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.

 

Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Forget the reasons of the Boston Tea Party ?

No. Or have you, in your mind, truncated it to be "no taxation?"

Maybe you should dump their guns and ammo into Puget Sound. That would teach 'em.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: hellobruce

He said he was going to do something, we just don't know what yet..


Pretty much this. He hasn't said what he is going to do because people will not like it. Obvious Obama voters in this thread, please tell me what Obama wants to do since you all seem to think you know what he wont do. And for people saying phrases such as "will not happen" and "can't happen", please let me borrow your crystal ball so I can see for myself.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo



Obvious Obama voters in this thread,

Not me.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just going to leave this right here.

www.cbsnews.com...

Shall not be infringed. Does it mean anything anymore?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Well we are now 8 years into Obama is taking our guns and we have more guns than ever. I swear some of you are disappointed that he has done nothing about gun control and could not even get the Reagan supported assault weapons ban renewed. This always followed by people who toss in Hitler and gun control when the guy loosened gun laws in Germany and who forget that their were nearly a hundred armed uprisings by Jews and others who fared no better than than entire armies did.

This nonsense that people think could stop or even slow a tyrannical government, who can toss a cruise missiles at your block, with smalls arms are delusional.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad



delusional


Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.

Well said.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7



I don't think so.

It should be pointed out that one who is delusional generally does not think that one is.
edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Depends on the background ,training and equipment of the commenter.
Yours?
Spads?
Introverts?
We aren't talking Science,academia think tanks ,intelligence based on stats( RAND said we would loose 50% in Desert Storm)or activism


edit on 26-12-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
...
This nonsense that people think could stop or even slow a tyrannical government, who can toss a cruise missiles at your block, with smalls arms are delusional.


Colonial Americans would like to have a word with you. The types of people that would fight against a controlling government will have weapons even if they are illegal.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
War is God's way of teaching the British American geography. a reply to: Maxatoria



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: MrSpad
...
This nonsense that people think could stop or even slow a tyrannical government, who can toss a cruise missiles at your block, with smalls arms are delusional.


Colonial Americans would like to have a word with you. The types of people that would fight against a controlling government will have weapons even if they are illegal.

Perhaps they could explain the part of the second that says the rights of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. After all it was militias that fought against tyrannical governments not just anyone that could pick up a gun.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

As defined by?
I thought the "able bodied male" thing covered it pretty well.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Current SCOTUS ruling in Heller was that that the 2nd Amendment does not apply only to the Militia.

Prior to that, it had been clear in the US for nearly two centuries that the States have a right to enforce gun control. The idea that there can be no governmental controls on the purchase,distribution, et. al. of firearms would have been thought to be ludicrous.

That said, there is a strong basis in English Common Law for the argument that no State can totally prevent the People from holding arms to protect themselves, to hunt, to aid the State in case of invasion or rebellion ... once again, this is a matter where the extremists on both "sides" need to be excluded from the consideration.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Hasn't there been something like 100,000,000 firearm sales since Obama came into office..not much control going on.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
Hasn't there been something like 100,000,000 firearm sales since Obama came into office..not much control going on.


The last time I looked up the statistic, there were more firearms in the hands of the US Civilian population than the US Military and all US Law Enforcment combined.

Facts, you may have noted, rarely affect rhetoric.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: MrSpad
...
This nonsense that people think could stop or even slow a tyrannical government, who can toss a cruise missiles at your block, with smalls arms are delusional.


Colonial Americans would like to have a word with you. The types of people that would fight against a controlling government will have weapons even if they are illegal.

Perhaps they could explain the part of the second that says the rights of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. After all it was militias that fought against tyrannical governments not just anyone that could pick up a gun.


You are forgetting one little thing about the 2nd, it has the use of three commas. Read it again slowly, use the commas to pause for effect. It will make more sense if you read it using punctuation. What will not be infringed are two things actually. A well regulated militia AND OR the right of the people. The right of the people. That is referring to the American people to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people ALSO have the right to maintain a militia. If it were to be rewritten in today's dialect it would be "The right to bear arms and or maintain a militia are the right of the people, within reason, as it is necessary to ensure freedom and must not be infringed".

Here it is for those whom do not want to look it up.

"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."



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

The Militia was not something the People maintained for themselves.

The Founders were concerned about standing armies. The Militia was the solution to that fear. The organization and appointment of the Militias fell to the State governments.

In fact, the problem with the American militia overall in every period was that citizens were by-and-large apathetic, incompetent, and ill-prepared for military action of any kind.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, i.e., THE RIGHT OF citizen ownership of firearms would not be made illegal.

There is nothing there stating that no laws will be made regarding what firearms can be sold, what citizens must do to purchase them, etc. etc.

I am aware of Heller; still, the balance of American jurisprudence speaks to the issue quite clearly.

No one is "coming for your guns."

PS: The version of the 2nd with "three commas" was passed by Congress, but the version ratified by the States only has one ... just sayin.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You can't believe everything you read, according to David Hodges' sources '. By a 'leak' from a white paper from DOJ. Really?

It may happen one day, but not under Obama.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
This nonsense that people think could stop or even slow a tyrannical government, who can toss a cruise missiles at your block, with smalls arms are delusional.


Only 3% of the colonists fought in the Revolutionary war yet we still won.

Only 10% of the citizens supported that 3%.

Study the 'Six Day War'...

Israel was outnumbered and against all odds still won one of the most decisive victories in military history against a vastly superior force.


At West Point Military Academy, while wars fought throughout the world are studied to learn military strategy, the Israeli wars are excluded from the curriculum. This is because according to military strategy, Israel should have lost them. Israeli victories defy logic because they are more often than not honest to G-d miracles. At West Point Military Academy, it benefits to teach logic and not the unexplainable miracles that make up Israel. “Israel is a miracle, and how God appears for us in the fields of battle along the history of 4,000 years is a miracle” ~ Captain Gershon Salomon, Six Day War Veteran

Top 17 Miraculous Israeli Military Victories





When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party. In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army. In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution




edit on 27-12-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join