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: 16
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

So why would the FBI removed a 'suspected' terrorist ?

Because of daddy ?

Or because we can't offend muslims ?

We will never know.

What IS clear.

Is gun control is a failure.

The surveillance state is a failure.

And those lists are FAILURES.

edit on 16-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Gun store refused to sell to the orlando shooter


An an alert salesperson refused to sell to Mateen, and Abell said he contacted authorities about Mateen before the massacre. The local sheriff's office said it was unaware of the incident at the gun store, and other local authorities, including the local FBI office, have not responded to ABC News' requests for comment.


The authorities had information at the last minute and failed to act on it....

Its crazy to think that this is the fault of a gun... at least 1 gun store paid close attention to him and did everything they were supposed to do, and the police and FBI failed.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ~Lucidity

So why would the FBI removed a 'suspected' terrorist ?

Because of daddy ?

Or because we can't offend muslims ?

We will never know.

What IS clear.

Is gun control is a failure.

The surveillance state is a failure.

And those lists are FAILURES.


Ask them. It's their narrative. And as I've said repeatedly I find that narrative contradictory and full of holes.

It's the lists and the loopholes they are after here. The lists may be flawed but what else ya got?

How about we assign pal people up? Assign every militia member with a weapon to follow around every Muslim/domestic abuser/gang member/felon with a weapon 24/7 and see what happens?
edit on 6/16/2016 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you want to make a free society safer, then just take away some freedoms.

See? Easy!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you want to make a free society safer, then just take away some freedoms.

See? Easy!


I say if we want to make the country safer.

Build a wall around DC put all the politicians in there, and occasionally throw in some food.

Then the rest of us can go about our business.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That would be a waste of food.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

That would be a waste of food.


Nah just Monsantos GMO food stuffs.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: sirlancelot

Thanks for the Sun Tzu!


I understand the romantic or idealistic feeling that our guns might allow us to stand up against a tyrannical government.

However, the reality I fear is that they are meaningless against a Hellfire missile from a drone five miles away, and that's merely the most blunt example of the inequity of power.

Nite though.
Make no mistake Griffey the gov are trying to take our guns because they know there will be hand to hand combat just like there is in Iraq Syria and Afghanistan even with sophisticated weaponry.
Red dawn here we come. An armed populace is much harder to control



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you want to make a free society safer, then just take away some freedoms.

See? Easy!


No I don't see. And no, not easy at all.

it's a difficult balance that sometimes requires if not hard choices then hard compromises.

Freedom within a society isn't necessarily as the freedom without. It's not that pat.

Freedom within a society facing grave challenges is even less so.

If you want to be part of a society, then your personal definition of truly free might never really work.

If you choose society than learn to accept that as compromise and cooperation.

If you want to be truly free, go seek anarchy. But even that evolves into a society sooner rather than later.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity
If we go for the lists that you want and the gun bans you want, does that mean there won't be any more terrorist attacks and mass shootings?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ~Lucidity
If we go for the lists that you want and the gun bans you want, does that mean there won't be any more terrorist attacks and mass shootings?


Eyeroll @ the bait. How adult of you.

And don't put flipping words in my mouth about gun bans. You got me?

If you don't know the topic of the thread, maybe stay out of it.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Legit question.

Obviously you already know the answer.

So you still want to remove freedoms and liberties even though it won't make a damned bit a difference.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

I watched some of it. I caught some chilling words coming out of his mouth that I had to record. This is the way politicians view us, we are subjects, they do not care what the American people want, and they do not care about anything other then their own self interest. Disgusting. People need to understand that Politicians like Chris Murphy care nothing about us or our country. People on twitter non-stop tweeting about "proud to be a Democrat." This comment made me sick to my stomach. How can we all be so blind?
youtu.be...



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Is this true?


9-in-10 on terror watch list who sought guns were approved in 2015

Remember this? Our gun laws are so loose they don't use bombs here...they use what's readily available to them.

Seriously? Nothing should be done?

Lol.... so you want them to start using bombs instead.... To you killing all 320 with a bomb is better than 49 with a gun... lol

They will use whatever is easiest to get. Not like banning AR's would make them decide to quit being a terrorist.

People are just silly.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
They are trying so hard to do this before trump gets in th wh cause they know hills is goin down in flames and take the whole statist democrat party with her



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I don't see Trump being too far away from the democrats position.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: Konduit
So basically they're throwing a tantrum until they get their way. Welcome to the political left.

you actually endorse every massacre then?


Amazing spin.


FAIR question... If you want nothing DONE, then are you willing to accept some FAULT or GUILT when it happens again?

What if your SUPPORT could have helped PREVENT it from happening again?

What kind of logic is this. So if a drunk driver kills a bunch of people all people that drink should be guilty? Someone that kills a bunch of people with a knife and all knife owners should be guilty? Kid drowns in a swimming pool and all pool owners should be guilty?

How about we blame the person pulling the trigger and the people motivating them to do so and not whatever tool they used....



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

I wasn't aware that trying to deny guns to people on a terrorist watch list classified as a threat to the Second Amendment. Oh wait, the NRA says that everyone need guns. My bad!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Actually, it's the 6th Amendment.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: sirlancelot

Thanks for the Sun Tzu!


I understand the romantic or idealistic feeling that our guns might allow us to stand up against a tyrannical government.

However, the reality I fear is that they are meaningless against a Hellfire missile from a drone five miles away, and that's merely the most blunt example of the inequity of power.

Nite though.
Make no mistake Griffey the gov are trying to take our guns because they know there will be hand to hand combat just like there is in Iraq Syria and Afghanistan even with sophisticated weaponry.
Red dawn here we come. An armed populace is much harder to control


The government is not trying to take your guns. When you say that you sound like a member of the extremist fringe.

Speaking of fringe beliefs when will there be "hand to hand combat again"? Oh, that's right ... in your silly sci-fi fantasies about some sort of dystopian future in which you will finally get to be an action star. /giggle.

The American populace has about 322 million firearms and counting. That increases by about 10 million a year. Problem for your nightmare scenario is that about 70-80% of us think that your "Red Dawn" fantasies are fairly insane.

... and it's Mr. Griffey to you, bub.




top topics



 
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join