It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by miniatus
The Second Amendment guarantees our right to weapons, ANY weapons. Once we start banning weapons, we lose the chance to defend ourselves against Tyranny. Before ANYONE says it cant happen, think again.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." ~ Mao
30-40 million people didn't have the chance to tell Mao if he was right or wrong......
Originally posted by TKDRL
People like to say things about AJ like "Oh he looks like a lunatic" and such things. I thought about it some, and he's not the one that looks like a lunatic to me.
The lunatic is the one that sits there with a smile on their face, being paid to deliver propaganda day in and day out, putting a friendly smiley pretty spin on it. And the morons that swallow it hook line and sinker.
I think the sane people are the ones getting angry, and are actually concerned about our individual rights being legislated and EOed away year after year.edit on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:17:04 -0600 by TKDRL because: there their they're grrrr
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I personally don't care what they're called, semi automatics, assualt guns. Because as a Canadian, wasn't raised to know much about guns, in fact, we're not allowed to defend ourselves with mace. Although I did question a police officer once and found out we can make our own habanero pepper spray, (I've thought of loading some supersized squirt gun type things with them or maybe a tank and spray hose) and adding some neat, hair removal to the mix). I asked him if it was legal to use neat on someone as well. He was surprised and said yes, but why? I thought even better than turning them green with dye witness, would be to spray with homemade pepper spray and then leave them something to remember us by. The police would be able find the guy easily enough, the one losing chunks of his hair, all red and inflamed. That would limit the number of suspects.
To even be in a scenario of figuring something like that out, that we haven't implimented due to the expense of constantly making pepper spray, and alot harder to keep safe from the kids, who could use it to harm each other than to lock away a gun, is ludicrous.
But no matter what you call those kind of weapons, the reason why they can't be banned is because if they want to target family farms in the night, or people who speak up, and make them disappear without due process, they're going to have a harder time than a fully armed militia taking out someone's grandmother armed with a pistol.
Thats why TPTB want the semi automatics. Grandma with a pistol is a pushover to armed militia.
Its the armed militia that would round people up, dissidents and steal land from farmers!
Originally posted by CosmicBob
Originally posted by GaucheDroite
Originally posted by CosmicBob
Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I
"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.
"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.
"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?
edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording
So if someone says something about the US president along the same lines, do they get looked into by the Secret Service? I think so.
Unfortunately saying "it was a joke" afterwards is too late as the offender already said it. At minimum Piers and the other commentators should be looked at officially, sure nothing will come out of it since the elites got the police under wraps. Its the principle of it though.
AJ, despite what he may think of himself, is not the US president. That job title comes with far greater responsibility than I suspect AJ could ever hope to even have a wet dream about.