People advocating or warning of a new American Revolution or Civil War...Who are your enemies?

Every single war that involves human beings killing human beings is a civil war. The irony of it is, there is nothing civil about war.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by redhorse
For the record:

Troll thread.

My two cents.

Amazing how the gun nuts cry troll when someone asks a perfectly reasonable and logical question. Anyone would think they are just trying to label people with anything they can think of as a way to deflect from the topic.

Amazing how people cry "gun nut" when all they know about someone is that they disagree with a gun-control advocate. It is the only way they can think of to discredit them.

This is not a reasonable or logical question. This is an attempt to paint people who believe they should be allowed a fire arm as unreasonable or crazy, which is oddly enough, exactly what you have done as well. This just reinforces that the favorite tactic of gun control advocates is to simply cry "crazy", when called on their crap. I'll call a spade as spade. This is a troll thread, and a dishonest one at that.

reply to post by Kryties


Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, but you're mistaken. I'm not emotionally invested in this thread, simply denying ignorance which seems to be running rampant.

As for your opinion...honestly... I couldn't care less. You lost all credibility when you had no viable point to stand on; so instead you turned to ad hominem attacks by calling a non-gun-owner a "good little gun nut". Such fallacies only show you have no interest in an honest discussion here.

reply to post by redhorse


I would believe you if this website wasn't full of threads proving the exact opposite. The gun advocate crowd does its utmost to silence and crush anyone who dares to have an alternative opinion to their own. I see a thread here that asks a perfectly reasonable question, and you are calling him a liar and a troll.

Methinks it is YOU, sir, who are the troll here.

reply to post by redmage


Luckily for both of us I couldn't care less about your ignorant opinion either

I've been in many threads today mate and, having seen it many times today alone, the tactics you are attempting to use to discredit and derail this thread stand out to me like a sore thumb.

That, and you are clearly miffed that admin hasn't shut the thread down at your beckon call......

reply to post by xedocodex


Sorry OP but you asked a direct question. The question will get about the same answers as if you asked who exactly is the NWO. The answer is they do not know. They act like they know but no one actually does that is why you will only get deflection for answers. Even on an anonymous site like this.

reply to post by Kryties


Again with the ad hominem attacks and baseless assumptions. :shk:

Sorry to disappoint you again but there is no "beckon call" since I've made no admin request like you're wrongly assuming.

As for "miffed", nah.

It's like I stated in my first post. Surprised? Yes. Miffed? No, I'm not emotionally invested here.

reply to post by seeker1963

There you have it folks!!!!! Someone who hates the Constitution and wants to destroy it!!!

Would you care to explain why I hate the Constitution and I want to destroy it? I honestly have no idea where you got that idea, except that maybe you equate me being pro-gun control as hating the Constitution.

I love the Constitution, because it gives us the means to change it as we see fit. I think it is those of you who want people to never question it nor amend it are the ones that truly hate it.

So for those of us this person is baiting, they in their own words, called those who use the Constitution as their arguement as using "empty rhetoric"!!!!!

It is empty rhetoric when that is all they say. It gives no insight to what they actually think or to who they think are the enemies of the Constitution. They don't use any rational use of the Constitution except using the word "Constitution" as a end-all-be-all argument. And this is what disturbs me with people who call for Revolution against genericly vague "enemeis of the Constitution"...seems like a good excuse to just want to target anyone you don't like and use the "Constitution" as your shield to do so.

If they want to claim that the enemies are people against the Constitution, then they should define what that means. And when I attempt to ask what that means, you and others accuse me of being a troll.

I think you don't have a good answer to that question, and it is making you feel uncomfortable.

Originally posted by xedocodex
I just keep hearing people claiming that the next American Revolution or Civil War will start if any type of gun control is passed. I just sit hear and shake my head and wonder, who exactly do they think they are going to be at war with?

So maybe some of you can enlighten all of us, who exactly are your enemies going to be for the Revolution you are calling for? The President? The Government? The United States Military? Your Neighbor who happens to think that some gun control is a good idea? Piers Morgan? Bob Costas?

Who exactly are you going to target your aggression at? I know many people have asked this question, and no one ever gives an actual answer to it. Only things like "you'll see" or "why would we tell you" or some other answer that deflects from the fact that this ideas hasn't really been that well thought out.

So please, enlighten all of us as to who you want to war against.

edit on 14-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

You need to look at why all those crying about gun control and protecting the 2nd amendment are saying...well actually it is not 'all those' It is those who wish to interpret the amendment for their purpose, just like the Bible, and of course the Bible, or rather the followers of the/a Bible were part and parcel of the amendment.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." WTF was it all meant to be? but an allowable interpretation.

Take Militia for instance, no, a well regulated Militia, what does that mean? does it mean well controlled, as well as well trained, or just well controlled, by some other entity? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." though, is part of the same sentence, and you could argue then, that the right to keep and bear arms should also be 'well regulated' by some entity. That's what Breitbart is coming from, while still clinging to rogue government protection issues, they want to have feet in both camps, while there is no camps at all yet.
AJ is specific, and it's about protection against the NWO, does George Soros ring a bell? Probably Piers Morgan liked that bit of mischief bringing them both onto the programme, at different times.
Then you get back to the Militia, today America has the huge military, the National guard and a raft of political/ radical and racist groups, down to the gangs, all bristilling with arms, and all the while there is the NRA, who doesn't know these people, never heard of 'em, doesn't know about the huge firearms industry, and only wants to shoot at targets or little birdies.
Ultimately, which Militia are you gonna call.

reply to post by marbles87

The enemy of the free are those who wish to strip away freedoms and ANYONE who sides with the oppressers and stealing of freedoms.

Well this is interesting.

Would you say the "enemy" then are those that are wishing to take away peoples right to freely express themselves about their desire to bring logical and sensible gun control to the United States?

Would you say the "enemy" are those that want to prevent people from using the means our Constitution gives us to change our laws as we, the public, sees fit?

Would you say the "enemy" are those that threaten violent Revolution those people who are freely expressing themselves and trying to peacefully use Constitutional means to make changes to our society?


The only "enemies" I'm starting to see are those that would use violence in place of the Constitution to get their way.

Originally posted by yourmaker


Why do you assume this only has to do with guns?

Yes it's timely, but rights have slowly been diminishing ever since 9/11 and people have noticed.

People are becoming desperate due to the polluted environment we find ourselves in.
You think a civil war is about one idea? It's about a multitude of problems conjoining into one violent fight..

I agree, It really has nothing to do with guns. The civil war is already being waged by one-man armies. The leading cause of death by injury in the US last year was suicide. Gun control will not stop suicide.

There is a deeper wide-spread problem in our country that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Way more people are taking their own lives than those who have been murdered by others using assault weapons.

Suicide the No. 1 cause of injury-related death in U.S.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by marbles87

 

The enemy of the free are those who wish to strip away freedoms and ANYONE who sides with the oppressers and stealing of freedoms.

Well this is interesting.

Would you say the "enemy" then are those that are wishing to take away peoples right to freely express themselves about their desire to bring logical and sensible gun control to the United States?

Would you say the "enemy" are those that want to prevent people from using the means our Constitution gives us to change our laws as we, the public, sees fit?

Would you say the "enemy" are those that threaten violent Revolution those people who are freely expressing themselves and trying to peacefully use Constitutional means to make changes to our society?


The only "enemies" I'm starting to see are those that would use violence in place of the Constitution to get their way.

Who are your enemies? And don't say "nobody" because you obviously have an axe to grind.

OP I am very pro-gun but your question is pretty straightforward and honest. I have wondered about the same thing before. I am not worried about legislation though like many others because I have seen this happen before and the truth is nothing will happen with it because our elected officials are too worried about staying in congress. The last time something was passed restricting firearms the American public kicked them out of office real fast so will not make the same mistake twice. The US populace is overwhelmingly against gun control the very real problem we face which this debate has taken focus off of is mental health. It is too bad really.

ATS logic :

The TC isn't a gun nut = Troll

Originally posted by Grimpachi
OP I am very pro-gun but your question is pretty straightforward and honest. I have wondered about the same thing before. I am not worried about legislation though like many others because I have seen this happen before and the truth is nothing will happen with it because our elected officials are too worried about staying in congress. The last time something was passed restricting firearms the American public kicked them out of office real fast so will not make the same mistake twice. The US populace is overwhelmingly against gun control the very real problem we face which this debate has taken focus off of is mental health. It is too bad really.

That's nice, why should they be worried? were they not elected or re-elected on a 'ticket' and that 'ticket' and in the recent times surely means that they already have some spoken stance on the gun issue, or that they just don't want to talk about it?
The incumbent POTUS series of quotes,

I believe in American’s right to bear arms … the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible … but I am also betting that a vast majority of gun owners agree that we should keep a small few from owning a high-capacity weapon of war.

“Gun violence has terrible consequence for our society … and if we can only do one thing to stop it, we should all try and do that.”

“We know this is a complex issue that stirs deep passions.”

“We need to look more closely at a culture that all-too often glorifies violence.”

“The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can't gradually decrease the violence.”

“A majority support … laws requiring background checks before ALL gun purchases.”

“[This is] violence we cannot accept as routine.”

“It won’t be easy, but we can’t accept this as a reason not to try.”

“If we’re going to change things … it’s going to take a wave of Americans … standing up and saying ‘enough’ on behalf of our kids.”

I don't know the time providence of all those quotes, and of course Obama is in a second term and all the above could be current rhetoric from a comfortable position.
But the first quote is very telling, is it not?

reply to post by smurfy


It does notmatter what the President's opinion is, because he is like every one else who has held a government position.

An oath;

The Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by redhorse

 

I would believe you if this website wasn't full of threads proving the exact opposite. The gun advocate crowd does its utmost to silence and crush anyone who dares to have an alternative opinion to their own. I see a thread here that asks a perfectly reasonable question, and you are calling him a liar and a troll.

Methinks it is YOU, sir, who are the troll here.

M'am actually.

Ya know. I have never in my life been called a "gun nut". Ever. Congratulations you are the first. This actually made me angry, which is hard to do. Congratulations again.

I have one fire arm. One. It is a rifle that I inherited from my grandfather. I take it out once a year, sight it in, and shoot a deer. If that makes me a "gun nut" in your opinion, and if that opinion is at all indicative of the other half of the nation that wants gun control, then we are indeed headed for a civil war.

Your name calling and ad hominem attacks have been just one more attempt to make me, and by association gun owners and second amendment advocates appear as hunchbacked, single toothed idiots hovering whining, and muttering over their gun collection, and it simply isn't true. Good try though. Which was exactly the point of this entire thread.

The OP is attempting to bait people into making what can be painted as extremist remarks (as you have attempted to do with me), or possibly incriminating ones, or just flat trying to make people angry. He has revealed his agenda in post after post. He isn't making up stories exactly, but he is being dishonest, and most people can see it for what it is.

This isn't a measured debate asking what people may do during a civil war; he is asking people if they will shoot him. Talk about a loaded question (pun intended). And when people won't dignify that absurd line of reasoning with a remark, he side-lines off into how it is legal to change the second amendment, and turns himself inside out trying to prove how irrational the posters are that disagree with him... Again, much like you are doing.

This isn't a thread made to get honest answers to honest questions, it is a thread made to try to make people angry, so that advocates for the second amendment will look irrational. That is a troll thread. He is doing it by asking loaded questions so that he can ambush people. That is dishonest.

Maybe it would have been more fair to wait for him to let out a little more rope to hang himself before I called it a troll thread (which is again a first for me), but I spotted this one coming at his opener.

Edited to add:

Come to think of it, I've never been called a troll before either... You are just full of firsts for me. Outstanding.

reply to post by redhorse


I agree, and to my best ability, tried to be as honest as possible.

Because I don't see it as black or white, us vs them. I see us, you me and we, the people.

reply to post by xedocodex


How is changing the constitution via EO what the people want? How does one have the people's best interest at heart when they leave the people out of the decisions they made. When was the last time the people voted on tax raises vs spending cuts. When was the last time the people voted on wether or not they want their taxes to be used to increase the pay checks of the Polititians. The people are increasingly being left out of govenment and we are being forced to accept what the goverment THINKS is what's best for us. There is a huge majority something like over 70% who support weapons in America. If such a large population is in favor of guns then it should be left to US to decide what we are willing to accept in our country and not the leaders. Most would probably vote for maditory training of firearms users over the ban of 30 round magazines or assault rifles. If they required a class to own a weapon which given the fact that guns are the very top teir of defense and protection they should be seen as such and can only be held to this caliber through proper training and education. Gun control is an illusion you can not control how someone will use a weapon you can only educate them to use it more wisely. Let's say they ban high cap mags now there will be an illegal black market for them which will be taken over by seedy undesirables and now you have given them another "drug" to exploit. Hell most of our police can't even hit the broad side of a barn nowadays because not enough training is involved. Plus classes on guns will boost the job market and give returning veterans a place of employment. We need a solution to why people decide to do such terrible things and not over react and start blaming inanament objects for the actions of people acting on their own agenda. Nothing short of weapons never being created could have stopped sandy hook. He could have went in with an antique repeating rifle which never needed to be registered and still did what he was going to do.

reply to post by marbles87


I would love to give you a star for each point you made, but unfortunately it is only 3 tops.

But none the less, yes!

I agree, and feel there has to be a fairly easily approachable middle ground.

I mean come on, we didn't make it this long because of nothing, right.