47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

It certainly does NOT make me feel any safe to know that all the lunatics in the street are allowed to carry guns everywhere they please.

Poor america.

Originally posted by Honor93
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.

More personal attacks doesnt help prove your point any more... Interesting how an analogy can be childish and immature, but telling a person to grow up and be a big boy isnt...

I'm sorry you are not articulating the explanation of agreeing citizens should have nukes if the government does, yet somehow you arent saying citizens should have nukes. But thats not my fault. Maybe you dont understand what youre saying or the point I was making.

Originally posted by theAnswer1111

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

A local sheriff making a tweet or facebook update is an example of revolt? I dont even know how to respond to that, its so far out there.

reply to post by bknapple32
Far out there!?

Originally posted by theAnswer1111
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Far out there!?

Interesting the use of emoticons by the both of ya....

Use them all you want.. Doesnt make the statement " a local sheriff tweets" a revolutionary event ,any less ridiculous.

reply to post by bknapple32

that is not how you framed your original question, don't even change it now.
your problem is ... you keep trying to get a different answer ... but that's not likely so long as nukes are on the table anywhere.

i can still remember shopping for bomb shelters, can you ?

harrassing me ?? yes, you are.
but far be it from you to recognize it.

that'll be ma to you, little boy.
yes, there are and several of them have been bombed, burned out, murdered or assaulted in a variety of ways, so, what makes you think this 'stand' is any less volatile ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32

 

that is not how you framed your original question, don't even change it now.
your problem is ... you keep trying to get a different answer ... but that's not likely so long as nukes are on the table anywhere.

i can still remember shopping for bomb shelters, can you ?

harrassing me ?? yes, you are.
but far be it from you to recognize it.

that'll be ma to you, little boy.
yes, there are and several of them have been bombed, burned out, murdered or assaulted in a variety of ways, so, what makes you think this 'stand' is any less volatile ??

Wow, really standing by that harassment line huh? Okey dokey then. I guess we have two different ideas on what harassment means. Yours, and mine from the dictionary.

Keep calling me little boy. Very becoming. Certainly doesnt prove that with age, wisdom doesnt follow.... /sarcasm

On topic, again.

I absolutely phrased the question just how I am presenting it right now. I quoted myself and your answer in which you said yes. So its right there in black and white. Cant dodge it. You can ignore your own answer, which you are doing, but it doesnt do much but make yourself feel better.

A few people from each state declaring something they believe in, is not a revolution. Its an exercise of their first amendment. Unless these people are planning on attacking our military or government? Are you aware of something I am not? Are they planning such attack?

Originally posted by SpookyVince
It certainly does NOT make me feel any safe to know that all the lunatics in the street are allowed to carry guns everywhere they please.

Poor america.

What about people who aren't lunatics?
What if you're in a disaster of some sort, let's say a hurricane like Katrina... the local cops and emergency responders a dealing with a couple hundred thousand hungry desperate other people for weeks... wouldn't it be nice to be armed so we could deal with those lunatics?
Should I shout angrily about morality and peaceful disarmament at the armed thugs while they loot my store or rape my wife?
Hell no.

reply to post by bknapple32
Too bad there is not an emoticon that shows coffee spraying out of the nose of a smiley face from laughter. Your misinformed opinions are comedic... We must DENY ignorance. Did you get confused with ATS's Motto?

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by SpookyVince
It certainly does NOT make me feel any safe to know that all the lunatics in the street are allowed to carry guns everywhere they please.

Poor america.

What about people who aren't lunatics?
What if you're in a disaster of some sort, let's say a hurricane like Katrina... the local cops and emergency responders a dealing with a couple hundred thousand hungry desperate other people for weeks... wouldn't it be nice to be armed so we could deal with those lunatics?
Should I shout angrily about morality and peaceful disarmament at the armed thugs while they loot my store or rape my wife?
Hell no.

Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by gariac
Hey maybe you guys can just learn to shoot more accurately and not need those high capacity clips. It is called skill. Get some.

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.

Second Amendment is not about hunting and hobby and protecting the home, sure you can do those things with it though.

It is the last resort to tyranny and the same reason why they cannot put an outright ban and come to collect.

reply to post by bknapple32

what personal attack ?
instruction and assumption are not ... apparently i was on target.

sorry for you, this isn't the thread to engage in such a discussion.
IF it were the topic, i'd be happy to oblige.

again, if the concept of 'equal force' is over your head, let's discuss it after you get an education.

if your point was to distract, deflect and verbally assault, you succeeded

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by gariac
Hey maybe you guys can just learn to shoot more accurately and not need those high capacity clips. It is called skill. Get some.

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.

Second Amendment is not about hunting and hobby and protecting the home, sure you can do those things with it though.

It is the last resort to tyranny and the same reason why they cannot put an outright ban and come to collect.

And as I said in the post you quoted. No one with all the guns in the world will over throw our trillion dollar military. Making that argument moot.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Unless these people are planning on attacking our military or government? Are you aware of something I am not? Are they planning such attack?

Seriously? I was reading your posts, even found myself nodding my head a few times, and then bam, you're credibility took a serious hit with that one. What is that exactly, a riculous construance or a moot hyperbole?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32

 

what personal attack ?
instruction and assumption are not ... apparently i was on target.

sorry for you, this isn't the thread to engage in such a discussion.
IF it were the topic, i'd be happy to oblige.

again, if the concept of 'equal force' is over your head, let's discuss it after you get an education.

if your point was to distract, deflect and verbally assault, you succeeded

Um, you are the only one who has deflected and verbally assaulted me. Telling me to grow up, become big boy, called me deluded, and now saying I have no education... Little do you know, as I have posted and proved on ATS in the past. I have my phd in anthropology, specifically archaeology. But nice try.

Please, do explain how your answer of equal force in response to my nuke question doesnt mean that the citizens should have a nuke. Ive asked a few times now and you just dodge and bring up age.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by bknapple32
Unless these people are planning on attacking our military or government? Are you aware of something I am not? Are they planning such attack?

Seriously?

I was reading your posts, even found myself nodding my head a few times, and then bam, you're credibility took a serious hit with that one. What is that exactly, a riculous construance or a moot hyperbole?

A peaceful protest , a revolt it is not. Am I wrong?

reply to post by bknapple32


Nothing to do with "overthrowing the government" as you put it. All humans are vulnerable to a bullet and all it takes is one in the right place to kill us. Again one man can be killed with one bullet, one at a time.

Government is for the most part common people and when they leave their place of employment most don't have armed guards with the exception of those at the top.

Let's be perfectly honest here. At some point in time nearly every government that has ever existed on earth has/will been taken out through violent retaliation. A firearm is just one tool that keeps some alive long enough to perform the task. Even against overwhelming odds, one bullet is enough to kill a tank driver - at least when he leaves the confines of his tank to take a crap or fill his water bottle - thus everyone is vulnerable at some point in time.

As locks tend to keep most thieves honest, guns tend to keep people more honest as well.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by gariac
Hey maybe you guys can just learn to shoot more accurately and not need those high capacity clips. It is called skill. Get some.

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.

Second Amendment is not about hunting and hobby and protecting the home, sure you can do those things with it though.

It is the last resort to tyranny and the same reason why they cannot put an outright ban and come to collect.

And as I said in the post you quoted. No one with all the guns in the world will over throw our trillion dollar military. Making that argument moot.

I have friends in the military who are trained on a weekly basis for civil defense (aka getting them ready to patrol the streets and 'keep the peace'). They are all aware of what they're being trained for why but MOST of the armed services and veterans are well aware of their oath, when it comes down to the wire, a large majority of the military will not aim at Americans. Of course the government knows this, again they will not do an outright ban, they don't want to appear to be the instigator. Take a look at the Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation, they faked an attack on our ships to go into Vietnam. When it comes down to destroying the Constitution, the government is a little more coy...

Whats the point of having a trillion dollar army is at least half of your force isn't operating all that expensive military industrial complex machinery?

I guess that is why they want 30,000 drones in the air.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.

Well see the problem with that is, who the hell is going to define the word Lunatic?
Obama?
Pharmaceutical Reps?
Psychologists on a fancy new federal budget they need to justify?
Your neighbor?
Your doctor?
Some vague clause in an exectuive order?
Rush Limbaugh?

reply to post by bknapple32

Certainly doesnt prove that with age, wisdom doesnt follow

not that you'd know but i can assure you, with wisdom always comes experience so when you have some, we'll talk.

would you prefer Jethro ?

still looking for that on-topic point.
is it in here somewhere ?

no one claims this stand is a 'revolution', where'd you get that idea??