The Reason Revolution/Civil War Is A Failed Response To Gun Control

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Yes, I'm pro gun control. I think guns in our culture are way to prevelant and they need to be better regulated and controled.

But the responses I keep seeing from the pro-gun side continue to include rhetoric of "Revolution" or "Civil War"...and I'm sorry but I just have to laugh at it.

In my previous thread, I asked a simple question to those who would want to advocate a Revolution or Civil War over this issue...who is your enemy? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems like a simple enough question to me, but as you can see in that thread...the responses are all over the place. Either they don't know, or they will know when the time comes, or they are too scared to say (yeah, that is the revolutionary everyone wants to follow...a coward), or it's Obama supporters, or Democrats, or anyone trying to take their guns.

Here is the problem. If anyone responds to gun control that the majority of the Nation is calling for with just more gun violence...you are just proving those of us that are advocating for logical gun control right.

Do you really think it is going to go over well if some gun loving "patriot" goes out and kills a politician to protest the gun control laws? The entire country would be against that person. No one would endorse that as a reasonable response, and if anyone did, they would be looked down upon too.

So maybe you think politicians won't be your targets...maybe just the law enforcement officer that is tasked with enforcing the laws. Are you going to shoot that guy because he is enforcing the laws of the country? Do you think that is going to get you support?

Or maybe just start killing off people who support gun control...you know, those using their right of free speech? Yeah, that seems like it is going to gain a lot of support too.

Honestly, when ever I hear people talking about Revolution or Civil War as a response to gun control...I have a very very low opinion of them...intellectually and morally.

The Constitution the pro gun people claim to love so much...you do know that it would define you as a traitor to the the Nation if you took any of the actions above...right? You do know that if you claim to have seceded from the Nation that the Constitution of the United States no longer protects you or your rights? You do know that the very idea of Revolution or secession is un-patriotic...right?


I really don't think people who talk about these things have really thought things through. If your solution to gun control is "let's go shoot some people"...then you are probably the best advocate we have right now for more strict gun control.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


I think you're full of it when you say "Majority wants gun control" Because I've seen no evidence of that. All I've seen is over-reaction of politicians to propose bills that would at best stop one or two massacres per year. Nothing that will actually curb over all gun violence.

I do think it's a stretch to say there will indeed be a civil war. But at the same time, It still matters how it would start. World War 1 was eventually started by a single shooter. What if someone (and Im not suggesting anyone do this!) launched such an attack on politicians out of paranoia that the governments response was then to disarm America entirely?

It's not such a stretch that violence could erupt in that way. But do I think that all those patriots are going to dust off their well oiled and accessorized AR-15s and start shooting cops and politicians? Probably not.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I have to ask how you can deny a person the second amendment, while citing the first amendment?

Are only the rights that the individual enjoys protected in your opinion?

I agree that the war talk needs to stop, as does all the talk of leaving the union.

I just do not understand the "I have rights and you don't" approach.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
The government, or rather the military complex, has had weaponry that outdated a bullet speeding through a barrel decades ago.
It is not the guns that they want to confiscate. You can keep them for all they care. It would not protect you if their intent was to take your rights by force*. The intent is first to divide, which makes it easier to control. Those who would divide us already have the means to provide the protection that they would offer to the unarmed "loyal citizens".
There, the corrupt ones would have the opportunity to play the hero.

As a civil war engages, then the protection will be wanted. More division will occur, and I would suspect that they would be incited by professionals.

They are booking this at the right time: when better to attempt to control than at a time where our focus was just barely furthering down the lines of how the monetary system works...and how it needed to go, as in get thrown out and replaced, or at the very least fixed.

When it does go, it would be beneficial to them to have control of the docile ones (knowing they are not going to act violent or go unifying the fellow people) and let the rest who engage in any warfare paint a vivid memory for the safely rounded up few to remember in the years to come.

I would imagine that in that scenario, the mass-shooter types would sporadically show up as well. Where they would not be showing up is in the text-book pages, alongside the facts that would inevitably be bended to suit somebody's agenda.

*This is what they do not want to do. Because then many, many citizens would unite (and here would come the "I told you so's" for the theorists) to stop the suddenly-very-obvious corrupt forces who are trying to manipulate us. Furthermore, people all over would be popping up with their own hidden weaponry, and I am referring to power-seeking groups with very destructive weapons in various other global locations who would suddenly open their eyes to a giant who has just gambled for the whole pie. This would ruin "the plan", as well as it would ruin the planet beyond some "power-that-be's" liking or ability to play parasite upon.
edit on 25-1-2013 by 1Learner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by xedocodex
 


I think you're full of it when you say "Majority wants gun control" Because I've seen no evidence of that. All I've seen is over-reaction of politicians to propose bills that would at best stop one or two massacres per year. Nothing that will actually curb over all gun violence.

I do think it's a stretch to say there will indeed be a civil war. But at the same time, It still matters how it would start. World War 1 was eventually started by a single shooter. What if someone (and Im not suggesting anyone do this!) launched such an attack on politicians out of paranoia that the governments response was then to disarm America entirely?

It's not such a stretch that violence could erupt in that way. But do I think that all those patriots are going to dust off their well oiled and accessorized AR-15s and start shooting cops and politicians? Probably not.


You can deny it all you want, say you don't believe in polls...but it doesn't change reality. The majority support for some new gun control measures.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

abcnews.go.com...


The point is, the Revolution/Civil War talk is mostly done by idiots or psychopaths. Because what they don't seem to understand is that their actions/words are exactly why we need gun control.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
The enemy is quiet simple and that could be said for many countries and not just the USA. Its up to us whether we continue to take their bs or stand up and show them why enough is enough. The gun control issue is only one of many which could justify a revolt.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


www.foxnews.com...


Look at the results.

I agree that talk of civil war over gun control legislation is insane.

I also think that the people proposing gun control legislation don't actually give a single # about gun control. Diane Feinstein carries a gun in a state where it is near impossible for someone to carry a gun. She has special privileges. She doesn't want all guns to be gone, she just wants to be one of the few with a gun. If these people are so concerned about the evil of guns, why do they carry them?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



who is your enemy?


The Private money for public use and private profit currency system centred around the Federal Reserve Banking system, World Bank, IMF, their lackeys, minions, and corporations, et al



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



The majority support for some new gun control measures.


So says the Federal Reserve Banking system's Media Corporations.....

Yes, believe THEM, that is the precise path to truth, friend citizen...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


I bet in your progressive mind the gun lovers views seem radical. The ironic part is you are in fact the radical. The very simple and straight forward laws of the land are not good enough for you and you want them changed by force if need be.



Is that not radical? You want to change the very core of what this nation and its people are about. Progressives always know what is best for everyone else. That is why our founding fathers made a republic not a democracy. They understood then just how weak the human heart can be. And that is what this is all about weakness caused by fear. Fear is the root cause and weakness is the symptom.




Progressives choices and ideals are all rooted in fear.
edit on 25-1-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
You can deny it all you want, say you don't believe in polls...but it doesn't change reality. The majority support for some new gun control measures.


And if the government were pushing for more guns on the streets, the poll would favour that also. How people can use a piece of media propaganda to justify Gun control bewilders me. Who did they actually poll? Do they tell you that?


The point is, the Revolution/Civil War talk is mostly done by idiots or psychopaths. Because what they don't seem to understand is that their actions/words are exactly why we need gun control.


But it ok for Government soldiers to kick peoples doors in during a disaster and man handle eldery women? Who are the idiots again? How would you feel if the bans came into effect and then 6 months later your country was facing martial law and a brutal dictatorship? Would you call the guy who hid his guns and didn't comply a psychopath? I call that thinking ahead and thats something most anti gun people don't do.
edit on 25-1-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
You're pro gun control because guns are to prevalent? Is that even a reason



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
I have to ask how you can deny a person the second amendment, while citing the first amendment?

Are only the rights that the individual enjoys protected in your opinion?

I agree that the war talk needs to stop, as does all the talk of leaving the union.

I just do not understand the "I have rights and you don't" approach.



Gun Control isn't about denying the 2nd to anyone. Not one person is talking about outright banning guns, just more regulation.

It is about using the means and methods the Constitution gives us to make our society a better place. At the very base of it, it is about interpretting what the 2nd amendment really means.

What I don't understand are people saying they will shoot other people for wanting to use the means the Constitution gives us to change laws...and then those people say they love the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


While nobody wants violence, they do love our Constitution. When people try to shred it one little piece at a time, those people are in effect shredding their childrens future. If the shredding of the Constitution is allowed it will empower the fed to do more shredding. As long as the citizens of America are well armed the government will fear that if they go too far there could be a revolt. It has happened before. 1946 The Battle of Athens


jpfo.org...

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



Do you really think it is going to go over well if some gun loving "patriot" goes out and kills a politician to protest the gun control laws? The entire country would be against that person. No one would endorse that as a reasonable response, and if anyone did, they would be looked down upon too.

So maybe you think politicians won't be your targets...maybe just the law enforcement officer that is tasked with enforcing the laws. Are you going to shoot that guy because he is enforcing the laws of the country? Do you think that is going to get you support?

Or maybe just start killing off people who support gun control...you know, those using their right of free speech? Yeah, that seems like it is going to gain a lot of support too.


Who is advocating any of these actions? I've seen almost every recent gun thread on ATS and I've not seen one person say any of these things. I must have missed it!

Are these people you associate with saying this? If so, you may need to find new friends.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
The enemy is quiet simple and that could be said for many countries and not just the USA. Its up to us whether we continue to take their bs or stand up and show them why enough is enough. The gun control issue is only one of many which could justify a revolt.


You say the enemy is simple to know...and yet you don't say who that is. This is the problem, I don't think any of you pro-Revolution people would ever agree on who you think the "enemy" is.

And even if you did, the American public wouldn't support your idea of who you think the "enemy" is.

Constitutional legislation is not justification for a revolt, that is why if anyone would openly talk about this (besides behind their keyboard on the internet) they would be deemed crazy and shunned.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


You are mistaken, history proves you wrong. Here is Eleanor Roosevelt's take on the armed revolt against government tyranny that happened in 1946. She applauded it.



Preface: For those of you who still don't know about the Battle of Athens (TN), it involved WW II veterans (both Republicans and Democrats) taking up arms (and dynamite) to literally blow some corrupt election thieves out of their town and out of their politics. Here is an excellent link:

www.americanheritage.com...

Here is what Eleanor Roosevelt had to say about the Battle of Athens (TN). Her nationally syndicated column on the Battle was reprinted in its entirety in the Athens, TN paper, as follows:
--------

SOURCE: /The Daily Post-Athenian/, Athens, Tenn., August 7, 1946

Mrs. Roosevelt Grasps Local Facts Better Than Most

Editor's Note — Our attention has been called to Mrs. Roosevelt's column
upon McMinn. She seems to have grasped the facts and significance better
than any other outside writer:

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world
is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained
to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something,
you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and
persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life,
freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to
register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a
rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee,
which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a
political machine does not allow the people free expression, then
freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which
their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the
local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore
the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this
incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what
they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in
order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express
their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most
powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people.
Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute
they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can
be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority
of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in
practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests
alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or
country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been
wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot
which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too
sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which
was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad,
settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force,
then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our
rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by
political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from
really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning,
and one which we cannot afford to overlook.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by xedocodex
 


www.foxnews.com...


Look at the results.

I agree that talk of civil war over gun control legislation is insane.

I also think that the people proposing gun control legislation don't actually give a single # about gun control. Diane Feinstein carries a gun in a state where it is near impossible for someone to carry a gun. She has special privileges. She doesn't want all guns to be gone, she just wants to be one of the few with a gun. If these people are so concerned about the evil of guns, why do they carry them?


Do you honestly not know the difference between scientifically randomized polls that have been proven over and over to be accurate and an online poll on Fox News???? Who do you think most likely visits the Fox News website???

If you are going to only look at online polls, Ron Paul would have won the Presidency by a landslide.

Again, I don't know of any politician asking for a complete gun ban, the only ones talking about that are the pro-gun people. Does Feinstein carry one of the guns she is proposing to be banned? If not, why do you have a problem with it?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by xedocodex
 



who is your enemy?


The Private money for public use and private profit currency system centred around the Federal Reserve Banking system, World Bank, IMF, their lackeys, minions, and corporations, et al


So anyone who works for the Federal Reserve is your enemy?

And anyone who works for a corporation or owns a corporation? Not very clear on that one.

And who are the lackeys and minions? Is it your local bank teller? Is it a security guard that works at any bank?

Again, I really don't think you know who your "enemy" is...besides yourself I mean.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
There is a new thread about a SWAT team going into someone's house to confiscate a ton of guns.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the perfect example for all the "This is going to start a Revolution" or "You'll only take my guns from my cold dead hands" people.

In this case...who are you going to shoot? Are you going to shoot the SWAT officers for doing their job? These aren't federal agents, these are most likely local joes providing for their family.

If this person was home and waiting and started shooting SWAT members...guess who would be the bad guy...it would be the gun nut that is shooting law enforcement officers for doing thier job.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join