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.

 

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A legislation that will go nowhere.
And you know full well it will go nowhere.

No one said you can't criticise it.

You're just being criticised back because it's a ridiculous notion that you think some pen pushers illegal law will ever be placed into effect and all of a sudden 300 million guns will be taken away from you.

You understand ludicrous don't you... This is ludicrous.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


And what about when they're asked to disarm their own families? Or are they exempt as well?


some yes, their families are not considered to be law enforcement so laws of the state apply to them. there are plenty of law enforcement agencies that their leaders support full gun bans. some don't. those that don't if they want to keep their jobs do as their bosses say.




What will the military have to say about all this illegal gun grabbing?

right now the military has no jurisdiction, and it would fall under the Posse Comitatus Act, now in the future who knows.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


Politicians are gonna knock on your door and ask for guns?

Politicians wouldn't dare show up at anyone's door, if they did you can bet it would be behind a few dozen cops.


That's kind of acknowledging that gun rights are useless in the US. When it comes to protecting the citizens from a tyranny government.

Who even dares to mess with the police? No matter how much guns they have on hand?

Unless of course you've already decided to commit suicide, lol.

I'm sorry, but thinking citizens are protected from the government because of the 2nd is a bunch of delusional s#... If they want you, they have you, no matter how much guns you own... A dose of reality is what some of you need, lol.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Still is not going to happen, now if legislation is done for the issue of gun control and banning, they can only do so going after the second amendment and doing a " CONSTITUTIONAL ADMENDMENT".

These task are not taken lightly by congress that are the ones with the power to do so.


Constitutional Amendments

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task. This page will detail the amendment procedure as spelled out in the Constitution, and will also list some of the Amendments that have not been passed, as well as give a list of some amendments proposed in Congress during several of the past sessions.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.


interestingly, at the ends it comes too,


The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)=/ex]

www.usconstitution.net...



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
They don't need to go door to door to take away the guns but who is to stop them from taxing a the crap out of a bullet?


Now you're just giving them ideas.

Realistic ones at that.
I'd never say anything I know could be fathomable on the Internet.
Not when rights play a part.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
They don't need to go door to door to take away the guns but who is to stop them from taxing a the crap out of a bullet?


You can make your own.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Foreign and domestic means it is Military jurisdiction.
IMO.
But I appreciate your input and the polite back and forth.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Really??? You don't think that hasn't been on the table for awhile now?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You think everyone can make gun powder?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

yes your right, but it is has been done and people have won in court. and yes people have lost their lives in doing so.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Really??? You don't think that hasn't been on the table for awhile now?



You don't think they'd have done it already if it was?

That's no definitive no, just an unlikely no.
edit on 26-12-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Spelling.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: introvert

You think everyone can make gun powder?


You think the Founders included that right for all people, but it hinged on the people's ability to pick up a few rounds at the local Colonial Wal Mart?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

A legislation that will go nowhere.
And you know full well it will go nowhere.

No one said you can't criticise it.

You're just being criticised back because it's a ridiculous notion that you think some pen pushers illegal law will ever be placed into effect and all of a sudden 300 million guns will be taken away from you.

You understand ludicrous don't you... This is ludicrous.



People voted for these representatives. They may not have the strength to pass the legislation NOW, but I see more people trying to silence dissent than they are speaking up.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


read the act.

from the wiki,


Posse Comitatus Act
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act

ETA: removed snide remark due to misunderstanding comment.
edit on 26-12-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies


Limiting the government... Not "We The People".

I'm talking about the military siding with the people being disarmed.

It is indeed a pleasure to enlighten the ignorant.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

A legislation that will go nowhere.
And you know full well it will go nowhere.

No one said you can't criticise it.

You're just being criticised back because it's a ridiculous notion that you think some pen pushers illegal law will ever be placed into effect and all of a sudden 300 million guns will be taken away from you.

You understand ludicrous don't you... This is ludicrous.



People voted for these representatives. They may not have the strength to pass the legislation NOW, but I see more people trying to silence dissent than they are speaking up.


Have you ever heard of the NRA?

No one is trying to silence dissent. I myself, am trying to end this gun-grabbing myth.

You can literally look, for yourself, at stock prices of gun manufacturers pre-Obama regime, to now - and guess what? It's nearly doubled.

How does that happen when he's simultaneously taking them away?

It just doesn't make any logical sense, and is a grand conspiracy that truly takes away from any reasonable discussion that revolves around the erosion of the 2nd amendment.

Which isn't even the case, the case here is the "gun grabbing."

It's just not realistic.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: introvert

You think everyone can make gun powder?
Yes actually. everybody and their brother did it as a matter of course in the early days. its most simple form is bird poop (usually from bats) for nitrates, sulfur and charcoal from wood fires for carbon. though some wood makes better charcoal for this purpose than others. it might be a little more complicated to make smokeless powder but black powder would do in a pinch.

Additionally: In the guerilla war after the Phililpines were evacuated by General McCarther the partisans rebuilt primer caps using improvised tools such as blunted nails to hammer out the firing pin dent and coarse quartz granules from the beach to spark the primer charge.
edit on 26-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I should have said do you think everyone has the knowledge to make it but you knew what I meant.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I should have said do you think everyone has the knowledge to make it but you knew what I meant.
you think it takes a college degree? i just said how to do it in every detail except the proportions. it could be whispered in every ear in a matter of seconds.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

A legislation that will go nowhere.
And you know full well it will go nowhere.

No one said you can't criticise it.

You're just being criticised back because it's a ridiculous notion that you think some pen pushers illegal law will ever be placed into effect and all of a sudden 300 million guns will be taken away from you.

You understand ludicrous don't you... This is ludicrous.



People voted for these representatives. They may not have the strength to pass the legislation NOW, but I see more people trying to silence dissent than they are speaking up.


Have you ever heard of the NRA?

No one is trying to silence dissent. I myself, am trying to end this gun-grabbing myth.

You can literally look, for yourself, at stock prices of gun manufacturers pre-Obama regime, to now - and guess what? It's nearly doubled.

How does that happen when he's simultaneously taking them away?

It just doesn't make any logical sense, and is a grand conspiracy that truly takes away from any reasonable discussion that revolves around the erosion of the 2nd amendment.

Which isn't even the case, the case here is the "gun grabbing."

It's just not realistic.


At least you've shelved the insults.

I have no problem in speaking out against any politician that pushes legislation that would impede or invalidate any aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

I am quite aware that Obama hasn't taken my guns. He can't. It would be a violation of the Bill of Rights.

As for "realistic", all you have to do is look at the freedoms lost with the Patriot Act. And maybe that happened because not enough people spoke out against it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join