Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

2nd Amendment Day of Resistance Armed Rally at My Capital

page: 12
50
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Please folks don't engage the obvious trolling. Their goal is to disrupt and get the thread shut down of they can. Stick to the right to keep and bear arms and ignore these guys




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Again what was the point in turning up to a capital building en masse with loaded weapons if it wasnt a threat?



Maybe there was a implied threat. Meaning that the Government works for the people not the other way around.

What was that saying? Oh yea!

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

And just one more.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So what your saying is, that even though these" redneck" types, are by your own admission not responsible for the irresponsible acts of of tue city dwellers, you think the same idiot city dwellers are better than the rednecks somehow?

Last time I checked, the rednecks are pretty much all good fun loving, humble hardworking family types, city dwellers....well we have all seen the rap videos on bet.

So somehow, the folks that are responsible gun owners, and good people, are th e bad guys, because ignorant ghetto trash cant stop killing and stealling and raping eachother?

If this is not your stance please enlighten me, as I have just read several of your posts from this thread, and that is what you keep saying over and over again it seems to me.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So, having a tool one uses to provide sustenance for their families table, is somehow unnatural?

History 101 humans for 10s of thousands of years have used tools to kill food, much as " nature" provides these tools to most creature at birth, humans do not have these built in tools, we were given the gift of invention, which allows us to make the same tools for us to use, as other creatures are born with. Now we have just made them several factors better.

Not killing things is an invention of mans, and a absolute lie, killing is as natural as a spring morning, it is what governs the entire world once you get out from in front of the boob tube. Every single day, you are responsible for the murder and theft of offspring from many creatures, but you dont have to kill it, walamart does that for you, but the killing still needs doing.

I dont know, maybe climb down from your high horse in your ivory tower every once in a while, a world existes outside of the msm and american idol I swear.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I find the images of the rally to be somewhat disconcerting, though I fully believe in the people's rights to rally in such a manner. The reason I find this troubling is because of the major divide I see this nation falling into.

To other posters, especially ones that are not from the U.S. I ask you this: do the nations you reference as evidence for gun control in any way resemble the current circumstance of the U.S.?

Our history has taken us to this point, and at this point, it is too far gone to ever change direction to a peaceful population without absolute right to own a self-defense mechanism the is equal to the average weapon used by an aggressor. We have over 300 million registered firearms in the United States. The cat is out of the bag, and there is not putting it back in without fully abolishing the social contract that was signed in 1787. I for one don't fully agree with the Constitution, as I take more of an anti-federalist stance on the matter, but the Bill of Rights are the imprint left to us by the anti-federalist; and their implementation of the Second Amendment has led us to this point in time.

This notion that people do not walk through society without a gun, knife, or some type of protection is naive. The recent trend of casting a narrow eye towards those with protection is not a new phenomenon, but in our generation, the means and motives are different than in times past. The U.S. Government is the second largest organism on the face of the earth beside the central banking system. The Second Amendment has not secured our freedom in many ways, as we have become a lazy society that allows the shadows and lawyer speak to rule. But, the Second Amendment is the final guard against outright tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson stated that the beauty of the Second is that it would never be needed until they (the government or foreign entity) try to take it. And face it world, if the U.S. Government ever takes the U.S. Populace, it will be, in response or preparation to, the outright destruction of the global structure as we know it.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I believe that, in truth, what we want, is just for innocent people not to die from firearms, unnecessarily. The sad truth, is that neither resolution will achieve that. If guns are taken away from the people, criminals will still have weapons, and will still kill people, with guns, or some other way. And the opposite does not work either, even if we all carry guns, people will still be killed by criminals, just like they have all through history.
Also, there is a huge difference between someone carrying a gun that has grown up in a place like Idaho, where most people have them, and are taught when to use a weapon, and when NOT to use one, by family, when they are children; and armed people that have not learned this, and probably steal their weapons, in order to protect themselves or to commit a crime.
I grew up in North Idaho, and most pickups had rifles in the back window, even at the high school, but we didn't shoot people with them. They were needed because there were cougars, bear, wolves, coyotes, and other predators around our homes, and because Idaho has a lot of hunters, who provided for their families by hunting.
I remember taking my children out in the pasture to teach them how to properly shoot my old 22 , so they would know gun safety. The same way that I took them out on the back roads and taught them how to drive the old Chevy truck, so they would learn how to drive safely. In my opinion, education is necessary for guns and vehicles, just like it is for most things in life.
That said, I am totally against the government controlling our lives, and taking away our constitutional rights, in any way, and agree with peaceful demonstration against that.
My two cents worth...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Awesome thread, hawkiye. Thanks for the inside report!


I love to see stuff like this! I wish I could have joined the festivities.

There were a LOT of guns and gun owners there! You forgot to mention, how many people died at this event?? I’m sure there were many!



edit on 25-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Bill: Forbid Idaho police from seizing banned guns

According to a measure introduced Monday in the House State Affairs Committee seeking to interfere with attempts by President Obama and Congress to ban semiautomatic weapons or other firearms following the massacre of Connecticut elementary school students.

Government employees in Idaho who help enforce new federal firearms restrictions or registration requirements would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable with jail and a $1,000 fine.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The best case I can make for these Days of Resistance, is to merely ask people to look at how this criminal administration is systematically destroying our Bill of Rights, and then you will understand that we need guns to tale back our country from these criminals.This is why we need more than hand guns and shotguns, as the clown VP states. Shotguns will not be effective in any revolution.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

thanks for the inside scoop hawkiye

that is a vision of beauty indeed.
sorry i missed it.

it is nice to see the legislature willing to comply with the ppl for once.
who'd have thought Idaho would make such a bold statement ?
y'all warm my heart



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Wow some of the anti-gun responses boggle the mind! Even Pravda warns us not to give up our RIGHT to bear arms. I think mostly what bothers the anti gun types is they can't impose their will on the gun owners. Some of the worst violence in the past was in Bath Mi. We've seen a a bunch of legislation since then and guess what there is still violence. Bad people do Bad things! All legislation does is take the rights of Law abiding citizens. A couple of recent shootings were stopped by legally armed citizens and where is the media coverage of that. My heart breaks at the thought of any child losing thier life though senseless violence. Until we admit we are programming shooters through video games and movies it will never change.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I'm all for gun ownership, though I don't own one myself, I shoot them occasionally on my mates farm, and in certain circumstances they are useful tools.

My issue with this whole debate is the extreme viewpoints and soaked sarcasm presented by both sides (though seemingly more often from the gun supporter side), such as "... cars kill people why don't we ban them too...", or "... guns aren't needed in modern day society."... where is the impartiality? Where is the understanding of facts without bias?

It often seems lost in this debate... which who knows?... may all be orchestrated (if you believe that kind of thing).

I'm all for guns in our society, but I'm also for licensing. Generally we need licenses in a high-density populated world (maybe licenses should only apply based on a certain level of urban density?)

You need a license to drive a car, to be a medical professional, or a dealer at a casino, or a security officer, operate a crane or other heavy machinery, some construction and scientific jobs require licenses. Then theirs different levels of licenses.. I have a car license, but am not legally allowed to drive a 42 wheeled road-train... and rightfully so, it takes a long time to get a license class for driving road-trains... most of these need licenses because they can potentially kill, and I think it's a good thing to have some record of who is allowed to perform deadly tasks.

Guns are deadly (often their only purpose is to kill)... I don't see why gun ownership shouldn't require a license too?... and different classes of license for different levels of ownership.

For instance I want to know that people that own automatic shotguns, or grenade launchers, or any other type of deadly projectile weapon has passed tests to prove their capability of owning such devices.

Definitely keep the availability of guns legal (even ones that aren't so useful for farm life... :-), but I don't see any problem with licensing guns.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by puzzlesphere

You need a license to drive a car, to be a medical professional, or a dealer at a casino, or a security officer, operate a crane or other heavy machinery, some construction and scientific jobs require licenses. Then theirs different levels of licenses.. I have a car license, but am not legally allowed to drive a 42 wheeled road-train... and rightfully so, it takes a long time to get a license class for driving road-trains... most of these need licenses because they can potentially kill, and I think it's a good thing to have some record of who is allowed to perform deadly tasks.



Why? Even if you say it is because you need a license to do things that are dangerous, why do you need a license. Why not a card that says you passed exams related to driving or whatever.

Why do you have to renew licenses and pay continuing fees for the rest of your natural life? Why does the Government need to have a list of who can operate a fork lift. Fees, fees and more fees to allow the Government to keep an ever increasing list of what we are all allowed to do.

Society functioned quite well before all these licenses came in to force.

Think it through, if you work on a construction site, why does the boss want to take the Governments word on what you can and can't do? On the job training until the boss says your OK and away you go.

But No you must have a license, you must pay your fees and you must not do anything your not allowed to or they will generate more revenue by issuing you with a fine.

Question the status quo.

P



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


Actually, here in Idaho you need a hunters liscense to even carry a weapon in the forest with very few places you can go shoot one without it. Also that hunters liscense requires you to pass a hunters safety course. As for the grenade launchers and automatic shotguns, they're illegal period.

an off topic note, found this today and thought it was just hellarious 45 reasons why Idaho is the most underrated state in the country

edit: yes I understand that you can still buy one without the liscense but most people around here wouldn't even dream of such a pointless thing, if they have a gun its going to be used (responsibly)
edit on 26-2-2013 by MasterOfTheDamned because: add a little



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Why?

To set minimum standards of usage, and have some type of system in place to minimise accidents and intentional mis-use.


...Why not a card that says you passed exams related to driving or whatever.
That is essentially what a license is.


Why do you have to renew licenses and pay continuing fees for the rest of your natural life?
To reaffirm your ability to perform a certain task, to fund whatever program the license effects (roads = repairs, maintenance, etc.).

Some licenses don't require any fees or have a one off payment/exam to obtain a perpetual license for life, it depends on the tasks, and the overarching effects of the activity.


Why does the Government need to have a list of who can operate a fork lift.
So if myself or someone close to me is injured or killed, I have some recourse for followup (insurance, legalities, compensation, etc.). Without some form of record of potential harmful activities to others, denial of bad activity is possible. Keeping records is just good practice, at all levels, so it should be regulated at a higher level than the individual or private business.

An excellent example of the need for licenses are fishing licenses in Australia. Before the licenses, the entire aquatic life on the coast of NSW was decimated through overfishing. Since licensing and protected areas have been introduced, the ecosystem is flourishing and looks better than I remember it from 30 years ago. Parks and Marine Services uses the licensing money to employ staff and maintain the environment.



Fees, fees and more fees to allow the Government to keep an ever increasing list of what we are all allowed to do.
We could privatise these authorities, to create competition and lower the price of licensing... and in some sectors that is the case, but where peoples' lives are concerned, generally you want some consistency and checks in place.


Society functioned quite well before all these licenses came in to force.
The USA has never existed without some form of licensing. Marriage licenses extend back to the 1200's, and there are examples of licensing as far back as ancient Greece, where prostitution (among other professions) were licensed.


Think it through, if you work on a construction site, why does the boss want to take the Governments word on what you can and can't do? On the job training until the boss says your OK and away you go.
To have an accepted and maintained standard at a state, federal or global scale, for protection of all parties; workers, employers, controlling bodies, etc.

I worked in a warehouse, and had to use a forklift (funnily enough), when I was in my late teens, and the "boss" gave me "on-site instruction" which led to a bunch of shelves and stock crashing down and breaking... quite the costly mistake... luckily no-one was hurt... the incident was "forgotten"... and I soon had my forklift license.

All levels of people can be stupid or corrupt (usually hand in hand), from the boss of a warehouse to the leader of a nation, which is why we need some form of checks and balances... which in many unfortunate cases is our governments.


But No you must have a license, you must pay your fees and you must not do anything your not allowed to or they will generate more revenue by issuing you with a fine.
This is the kind of sarcasm I was talking about in my previous post.

Yes, you do have to pay your fees and get licensed for a range of activities, and rightfully so, in a functional society. I don't totally agree with fines all the time, but in a monetary based world like we live in, where 90% of people I meet have skewed moral compasses, I don't see a valid replacement unfortunately.

Licensing seems like a good concept to apply at a federal level to deadly weapons (due to the increased interconnection of the world, even though government seems broken at the moment, we do need broader authorities)... It means law abiding citizens get to keep their guns. It means others can be confident that the owners of those guns are capable of their possession and allows for a system to follow up on gun incidents.

Is there a better way?... maybe better global education for a couple of generations or so?... starts sounding kind of fascist though....

Can you suggest a better overall solution? There must be some resolution out there, but I'm not exactly sure what it is...

Cheers
edit on 26-2-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


A better system is for the Govt to get the hell out of our lives!

Given another couple of decades you will need a license to fart.

The biggest problem of all is that you need nothing to become a politician. (Well except the ability to lie badly)

I may agree on a once only test of competence but in the US and only in the US guns DO NOT need a license or registration. IF the citizens wish to change this, then they alter the Constitution, plain and simple.

P



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Wanted to post this here, for all those that say we can't fight city hall, countries all over NY are voting on propositions calling on NY to repeal the gun bans, and that they will NOT comply.
So far gun control seems to be in the minority. If a vote was allowed, you would have seen that.

www.scribd.com...


2/26/13RESOLUTION 52 - 13Introduced by Chairman GrattidgeOPPOSING THE NEW YORK SECURE AMMUNITION AND FIREARMSENFORCEMENT (SAFE) ACT OF 2013WHEREAS, the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors endorses and upholds the SecondAmendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Actof 2013 (A.2388/S.2230) was rushed to passage in the State Legislature through a flawed processthat excluded input from concerned citizens; and

WHEREAS, provisions in the SAFE Act are already requiring, and will continue torequire, greater expenses of County resources, in effect creating a new unfunded mandate; and

WHEREAS, implementation of the SAFE Act will also require investment of stateresources that could otherwise be used to promote other criminal justice initiatives that keep our residents safe; and

WHEREAS, the SAFE Act would criminalize law-abiding citizens, including policeofficers, who are the responsible owners of certain firearms and magazines that were included inthe law; now, therefore,

be itRESOLVED, that the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 and the flawed process bywhich it was enacted, includi
ng Governor Cuomo’s Message of Necessity which limited debate
and input from concerned citizens; and

be it further RESOLVED, that the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors requests that the SAFE Act be repealed and replaced with more sensible legislation that does not infringe upon SecondAmendment rights, does not create unfunded mandates on county governments, addresses issuesincluding mental illness and deterring violent crime, and includes full input from the public; and

be it further RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors forward acertified copy of this Resolution to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Temporary Presidents of the
Senate Jeffrey D. Klein and Dean G. Skelos, Speaker Sheldon Silver, and the county’s
representatives in the New York State Senate and Assembly.BUDGET IMPACT STATEMENT: No budget impact.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 



A better system is for the Govt to get the hell out of our lives!
... but what is the Govt? Do you accept local, county or state authority?

Even small isolated communities or tribes have some form of governing body, such as a council of elders or an elected representative that makes larger decisions for the community. Without some form of hierarchy of responsibility and decision making, you are basically left with anarchy.

If you live in a rural area, where your closest neighbor is miles away, then possibly laws should be (and often are) different in those areas. Maybe licensing should apply based on population density. If your guns never enter a densely populated area, then no license would be necessary.

The fact is that in densely populated areas, such as cities, it makes sense for large communities to have regulations around dangerous items, such as guns and cars. By extensions it makes sense to have some consistency across a country, at least general guidelines around the allowable extremes.

Government is far from perfect, but from what I've read, I don't see guns being taken away from people. There are extreme views that suggest total disarmament, just as there are views for absolutely no regulation. But the reality seems to be somewhere in the middle. It does seem practical to have some regulation, especially with the villainy and stupidity of some individuals out there.


The biggest problem of all is that you need nothing to become a politician. (Well except the ability to lie badly)
I completely agree! Our politicians should have to undergo regular psychological evaluations, their finances should be a matter of public record and people that want to "govern" other people should have completely transparent lives... In my opinion a fair price to pay to lead or help lead a nation.


I may agree on a once only test of competence...
I think many people, from both sides, would agree with a concept like that... though it does suggest some form of record keeping, which seems to be one of the big issues.

Cheers
edit on 27-2-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterOfTheDamned
 


Your post makes sense to me on many levels... and I want to visit Iowa (Idaho.. ;-j) now!

Hearing gun owners talk about safety and responsibility gives me confidence in general about gun ownership... hearing hardcore gun advocates shoot from the hip... so to speak... makes me want guns taken off certain people.

Cheers





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join