It’s Time for Gun Confiscation in America

reply to post by Kali74

I'm certainly not trying to discredit YOU, just the argument that gun ownership is about protection form tyranny... it's BS. Have your guns you're a free citizen... for now.

The only way we could avoid being overrun by a tyrannical government is with the use of guns, so if we lose one we gain the other.

I know which one I'd rather have....guns are good....tyrannical government is bad!

reply to post by DirtyD

There is no question in my mind as to why the government wants to take our guns, as I said before, free men own guns, slaves don't. They want a nation of slaves

Sure, but actually to be more precise it's governments(s) plural that want to disarm the entire world's (little people) not just here in the U.S. but many other counties as well (and it's working by false flag terrorism world-wide) And too the world's pharoahs, czars, and dictators of all stipes agree slaves can't have the ability to deter slavery ever, and it's not just a nation of slaves that is wanted, rather--- and consider this carefully-- it's a DRASTICALLLY reduced WORLD population of 24/7 cradle to grave, microchipped constantly surveilled, dumbed down, obedient, compliant, greatly sickened and weakened citizenry that is desired by the All Seeing Eye types and they are moving at warp speed now to cull the herd---knowing their time is shortening before full world awakening takes place-- to make this Orwellian nightmare come to pass.

It is a bit hypocritical for the largest arms exporter in the world to pass any laws restricting guns for it’s citizens.

I also believe any ban on guns only prevents the lawful citizens from obtaining weapons and does little if anything to prevent criminals and murderers from killing and terrorizing innocents.

Still, I wonder, if they do in fact take our guns away, what's the significance of this? And how do you believe this will play out in the next 5-10 years?

What does it mean for the US in the long run?

Originally posted by Thracian
This ad is for government disarm as well? How will that work..

edit on 13-1-2013 by Thracian because: (no reason given)

It won't work....somebody needs guns.

My stand is this - if we need to ban guns to prevent murder, and the criteria used in the argument is that we need to prevent murderers, criminals, and unstable/untrustworthy people from having guns (which current laws already prevent), then lets start with the federal government....the biggest murderers of all. Does that make sense?

Where was the revolution when they passed an assault weapons ban in 1994?

Yeah that's what I thought.

This board is full of arm chair commandos that will not do a single thing when push comes to shove.

The ones that thump their chest while waiving their guns are the first ones that are going to curl up in the corner and give up their guns without much of a fight.

reply to post by seabag




Ironic, the Hypocrisy.

reply to post by muse7

Where was the revolution when they passed an assault weapons ban in 1994?

Yeah that's what I thought.

Where was Obama and the extreme radical left in 94’? Were we assaulted with NDAA, Patriot Act, SOPA, ACTA, etc. prior to the ban in 94’?

This board is full of arm chair commandos that will not do a single thing when push comes to shove. The ones that thump their chest while waiving their guns are the first ones that are going to curl up in the corner and give up their guns without much of a fight.

Nobody is chest thumping here. If you’d care to respond to the OP rather than being intimidated I’d like to hear your take on why you think law abiding citizens are less trustworthy with weapons than the federal government? You must be on the dole and want to protect what you think is rightfully yours because the world has been unfair to you…..you know....the taxpayer's money.

reply to post by seabag


So it's only because of the "radical left" that you want to take up arms? The patriot act passed when the neo-cons were occupying the white house, but I guess as long as it isn't the evil liberal democrats you're okay with it right?

I don't support any gun ban, I support enforcing the current laws we have.

reply to post by seabag


Ya know sea....I'm glad that we have found a topic of discussion we can agree on 100%...I usually disagree with you on the Iran/Israel stance but Its a nice change of pace to have something we agree upon.

great thread simple premise, simple logic and common sense...SnF!!

Originally posted by MajorKarma
Ask a Native American aka the American Indians what comes next after disarming the American People; ask the Native Americans what happens when you trust the Federal Government...

EXACTLY...

America is going to REAP what she has sown.

It's the governments that have always been behind the worst crimes committed against humanity.

Even the sickest serial killers have NOTHING on the state.

There are those who believe that the government should have the monopoly on violence; that the government should be the only one armed, and that we should trust the government to protect us. There is just one little tiny problem with that, and that is that the gang of armed men doing the killing and the kidnapping usually IS the government.

It is the governments of the world who have initiated the genocides, the ethnic cleansings, the great mass murders. It's the governments that have systematically exterminated political dissidents. It's the governments who have built the concentration camps and the secret prisons.

It's the governments that have always been behind the worst crimes committed against humanity. Human governments have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be the most bloodthirsty, ruthless, and corrupt organizations on earth. Even the sickest serial killers have nothing on the state.

And yet some would entrust them with the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. That's what is at stake when you give the government the monopoly on violence, because when the people have no defense the government has no boundaries.

The REAL Mass Murderers

"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals

reply to post by muse7

Where was the revolution when they passed an assault weapons ban in 1994

The world is much more connected by the net and much more aware (post 9-11) than it was in even 1994. And too a 'revolution' may not be happening exactly as expected, (on the outside) there are many other ways of 'revolting' other than the obvious armed confrontation. For now I still see information working to reach 'critical mass' first perhaps it will be like the hundredth monkey scenario playing out.

SO. "IT'S TOO EASY TO BUY GUNS" HUH?


Do you BELIEVE what you read???

It is a FACT, that is is FAR EASIER to qualify, to run for, AND BECOME, PRESIDENT of the United States of America, then it is to get a Pistol Permit in most states...

Now. Who is "Nuts"???



VASCOPOLIS

reply to post by muse7

So it's only because of the "radical left" that you want to take up arms?

I don’t want to take up arms! Where did you get that idea??

The patriot act passed when the neo-cons were occupying the white house, but I guess as long as it isn't the evil liberal democrats you're okay with it right?

I don’t see a difference between a neo-con and a liberal. Do you even know the definition of neo-con?

I don't support any gun ban, I support enforcing the current laws we have.

Well then we agree there….

reply to post by Sly1one

Ya know sea....I'm glad that we have found a topic of discussion we can agree on 100%...I usually disagree with you on the Iran/Israel stance but Its a nice change of pace to have something we agree upon.

Back at’cha!

great thread simple premise, simple logic and common sense...SnF!!

Thanks you, Sir….and I’m always simple and logical!

reply to post by seabag

Think how much money would be saved by banning weapons for the govt. They would have no ability to invade other countries and get us bogged down for years in senseless wars.

"GUN - IGNORANTS"reply to post by seabag


I AM TIRED OF BEING CALLED NAMES

Today, I have been called a "Gun Nut", "Gun Freak", a "Scared Gun Hugger" etc.

Mostly because we seem to be above pre-pubescent name calling, we have refrained and kept our DIGNITY...

HOWEVER, i think we could be dignified and accurate as well if we constantly refered BACK to them as

"GUN - IGNORANTS"

reply to post by Tecumte

The world is much more connected by the net and much more aware (post 9-11) than it was in even 1994.

That’s the real reason….people are more in tune. The dotcom era, economic surplus, prosperity….nobody gave a spit because life was good! We let our guard down because the threat level appeared low….we were fat, dumb, and happy collectively.

And too a 'revolution' may not be happening exactly as expected, (on the outside) there are many other ways of 'revolting' other than the obvious armed confrontation. For now I still see information working to reach 'critical mass' first perhaps it will be like the hundredth monkey scenario playing out.

There is no revolution in site as long as the political process is functioning….or until the FED tries to take our guns. There is a breaking point for every conflict. In US we haven’t reached it and I hope we never do. The fed needs to understand that the constitution is real (and those of us who have sworn to defend it are dead serious).

Originally posted by Vascopolis
"GUN - IGNORANTS"reply to post by seabag

 

I AM TIRED OF BEING CALLED NAMES

Today, I have been called a "Gun Nut", "Gun Freak", a "Scared Gun Hugger" etc.

Mostly because we seem to be above pre-pubescent name calling, we have refrained and kept our DIGNITY...

HOWEVER, i think we could be dignified and accurate as well if we constantly refered BACK to them as

"GUN - IGNORANTS"

Wear it as a badge of honor.

Some people on ATS, those who can’t make a cogent argument, find it easier to launch fallacious attacks on people who can. If you are on what appears to be the sharp end of those attacks that means you’re winning!

reply to post by spacedog1973

With all due respect spacedog what is your opinion? You say you disagree with the point this person is trying to make and, yet, I see no rebuttal. I personally believe there is a time to take violent action. What time is that I do not know. I believe we all have a line that must be crossed to reach that point and many of us do not know what or where it is, until it happens. I love my country, and I will be damn sure that when or if I feel the need to take up arms against it, it will be because there is undeniable evidence that they intend to institute a manner of governance that I find dangerous. Not irritating. Not offensive. Not disruptive. Not disorderly. Dangerous. We may be there, but I have not seen enough evidence, yet. For all of those who believe that change can happen without violence, I respect your opinion, but if human history, behavior, psychology, and genetic disposition are of any importance in this discussion, let it be said our track record is not your favor.

Originally posted by seabag
I think it is time to confiscate guns in America….at least from a certain group of Americans.

Let’s put this situation into perspective. If the intention of stronger gun control is to make the country (and the world) a safer place then government is the obvious place to start, right? If anyone needs to be disarmed it’s the most dangerous, murderous group in the world that has the most advanced weapons and the most blood on its hands…the US government and the military industrial complex.

Law abiding citizens don’t kill innocent people with guns…tyrannical governments and lunatics do. Aren’t those the people who should be disarmed? Do we want guns in the hands of people with a record of violence a mile long? Do we want guns in the hands of narcissistic thugs who kill innocent civilians out of greed? I prefer guns in the hands of honest, hard-working people whose only intention is self-preservation. Isn’t that what America’s founding fathers had in mind? Weren’t we warned about this potential threat?

Is it a coincidence that the most heavily armed, violent group in the world wants to take away your right to self-defense? What might their intentions be??

If guns aren’t an effective crime deterrent and good method of self-preservation then why does the government use them?

Let’s be honest…if you were a bad guy, which sign would you rather see?

I think I know which sign the government wants to see…the question is WHY?

I think it's the dumbest thing the US government could ever do. it'll back fire so so badly