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.

 

What I see happening in the next 2 years

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
This is what is called in the marksman community as a SWAG.
A scientifically wild ass guess

That's all it is. I don't get visions from the future and/or the beyond and I am not claiming to qualified at all in these matters.

So here goes

The I-594 bill just passed in Washington state. It requires you to get a background check when transferring anything but firearms made before 1898.
In it the law states when selling a firearm to another person, they have to fill out a background check with a dealer that has a FFL or federal firearms license. This is quoted from the law in question.

"At the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol, the purchaser shall sign in triplicate and deliver to the dealer an application containing his or her full name, residential address, date and place of birth, race, and gender; the date and hour of the application; the applicant's driver's license number or state identification card number; a description of the pistol including the make, model, caliber and manufacturer's number if available at the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol." The records of the purchase are then required by law to held by the dealer for 6 years. The law also applies to buying long arms as well.

I believe this law will be implemented into federal law. They might change the wording around a bit, but it'll still have the same effect. No private sales are allowed in this bill. The government will then know exactly who is buying what firearm and where they live. With that, they will then pass a law like New York's SAFE act and anyone in non-compliance will have their firearms seized. They will then seize these weapons using these background checks to see who bought a non-compliant firearm in the last 6 years. If you resist, you'll be a criminal and a domestic terrorist. And as a terrorist the NDAA means that the federal government can imprison or kill you without a trial by your peers. The Patriot Act means they'll be able to wiretap/monitor anyone that owns non-compliant firearms because of "terrorism". There will be a stigma instigated against any gun owner and the government will encourage people to report anyone they think has a non-compliant firearm with a helpful anonymous hotline.

It doesn't matter who gets elected in 2016, they'll still pass the law because they're powerless to stop it. They will turn non gun owners against gun owners and create civil strife and a division in families, friends, and workplaces. The whole nation will be at each other's throats while the boys in Washington play their games, knowing that we'll be too focused on defending our rights.

When, not if, but when they come, you shoot them in the face. They are committing treason by passing any law that infringes on the 2nd amendment as per the Militia Act of 1903 which states that even talking about infringing on the 2nd amendment is high treason. Every gun control act that has passed since the 1900's is unconstitutional. Even if it meant criminals getting firearms, the Founding Fathers included nothing about requiring background checks. Because once you let them take one piece of your pie, they're going to want the rest of it. The Founding Fathers knew this would happen and tried to limit government power. But then you have all of these anti-gun groups crying about our children and mass shootings and all that nonsense.

More kids will drown in pools or get killed in an automobile accident in one year, then get killed by firearms over 10 years. The worst school attacks were done by bombs and in foreign countries. We are animals covered up by the thin skin of polite society. The second that we think we can get away with something without getting punished, humans will do it. Again and again and again

There is no problem here. More Americans will get killed by PREVENTABLE medical malpractice and automobile accidents this year, than firearms in the last 5. It's just that guns are an easy thing to focus on because no one wants to talk about the other preventable deaths.

Crazy prediction right? It'd never happen, we have control over who gets elected and what laws are passed. No one would willingly destroy the Constitution to further their own goals. Who could be that selfish or evil?

It's not like other governments have seized firearms using registration forms like Britain or Australia. Oh wait




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

Republicans are all about the 2nd amendment. If they pass this they are shooting themselves in the foot. So if your prediction comes to pass it's a huge red flag.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

I predict you'll still have your guns 2, 5 and 10 years from now. Probably longer.

I don't think the ban has harmed Britain at all (although you can still fairly easily get a gun legally if you wanted to) and I don't think it'd harm America either once the initial fuss calmed down.

Won't happen though.

Just my opinion though, obviously.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
No.
We are ALREADY in a Cold war they will make it a HOT one.
Russia has alreday DONE all the ground work,they are probing agressively.
Throw in NATIONAL THREAT and a few other nice words and BOOM we start another Draft,MALE AND FEMALE.
THAT is a 19D SWAG.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

It doesn't matter what party gets elected, they both do the same things in the end.

We are spoonfed a lie that we have a say in who leads us. We are told that because we have two parties to choose from, that we are "free"

If you had a choice between driving a car that's on fire or driving a car that's about to go off a cliff, wouldn't you just choose not to get into the car in the first place?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: KingIcarus

That's what they said in the 70s before Reagan and his FOPA act.

That's what they said in Australia before they were forced to turn in their non compliant firearms or get arrested

You guys keep thinking that and TPTB will keep doing what they're doing. Guess who has won more over the last 60 years?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I don't doubt that there won't be another draft. I'm predicting it to be the end of 2015, after the elections.

With most of the people able to resist the government overseas, who will be left to stop the government from forcibly seizing firearms?

The same people who want to take them away in the first place



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
What I see occurring within the next two years?
There is a high probability that the World will be governed under a type of Global government, operating under a type of Global constitution.
Which will phase out the drugs, the firearms, immoral an indecent acts, evil people and a whole lot of other things.
But 1st



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

Theres lots of kinds of people in your neigborhoods that will have a possible answer that very question. Here is a scenario about it .
www.bob-owens.com...
edit on 5-11-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: Reworded



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

That law sounds good to me. Here in canada we have similar laws. Guns should be regulated more.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

Gotta be more sinister than that.

I like what Colonel Hans Landa said about what makes him such an effective hunter. Sorta have to be 100% darkness and 100% light to fight in this unseen war of deception. Goes a whole lot deeper than just christians, muslims, jews , nazis, secret societies, and all involved parties from the world of the ISM (capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, and last but not least...occultism)

edit on 5-11-2014 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

A star for you my friend. This is exactly what I predict will happen.

What happens in the next two years will be discussed for the next 100 years.

I see a dictatorship forming with the Constitution being the law of the land and after things settle down, they can go back to democratically chosen leaders.

But it's true. There will be no true winners. Thousands if not millions will get caught in the crossfire between the rebels and federal troops. The rebels will be well armed, well equipped, and well trained and experienced ex military or current military, with police and regular citizens being supplemented and trained. There will be no grand army or battles to fight. Only cells of individuals that operate more or less in line with everyone else.

Will some attempt to become warlords or tyrannical leaders? Of course, this happens in every revolution.

But the next revolution won't be like the others. Not with the massive access to information and the ability to hack into suspected person's electronic devices.
You were part of the group that blew up a tank convoy and you had your phone? Government hit squad or drone strike in the middle of the night
You were part of the group that led to this? Hunter killer teams flying around the world hunting them down like dogs, using the same technology that they used to oppress us to find them.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: snypwsd

Even in Canada we've experienced gun seizures ala the High River flooding and the RCMP kicking down doors and taking guns from people, even if they weren't in the effected zone.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: thisguy27

Republicans are all about the 2nd amendment. If they pass this they are shooting themselves in the foot. So if your prediction comes to pass it's a huge red flag.


Maybe not. The votes are still being counted in Washington but Washington appears to be fairly divided on Republicans and Democrats.

59 various positions going to Democrats, 54 to Republicans. A few are still too close to call. I-594 looks to be expanding gun checks based on a 60-40 result. My guess is that the Republicans who voted to support the bill may not have considered the expansion of background checks as being that infringing on the 2nd amendment.

www.king5.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

You serious? Didn't they cry and wail over background checks in their ads and talk shows?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: WhiteAlice

You serious? Didn't they cry and wail over background checks in their ads and talk shows?


Just because talking heads and loudmouths scream something doesn't necessarily mean that that is the position of a more moderate individual and that's exactly how i-594 passed--probably through the moderates, which are a significant portion of any population. Also a point to remember on this one is that Washington has had two school shootings in the last year that I'm aware of. Those two events probably tilted the opinion on background checks a good deal within those more moderate voters.

**Actually, i-594 was probably launched as a possible bill due to the first. The second one solidified the voting results that KIRO is reporting.
edit on 5/11/14 by WhiteAlice because: added **



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

And this is how the law will come to pass in the next 2 years.

Moderates, who are neither against nor for gun control, will listen to the talking heads cry about our "problem". And they'll be led into submission by these same talking heads. They'll decry all gun owners (except hunters) as potential mass murdering basket cases that are resisting "sensible" legislation.

I've used firearms against other living creatures. A typical "hunting" rifle will be chambered in .30-06, .308, .243, .223, or even bigger calibers like .375 H&H, .458 Winchester magnum, or 7mm Remington Magnum. The amount of damage those rounds will cause to a human body more than surpass the damage done by 5.56 or .22lr or 9 x 39, yet those caliber weapons are made illegal through aesthetic features. I won't say how I know, but I know for a fact that nothing but level III soft armor with a level IV plate or a level IV hard cover vest will stop most hunting rounds. And with level III, none of the energy is stopped by the plate/armor, it only stops penetration and only with 1-3 rounds. Sustained .30-06 fire will break most of these plates within three shots, rendering them useless. And of course, armor doesn't do anything to protect your face, so if I were to use a "hunting" rifle from 300 yards away, I could pop three dudes in the dome with 1 MOA accuracy. MOA is minute of arc or where the round will drop at x distance. 1 moa means that the POI or point of impact will be an inch lower than where you're aiming. I've heard of some hunting rifles achieving .75 MOA or even as low as .50 MOA, which means that at 300 yards, I'll only have to aim about 1.5 inches higher than where I want the bullet to hit. From cover/concealment and with low light conditions, they'd never see where the shots came from. The people making these laws don't understand or don't want to understand anything at all about firearms.

If you don't believe me about the drownings and car accidents, here's some proof from the CDC
"From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. About ONE IN FIVE people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger. For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries."
"In 2012, more than 1,100 children ages 14 years and younger died as a result of motor vehicle crashes."

According to data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of 62 children aged 14 and under die each year in the United States as the result of unintentional shootings.

WAKE THE EFF UP ALREADY
edit on 5-11-2014 by thisguy27 because: reasons



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It's been obvious to me since the 60's that our 'controllers' don't want the citizens armed; neither do they want us to be self-sufficient.
I think it will be awhile before they reach their goal, but self-serving corruption at the top levels brings us closer every day to realizing the train left the station years ago.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: nugget1

An armed populace is a dangerous populace.

That'w why we have the 2nd amendment. Not for hunting or target practice. But to defend our way of life against all threats foreign AND domestic. Why do you think that last word was included?
Not because the Founding Fathers thought the citizens would pose problems, but because a government, if left unchecked, will do whatever the heck it wants without fear from reprisal.

A better government would be restricted to foreign defense and regulating interstate commerce. Anything else would be handled by the individual state governments. that's the way it was intended and that's the way it shall return.


On a side note, I hope my prediction doesn't come true. I kind of like having the Internet and would rather not be huddled around the coals of a fire hiding from drones while having dysentery. But if it means burning down the house to build a new one, so be it.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

I think you might misunderstand what it means to be a moderate. Yes, a moderate can listen to a talking head but they are not going to necessarily align themselves to that talking heads' point of view. They may adopt or reject it depending on their own determinations, feelings, and beliefs on the subject. All that means is that they may not have as much loyalty to a specific party's ideological set as one would think. A blue dog Republican, a Centrist, an Independent and more would fall under that title of "moderate".

Having a moderate view isn't as nefarious as you'd like to make it seem. It can also mean that the individual doesn't bite--hook, line, and sinker--into what that talking head is shouting through the airwaves. I, myself, have listened to both Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz and personally, I don't like either of them and find them both to be way too "all or nothing" in their views. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so but then again, I am biased.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join