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.

 

Orlando Families Plead With Obama

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I suggest you make a quick Google search for all her speeches, bills she tries to push through, all on this topic. All with strict goal of outlawing personal firearm ownership. This is THE thing she is known for!




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can provide one name: Senator Dianne Feinstein. She wants to ban and confiscate guns in California.

Next question.


Care to back that up?





posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit

originally posted by: eXia7
The solution is to stop letting terrorists into the country.



And if they're born in the US?


Well, isn't the homeland security's job?

Come on now. That is why that joke of an agency exists right?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Democrats in Congress are trying to establish better background checks and insure that known or suspected terrorists can't walk into a shop and buy the weaponry of war.

How are the new ones supposed to work any better the the old ones? This guy followed all the rules, and all the laws, yet he was allowed to buy weapons of war, even after a gun dealerships notified the FBI, because they were suspicious of him.

From what I understand he had 4 background checks, so would the new law require 5, the next time 6? So where does it stop? And if he was refused the weapons, do you think he would not have been able to get them easy enough from underground or the black market?

This has nothing to do with guns, or weapons of war, unless you are referring to our corrupt, greedy, government. Since it is proving itself to be ineffective, and a traitorous, weapon of war, against the American people.


edit on 17-6-2016 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: word correction



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

I suggest you make a quick Google search for all her speeches, bills she tries to push through, all on this topic. All with strict goal of outlawing personal firearm ownership. This is THE thing she is known for!



Someone kindly posted a quote from her early career. While there seems to be context to her statement ... you're basically correct. If she's still arguing for gun confiscation and banning, she's arguing against the Constitution of hte uNited States.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Well, there you go. I had not ever seen those comments from Senator Feinstein.

If she is talking about a total ban and confiscation of firearms, she's clearly arguing against the Constitution of the United States.

Her position is not held by every Democrat, nor every liberal, nor every progressive, nor every leftist.

Certainly not held by myself. Certainly not what is being argued in the Senate.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you read what I said a bit more carefully, you may discover that I am stating that the Constitution of the United States totally forbids a ban on religion or a ban on guns.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I don't believe you will find that I've argued here that any change in gun laws would have stopped the Orlando shooter.

However, that doesn't change the fact that a system of universal background checks, probably at the Federal level, is a reasonable requirement to purchase firearms in the United States, nor is the restriction of purchases to those suspected of terrorism or other violent acts against the public an unreasonable move. Further, if we can correct the process of the "Terrorism Watch List" to reflect the requirements of due process, all the better.

I can't speak to your garden-variety diatribe about the government, you certainly have a right to your beliefs.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Consoler in Chief?

That is not why we elect Presidents. What the hell is wrong with journalism today? What the hell is wrong with education today?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to keep this in context ... this was an interview in 1995. The federal assault weapon ban that she authored passed in 1994. She was indeed referring to all guns, since her bill had already passed and she says she would have banned all guns if the votes had been there.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to keep this in context ... this was an interview in 1995. The federal assault weapon ban that she authored passed in 1994. She was indeed referring to all guns, since her bill had already passed and she says she would have banned all guns if the votes had been there.



I find it almost as ridiculous a statement to make publicly as Pelosi's comment about the ACA.

The difference being that Feinstein is arguing against the Constitution of the United States; Pelosi was just ... kinda dumb.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You asked me to back it up as if I was trying to make a baseless claim. I thought anyone who was discussing this topic of gun control knew who she was, as she is the most ardent government representative for complete confiscation. Every liberal minded voter should know who she is and what she is espousing. It is vile and completely un-american. She is one of the main reasons defenders of the 2nd Amendment are so vocal and steadfast when someone like THAT is in a place of power. She is a state senator!!!



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Denouncing all religion would be the best thing we could do. Sure, if you want to be backwards and follow it, no problem. But it should be illegal to subject children to it. Let's be honest--- we can thank religion for MOST of the backwards attitudes and unending wars.

End religion. Make earth a better place. Keep your guns.



Secular communism, socialism and fascism have killed more people in the modern era than any religion, just FYI.

End those ideologies. They only spread misery and death.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to keep this in context ... this was an interview in 1995. The federal assault weapon ban that she authored passed in 1994. She was indeed referring to all guns, since her bill had already passed and she says she would have banned all guns if the votes had been there.



I find it almost as ridiculous a statement to make publicly as Pelosi's comment about the ACA.

The difference being that Feinstein is arguing against the Constitution of the United States; Pelosi was just ... kinda dumb.


Was?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

You asked me to back it up as if I was trying to make a baseless claim. I thought anyone who was discussing this topic of gun control knew who she was, as she is the most ardent government representative for complete confiscation. Every liberal minded voter should know who she is and what she is espousing. It is vile and completely un-american. She is one of the main reasons defenders of the 2nd Amendment are so vocal and steadfast when someone like THAT is in a place of power. She is a state senator!!!



I know who she is. I know she's a gun control advocate. I did not know she had made such an asinine public statement. You have inadvertently educated me today, and I appreciate that. Her current positions, and the legislation, she's working for (as far as I can tell) is not for a universal ban on firearms and certainly not universal confiscation.

She is one of 100. Perhaps she represents her constituents. There is never going to be a gun ban nor a gun confiscation, and if it is, I will repeat, we are no longer living in the United States of America.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
There not going to ban any body’s right to have a firearm folks

Knock out all the paranoia.

All they want to do is only a small concession of the military style weapons be controlled

That’s NOT against the 2nd amendment

The SCOTUS has ruled guns can be moderated in other words they can ban you from owning a tank so they can ban AR 15’s if they chose

You could still have your little firearms, rifles etc.



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

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to keep this in context ... this was an interview in 1995. The federal assault weapon ban that she authored passed in 1994. She was indeed referring to all guns, since her bill had already passed and she says she would have banned all guns if the votes had been there.



I find it almost as ridiculous a statement to make publicly as Pelosi's comment about the ACA.

The difference being that Feinstein is arguing against the Constitution of the United States; Pelosi was just ... kinda dumb.


Was?


Congratulations, that's the smallest nit-pick I've seen yet on ATS.

What's the problem?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
... the restriction of purchases to those suspected of terrorism or other violent acts against the public an unreasonable move...


You forgot to add "with complete due process by law", anything less is unconstitutional. Last I checked, being an uncharged or unconvicted suspect does not automatically result in the stripping of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. These current lists require ZERO due process to have your name placed on them, therefore, it does NOT mean that your rights can be legally stripped, regardless of who or what you are "suspected" of at all. This is the same knee-jerk reaction seen and felt in the 1940's during WWII that resulted in the Japanese internment camps, and the McCarthy Communist "Red Scare" in the 1950's.

Frankly, I do not wish to see those BAD and unconstitutional changes made again in this country.

When FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself", he was addressing a frighten population in a trying and scary time. It still has a modern meaning in this case now. We must fight to succumb to the fear and disregard our supreme laws for the sake of an illusion of "security". However, instead of having a leader that tries to calm the population and prevent the fear, we have one that is metaphorically squirting lighter fluid on the fire.


edit on 6/17/2016 by Krakatoa because: spelling errors



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'VE seen a discussion on Clinton's semantic debate about that blow job...on ATS.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eXia7

Jeh (A muslim) is busy profiling dangerous rightwing terror suspects like Oathkeepers and Vets...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join