Gun Control, Terrorism and the New American Revolution!!!

reply to post by bekod


With respect you post was not the best constructed post, I took it to imply that you were saying that it was a list of organisations you regard as terrorists so it would seem there has been some misunderstanding.

Don't you all understand.

The second ammendment has nothing to do with militas like it's written.

It has everything to do with the fact that our right to own an AK-47, supercedes and is waaay more important than every other American's right to be alive and to pursue life, libery and happiness. Without AKs, we have cannot battle a tyrannical government in a possible future, but we must not address an actual problem that exists right now.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

This thread is getting really quite strange.

I don’t think many of you posting here actually get this.

If you commit an act of violence to intimidate the government of the United States you are committing an act of terrorism

It’s not a very difficult concept to grasp.

Stop treating me like a gun grabber or like I am trying to stop you from doing anything in any way, all I am doing is making it very clear that if you resort to violence in a attempt to intimidate your government you will be branded as a terrorist.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes, I strongly agree with the OP.

One of the biggest problems I see with pro-gun people is that the solution to all problems always seems to come back to their guns and shooting someone.

Gun Control? They think the appropriate response is to shoot those who are talking about gun control.

Shooting In A Theater/School? They think the answer is to have even more guns in those places.

Someone steals something? Shoot them.

Immigrant looking for a better life? Shoot them.

Black kid in a hoodie walking home to his own house? Shoot him.


It seems that once someone has a gun, they loose the ability to use logic and reason to make decisions...they just now think that their gun is the answer to everything.

I keep hearing people say domestic terrorists or just plain terrorists.
In the 1770's the the word for terrorism was tyranny so in labeling people who would fight against the government in protection of the constitution as terrorists you are basically honoring them as those men and women who came and fought and died are the reason that we can sit here and banter back and forth regarding our political differences such has always been and always will be.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
oh yes another one that knows the 2Nd oh so well, , what do you not get about the words shall not be infringed, does this not mean... in anyway, shape, or form that it is not be changed, made laws against or be told whom gets to own and whom does not, nor is it to be decided of what type, here it is

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." note the Comma it is 2 different things the first being the militia the 2nd one, being the right of the people.
There should be no law that says whom owns what and whom has the right when by the words , we all have the right "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
YES even a felon should have the right , the 2nd says so!
YES the right to own FULL AUTOS, the 2nd says this
YES the right to own what ever weapon is see or chose as long as i have the $$$ to buy it, the 2nd say this .
How by the words "shall not be infringed." that's how. if your going to defend the 2nd, then defend the 2nd,
as a whole... not as the the GOV MSM or the NRA would have you think it should be defended.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
ok it is page 3 would, you post where there is mention of violence ?? the pen er post is mightier than the sword.

reply to post by bekod


I agree with the second amendment I think Americans should have the right to bear arms that said however one does have to remember that it was written at a time when the most lethal firearm as was musket that was very inaccurate fired one round and took time to reload.

I could take the argument that it is right to take up violence to defend the second amendment because they are “infringing” on it to a extreme and ask then why you don’t protest that you all have the right to own a tank or a nuke. It is a extreme in the argument, there are two extremes one which says we should own all weapons (including nukes) and at the other end one that says ban all guns.

Obviously neither extreme is fair so a balance somewhere in the middle must be sought, banning say all assault weapons it’s just moving the line in the sand which dictates what guns are permitted. Yes it does “infringe” the second amendment but it’s always going to be “infringed” no matter what, that is not a justification to resort to terrorism.

If they were going to start going door to door taking all of your guns by force, then yes, I would agree that is a time to call for a new American revolution and even violence, but now is not that time.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes, based on the GOVERNMENT defined version of terrorism, acts against any government is terrorism. By that exact definition the Founding Fathers and every other person who has committed any act of violent defiance against a government or a people, no matter the reasons, was also a terrorist.

If that is the case, then the word "terrorist" isn't such a bad thing, and I don't feel bad taking it upon my mantle. By DHS standards, I am already a terrorist 5 times over so what else is another label?


You seem to think that the idea for a revolution stems solely from the 2nd amendment being infringed. You either have been living on a cloud for the last two decades or you are cherry picking your reasons. The Constitution has been shredded, up until this point, in many ways. There have been a great many injustices that the people have endured and simply complained about, but the injustice that will be and always has been labeled as the final straw is an attempt to take away firearms.

The second amendment was not written for people to defend themselves against criminals, it was written for the people to defend themselves against the government. You can find dozens of quotes by the Founding Fathers to support this fact. We are no longer allowed automatic weapons, something that the government uses freely. Should semi-automatic weapons be taken, there is next to no chance against a paramilitary of fully automatic weapons.

All modern dictatorships have begun with the disarming of the people and to deny the idea that it could happen here make anyone an ignoramus.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Agreed now is not the time to act but rather it is time to voice , write and make letters to the ones in power, to stop another assault on the 2nd or any amendment for that matter.

The 2nd has and will be fringed upon no matter what , until, we the people stand up and say enough , take it as it is written, word for word. the acts and laws are an infringement on the 2nd. Why???? because acts by few effect, the hows of the many.

The 1994 ban, tax stamp act, the 1968 gun act, the 1934 gun act, the 1927 gun act, all are non Constitutional, if you go by Constitutional law.
The US GOV/ and some states, are in need of, being reminded of, it is,...

For the people, of the people, by the people.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I agree with the second amendment I think Americans should have the right to bear arms that said however one does have to remember that it was written at a time when the most lethal firearm as was musket that was very inaccurate fired one round and took time to reload.

Actually you might want to do a little research before you say stuff like that....they had sniper rifles at the time...they also had repeating flintlocks.....and by slow to reload you do mean several shots in a minute right?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Same old augment, does that mean you should have a Tank? Yes it does! a Nuke?, no, no one should have a nuke!!! but they the Gov's do , but a tank, cannon, or fire arm?,It is the right to own, posses, and use in self defense if the need should arise. this is the True meaning of the second, as it is written.

Let me ask you all a question, would any of you ever consider or condone resorting to acts of violence in an attempt to intimidate the current Government of the United States, into changing its current policy, particularly in regards to the changes sought by Obama towards gun legislation?

If you answer yes then in the eyes of your government you will be cast as a terrorist.

If you answer no then this thread probably shouldn’t really matter to you.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


If it come to violence. May it come to me in my generation, that my children may have peace.
If shots be fired, may they be heard around the world...that all may know, that the free men of America shall defend the rights given to them.

And If I may fall, may my family bury me with pride knowing that I tried my best..

If they want my rights, and if they want my guns...then MOLON LABE

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace –but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry

reply to post by okiecowboy


I was looking for a yes or no to the question.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Hopefully no one would attempt to "intimidate" the government, that would be futile. If the government enforces these new laws, starts sending police, national guard, whomever, to remove guns that "they" deem "illegal", problems will occur. Not trying to get myself labeled a "terrorist", but, if "they" come knocking on my door to take anything that is mine, they are not getting it without a fight. I will not standby and get "robbed" by anyone, for any means. What will spark a revolution/ civil war, is this type of scenario, a father or mother standing up for their civil liberties, defending their constitutional rights, will end up getting murdered by the police or other government "enforcer". We have a right not have our rights infringed by another, just because one person does not like a gun, or a word, does not mean they should force upon another person their beliefs, this is what people are mad about. This is America, if our guns are taken, we can always get more, the criminals have plenty to sell, they are not being affected by any new laws.

reply to post by sublik

Hopefully no one would attempt to "intimidate" the government, that would be futile.

That is actually one of the points I am trying to make, if anyone resorts to violence to attempt to intimidate the government it will be futile and the government will brand that individual as a terrorist.

If the government enforces these new laws, starts sending police, national guard, whomever, to remove guns that "they" deem "illegal", problems will occur. Not trying to get myself labeled a "terrorist", but, if "they" come knocking on my door to take anything that is mine, they are not getting it without a fight.

This I can agree with you on, if the government were to start sending out gun-grabbing squads to take the guns of Americans then that would be wrong.

That said however my understanding is that so far there has not been any call for such a move. It quite simply would never work.

At that point I would say Americans should protect themselves

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The government is still acting unconstitutional, peaceful protests will only go so far. The protests will happen first, civilians acting o their constitutional rights to gather peaceably to protest will eventually get shut down or some civilian will get injured or worse killed. When this occurs, then we will have the start of violent uprisings, this is something I fear, I as an American do not want war in my country, but the only option I see for "us" to get our freedoms back, the freedoms without the three thousand plus laws, will be civil war or revolutionary war, however one wishes to look at it. This was predicted by our forefathers, it is something that we will have to face one day, this may be what will cause it to come quicker.

reply to post by sublik


I think you are right to say that it is possible that peaceful protest might not lead to the change that you and others seek. My issue of contention however is that some it appears are not giving things a chance, they are talking about violence before protest.

Originally posted by sublik
"We the people" of America do not want civil war, what the few "Rambos" are trying to say is that we will fight for our freedoms, not just the second amendment, but the Constitution as a whole, if need be. "We the people" choose not to be "We the subjects" as you are. Our government is pushing the boundaries of what they should and should not do. They have no right to "infringe" upon the second amendment, they should not have started this debate in the first place, there is no debate, "shall not be infringed". The United States government has been pushing the limits with it's citizens for a while, this country is supposed to have a government "for the people, by the people", at this moment, we do not have this.The American government has acted treasonous many times over the past decade, if not longer, we have not acted upon this, enough is enough. As you are British and a subject, what do you know of these freedoms we as Americans have? Were you born with these? Have you exercised these freedoms since the day you were born? Are you in fear of losing them? Would you sit by and watch them be stripped from you, in any way? Just because you get on your knees and bow to another man, does not mean we ever will.

I couldn't have said it better myself. /props