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.

 

2nd amendment erosion. Voting democrat

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well, yeah, sort of. Those types of numbers are the result of including homicides arising directly from targeted gang violence, as well as domestic violence and other non-random incidents to push the overall stats higher.


edit on 11-3-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Well to state the obvious we have 535 Kings named George on Capital hill.

Who didn't learn a thing from the American revolution.

King George also told the colonials they couldn't own guns.

And we all know how that turned out for him.




and no militia has yet to successfully respond to a terror attack.


We know the US government sure hasn't. When it's been arming 'terrorists' with the very things they deny 'we' the people.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I find your 2nd amendment terrifying. That fact that everyone owns guns is terrifying. Let's just make a amendment that everyone carries a nuke in their hand bag for extra protection from mums who leave loaded guns in the back of their car for four year Olds to play with. Yeah that's a great idea. Sarc sarc or however you write it



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Cloudbuster

What I find terrifying is one of the worlds largest arms dealers. If not the largest one.

It's telling me I 'shouldn't' have them.

And those that defend that Darwinism.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Cloudbuster



Let's just make a amendment that everyone carries a nuke in their hand bag for extra protection

I've seen this type of extreme comment before by those that can't comprehend the freedoms and rights shared by those that live in the U.S. I guess when one knows nothing about firearms and the laws governing ownership, and believes in the progressive media position that only the military and LE should have them, you'd arrive at that conclusion.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

hm and what would that make you?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I like how Sanders' stance is mostly just saying, 'It's a states rights issue.' Yet he's somehow labelled a gun-grabber.

I mean, it's not even policy proposal's, it's his opinion on the matter. Somehow though, that's taken as exactly what's going to happen if he's elected. It's ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

He has no one to blame but himself for that. Part of his platform includes support for a so-called 'assault weapons ban', and ignoring the debate on that particular issue for a moment, the simple fact is that a large portion of the pro-gun rights crowd is strictly against an AWB and will associate him with being anti-2A as a result.

Personally, I see Sanders as significantly less a threat to individual firearms ownership in this country than Hillary or Obama. Those two are ideological crusaders on that issue, and while I'm 100% certain he'd sign some types of restrictions into law if Congress put a bill in front of him, I'm not convinced he's all that interested in it or would actively push such proposals as Obama has and as Hillary would.
edit on 12-3-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Jordan River

Bernie is relatively pro gun, he's not going to confiscate them.

Hillary won't confiscate them either.

Contrast that with Trump who wants to remove the first amendment, Cruz who wants to remove the fifth, and Rubio who wants to remove the fourth.

If you care about the Constitution the only one worth voting for is Bernie, everyone else will lead to you needing to use your guns.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join