It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Disasters and potential disasters are prima facia reasons to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, including self-defense and hunting; they are not political opportunities to restrict these crucial constitutional rights.
originally posted by: kimish
Maybe they wanted to prevent people from using their weapons to rob other people or something along those lines?
Just a thought.
originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium
Why would anyone want to strip these rights when they have the potential of being needed the most?
Because the town was going to have some police sponsored looting, and didn't want to get shot at?
originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium
SO I might have read it right after all?
It sounds damn shady.
originally posted by: kimish
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
I understand all that.
I don't articulate my thoughts into words well due to having ADD so i apologize for any misunderstandings. I stand firmly by the 2nd as a gun owner myself.
Eta: thank you for replying to me like a decent human being. Much appreciated 😊
originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium
Why would anyone want to strip these rights when they have the potential of being needed the most?
Because the town was going to have some police sponsored looting, and didn't want to get shot at?
You know, that actually crossed my mind. If you wanted to gather up (or steal) firearms, what better opportunity would you have?