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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I mean, that has to be treated on a case by case basis. There was a person in my county some years back who would abuse the hell out of 911. If he were threatened with a felony charge, maybe he would not abuse it so much???




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You're right, of course. They've certainly tried major gun bans in the past, most recently in 2013, but for the most part, they've realized that they can't win this argument in the court of public opinion and have engaged in a slow, incremental war against gun rights, constantly chipping away at the edges of it. If they had their way, eventually, nothing meaningful will be left.

But no, to hear them tell it, they're not interested in taking your guns. Maybe if they repeat that often enough, one of these days someone will actually believe it. I'm sure that next time there's a little political pressure, the left will be tripping over themselves to support and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Everyone knows that's bullcrap. The left, as a group, has never met a gun restriction that it doesn't like and has never supported gun owners when push comes to shove and that is the reason why the average gun owner doesn't believe anything they say on the issue.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Krakatoa

I mean, that has to be treated on a case by case basis. There was a person in my county some years back who would abuse the hell out of 911. If he were threatened with a felony charge, maybe he would not abuse it so much???


Why not punish that person according to established laws for that offense? Why does a law need to be a "threat"? If the laws on the books were enforced, and people actually held accountable for their actions, then I truly believe a lot of this would become part of the past.

But when attitudes are to use stripping ones Constitutional rights as a THREAT, that is when we are seriously sliding down a hill in which there are only sharp rocks below to stop our fall.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: projectvxn

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


I want you to read this.

www.constitution.org...

Then get back to me.

No infringement is what the text of the second amendment imposes on the government.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Thats a good point. the person was arrested eventually, I think they turned out to be a bit loony. I am still trying to find the article to figure out how he was finally addressed in court.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra



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?

Like kaylaluv I will direct you to this:
www.constitution.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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"?

I remember that. Noone even batted an eye either. There should have been a huge outcry against Obama when he tried that #. Just shows how far down the rabbit hole we've already gone.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

well technically, it is the people who kill unborn children who are "enjoying their daily killings" , but you know whatever. Also, thousands of people are murdered/killed with non-firearm weapons or even bare hands. What is your solution to those killings? Because banning guns does not stop death as has been clear everyday in Europe and Australia. It only stops firearm deaths. Well deaths by other means go up when there are no guns.

Do you have some kind of magic pill or aerosol that can stop all humans from making irrational decisions??


There is no solution, but to lie and pout like children and play the victim makes alot of people not want to associate with gun lovers.

No need to lie or use propaganda to keep
Your rights.

Im not saying your lying, just the whole machine behing gun rights.

Oh and plz dont use europe or australia as examples, the death count even with less guns is not even on par with the us on daily killings.

I know right those dirty violent Europeans. www.germanjoys.eu... Why can't they be civilized like us? And oh look at Australia extranosalley.com... crime is up double and triple digits since 1996 when they took their guns away. Meanwhile crime and violent has continued to decrease here in the USA despite what the MSM scares us with every day.
edit on 4-6-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LordDraconia

There was a lengthy thread about it here on ATS at the time. It was amazing (and appalling) how quickly some people were willing to sacrifice the principle of due process if it meant furthering their position against gun rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LordDraconia

The President was setting PRECEDENT with that.

Now that precedent has been set and is provable to have not produced a real and provable rebuttal (It may have though) or conflict, it will be used on a more widespread basis as proof that it, unconstitutional or not, has been done before and will be used as justification to keep doing it.

Especially regarding people without the resources to fight it.

Enjoy..........
edit on 4-6-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: tpo



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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.

That happens to black people every day in this country. Smoke an herb the founding fathers grew and there goes your rights. And if you read the OP he was talking about a slow insidious creep. And here you are saying, "well I don't see a tidal wave so I call BS."



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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.




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?


1 second of google tells me:
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

How long did you have to hunt around for and convolute the meaning for yours?

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

Yes that is exactly what it means. The 2nd amendment isn't there for hunters and sport shooters. It's there so we're prepared to topple a corrupt tyranny. You're going to need more then a pop gun for that.
edit on 4-6-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LordDraconia

Yep. You guys are showing up just like I said. And to think another poster told me that it was only a tiny fringe of extremists out there... Ha.

Criminals - no problem - all the guns you want.

Mentally ill - no problem - all the guns you want.


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



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LordDraconia

Yep. You guys are showing up just like I said. And to think another poster told me that it was only a tiny fringe of extremists out there... Ha.


You keep calling us extremists when, in fact, it is a matter of being able to read. You didn't even read the interview I posted a couple of posts up did you?

You're not even presenting any real arguments.
edit on 4 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: reldra



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?

Like kaylaluv I will direct you to this:
www.constitution.org...


Breaking it down gramattically does not show context or intent. This article has been copied in a few places on the net and noted as not fully able to define the text.

You seemed to be stuck on the word infringement, so I gave you the definition. But neither what you present or what I present is better than those that are experts in constitutional law.
edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Your portrait there kinda lends itself to easy dismissal because it seems really heavy on the 'already-biased' side of the scales.
Very much "pre-supposition". Sorta "PeeWee-esque", even though you don't realize it....

Some of us are more interested in exploring, you know, the 'gray area' in between.



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



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't need to read it.

Mentally ill people who are violent don't need to be able to buy guns.

Violent criminals don't need to be able to buy guns.

Someone who has already killed someone doesn't need to be able to buy guns.

Someone who refuses to be properly trained and maintain that training for life doesn't need to be able to buy guns.

Common sense.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Criminals - no problem - all the guns you want.



Criminals get guns regardless. Felons, domestic abusers, users of drugs, and the adjudicated mentally ill are already prohibited by law from buying firearms.

Once you start committing crimes or adjudicated mentally incompetent by qualified professionals and a judge there you lose most of you rights. Rightly so.

Public safety and the 2nd Amendment are not at odds with each other and infringement on the second amendment, or any of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, is covered under the 4th amendment in cases of criminality and adjudication.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Someone who refuses to be properly trained and maintain that training for life doesn't need to be able to buy guns.


I'll address this since I have already addressed your other points.

There is NO qualification for the exercise of a right. None. Nor should there be.

I am a proponent of training. But I am not going to advocate conditions on the exercise of rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: LordDraconia

The President was setting PRECEDENT with that.

Now that precedent has been set and is provable to have not produced a real and provable rebuttal (It may have though) or conflict, it will be used on a more widespread basis as proof that it, unconstitutional or not, has been done before and will be used as justification to keep doing it.

Especially regarding people without the resources to fight it.

Enjoy..........


Yep Hillary says the Sureme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment. She starts at about 38 seconds in I don't know how to make the video autostart there even though i have the youtube link with the =38s?



If Trump wins? We're all going to have Yuge guns. And not those chinese guns either. They're no good. I'm talking guns made right here in America. We're going to Make Gun Ownership Great Again! She starts at about 38 seconds in I don't know how to make my video autostart there.
edit on 4-6-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join