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 is NOT coming for your guns.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: atomish

You are now understanding it. These "common sense" regulations and laws are very deceptive on purpose. For example, we might all agree that if you are convicted of a felony, you should not be allowed to possess a firearm. After all, isn't that "common sense"? Who could argue that a felon should be able to own a firearm? So, that passes, with great fanfare. Now, all you need to do is redefine what is deemed a felony charge. It starts as a violent or drug charge (common sense). Then over time they add more and more offenses to be classified as felonies. Over time more and more people fall into that category of having their 2nd amendment stripped from them as they are now classified as a felon, and fall into that "common sense" regulation.

See how that works? They do not have to ban them, just get a law passed that sets a classification. Then, make it easy to expand the scope of that classification at later dates, over, and over, and over.

Here is just a small list of felony charges currently on the books that will strip you of your 2nd Amendment protections.
Most common felony crimes
(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762
(5) Assault 1,305,693
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105
(7) Liquor laws 633,654
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.
(9) Drunkenness 589,402
(10) Aggravated assault 433,945
(11) Burglary 303,853
(12) Vandalism 291,575
(13) Fraud 252,873
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession) 188,891
(15) Curfew and loitering 143,002
(16) Robbery 126,715
(17) Offenses against family and children 122,812
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession) 122,061
(19) Motor vehicle theft 118,231
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting 103,448


So, anyone ever get drunk and disorderly once in your life? BOOM
So, stay out past some randomly established curfew? BOOM
So, ever sell some item or "fudge your resume" and knowingly and inaccurately represent that? BOOM

See how that works? Just keep adding offenses to the list of felony charges and they are automatically now allowed to infringe upon your 2nd Amendment rights.



edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: spellcheck




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you see no difference between magazine limits and nuclear weapons.

This is why I don't trust people when they say they don't want gun bans.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Great OP and you're absolutely correct about incremental changes. That's how the social engineers, who by nature are "Progressives", manage so well to, over time, achieve their agendas.

You're also correct, Obama won't come after "our guns"; Hilary will and test bed legislation is being pushed through in Cali right now. But Hilary will only have about a 2 year "honeymoon" window with a Democrat controlled Congress to get the legislation passed; if she does, she'll have that same 2 year window to pack the court with an anti-2nd amendment justice. That will be the beginning of the end.

I"m somewhat past the 50 year old mark and for myself and my family, I'm none too concerned, for a variety of reasons. You're prediction however that people will gradually cease to care about gun rights is spot on because my guess is that the Millennials could care less about gun rights and are probably predisposed to being against the 2nd Amendment.

Its their future to design as they see fit, so I really don't care if they disarm themselves because my guess is that I won't live long enough to be disarmed by whatever gun controls they put in place. The Millennials don't get it and they aren't teachable. Too bad, they'll be the victims because they don't understand what's really at stake.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Can you think of anyone you know, or have known, that would be dangerous with a gun?

For example, but not limited to : Someone that is 1) too lax with gun safety (i.e "stupid with guns" or would sleep with it loaded under their pillow where their child could find it to play with), 2) someone prone to impulsive and violent, high risk behavior that would put others around them at risk if they concealed carried or open carried or simply owned a gun that wasn't locked up in a vault, 3) someone who is abusive towards women or children and known to be violent towards them in such a way that lives are at risk, 4) someone who has a drug addition or is frequently too high to be rational, 5) someone who is mentally ill in a way that makes them not rational / strongly possible threats to themselves and/or others.

I'm not saying the second amendment should be trashed here. I'm just asking a question about your life and people you know personally (without sharing details, of course) or circumstances you are aware of in life.

It's like drinking and driving. Do you know folks who REALLY shouldn't get behind the wheel on occasion? Who may just kill themselves or someone else due to taking a perfectly safe tool like a car and accidentally (or on purpose) turning it into deadly force? Should we not have laws about drinking and driving? Sure, some folks will do it anyway and if they get caught they get punished. Some people will refrain from risky behavior because laws are in place. Some people think there shouldn't be any laws and that they should be able to drive while hammered because they are special and would never get in an accident, because, again, they are special.

I don't advocate taking away guns or cars. I don't advocate adults not being able to have alcohol or legal substances.

I do advocate a society that insists on responsible behavior from people who have guns, who drink alcohol (or do other recreational substances that limit functionality), and who drive cars. That they be adequately trained in gun usage, care and safety (like we have driving classes?), and that getting a license to own a gun isn't a foregone conclusion if you are unable show you know the laws, have basic safety skills and the tools with which to be a responsible gun owner.

I don't see why gun ownership is different than cars or alcohol. Granted, cars and alcohol aren't specifically mentioned in the second amendment. Is that the only distinction?

We have a "right" to vote too, but I see all kinds of restrictions happily being put in place that can prevent people from voting, even when in-person fraud was a problem that did not statistically exist in ANY meaningful way - certainly not like gun violence statistics.

Anyway. I am not going to take away your guns. I am not asking you to give up your rights. I'm just asking questions about the extent of that right, considering it involves something that can kill people.

What do you think??

- AB



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: atomish


My sentiment exactly and you articulated it way more eloquently than I could have hoped to!

Thanks for the response and also for that list of common qualifying felonies. Some on that list surprise me, even.

How anyone can deny this happening right under our noses when presented with such is astonishing to me. You can claim that it isn't willful, blame it on ignorance and poor government planning and communication if you'd like. Some, like us, feel there is maybe someting more sinister afoot.

But either way, it is happening. And it is a dangerous trend.


edit on 6/4/2016 by atomish because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/4/2016 by atomish because: Ugh typos



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

See my post above. That answers that question for you.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv
*Yawn* Well why don't you get back to us when it actually starts happening.


If there ever comes a time where the 2nd Amendment is gone, the 1st Amendment will have ceased to exist.


California is working on the 1st Amendment thing. They have a law heading into assembly that would open people up to prosecution for criticizing climate change.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: BrianFlanders

While it is true that gun control efforts are in progressive stages, this is only true in times like now of relative "peace". Another major "event" and they very well can, or will try, to push it through much faster. And we are long overdue for another big event/attack.



Well, maybe. But again, my point is that this is really how they PREFER to do things. They don't mind taking their time and waiting for the propaganda to do it's thing.

See, that's the thing about social engineering. It actually works best when works slow. When you have other types of engineering in the private business world, they have to think about time constraints and budget because, well, they're usually working for a business that needs to turn a profit. Government has unlimited funds. They're not really having to worry if it takes 30 years to get where they want to go.

And finally, when they decide what their end goals are, they have to think about what types of people are the ideal types of people for manipulation. Frankly, older people who are set in their ways are much harder to change. So if they have to just bide their time and wait for the old farts to start dying off they will focus their energy on the blank slate that they have with each and every young mind. And they have the perfect system already set up to do just that. The public education system.

Everything that goes into raising kids is perfect for manipulating the way those kids will think and behave when they mature. And it's been in place long enough that there are very few people living who remember a time without it. It's all part of growing up. Pop culture. Movies. Music. Fashion. Social trends. Cliques. Bullying. Trying/wanting to fit in. Wanting good grades. Wanting teacher and parental approval for good performance. The whole social mud bath that is involved in growing up. It's impossible to go through childhood, teens and college in these times without coming out with your brain saturated with all this sewage that you've been swimming in since early childhood.

You see. Your rights will not be pried out of your hands. They will be phased out by the next generation. A simple software update.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

So there should be, in your opinion, NO regulations on guns because it MIGHT escalate into more regulations that limit gun usage?

Do you feel that ANY attempt to consider safety and responsibility with guns is an infringement on the "right to bear arms" and the second amendment?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That just fits into my theory that the government will never take away our 1st and 2nd Amendments.

We will give them up, willingly.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krakatoa

So there should be, in your opinion, NO regulations on guns because it MIGHT escalate into more regulations that limit gun usage?

Do you feel that ANY attempt to consider safety and responsibility with guns is an infringement on the "right to bear arms" and the second amendment?




Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't. If you thought about it more deeply, and not emotionally as you did, you would see that if any classification is put in place to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right, then the change OF that classification should be just as difficult to change. Link it to being convicted of a felony, fine, Then make expanding that definition of felony to be just as difficult as making that classification link. Simply put, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I am advocating we make every link in that chain the same strength.

Isn't that "common sense"?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

That just fits into my theory that the government will never take away our 1st and 2nd Amendments.

We will give them up, willingly.


Agreed.

By their very nature, aren't those rights ONLY able to be abdicated by us? They could never be taken from us, I was once told.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa




Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't.



You're one of the few. Most I see on here don't want ANY restrictions on guns.
edit on 4-6-2016 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krakatoa

So there should be, in your opinion, NO regulations on guns because it MIGHT escalate into more regulations that limit gun usage?

Do you feel that ANY attempt to consider safety and responsibility with guns is an infringement on the "right to bear arms" and the second amendment?




Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't. If you thought about it more deeply, and not emotionally as you did, you would see that if any classification is put in place to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right, then the change OF that classification should be just as difficult to change. Link it to being convicted of a felony, fine, Then make expanding that definition of felony to be just as difficult as making that classification link. Simply put, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I am advocating we make every link in that chain the same strength.

Isn't that "common sense"?



THIS.

When the government can take your voting rights and arms by simply changing the definition of what is and isn't a felony, something is wrong.

There are already crimes classified as felonies that should not be. It can only get worse if more felonies get codified.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: atomish

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

That just fits into my theory that the government will never take away our 1st and 2nd Amendments.

We will give them up, willingly.


Agreed.

By their very nature, aren't those rights ONLY able to be abdicated by us? They could never be taken from us, I was once told.


Things like freedom to speak and your freedom to believe in the faith of your choice and freedom to assemble and freedom to defend yourself are all things that are basic and unalienable. You would have them even if there were no society around you.

Any society of mankind on earth can therefore not remove those impulses from you, at best, it can only seek to oppress them through force. Now, the force can be soft if you give those impulses up willingly for a perceived better or they can be oppressed ruthlessly, and we can all think of plenty of examples of that.

Our masters are hoping that if they bring the water up to boil slowly enough, we will walk into our cages willingly.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Krakatoa




Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't.



You're one of the few. Most I see on here don't want ANY restrictions on guns.


You're the one alluding to a gun as a weapon of mass destruction.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Krakatoa




Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't.



You're one of the few. Most I see on here don't want ANY restrictions on guns.


I think that position is a fear-based one, that may be justified due to what Krakatoa is saying.

Just as an example, if you like gardening and then all of the sudden, the government decides gardening is a class A felony, you are now a criminal and if you get caught can lose your arms, your voting rights, public housing assistance, financial aid for school, on and on.

I know gardening may be an extreme example but crazier things have happened in the past.

I think most supporters of the 2nd amendedment just want the teeth of the amendment to remain and to not allow their rights to be stolen through methods such as what Krakatoa is describing. Certainly there will always be some in the extreme, but every friend and family member I have that is a gun owner is not in that crowd.

We need smart regulations but we also need to make sure those regulations and other codified laws don't make it a trivial task to shred such a foundational right.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I was alluding to the fact that the government should in fact, be able to restrict certain weapons.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa
oh look, here is a nice felony that could apply if you take a $2 piece of merchandise off of a locking peg hook.

(7) It is unlawful to possess, or use or attempt to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. Any person who possesses any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who uses or attempts to use any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



When we take her admitted goals to confiscate ALL firearms,



and combine it with her defense of another known gun control America hating communist who is running for president, we can see what the agenda is.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: atomish

As a prime and recent example, our own president has asked that the "Do Not Fly" list be included to not allow anyone to own a firearm. On the surface, it seems to be common sense. Until you look deeper into how you can have your name put on that list. It requires no, none, zero judicial oversight to be put on that list. It is a decision of some political flunkee that can add your name to that list. So, if for whatever reason you have not been convicted of a felony but they put your name on the list (it could be you have the same name as a terrorist, it has happened) then you are now stripped of a Constitutional right. Period, end of story. And it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get your name off that list. This is a fact, and has been proven time and time again.

If you want to make that link to the "Do Not Fly" list, then lets make sure it takes a legal judicial review to have your name put on that list. Also, like any other charge, there is a legal an viable avenue to debate being on that list, and a way to have your name removed or be expunged. Until that is all done (making each link in the chain equally strong) then it would be an enormous mistake to make that link.

Isn't that "commons sense"?



edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: spellcheck


edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: fixed a logic error



new topics




 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join