Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

DHS wants 7,000 AR-15s

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
no no no no one got it for they the Gov knows any attempt of a door to door gun grab will be a bloody mess, they just want a equal playing field they will have your old AR's when all you'll have is a bolt action just like Brazil news.yahoo.com...

BRAZIL — BEYOND REPAIR?

So how about a country that actually bans guns?

Since 2003, Brazil has come close to fitting that description. Only police, people in high-risk professions and those who can prove their lives are threatened are eligible to receive gun permits. Anyone caught carrying a weapon without a permit faces up to four years on prison.

But Brazil also tops the global list for gun murders.

According to a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime study in 2011, 34,678 people were murdered by firearms in Brazil in 2008, compared to 34,147 in 2007. The numbers for both years represent a homicide-by-firearm rate of 18 per 100,000 inhabitants — more than five times higher than the U.S. rate.

Violence is so endemic in Brazil that few civilians would even consider trying to arm themselves for self-defense. Vast swaths of cities like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are slums long dominated by powerful drug gangs, who are often better armed than the police. Brazilian officials admit guns flow easily over the nation's long, porous Amazon jungle border.

Still, Guaracy Mingardi, a crime and public safety expert and researcher at Brazil's top think tank, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, said the 2003 law helped make a dent in homicides by firearms in some areas.

According to the Sao Paulo State Public Safety Department, the homicide rate there was 28.29 per 100,000 in 2003 and dropped to 10.02 per 100,000 in 2011.

Brazil wants more powerful guns in the hands of police. This month, the army authorized law enforcement officers to carry heavy caliber weapons for personal use.

Ligia Rechenberg, coordinator of the Sou da Paz, or "I am for Peace," violence prevention group, thinks that could make things worse. She said police will buy weapons that "they don't know how to handle, and that puts them and the population at risk."
has this not happened here the 40 SW the glock among others that where and are issued to LEOs who have less than a box of ammo to practice with. ANy one that thinks banning guns will reduce crime or murder should go live there in Brazil and then say the same thing

But Brazil also tops the global list for gun murders.
edit on 27-1-2013 by bekod because: line edit




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Uh no, you could still purchase new AR-15's without certain features during the ban......


The federal ban targeted weapons with specific features, including a device that hides the flash from a gun shooting in the dark. It is unclear whether Mr. Holmes' rifle had those features which would have then qualified the weapon for the federal ban. Indeed, stripped-down versions of the AR-15 were sold legally during the federal ban, experts say.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
so if we dont need them.. why do they...


So that we have a source of resupply when they come...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Half full type of guy............Hey?






posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Why is that a stupid statement? Until 1934, any law abiding American could own those items.


Yep our grandfathers could walk in to a hardware store in one aisle buy a machine gun then walk over to the next aisle buy a stick of dynamite, and without a background check or a second look from anyone.

How the times have changed the fascists times they have become.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er

i guess select fire (full auto) is good for DHSs' personal defense, but semi-auto is just way to much for we the peoples' personal defense.

theblaze.co m


Breaking news...US Military requests Nuclear Weapons!!! Damn...I guess it's OK for them but not for us!

There is a legitimate argument to be made by gun-rights advocates, but the premise that civilians should be privy to any and all arms that our police and army has is a logical non-starter. It makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned they can have 7,000 screw you's!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
People get ready, they are preparing for door to door war..

A TOTAL GUN CONFISCATION..

THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of hollow point bullets, THOUSAND upon THOUSANDS of machine gun...

It is not looking good, Hunker down, get all the ammo you can get and be ready to be the resistant.--



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


Well if the DHS can have so can I. If they say I can't have them then neither should they be able to have them. Outlawing them is outlawing them across the board not just against honest and upright citizens who never would or have ever used on to commit a crime or atrocity.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by bjax9er
 


Of course they do . . . and a ten year supply of .223 to keep off of the selves for consumers.

This is getting ridiculous and seems to be progressing faster than I expected.


Time to stock up the mountain strong-hold and refresh the b.o.b.


Why the laughing face Sol? I think you are 100% correct.

I cant believe the bickering that is going on here "he's got one, I want one too", "you said Johnny could have one, why can't I, it's not fair". Wake up and smell the coffee!!! Your depratment of homeland security is arming up like an army, get ready.

Maybe we should read up on the Jews getting out of Nazi Germany. When to leave is the hardest decision to make and stick to. It is like the boiling a frog effect.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by bjax9er

i guess select fire (full auto) is good for DHSs' personal defense, but semi-auto is just way to much for we the peoples' personal defense.

theblaze.co m


Breaking news...US Military requests Nuclear Weapons!!! Damn...I guess it's OK for them but not for us!

There is a legitimate argument to be made by gun-rights advocates, but the premise that civilians should be privy to any and all arms that our police and army has is a logical non-starter. It makes no sense.



Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington


When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson


Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Ronald Reagan


I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
John Adams



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
US military can not be used on US soil against citizens....unless of civil war.

hence DHS starts to disarm citizens forcefully....blocking off neighborhoods...then door to door! (also out sourcing to groups like BLACK WATER)

or is DHS and other law enforcement groups been doing "shell" buys for a secret private army obama has?? (you tube has the clip about obama wanting a private army that can work on US soil)

either way....they are prepping for something BIG.

I ran into an old friend a few weeks back....he ran into a national gaurd unit in the south. talking to one of them..he was told that the military is prepping for another war and that you should start gathering supplies now!

why would you need to gather supplies...could it be? they are planning a war on the militia of the united states?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Possession of a given weapon is not a guarantee that upon one's death said weapon will not fall into the hands of the enemy.

In war, traitors arise, as do sympathizers to a cause.

Who one thinks is an ally may very well be plotting his demise.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mamatus
I am a huge fan of the 2nd Amendment. But I am going to take a logic stance on this one.

If the Military has rocket launchers should the citizens have them also?
If the military has M320 grenade launchers should the Citizens have them also?


ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY we should have them if the US military is to be used inside the US borders. 20 years ago I'd have agreed with you purely based on the fact that the USA was still observing the posse comatatus act. Hell, today we've got active military playing police officer at domestic event venues and we're using our National Guard (Ya know, the group that is supposedly our modern militia) to protect the tatters of the US dollar in the deserts of the middle east. The rules have changed. I'd fully support either the full arming of America or, alternatively, the full disarming of the US military stateside.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mamatus
I am a huge fan of the 2nd Amendment. But I am going to take a logic stance on this one.

If the Military has rocket launchers should the citizens have them also?
If the military has M320 grenade launchers should the Citizens have them also?



Under the 2nd Amendment, yes, for a "well regulated(meaning "well armed") militia".

The framers meant for citizen militias to be armed equally with what the common foot soldier was armed with.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dekard1138
US military can not be used on US soil against citizens....unless of civil war.


Lincoln suspended posse comitatus, and Clinton tried during his administration to be blocked by Senator Bob Barr of Georgia and an avalanche of informed citizens alerting Congress to Clinton's attempt by EO to suspend posse comitatus.

However, your scenario is a plausible one.


edit on 27-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Mamatus
I am a huge fan of the 2nd Amendment. But I am going to take a logic stance on this one.

If the Military has rocket launchers should the citizens have them also?
If the military has M320 grenade launchers should the Citizens have them also?


ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY we should have them if the US military is to be used inside the US borders. 20 years ago I'd have agreed with you purely based on the fact that the USA was still observing the posse comatatus act. Hell, today we've got active military playing police officer at domestic event venues and we're using our National Guard (Ya know, the group that is supposedly our modern militia) to protect the tatters of the US dollar in the deserts of the middle east. The rules have changed. I'd fully support either the full arming of America or, alternatively, the full disarming of the US military stateside.


That's right. It is called the Right to BEAR ARMS. You must have equal arms to that of whom you may need to fight of (throw off).

I think they should do both "arm the citizens and disarm the military in the US.

edit on 27-1-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
And, "to keep and bear arms" meant for citizens to have them at the ready at all times, so as to "grab and go" at a moment's notice.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
so if we dont need them.. why do they...

Right..and as the employees of DHS are civilians too...the citizens have an absolute righht to match whatever 'personal defense weapons' they have...it's the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What terrific timing for them to be doing this...do they imagine the public are deaf, dumb and blind?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


I don't think citizens with the kind of large scale military weapons is right.

IF they do not assume the role of a domestic police force...if they do, the public have the right to match what may be used against them.

The simple option is to not deploy the Military against the citizenry..or for patriots who honor their oaths, to respectfully decline the order to do so, either way, the principles of the 2nd stands.






top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join