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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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


I do believe there is a 'level'. There are obvious limits on the second amendment. Apparently, the right to beat arms doesn't include nuclear, biological or chemical 'arms'. It doesn't include convicted felons. Nothing excluding them in the constitution that I'm aware of.

Look, The momentum is building to banning AR-15s. As you agree that the attacks will increase, something is going to give. Period.

Be it Obama and a 'memo'/executive order or even a congressionally voted law! I would restrict the 'potential' abusers before all of us lose the right to own.

In this Trump is, as usual, two steps ahead of everyone else. Target the doers, at least the potential doers, NOT US.
edit on 16-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

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




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

so you would prefer to remove the right to own a hunting rifle from some of us, based on a list no one knows they are on or not even, let alone how they got on...
than have restrictions put onto who can and can not own an AR....whatever??
that's so kind of you!!! I suppose that when the EMP is dropped and everything comes to a standstill and people need to actually hunt for their food again, you will be willing to hunt for their food also?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

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.


Watch lists created by a would-be dictator only require immigration and census data and/or tax records. It would only require 3 people to create and manage a database. Only names selected by the dick-tater need to be removed, everyone else stays on. Could Clinton or Trump do something this obscene? I'd say yes, but it comes down to probabilities. We already know from Clinton's history, she likes lists.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 6/16.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: nwtrucker

so you would prefer to remove the right to own a hunting rifle from some of us, based on a list no one knows they are on or not even, let alone how they got on...
than have restrictions put onto who can and can not own an AR....whatever??
that's so kind of you!!! I suppose that when the EMP is dropped and everything comes to a standstill and people need to actually hunt for their food again, you will be willing to hunt for their food also?



I assume in my position that Trump wins the election. I would hope and assume that 'watch list' would be far different than the current one.

Still, I cede your point. Even that option has flaws as you point out.

I will rebut, I have serious problems with defending the 'rights' of those that would destroy our culture and nation.

No easy answer is there....



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

It's unconstitutional.

Everyone has lost their damned mind!
edit on 16-6-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

unless trump plans on declaring lifelong dictatorial power ( and congress allows him to...) trump won't be in office more than four to eight years. and then it will be someone's else's turn to decide who is put onto the lists....
each one who would ensure their pets are protected and their opponents aren't...
in the end, most of us would lose the rights.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Maybe. I still have a small hope.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The 2nd amendment is about the right to form a militia to fight against a tyrannical government. If that day ever comes, what would stop the tyrannical government from placing said militia members on a terrorist watch list, to deny them guns, and thwart their ability to form a militia.

What constitutes getting on that list?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
wrong thread
edit on 16-6-2016 by JetBlackStare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: gladtobehere

We have two problems in the US.

We have an Islamic Terror problem and an apologist idiot problem.

I would go farther and prevent any non citizen from owning a firearm.


Dude...I liked you until the last sentence. While we indeed do have a terrorist and apologist problem, we also have the problem of (to quote a very intelligent woman) a government that has forgotten its place. If nothing else, the fact that a homeowner MAY have a gun is better protection and security than the police that might get here in an hour. When you are not protected by your paid government...you have to be able to protect yourself.

I'll let it go there.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well, looking at the OP of this thread, I wonder who might be put on those watchlists?
For all we know, even disagreeing with the government on a public website like this one might already do the trick as well.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Has this meeting occurred? If it has, do we know what was the result? Personally, I'm withholding my opinion until I hear more.



new topics




 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join