It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:08 AM
Yah, the gubment isn't "coming for your guns'. When the time comes you'll be required to give them up, taking them downtown and turning them in.

If you don't you'll be the criminal, not them.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 05:44 PM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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).

Well, that's what bothers me. The guy really ISN'T unintelligent and he's not strictly a book smarts kind of guy. He does have plenty of street smarts . He's just one of those people who doesn't necessarily see things in the long term. No one is smart in every possible way and some people are better at a given type of intelligence than others. This guy isn't dumb but he's reckless in the way that he doesn't think about the future. He's the type of guy who has to deal with a lot of problem solving every day and he's used to flying by the seat of his pants. Which works when you only have to deal with problems that you can personally solve. It's just that the kinds of things governments may or may not do in the future are not problems you can solve by yourself and you NEED that safety in numbers that comes from having millions of people who believe in the rights of other people even if they are rights they don't necessarily care about or need personally.

People don't get it. People trust the crowd to not be stupid and not to piss away important things for minor reasons. Even some people who like guns and own guns really don't believe gun control is going to have any impact on them as long as they are sane and intelligent and law abiding. It makes sense because those are usually people who are used to looking at the world and seeing it exactly the way it appears to be. I suppose it takes a cynic to be the type of person who always wonders about people's motives and understands that people don't always come right out and tell you what they're up to.

But if there's anything the recent (like last couple of decades or so) past should have taught people it's that you can't trust the crowd with anything you actually care about. A "right" really is just a piece of paper and most people do not see rights as the kind of thing that can't be taken away. A right is something the majority believes in. And as soon as the majority starts questioning whether or not it's actually a right, it no longer is. It never was. You just never had to wonder if it was secure until now. Rights don't exist. They're made up. We believe we have a right to speak because we have been told that we do and (generally) no one has ever stopped us from doing so. But the fact of the matter is that if the majority wants to shut you up, they CAN. That's the only thing that has ever been protecting anyone's rights. Not the fact that they're written down. The fact that most people believed in them and didn't question them.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:13 PM
He would if he thought he could. Not that Obama probably has an opinion on guns anymore than on illegal immigration or racism or gender specific rest rooms. He's a self absorbed lackwit that just does what he's told to do. Hillary would take your guns if she could, she may be out of it enough to think she could. But gun control is a no no, the people won't allow it and both parties would have a purge if they tried to.

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:51 AM
Yes. They deal in the gradual. They go for the kids.

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: Dutchowl

How is gun control a no no and the people wouldn't allow it? Almost all the major Democrats in power now support more gun control, it's very likely that we will have gun laws in-between Australia's and NY's gun laws in the next 20 years or so, they passed stricter gun control in certain states, Clinton won the nomination even though she is supporting gun control, and many left leaning people support stricter gun control. Heck even a few years ago a gun registry was looked as extreme but now I see support for it has gone up.

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I agree to a point--a lot of what supports your stance about the majority being able to shut people up, though, comes down to the character and will of the individual speaking up.

The backbone and character and resolve of the average American has been whittled away over the past century--things like the Great Depression, segregation, wars, internment camps, political correctness, 'social justice' movements, and many others have broken down the spirit and self-esteem of Americans as a whole. The problem is that said self-esteem is never built back up as more generations are born.

The average American is NOTHING like what we had when we fought for and gained our independence. The product of this generation stood up and made their voices heard, and they persuaded people--they didn't get shouted down and then chose to hide behind a computer screen and assume that tweeting their disdain makes a difference.

Americans really are a shell of who we once were, and that's why there's such discord and confusion as to who we are and what the core beliefs of the nation are and should be.

So, yes, the majority can shout down an individual, but that's because we are a nation who seems to have been beaten down to believing that the bandwagon logical fallacy is an acceptable way to live one's life, and that being part of the majority is all that matters anymore.

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:43 AM

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

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)

Well originally we used to shoot demons and mutants and aliens and #. Now they have us running hookers over and beating people up with bats. I agree it has gone downhill immensely. Video games became big money and just as bad as hollywood in a lot of ways.
edit on 8-6-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:29 PM
Did anyone see the courts recent ruling on concealed carry? I wonder how that will impact things and hopefully people can slow down the push for gun control.

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:31 PM
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

It's the 9th circuit. They do stuff like that.

They are wrong as other decisions have solidified CCW as a fundamental part of the right to keep and bear arms.

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:03 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

But, they are not trying to take our guns, right? < eye roll >
Just make it so they are too expensive, hard to get, unable to be carried or used. But, not "taking them away".

Is there any wonder the word LIE is hidden within the word LIbEral?

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think it's pretty obvious they want to make it extremely hard for law abiding citizens to own guns and the scary thing is that even in NY/California gun control supporters are pushing for more laws.

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:27 PM
I guess I spoke a little too soon here. But this is what I'm talking about (this recent situation in Florida). Just little baby steps. There will never be an instant ban on guns. They'll do it incrementally like they're doing it here. By using these kinds of situations to get their baby steps. Isn't it amazing how every time they want to ban guns in a given country these shootings magically start happening all the time?

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:54 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

That is behind the enemy lines in a liberal stronghold.
They LIKE shocking apparently, nothing they does is legal ,WHO will stop them?

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:50 PM

originally posted by: LordDraconia

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.


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?

The problem here is that she's being smart about it (Just like Obama). She talks about what an outrage it is that people would use the Second Amendment to justify carrying a rifle over your shoulder in Wal-Mart. And of course that is an outrage because a store should be able to tell you you can't enter with a gun on your person. Because it's THEIR property. But will she say that? No. She will make this deceptive argument that the government has to ban this to keep it from happening.

What if the government were to just stay out of it? If you owned a store, would you want some guy walking around in there with a semiautomatic rifle over his shoulder? Of course not! Well, some people might and IMO, if you own a store you can allow that to happen in your store if you WANT. Just let me know about it with a big sign or something so I can choose not to go in there.

See. Here is a weak point for the left. They consistently believe the government can hit every problem with a sledgehammer. They consistently want to tell people exactly how to run their business or use their property. It would never occur to them that a business owner could say "You can't bring that thing onto my property". Why? Because it would never occur to them that a gay man has no right to demand service from the same business owner. To them, if you open up a shop, you have no control over your own business and the government makes all the rules. They're the only people who can stop crazy people from carrying AR-15s in Wal-Mart because they don't believe Wal-Mart has a right to deny you entry because they just don't want to serve you for some reason.

And no. I am not antigay (I actually am gay). But do I believe I have a right to wear a gay pride shirt into someone's store and demand that the owner bake me a cake if he happens to have a problem with doing business with gay people? No. I think he's perfectly within his rights to say no. I'd probably be pissed off at him but it's not my store. It belongs to him. It's his property and he made his business with hard work. Anyone who runs a business knows this isn't an easy way to make a lot of money. Unfortunately, I have to accept that a bakery is not public property and if I want a cake for my gay wedding, I need to find someone who doesn't care if it's a gay wedding.
edit on 17-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in