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.

 

Changing national gun laws without congress???

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes i would, but all he does is cater to a certain group of people that are a certain fear for guns, alot of hot air.




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Siddharta

You don't understand REAL Americans. We don't care what the world thinks of us. History proves, the world comes to us when thier backs are against the wall. That's Fact! Japan destroyed our Pacific Navy. Gotta hand it to them on that one. That was a pure military strike. Genious! But you know what? They wouldn't step foot on US soil. Thier member of Chief of staff said it best.."there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Americans are born with rebelion in our blood. The "educated" have tried to deny us of our history. Our government makes laws, we agree with or they don't. They will push it..every chance they get. But they won't ever try it. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass. They know that. Probably in a hundred years, with enough "education" they will. It'll still cost them.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

More excuses plz, obama is full of hot air, but hey lets be outraged why not.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

As Trey Parker and Matt Stone have taught us....www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: shooterbrody

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking with Murphy. And by the way, its you're.


The contraction of it is, is spelled it's.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lol, at least your trying to be funny, obama is full of hot air, but hey live in fear of omg obama is gonna ( insert what ever you like here).



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes i would, but all he does is cater to a certain group of people that are a certain fear for guns, alot of hot air.


Much truth in that. He does cater to a certain segment, and that's where I think he fails.

As president, he should cater to everyone.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: shooterbrody

He can do as usual his executive orders crap but if they intrude in the constitutional rights of Americans the supreme court is going to slap him for it, specially when he is not passing laws and is going around congress.

actually no. you wanna know why? SCOTUS has already ruled that the fed cannot require background checks from the states. states that do are doing so voluntarily. so if a state wants to tell him to pee up a rope they can do so.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

So educated they can't decipher a couple spelling errors and get to the subject matter. Shooterbrody, don't take it hard. It is what it is. Fools with "knowledge". Kinda scary, really.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DuckforcoveR




Or at least take away their guns.


The OP did't...but Sidharta's post above did.
But I have no doubt Obama has confiscation in his plans.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I don't think confiscation is near but whose to say loads of registered long gun owners, for starters, couldn't be added to the "no fly" list?

Per the article - I knew guns could be purchased at gun shows w/o a background check but I am surprised people can buy them online without the check. I don't think any guns can be purchased online in my state period.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Says the Man that's hidden his Background,that no one can check. If he keeps screwing with Americans, hes gonna getta Cranial Enema



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
I don't think confiscation is near but whose to say loads of registered long gun owners, for starters, couldn't be added to the "no fly" list?

Per the article - I knew guns could be purchased at gun shows w/o a background check but I am surprised people can buy them online without the check. I don't think any guns can be purchased online in my state period.
you can't. i bought a big scary gun online. (UTS-15) it can only be delivered to a licensed dealer. that licensed dealer does the background check before releasing the weapon into the buyers custody.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
this is the way it would play out. dumbassicus erectus makes an executive order or directive. States file with court for an injunction based on previous SCOTUS rulings within minutes of the signing. SCOTUS very publicly steps on the POTUS' SCROTUS.
edit on 10-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: tweetie
I don't think confiscation is near but whose to say loads of registered long gun owners, for starters, couldn't be added to the "no fly" list?

Per the article - I knew guns could be purchased at gun shows w/o a background check but I am surprised people can buy them online without the check. I don't think any guns can be purchased online in my state period.
you can't. i bought a big scary gun online. (UTS-15) it can only be delivered to a licensed dealer. that licensed dealer does the background check before releasing the weapon into the buyers custody.

I believe you but why is the article making it sound as though online gun purchases don't require a background check? If the check happens via the dealer then why does the article make it sound as though there is no check whatsoever for online purchases?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Let me just throw this out there, "to deny ignorance ". It is against federal law in the US. , not to mention many states laws, to "register" firearms in America. Because we love freedom like that. This/these "Backround checks"are just a legal way around "thier" own law. They have a register. These "proposals" have nothing to do with "public safety". When has any of thier "laws" stopped murders or created safety? They haven't and won't. It's all feel good, nonsense. But they gain more "control" by making criminals. Which is all a "law" does. Don't fall for this bs.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: tweetie
I don't think confiscation is near but whose to say loads of registered long gun owners, for starters, couldn't be added to the "no fly" list?

Per the article - I knew guns could be purchased at gun shows w/o a background check but I am surprised people can buy them online without the check. I don't think any guns can be purchased online in my state period.
you can't. i bought a big scary gun online. (UTS-15) it can only be delivered to a licensed dealer. that licensed dealer does the background check before releasing the weapon into the buyers custody.

I believe you but why is the article making it sound as though online gun purchases don't require a background check? If the check happens via the dealer then why does the article make it sound as though there is no check whatsoever for online purchases?
it may be because there are 27 states that told the fed to go to hell WRT to background checks in general backed up by SCOTUS rulings. it's either 27 without or 33 without i forget which was which. But even so it is unlikely the refusing states will change thier mind and thus the Fed cannot require it legally. They can try but it will be a slap at the SCOTUS which won't go over well with them; even the libs on the court.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
So you are referring to Printz vs. United States??



a reply to: stormbringer1701



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justacasualobserver
So you are referring to Printz vs. United States??



a reply to: stormbringer1701

in one of the many recent gun control threads here the fact that the SCOTUS struck down two provision of previous gun control laws that were related to mandatory background checks was posted here by pro-gun forum members. though they let the rest of the law standing. so i am not sure which case it came out of.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join