Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 9
245
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Not really, when it was a joke post with tk...

If you mean bringing up nukes in itself, again no, because Honor agreed that citizens should have nukes.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 
It was an observation of fact, Mr Skeptic of the Island...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

why, is a moderator following you around or do you believe that you are sooooo special that some 'alert' goes off so they can come by and clean up your mess ??


this thread revolves around guns and obamas executive order being ignored
yes it does so leave the nukes or any other unattainable armament out of it


but, but, you're not discussing the Executive Actions.
you prefer personal attacks like 'extremist', 'lazy', 'paranoid' and probably a few others that slid by ... and, even if you were correct, what would any of that have to do with 47 states telling Obama to shove it in a rather polite manner ?

even if 98% supported background checks, it wouldn't make them any more effective, efficient or worthy, would it ?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Unless of course one thinks like honor and believes citizens should own nukes.
you must be deluded to make such a slanderous statement

but please, go right ahead and load the cannon for me, i dare ya.

clearly you don't know what i believe or you wouldn't make such outrageously stupid remarks.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 

why, is a moderator following you around or do you believe that you are sooooo special that some 'alert' goes off so they can come by and clean up your mess ??


this thread revolves around guns and obamas executive order being ignored
yes it does so leave the nukes or any other unattainable armament out of it


but, but, you're not discussing the Executive Actions.
you prefer personal attacks like 'extremist', 'lazy', 'paranoid' and probably a few others that slid by ... and, even if you were correct, what would any of that have to do with 47 states telling Obama to shove it in a rather polite manner ?

even if 98% supported background checks, it wouldn't make them any more effective, efficient or worthy, would it ?


Who said a moderator is following me around? Are you just ignoring plain straight forward sentences? I said if Im always off topic, Id have tons of off topic posts removed. How is saying we should arm citizens with nuclear weapons anything BUT extremist? Its not a personal attack. Its what you yourself wrote. Ah, someone calls me paranoid, you dont call that out as a personal attack, so I guess youre just cherry picking. Im not personally attacking you on any level. Each thing I say has context behind it.

And as to this whole 47 states saying no to obama, this is crazy. 47 states are NOT saying this. Did you even read the article? All it is are gun advocate protesters FROM 47 states planning to make their voice heard. How is that even remotely close to47 states are going to REVOLT against Obama? The title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading. Its from world net daily, what was I expecting....

Back on the computer, heres your link

60%



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Unless of course one thinks like honor and believes citizens should own nukes.
you must be deluded to make such a slanderous statement

but please, go right ahead and load the cannon for me, i dare ya.

clearly you don't know what i believe or you wouldn't make such outrageously stupid remarks.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 

we've danced this tango before and the answer is still, yes.
however outrageously extreme or hyperbolic your analogy is, the answer is still a resounding, yes.

if the oppressor has it, then absolutely equal or better for the home team.
now, can we get back to the topic ?

47 states refuse to follow or enforce Obama's new dictates ... so, how's that Union thing working out these days ?


Again, are we in the same universe. In this post in reply to my asking if we should have nukes because the gov has them YOU SAY YES !!!!!!
edit on 18-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 
Yep, his argument against nukes is comparable to what Chief Kehoe of Newtown Police said. It's ripe with ignorance.


“We do a good job of securing dynamite in our society," Kehoe said. "(Assault rifles) are another form of dynamite...I think they should ban them.”



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



Care to enlighten without using opinion and conjecture on what I'm misinformed about?
there is so very much, you'd have to pick a subject and then we could expand from there


however, that isn't the topic here, either

why don't you tell everyone how 47 states are going to Obey as you seem to think they should ??



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


IT is you who is mis informed sir. As you dont even understand this article. These 47 states are not revolting in ANY WAY. It is citizens from those 47 states . All that needs is 47 people, one from each state. Its a ridiculous title, mis leading you, and others who are quick to post news on ATS.

But please, keep trying and patting yourself on the back with those emoticons. Very mature.

edit on 18-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


And Im still waiting for an apology for calling me deluded in saying you said we should arm citizens with nukes because the government has nukes. As I quote you saying that exact thing above.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 
Oh yeah?


(CNN) -- An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.


Source



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theAnswer1111
 


What fact? You cherry picking an off handed joke to tk?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by theAnswer1111
reply to post by bknapple32
 
Oh yeah?


(CNN) -- An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.


Source



AN oregon sheriff? Good lord, grasping at straws much. Why don't you take that and make a thread off it. "Oregon will not enforce law". Laughable. Last time I checked, 1 sheriff of a state does not constitute state policy, nor does he represent oregon in any official capacity.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 
I only cherry pick in the Summer. My neighbors have 3 different types of cherry trees. Yum!




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

no one said, it was a question eminating from this ...

If I'm so off topic All the time, then all my posts should be getting removed
why would that be ?? lots of off-topic posts remain, what makes yours so special?

why are you harping on nukes ?
what do they have to do with this topic ?

no, i didn't.
i said ... equal force ... "if the oppressor has it then so should the home team" (or something very similar) ... you went down the extremist road, not i.

grow up, will ya ?
the context must have been hiding behind the hyperbole


hmmmm, i didn't choose the title or author the thread, why don't you harrass them instead ?

let's see, 47 states making a stand.
over 35 passing legislation to prohibit enforcement under threat of arrest, jail and fines and you're nitpicking a title ?
interesting.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 

no one said, it was a question eminating from this ...

If I'm so off topic All the time, then all my posts should be getting removed
why would that be ?? lots of off-topic posts remain, what makes yours so special?

why are you harping on nukes ?
what do they have to do with this topic ?

no, i didn't.
i said ... equal force ... "if the oppressor has it then so should the home team" (or something very similar) ... you went down the extremist road, not i.

grow up, will ya ?
the context must have been hiding behind the hyperbole


hmmmm, i didn't choose the title or author the thread, why don't you harrass them instead ?

let's see, 47 states making a stand.
over 35 passing legislation to prohibit enforcement under threat of arrest, jail and fines and you're nitpicking a title ?
interesting.


I asked you a simple question. Prefacing the question that it was extreme. And you answered yes to my question asking if we should arm citizens with nukes. Tap dance all you want around it. You keep falling.

Now Im harassing you? Who's being extreme now, cant handle the heat ? Oh wait, I'll just go grow up. Thanks pa, mind worrying about yourself and your personal attacks while you tell others to grow up.

Again, 47 states are not making ANY kind of stand. Using that logic, there are pro abortion supporters in EVERY state of the union. I guess 50 states are all in favor of abortion huh.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 





And that's the point. If it's about hunting and protecting just the home, they don't need ar15s. Is not about overthrowing the gov. It can't be, cause that's impossible. Unless of course one thinks like honor and believes citizens should own nukes.


I used to work with a gun nut, but this is the kind of person you wouldn't mind having guns. He nearly made it to the Olympics, He trained younger people for the Olympics. He competed in skeet. He never killed an animal in his life. He just liked to shoot accurately. He thought assault weapons were stupid. Especially those crappy SKS from the China. You could never learn to shoot with that kind of junk. At the same company, some guy was arrested for trafficking guns to terrorists in the Philippines.

There are people who should be allowed to have guns, and those that shouldn't.

Alex Jones? No guns for you! James Yeager? No guns for you either. And I'm putting both of you on decafe!



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

then you'll be waiting until hell freezes over or all of the nukes are gone, whichever comes first.
your childish and immature analogy doesn't even apply to this particular conversation.

however, it doesn't matter, i stand on the 'equal force' concept whether you understand it or not. one day, when you get to be a big boy, maybe then you'll understand.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Here is another example of revolt... and it will only continue.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith announced Wednesday that he will not “enforce unconstitutional federal laws” in a social media message criticizing universal background checks on gun sales.

Source



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 




Why don't you take that and make a thread off it.


Too late. Link and that's not all. Link


edit on 1/18/13 by VikingWarlord because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
245
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join