47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Why do people need military style rifles in the first place?
Why do they need high capacity ammo clips?
Why are they so afraid of having "real" background checks to purchase a gun?

Allow me to answer your questions:

Why do people need military style rifles in the first place?

Answer: The 2nd Amendment of our Constitutions has little to do with "Hunting" and everything to do with our "Inalienable Right" to defend ourselves, our families and our property from ALL THREATS.
These "Rights, Not Privileges" are further detailed, for example, in our 4th Amendment:

Right of search and seizure regulated
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why do they need high capacity ammo clips?

Answer: Because an individual is often out numbered by the criminals threatening them their/family/property; criminals who also have high capacity ammo clips and certain types of criminals not only have assault weapons with high capacity ammo clips but in effect are a Military Grade assault upon their life and liberty.

Why are they so afraid of having "real" background checks to purchase a gun?

Answer: No reasonable person has a problem with rational measures to restrict firearms from criminals, although criminals do not and will not ever abide by the laws, laws that they are already breaking by being in possession of a firearm, to say nothing of using one in the committing of a crime. Criminals will continue to obtain and use firearms illegally, regardless of what laws are passed. Background checks and any laws regulating the possession and use of firearms only impact law abiding citizens, not criminals. This aside, the real issue pertaining to Background Checks lays in the "Fact" that it is one of the means by which the Government obtains detailed information about gun owners and the firearms they posses; detailed information that they will use sooner or later when they advance to their ultimate goal of disarming the American Public.

Now, you might ask, why would the Government wish to disarm the American Public.

Let me just paint you some pictures:



I must now add that it is an interesting question "Who Is A Criminal" because today in the United States of America and British States, many or most people are criminals:

reply to post by MajorKarma


I agree with the points you have made friend, but let me just point one thing out with the second ammendment. When our "forefathers" created it they had no idea how far people would go. The tech we have today was unheard of the population was smaller and things were a lot simpler. Yes it is the right to bear arms and this is where things get a little twisted. There was never really a limitation put on it and people have come to abuse it.

The problem is the people who don't need to be carrying these types of weapons, the "criminals," as you said.

reply to post by EL1A5


Well considering they had absolutely no problem with private ownership of the WMD of the time, cannons, I beg to differ. From reading the writings I have been able to find, the second was put in place to insure that we could get the same arms that the common soldier was issued.

reply to post by TKDRL


And what were those weapons the common soldier carried in those days?

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

By "47 States" ...you mean some people in each of those "States"? Not the "state" entire, nor it's governing body. But rather people from 47 states?

See that there is some pretty "liberal" language. Are you telling methat there are two states where no one is opposed?

Define "States" for me...

By "Obama Gun Control"...you mean measures that don't change the gun-laws at present at all?

While you are at it...Define "Revolt"

reply to post by EL1A5


That's not what I mean. I mean forever, not just the 1800's. What good would the second be, if it only allowed weapons from that particular time period? I am pretty sure the guys that sat down and framed things for our country were not dense enough to believe that better arms were not going to come to be.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Thousands of gun owners across America have had enough of the Obama administration’s attack on the Second Amendment – and they’re preparing to take their concerns to the capitols in at least 47 states this Saturday at 12 p.m.

“I was trying to figure out why people weren’t being more proactive about this, Reed said. “Then I realized I’m part of the problem. It takes somebody to stand up and say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to accept this. We’re against it.’

www.wnd.com...

*The article goes on to list all the states participating and provide links to each individual state's organizers, so it is a worthwhile read.*

Citizens are encouraged to bring pro-gun signs and their families to the rallies. A petition supporting Second Amendment rights will be circulated at each event.

There can be no more compromise. Gun owners have compromised enough already. Law abiding citizens should not be penalized for the actions of criminals. PERIOD.

edit on Thu Jan 17th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Very misleading Heading this is exactly whats being talked about in the thread marked ATS popularity contest.

reply to post by Indigo5


I agree with this meaning in regards to revolution...Source

From the point of view of nonviolent revolution, gun control in its present form is a mixed measure. Its main value is in reducing the social legitimacy of weapons and violence as an everyday activity. Its main limitation is a neglect of military and police weapons.

As well as challenging the legitimacy of guns for the population, it is also necessary to question the need for police to be armed and to raise the idea of social defence, namely popular nonviolent action as an alternative to military defence. To help bring this about, the general population needs not to be armed with weapons but with skills and resources for nonviolent action.

reply to post by TKDRL


Nor did they have the knowledge that crime originizations and mentally disturbed men would abuse such a right.

I am new here so bare with me as this is my first post. I have been reading this topic since the beginning and honestly the only question that pops into my mind is how many people are actually going to go to this?

When I read the headline topic I thought "holy 47 states?" and then I realized that it was merely some people in those 47 states going to these rallies rather than an actual uproar of an event. So I ask the question to anyone who may be thinking the same thing, how many people do you think will actually go? 20 people in each state? 50? 500+? I am Canadian and our protests are meager at best with only a handful of people going so that is all I can compare protests to. I understand though that the American passion for the 2nd Amendment Right is strong so I would imagine a larger group will attend however I still do not know how big that number would be. How were these rallies organized and publicized to the public? If you were to ask the average Joe out at the market or mall if they are going to tomorrow's rally at the state capital would they have any idea what you are talking about?

To be honest I am one of those people that supports nothing in particular nor do I keep up with anything political so when I turn on my TV and watch my local news to see another protest group I will admit I roll my eyes and say "what now?". But I will watch that news clip to know what is going on rather than just turn it off. Would the average American news viewer (I am not talking Fox or big name news but the local news instead) have the same reaction as myself in saying "what now?" not knowing what the heck is going on? Or is it the hopes that the millions of gun owners know of events like tomorrow's protest, or the ones in February, and are going to appear at state capitals?

Originally posted by EL1A5
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Nor did they have the knowledge that crime originizations and mentally disturbed men would abuse such a right.

I am pretty sure they considered the same at the writing of the 2nd...thus the "well regulated" qualifier.

BTW...You might notice that the 2nd is the only "right" that they included the explicit phrase "well regulated" in...and that even the rest of the bill of rights allows for regulation...we don't let Beer or Ciggerette manufacturers advertise to kids (Speech) we don't let pornographers post explicit photos of men/women on billboards, we don't tolerate images of pedophilia at all...and if we arrest a murderer and sentence them to death...we deprive them of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"...No right is absolute....and certainly not the only right with the "well regulated" caveat. We balance the public welfare...

Or as Ronald Reagan said...

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Or when Reagan privately urged conservatives to support the bill

Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

Or how about the NRA supporting the a ban on carrying guns in public?

In fact, in one of the NRA’s most high profile (and controversial) victories from the late 60′s, then-Governor Ronald Reagan was a key partner. That victory was the passage of the Mulford Act.

What was the Mulford Act? Nothing less than an outright ban on carrying guns in public places, a law that would today sound draconian in general, let alone a piece of legislation with support from the NRA. Yet at the time, the law had support from the NRA and was signed by Reagan without any hand wringing whatsoever.

www.theblaze.com...

Yet to be fair to the NRA...they were all for gun-control when it came to angry black men carrying guns in public. Angry white men?...Hell no!

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
reply to post by Ghost375

 

In those "orders" he bans assault rifles and mags with more than 10 rounds, which is more than some studies no matter how you spin it.

That is not the point! We have the RIGHT to own whatever arms we want.....That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment and NOBODY can take that away!

If I want an assault rifle, the forefathers gave me that RIGHT forever!! No ifs, ands, or BUTTS about it......

It is my RIGHT and I will obide by what my forefathers wrote down for rules and standards to which we are to follow....This was made in the first place for people EXACTLY like Obama, so they can never do what he is doing now!

PERIOD!!!

TA.....Great post.....I love it how even federal employees of individual states are rallying against the regime of Obama and his crooked administration!!

We pay your salary Obama and clowns following......How dare you!!

edit on 1/17/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)

Is it your right to own an RPG? Rocket Launchers? Tanks? Nuclear weapons? Where is the cut-off for what kind of arms citizens should have access to?

reply to post by EL1A5

The only way to abuse a right, is to infringe upon it. They knew the powerhungry psychos out there would always be around. Hence the reason to slap that limit on government, to make sure that when government was infiltrated by them, their was not a damn thing they could do to disarm us. What they didn't foresee, was the advent of technology, rendering everyone stupid and lazy, and us allowing them to do just what was in plain writing that they could not do. Infringe upon our natural rights.

I stopped at a friends gunshop at lunch today he said he could paint a pipe black and include a box of shells and sell it for a hundred bucks and he would still have a line waiting for them.

reply to post by TKDRL


So in a way then we are just trying to bite the hand that feeds us. They gave us a right once and now they want to (take it away), but we won't let them do away with something they created for us in the first place. The reactions I have seen thus far are those of paranoia rather than reasoning.

I am pro guns, believe me as a veteran. I just feel precautions to keep them out of the hands of deranged individuals is in order.

reply to post by QuietReader


I know the rally in Madison WI has atleast 500 people going but if anyone has every been to a protest in Wisconsin you know it is likely there will be a few thousand people minimum

reply to post by EL1A5


They did not give us that right, it is a natural right. They just attempted to make sure that right was protected. In reality, the people failed them. As soon as the first infringement happened, and people allowed it, they failed, and totally screwed it up for future generations. Registrations, restrictions etc, they are all in fact unconstitutional, but seeing as they have been around a long time now, much harder to get rid of.

Originally posted by EL1A5
reply to post by MajorKarma

 

I agree with the points you have made friend, but let me just point one thing out with the second ammendment. When our "forefathers" created it they had no idea how far people would go. The tech we have today was unheard of the population was smaller and things were a lot simpler. Yes it is the right to bear arms and this is where things get a little twisted. There was never really a limitation put on it and people have come to abuse it.

The problem is the people who don't need to be carrying these types of weapons, the "criminals," as you said.

edit on 18-1-2013 by EL1A5 because: (no reason given)

I grasp what you are saying and yes, many people have used and abused our Constitution to the detriment of our country, including our enemies, and to be honest, in my mind our Constitution was in fact only written for "Citizens" who are Moral, God Fearing and deserving of its rights and protections. However, I am in the minority, otherwise someone like Obama would never been allowed to run for office let alone be our President and most of Congress and the House of Representatives would be on trial for Treason and other High Crimes.

So, I am left to a strict interpretation of our Constitution, a Constitution that was written to limit the Government and not the people; which includes to mean to me that the Government has no right to limit my access to any kind of firearm whatsoever, no right to tell me what to take/put in my body or how to raise my children or live my life. Obviously this is not the world we live in and I expect at some point we will go completely over the cliff into tyranny or back to living as a truly free people but not at no cost. We are in a fight against the Devil Lucifer and his minions as far as I am concerned and no, I am not joking and this is straight from the hip from a former Marine Corp Officer.

reply to post by EL1A5


I don't think our fore fathers thought things were simple at all.
People who think this way don't up and leave their homeland if everything is sailing smoothly.

Imagine if the American Indians had guns instead of bows and arrows. Things would've been quite a bit different today. Instead, we get to read about the Trail of Tears.

reply to post by TKDRL


Excuse me allow me to rephrase:

We inherited a right and they helped us protect it. Now a select few have proven that our inherited right may need some limitations (maybe for own own good) because they have abused it enough.