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.

 

Trump to NRA: strip "watch listed" people of their 2A rights.

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: supremecommander

why not block the ARs from everyone, or at least place some major restrictions on them and let the innocents THAT ARE ON THOSE LISTS AND DON'T EVEN KNOW IT enjoy their hunting trips at least!

ya know, like some of us actually rely on those shotguns to help supplement our grocery bills!




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: supremecommander

why not block the ARs from everyone, or at least place some major restrictions on them and let the innocents THAT ARE ON THOSE LISTS AND DON'T EVEN KNOW IT enjoy their hunting trips at least!

ya know, like some of us actually rely on those shotguns to help supplement our grocery bills!


My family had a nice bushmaster semi- automatic rifle, 9 mm handgun, and shotgun. We had the most fun at the firing range with the bushmaster. Everyone surrounded us thinking we had a machine gun. Damn, that barrel can get red hot! It was trigger pulls. We all had fun shooting it, my daughters (in their 20's) too. The gun club had an off duty cop there as supervisory and he really enjoyed it as well.

It is not a hunting rifle! I have hunted deer with my daughters with standard shot rifles. This rifle would suck if you wanted to actually put up food for your family in the freezer or make some jerky! Btw...hubby is not a hunter.

We sold our bushmaster and handgun to gun shop last year. Home protection is a shotgun. Just the sound of the ratcheting the shell in place should send an intruder running, if not...that intruder deserves to get shot!

Even knowing this for my own personal experience and choice...I can understand the 2nd amendment. It was put in place to ensure the citizens would be able to make a stand against a corrupt government. Our forefather's realized that governments could change on a dime and screw the citizenry. They wanted to ensure that their childrens children's children's etc ...would be able to survive against the government.

True, our forefathers had no clue of how technology would create a military monster of death structive weapons. Allow people to protect themselves and don't ban weapons. I don't think they will need them, but it does provide solace, not discontent. The BAD guys will always be able to obtain a weapon, never limit a GOOD guys access to them.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

What is it about "due process" that politicians don't understand!?!? So they want to deny citizens of a constitutional right based on their name being placed on a list by an anonymous bureaucrat!

We don't even know the process used to put someone on these lists. For that matter, is anyone officially informed that they are on a list? To make matters worse, if a citizen is wrongly placed on a list, how much must they pay in lawyer and court fees to clear their name.

Due process is promised to all citizens so none are deprived of life, liberty, or proparty. Yet here we are and both candidates for POTUS are openly campaigning to do away with it!

This is absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




This seems like a much better solution than restricting guns for all law abiding citizens, which is what the current administration wants to do. If Hillary has her way, all guns will be banned, totally.


Excuses excuses. Both of them are wrong but ironically, Donald Trump is saying almost exactly what Obama did? How is that not registering?

How do you think that people on a watch list are prevented from buying firearms? With a background check that hits a database. So if you support this, you support the same position that Obama came out with the day of the attack regarding guns.

The only thing that Donald Trump did was dumb it down a bit and give some vague impression that it would only effect "the bad guys" but it's literally the same thing.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


I think Trump is making a big mistake here. How can you trust someone to have your interests at heart if they are willing to sacrifice you, your wife and kids to private sector and public sector criminals, who I might add, all have guns. Bad move Donald!


At least you get it. Donald Trump says "watch list" and people are like "oh, okay, that targets the "bad guys!" without letting that idea bounce around a bit in their heads and coming to the realization that what he's talking about is essentially expanded background checks. Furthermore, the same implications are there for a "watch list" as an "expanded background check" — in order to enforce compliance, private gun sales would need to be restricted.

edit on 2016-6-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Donald Trump to meet with NRA on banning gun sales for people on terror watch list.


Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday he will meet with the National Rifle Association to discuss barring individuals on the terror watch list and "no fly" list from legally purchasing guns.

"I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee tweeted Wednesday.

This should come as no surprise. Trump has been a lifelong liberal.

He has always supported the Clintons and their "assault" weapons ban and has even criticized the NRA.

I'm just glad this is coming out prior to the elections so we hate a better idea of what we can expect.

Government "watch" lists really go against everything that America was founded on and (hopefully) still stands for.

We dont know whos on it, why theyre on it and theres no way (currently) to be removed from it.

Guilty without the opportunity to be proven innocent.

47,000+ on the "no fly" list. 1,000,000+ on the "terror" watch list (and climbing).

And which restriction is next: barred from employment, denied medical coverage, how about a bank account, credit card or a mortgage?

Who exactly is a "terrorist"? Everyone from OWS to the Bundy's have been called "terrorists".




If they won't let you fly in a plane, why should you have a gun?

Same as a "terrorist list" why should you have a gun?

Now the problem is how accurate are the lists.

Who puts you on it and why.




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: abe froman

You know who else shouldn't be armed?

Mexican drug gangs.

But the Members of the cult of Obama never want to talk about that debacle.


I know, right?

Wtf was that about, anyway? To see where the guns ended up or some bright idea?

Holder is still under a contempt of congress for that.

Maybe something can be done to make the "lists" more accurate with the NRA involved?








posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I'll wait to see what he actually proposes. Theoretically, I think its a good idea, but I do have concerns that there won't be proper safeguards in place to prevent abuse. The standard for being denied on these grounds needs to be narrowly and clearly defined so that it only applies if certain very specific criteria are met. The same is true of the appeals process, and in addition, the appeal should be heard within a clearly defined and quick time frame or the denial should be automatically overturned. The Dems proposal earlier this year was completely unacceptable, IMO, and the GOP version, which was a little better, still needed significant work before I could support it.
edit on 15-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Fools!!!!!


First, you compromise for a list that denies people due process and removes their constitutional rights.

Then they expand that list since precedence has been set.

Don't you know you're already on a list for constantly posting on this site?

When it is your turn know you had been warned.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The big one about the people on the watch list with the NRA is that that if your name get put on the watch list unless you are connected a congressman or other elected official there is not a way really to appeal and get off the watch list or the no fly list. The government claims there is but it may take years for them to GET AROUND to investigating the claim.

There are 1000s of people on the watch list that have done nothing to get put on the list but have the same name as a terrorist or other person that 100% needs to be on the watch list.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Then if you do appeal and get off the list the government will not tell you because its classified information.

In this point i have to agree with the NRA that until they FIX the watch list/no fly list system i can not be used.

I think there are some people on the no fly list that should be allowed to fly if they are leaving the US. then you stop them from coming back.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


P.S. An afterthought. Please consider at what point would such a restriction be merited? Let's say these 'random attacks' increase to, say, one a day, perhaps two or three a day....then would it be warranted?


Especially if the alternative is that same 'restriction' would be placed on ALL Americans as the alternative? (THAT would be a 'progressive/left wing solution, which, I suspect, is what Trump is actually avoiding by this suggestion. That would make him a centrist, NOT a liberal as you say...)


I really don't believe there is a level where it becomes of merit, as I said the problem is who puts whom on the watch list? 99% of the population could be disenfranchised by said list, where in reality only 1% need be disenfranchised because of real terrorist leanings or connections.

BTW, I am already concerned this is going to accelerate to one per day.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Good.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: gladtobehere

There are a couple of problems with this approach ; the first being that the goverment can arbitrarily decide who will be on watch lists and no fly lists. Eventually, everyone won't be on the no fly, but everyone could be on the watch list. The second problem is if everyone is put on lists to prevent buying or owning weapons, who will stand up to the government when it becomes a totalitarian nightmare? Oh wait, that's the point of this...

I think Trump is making a big mistake here. How can you trust someone to have your interests at heart if they are willing to sacrifice you, your wife and kids to private sector and public sector criminals, who I might add, all have guns.

Bad move Donald!

Cheers - Dave


Trumps a really nice guy and he'll make sure that only the bad people are on it. If you didn't notice he's REALLY rich and that means he makes lots of great decisions. On top of that his hands are huge, and people with huge hands have huge brains, and definitely not small other parts. That gives him the credentials to manage this list.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


I think Trump is making a big mistake here. How can you trust someone to have your interests at heart if they are willing to sacrifice you, your wife and kids to private sector and public sector criminals, who I might add, all have guns. Bad move Donald!


Furthermore, the same implications are there for a "watch list" as an "expanded background check" — in order to enforce compliance, private gun sales would need to be restricted.


Yeah, watch-lists require a bureaucratic machinery and 'improved' or 'extended' ones require more bureaucracy, more data-gathering, more background checks of more people.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Here's the scary aspect of this to me...

Supposedly ISIS announced 3 days before the attack in Orlando that they were going to hit Florida.

Our government didn't alert us, and Florida was attacked.

So let's say that as a concerned citizen (who has no faith in the competence of those who are supposed to be protecting us) I decide to take a proactive approach to my family's safety by keeping an eye on ISIS propaganda myself.

Well Obama just stated that people who visit these sites (and thank God that I haven't) are already on a no fly list, but he wants the authority to prevent these same people from buying guns too.

And apparently... so does Trump. So WTF?

Do I sit back and let my Muslim ass-kissing government handle it, or do I subject myself to an FBI investigation and loss of freedoms?


edit on 16-6-2016 by Bone75 because: accuracy



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

If Trump sticks to his agenda, chances are that all Muslims on a terror watch / no-fly list will be banned from purchasing firearms - non-Muslims will remain as is.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
But but but trump is a real american, this cant be true.

Let the spin and the excuses start with is cult followers.


This will be the first big test, as a Presidential candidate, of his "Negotiation" and "Make a Deal" skills that Donald Trump talks about so prominently in his debates and speeches. The NRA is tough!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
When I think of trump supporters I I tire mindless bobble heads nodding at everything he says

You do realize you're supporting a man who obviously has no issue being a dictator...

You also realize those who would take those guns have discression over who is on that watch list right? And that it could be for anything no matter how unfounded

Jesus do you people not remember the last 8 years and how we as conservatives railed against policies that could have further reaching consequences?

Now you agree w a person who would impose more gun regulations to be abused?

No we need to enforce the laws we have not make more

I've always said trump is for more gov, he proves it every day

Wake up and stop drinking the Trump koolaid



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't give two #s about the NRA, or any other organization, or dogma, there is no such thing as a "sacred cow" and that goes for the left and the right, many things at this point need to be looked at, and obviously we aren't going to disarm our population, and obviously we aren't going to destroy free speech, but both areas need some innovative thought and consideration, so that we can destroy radical Islam on the home front and stop home grown extremism. /end of



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

doesn't Alex Jones support Trump?




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join