Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 22
245
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.

Not to mention bears. And those bobcats, they are frikken fast.
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:36:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


All it took was one shot to take off the.. well you get the picture, of the guy that tried to ......

You don't need an assault rifle if you are a good enough shot. Our ancestors got by fine without them, we can too. I've never needed more than one shot, and as long as you make it count, that's all that matters. fast or not..

Yes I'm not anti-gun, in case you were wondering...


100% full agreement with you!

It's not the size of the gun that matters, it's how you use it. If you can't hit what you're aiming at, you don't go get a bigger gun, you learn to use the one you have.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pluginkid
 


plugin kid... the right to BEAR arms.

Computers were not around when the
Constitution was written, why can we
use them to exercise free speech?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

'



I can see it now: "I brought you into this relationship and I can take you right out." Wow! It feels good to be a woman!


Tomorrows headline

Obama orders ban on Assault rifles and.....


Wait for it....

A nation wide sex change for every american.
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.

Not to mention bears. And those bobcats, they are frikken fast.
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:36:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


I've said it before and I have to say it here. What ever weapon a man can be made to carry and die with in war.
He has a right to own in peace. A real man has a right to have the very best he can choose. When it comes to protecting this.



Strength and honor !
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


??? It looks like she would do just fine protecting herself. Why would she need someone else's protection?
Chances are, she'd do a better job of it than 99% of the "men" here.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAnswer1111
Here is a simple message for anyone that thinks the Constitution is too old...



you left of faux ...oh wait, they aren't "News" anyway, they even admitted it themselves...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Wow, I can not believe the way you think........
So you believe the government is god then?
LEt's try another way of putting it then. It is a right given to us by nature itself. Better?
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:05:55 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


No, I don't think the government is God, where in the world would you get that?

No, it's not a right given to us by nature itself or we would be born with it. It's a right given by the government, period. You have no "god-given rights" to anything other than death and the opportunity for salvation if you seek it. Everything else is granted or not granted by your government. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


You are too cool for school.
Man that was funny.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Apparently you totally misunderstood. There would be no "opting out", it would be a requirement...........
Same as there is no "opting out" of a ban.........
Following me now?
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:04:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Apparently, you're not following. That's the entire reason for the formation of a police force. They protect and serve the public. The people that complain about them the most are pretty much the people they are protecting the public from.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
thousands ?

I bet there are more gun lobbbyists in DC than that

what joke



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 





Apparently, you're not following. That's the entire reason for the formation of a police force. They protect and serve the public. The people that complain about them the most are pretty much the people they are protecting the public from.


Wait a minute .... No .... nope sorry.

They protect and serve the public ?

In what world ? Their contracts don't say anything like that. you actually believe that because ' to protect and serve " is written on the side of their car !


I love how they're referred to from the get go as a " Police force " too. Break that one down.
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 





Apparently, you're not following. That's the entire reason for the formation of a police force. They protect and serve the public. The people that complain about them the most are pretty much the people they are protecting the public from.


Wait a minute .... No .... nope sorry.

They protect and serve the public ?

In what world ? Their contracts don't say anything like that. you actually believe that because ' to protect and serve " is written on the side of their car !


apparently you are one of the people they are protecting against... oh well



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 





apparently you are one of the people they are protecting against... oh well


Just like that huh ? Right under the bus because I don't believe the everyday crap ? We'll see. Very soon it will be impossible to be as blind as you are.

Don't runaway now ? This is right where you get owned !
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


You are really missing the whole point.

I was describing the kinds of laws that would be proposed, if we progun country people were trying to legislate our way of life on everyone else, the way people are doing to us, when it comes to bans. Therefore there would be no opting out and relying on someone else! It would be a requirement, just as bans are. We cannot opt out of bans, no one would be able to opt out of the opposite. I really cannot put it any simpler.
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:43:55 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Free speech is also a right, but that doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE" in crowds
why YES, it certainly does when a fire is present.

that's your misunderstanding, not ours.
there is no law against announcing a danger is present ... you may not lie about it or cause a panic or potential harm to others.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.


Well see the problem with that is, who the hell is going to define the word Lunatic?
Obama?
Pharmaceutical Reps?
Psychologists on a fancy new federal budget they need to justify?
Your neighbor?
Your doctor?
Some vague clause in an exectuive order?
Rush Limbaugh?


Different debate entirely and one that would need to be had. Im asking for that debate and some kind of compromise. Not free reign ,everyone gets a gun, and not abolish the second amendment.

I would see it as, mental health would only be an issue for a gun purchase if there were some kind of red flags in your history. Other wise its just not realistic to give everyone a MMPI to buy a gun


I don't understand why we NOW need medical/psychiatric checks to buy guns?


Get a movie, "Soylent Green".



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Wow, I can not believe the way you think........
So you believe the government is god then?
LEt's try another way of putting it then. It is a right given to us by nature itself. Better?
edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:05:55 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


No, I don't think the government is God, where in the world would you get that?

No, it's not a right given to us by nature itself or we would be born with it. It's a right given by the government, period. You have no "god-given rights" to anything other than death and the opportunity for salvation if you seek it. Everything else is granted or not granted by your government. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.



Defense of one's person, hearth, family and friends is a God given right, and that defense includes defense against any tyrannical government.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Oh puhleeze. Do you write fake headlines for World Nut Daily? These are people in States, NOT the states.

The end of Conservatism is neigh. And your little popguns will not save you. A drone and a tank will fix that ignorance.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by QuietReader
 



U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.


www.reuters.com...

The article says that 90 of 100 people in America own guns.

So there ya go. Only 10 percent are likely to support Obama Executive Orders limiting guns and forcing gun registration across the board and all the mental screening and doctors reporting their patient to authorities.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
Oh puhleeze. Do you write fake headlines for World Nut Daily? These are people in States, NOT the states.

The end of Conservatism is neigh. And your little popguns will not save you. A drone and a tank will fix that ignorance.


No it is not, and the Tea Party is not dead, regardless of the silly corporate news media reporting that it is. The Tea Party is just not marching around in the streets. They are getting organized with real push back.

Why would you want drones to fix the gun problem in America? Are you a Statist and believe in Obama's Collective Salvation with guns and paychecks confiscated to make way for his dictatorship?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Nah, I think it is way more than 10% of people. You have to remember, people that do own guns, usually own more than one, and a good chunk own a lot of them. I would guess more around 40%, seeing as the antigun people are usually in the large liberal cities.






top topics



 
245
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join