on this one. Not on the whole 1776 thing but the other stuff.


No, he is right about the 1776 thing, too.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


So, Yamamoto's quote was just a strategic effort to save face?

By the way...that's either a very nice copy and paste, or you are one hell of a WWII historian...
Either way, a star for you...

(And, I was just joking with my previous comment...)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join