Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"I have executive powers over guns..." - It's starting...

page: 20
116
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Have you ever thought about moving? I am sure there is some plot of land on this planet where you don't have to live with all this secret conspiracy garbage.



Why should I have to move? This is my country, I was born here, raised here, and already live here. I think it is more reasonable to find a nice vacation spot for anyone trying to burn the Constitution.


Like at the bottom of an active volcano.(wink)




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


The issue with you is the fact that you do not understand the 2nd Amendment. You need to read it slowly and clearly. In the 1700's, firearms were required to protect the country from Native Americans and the British forces. It states that these militias were trained individuals ready to fight against any country who chose to attack us. They called them militias because we had not yet put together a so called military force.

This was the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. As time passed, various states began to implement the Amendment and in turn, changed the meaning to suit their state. Like it or not, that is the way it is Einstein.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
As a responsible gun owner, ...


As a responsible gun owner, I would own what I damned well pleased to, when I damned well please to own it, for whatever purpose I damned well pleased to.

The key there is the word "responsible".

Furthermore, I have never and will never ask permission to exercise a right. The instant I seek permission, I have abrogated my OWN rights, all by myself. That ain't gonna happen.

One final note - it's not up to me to prove that I am or am not a damned thing. It's up to anyone asserting that I am NOT to prove their contention. The burden of proof always rests on the accuser.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Hogwash! Did you just walk into a drivers license office and tell them you demand your license? You did have to take a driving test didn't you? Laughable!!!!!!




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Good night folks! As always, I really enjoyed the comedy! I will be back again some time this week to try calming your senses. On a final note, yes I do believe we have lost some of our freedoms and rights, but the way some of you express yourselves is hysterical. I am not meaning to berate you, I just sit here reading and try to figure your thought processes. Those of you who began berating and name calling...when one has lost an argument, it has been proven, they mount to name calling. See ya!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by nenothtu

Then I watched the video of Carney.

Straight out of his own pie-hole, it sounds like they are about to declare an undeclared war. Need to watch the announcement tomorrow, to see what is actually said.



Well just tune into the Rush Limbaugh and it will at some point be interrupted by the dope show.


I might be tempted to, but don't have much opportunity for radio out here. Limbaugh sets my teeth on edge, anyhow, as does O'Reilly and Hannity. I firmly believe Conservatism could do a lot better than hiring Neocons as mouthpieces. I'll make the trip out to the world to catch it on TV, and that way I can watch Obama's eyes while he talks, too.

Always watch a man's eyes if you suspect he's starting to think he can get over on you. He'll tell on himself without ever knowing it.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Hogwash! Did you just walk into a drivers license office and tell them you demand your license? You did have to take a driving test didn't you? Laughable!!!!!!



The joke's on you then, so laugh away. I don't have a license to drive. I TOLD you, plainly, that I don't ask permission to exercise a right.

You might have missed that part in all that laughing you're doing. You ask for all the "pretty please" permissions and "by your leave, master" 's you like. I'm not going to.

Laugh away, though. I've seen birds chirp as if they are happy in their cages, too.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


And I'm gonna stay off your lawn as well.


It's people like you that bring backbone into the conversation. A solid position, and commended.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by nenothtu

Hint from the real world - you can't have the degree of "control" you espouse WITHOUT a Secret Police apparatus. Luckily for you and your comrades. we already have the DHS in place, ready to go...



The NSA, DHS, CIA, Justice Dept. and ATF already serve as "secret police".


Nope, DHS. The NSA and CIA are intel gathering only, and neither mount any operations of any size here, and DoJ isn't really all that "secret" - the FBI is the main executing arm of DoJ.

DHS will be the Neo Brownshirts. Ask around at a "Fusion Center" next chance you get.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Most people don't realize the Patriot Act gave all that to the DHS.

*Yoda voice*

Control, the DHS has.

Answer to the DHS, you do.

*end Yoda voice*



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CristobalColonic
You sure have to be an irrational, fretful and somewhat loony people to think a handgun will save you from governmental "tyranny".


Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes, one would, if that were the thought process. Thankfully, it's not. Your argument is a reduction to the absurd, which no one is arguing in favor of, so why do people keep arguing against it?.

I would have thought permitting military grade firearms for a loose cannon proletariat predicated upon rationale as ridiculous as the fear of the world ending last month, who are known to protest even when stuffing their faces with junk food is denounced, would have been a better example reductio ad adsurdum...


If Americans are so scared of their leaders subjugating them, why stay in the country?



Because it's our country. Would you voluntarily abandon your own house to invasive hooligans?

Your country? How glibly patriotic and geographically arbitrary.

Some may argue Iraq is Iraqis' country for far more ardent reasoning than the Native American's America is any yank's. Yet I doubt few Iraqis would pass up a free ticket to elsewhere, given the opportunity.

Hooligans? Your "tyrannical" government that's 'forcing' you to be armed to the teeth are mere... hooligans? A smidgen extreme, no; strapping RPGs to one's back for sake of hooliganism...?

Maybe Americans should take a trip to Afghanistan or Syria and see what real tyranny is



Originally posted by nenothtu
Because it's our country. Would you voluntarily abandon your own house to invasive hooligans? if so, where do you live?


Originally posted by larphillips
I'd love to give you more than one star for this reply. It's sad that it even has to be said, but well done sir!


[snipped]



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777

How many people can a hammer kill in just seconds?


That depends - how many can you pack into a cocktail party?






Militia? We are not living in the 1700's anymore.



What has that got to do with anything? Are you somehow under the impression that militias are restricted to a particular century? I can show you militias both before and after that time frame.

I can, as a matter of fact, show you militias as recently as last week, in several different countries - the US included.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


If you think you will win a gun fight against our police or military, you better wake up! Frankly, if I were a local government law enforcement official, you would be one I would keep an eye on.



I'm truly curious - why would you "keep an eye on him" if you believed he couldn't win against you, and was therefore no danger to you? Why waste the time and resources?

Why would you delegate the task to local Law Enforcement? He's not mentioned anything about the locals at all, just the Feds. For all you know he may already be on great terms with the locals.

Hell, they might even be in the same 18th century militia unit!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


You must be retarded, because they are not easily concealed. It takes some pretty serious positioning so you don't cut yourself. Example, haven't you been wondering where your little friend went?



Baloney.

No experience carrying a machete either, I see. JB specified a "Honduran" machete. Mine is Salvadoran, but close enough I suppose. I can conceal it very easily, but am at a loss as to why I would. No one bothers me when I carry it openly now, so why on Earth try to hide it?

Hint: If you "little friend" is in any danger at all, you're concealing it wrong.

You sound like one of those silly little "gangstas" who LE officers I know laugh at because they shoot themselves in the 'nads trying to draw poorly concealed pistols. Those officers even have a special name for that sort of thing, it happens so often. No, I'm not going to tell you what it is. Make friends with a police officer to find out. I can tell you don't know any.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

No experience carrying a machete either,
Mine is Salvadoran, but close enough I suppose. I can conceal it very easily, but am at a loss as to why I would. No one bothers me when I carry it openly

You sound like one of those silly little "gangstas"
Oh I did that wrong, that last quoted line was what I wanted to respond to you.

"You sound like one of those silly little "gangstas".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by nenothtu
 


And I'm gonna stay off your lawn as well.




It's probably safer that way - at my age, that's where I do most of my driving!




It's people like you that bring backbone into the conversation. A solid position, and commended.



Thank you, but I'm really just consistently cantankerous, as are most if not all curmudgeons. I fear for the future of curmudgeonry, though, because I see far too few people coming along in the world these days who aren't afraid to look at "The Man" and calmly, quietly, FIRMLY say "bite me."

Those of us left appear to be a dying breed, but at least the younger Slave Generation get to have gilded cages with X-boxes and the like in them to replace their independence with! I dunno what they're going to do when "Call of Duty" is outlawed for them because it has (GASP!) simulated guns in it!


edit on 2013/1/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by flyandi
 




well Hitler did the same thing in 1938 and we all know how that ended.

While I don't believe anyone can tell you what you should be allowed to do, especially if you are responsible, you might want to brush up on your history. If you are referring to the Feinstein Bill and are comparing it to Hitler's gun control policy, although they are similar, Hitler's policy was an extension of post-World War I gun control measures set on Germany by the Allies to keep Germany from militarizing itself.

The proposed Feinstein assault weapons ban itself doesn’t call for confiscation, and would in fact allow owners of any banned guns to keep their weapons when/ if the bill goes into effect. A Connecticut lawmaker is calling for background checks to buy ammo, but this is in no way in the “confiscation” vein.

Hitler, then, came into power when this regulation was in effect … so, yes, Hitler, by default, did have a gun control policy — but only because it was forced on Germany.

I'm not defending this monster, only showing you that the thing most often repeated by the pro-gun people is a fallacy.


Liars and fear mongers are not interested in the truth.

I wonder if the OPs "Gammy" told him/her about how the Nazis pushed propaganda to try to get the Germans to hate the Jews which made it easier for them to commit the Holocaust. I wonder if the OP's Grammy mentioned how the Nazis would lie and stoke fear in the hearts of the citizens so when they dealt with the "Jewish problem" they would not have any push back from the people, but rather assistance. I wonder if Grammy told the OP about the Nazi Propaganda that made the lemmings and the bad guys look like the good guys by making them think they were a special people and needed to defend their "special" greatness from the evil bad people coming to take things from them. Sort of like, I don't know , paranoid fools thinking they are real patriots protecting Americas freedoms from the evil gun grabbing darkies .......or something?

I wonder if GRAMMY bothered to mention any of that.
edit on 15-1-2013 by skepticconwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Most people don't realize the Patriot Act gave all that to the DHS.

*Yoda voice*

Control, the DHS has.

Answer to the DHS, you do.

*end Yoda voice*



One of the most troubling aspects of DHS is that they are a mere 11 years old - did not exist before that - and look how they've grown and gained power in that short time! It's almost as if it had been planned...

Since the (Un)Patriot Act, they have gathered even MORE power, by executive order, fiat, and the simple expedient of merely seizing power, and seeing if anyone squawks about it. "Fusion Centers" are an example. Guess who owns them, guess who makes the rules for them, and then try guessing who they control in turn... I know of some local law Enforcement Officers who are sorely dis[pleased with the degree of control DHS has over them. They are still there only because they can use that position to monitor DHS, gather intel (i.e. "watch the watchers") and issue early warnings when the game goes afoot.

Remember, it was a local officer who blew the whistle and leaked the Missouri MIAC Fusion Center report detailing who are patriotic Enemies of the State - there are more like him... a lot more than DHS have been able to ferret out.

Now I hear DHS is about to undergo a massive recruitment campaign for new hires, to swell their ranks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where that will go, given where DHS has already gone, and projecting that trajectory forward. What most HAVEN'T factored in is the quality of the recruits they'll be getting. Seriously - this could get really interesting, in a sickening, copper-scented sort of way.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

I would have thought permitting military grade firearms for a loose cannon proletariat predicated upon rationale as ridiculous as the fear of the world ending last month, who are known to protest even when stuffing their faces with junk food is denounced, would have been a better example reductio ad adsurdum...


Yeah, that too. Good thing we didn't do that, otherwise you'd not be able to be so absurd with your examples.




Your country? How glibly patriotic and geographically arbitrary



Yeah. MY country. I'm a Shawnee - what are you, to have a stake in it?



Some may argue Iraq is Iraqis' country for far more ardent reasoning than the Native American's America is any yank's. Yet I doubt few Iraqis would pass up a free ticket to elsewhere, given the opportunity.


Yeah. I don't give a rat's ass what Iraqis do in Iraq. I wasn't talking about Iraq being my country, I was referring to America. I don't see that activities of Iraqis have any bearing on the topic at hand. Let 'em pass their OWN damned gun restrictions - that ain't in my remit.



Hooligans? Your "tyrannical" government that's 'forcing' you to be armed to the teeth are mere... hooligans? A smidgen extreme, no; strapping RPGs to one's back for sake of hooliganism...?


No - pay attention this time, grasshopper - I asked if you would voluntarily abandon your own house to invasive hooligans. I note that I got no answer on that. Don't worry about the RPG strapped to my back - it's harmless, probably more dangerous to me than it is to you. Worry about the one in my hands, because it might have a destination, with no return address...



Maybe Americans should take a trip to Afghanistan or Syria and see what real tyranny is



I've been to a lot of places. Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a few others I don't care to mention here. How in the world do you think I learned to recognize what a budding tyranny looks like? Of course, that was likely before you were a hopeful gleam in your mother's eye, and I understand that things have changed somewhat in those places - not necessarily for the better. If you want a guided tour, since you've obviously not been, shoot me a U2U and start gathering up your money for the expenses, and of course my fees... there is always a price to pay for everything, you know?

Once YOU have seen, THEN you can try to teach ME. Not before.

I'll warn you before we go, though... if you get within 3 feet of my sigmoid colon, even in an emergency dive for cover, there is going to be some huge trouble. I do not suffer pretentious fools gladly.


edit on 2013/1/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
116
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join