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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Thats why I said we can do without any of the barrel length requirements as I dont think they have any relevance to the perpetuation of crime or terrorism being more or less consequential.

Full Auto should remain under the NFA because it seems to actually be having a reduction in collateral damage from idiot criminals that cannot aim. But the production should not have been stopped so honest folk could still get them affordably.

Even if you could make your own DD's, that is a skill you would have to have been trained in. Regular people and even dim whit thugs can't just grab the ingredients and say "look, i make go boom!"

In any case, if we seriosuly want to address this boiling pot theory, we need to create or increase our media hedge against the perception in media.

There is a particular way firearms are perceived in media marketed to the next generation. We have to create a hedge against this by also creating media for the next generation that highlight the positive aspects of our rights and self determination and empowerment through action to educate and train.
edit on 6/4/2016 by AmericanRealist because: an aposterphhe makes all the difference




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

The time when we will call out the unconstitutional stuff will be when we have all been deprived of the ability to speak the only language the government understands.

I don't know?, take from it what you will.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Some dummy who got caught with his pants down said that a long time ago....

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy

Blibbety Blah.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That list is a little misleading. For example

Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire.


source



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Really? You did this?


No one is coming for your guns.

Okay, I'm going to a grown-up party now.



Have fun. Maybe you could wait until you're not drunk and try to post a grown-up response.
edit on 4-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Krakatoa

That list is a little misleading. For example

Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire.


source


Note it says "almost always".... and there is the wiggle room. In some peoples eyes, that is all they need. So, does calling in a false 911 qualify? Like the woman who called 911 to complain that her hamburger had pickles on it or some such thing a while back? Should she have her 2nd amendment right stripped as a result because of that? There should be no room in a laws for interpretation like that when it can result in the stripping of someone's Constitutional rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

There is this funny thing called "discretion" that law enforcement seldom practices because it interferes with their prime objective, which is to generate revenue.

This is why "Good Cops" don't remain cops for long, more often than you would think to be the case.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Krakatoa

There is this funny thing called "discretion" that law enforcement seldom practices because it interferes with their prime objective, which is to generate revenue.

This is why "Good Cops" don't remain cops for long, more often than you would think to be the case.


Yup, which is why disorderly conduct should not be a felony. But, it is. And as such now a cop on the street has the freedom to decide to strip you of your Constitutional right by charging you with a felony. And, if he did his job well, you will be found guilty. And, another citizen has been stripped of a Constitutional right. No fanfare, no protests in the street. But silently, and all "by the book".

Is that "common sense"?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Krakatoa

That list is a little misleading. For example

Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire.


source


Note it says "almost always".... and there is the wiggle room. In some peoples eyes, that is all they need. So, does calling in a false 911 qualify? Like the woman who called 911 to complain that her hamburger had pickles on it or some such thing a while back? Should she have her 2nd amendment right stripped as a result because of that? There should be no room in a laws for interpretation like that when it can result in the stripping of someone's Constitutional rights.



Well she sounds nutty to me. but it is really up to the authorities what they want to charge her with and at what level.

Do you know anyone that has been charged with FELONY disorderly conduct?
edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Krakatoa

There is this funny thing called "discretion" that law enforcement seldom practices because it interferes with their prime objective, which is to generate revenue.

This is why "Good Cops" don't remain cops for long, more often than you would think to be the case.


Yup, which is why disorderly conduct should not be a felony. But, it is. And as such now a cop on the street has the freedom to decide to strip you of your Constitutional right by charging you with a felony. And, if he did his job well, you will be found guilty. And, another citizen has been stripped of a Constitutional right. No fanfare, no protests in the street. But silently, and all "by the book".

Is that "common sense"?


A district attorney would really make that call. I don;t think this is happening anwhere.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Krakatoa

That list is a little misleading. For example

Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire.


source


Note it says "almost always".... and there is the wiggle room. In some peoples eyes, that is all they need. So, does calling in a false 911 qualify? Like the woman who called 911 to complain that her hamburger had pickles on it or some such thing a while back? Should she have her 2nd amendment right stripped as a result because of that? There should be no room in a laws for interpretation like that when it can result in the stripping of someone's Constitutional rights.



Well she sounds nutty to me. but it is really up to the authorities what they want to charge her with and at what level.

Do you know anyone that has been charged with FELONY disorderly conduct?


I see, "nutty" as you put it. I am not defending her actions, but, what if she is just uninformed about what 911 is for? But she is fully versed in how to safely own, handle, and store a firearm? One is not like the other. There should be no connection there. Because, the last time I checked, being stupid is not illegal. In addition, if she was diagnosed as crazy, then she could have that Constitutional right stripped away legally now.

It should be harder to strip someone's rights than a simple charge or accusation of questionable actions that are totally unrelated.

But, that would not facilitate the slow and progressive erosion of that right.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

SO, a Constitutional right is now up to a district attorney and not a judge or a jury of your peers?

And somehow, that is OK with you?

Is that "common sense"?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Krakatoa

That list is a little misleading. For example

Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire.


source


Note it says "almost always".... and there is the wiggle room. In some peoples eyes, that is all they need. So, does calling in a false 911 qualify? Like the woman who called 911 to complain that her hamburger had pickles on it or some such thing a while back? Should she have her 2nd amendment right stripped as a result because of that? There should be no room in a laws for interpretation like that when it can result in the stripping of someone's Constitutional rights.



Well she sounds nutty to me. but it is really up to the authorities what they want to charge her with and at what level.

Do you know anyone that has been charged with FELONY disorderly conduct?


I see, "nutty" as you put it. I am not defending her actions, but, what if she is just uninformed about what 911 is for? But she is fully versed in how to safely own, handle, and store a firearm? One is not like the other. There should be no connection there. Because, the last time I checked, being stupid is not illegal. In addition, if she was diagnosed as crazy, then she could have that Constitutional right stripped away legally now.

It should be harder to strip someone's rights than a simple charge or accusation of questionable actions that are totally unrelated.

But, that would not facilitate the slow and progressive erosion of that right.


This is not happening, though. It simply is not. You could 'what if it' to death, but that is not happening.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: kaylaluv




(the old "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - PERIOD argument)?


What does Shall Not Be Infringed mean to you exactly?


Yes, you are one of "those people" I was referring to. I knew y'all were out there!



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I have a misdemeanor or two on my record.

They are often used against me when seeking employment.

I am grateful for being granted the opportunity to realize my predicament with the free time being underemployed and completely debt free (almost...bills) allows me.

If one single thing were to happen, where I came into contact with law enforcement in a negative way, short of traffic offenses, I am sure they could contrive some reason to take my guns from me, and being underemployed and unable to fund the playing of their game effectively, I would more than likely be deprived of my rights for what would amount to be under false pretenses.

These things are common, most who are fed to the system can't afford to participate in conversation such as the one we are having here because they have lost everything and live on the street.

For employers, corporations and governments, serfdom is the goal.

Look and see it for what it is.

The "good guys" don't wear white hats or badges.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Yes, you are one of "those people" I was referring to. I knew y'all were out there!


Yes I am..Because I can read.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20810850]projectvxn[/post_javascript:external()]
a reply to: kaylaluv




(the old "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - PERIOD argument)?


What does Shall Not Be Infringed mean to you exactly?


This is what Merriam-Webster says:



to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another



towronglylimit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)


I have bolded the important part of this. Limitations would need to be so egregious that they violate the law or is wrongly used.
edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Where in the constitution is the federal government or states allowed to infringe on that right?

Since you highlighted WRONGLY..Where in the constitution is there authority to rightly infringe on this right when the text says SHALL NOT.
edit on 4 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Any attempt by authorities to comfiscate people's lawful weapons would be met with major resistance I'm sure.Maybe enough for the people to attack Washington DC and remove the imbeded cancer that rules us from there.
Btw,I'm not a gun owner.
edit on CDTSatpm6261 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: reldra

Where in the constitution is the federal government or states allowed to infringe on that right?


I have just given you the definition of infringement. Regulations can exist, but they cannot be such that they violate a law or are used wrongly or capriciously.

It does not mean you can own 500 guns of any type without any kind of restricions or regulations or registration.


edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



If it means what you think it means, then f it. No more registration, own any kind of weapon, let any person buy them, no checks. How do you think that would go?
edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Right. No infringement for anyone, anywhere at any time. Gotcha.




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join