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.

 

Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

page: 11
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

It's extremely tired, and overused and correct!


You want to chip away and the 2nd amendment, you want to create a list for where there is currently no due process involved and furthermore you don't want to acknowledge that more laws are not the answer?


Cmon man



It is not correct, it's absurd. Argue for the removal of laws with someone else.

No one is chipping away at the Second Amendment. Laws regarding weapons sales, appropriateness, and other reasonable restrictions have been around for more than 200 years. I haven't advocated for any list (and if you say that, you're merely lying) and we've already addressed the "laws don't stop crime" foolishness.




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Woah! So now a filibuster is a wonderful thing and the people in Congress were elected by their constituencies to represent them?

It's NOW all working as intended because it might be working in a way you like?

Ha!


More BS Hyperbole.

Your argument is really looking weak.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not absurd and it is correct. Criminals break laws...by their very definition!

I apologize you did not say anything about a list. You stated more background checks. So then what is on the other end of the phoncall/email to compare and application to? Something like ...a list?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
They just want to ban "assault weapons'.

And since that is an ambiguous term, they can ban anything damn thing they want.

A sharp stick is an 'assault weapon".
A .22 pea shooter, pointed at someone, is an "assault weapon".

Every weapon that has the ability to harm another person, is an "assault weapon".



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, not really making an argument. Just pointing out that massive double standard there.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, not really making an argument. Just pointing out that massive double standard there.


The only double standard on display here is the usual incongruity between right-wing authoritarians promoting laws when it suits them, and opposing them when they don't for mere political gain.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a cop out statement. Any political party fits.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not absurd and it is correct. Criminals break laws...by their very definition!

I apologize you did not say anything about a list. You stated more background checks. So then what is on the other end of the phoncall/email to compare and application to? Something like ...a list?



Why is this the go-to argument for folks?

So, your assertion is that criminals break laws, therefore, laws have no effect.

I would like to see you say that overtly. (You're desperately trying to put words into my mouth that I haven't said. Go back and read again, and I'll be glad to discuss what I actually say, but I'm not going to attempt to defend your restatement of what I say, because, logical fallacy.)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a cop out statement. Any political party fits.



What are you referring to now?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
They just want to ban "assault weapons'.

And since that is an ambiguous term, they can ban anything damn thing they want.

A sharp stick is an 'assault weapon".
A .22 pea shooter, pointed at someone, is an "assault weapon".

Every weapon that has the ability to harm another person, is an "assault weapon".


Is the filibuster about assault weapons?

Or are you desperately trying to change the terms of the argument?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you claiming that there isn't a drive to reinstitute an "assault weapon" ban?

hahahahahahahahaha



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not absurd and it is correct. Criminals break laws...by their very definition!

I apologize you did not say anything about a list. You stated more background checks. So then what is on the other end of the phoncall/email to compare and application to? Something like ...a list?



Why is this the go-to argument for folks?

So, your assertion is that criminals break laws, therefore, laws have no effect.

I would like to see you say that overtly. (You're desperately trying to put words into my mouth that I haven't said. Go back and read again, and I'll be glad to discuss what I actually say, but I'm not going to attempt to defend your restatement of what I say, because, logical fallacy.)


It's the "go-to" argument because it is truth.

Laws have no effects upon those destined to break them.

I'll restate. When you suggest "more background checks," what do you think they use the data gathered form a rifle/handgun application compared to? A list. Not putting words in your mouth.
edit on 15-6-2016 by JinMI because: Stuff and Thangs



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you claiming that there isn't a drive to reinstitute an "assault weapon" ban?

hahahahahahahahaha


This topic is about the current filibuster in the Senate.

You seem to be asking me to read minds or predict the future.

Sorry, no can do.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not absurd and it is correct. Criminals break laws...by their very definition!

I apologize you did not say anything about a list. You stated more background checks. So then what is on the other end of the phoncall/email to compare and application to? Something like ...a list?



Why is this the go-to argument for folks?

So, your assertion is that criminals break laws, therefore, laws have no effect.

I would like to see you say that overtly. (You're desperately trying to put words into my mouth that I haven't said. Go back and read again, and I'll be glad to discuss what I actually say, but I'm not going to attempt to defend your restatement of what I say, because, logical fallacy.)


It's the "go-to" argument because it is truth.

Laws have no effects upon those destined to break them.


Okay, then just say it ... are you advocating that we should have no laws, because criminals break them anyway?

Why the sudden side-stepping?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're the one arguing prcedure. The rest of us have been debating merits.

Again, i will refer you back to 6 things that need to be addressed about this proposal.

Let's start with one:

If they tie denial of purchase to a list, how will they account for due process considering that right now a name can simply be added to a list or taken away by a faceless bureaucrat and you do not have to be notified. Heck, if you are inconvenienced because you are on the list, they do not have to tell you why. So you may never know you are on a list, so you may never find out for what reasons you are there. And assuming you can find out, then you have to fight to have it taken off, and assuming that happens and your name comes off ... nothing prevents a faceless bureaucrat from sticking it right. back. on. there.

And the whole business starts again.

And don't tell me debate will cover all this because the lessons we all learned from Obamacare is that they do not hash over these details. They simply pass things and then write up the actual regs later on to fill in a bare framework.

And, of course, it could be challenged judicially, but only IF you know you have standing which might be hard if you have no real clue that you are being denied your rights due to this in the first place.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now who's trying to put words in mouths eh?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Gross hyperbole. Have you been labeled a terrorist? Are you on a watch list? If not, get real.

The Bundys were terrorists. Yes, they should be on a watch list. No, it wasn't "just because of their politics" but because of their illegal actions.

Yes, "US Born Philosophies" ... like say, lynching. Timothy McVeigh followed another such "philosophy."

Yada yada left wing, yada yada fascist yada yada BS.

No guns for terrorists. Background checks. That's swhat's on the table. Neither should take a thing away from any law-abiding American.



Yeah and we where supposed to be able to keep our doctor and save $2500 per month for insurance under Obamacare. How is that working out? Point is the govt lies and even when they dont they rely on the stupidity of the American People as Gruber so succinctly put it.

I have no doubt a Terror list amendment under the auspice of fighting terrorism will be used to place ANYONE who upsets the apple cart on the list. Johnson just said they got a hard for Right wing extremist.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're the one arguing prcedure. The rest of us have been debating merits.

Again, i will refer you back to 6 things that need to be addressed about this proposal.

Let's start with one:

If they tie denial of purchase to a list, how will they account for due process considering that right now a name can simply be added to a list or taken away by a faceless bureaucrat and you do not have to be notified. Heck, if you are inconvenienced because you are on the list, they do not have to tell you why. So you may never know you are on a list, so you may never find out for what reasons you are there. And assuming you can find out, then you have to fight to have it taken off, and assuming that happens and your name comes off ... nothing prevents a faceless bureaucrat from sticking it right. back. on. there.

And the whole business starts again.

And don't tell me debate will cover all this because the lessons we all learned from Obamacare is that they do not hash over these details. They simply pass things and then write up the actual regs later on to fill in a bare framework.

And, of course, it could be challenged judicially, but only IF you know you have standing which might be hard if you have no real clue that you are being denied your rights due to this in the first place.


No, I'm arguing for reality ... the filibuster in the Senate regards the claims made.

You can refer to anything you like; there is no attempt to "take away and/or ban guns."

I have stated on several occasions that I'm not arguing for the nature of the terror watch list, the process of the watch list, or anything else. However, if someone is on the terror watch list, I have no issue with them not being able to freely purchase fire arms. Coming up with ways to make the list more accurate, more in line with due process, etc. are all valid concerns (as I've said at least three times.)

You're predicting the future and conflating the past. By your logic, we should shut down the Congress altogether.

The rest of your assertions seem hopelessly vague ... who are you talking about? challenging what judicially? who doesn't know they have standing and rights to redress? who doesn't have clues that they're being denied rights?

You're holding up a bag of shadows.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now who's trying to put words in mouths eh?



LOL.

I see you worked it out on your own.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
Wouldn't it be nice if any of these clowns with an R next to their name and a D next to their name would filibuster to lower the national debt or to modify crappy trade deals or to lower medical related prices in the US? Ain't got time for that foolishness.

Oh if they aren't millionaires going in they are coming out.




top topics



 
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join