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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The Progressives don't have enough support to repeal the Second Amendment so they are doing the next best thing....supporting UN Small Arms treaty
www.nraila.org...




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: reldra

I didn't need you to break down the word infringement. That word has a specific meaning and it was used correctly in the text of the 2nd Amendment.

What that article shows, in fact, is the intent of the second amendment.

But if that's not good enough then I recommend reading the Federalist.


You are not going to be able to convince people who believe in infringing our second amendment rights and also believe that women should just get used to having guys coming into the bathrooms at the same time as little girls.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LordDraconia






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.


Exactly, because Statist want complete control over the population and they do not want the population to rise up. The whole purpose of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry the ability to keep government from becoming a tyranny. But of course they've found ways to become a tyranny and make us pay for it to boot.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I think it's pretty obvious why so many gun control supporters bring up Australia's gun laws. I just find it hard to believe they only want to ban a weapon that kills less than 300 people a year/used in very little crime and won't touch handguns that kill the vast majority of people/used in the vast majority of gun crimes.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to: iTruthSeeker
Big events such as 911 are very risky now adays as many more people are aware of what false flags are . The event would have to be a huge event and effect a large percentage of the population. eg would war three, alien invasion or a global epidemic. Under these circumstances it would not just be second emendment rights that would disappear but just about all freedoms and rights that Americans and those of us in the so called free would currently enjoy



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
I think it's pretty obvious why so many gun control supporters bring up Australia's gun laws. I just find it hard to believe they only want to ban a weapon that kills less than 300 people a year/used in very little crime and won't touch handguns that kill the vast majority of people/used in the vast majority of gun crimes.


They need public support.

The rifles they want to ban look scary, so its easier to get the ignorant to believe they are super scary and evil. We are too familiar with handguns.

The real danger is the language they use. We don't need semi-automatics! Well, darn near every privately owned firearm with the exception of shotguns and some long rifles are semi-automatic if I understand correctly. A successful push through of a ban on semi-automatics with everyone thinking they are banning scary-looking "machine guns" (AR-15s) would also catch most of the nation's private handguns.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
I think it's pretty obvious why so many gun control supporters bring up Australia's gun laws. I just find it hard to believe they only want to ban a weapon that kills less than 300 people a year/used in very little crime and won't touch handguns that kill the vast majority of people/used in the vast majority of gun crimes.

Someone pointed out a theory that I think completely explains their apparent lack of logic. Handguns are the guns used most often in shooting murders. But that's just us peasants killing each other. It's the rifle that is the threat to the politician because it's the one that can reach out and touch somebody. So they don't really care about us at all.
edit on 5-6-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: projectvxn

Online speech didn't blow the heads off of 20+ 6-year-olds.


Neither did 100 million other gun owners.

BTW

NY Times

Adam Lanza, 20, shot and killed his mother in their home, then killed 26 people, mostly children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., using a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle and a .22-caliber Savage Mark II rifle.


It was illegal when he killed her.

It was illegal when he stole the weapons and illegally transported them to the school that is legally a gun free zone.

Actually Adam Lanza committed so many felonies before even killing kids.

100 million gun owners also left the house that day with drastically different results. I'm tired of being told I have to be punished for the crimes of others.
edit on 5 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
generally speaking, obama hasn't asked for anything reagan didn't ask for


No body cares what Reagan asked for.

Rights are rights.

You either have them or you don't.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It's called incrementalism. Also known as death by a thousand cuts.

Each new gun law is a little closer to confiscation.

Don't think so? California is looking into banning any standard capacity magazine for modern sporting rifles. Originally if you have one you were grandfathered in. Now if you have one you must turn it in or you'll get jail time or a serious fine.

Another way to look at it is if the liberals in this country had their way (no opposition from gun owners), would they support confiscating guns?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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


It's been happening since 1934.

National Firearms Act

Gun Control Act of 1968

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

That one above marked the first time Americans had to ask the states permission before they can practice the consitutional RIGHT.

First time in over 225 YEARS.

Federal Assualt Weapons BAN.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

From the WHITE HOUSE website.

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

Yawn you say.

I really don't expect leftists to actually give a snip about gun owners CIVIL LIBERTIES.

That just so happen to be the largest voting demographic in the country.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Actually they haven't SUCCEEDED in getting our guns, because we stop them from doing so at every turn.
In fact I personally have played my part in it with my P.C. war as have many on this page.
We of course win such debates handily.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: projectvxn

Online speech didn't blow the heads off of 20+ 6-year-olds.


How do you know? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if at least a few murderers of kids (and others) have been (in one way or another) inspired by some kind of speech. Most likely some kind of "art". You know. Like the kind of art we call video games where the person playing the game walks around and shoots innocent people with military style weapons and gets points for it. I'm sure that never could even possibly give stupid, violent, angry people ideas.

(Disclaimer - I'm obviously not saying I'm against free speech but I don't know what the hell they were thinking when they started making these FPS games)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

This is actually very disturbing. I was aware of many of these, but "drunkenness"? Really? I disagree with:

* Drug abuse violations
* Driving while intoxicated
* Disorderly conduct
* Liquor laws
* Drunkenness
* Vandalism
* Curfew and loitering

I don't see why, outside of paying your penance for the crime (and in my opinion, some of these should not be a crime at all), you should lose your right to bear arms.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Did anyone see Clinton's interview (I think it was today) about a 25% tax on guns and her answer to the question if there's a constitutional right to bear arms?


Edit: To be fair she did kind of sidestep the constitutional right part of the question.
edit on 5-6-2016 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree with the language being dangerous like when they call semi-automatic long rifles machine guns or just automatic weapons. Did you see Piers Morgan trying to claim the UCLA shooter used a machine gun instead of a 9mm handgun and when called out about it claimed it can fire around 200 rounds a minute? Here's my favorite tweet of his recently dealing with the UCLA shooter and people calling him out for not knowing what he's talking about and I quote "I love how American gun nuts make such a distinction between automatic & semi-automatic guns.
Both can kill 200+ people a minute.".



Pier's Morgan calling a handgun a machine gun
edit on 5-6-2016 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2016 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

eh, someone needs to attack him with a knife and say "hey buddy, I bet you wish you had a gun huh?" Piers Morgan is just a whore for gun restrictions. He should do a segment about how violent crime has been going up in the UK and Australia and many other countries since they banned or heavily restricted guns. Im sure his answer will be "well its ok that more people are being beaten, robbed, raped and terrified as long as a couple of innocent criminals are not shot by evil law abiding gun owners, DEEEEEERRRRRPPPPPPP!"



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Of course you didn't know. That is the entire idea. To originally provide "common sense" legislation to prevent violent felons from legally possessing (note I did NOT just possessing, since they can still get the illegally) a firearm. Everyone goes along with that. Then. the begin the silent and low expansion of what qualifies as a felony. And, by default, your rights are stripped form you without you knowing. This is the kernel of the message in the OP.

Its "common sense", right?

< face palm so hard it crushes you skull >




edit on 6/5/2016 by Krakatoa because: spellcheck



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
No, actually California is.. Oh, wait.. Same party, my bad.


What's going on in California RIGHT NOW is absolutely a gun grab in every sense of the the phrase!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

This is a perfect illustration of the difference between "book smart" and "street smart."

It's like I tell my son quite often, it doesn't matter how much you know from books and documentaries and fact-based internet sites--if you can't apply your knowledge to life, then you're still not intelligent.

This fella seems very unintelligent as to how life actually works. And you're right, that approach is quite selfish (and, sadly, common).



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join