Why An American Government Confiscation of Gun Rights, or Radical Change of Gun Laws, Will Be Enligh, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 07:00 PM by indigothefish

reply to post by Kram09

Thanks for that response! I have to say I agree completely except on the part of it being a slow drawn out process.. While I think that is definitely the method being used, I believe that these recent shootings mark a speeding up of the proccess just enough to make note of.

You are definitely correct, it will happen. These guys have perfected the art of corruption, mistakes are rare and when they do happen, they know how to roll with it.

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 07:07 PM by indigothefish

Another point I want to make, both in response to my original post of this thread and also in addition to it..

Currently America is the strong arm of the world. We are stepping foot in foreign countries with massive forces, carrying hoards of guns, bombs and other weapons. We can manage to do this because our American population grows up on a meat / fat rich diet, hormone / chemical addition rich diet. Our movies, shows and all media keep us fed on violence and instigation as a vicarious experience associated with ALL things. Therefor we do not question our strong arm presence.
We grow up in a country with gun rights and most of our military grow up in families with past military experience. Our special operations teams have a saying "you can't train a person to be spec ops, you are BORN that way".. In other words, all of our spec ops members lived childhoods that would remind you of the classic warrior childhood. Weapons can't be new to them by the time they will be adults.

Now, my point is that with all of this changing the psychological effects on the masses and America's ability to produce violent prone drone populations will be challenged. I think that within only a few generations after radical gun law change, and radical change in the social climate in America regarding guns, we will see a population MORE willing, but LESS PREPARED to go to the kind of constant war that America has always been involved in..

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 08:13 PM by Rineocerous

reply to post by indigothefish

I keep hearing this argument that, because the US military is better equipped than the civilian population, the 2nd amendment is moot. This is false.

Not only is that type of conflict not nearly so cut and dry as many people here have pointed out, but the mere will to fight that is instilled by being armed vs being defenseless changes the whole scenario.

The government gets its power from the people. They also get their products, food, services, and wealth from the people. Without the people all of the infrastructure would fail. The government is inherently forced to restrain it's ambitions because the last thing they want is to wage all out war with their own population.

Think of it like the nuclear deterrent situation. No country wins by nuking another country as that would spell the end for themselves as well. Mutually assured destruction. That is essentially the same precarious scenario the 2nd amendment proposes to a tyrannical government.

edit on 11-1-2013 by Rineocerous because: punctuation

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 11:28 PM by indigothefish

reply to post by Rineocerous

I can see where you are coming from. For the most part we agree but where we disagree is wether or not the civilian population could stand a chance against the military, industrialized, media-empowered government. That's not to mention the some 90 percent of civilians who are so far brainwashed they will either aid in the government against their own freedom, or otherwise do nothing.

A few people have responded here that it is their main disagreement as well. My main point of this thread is that the very action of further disarming the American population, though an intended effort to further control, will end up being a wake up call which will destabalize a decent amount of those who it is meant to further control in the first place. That was the reason I choose the title for this thread though I sort of wish I could have put it more simply, I feel the title was a little too long and a simple easy to remember phrase would have done better

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 11:31 PM by syrinx high priest

wait a minute

people actually believe obama is going to send ATF agents to your house without a search warrant to forcibly take from you a weapon you (presumably) purchased legally ?

oh man, you gotta know when your chain is getting pulled

lol

I really hope nobody out there is taking this rhetoric seriously

wait, this is ATS

facepalm

edit on 11-1-2013 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 11:57 PM by cavtrooper7

I once heard someone say "We need to find another job for the military besides hurting people and braking things."Now I have just heard some one say they don't want "Sadistic types" in the military.
So I am listing to someone who doesn't grasp reality or they haven't figured out ,a good soldier requires aggression and discipline. In my case imagination,to you diabolical.Why?
Because the mind set was chosen by me,I'd say at about ....5. My idea alone.It's part of my nature so that is what I did.Sacrifice is a heavy part of it to the family of the unit,Some draftees didn't have that AT ALL in their thought processes,too many,could destroy a unit.
Soldiering is harder than harder education,athletics of any type or law enforcement.You must function when you are afraid to die.If you don't the whole unit might die.

reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 12:09 AM by hawkiye

reply to post by indigothefish

There is a big point to be made - That time is over. As it is now we could NEVER violently oppose the American government and win.

Stopped reading right here... Terribly false statement you are uninformed educate yourself...

reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 12:24 AM by Ireminisce

I disagree and the reasons why have already been addressed, but I do have something to add. Even if we couldn't fight off our government, I'm pretty sure my arms could help me deter a rapist. The 2nd amendment is for our safety.

reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 12:59 AM by twitchy

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by indigothefish

Dude,

the federal government cant confiscate squat.

They can request that each state do what they ask....but they only have jurisdiction in DC....after that each state and its own laws reign supreme....

That was very true... right up until 1865.

reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 03:32 AM by zedVSzardoz

reply to post by twitchy

I assume you are reffering to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. Well it is only empowers a universal power or supremacy to the federal government to asserts ITS CONSTITUTIONAL powers. It can not use it to do something unconstitutional, or illegal which would violate ANY law or treaty.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is trying to act on its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof".

it does not allow the federal government universal power over the states. It guarantees its constitutional powers yes, BUT it does not grant a supremacy OVER STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

There have been instances where state laws have simply refused to mirror Federal law. Like for example during the civil rights movement. Victories had to be won STATE by STATE since each state had its own laws that the federal government was helpless to change.

Or when the national drinking age was raised to 21. Some states refused and forced the federal government to threaten to with hold monies the state was getting for highways unless they raised their state legal drinking limit to 21 like the rest of the country that had done so already.

Right now if your state decided to ignore EVERY federal law, there is nothing that can be done against it. THERE IS NO PENALTY for not following the federal government in either the constitution or else where. There are agreements but they rely on state digression and are entirely a courtesy.

STATE LAW IS SUPREME. Your nation (state) is a member of this UNION at its own discretion. That is the true nature of this republic. Every state is free of the imposition of the other states and especially so of the federal government. We dont even have to succeed. We just say NO, or ignore the federal laws (suggestions) that we dont agree with. HENCE WHY SOME STATES are PASSING their own LAWS to trump The Obama gun regulations.....There is NOTHING he can do about it.

edit on 12-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^