Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun Control is the greatest threat to America (heres why)

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
This change is much bigger than about the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Think bigger. This is about a world change. This about a change that has been waited for and prophecized about for a very long time...




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The greatest threat to the United States of America is the federal government.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


The only way they are going to get rid of all guns is to continue to adjust the criteria set forth by the government that allows people to have weapons.

They will continue this until all guns are gone, not because they have banned them, but because they have determined that no-one will be fit to own one.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
No one is banning all guns.

Don't know where this idea came from.


You don't know where this came from?


Nobody is banning our guns?





The Obama administration is actively engaged in negotiations to finalize details for a new global agreement premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon describes its purpose, “Our goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence…It is ambitious, but it is achievable.”




former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

FORBES
edi t on 17-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
To be fair, individuals don't have the right (as intended) to own guns. Not every household was supposed to own guns and guns were not supposed to be so widespread... it was for militia to protect the state.




The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.”
Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.
edit on 17/1/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
To be fair, individuals don't have the right (as intended) to own guns. Not every household was supposed to own guns and guns were not supposed to be so widespread... it was for militia to protect the state.



You are supremely ill informed, sir. The SCOTUS has ruled on this matter and you’re wrong!


In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.
link

edit on 17-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Uh huh.... my point was about what was "intended"



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 

Divide and Conquer: "A nation divided amongst itself cannot stand."



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





No one is banning all guns. Don't know where this idea came from.


the right wing blogosphere, that's where. No one is coming to take your guns, even weapons that would be "banned" won't be confiscated, you'll keep your guns. they will just be regulating the type of guns and accessories you can purchase from that point on.

It's fiscally impossible for the US government to confiscate your guns. Use some logic once and awhile.

the biggest threat to America is the people promising violent revolution should gun control laws be passed or amended. Those people are the threat, those people will be the ones responsible for your loss of liberty.


I guess you conveniently happened to forget that gun confiscation has happened before and with great success too. New Orleans 2005 is just one example.

So is this a paranoid right wing conspiracy fantasy from the blogosphere or is it something that has actually happened before historically?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Aint black powder cannons still legal? now they turn up at your door and you fire a 2lb ball of iron at them....i dont think kevlar will do much to stop them flying back 100 yards or more, sometimes you have to think sideways and look at where they are not looking at and making basic black powder is easy and its something i've taught in survival lessons is that thinking sideways to a problem is generally better than meeting it head on

and i'm sure that given enough thinking and a bit of time in a workshop someone could invent a decent black powder weapon that would be 90% of a standard weapon



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


We're not going back, it's not that far to get to where technology can provide the ability to use composite materials and actually print any gun you want with more advanced 3D printers.

What are they going to do then?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I have to say for your original concern of the police for and military being split in two, this will be quite the opposite. Being in the military myself and knowing many members in the police force there is no concern. If anything were to happen the military and police force would unite to oppose the infringement of our 2nd ammendment rights. As of today you can find news articles of military and police holding up letters stating that they will not follow any confiscation or imposement on our rights that are given to us. Here is just one example: Sheriff opposes Obama


Just wanted to add that you are correct about our Oath of Enlistment. With that being said, I and many others are prepared to defend our constitution. I joined the service to keep America free and sacrifice what i have to so that others dont have to worry about it. Feel assured that the military is and will back the American people regardless of decisions from higher authorities.
edit on 17-1-2013 by RegulusAF because: so you can sleep at night.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


Guns are no good without ammo asthey become a crappy hammer so its no good being able to replicate a million ak 47's if theres no ammo to slap in them and since black powder is reasonably easy to manufacture out of natural materials that should they take your guns you're going to have to take a step back and then work forwards to develop weapons that are available with the resources you have and sometimes looking too far forward can make you forget basic things which can bite you on the bum as a knife at zero feet is more deadly than a rifle at the same distance when used by suprise



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 



Good grief!! That was all one sentence!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Note to self...try not to type while talking to SWMBO as it seems to drain basic fullstops, comma's etc from ones vernacular.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Each and every American that has hands to hold a weapon and knows how to use them responsibly would be considered the "Militia" IMO.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by seabag
 




Uh huh.... my point was about what was "intended"



Now I'm even more confused.


What were you saying and what/who were you responding to?

I must have misunderstood you. My apologies.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logman
2nd Ammendment is not being broken.

Americans can still bear arms.

Obama is not confiscating any guns.

The fact that most Americans don't understand this is very telling. A lot of stupid people own guns.


The very fact that he is trying to enact any legislation breaks the 2nd amendment. For it says quite clearly at the end

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Let me reiterate this. For the sake of clarity.

If the President, or Congress orders any type of gun confiscation on a state or national level. It will divide the police and military in two.

Why isn't this thread getting any attention?


Because you're wrong?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


lol.... I guess I forgot the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban banned all guns


Oh wait..... it didn't ban or confiscate any existing guns. All it did was ban certain semi-autos from being created.

edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



Yet it did absolutely nothing to stop people from dying, nor did it prevent columbine from happening....






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join